1. 1
08 September 2016
Foresight in the CGIAR: Concept Note and Terms of Reference for a Working Group (Draft)
1. Rationale
The purpose of the CGIAR System is to advance agri-food science and innovation to enable poor
people, especially women, to better nourish their families, and improve productivity and resilience
so they can share in economic growth and manage natural resources in the face of climate change
and other challenges. While the purpose of the CGIAR is fixed and clear, how best to manage
agricultural research to achieve this purpose could change over time. Knowledge and technology
advancement, reduced resource availability, dietary changes, new social reorganization and
urbanization, the political frame, and more, call for a continuous and more effective alignment of
research strategies with overall objectives. Foresight can help in this process by looking at
alternative plausible futures as well as trends and projections to try to understand the overall role
of agricultural research in fulfilling the purpose of CGIAR, and then the overall role of CGIAR research
within that set.
Within the CGIAR, the Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC) role is to provide
independent scientific advice and expertise to the CGIAR Fund Council; to serve as an intellectual
bridge between CGIAR funders and implementers; to catalyze partnerships with other international
agricultural research institutions; and to act as an honest broker in relevant international fora. The
Vision for the future of the ISPC is to provide intellectual leadership in giving scientific direction to
the CGIAR at the System level, in terms of: scientific foresight and prioritization, assessment and
delivery of science quality, strategic approaches to partnership with respect to both science quality
and delivery of impact and the development of a rigorous impact culture across the System.
Foresight is therefore a fundamental pillar of the future ISPC and an essential function to firstly to
help understanding the context, in all its complexity by analyzing global trends and anticipating
change for better planning and constructing pathways from the present to the future; subsequently
focusing on the right questions and problems, identifying a wider range of opportunities and options
for Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) and ultimately prioritizing and making better and
more robust decisions. When foresight goes beyond an isolated exercise and it becomes an integral
part of an organization, it is a process that catalyzes action and change and builds a true learning
organization.
The foresight function will support ISPC role at least in two ways, upstream in anticipating trends
and drivers of change and downstream in setting research priorities and functional interlinks
between major research efforts under the aegis of CRPs. So foresight can ultimately provide insights
into the relative importance and roles of one crop and/or cropping system over another one for
improving farmer’s livelihoods. Additionally, foresight can help fostering synergies within a system.
Overall, foresight will serve as overarching scheme that will improve efficiency and harmonization
of the CGIAR work and will imbed system thinking in the organization. The conceptual shift from
CGIAR to a CGIAR system, endorsed by the System Council, clearly emphasizes the need to better
coordinate the potential of the system (CGIAR) to respond to external variables that could affect
both the short-term operational frame and long- term direction of the system. This latter issue is

2. 2
particularly important given the long lead time for research to yield results. Consequently research
priorities should be identified and put in motion based on possible emerging scenarios with an
overall goal of strengthening those activities and innovation paths that could best respond and/or
even shape possible futures (see Theory of Change).
Based on the most recent CGIAR framework document (Article 6. Functions of the System Council)
and updated system Charter (Article 8. Functions of the System Management Board), the System
Management Board must contribute to foresight activities led by ISPC to assess ongoing trends and
risks in science and in the field of agricultural research for development while CGIAR Research
Centers are expected to contribute to agenda setting of the CGIAR System including foresight
studies. The foresight process would also benefit strategic thinking at system level when the lack of
effective communication, structural coordination and common operational strategy between
research groups/centers and governing bodies (boards, panels, committees etc.) is a major
constraint to an harmonized guidance, a role that should be embraced by the ISPC.
The final goal for a renewed role of ISPC is to put in place/motion/action a true Theory of Change in
which it is clear what is needed by the target groups and what strategies will enable them to meet
those needs (See section 3). This ToC will establish a context for considering the connection between
a system’s mission, strategies and actual outcomes, while creating functional links between the
strategies and priority setting (SC), activities that are being implemented (CRPs), who is being served
(poor people) and the desired outcomes1 (reduced poverty in rural areas). Upstream, it is therefore
essential to create a system that consents to build a shared vision with donors on strategic issues
that could best align the CRPs to the AR4D continuum. Downstream, the same system must be
capable of pursuing research that could yield significant impact, increase knowledge and maintain
the quality of science conducted throughout the system but also to put in place a tool for
assessing/quantifying the response by the System and reporting to the FC (in future the SC).
Foresight, can contribute to define the optimal level of complexity to be included in analysis for
research planning. It has been previously discussed that below that optimum (e.g. where the
program outlines the research results without considering how change will be effected), important
interactions, feedback and spillover effects may be missed in a way that fundamentally alters the
expected outcome. The introduction of too much complexity, on the other hand, leads to paralysis
and an inability to see what the most important components of a problem are and how they can be
feasibly addressed2.
2. Background
Overview of foresight processes in the CGIAR
In the last ten years, international organizations, intergovernmental bodies, private and public
research institutions have acknowledged the value of foresight in addressing complex issues and
analyzing future scenarios. A large body of literature on foresight and foresight-like studies on food
and nutrition security, poverty alleviation, agriculture sustainability and management of natural
resources has been produced. Some of this work originated within the CGIAR community such as
the ISCP work on prioritization3, urbanization and farm size4, crop improvement and agricultural
expansion5, theory of change6 or stemmed from international networks in which CGIAR plays an
1http://www.dochas.ie/Shared/Files/4/Theory_of_Change_Tool_Manual.pdf
2 http://ispc.cgiar.org/sites/default/files/ISPC_WhitePaper_TOCsIPs.pdf
3 http://ispc.cgiar.org/sites/default/files/ISPC_Prioritization_PilotStudy.pdf
4 http://ispc.cgiar.org/sites/default/files/ISPC_StrategyTrends_FarmSize_deHaan.pdf
5 http://ispc.cgiar.org/publication/does-crop-improvement-reduce-agricultural-expansion-brief-number-40
6 http://ispc.cgiar.org/sites/default/files/ISPC_WhitePaper_TOCsIPs.pdf

3. 3
active role. The Forward Thinking Platform7, for example has been proposed as an open space for
exchanging ideas and information, and debating the futures of food, agriculture, rural development
and their implications for agricultural research. The Grassroots Foresight Initiative8 has followed
the same spirit via a bottom-up approach. Inter-center initiatives include 9 the Systemwide Program
on Collective Action and Property Rights (CAPRI developed at IFPRI10) and the Global Futures
project (IFPRI), the latter focused on promoting collaborations on institutional aspects of natural
resource management between CGIAR research centers, national agricultural research institutions,
and other sources.
Lack of coordination is however a constraint for harmonized outcome of these efforts. An
attempt to break the barriers of isolation (institutional walls) of these analyses has been the
constitution of a Foresight Hub. The Global Foresight Hub11, facilitated by GFAR, is a global network
linking all those concerned about the future of agriculture and its role in development – particularly
farmers and their communities.
Also CGIAR Research Programs (CRPs) and global integrating programs (GIP) have all
internalized foresight components addressing more inclusive and participatory research,
sustainable aquaculture, the interaction between livestock development and the environment and
more. Rolling collaborations in the CGIAR foresight workflow include activities with the Forum for
Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA12), Global Forum of Rural Advisory Services (GFRAS13), Young
Professional for Agricultural Development (YPARD)14, a partner in GFAR, which is developing its
members’ foresight capacity.
Ongoing activities within the CGIAR and associated networks provide an invaluable body of
information that would greatly benefit of coordination and streamlining toward common goals.
Recent external foresight exercises relevant to CGIAR’s mandate
Most foresight work15,16,17,18, on food and nutrition security has framed its analysis on similar drivers,
among which the most recurrent are 1) Global population increases, 2) Climate change, 3)
Competition for key resources (policies and societal values are becoming recognized drivers of
changes, potentially leading to rupture scenarios19). Based on the key messages of most studies, it
is overall agreed that critical challenges to face if we want to feed the world and alleviate poverty
in a sustainable way are: 1) Balancing demand and supply sustainably – to ensure that food supplies
are affordable to everyone and in particular the poorest groups. 2) Ensuring that there is adequate
stability in food supplies; 3) Achieving global access to food and ending hunger – 4) Managing the
contribution of the food system to the mitigation of climate change. 5) Maintaining biodiversity and
ecosystem services while feeding the world. When analyzing these challenges to identify research
priorities for action, the list may often become quite long and broad in content20. Quite popular
7
http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload/315928/Report_FEW3_Final%5B1%5D.pdf
8 http://www.gfar.net/our-work/foresight-better-futures-0
9 http://www.gfar.net/news/action-plan-grassroots-foresight-initiative
10 https://www.ifpri.org/program/capri
11 http://www.gfar.net/content/global-foresight-hub
12 http://faraafrica.org/
13 http://www.g-fras.org/en/
14 http://www.ypard.net/
15
http://www.unep.org/geo/GEO3/english/pdfs/synthesis.pdf
16 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/288329/11-546-future-of-food-and-farming-report.pdf
17 http://ec.europa.eu/research/scar/pdf/scar_3rd-foresight_2011.pdf
18 http://www.cirad.fr/en/publications-resources/publishing/studies-and-documents/agrimonde
19 http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload/305471/State_of_foresight_%20SectionF1_Edited%20DO.pdf
20 List of priorities based on the UK Foresight The future of Foood and Farming. 1. Spread best practice. 2. Invest in new knowledge. 3. Make sustainable
food production central in development. 4. Work on the assumption that there is little new land for agriculture. 5. Ensure long-term sustainability of
fish stocks. 6. Promote sustainable intensification: more output on the same land with fewer adverse impacts. 7. Include the environment in food
system economics. 8. Reduce consumer and post-harvest waste in high- and low-income countries, respectively. 9. Improve the evidence base upon

4. 4
scenario analyses address the systemic and dynamic nature of food security and have been used to
somehow narrow down this list and propose stricter prioritization criteria. However, describing (and
using) alternative, equally plausible futures may open up the opportunity for more policy options
and actions. This is somewhat in contrast with the need for prioritization, a process that is much
needed in research panning and policy-making21.
3. Objectives
The main objective of the foresight exercise in ISPC is to serve as an overall umbrella to:
o Inform the strategy and revision of the SRF
o Contribute to identifying relevance of CGIAR research
o Coordinate streams for better coherence in the CGIAR
o Provide relevant context and emerging insights as a basis for system level
prioritization of research
A note of clarification may be useful with respect to the latter point. In this specific context, foresight
starts from looking at what evidence the world needs to deliver the SDGs, then narrows that down
to what donor of agricultural development can fund, finally it narrows it again to where the CGIAR
has a competitive advantage and within that what is value for money for use of W1 and 2 funding.
CGIAR is in a unique position to provide high-impact, high-quality AR4D since it covers all key
research areas for sustainable development and food security throughout the 12 CRPs and 15
Centers. How these research Programs and Centers can efficiently operate in synergy to best
respond to emerging needs has to be established via a systematic process. Foresight can help to
define this process.
An overarching principle of a foresight is the participatory approach. If the end-users22 share
ownership of the prioritization effort, then the outcome will be in line and/or fulfill their
expectations. More importantly the multi-actors approach generates innovative solutions that are
more likely to be applied thanks to cross-fertilization of ideas between actors, co-creation and
generation of co-ownership of the results. In this respect, the ISPC through the foresight tool will
have a fundamental role in interlinking stream of activities, bridging the funders’ requirements and
implementers’ actions, monitoring the outcome of the implemented actions.
A general foresight process23 can be summarized in 5 steps:
1) Scanning a and understanding major S&T developments, trends and issues (Horizon Scanning)
2) Mobilizing and engaging key stakeholders
3) Generating (new) knowledge through exploration, analysis and anticipation of possible futures
4) Shaping the future through strategic planning
5) Evaluating/learning
which decisions are made and develop metrics to assess progress. 10. Anticipate major issues with water availability for food production. 11. Work
to change consumption patterns. 12. Empower citizens to make informed choices.
21
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC94867/lbna27252enn.pdf
22 Please see the proposed concept of end-users within a system as proposed in section 5 and Figure 3.
23 What is Foresight? - Foresight is a systematic way of sharing vision and/or a set of objective, promoting transdisciplinary research, engaging key
stakeholders, including decision- and policy-makers, drawing upon and creating knowledge networks, extending the breadth and depth of the
knowledge base for decision-making. It is about organizing a long term thinking process. Foresight is not (or not just) about forecasting by experts.
Foresight is a process which involves intense iterative periods of open reflection, networking, consultation and discussion, leading to the joint refining
of future visions and the common ownership of strategies . It is the discovery of a common space for open thinking on the future and the incubation
of strategic approaches23 (The Handbook of Technology Foresight - Luke Georghiou Editor).

5. 5
Foresight can be performed using qualitative methods (providing meaning to events and
perceptions); quantitative (measuring variables and applying statistical analyses, using and/or
generating (hopefully) reliable and valid data (e.g. economic indicators); semi-quantitative methods
(which apply mathematical principles to quantify subjectivity, rational judgements and viewpoints
of experts and commentators (i.e. weighting opinions). Foresight can be EXPLORATORY, based on
what we know today, exploring possible futures (e.g. Delphi, Scenario Workshops, Cross-Impact
analysis, Trend Exploration) or NORMATIVE, based on what we want/desire for the Future, planning
how to get there from today (Goals Delphi, Success Scenario workshops, relevance trees, road
mapping etc.)
The foresight process should be built and imbedded in the CGIAR systems as a rolling feed-
forward/feed-back scheme and should be based on the following principles:
1) Open to multiple approaches including economic modelling, analysis of comparative
advantage, scenarios to best respond to complex issues;
2) Cross-linked to science quality to best allocate resources to potentially highly successful
projects.
3) Participatory via bottom-up inclusion of all Centers, CRPs, donors that will build ownership
of the process.
4) Coordinated (by the ICPS) to avoid overlaps and duplication of efforts and to ensure an
objective assessment, without bias from individual stakeholders.
5) Inclusive by involving in the process other institutions of international agricultural research
organizations.
To implement the foresight function, two levels of foresight are proposed. A first level of strategic
foresight (including political dimensions) will be designed to define the System Level Outcomes
(higher level foresight to frame the major lines of expected research based on megatrends and
foreseen scenarios) on a regular basis to fit with the cycle of SRF revisions. SC and ISPC will
collaborate to ensure the desired outcome of the Strategic Foresight. Basically, SC will provide input
to the Strategic Foresight deciding on the scope (what to include e.g. migration, urbanization,
emerging markets and their impact on agricultural research). ISPC will lead the consultation, reach
an agreement on the process, commission the foresight exercise. Overall, the ISPC role is to help
the SC develop the process at system level. The Strategic Foresight will examine major drivers (e.g.
population and food demand, climate, resource scarcity) and possible scenarios framed in the
context of the CGIAR mandates and requirements of the beneficiaries (e.g. providing international
public goods from international agricultural research). The Strategic foresight exercise could be an
ex-novo study based on unexplored drivers of change or a critical review of recent work in the
context of the Results Framework which will be updated by the SC. The objective is to use the system
knowledge to address focused questions such as where is agricultural research in general, and
publically funded international research in particular, likely to have most impacts in terms of
reducing poverty, improving nutrition and improving the environment?
A second level of foresight is the scientific foresight which will be led by the ISPC in
collaboration with CRPs/Centers. This should take account of scientific advances, of the skill base of
the System, of the conclusions of foresight work being undertaken within the System (e.g. at the
research program level) and possible additional analyses commissioned by the ISPC. In contrast to
the strategic foresight, which aims at setting the strategic research priorities and identifying gaps,
scientific foresight is aimed at setting actions across major agro-food systems on underexplored
trends and new areas of research that need further attention. System/Scientific prioritization must
be achieved through “system thinking” to address research targets and approaches in a

6. 6
synergistic/collective way so to foster such a participatory culture in the research teams. Scientific
foresight will be conducted at the program level, led by the researchers and at the portfolio level by
the ISPC. Although ISPC function will be confined to challenging the outcome/proposals of the
researchers, it will also propose/highlight new partnerships so to address more effectively those
challenges.
Although the two levels of Foresight have different organizational leadership (Strategic by the
SC in collaboration with ISPC; Scientific by the Centers and the ISPC) they should be co-designed so
that one (Strategic) leads (feed-forward) to the other (Scientific) with feedbacks. The ISPC will
ensure that the entire process capitalizes well on ongoing initiatives that can feed-in the foresight
system, the support of the system-wide network of CGIAR researchers, The Global Futures platform
(https://www.ifpri.org/publication/global-futures-and-strategic-foresight), the CGIAR Independent
Evaluation Arrangement (IEA), the System Office (SO) and other key contributors to guarantee the
exchange of relevant information.
The foresight process will serve as one additional tool for the ISPC to develop a framework on
prioritization against which all significant funding opportunities can be easily assessed (value for
money analysis). A component of prioritization is striking the balance of research across the
portfolio and within CRPs: programs will be developed in the context of the SRF, but there is no
single scenario for deciding on balance of approach. As will see later, attractiveness/feasibility will
be one of a series of parameters that will facilitate the process of setting priorities across a very
broad set of research area. Satisfaction of end user and market prospective will also be considered
to guide what is expected from research. Donor requirements are also important criteria for
prioritization along with strategic choices to strengthen the pipeline of research. The ISPC should
ensure it has expertise on foresight and prioritization both within the Council and the Secretariat.
The ambitious objective is to forge a new discipline in the CGIAR where science is responding to
growth and sustainability goals in a dedicated and harmonic way.
4. Process
The foresight process will serve as informative tool for the revision of the SRF and more broadly
supporting CGIAR in targeting relevant research areas. A four stage process is proposed.
During STAGE 1 the SC will “set the scene” by providing a high level forward-looking analysis of the
global context within and beyond the CGIAR. This will lead to define key strategic questions and
drivers relevant to the CGIAR mandate and strategic goals (i.e. reducing rural poverty, increasing
food security, improving human health and nutrition, and ensuring sustainable management of
natural resources). The outcome of STAGE 1 will feed in STAGE 2 by providing some of the key
questions and drivers relevant to the CGIAR mandate.
STAGE 2 is an Independent Assessment, where the scope should go through a true brainstorming
with a small group of “strategic thinkers”, on how the futures may look like around grand challenges,
when and how science comes into it, which are the key questions, global trends and likely
disruptions on food and nutrition security and how is the world prepared to address them for
reaching and beyond the SDGs. The outcome of STAGE 2 will provide functional feedback to STAGE
1.

7. 7
The outcome of STAGE 1 and STAGE 2 will feed into STAGE 3, for the operational (or scientific)
foresight. Here the scope is to start matching research demand and research offer (CGIAR
comparative advantage) on which the System will commit to capitalize and invest.
STAGE 4 is the truly operational step that links the STAGES 1-3 process to research activities and
how these can best evolve based on new knowledge acquired throughout the process. ISPC will
support the activities within STAGE 1 and STAGE 2, implement, coordinate and supervise the
activities of STAGE 3 and 4, ensure that the entire process is effectively carried out (Figure 1).
Figure 1. ISPC System-wide Foresight and Prioritization network. The ISPC system-wide Foresight network
interlinks the Strategic and Scientific Foresight components as key pillars for prioritization and input to the
SRF. Arrows indicate the primary information flux in the process. Dash-arrows indicate feedback loops that
will refine subsequent cycles of the process.
At System Level a Foresight Steering Committee (FSC) will be established and responsible for STAGE
1. As Independent Assessment, STAGE 2 will not involve CGIAR associated members. STAGE 3 and 4
will be managed by an enlarged Foresight Working Group, responsible for functionalizing the
outcome of STAGE 1 and 2 into a structured foresight process (STAGE 3 and 4). The two foresight
levels (STAGE 1-2 strategic and STAGE 3-4 scientific) will operate harmonically, since the outcome
of the strategic foresight (STAGE 1 and 2) will be the strategic operational frame in which a first
level of priorities (comparative advantage of the CGIAR) will be set along with possible research
gaps identified. The scientific foresight will be a collegial exercise involving centers/CRPs where

8. 8
alignment of CGIAR with the first level priorities will be performed and competitive advantage of
the CGIAR will be assessed. Analysis of potential research gaps will be addressed (thematic
workshops), synergies and cross-cutting solutions will be proposed. Considering that different
research priorities can respond to different plausible scenarios and therefore could be not
necessarily exclusive but equally important, a scoring method can be foreseen based on shared
criteria (e.g. short-long term nature of the proposed action, chance of success, satisfaction of end
users, donors requirements, science quality, etc.). This could be considered as an additional
prioritization tool (see section 4).
A draft action plan (TBD) with explanation of the foreseen output of each step follows.
Action Plan
BOX 1-2
A Foresight Steering Committee (FSC) of approx. 8 members will oversee the foresight and anticipation
function at CGIAR. The FSC will define the frame/stage in which the foresight process will be structured. A
first level of key questions will be set, which will feed-in to STAGE 2. The fundamental goal of STAGE 1 is
to examine major trends and drivers, to discuss how the future world could be altered by such
drivers/trends so that key areas for research and research-related pathways towards alleviation of major
threats are identified. Technically, mapping of most recent foresight on food and agricultural system for a
sustainable development could be the starting point. Knowing what kind of information on drivers and
scenarios are already out there is critical – to what extent are they already coordinated/interlinked and
what can they tell us at the system level? The Global Futures platform should be functionally linked to this
process (https://www.ifpri.org/publication/global-futures-and-strategic-foresight). Moreover, this
exercise should also be the opportunity to align/compare most common visions for the future with the
CGIAR critical assessment of these visions also with respect to the CGIAR own vision and mandate. While
numerous studies have been done and will prove useful, what is missing is an assessment of how these
studies and findings impact or are likely to impact on the CGIAR in the future. Analysis of the overarching
framework may also lead to the identification of questions of specific relevance to the System.
November
2016
January
2017
February
2017
March
2017
November
2017
December
2017
February
2018
July
2018
January
2019
Foresight
Steering
Committee
(FSC) and
Foresight
Working
Group
(FWG)
Established
STAGE 1
General
frame of
the
Foresight
Process is
defined -
Setting the
Stage
STAGE 2
Independent
Assessment –
Brainstorming
Meeting
STAGE 3
First FWG
meeting to
design the
foresight
structure
of STAGE 3
and 4
STAGE 2
Report
Finalized
STAGE 1
Feedback
of STAGE 2
provided
to the FSC.
Feed-
Forward to
STAGE 3
STAGE 3
Workshop 1
STAGE 4
Workshop 1
Draft
Report on
Key
Research
Priorities
BOX 1 BOX 2 BOX 3 BOX 4 BOX 5 BOX 6 BOX 7 BOX 8 BOX 9
Duration of the foresight process – 2 years

9. 9
BOX 3
The Independent Assessment panel meets in a 1 and 1/2-day workshop
BOX 4
A first meeting of the FWG will be necessary to design the foresight structure of STAGE 3 and 4. This will
ensure the involvement of the CGIAR scientists in a true participatory approach.
BOX 5-6
The report of STAGE 2 will provide Feed-back to the FSC for a final assessment on key areas of research
that deserve particular attention. The outcome of STAGE 1 and 2 will be Feed-Forward to STAGE 3.
BOX 7-8
The outcome of STAGE 1 and 2 will identify key areas of research and potential research gaps that will be
collegially addressed in STAGE 3 and 4. Imbedding “systems thinking” into the culture and operations of
the research teams is the overall objective of this exercise. Due to the nature and organizational structure
of CGIAR this exercise is an opportunity to 1) Create synergies and integration between the Centers; 2)
Foster partnership and improve the operational mode of the CGIAR System towards merging research
needs (gaps). A prioritization report is the ultimate product of this exercise. The report foreseen for the
first foresight process would be timed to inform the revision of the Strategy and Results Framework and
future calls for program proposals. It is foreseen that the prioritization process will lead to possible options
since one solution can better respond to some requirements than others and different solutions can best
fit different scenarios. However, limiting the field of action is important to fulfill the prioritization goal. A
tentative operational tool can be the definition of a multiple-parameters spider diagram in which a score
is given to each assessment criteria (co-designed with all relevant stakeholders) to define the most
promising research action. An example of this tool is provided in Figure 2.
Figure 2. A possible scoring method to support the prioritization process .Green lines defining the largest
areas may likely identify high priority research actions.
5. Linkages with ISPC Theory of Change
“A theory of change is the articulation of the underlying beliefs and assumptions that guide a service
delivery strategy and are believed to be critical for producing change and improvement. Theories of
change represent beliefs about what is needed by the target population and what strategies will
enable them to meet those needs. They establish a context for considering the connection between
a system’s mission, strategies and actual outcomes, while creating links between who is being

10. 10
served, the strategies or activities that are being implemented, and the desired
outcomes”(http://www.dochas.ie/Shared/Files/4/Theory_of_Change_Tool_Manual.pdf).
The current (post-2009 reform) purpose of the ISPC is to provide independent advice and expertise
to the funders of the CGIAR through services to the Fund Council and the Funders Forum. The
primary target audience for the ISPC is therefore the donors. By providing the donors with
independent scientific advice the ISPC encourages and facilitates donor support for high quality,
relevant and therefore effective agricultural research by the CGIAR Programs and Centers. Such
research will contribute to the CGIAR System-level Outcomes, which will result in impacts that
contribute to the achievement of the SDGs.
The ISPC also serves as an intellectual bridge between the funders and the Consortium, so a
secondary target audience of the ISPC is the Consortium, comprising the Consortium Office, the
Centers and the CRPs. It is the Consortium that implements the independent scientific advice from
the ISPC, supported by the funders.
If successful, the advice of the ISPC will result in positive changes (improvements) in the quality,
relevance, effectiveness and impact of CGIAR research. It will also result in positive changes
(increased amount and better targeting) in donor support for the CGIAR.
To deliver this advice, one of the pillars to which ISPC will dedicate resources is on Strategy and
Trends. Specifically, the proposed foresight-based anticipation system will provide advice on the
strategic direction of the CGIAR and on cutting edge developments in technologies and
methodologies. To achieve this ISPC will also capitalize on ongoing initiatives operating in foresight
and forward-look analyses (see GFAR, Agrimonde, Centers and more), coordinate in house work on
foresight, and use new and available resources to support the prioritization process in AR4D.
Overall, by strengthening the foresight dimension ISPC will better define its impact pathway and
theory of change by bringing about positive changes in quality, relevance and impact of CGIAR
research and more donor funding and better targeted.
Considering that theories of change for planning and designing interventions involve gaining
an understanding of how the desired impacts are expected to be brought about as a result of the
various activities of intervention, it is foreseeable that Scientific Foresight and Theories of Change
advance together and share conceptual similarities (Table 1).

11. 11
Table 1. The interlinkage between ToC and Foresight (Adapted from Anderson, A. (2005). The community builder's approach to theory
of change: A practical guide to theory and development. New York: The Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change. Adapted
from www.theoryofchange.org).
How to create a Theory of Change Links with the Foresight process
1. Identify a long-term goal 1. Short-medium-long term goals coincide with the proposed
actions as a result of research outcomes (priorities)
2. Conduct “backwards mapping” to identify the
preconditions necessary to achieve that goal
2. A discussion on these preconditions should be foreseen for the
foresight process
3. Identify the interventions that your initiative will perform
to create these preconditions
3. If these pre-conditions have been overlooked in the foresight
process, correction actions should be foreseen (feed-back)
4. Develop indicators for each precondition that will be used
to assess the performance of the interventions.
4. If these pre-conditions exist, these indicators should be used to
measure the feasibility of implementation at foresight level
5. Write a narrative that can be used to summarize the
various moving parts in your theory
6. The foresight narrative should imbed the ToC narrative.
6. Implementing the foresight function: work-plan 2017
By the first quarter of 2017 a Foresight Steering Committee (FSC) and Foresight Working Group
(FWG) will be established. The FSC will be responsible for strategic decisions on the process,
whereas the FWG will implement the process and decide on technical aspects of the foresight
process per se. By the first quarter of 2017 the independent assessment panel (IAP) will be also
defined. The composition and rationale of the FSC, FWG and IAP is tentatively indicated in table 2.
FIRST/SECOND QUARTER 2017
 A 1 & ½ day workshop will be co-organized by CGIAR and University of Naples Federico II at
the premises of University of Naples or associated facilities for the Independent Assessment
Analysis
 ½ Day – Objectives: defining what is expected by the Independent Assessment Panel and
framing the work in the context of the CGIAR mandate.
 1 day – Brainstorming session.
OUTPUT: Next steps for 2017 decided/agreed.
OUTPUT: Key areas of research relevant to reduce rural poverty, increasing food security, improving
human health and nutrition, and ensuring sustainable management of natural resources identified.
THIRD/FOURTH QUARTERS 2017
As follow-up to the discussion of STAGE 1 and STAGE 2 (preparatory to the actual Foresight) the FWG
will organize/structure the Foresight Exercise (2018). However, a first FWG meeting for a preliminary design
the foresight structure of STAGE 3 and 4 is foreseen.

12. 12
Table 2. Composition of the FSC, FWG and IAP.
FSC members (4-5) Name Role/Rationale
ISPC
SC
SMB/SMO
GFAR
FWG members (12-15) Name Role/Rationale
All FSC
IFPRI Global Future
2-3 CRP/Center
representatives
CRP/Center Perspective
3-4 External partners (ARIs)
with expertise in Strategic
Foresight
Link with other Global
Foresight initiatives (e.g. EU,
Agrimonde, etc.)
Latin America Foresight
Expert
Latin American perspective
Asia - Foresight Expert Asian perspective
Africa - Foresight Expert African perspective
OTHERS?
IAP members (8-10) Name Role/Rationale