Download Report

Fund Council
13th Meeting (FC13)—Bogor, Indonesia
April 28-29, 2015
WORKING DOCUMENT
ISPC comments on the CGIAR Strategy and
Results Framework 2016-2030, April 2015
Submitted by:
ISPC
27 April 2015
ISPC comments on the CGIAR Strategy and Results Framework 2016-2030, April 2015
(Agenda Item 2, 13th CGIAR Fund Council Meeting)
The ISPC acknowledged the dual purposes of the SRF in the workshop on development of
the SRF which was held in Washington in August 2014. The ISPC articulated these purposes
as: describing the development outcomes which CGIAR research could contribute to and
‘giving direction to researchers as to what steps need to be taken to prioritise and design
agricultural research activities which generate outputs which have the best chance of
contributing to the desired development outcomes’.
Since then, the SRF has gone through a number of redrafts in a collaborative effort amongst
CGIAR stakeholders, in an attempt to strike a balance between the 2 purposes. The ISPC
recognises (and compliments) the huge effort made by the writing team and other colleagues
in preparing the many drafts.
In response to feedback in particular from the Fund Council, this final version is written in a
very different style and describes aspirational development outcome goals for the CGIAR
(and its partners) for programs yet to be formulated. The document outlines the general
relationships between CGIAR activities and major development challenges in several
potential fields but has lost several key aspects of ‘giving direction to researchers’ which the
ISPC has been arguing1 are essential for the development of a coherent portfolio of programs.
The ISPC considers, therefore, that the document meets the first, but not the second, purpose
outlined above.
The ISPC notes that the process of developing the multiple drafts has resulted both in a broad
agreement on the ‘Results Framework’ (RF) section of the SRF and has considerably
enhanced mutual understanding of the challenges and opportunities. The ISPC also
recognises the need for ‘closure’ on this part of the process, to enable efforts to be focused on
developing the program of research.
The ISPC considers, therefore, that this version of the SRF could be endorsed as a
CGIAR commitment towards these goals, subject to some modifications, examples of
which are given on the following page. The ISPC also considers it essential (for the
quality of the overall research program), however, that some of the key directions on
constructing the overall research program that were either included in earlier versions
or previously requested by the ISPC should be set out in a companion document, which
should also include the organisational framework for the CGIAR portfolio which is
currently under development. This should be made part of, or be considered along with,
the guidance to the CRP second call.
The elements which remain missing include:

Description of mechanisms for delivering the potential system-level synergies and the
RF relating to the cross-cutting themes;



How prioritization of effort might be achieved, or even recognition that prioritisation
needs to occur, including giving a sense of how the CGIAR proposes to capitalise on
recent scientific advances;
Greater recognition of the key role that partnerships play in turning the research
outputs into development outcomes, both in terms of partners setting the agenda and
giving direction to the researchers on how far down the R4D continuum donors
expect them to go;
Recognition of the importance (for the long-term relevance of the research for impact)
of monitoring (through foresight for example) mega-trends at a global level outside
agriculture and their implications for agriculture.
The ISPC would be willing to set out the key issues which it considers are required to
‘provide direction’ to the research, drawing on its earlier submissions both at the time of
appraisal of the Extension proposals and during the SRF writing period.
In relation to the document presented by the CB to the FC for approval, the ISPC notes the
following examples of text which they consider need amendment before publication:








The balance of aspirational targets between the SLOs does not give an accurate sense
of the differing levels of current or likely proposed investment.
The raising of discrete targets without annotation seems to nullify discussion of tradeoffs which are important for program formulation e.g. closing yield gaps and
enhancing productive water use.
The values or wording of some of the targets are not logical, given that the global
population will also be increasing during the time-frame envisaged; issues of
measurement and counterfactuals should be more specifically addressed (perhaps in
an annex).
The tone and reality of describing beneficiaries: gender research is included more as a
consideration of beneficiaries rather than as an understanding that gender roles must
be taken into account for the CGIAR to succeed. In contrast, in this development of
the SRF, “youth” are given abrupt new prominence as target beneficiaries, potentially
beyond that which can arise from agricultural research alone. Children under 5 should
be included as target beneficiaries for nutritional programs.
The reference to the role of SPIA (p33) is factually incorrect;
Inconsistency in the use of the term ‘targets’;
Confusion in the explanation of the pressure of ‘Diminishing genetic resources’ (p9)
(which results in a non sequitur);
Potentially confusing title for section 4 (Strategic Results Framework, where simply
Results Framework should be sufficient).
The ISPC would be happy to sit down with members of the writing team/Consortium Board
who are present in Bogor to resolve these issues prior to departure.
Maggie Gill
ISPC Chair