PIM:
Progress to
Date and
Reflections
Karen Brooks, Director of the CGIAR
Research Program on
Policies, Institutions, and Markets.
13 March, 2014, Washington, DC

2013 in a brief
First full year of
work, second of three
years designated for
implementation of PIM’s
first phase
Relationships with
boundary partners
deepened
Ongoing research
activities produced
noteworthy
publications and
discussion papers.
Selected research
results were
applied
PIM’s gender
strategy was
approved and gender
work in the portfolio
continued
CIMMYT joined
PIM, bringing the number
of participating Centers to
twelve

Our internal partners

Program restructuring: focus and
coherence
Examined relationship between activities funded through
windows 1 and 2 and those funded bilaterally and through
window 3.
Grouped work into 7 flagships plus 1 cross-cutting
flagship addressing partnerships, capacity building, and
stand-alone gender work. Each flagship carries within it
several clusters of aggregated research work.
Appointed Flagship leaders to adjust the program
governance to the new structure.

PIM’s flagship projects:
F1: Foresight Modeling
F2: Science Policy and Incentives for
Innovation
F3: Adoption of Technology and
Sustainable Intensification
F4: Policy and Public Expen-diture
F5: Value Chains
F6: Social Protection
F7: Natural Resource Property Regimes
F8: Crosscutting
Gender, Partnerships, and Capacity
Building
Program restructuring: focus and
coherence

PIM’s flagships, IDOs, and contribution to SLOs

Achievements in 2013
Flagship 1:
Foresight
Modeling
• Modeling team nearly completed or advanced characterization
of 20 priority technologies.
• Progress achieved in developing new methods to assess
management practices and systemic interactions.
• The PNAS paper “Climate change effects on agriculture:
Economic responses to biophysical shocks” (in collaboration
with CCAFS) received the highest level of attention, as
measured by Altmetrics, of all IFPRI publications in 2013.
Key improvements to IMPACT model:
• updating the base year to 2005;
• including all CGIAR mandated crops;
• increasing the spatial resolution to the level of individual country;
• including water basins within countries as units;
• enhancing treatment of water and hydrological management of weather
and climate shocks.
Results from this work fed directly into the RTB prioritization process
via PIM team members at CIP.

Achievements in 2013
Flagship 2:
Science Policy
and Incentives
for Innovation
• The Agricultural Science and Technology
Indicators Initiative (ASTI) finalized data
collection and analysis in African countries.
Agricultural R&D capacity and investments
have increased since 2008, although
underinvestment, volatile flows, and aging of
the scientific cadre remain problematical.
• The Program on Biosafety Systems (PBS)
released ten publications in 2013, including
several books addressing socio-economic
impacts of genetically modified crops. PBS
continued to make progress on the use of the
Netmap tool for problem solving, and
completed an activity with the African
Agriculture Technology Foundation to inform
their efforts on public outreach.

Achievements in 2013
Flagship 3:
Adoption of
Technology
and
Sustainable
Intensification
• PIM work led by CIAT based on the R4D multi-
stakeholder learning platforms continued in Latin
America, Africa, and Asia. The workshop “New
business models: building inclusive and sustainable
trading relationships between buyers and small scale
producers in Central America”(Nicaragua, Sept) kicked
off a two year learning cycle with the member
organizations of the Regional Learning Alliance of
Central America.
• The HarvestChoice team coordinated a CGIAR-wide
initiative on geo-referencing CRP research
activities, which included cataloging the CGIAR
technologies and developing a prototype tool to
visualize the data (country-level mapping of CRPs;
activity-level mapping of PIM) (see illustrations on the
following pages)

Achievements in 2013
Flagship 4:
Policy and
Public
Expen-diture
• The Arab Spatial open-access
database and interactive mapping tool
launched in February 2013 displays
data on more than 150 indicators of
development in the Middle East and
North Africa.
• An ICRISAT project on women’s
empowerment in rural India builds on
existing individual and household panel
data for 6 villages from 1975 to 2011
and 18 villages from 2009 to 2011. In
2013, with methodological input from
PIM’s gender leader, ICRISAT collected
a new panel to examine changes over
time in time use, nutrition, and related
institutional arrangements.

Achievements in 2013
Flagship 5:
Value Chains
• The Value Chains Knowledge
Clearinghouse, an initiative led by
PIM with inputs from
Bioversity, CIAT, CIP, ICRAF, ICRI
SAT, IFPRI, IITA, and
ILRI, provides a
comprehensive, easily accessible
repository of research methods
and best practices.
• CIP produced five policy briefs and
2 journal articles on results of the
Participatory Market Chain
Approach (PMCA) in the
Andes, Uganda, and Indonesia.

Achievements in 2013
Flagship 6:
Social
Protection
• The work of the IFPRI social
protection team comparing the
effectiveness of different forms of
transfers (cash, food, and
vouchers), and especially
evidence from a randomized
experiment in northern
Ecuador, was cited in The
Economist – conveying the finding
that vouchers are more effective
than the two other types of
transfers in that context

Achievements in 2013
Flagship 7:
Natural
Resource
Property
Regimes
• CAPRi’s sourcebook
“Resources, Rights, and Cooperation:
A Sourcebook on Property Rights and
Collective Action for Sustainable
Development” was translated into
Chinese, adding to the English and
Spanish versions already available.
• As part of a PIM-funded activity led by Bioversity, a
common framework for monitoring agrobiodiversity has
been developed and discussed at the experts meeting in
Huancayo, Peru in November. This framework was used
by RTB to prepare an in situ conservation flagship project
for roots, tubers, and bananas, and is expected to form
the basis for developing a global network for monitoring
agricultural biodiversity.

Achievements in 2013
Flagship 8:
Crosscutting
Gender,
Partnerships,
and Capacity
Building
• The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI)
Resource Center released an instructional guide on how
to implement, calculate, and analyze the index.
In addition to that, it published an
analytical case study for Ghana,
demonstrating how the index can
be used to understand linkages
between women’s empowerment
and key outcomes, and
supplementary resource materials
including a video tutorial on how to
implement the time-use module. A
Spanish version of the WEAI
presentation is now also available.

A few early lessons and
observations…
• Scientists have maintained research
and simultaneously devoted time and
effort to make the new CGIAR work.
• Where the system benefits from
Centers working together, the CRPs
provide a useful new instrument for
cooperation.
• Where synergies among Centers are
few, transactions costs of the CRP
structure may outweigh benefits.
• Our reporting system does not yet
support a focus on impact.
• Our work programming cycle (among
other issues) impedes collaboration
with boundary partners.
• We face high fiduciary and reputational
risks due to inadequate systems.

Question: How does PIM relate to the common
IDOs?Productivity - Improved
productivity in pro-poor food
systems
Food Security -
Increased and stable access
to food commodities by rural
and urban poor
Nutrition - Improved diet
quality of nutritionally-vulnerable
populations, especially women
and children
Income – Increased and more
equitable income from
agricultural and natural resources
management and environmental
services earned by low income
value chain actors
Gender &
Empowerment -
Increased control over
resources and participation
in decision-making by
women and other
marginalized groups
Capacity to Innovate -
Increased capacity for innovation
within low income and vulnerable
rural communities allowing them
to improve livelihoods
Adaptive Capacity -
Increased capacity in low income
communities to adapt to
environmental and economic
variability, shocks and longer
term changes
Policies – More effective
policies, supporting
sustainable, resilient and
equitable agricultural and
natural resources
management developed and
adopted by
agricultural, conservation
and development
organizations, national
governments and
international bodies
Environment - Minimized
adverse environmental effects of
increased production
intensification
Future Options - Greater
resilience of
agricultural/forest/water
based/mixed crop livestock,
aquatic systems for enhanced
ecosystem services
Climate - Increased carbon
sequestration and reduction of
greenhouse gases through
improved agriculture and natural
resources management

More generally, how does any of the
CRPs relate to the common IDOs?
• IDOs useful as aspirational statements
• Help focus attention on impact and how to achieve it
• But as contribution to workable results framework, oversold
• IDOs without indicators are overpraised and underdressed
– …and even with indicators plenty of issues of measurement, attribution
Picture: Tales of Hans Christian Andersen, translated by Naomi Lewis, illustrated by Joel Stewart
(Walker Books)

How to put some clothes on the
IDOs?• Various guidance notes from ISPC, including
metrics workshop in December 2013
• Good discussion of issues
• No easy answers
• New capacity to collect and process data will
lead to really interesting and useful
breakthroughs in near future
• In the meantime, indicator fatigue setting in
• Need to stop circling and move on, with
understanding that we can adjust as we go
• Use update of the SRF to provide framework
Picture: http://1000thingstodowhenbored.blogspot.com/2011/09/26-put-your-clothes-on-upside-down.html

How to update the SRF
1. Basic premise
and objectives
sound
Rural poverty, food
security, hunger and
nutrition, NRM, gender
2. Impose simple conceptual framework over
underlying complexity: four building blocks for an
environmentally sustainable food secure future
Technology: yield, resilience, nutrition
Efficiency: technology, management,
incentives
Trade: surplus and deficit
areas, shocks, efficiency
Social protection: temporary shocks and
chronic vulnerability
3. Each of the CRPs
contributes to the
composite effort through
building blocks
4. Agree on limited set of indicators, show how they map to system level
objectives, show derivation in building blocks, linkage to selection of
common IDOs customized for each CRP

Agreements with Fund Council on
IndicatorsIndicators for
the SRF will be
aligned with
those for SDG’s
Countries will be the
unit of
measurement, select
ed according to the
density of CG
presence on the
ground
Countries will agree
to participate, will
select and define
their specific
indicators, and set
their own targets
Country-level statistical
services will do the
measurement, with
technical assistance from
outside bodies, including
the CG, as needed.
CGIAR [and CRPs]
will report on
contribution validated
by countries, and will
not seek attribution
back to CGIAR

What do we know about indicators for
agricultural sections of SDG’s?
• Document currently out for comment; draft indicators:
• Crop yield gap (actual yield as % of attainable yield)
• Crop nitrogen use efficiency (%)
• Crop water productivity (tons of harvested product per unit
irrigation water) – indicator to be developed
• Share of agricultural produce loss and food waste (% of
food production) – indicator to be developed
• Additional indicators that countries may consider:
• Cereal yield growth rate (% p.a.)
• Irrigation access gap [to be developed]
• Livestock yield gap (actual yield as % of attainable yield).

SDG indicators clearly still under
construction, but we can proceed with
confidence of alignment• Productivity
• Yields for key staple food crops (and livestock?) rise by
2.5% globally per year
• Productivity of labor in agriculture rises by 3% globally
per year
• Total factor productivity rises by 2% globally per year
• Environmental sustainability
• Improvements in soil fertility
• Water quality
• Contribution of land use changes to GHG
emissions, especially from deforestation, is zero by
2030
• Nutrient efficiency increases significantly
• Agricultural biodiversity measured and monitored

Potential indicators (continued)
• Health and Nutrition
• The level of food waste measured and monitored
• Target for stunting and/or wasting
• Target for dietary diversity
• Food Security Through Trade and Social
Protection
• Food price volatility returns to its average level
from 1985-2005; grain reserves as a share of use
return to global levels of 2000
• Measured price and trade distortions decline by
one third relative to 2015
• Populations in need of safety nets to reach 0
hunger goal identified and served

Candidate countries for measurement
South Asia
• Bangladesh
• India (regionally)
East Asia
• Indonesia
• Philippines
• Vietnam
Africa
• Ethiopia
• Kenya
• Tanzania
• Nigeria
• Ghana
• Burkina Faso
• Mozambique or
Malawi?
Latin/Central
America
• Peru
• Nicaragua

How can the indicators be used?
Very useful for…
At aggregate level
(SLOs)
Assist in interpreting SDG indicators
Improve quality of measurement
Show commitment of CGIAR to shared
global effort
Provide ready source of information for
global fora and negotiations
Allow countries to benchmark
performance against peers; identify areas
that need attention
At CRP level (IDOs)
Provide focus for soliciting feedback
from partners on relevance of
assistance
Allow mid-course corrections in
research programs
Inform donors about program
performance and priorities to assist in
fund-raising
Provide foundation for shared
assessment of effectiveness in venues
with multiple agencies contributing

Can indicators be used for results-based
allocation of resources?
• In my view, no.
• Ex ante problems of uncertainty in results chains, absence of
agency of most CRP actors in relevant decision processes
• Ex post problems of attribution when multiple partners contribute
• Proposal for resource allocation: use window 1 for
genuinely system-wide activities
• Gene banks
• Costs of running CO
• Agreed level of reserves for Centers
• System-wide public goods (measurement of indicators, etc.)
• Divide residual of w1 evenly among CRPs.
Encourage donors to use window 2 according to their
assessment of priorities and reported results.

Summary and Closing
• Two years of implementation of PIM have been
exciting
• CRPs are useful new instrument for CGIAR;
better for some purposes than others
• We are on the verge of new capabilities in
metrics, and must use the capacity responsibly
• Avoid over-promising
• Respect boundary between science and science fiction
• Innovate in techniques for measuring and processing
• Recast SRF around a simple set of core
indicators with minimalist text
• Cascade indicators for IDOs down from those for the SRF
• Agree with candidate countries on measurement for SRF
indicators
• Wider set of countries and sub-national geographies for IDOs

THANK YOU!
Questions?