Rome November 2015

1. ISPC observations on
the CRP pre-proposals &
what needs to be done
Rome November 2015

2. Context of reviews 1
Earlier reviews
• ISPC reviewed first round of CRPs over ~ 3 years
• ISPC reviewed all Extension proposals simultaneously
New SRF & SDGs
• Results Framework developed primarily by donors
• Pilot prioritisation across sub-IDOs
http://ispc.cgiar.org/Rome November 2015

3. Context of reviews 2
Task Force
• Need to simplify current complexity of the System as a
whole
• Need for more engagement between System entities in
activities such as Foresight, Science Quality etc
Funding
• Decreases in Windows 1 and 2 funding
http://ispc.cgiar.org/Rome November 2015

4. Context of reviews 3
• Evaluation reports plus overview from IEA on then current
evaluations
• Some scepticism on whether the ‘Windsor’ portfolio could
deliver something new and exciting
• Tight time-scale for everyone
• A continuing debate (including amongst donors) of the
positioning of the CGIAR on the R4D continuum
• Yet, increased need for research to show potential for
delivering impact
http://ispc.cgiar.org/Rome November 2015

5. A4NH CCAFS PIM WLE
Ge
ne
ba
nk DCLAS Fish FTA Livestock Maize Rice RTB Wheat
CRP B B B C C C B C B B B B
Overall analysis
Theory of Change and
Impact Pathway
Governance and
Management

6. A4NH CCAFS PIM WLE
Ge
ne
ba
nk DCLAS Fish FTA Livestock Maize Rice RTB Wheat
CRP B B B C C C B C B B B B
Overall analysis
A A B B
N
A B B A B B B A B
Theory of Change and
Impact Pathway
A A B C
N
A B B B C A A A A
Governance and
Management
A A A C
N
A C C B C A B A A

7. What do the ISPC ratings mean?
http://ispc.cgiar.org/Rome November 2015
• Cs at CRP level – did not mean that ISPC think that research in that
area, by that team should not be supported – it did mean that the
ISPC thought there was a lack of coherence as a programme of quality
research targeted on the SLOs and not everything was justified
• Ds (only at Flagship level) mean that we did not think there was
sufficient justification for the research proposed to be a stand-alone
flagship but not necessarily that research in that area shouldn’t
happen
• Cs at Flagship level meant that proposed research needed to be
‘reconceptualised and rearticulated’

8. Headlines on ratings
http://ispc.cgiar.org/Rome November 2015
• ISPC put a strong emphasis on ‘rigour and credibility of scientific
arguments’, ‘ToC and Impact pathways’ and ‘scientific leadership’ at
CRP level
and
• ‘Strategic relevance and ToC’, ‘Scientific quality’ and ‘Comparative
advantage’ at FP level
• A ‘C’ rating did not mean that the Flagship was thought to be
unnecessary – clusters could be incorporated elsewhere

9. Headline comments 1
http://ispc.cgiar.org/Washington November 2015
General
• Significant evidence of lessons learned – though still lacking in some
CRPs
• Improvement in many ToCs and Impact Pathways
• Gender higher profile but still much to do as for other CCTs
SRF related
• Every sub-IDO was addressed with X-cutting sub-IDOs most targeted
• Unrealistic targets in many places and little explanation

10. Headline comments continued
http://ispc.cgiar.org/Washington November 2015
Efficiency
• Some duplication in terms of scaling-up and foresight
• Some Centers involved in fewer CRPs but not yet analyzed in detail
• Cross-cutting issues such as gender co-ordinated at multiple levels –
within Flagships, by specific Flagships, Gender platform, Gender
network
Budget
• Total portfolio increases from USD1.047 billion per year to 1.345
billion for 2017
• Many Flagships with budgets > USD 100 million

11. Slides from Paris
Meeting on portfolio hosted by ISPC one day after
commentaries were sent out
~ 46 attendees from Centers, CRPs, CO, donors, FO
Discussion on what needed to be worked on (after vote) – 5
action points
http://ispc.cgiar.org/Paris September 2015

12. Systems research approach
• Evidence of research from 3 systems programs being
integrated
• A start to moving towards agri-food systems but some way
to go (understandably)
http://ispc.cgiar.org/Paris September 2015

13. Agri-Food Systems
Action point: A common understanding of agri-food systems is
needed in order to operationalize them, but there will be various
approaches best suited to different CRPs, commodities and
situations. Further guidance will be provided in the full proposal
template, but the approaches adopted must be explained and
justified. Horizontal integration on cross-cutting issues is also
essential.
http://ispc.cgiar.org/Paris September 2015

14. Integrated research portfolio
• Start made with Global Integrating Programs but need for
justified prioritization of links
• Will new platforms sunset existing entities?
• Who should lead on integration?
http://ispc.cgiar.org/Paris September 2015

15. Integrated research portfolio
Action points: The full proposals should highlight the lessons
learned regarding integration across the system. For the new GI
CRPs, integration with AFS CRPs can be phased-in. More guidance
on integration should be provided in the full proposal template.
Two of the CCPs have been supported by the ISPC, but doubts
remain about the need for the other two.
http://ispc.cgiar.org/Paris September 2015

16. Comparative/competitive/
collaborative advantage
http://ispc.cgiar.org/Paris September 2015
• The CAs of the private sector and NARS are changing with respect to
the CGIAR
• Lack of evidence of CRPs recognizing this - little mention of
alternative suppliers
• Part of scientific foresight – who should do it?

17. Comparative/competitive/
collaborative advantage
http://ispc.cgiar.org/Paris September 2015
Action points: Clear definitions of comparative, competitive and
collaborative advantages are required, and should be included in the
template for full proposals. Quantitative metrics should be used to
measure differences if possible. Changes in relative advantages will
occur as others evolve, and these must be monitored, and future
advantages planned as part of foresight. The webpage on the
workshop on youth and agriculture should be shared. The template for
full proposals should contain more guidance on incorporating youth
issues

18. Scaling up and impact
http://ispc.cgiar.org/Paris Sept 2015
• Lots of partners but description of partnership strategies
disappointing
• Big investment in scaling-up but it is not an add-on
• How much is funded by W1/2?
• Trade-offs between SLOs not mentioned enough – this is a risk for
delivery of SRF

19. Scaling up and impact
http://ispc.cgiar.org/Paris Sept 2015
Action points: We are reaching a consensus on what the CG should
focus on, namely the science of scaling rather than the scaling itself.
The scaling is done by our partners, but not in a linear relationship
whereby we pass on the research products to our partners for scaling.
Scaling is part of the planning, the design and the location of the
research. There is no one-size-fits-all, because scaling is very situation-
and location-specific. The full proposals need to provide explanations
and justifications for the scaling approaches used.

20. Respondents
http://ispc.cgiar.org/ISPC, Rome, November 2015
• 12 donors who contributed to W1/W2 (and W3/bilateral), 11 donors who
only contributed to W3/bilateral
CGIAR Fund in 2014
W1 – $ 189.2 mn
W2 – $ 110.6 mn
W3/bilateral – $ 575.4 mn*
Total – $ 852.6 mn*
AfDb EC IDRC Sweden
Australia FAO IFAD Switzerland
Austria France Italy Turkey
Bangladesh FARA Japan UK
Canada Germany Netherlands USA
CIRAD GIZ Nigeria WFP
Denmark GRDC Norway World Bank
Respondents represent
W1/W2 – $ 277.5
(92.6%)
Total – $ 629.5
(73.8%)

21. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
4.3
5.1
4.2
10.2
5.2
B.2
A.3
A.4
4.1
7.2
10.1
B.1
2.2
B.3
9.2
C.3
D.3
3.4
8.1
4.5
D.1
D.2
4.4
2.1
1.2
C.2
1.1
D.4
C.1
9.1
10.3/A.1
A.5
3.3
A.2
3.1
8.3
3.2
6.2
8.2
6.1
9.3
7.1
5.3
C.4
7.3
Score(PointsweightedproportionallytoW1/W2budget)
Sub-IDO
W1/W2 Donor Priorities (weighted by budget, n=12)
Appropriate reg. environment
for food safety
Consistently lower priority sub-IDOs
Consistently high priority sub-IDOs
Enhanced genetic gain
Closed yield gaps
Enhanced adaptive capacity
Reduced pre- & post-harvest losses
Reduced livestock & fish disease risks
Gender equitable control of productive assets
Increased safe use of inputs
Enrichment of plant and animal biodiversity
Conducive environment for
managing shocks and vulnerability
Optimized consumption of diverse
nutrient-rich foods
Improved water quality