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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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