draft 2016 cgiar financial plan - amazon web...

Draft, 19 October 2015

Draft 2016 CGIAR Financial Plan of 21

Draft 2016 CGIAR Financial Plan Consortium Office, 19 October 2015

Background The Consortium Board has the responsibility to allocate combined Window 1 and 2, as projected by the CGIAR Fund Office, to the CGIAR Research Programs. In 2016, the final year of the first round of CGIAR Research Programs (or CRP1), the projected level of Window 1 and 2 (W1-2) funding is declining significantly, from a forecast availability of W1-2 funding for the CRPs in the March 2015 version of the 2015 FinPlan of $266 million down to $180 in 2016 (32% reduction). As scarce W1-2 resources are declining there is a clear need to allocate these resources to strategic priorities to maximize value for money and protect strategic CGIAR assets. To develop broad support for potentially difficult decisions, the Consortium Board invited volunteer FC members to join a CB-FC joint working group to provide inputs into the preparation of a draft 2016 FinPlan. The CB-FC working group met three times, virtually, to discuss both performance rankings of the CRPs and flagships, and scenarios for allocating W1-2 resources in 2016. Purpose This document lays out the performance ranking and a scenario for allocating W1-2 resources in 2016, for consultation with Centers and the Fund Council, as input into the Consortium Board decision on this plan by December 2015. The Consortium Office is requesting feedback on the draft recommendations to the Consortium Board presented in this paper, based on the proposed rationale and analysis. Feedback should be sent to Frank Rijsberman directly at [email protected].

Document Category CONSULTATION DRAFT

Paper is a public document able to be shared for feedback

mailto:[email protected]



Table of Contents DRAFT Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 3

CRP and Flagship Performance Assessment ........................................................................................... 3

Table 1. Performance rating for CGIAR Research Programs ............................................................... 4

Table 2. Quality of science from Elsevier bibliometric analysis 2014 summary bibliometric scores .. 5

Table 3: CRP flagship performance ranking. ....................................................................................... 6

Scenarios for 2016 FinPlan W1-2 allocations .......................................................................................... 9

Assumptions based on which the table below (2016 FinPlan) was prepared: ................................... 9

Scenarios for combined W1 and W2 (W1-2) in 2016: ....................................................................... 10

Rationale for Flagship ratings ................................................................................................................ 12

PART II: Working Draft - Background and Methodology of Performance Rankings ............................. 19

1. CRP research output and impact-Science quality .................................................................... 19

2. Ratings based on Annual Reports 2013 and 2014. .................................................................. 19

3. CO Science team assessment on CRP Extension Proposals 2015-16 ....................................... 20

Table 4: Consortium Office internal assessment and rating of CRP Extension Proposals 2015-16 .. 21



DRAFT Recommendations The Consortium Office is requesting feedback on the following draft recommendations to the Consortium Board related to the 2016 CGIAR Financial Plan: 1. To use performance rankings of CRPs and their Flagships, based on all currently available

information, as a basis to reduce funding to some CRPs and flagships more than the average reduction (32% compared to March 2015 FinPlan) in order to allocate smaller reductions to high performance programs and strategic assets.

2. To include the Genebanks program in the reductions projected for 2016 (recognizing that the program has been excluded from earlier reductions, as well as the additional bilateral funding made available by Germany).

3. To reduce W1-2 funding to the two CRPs with the lowest performance, that is Dryland Systems and Aquatic Agricultural Systems, to a minimum required to transition out of current activities, with an allocation of $2 million to each.

4. To reduce W1-2 funding to four CRPs with the next lowest (B-C) performance, that is Humid Tropics, WLE, RTB and Dryland Cereals, by 20% more than the average.

5. The re-allocate the reductions generated by recommendations 3 and 4, amounting to $18.6 million, to higher performing programs and key components (flagships).

6. To allocate an additional 10% (on top of the average reductions of 32%, still resulting in a reduction, but smaller than average) to 5 programs rated B: PIM, GRiSP, Grain Legumes, Livestock and Fish, A4NH.

7. To allocate an additional 20% to two programs rated A-B: FTA and MAIZE. 8. To allocate an additional 25% to two programs rated A: CCAFS and WHEAT. 9. To reduce the final W1-2 allocation of 2 CRPs, after the 2016 scenario has been agreed,

that is, RTB and Grain Legumes, by $5 million each, on the grounds that USAID has shifted an amount of $5 million for each of these two programs from W2 to W3, so that this reduction is budget-neutral for the two CRPs in question.

10. To provide guidance to allocate the budget reductions preferentially to flagships (components) based on both their performance rating as well as a consideration that W1-2 resources should be provided preferentially to strategic upstream research, with W3-bilateral preferentially provided to scaling up and out as well as integrated delivery.

11. Flagship level guidance to the lead Centers of CRPs is recommended as allocating resources within their programs as follows:

i. To protect flagships rated A and B. ii. To reduce flagships rated C and D.

iii. To stop providing W1-2 funding to flagships rated E.

CRP and Flagship Performance Assessment The CRP Performance Ranking has been prepared by the Consortium Office Science Team at the request of the CB-FC working group preparing the 2016 FinPlan. The performance rating is based on three factors:

1. Science quality – informed by Elsevier bibliometric analysis in 2014. 2. Assessment of overall outputs / results compared to proposals, based on the analysis

of the CRP annual reports. 3. Performance assessment informed by IEA reviews (where available); ISPC comments

on CRP Extension Proposals and CO Science team assessment.

https://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/4062/Elsevier%20Report%20%202014.pdf?sequence=1



Table 1. Performance rating for CGIAR Research Programs

(1) From Elsevier bibliometric analysis 2014 taking into account for each CRP the different criteria listed in

Table 2

(2) Performance rating based on CRP Annual Reports 2013 and 2014 and IEA reviews when available (no

table)

(3) Anticipated performance based on track record including CO/ISPC review of Extension Proposals 2015-

16 (refer Table 3)

(4) Summary of CRP performances based on columns (1), (2) and (3)

(5) Genebanks: Since 2012 centres have received 6.6 million USD from Germany to support Genebank

activities in addition to the Genebank CRP W1 funding. Genebanks have, through 2015, received 100% of

their full allocation (that is, been exempted from any cuts). Consequently, it is recommended to reduce the

2016 Genebank contribution.

CRP

Bibliometric analysis of

Science Quality (1)

Performance rating (2)

Anticipated Performance (3)

Summary (4)

CCAFS A A A A

WHEAT A A-B A A

MAIZE A A-B B A-B

FTA A A-B B A-B

GRiSP B A-B B B

A4NH B B B B

PIM C A A-B B

Dryland Cereals D A B B-C

Grain Legumes A B C B

Humid Tropics B A C B-C

L&F B C A B

RTB C B B B-C

WLE B B D B-C

Aquatic Systems B C D C

Dryland Systems D C D D

Genebanks (4)



of 21

Table 2. Quality of science from Elsevier bibliometric analysis 2014 summary bibliometric scores

CRP Number of papers (Fig 2.1)

Researchers w/ papers (Fig 2.2)

# papers per researcher

(a)

Impact of CRPs’ papers (Fig 2.3)

International papers (Fig 2.6)

W1-2 cost / paper ($M)

Total cost / paper ($m)

Final rating

A4NH 56 9 6 A C 1.1 3.7 B

Aquatic Systems 28 6 5 A A 1.4 2.8 B

CCAFS 201 43 5 A B 0.8 1.3 A

Dryland Cereals 174 42 4 D D 0.2 0.5 D

Dryland Systems 72 35 2 D D 0.5 1.6 D

FTA 200 28 7 A A 0.5 1.3 A

GB - - - - - - -

Grain Legumes 78 6 13 A A 0.6 1.6 B

GRiSP 569 108 5 C C 0.2 0.7 B

Humid Tropics 331 109 3 C A 0.1 0.3 B

L&F 98 30 3 A B 0.4 0.7 B

MAIZE 238 46 5 B B 0.2 0.9 A

PIM 105 24 4 C D 0.7 2.5 C

RTB 147 60 2 D B 0.6 1.5 C

WHEAT 293 70 4 B A 0.1 0.4 A

WLE 351 103 3 A D 0.2 0.5 B


of 21

Table 3: CRP flagship performance ranking.

This table reflects the need to retain core capacity and capability in key areas of strategic importance - protect more (A) or less (B), or cut (C), cut more

(D) or completely (E) - and the evaluation of individual flagships as part of extension proposals 2015-16.

FP1 FP2 FP3 FP4 FP5 FP6/CC1 FP7/CC2 FP8/CC3

A4

NH

Value Chains for Enhanced Nutrition

Bio-fortification Agriculture-Associated Diseases

Integrated Programs & Policies

C A D B

AA

S

Program level research and synthesis

Asia Mega delta Island systems of South-East Asia and the Pacific

African inland waters

C B C/D D/E

CC

AFS

Climate-smart agricultural practice

Climate information services & safety nets

Low-emissions agricultural development

Policies & institutions for climate-resilient food system

A B A C

DC

Data, Knowledge & Communication

Improved Varieties & Hybrids

Integrated Crop Management

Seed Systems & Input Markets

Post-harvest Value & Output Markets

C A B A C

DS

West African Sahel & Dry Savannas

North Africa & West Asia

East & Southern Africa

Central Asia South Asia

D D E E D

of 21

FP1 FP2 FP3 FP4 FP5 FP6/CC1 FP7/CC2 FP8/CC3 FT

A

Production and incomes of forest dependent communities & SHs

Managing and conserving FT resources

Co-management of FTA in multifunctional and dynamic landscapes

Climate change adaptation & mitigation

Reducing the negative impacts of globalized trade and investment

A C B B B

GL

Managing productivity

Trait determination

Trait deployment Seed systems, post-harvest processing, markets, nutrition

Capacity Building & Partnerships

Knowledge, Impacts, Priorities, Gender

Tools/platforms genot, bioinfo.

Management

C A C C B B A B

GR

iSP

Technology targeting & evaluation

Harnessing genetic diversity

Developing improved rice varieties

Sustainable intensification along the rice value chain

Out scaling and capacity building

B A A B C

HT

Cross-cutting East and Central Africa

West Africa Central Mekong Central America & Caribbean

C C C C C

L&F

Animal health Genetics Feed & Forage Systems Analysis for Sustainable Innovations

Value Chain Transformation & Scaling

B B A C C

of 21

FP1 FP2 FP3 FP4 FP5 FP6/CC1 FP7/CC2 FP8/CC3 M

AIZ

E Sustainable intensification of maize-based cropping systems

Novel tools, technologies and traits for improving genetic gains and breeding efficiency

Stress resilient and nutritious maize

Aligning with and strengthening maize seed systems for effective product delivery

Inclusive and profitable maize futures

B A A A C

PIM

Technological innovation and sustainable intensification

Agricultural growth and transformation at the national level

Inclusive value chains and efficient trade

Improved social protection for vulnerable populations

Property rights regimes for NRM & asset

A B B A A

RTB

Unlocking the value and use potential of genetic resource

Accelerating the development & selection of cultivars

Managing priority pests and disease

Making available low-cost, high-quality planting material...

Developing tools for more productive, ecologically robust cropping system

Postharvest technologies, VC & market opportunities

Enhancing impact through partnerships

Results-Based Management

B A A B C C C A

WH

EAT

Maximizing V4M & social inclusivity through prioritization of R4D investment

Novel diversity to adapt to climate change and resource constraints

Global partnership to accelerate genetic gain in farmers field

Sustainable intensification of wheat-based cropping system

Human & institutional capacities for seed systems and scale-out

C A A B C

of 21

FP1 FP2 FP3 FP4 FP5 FP6/CC1 FP7/CC2 FP8/CC3 W

LE

Sustainably Increasing Land and Water Productivity

Regenerating Degraded Agricultural Ecosystems

Recovering and Reusing Resources in Urbanizing Ecosystems

Managing Resource Variability and Competing Uses

Strengthening Decision Analysis and Information Systems

Integrating Ecosystem Sol. into Policy & Investments

C C C C C D

Scenarios for 2016 FinPlan W1-2 allocations

Assumptions based on which the table below (2016 FinPlan) was prepared:

1. The amount forecast for W1-2 in 2016 is a total of $180 million available for the CRPs, including the Genebanks program (left unchanged for now, though USAID decisions & revised 2015 FinPlan may affect this).

2. The amount of W2 in 2016 is unknown at this moment in time, and the allocation of W2 in 2015 is also still largely unknown - best

available information is distribution of W2 in 2014.

3. 3. Scenarios here are for combined W1-2 on the assumption W1 and W2 are fungible, except that total W2 allocated by donors to a CRP in 2016 will be the minimum amount allocated to that CRP.

4. To date Genebanks received 100% of allocated resources (with $1.2-1.7 m in W2 and the remainder in W1). As German bilat contributions to Genebanks total $6.6m, the 2016 Genebank allocation will also be reduced from its $18.9 m base.

of 21

Scenarios for combined W1 and W2 (W1-2) in 2016:

SCEN1: BASE: Equal percentage cuts, incl Genebanks, that is, 2015 FinPlan times 180/266, a 32% reduction. If the donor allocated W2 turns out to be larger than the resulting allocation, the remaining CRPs will have to be reduced by an equal, larger percentage to compensate. In yellow highlight the CRPs with a W2 allocation in 2014 higher than the SCE2 allocation in 2016 are indicated. SCEN2: PERF Savings: Allocated to:

A Plus 25% on top of SCEN 1 7.8 A-B Plus 20% on top of SCEN 1 4.4 B Plus 10% on top of SCEN 1 5.9 B-C Minus 20% on top of SCEN 1 8.1

C No more W1-2 ($2m cost of shutting down) 6.7

D No more W1-2 ($2m cost of shutting down) 3.8

18.6 18.1

of 21

2016 W1-2 Scenarios 1 and 2

SCENARIO 1-BASE SCENARIO 2 FLAGSHIP GUIDANCE

CRPs & performance

W2 2014 W3-Bilat 2016 forecast

W1-2 2015

equal 32% cuts strong performance differentials

Flagships to protect (A-B)

Flagships to reduce (C-D)

No more W1-2 for these Flagships (E)

Dryland Systems 6.9 34 8.6 5.8 2.0 all Humidtropics 4.7 29.6 10.3 7.0 5.6 all AAS 4.2 15.1 12.9 8.7 2.0 all PIM 9.9 77.9 17.4 11.8 13.0 all Wheat 8.4 52 13.5 9.1 11.4 2, 3, 4 1 and 5 Maize 2.6 56.4 11.2 7.6 9.1 1, 2, 3,4 5 GRiSP 5.4 58.8 26.6 18.0 19.8 1,2, 3, 4 5 RTB 13.4 62.6 22.2 15.0 12.0 1, 2, 3, 4,8 5,6,7 Grain Legumes 6.4 38.6 11.3 7.6 8.4 2,5,6,7,8 1,3,4 Dryland Cereals 2.4 8.5 5 3.4 2.7 2, 3, 4 1 and 5 Livestock & Fish 11.5 22.7 12.9 8.7 9.6 1, 2, 3 4 and 5 A4NH 15.5 72.6 19.6 13.3 14.6 2 and 4 1 and 3 WLE 5.2 36.5 22.2 15.0 12.0 all FTA 6.4 61.5 21.2 14.3 17.2 1,3,4,5 2

CCAFS 5.5 22 32.6 22.1 27.6 1,2,3 4

Sub Total 108 247 167 167

Genebanks 1.7 5.3 18.7 12.7 12.7

110 266 180 180

COLOR LEGEND: columns A & F: performance rating as in CO report column B: yellow indicates W2 in 2014 was higher than proposed allocation in 2016 COLUMN LEGEND: A: CRP name and performance rating B: 2014 W2 (last available) C: 2016 W3/Bilat projection D: 2015 W1-2 E: 2016 W1-2, calculated as (E)*180/266 F: reduces allocation to low performing CRPs and increases allocation to higher performing CRPs by percentages provided above


Rationale for Flagship ratings Ratings are mainly based on CRP Extension Proposals 2015-16, together with an assessment

of flagships more focused on upstream strategic research versus downstream scaling up and

out, and integrated delivery.

A4NH:

FP1 did not have adequate theories of change or prioritize its work to unify the

work of the program. What kind of value chain interventions ensure that women

benefit and how to design and select such value chains? How many vegetable and fruit

value chains are being targeted and funded? The concept of nutrition-sensitive

landscapes is promoted without clear conceptual underpinnings. C

FP2 has been well managed through its various stages. Breeding and testing for

nutritional efficacy has proved successful for some crop/nutrient contributions. Buys

the CGIAR a place at the nutrition table, even if it is a partial approach. What about

including gender sensitive traits (eg RTB varieties with shorter cooking times and

nutriment conservation) or long term consequences of bio-fortified food. A

FP3 has not been adequately formulated and is difficult to do well with current

CGIAR expertise or even new partnerships (this flagship requires expertise outside of

the CGIAR). The comparative advantage to this FP3 is not clear. D

FP4 captures a large sum of money for this analysis work from donors. It results

in good analytical papers, but does not evidently enhance progress of CGIAR research

in other programs towards nutritional goals. Should be continued but aligned more

closely with CGIAR needs. B

AAS:

Program level research and synthesis: development of gender work and some

good continuing publications on the sustainability of aquaculture from WorldFish

legacy work. C

Asia mega-deltas: Includes work in Bangladesh (spread of aquaculture and

improved nutrition) which is the most successful hub for AAS. Also work in Cambodian

lake fisheries which have yielded publications and best practice for lake governance. B

Island systems of SE Asia and Pacific: Philippines hub work insufficient and not

treated by Evaluation. It should be dropped but Philippines is an important regional

example for fisheries and aquaculture and governance of the fisheries sector for pro-

poor benefits. Work on coastal fisheries governance in Solomons relevant and

important for the whole Pacific region. C/D

African inland waters: Struggle to develop the Barotse floodplain work in

Zambia and entice needed technical support from the CGIAR to join. Quality of Science

and the means to measure the gender transformational approach heavily critiqued by

ISPC and Evaluation. D/E


CCAFS:

FP1 is closest to established CGIAR core competencies. If full articulation with

other CRPs can be achieved, this FP holds promise for mainstreaming of climate

adaptation (and mitigation) considerations throughout the CGIAR. A

FP2 is arguably the most innovative flagship in its approach and partnerships.

The lack of a clear research for development agenda, including testable hypotheses in

a theory of change, is a particularly noteworthy gap. B

FP3 by creating and mainstreaming capacity for assessment of mitigation

potential (and climate impact more broadly) across CGIAR CRPs is an important

function, as FP1. A

FP4 seems to be the most significant change in emphasis within CCAFS.

However, it is well understood both how unpredictable and time-intensive this work is

if there are to be reasonable prospects for impact. For this shift in emphasis to be

justified and prospects for impact assessed ex ante, a much deeper articulation of

mechanisms of policy and institutional change must be stated for specific contexts and

opportunities. C

DC:

FP1 seeks to address some fundamental foresight planning and priority setting

goals of the CRP. This is a step in the right direction, but it has been deferred so long.

C

FP2 is the core strength and comparative advantage of the CRP based on its

expertise in crop improvement and germplasm resources of the four dryland crops. A

FP3 highlights the importance of good soil management for increasing

productivity and maintaining sustainability for dryland cereals. The justification for this

FP would be strengthened with an assessment of the scope for wide-scale adoption of

technological practices resulting from this area of research - which has a long history

in the CGIAR. B

FP4 is taking into account the complexity of each dryland cereal seed system to

produce and deliver seeds of improved varieties in adverse conditions based on crop

x user x country specificities. The complex reasons why commercial seed suppliers

have not still emerged of their own accord, has to be counterbalanced by DC to deliver

with impact. A

FP5 work related to reducing post-harvest losses is highly relevant. The scope

of the ‘value chain analysis’, however, should be defined carefully. Value chain analysis

brings in issues of trade, input supply, etc. for which DC may not still have the expertise.

C

DS:

Overall rating is E

The DS CRP has adopted five geographical FPs which all use both approaches

of reducing vulnerability/increasing resilience and sustainable intensification

depending on the action site. There is no indication that any robust priority setting for


regions, agricultural systems and issues within the selected FP regions has been

undertaken. The Extension Proposal came across as a large set of atomised research

activities spread over far too many regions (5 regions) and agricultural systems (7

systems) with no overall scientific or research coherence.

FTA:

FTA re-submitted a totally re-written Extension Proposal with significant improvement over

the initial submission. The second version was satisfactory FTA and addressed point by point

response to the comments received from ISPC and from the CO, showing that the leadership

of FTA has taken all comments seriously and in a constructive manner.

FP1 concerns the livelihoods of smallholders at farm level, looking at intensively

managed agroforestry systems, generally embedded with agricultural activities and

focus on domesticated tree species and market linkages/value chains; that is a key

strategic approach embedded with crop and L&F CRPs. A

FP2 concerns mainly communities or companies and the way they manage

extensively/conserve forest biodiversity in stands – woodlots, dissociated from any

major agriculture (beyond shifting cultivation) and looks at wild tree species (including

wild-relatives of domesticated ones). C

FTA have integrated the Sentinel Landscapes into several FPs (TmFO with FP2,

Global oil palm value chain with FP5, all the geographically bounded SLs with FP3). The

cross-cutting nature of the network remains but now that the characterization phase

is almost completed (and will lead to specific knowledge products in 2015), it becomes

important to use the SLs as places for co-location of research and testing of results

applicability, probably through FP3. B

FP 4 on climate change adaptation and mitigation appears to concern forests

uniquely, rather than forests and agricultural lands with various tree cover densities.

FTA has been much more explicit of the many ongoing and nascent collaborations (see

table in revised proposal including specific annex for CCAFS-FTA; it clarifies the climate

change research areas in which FTA collaborates with CCAFS and those in which the

work is undertaken separately. B

Recognizing the importance of tenure and rights as an emerging cross-cutting

issue (relevant to all FPs) and the need to keep structures simple, we propose i) a

conceptual home as a cluster of activities in FP5, consistent with our work on global

governance; ii) that this CA plays the following coordinating cross-cutting and cross-

CRP roles: backstopping FP work on tenure and rights producing IPG based on work

across all FPs and developing a program of work for inter-CPR collaboration with PIM

(to be confirmed by this program). B

GL:

An integrated approach (with soil fertility management, rotations,

intercropping, etc.) is supposed to be tackled in FP1 to increase productivity, income

and the environmental sustainability from GL. However, the emphasis seems to be on

germplasm development to address biotic and abiotic production constraints and FP1

would need to bring some innovative integrated agronomic and socio-economic


research that will allow attaining the full potential of seed technologies. An integrated

view on the GL Value Chains should be proposed. C

FP2 describe clearly the overall priorities for the allele discovery and the biotic

and abiotic stress factors are well identified. A

For trait deployment through FP3, more clarity is needed on what will be done

for each of the different legume crops and which agro-ecologies or geographies will be

targeted when addressing specific biotic or abiotic stresses. C

Careful assessment of the potential for public-private partnerships in legume

seed systems (FP4) is required. More innovation and critical thinking is needed to make

the seed systems research more useful and relevant to local conditions. C

FP5, CC1 and CC3 support transversal needs on capacity building, partnership,

knowledge, priority setting and management. B

Strong specific effort is planned on breeding informatics systems in synergy

with IBP phase II and a high throughput genotyping platform with the Genomic Center

of Excellence through CC2. A

GRiSP:

FP1 focuses on key strategic activities on technology targeting and evaluation

including socioeconomic & gender analysis, tools for rice crop management, global

information gateway, foresight, etc... B

FP2 and FP3 are the two key components of the breeding pipeline starting from

genetic diversity, breeding, rice varieties development and seed delivery. A for both of

them

FP4 tackles other sustainable approaches (apart from genetics & breeding)

including marketing, post-harvest and processing technologies but the feedback and

evaluation of the sustainability of the intensification process in rice systems has to be

more convincingly described. B

FP5 describes empirical approaches on “out scaling and capacity building” with

a special attention on the “scaling-up of GRiSP products and services to reach impact

at scale”; but a more systematic research component on the scaling approach, is

missing. C

Humid-Tropics:

Overall rating is C (and C for each of the 5 FPs)

HT extension proposal reflects a genuine attempt to address systems research

head on and through a well-developed strategic plan and an action plan to implement

this strategy. The plan appeared achievable through 5 FPs of which four are regional

research sites and the fifth is a cross-cutting FP which is designed to synthesise lessons

learned and approaches for scaling and institutional innovation. Through its FP5, HT

aims to take the lessons from its specific sites and present them within a global

perspective


L&F:

Continuing vaccine and diagnostic work through FP1 remains strong suit of

ILRI’s contribution. B

In FP2, L&F is a mixed application of existing techniques on genetics and tilapia

enhancement steady through quantitative genetic methods. C

Good new work with forage grasses and CIAT contributions through FP3 plus

crop-livestock interaction work make this a good prospect for the future. A

The focus of the systems work through FP4 is not clear and may cover too large

a number of potential areas. C

It is fair to say that L&F have struggled to appreciate and get off the ground a

value chain approach through FP5. However, site/vc chain is now accomplished and it

is up to the program to show that this is more than a production systems focus and

that pro-poor value-added arrangements can eventuate through PS linkages. C now

but the possibility of catalysing a B in the future through sustained effort.

MAIZE:

FP1 focuses on sustainable intensification of maize-based farming systems

through approaches that are complementary to genetics and breeding indicating that

MAIZE was already focusing its program on a system-based approach. Bridges and

linkages should be described based on needs and demands in order to offer an

integrated view of the MAIZE strategy on sustainable intensification. B

FP2 and FP3 are the two key and strong components of the breeding pipeline

starting from genetic diversity, trait discovery, variety improvement and development.

A

One of the main values of MAIZE is probably its capacity to exchange new

germplasm with over 100 collaborators in Africa, Asia and Latin America; and, thus,

systematically augment the capacity of over 40 NARS, 180 small- and medium-sized

seed companies and 226 community-based seed producers that reach out to

disadvantaged farmers through FP4. A

FP5 aims to engage in foresight analysis, gender, social exclusiveness and

harnessing smallholders market opportunities. C

PIM:

FP1 is a key strategic Flagship but PIM needs to explain the rationale for its

priority setting and how the focus on each of its 3 core components will be

strengthened going forward. A

FP2 is very broad and somewhat untargeted. "Agricultural growth and

transformation at the national level" is a vast subject, hardly fitting the definition of a

flagship project. B

FP3 on value-chain is supposed to be a cross-cutting theme and PIM claims

collaborations with 14 CGIAR Centers but fails to mention joint activities with other

CRPs (even though most other CRPs mention their collaboration with PIM...). PIM


needs to clarify how it may be contributing to other CRP research activities on policies,

institutions and markets. B

FP4 is based on two new topics for PIM (safety nets and insurance for the poor)

which are both very strategic. A

FP5 addresses key topics but should look at common goods in details. A

RTB:

A lot of effort were done and progress successfully achieved by RTB to come up with a new

research structure, based on flagship projects (and not a cosmetic adaptation of their 8 old

themes). This changing process was performed in parallel with a dynamic and collective review

of RTB ToC at the program and flagship levels in connection with its RBM framework

implementation

FP1 is focused on discovery and focuses on strengthening breeding informatics

and high-density genotyping, implement in-situ conservation network of RTB

agrobiodiversity or improve research on bacterial diseases in RTB crops; very strategic

but to be more supported in phase 2. B

FP2 and FP3 are a combination of breeding and agronomic practices with a

strong prioritization effort being done to focus on crop x trait x location. A strategic

assessment of research priorities was carried out in 2012-13 as requested by the ISPC

and results were also clearly presented recently and used for the new program design.

A

FP4 is focused on making available low-cost, high quality RTB material is still a

priority. B

FP5, 6 and 7 are rated C

The promising results on the RTB Result Based-Management (RBM) pilot

project through FP8 is a key achievement. A

WHEAT:

The horizontal guidance of FP1 aims to support the internal coherence of the

overall program by maximizing value for money (foresight, targeting, IP analysis,

gender-responsive strategic research); work on progress. C

Through FP2 and FP3, the program includes innovative thinking translated into

a new set of research activities built around a modern genetic pipeline for breeding

purposes. The two FPs are well-balanced between upstream research and

complementary downstream activities focused on new variety development with

different traits transferred to modern wheat varieties (FP3); CRP core strategic

business. A

Through FP4 the program aims to focus on the sustainable intensification of

wheat cropping systems with many activities in collaboration with CCAFS but without

defining precisely the nature of the partnership with this CRP. B


FP5 mainly addresses capacity building and strengthening for seed system and

scaling with a strong regional or country focus; this effort will need to be more

supported in phase 2. C

WLE:

The overall critique is that many (perhaps all) of the subject matter Flagships of

WLE are potentially important, but it was difficult to know on whom they would have

their impact and how. There was no interlinkage between the different research

thrusts. Thus most of them could be rated B for importance, but C in likely efficacy.

FP1 on degraded agricultural systems has an overall C

Recovering and reusing resources in urbanizing ecosystems: Another important

topic with substantial capacity building C

Managing resource variability and competing use: as above overall C

Strengthening decision analysis: Potentially important but not evident that the

existence of mere information will be persuasive. D

Integrating ecosystem solutions into policy and investments: The ISPC

highlighted this FP to provide the missing integrating function for other work. B


PART II: Working Draft - Background and Methodology of Performance

Rankings

1. CRP research output and impact-Science quality

An Elsevier study commissioned by the consortium office (Elsevier bibliometric analysis 2014)

assesses the general performance of CRP researchers based on the analysis of publication and

citation data and identify publications in Scopus that are resulting from funds provided by

CGIAR through CRPs. The following measured parameters have contributed to the overall

scores provided in Tables 2:

Number of program-generated publications per CRP

Number of researchers with and without publications within CRPs

Number of program-generated publications and field-weighted citation impact of

these publications per CRP

Percentage of internationally collaborated publications per CRP

2. Ratings based on Annual Reports 2013 and 2014.

The Consortium Office Science Team has been reviewing the portfolio of CGIAR research programs for 3 years, providing a very good insight into levels of progress of individual CRPs and the portfolio overall. These reviews together with an analysis of Programs of Work and Budget have informed the overall scores provided in Table 1 column 2. The following criteria have been used to rate the Annual reports in line with the reporting requirements agreed with the Fund Council:

Conceptual clarity, internal consistency, quality of the information provided and

credibility,

Section A: are the scope and the depth of the narrative appropriate, given the subject

matter of the CRP and its objectives

Section B: quality and relevance of the indicators and targets that the CRP uses for its

IDOs.

Section C: clarity, credibility, quality, relevance of the outputs, outcomes produced and

of the progress toward impact that is described.

Section D effectiveness of gender research mainstreaming.

Section E: strategic dimension and apparent effectiveness of the partnerships

described and synergies.

Section F: credibility of the claims, relevance to the objectives of the CRP

Section G: Strategic analysis of risks.

Section H: clarity and credibility of the justifications provided in the reports when

progress has not been as expected; whether implications drawn are strategic (instead of

superficial). Quality of the implications drawn by the CRP from its own monitoring of progress

Table 1 (Annex 1): 34 CRP indicators of progress, with glossary and targets



For the rating, a similar grid as in the EU Commission for evaluating project/program proposals

has been used with the following 4 levels:

- Excellent: the proposal successfully addresses all relevant aspects of the criteria; any

shortcomings are minor.

- Very good: the proposal addresses the criteria very well, but a small number of minor

shortcomings are present.

- Good: the proposal addresses the criteria well, but a number of minor and major

shortcomings are present.

- Fair: the proposal broadly addresses the criteria, but there are significant major

weaknesses.

The CRP Annual Reports 2014 were firstly classified based on these criteria and approach, then

CO comments were discussed with most of the CRP leaders in June and CRP ARs were then

rated as following:

Excellent: RTB, Humid Tropics, MAIZE, DC, WHEAT

Very Good: A4NH, FTA, PIM, GL, WLE, GRiSP

Good: CCAFS, DS

AAS and L&F AR 2014 were received 2 months later when compared with other CRP ARs and consequently not included in this review process.

3. CO Science team assessment on CRP Extension Proposals 2015-16

The CO conducted an analysis of the CRP extension proposals in June 2014 based on the following criteria

Conceptual clarity, innovative thinking, scientific quality.

Coherence of the proposed program and internal coherence of the set of activities within it.

Coherence of the program and its sets of activities at portfolio level: is the CRP is working effectively with other CRPs, so there are no unplanned redundancies or gaps in the portfolio level research agenda.

Quality and relevance of the IDOs proposed and of their indicators and targets- feasibility and credibility of the measures of progress proposed by the CRP.

Relevance of these sets of activities to the SLOs and the CRP’s IDOs.

Based on these criteria the extension proposals were classified graded as follows:


Table 4: Consortium Office internal assessment and rating of CRP Extension Proposals

2015-16

(*) as described in the CRP Portfolio Report 2013 and 2014

Type* CRP Rating

3 CCAFS A

1 WHEAT A

2 PIM A

2 Dryland Cereals A

2 Livestock & Fish A

1 GRiSP B

2 FTA B

3 A4NH B

1 MAIZE B

2 RTB B

2 Grain Legumes C

3 HumidTropics C

3 AAS D

2 WLE D

3 Dryland Systems D

draft 2016 cgiar financial plan - amazon web...

Documents