28TH GFAR STEERING COMMITTEE

MEETING

Istanbul, Turkey

29-30 April, 2013

Draft Minutes

GFAR 28th SCM 2013

2

28th

Session of the GFAR Steering Committee, Istanbul, 29-30April 2013

Summary Minutes

Participants:

Prof. Monty Jones, GFAR Chair

Dr. Claudio Barriga, GFAR Vice-Chair

Dr. Mohammed Al-Ajlouni (AARINENA)

Dr. Fawzi Al-Sheyab (AARINENA Chair)

Dr. Sonali Bisht (NGOs - INHERE)

Dr. Robert Carlson (Farmers - WFO)

Dr. Philippe Choquet (Education institutions - GCHERA)

Dr. Kristin Davis (Advisory services - GFRAS)

Dr. Nikita Eriksen-Hamel (Donors - GDPRD)

Dr. James French (FORAGRO)

Dr. Simon Hearn (APAARI Chair)

Dr. Anne-Marie Izac (CGIAR)

Dr. Shanthanu Mathur (IFAD)

Dr.. Lucy Muchoki (Private Sector - PanAAC)

Dr.. Esther Penunia (Farmers - AFA)

Dr. Raj Paroda (Chair, Programme Committee & APAARI)

Dr. Alisher Tashmatov (CACAARI)

Dr. Xiangjun Yao (FAO)

Dr. Aggrey Agumya (FARA)

Ms. Courtney Paisley (YPARD)

Dr. David Radcliffe (EFARD)

Dr. Mark Holderness, GFAR Executive Secretary.

Secretariat: R. Bourgeois, A. Maru, P. Masciotta, H. Palmier, C. Plummer, T. Price.

Other participants as resource persons: J. Hailey, and P. Campbell (via Skype), for the GFAR

Governance Review; Y. Pinto for M&E (via Skype); R. Cooke for the GCARD Review.

Apologies: Dr. A. Musayev (CACAARI Chair), Dr. T. Yo (FARA Chair), Dr. J-A. Florez-

Martinez (FORAGRO Chair), Madame C. Guichard (EFARD Chair).

3

Summary Minutes of the 28th

Session of the GFAR Steering Committee

29 April 2013

1. Chair’s introduction

The GFAR Chair welcomed the participants, stressing the importance of this meeting

following on from GCARD2 in 2012 and for making decisions regarding GFAR governance

arrangements, the Medium Term Plan, the GCARD review, budgetary and other

organizational matters. The Steering Committee built on the deliberations of the Programme

Committee from the previous day, 28 April 2013. Prof. Jones also noted that this was a

special meeting for him as his last meeting as GFAR Chair and that he wanted to take the

opportunity to ensure that the meeting delivered all that was required of it, to enable GFAR to

move forwards in the best possible way.

Prof. Jones emphasized the need for transformation in agricultural innovation due to many

factors and events: the periodic surges in hunger in recent years and recognition of endemic

malnutrition in many countries had drawn attention again to agricultural innovation, the

emergence and importance of agricultural research in the BRICS countries as global actors,

the impacts of CGIAR reform, and the need to effectively scale up and demonstrate AR4D

success. He noted that there has been much positive feedback since GCARD1 on GFAR and

its role in AR4D and that many lessons had been learned in the last 3 years on moving from

developing the Roadmap through to its implementation. GFAR acts as a catalyst for

transformation, articulating demands for research, identifying areas of collective actions,

building partnerships to enhance synergies and reduce fragmentation, and serving as a

knowledge hub.

The Chair noted the continuing value of the GCARD Roadmap as evidenced by the buy-in for

collective action from all stakeholders and its formal acceptance by the G20, Heads of State in

the African Union Commission, CGIAR Consortium Board and many others around the

world.

Since GCARD2, a number of important steps have been accomplished that were to be

discussed during the meeting: development of the Medium Term Plan, the reviews of GFAR

Governance and the GCARD Process and the open search for the new GFAR Chairperson. He

considered determining these new elements to be critical to GFAR’s visibility, credibility and

accountability.

Given its role, the Forum’s scope is necessarily ambitious in addressing multiple topics

through collective actions (such as gender, climate change, foresight, farmers’ rights and

many more) which now called for national and regional commitments. The changes being

addressed by this meeting were requisite to securing the necessary resources, improving

GFAR’s governance and implementing the Roadmap through collective actions in the next

phase, leading to GCARD3 and beyond.

The signs are certainly positive and GCARD2 was very well received, with 79% of

participants feeling that the knowledge they gained would change their approach to AR4D,

4

but delivering on this calls for a strong foundation for the future to, among others: strengthen

and sustain Secretariat capacity, transform and strengthen Regional Fora and each stakeholder

constituency, mobilize resources on a larger scale and set longer term targets for

transformation processes and mechanisms. These must be invested in by all stakeholders,

have robust governance and achieve targets assessed through an ongoing M&E system.

Prof Jones also cited a number of lessons learned: that transformation requires involvement

and support from all stakeholders, that it was essential to build a strong common foundation

on which reforms can be made real and that we need long-term targets for transformations and

to track progress. In summary, we are looking for collective results, for which we all share

responsibility. GFAR is clearly required, now more than ever, but must always continue to

articulate and demonstrate its value and cost-effectiveness. GFAR is growing in strength and

value and the Chair concluded that he was very happy to be leaving it with that status.

2. Approval of Agenda and Minutes from 27th

SC meeting

The agenda for this 28th Steering Committee meeting was accepted (Moved R. Paroda,

Seconded C. Barriga).

The Minutes of the 27th Session of the GFAR Steering Committee were reviewed by the

Committee and accepted without change. (Moved C. Barriga, Seconded J. French)

Actions Arising

The report on Actions Arising from the Minutes of the 27th SC meeting was discussed. Issues

which were discussed further were:

GCARD funds: The Committee was informed that IFAD funding was delayed as the funding

agreement required an earlier start date in order to cover all requisite GCARD expenditure.

The agreement had needed to be put back through the system, but was now approved.

GFAR Annual Report: the 2012 Report now needs to be prepared and all Steering Committee

constituencies were kindly requested to each produce 1 page of text (max. 500 words plus

pictures), describing their impacts and achievements in 2012 towards the GCARD Roadmap.

The text was requested from all stakeholders by 24 May, in order to allow production of the

report to be completed by the end of July.

APAARI noted the positive interaction with Rachel Kyte, CGIAR Fund Council (FC) Chair

in the recent Fund Council meeting and that the urgency of an FC decision on GCARD3 had

been emphasized in FC discussions, which also reflected the good and growing partnership of

GFAR and the CGIAR. AARINENA highlighted the need to reform and strengthen Regional

Fora to ensure they fully represent all stakeholders and hence convince the Fund Council of

the extent of representation of GFAR. AARINENA also reflected that the openness of the

GAP process was very much appreciated and would welcome a similar GFAR-facilitated

platform on farmers rights, connected with the ITPGRFA.

The Chair thanked APAARI and GFAR Secretariat for their participation in the Delhi Fund

Council meeting, noting the long and sometimes difficult path to now having full recognition

5

of GFAR in the CGIAR Fund. He commented that the collaboration with the Consortium

Board and Consortium Office had been very good since their inception and that it was good to

see the Fund Council now giving full recognition to GFAR. Nonetheless, he also noted the

need for GFAR stakeholders to provide timely responses to the GFAR Secretariat on papers

circulated before each Fund Council meeting, so that these could be collated as a GFAR

written response from different stakeholders in the work of the CGIAR, to help inform the

Fund Council discussions.

Decision

The Actions Arising report was accepted. Moved N. Eriksen-Hamel, Seconded, C. Barriga.

3. Secretariat Progress Report

Dr Holderness, GFAR Executive Secretary, provided a summary overview of matters arising

since the last Steering Committee meeting in November 2012. He noted that the Chair had

already highlighted the major accomplishments, and then commented on the GFAR financial

situation, regretting that current restrictions prevented expenditure beyond modest amounts on

most immediate priorities. This was due to delay until late 2013 of a substantial grant

previously anticipated from the European Union. The delay was caused by bad investments

made by the CGIAR Center IITA, the knock-on effects of which had led to an audit review of

expenditure on CGIAR research within the EU. As a result, funding to the intended EU grants

for both CGIAR and GFAR (which derive from the same EU mechanism) has been

significantly delayed. These issues, outside of GFAR’s control, have had evident impact in

delaying programmatic support by almost one year.

Other income is pending in relation to GCARD2 and other forms of support continue, notably

the new IFAD grant and renewed French contribution of senior staff support, for which

gratitude was expressed to the Government of France and to IRD and CIRAD as the

seconding institutions concerned. Additional avenues of potential support are continually

being sought and gratitude was expressed for the existing multi-year grant commitments from

funders DFID, DGIS and SDC.

Dr Holderness also noted: the continued preparations for a high level meeting of the GFAR

Chair with the FAO Director-General, the development of the FARA and AARINENA work

plans in alignment with the draft GFAR MTP, and the renewed confirmation of GFAR and

Regional Fora representation on the CGIAR Fund Council. It was also noted that GFAR’s

gender and farmers’ rights work had been very well received by the CGIAR Consortium and

in the CGIAR Fund Council meeting the preceding week in New Delhi.

Other issues highlighted in the Secretariat Progress Report included:

1) progressive engagement with the CRPs on Foresight;

2) development of partnerships in D4D and GlobalHort, mobilizing multiple stakeholders

around the meeting of the Commission on Genetic Resources in Food and Agriculture

(evidence base on implications of agrobiodiversity for policy makers),

3) action on rights-based issues through the Farmers’/Breeders’ Rights Paper and its

direct impact in CGIAR policies,

4) linkage with the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement,

6

5) advocating for investment through the GDPRD and AFSI,

6) engagement with the Private Sector to prepare a major meeting in Addis Ababa on

enterprise development and the seat for GFAR in the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative

(SAI) Platform Advisory Group;

7) capacity development, with noteworthy examples of YPARD, the NAAS India and

review of CTA work;

8) further development of the GAP and GAP catalysts group including identification of

country-level initiatives and linkage with UN Women;

9) CGIAR linkages through Secretariat representation at the ISPC meeting in Calí and

the CGIAR Fund Council in New Delhi; increasing CRP development linkages

drawing on GCARD2 commitments and the MoU between the CGIAR & FAO;

10) participation in strengthening farmer organisations (SFOAP meeting in Africa and the

World Farmers’ Organisation General Assembly, Japan); and

11) Mario Allegri’s participation in the South-South cooperation initiative meeting in

Equatorial Guinea.

Dr Holderness spoke In Memoriam at the untimely loss of Jacky Ganry and Enrique Alarçon

and paid tribute to all they had brought to GFAR, both in themselves and in their work

advancing agriculture around the world.

4. GFAR Medium Term Plan 2013-2016

The Chair opened the agenda item on the GFAR Medium Term Plan 2013-2016 (MTP). He

indicated his satisfaction with the quality, content and accessibility of the draft document. He

also noted the high quality of discussions at the Programme Committee under the guidance of

the Chair Dr Paroda the previous day and their recommendation of the draft document to the

Steering Committee, with some improvements and modifications proposed.

Dr Paroda presented the key elements from the discussions on 28 May (see Programme

Committee Summary Report).

The Steering Committee welcomed the draft document and the Programme Committee

recommendations. SC members expressed strong appreciation for the work delivered by the

Secretariat in preparing the MTP and for its scope, breadth and depth. There was support for

the timetable of further receiving comments and revisions to enable finalization by end June

2013. Additional remarks and recommendations from Steering Committee members around

key areas (beyond those raised previously in the Programme Committee) included:

1) The increasing demand for actions by partners in the GFAR platform was welcomed, but

it was also recognized that priority setting was required, through implementing parties

identifying the extent and scale of their own commitments to achieving change in each

area and making use of the catalytic role expected of the GFAR mechanism. AARINENA

reported that their first draft Plan was now in development and would be discussed

shortly.

2) Recognition of the importance of maintaining the Secretariat capacity, including long-

term staffing (including placements from GFAR stakeholders) to the level required to

facilitate the agenda amid the growing range of actions now being asked of GFAR as a

7

global multi-stakeholder platform. Need to develop an implementation plan flowing out of

the MTP framework including the M&E dimension and budget projections.

3) The need for GFAR to now: a) reflect multi-stakeholder participation at all levels of

engagement – national, regional and global, and b) continue to emphasize the inclusion of

all stakeholders including education, advisory services and private sector, and examine

how to influence actions and policies at country level.

4) Having approved the MTP, all GFAR stakeholders should now be reporting their actions

via the collective Steering Committee for mutual accountability.

5) Key areas included opportunity for greater collaboration with the CGIAR Consortium in

the shaping of the next round of CRPs, including foresight, gender and developing

guidelines for effective public-private partnerships.

6) Promoting gender and capacity development actions into the CRPs was seen as a great

opportunity at the levels of both GFAR and the Regional Fora.

7) The need for GFAR to play a greater role in FAO-CGIAR collaboration and creating a

more systematically strengthened collaboration, as well as GFAR’s role in fostering

South-South collaboration.

8) Agrobiodiversity was an area where GFAR had very usefully filled gaps and created a

more rounded picture on agrobiodiversity actions, complementary to that of the CGIAR

and FAO. Global partnership programmes such as D4D, GAP, TAP and AIRCA (and its

role in addressing landscape–based issues) were highlighted as good, important initiatives

to pursue.

9) The continuing focus on farmers and farmers rights was welcomed and greater

engagement with farmers organizations was requested. Farmers associations expressed

great enthusiasm for the Plan and its recognition of the central role of smallholder farmers

and the central challenges of the barriers to technology adaptation and farmer adoption.

They also valued the emphasis on women farmers and emphasized that farmers

organizations were ready to play their part.

10) The scope, breadth and depth of the MTP was welcomed, but a gap was noted in

involvement in the post-2015 agenda. This gives scope for foresight in particular as a

driver of change processes and requires connection with processes now working to

identify and establish the post-2015 goals.

11) Welcomed that the Plan clearly identified the truly cross-cutting catalytic role of GFAR in

its new configuration, enabling collaboration across all sectors active in GFAR for

pursuing funds for collective actions.

12) There is need to build on momentum since GCARD2, to grasp new opportunities and

scale up GFAR’s operations based on the MTP and attract donor support to implementers,

in the face of generally declining donor budgets. In particular, to scale up GFAR’s budget

from development partners to support the role required of GFAR at a realistic scale,

reflecting the scale of international investment in the CGIAR by catalyzing and enabling

actions among many national stakeholders in pathways to impact.

The Executive Secretary thanked the Committee for this very positive reaction to the MTP

document from all stakeholders and welcomed their further recommendations for

improvement of the MTP. He noted the modest scale of the current GFAR budget in relation

to the ambitions of the members for the Forum’s role and the continuing need to enhance

GFAR’s visibility and scale of actions in recognition of the significance of the networks

8

involved and of the work done by all involved in the Forum. This needed to include better

recording and documenting of the contributions of GFAR actions, influence and impacts at all

levels. He highlighted that successful outcomes depend on common engagement and

responsibilities, requiring GFAR stakeholder institutions, fora and networks to mobilize their

collective actions, resources and contributions towards achieving the MTP’s projected results

and drawing on and working through the joint commitments of the MTP. This in particular

focused on the multi-actor impact pathways of national systems, with further prioritization

and planning for time-bound implementation in successive steps. Speed and scale of delivery

will depend on collaborative mobilization, pooling and scaling of resources among all GFAR

stakeholders, catalyzed by the Secretariat where this is feasible.

The Chair in his summary, welcomed the MTP and its clear definition of the role and status of

GFAR in bringing together all sectors in agricultural innovation. He noted the need for

prioritization with a limited budget that GFAR has to use wisely in addressing priority needs,

which also depends on GFAR constituencies taking on their own responsibilities. He

highlighted the importance of increased collaboration with the CGIAR CRPs and of building

on GFAR’s seat in the CGIAR Fund Council, in particular for GFAR to play a direct role in

strengthening gender and capacity development work in the CGIAR CRPs. He emphasized

the value of GFAR’s foresight work in shaping the next phase of CRPs and addressing the

post-2015 agenda, which should be explored further. GFAR was uniquely placed to bring

constituents together around coherent themes, such as in public-private partnerships with

international actors and in facilitating CGIAR-FAO collaboration and links with other

stakeholders. He welcomed the increase in sustained Secretariat staff capacity and the need

for continued commitments from agencies in seconding experts to the Secretariat, so that it

could play its required role in linking and catalyzing actions across all sectors.

Decisions

The Plan was fully endorsed by the Steering Committee. Specific additional comments and

inputs were requested from all GFAR stakeholders by the end of May, with these

incorporated by the end of June. All stakeholders should draw on their own Medium Term

Plans for this and provide further timebound indicators of impacts as set out in their own

plans, so that the overall Plan is based on clear deliverables and committed indicators of

progress in each sector. The Secretariat will finalize the MTP document by the end of June,

including an Executive Summary. The Secretariat will explore with Committee members

possible avenues for strategic and targeted contributions to the Post-2015 Agenda and SDGs

development. The Plan was recognized as an evolving document, which required the

elaboration of commitments and costs for the different programmes into fundable

implementation plans.

Approval moved: Claudio Barriga, Seconded: Raj Paroda.

5. GFAR Governance Review

John Hailey and Piers Campbell of MANNET presented the external Review of GFAR’s

Governance. They stressed the challenge of GFAR’s complexity and the many drivers to

address including the clear aim to be a global truly multi-stakeholder platform inclusive of

diverse voices; issues of accountability and transparency and how to tackle governance. Many

9

other organizations are grappling with these issues and there is need for GFAR to adopt best

practices to be truly fit for purpose. The review was very iterative, with qualitative judgment

used for the analysis and comparison with experiences elsewhere. The recommendations were

divided by categories: 1-3 overall comments, 4-10 on structures, 11-12 on process, 13-15

focus on specifics on membership, elections, etc. The report clearly differentiated and dealt

separately with issues of Global Governance, Networking Governance and Institutional

Governance.

The reviewers highlighted the clear momentum for change, but also the external challenges

and specific issues involved. In their view the best course is renewal within a transition

process, not sharp and sudden change. This should include considering the nature and role of

the GFAR Committees and addressing conflict of interest issues (for example in allocation of

funds). Processes should be internally driven by the SC members, as external support would

require extensive knowledge, and high cost to steward progressive changes. The review

strongly recommended the need for a Strategic Governance Working Group (SGWG) as a

transition mechanism to guide discussion towards a wider assembly body, through which to

generate more legitimate ownership of GFAR, with effective representation, across all sectors

involved. Work must link adjustments to the operational basis of the MTP, with engagement

of a wide range of stakeholders. The Steering Committee must therefore itself take ownership

of ensuring the process of change.

The Chair thanked the consultants for a thorough job and stressed that GFAR and its role are

evolving very fast, but that its governance structure needs to catch up with these changes. The

document provides a basis for moving forward and this will also call for an overhaul of the

Charter.

The participants reviewed the recommendations, finding them sound. Discussion covered

each recommendation:

1) Strategic Governance Working Group: A specific Working Group should be created to

take ownership of the process in practice on behalf of the full SC. It is very important that

this process is owned by and on behalf of all constituencies. A new compact for

governance implies reconsideration of the definition of GFAR; there will be need to

review the mission and the mechanisms GFAR has to build partnerships, deliver on

outcomes and ensure accountability. It was considered better to defer further the external

review until the basic institutional changes have been put in place.

2) Regional Fora: It was agreed that the Regional Fora should also now reflect on their own

composition and consult with their national and regional stakeholder groups to determine

the extent and processes by which they wished to become truly multi-stakeholder fora.

3) Inclusion & representation: Constituent stakeholders must be both credible and legitimate

and accountable to their constituency. There needs to be a process for developing fair and

inclusive representation in each sector, understanding of the basis for each representative

and an equitable spread of representative organizations; self reflection is needed in each

sector.

4) Fine tuning Governance: The Charter needs much change to be made best fit for purpose,

based on the Steering Committee’s decisions, but this should follow on from the new

10

structure being developed and set in place. This should be looked at in more detail by the

SGWG.

5) Roles of the Steering Committee: The proposed combination of a tighter executive

committee and a larger, broadened Constituent Assembly will give wider ownership and

thus a stronger position for the Steering Committee representatives, the optimal size and

composition of which should also be explored by the SGWG, as clear liaison points for

the community concerned.

6) Membership of the Steering Committee: The meeting determined that the Steering

Committee should be immediately expanded to directly include advisory services

(GFRAS), youth (YPARD) and education (GCHERA) networks. There may be further

categories, optimal SC composition will need to be considered by the SGWG

deliberations.

Development of the Constituent Assembly, will require detailed consideration for

decision. Issues include a timeline for implementation, taking into account the balance of

cost of governance, enhanced representation and reach of the Forum, and the need for it to

develop tighter structures with clearer roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of

representatives to stakeholders. It is recommended that the Constituent Assembly meets to

discuss governance in late 2013 or Q1 2014. It is vital that it ensures maximal inclusivity.

This will raise questions for consideration as to optimal future SC composition and scale

in relation to the wider assembly around GCARD events.

The SC emphasized as a quality of governance issue that while saving could be made on

processes of allocation of budgets etc, GFAR should not make undue savings on global

governance and the value of bringing all stakeholders together for face to face discussions.

It is essential to consider “reasonable cost” and demonstrate the relationships among

strong representation, accountability and transparency, effective and efficient operational

arrangements among governing bodies, and prioritisation and delivery against defined

outcomes; good governance is critical and future organizational arrangements have to

serve the MTP delivery and strategy.

7) Executive Committee: The Executive Committee proposed is necessary for networking

governance and institutional governance. Much can be done through the web, but the

ExeCom will have to engage and be engaged, not work through alternative members. The

size should be 3-5 people involved at the core structural and funding basis of GFAR, to

facilitate decision making and keep costs low. This committee does not need to be multi-

stakeholder, but needs to be accessible to the Secretariat and work within the MTP

framework.

8) Resource Allocation Committee: The importance of resource mobilization and allocation

was emphasized and the need for addressing potential conflict of interest; in this regard

there was agreement in principle to the proposal of creating a Resource Allocation

Committee as a small, neutral body, to act independently of fund recipient entities

represented in the SC. The RAC will be stewarding resources of the GFAR Multi-Donor

Trust Fund and ensuring alignment with the Roadmap and MTP, thus reinforcing GFAR’s

outreach, accountability and transparency. It will not be a decision making or

programmatic body (that rests with the SC), but is crucial for stewardship. Programme

discussions are no longer considered to require separate Programme Committee meetings

as this is not considered necessary for governance of decisions; the MTP now involves all

11

GFAR stakeholders and issues should be considered through direct thematic discussions

and by decisions of the full SC where required.

Recommendations 9-16 of the report were considered to be sub-elements of the above and so

were not discussed separately

Creation of the SGWG was discussed as an immediate step. Regarding composition, the

Committee agreed the need to balance representation, but also to limit the operational size of

the working group to keep it effective. The Chair proposed a temporary working group that

would work with the Secretariat to develop propositions for decision of the Steering

Committee. SGWG membership would include 2 Regional Fora (FARA & AARINENA), 1

Donor, 2 partner stakeholder groups (farmers and advisory services) and 1 FAO

representative. It is essential that these individuals link effectively with all the different GFAR

constituencies to incorporate their views effectively. It was also agreed that given the

familiarity acquired with GFAR, it would be most efficient that MANNET should be

recruited as consultants for a second phase to assist in the governance transition process.

Decisions

1. Members moved to accept the report and generally agreed the proposals, recognizing that

some specific suggestions may require further discussion.

2. Participants endorsed the report’s proposals for a new and interim governance framework

with the creation of the SGWG, the Executive Committee (replacing the Management

Team) and the Resource Allocation Committee. Further work is necessary on some of the

components, for example regarding the governance basis of Regional Fora and outreach to

additional regional stakeholder groups.

3. GCHERA (for education institutions), GFRAS (for advisory services) and YPARD (for

youth) are confirmed as full and equal constituents of GFAR Steering Committee and

governance.

4. The Executive and future Resource Allocation Committees will play specific roles for

enhanced guidance; and for management the Chair, Vice-Chair and Executive Committee

will have oversight of the Secretariat’s role. The optimal composition and nature of GFAR

statutory committees will be further explored by the SGWG, building from the review

recommendations and will be agreed through the wider Constituent Assembly.

5. The Programme Committee ceases to operate and Dr Raj Paroda was thanked for his past

Chairmanship of the Committee. Future programme discussions will still be required but

should happen by thematic teleconference among all sectors involved in the Steering

Committee rather than by a separate committee structure.

6. A Resource Allocation Committee will be formulated among individuals from a spread of

sectors and with no direct stake in fund use, to oversee expenditure decisions and help

generate further investment though the members roles. It was emphasized that the final

decision making body remains the Steering Committee.

7. Creation of the SGWG with the following members to be identified by the relevant

Steering Committee members: Chaired by the GFAR Chair or Vice-Chair; for Regional

Fora, a representative from FARA and AARINENA; for stakeholder groups, a

representative from Farmers’ Organizations and from advisory services (as entailing a

diversity of actors); the Chair of the Donor Support Group; and the FAO representative

12

(for the GFAR establishing institutions). The SGWG members would be expected to

consult fully and openly with representatives of all other sectors. Ex officio, MANNET

would be re-commissioned to provide consultant support and the Secretariat would

continue its support to all. Its scope will include guidance on the needs for subsequent

revision of the GFAR Charter.

8. Dr Nikita Eriksen-Hamel was appointed to the SGWG as Chair of the Donor Support

Group.

9. Draft TORs for the SGWG will be circulated to the SC by the end of May, with 3 weeks

opportunity for feedback from the SC before finalization by the Secretariat and final

agreement by the SC on a no objection basis by the end of June.

10. Regarding the timeframe, results of the SGWG’s review and recommendations will be

available to the Steering Committee by the first quarter of 2014. They will contribute to

the External Review.

11. The importance of the 3rd External Review was noted. It was decided that the External

Review should commence in the first quarter of 2014, capitalizing on the results of the

GFAR Governance Review, GCARD Review, SGWG deliberations and Constituent

Assembly outcomes.

Moved: Nikita Eriksen-Hamel, Seconded Anne-Marie Izac.

6. Monitoring and Evaluation

Dr Yvonne Pinto, Director of Firetail, presented the Terms of Reference (approved in the

previous SC meeting) and approach agreed for monitoring and evaluation of GFAR’s

programmes. Her team will be supporting the M&E implementation over the coming months,

examining how the GFAR MTP maps and contributes to higher order outcomes and how

partnership actions will be responsible for reporting. Once there is common agreement on the

programme composition and contributing actions, they will map specific roles and how

different bodies are contributing. This will then be taken through to stakeholders, helping

through periodic support provided to improve assessment, generate results and deliver

measurable outcomes at various scales as a full M&E monitoring plan for GFAR.

Dr Pinto noted that reporting of M&E systems is a rolling process and frequency can become

more frequent as processes evolve, but annual reporting is appropriate, given the cycles in

related areas such as the CRPs and their Intermediate Development Outcomes. The process

requires clear indicators, targets and timelines. In addition, GFAR has requirements of its

development partners to consider, and it was noted that attribution of source and destination

of outcomes can be difficult without counterfactuals. The scope of the M&E system will pick

up both intended and unintended benefits. There will be a phased approach with regular

iterations and reflections on progress. This will include the need to establish how data will be

collated and stored to ensure information can be seen at various levels in the M&E for the

Medium Term Plan.

Responsibility for data generation, collection and summation rests with the implementing

stakeholders documenting the impact of their work. This will include development of

baselines to track against outcomes and demonstrate change. Phase 1 of the detailed

consultation with stakeholders will include face to face discussions with SC members present

13

during Africa Science Week in July. Phase 2, development of specific processes for each area

of work, will proceed in the ensuing months through to the end of 2013.

Participants welcomed this initiative and the phased approach. The need for action at regional

level was stressed, with reporting back into the center at global level and the consultants will

aim to provide supporting inputs to help get these processes started.

The CGIAR noted that attribution of CGIAR or GFAR’s role in ensuring food security was

extremely difficult. Improvements cannot be attributed to either alone and there is no

counterfactual. Hence, capturing the value addition contributed by involvement of the Forum,

compared to what would have happened without GFAR’s existence, would be excellent and

show the value addition and contribution of GFAR.

It was emphasized that contribution to analysis was very important for GFAR as a

multistakeholder body. Demonstrating our role in brokering partnerships and making change

happen in areas such as food security and poverty alleviation would be very important and a

responsibility for all, to show the specific contribution of GFAR across the organizations

concerned.

It was noted also that it was important that the SC constituencies take ownership and each

internalize the process and that stakeholders were able to demonstrate their value and the

value of working together.

Decision

The Steering Committee endorsed the phased introduction of the M&E approach going

through to the end of 2013, with development and implementation of systematic reporting

practices across the GFAR MTP areas in all actions, as each came into operation. The Chair

invited a session at the Africa Agriculture Science Week to discuss practicalities, at least

among the relevant regional or international organizations representatives who would be

there.

7. GFAR Finances and Budget

The Executive Secretary summarized the GFAR budgetary situation and financial prospects.

He noted the value for money of GCARD2 and highlighted particularly the awareness raising

impact it has achieved for the AR4D sector in terms of media coverage in the mainstream

press and social media, and by pioneering a dynamic participation of young social reporters

which has been adopted since by other conferences. At a cost of $US 1.65 million the event

was less costly than GCARD1 and as an aside it was noted that in terms of ‘advertizing

equivalent value’ benefits for AR4D sectoral investment, the positive publicity value of

GCARD2 was around 4 times the cost of the conference1. Multiple contributions were also

received from stakeholder institutions and through self-sponsorship by participants.

The current GFAR budget situation is very tight given the delay, completely outside of

GFAR’s control and unrelated to its performance, of an important European Commission

grant earlier projected for a four year period. Other sources have continued to provide support

but there have also been delays in receipt of funds to recover GCARD2 costs. Salary

1 Using the formula basis derived for costs and returns from the London Olympics.

14

requirements for Secretariat staff are covered for 2013 but operational funds remain at a very

modest level and these can at best provide limited support over the course of the year, as new

funding tranches are received. The situation is projected as remaining tight until initial

disbursements from the EC grant expected in the last quarter of 2013. The Secretariat will

continue to give priority to exploring additional funding partners to diversify incomes and

avoid high reliance on single sources. There has been some draw down on the Reserve, which

has a Steering Committee mandated level of US$ 500.000.

Nikita Eriksen-Hamel, as donor representative, emphasized the imperative of meeting current

staff obligations including existing consultant contracts. The governance review will be key

for future decision making on resource mobilisation and use.

Prudence was agreed as the guiding principle. The Reserve should cover at least three months

of operations with the mandated level progressively replenished back to the agreed level by

the start of 2014. The Committee agreed that there will have to be some delay in Regional

Fora and other stakeholders receiving funds for previously anticipated actions and this would

need some reprioritization. It may be desirable to establish a higher level of reserve in future

in order to avoid repeats of the current shortfall, but in the present funding climate it would

not be advisable to raise this above the existing agreed level. This should instead be addressed

as income stabilizes, as the governance review and its implementation proceeds, and new

governance structures and procedures are put in place.

Decision

The Steering Committee approved the Financial Report.

Moved: Claudio Barriga, Seconded Nikita Eriksen-Hamel.

Actions Arising

The Management Team and Donor Support Group will address these issues in greater depth

in their next meetings. The Secretariat will proceed with progressively recovering the reserve

back to the USD 500,000 level, in order to meet obligations at the start of 2014. Priorities

were determined and agreed as: 1) meeting existing contracts, 2) rebuilding the reserve, 3)

fulfilling the governance review and then after those, progressively consider activities that

could be supported. The Secretariat was asked to determine priorities among the requests

received. The level of reserve should be reviewed in future to ensure it was sufficient to

ensure continuity of actions. The Donor Support Group should also meet to discuss how to

help increase large scale support to GFAR and establish a higher level of income to sustain

the dynamic programme now agreed. The Executive Committee should be kept regularly

updated on the state of GFAR finances through this challenging period.

8. CACAARI Presentation

Dr Alisher Tashmatov presented the position of CACAARI in the region and challenges

facing CACAARI’s aims and role. The issues are particularly acute as there is severe

underinvestment in AR4D in the region, which suffers from major environmental problems

related to historical decisions on public management of agricultural and rural development as

well as social and political change. There are many obstacles to improvement, including the

15

dearth of qualified and experienced managers, very low rates of investment and low interest

and motivation in research. He called for delivery of inclusive and participatory National

Agricultural Research Innovation Networks (“NARIN”), through partnerships of public and

private institutions.

9. Chair’s Concluding Comments for the Day

The Chair commended the Steering Committee on a very productive day, summarizing the

decisions made on the MTP, the Governance Review, M&E and Budget. He emphasised

concentrating on getting the governance right through the SGWG and initiation of new

structures by the first quarter of 2014. Further meetings of the Executive Committee will be

needed to help guide the process of change.

The MTP is a living document with further stakeholder inputs and costing foreseen. Greater

inclusion of other stakeholders is vital to an enhanced Forum with youth, advisory services

and education now directly involved as equal partners in GFAR Steering Committee in

addition to existing sectors already included. GFAR will promote these stakeholders into the

CRPs. There should be a meeting in the near future of the Donor Support Group. He noted

approval of the Financial Report and the priority of re-establishing the Reserve at its

mandated level.

30 April 2013

10. GCARD Review

Dr Rodney Cooke presented the results of the GCARD Review. Building on his long

experience with and knowledge of the CGIAR, GFAR and the wider research community, he

had conducted surveys and a series of extended interviews at and around GCARD2 with the

range of AR4D constituencies. In his opening comments, he noted the need, from GFAR’s

formulation in 1996, to confront the research needs of developing countries and scale out

innovation. In addition, there was a need for common advocacy for funding research for

development. The subsequent change process has led to merging of the GFAR triennial and

CGIAR annual meetings and ultimately the emergence of the CRPs and the development of

Program Performance Contracts.

He highlighted the generally very positive exit survey of participants at GCARD2. The

conference built on the euphoria in GCARD1 for change within the CGIAR, offering an

opportunity for a critical look at the CRP and Centre portfolios (though too early to assess

CRP progress). The CGIAR Consortium made 15 Commitments at the end of the conference

to further transformation and moving forward on research in development.

The strong participation of the CGIAR and NARIs was noted. However, greater

representation of farmers, CSOs and Private Sector was desired in future, as well as

development partners with stress on uptake pathways. More critical comments from some, in

particular from the donor community, emphasized the cost of big events and the need for

more focus, future increase in representation of national AR4D actors and greater opportunity

for CGIAR interaction with donors. Research must address immense development needs and

demonstrate its contribution to achieving Intermediate Development Outcomes. It is

imperative that research deliver towards impacts, not just research outputs.

16

Further participant comments included more time for discussion and less time for formal

presentations, more interaction amongst participants and a series of inter-conference events as

part of a two year process leading to the next GCARD. These actions should be developed in

light of the GFAR MTP and CGIAR SRF Action Plan.

The review recommends a smaller meeting in future (350 rather than 650 participants) with a

larger proportion of rural development practitioners in a more focused meeting. There would

be fewer CGIAR participants and about a third of the participants would come from Farmer

Organizations, NGOs and Private Sector. There would be a clear, two-year joint GFAR-

CGIAR preparatory process building from national and regional levels to build the conference

and its programme. He also noted that GCARD should demonstrate value in contributing to

accountability of partners in delivering AR4D outcomes.

GCARD itself could alternate national/regional sessions with CRP sessions. There should be

a 6 month run up to the event with the CRPs organized into their three domains (commodities,

ecosystems and policies). There would be necessary linkages and discussions before and

during the CGIAR Fund Council meetings to optimize discussion with financing partners.

Exact timing would depend on the preparatory consultative process, with the global event

held preferably in a Less Developed Country.

The Executive Secretary noted the broadly favorable reactions received to the GCARD

Review and its recommendations from the CGIAR Fund Council. In that meeting, the

participants in general welcomed the study and found the recommendations well targeted.

They were broadly positive on the desirability of future GCARD events, recognizing the

recommendations to focus on processes building delivery of the Roadmap changes and

relevant multi-stakeholder actions and dialogues in each region, followed by a ‘milestone’

global meeting involving a smaller set of representative constituency focal points as part of

the review and shaping of the next phase of CRPs and the national impact pathways required

in the areas concerned. Specific individual feedback received at CGIAR FC Delhi was

recalled as: FAO support for recommendations stressed GCARD as an accountability

mechanism and that GCARD should be empowered for stakeholders to speak “with teeth”,

through connection of recommendations to FAO intergovernmental/regional processes; the

CGIAR Consortium confirmed the significance of the Global Forum and GCARD process,

noting the desire to reinforce its own role in the event planning, and the need for further cross-

linkages between e.g. partnerships and foresight themes. Other representatives variously

emphasized bringing consultation “down to the ground”, in particular capitalizing on digital

capacities to save travel costs; some suggested going into more depth on specific issues rather

than covering the full range and highlighted stronger representation of national-level demands

and priorities; and gave strong priority to addressing youth and gender.

The Chair opened the floor to participant’s comments, commending Dr. Cooke on the study

and its recommendations. There was overall agreement that the Review will contribute to

processes following up on the GFAR Governance Review, the GFAR External Review and

the SGWG’s deliberations. The document properly characterizes GCARD as a rolling process

over two years, held in the light of the Roadmap and MTP implementation. The need for

inclusive participation was stressed, noting the many trade-offs to consider in determining

conference size and cost effectiveness. There should be particular emphasis on bringing in

17

national/regional priorities and pathways to delivering change, building on preparatory

regional events. Specific participant comments were as follows:

• CGIAR noted action between conferences is key. The CGIAR has no mechanism and

lacks capacity for regional discussions except for CAADP, so the GCARD process of

mobilizing consultation is very valuable, in particular for farmers and NGOs.

Enlarging development practitioner and private sector participation is also important.

• Donors welcomed the review for the Donor Support Group’s consideration of the

recommendations and suggested adding a GCARD High-Level Segment, as is the case

for comparable conferences in other sectors. The Ministerial Roundtable and Uruguay

President’s address at GCARD2 were in this direction.

• Linkage of the GCARD3 agenda to the GFAR MTP is vital.

• Farmers suggested a substantial increase in their participation, as did the NGOs and

Private Sector. They proposed mobilizing farmer perspectives on the ground between

conferences, with particular links to processes such as the 2014 International Year of

Family Farming. In this regard, it was noted that the new GFAR governance structures

could include space for a “farmers’ council” to formulate perspectives and actions,

with similar processes possible for NGOS and Private Sector.

• GCHERA proposed saving costs by partnering with a university to host the conference

and bringing in students for support (and their mentoring).

• FAO recommended consideration of linking the CGIAR Science Forum with

GCARD, rather than it being a separate process. GCARD could also play a more

formal role for the G20 processes. A robust level of national agricultural research and

innovation system participation should remain a high priority as key players to achieve

outcomes at national level.

In responding to these comments, Dr. Cooke stressed the role of GCARD in contributing to

accountability and CRP Performance Contracts; demonstrating value to all stakeholders

including private sector and NARIs; aligning with other processes such as CAADP-CGIAR;

and addressing country ownership of these processes.

Decision

The Steering Committee endorsed and approved the review.

Actions Arising

The Fund Council position on desired format, possible timing and decision on CGIAR

financial support to GCARD3 is expected by July 2013. Systematic consideration will be

given to the GCARD review recommendations during the reform of GFAR governance and

the GFAR External Review. Results will contribute to the process towards GCARD3,

including regional events.

11. Renewal of the GFAR Executive Secretary

In closed session, the Steering Committee members renewed the appointment of the GFAR

Executive Secretary, Dr Mark Holderness, for a three year term, January 2014-January 2017.

Announcing this decision in open session, the Chair voiced collective recognition of the

exceptional quality of Dr Holderness’s results in building the capacity of the GFAR

18

Secretariat, enhancing the Forum’s strategic position and visibility, and attracting resources.

The success of GCARD1 and GCARD2, the robust quality of relations amongst members,

and success in progressive efforts to incorporate additional stakeholders and place the Forum

at the centre of AR4D augurs well for the future.

Decision

Renewal of Dr Holderness’s appointment for three years as from January 2014.

12. Appointment of the GFAR Chair

The Chair of the Search Committee for the GFAR Chairperson, Dr Xiangjun Yao, presented

the joint assessment of the candidates reviewed. She recalled that the committee members,

drawn from different sectors, were Nikita Eriksen-Hamel, Raj Paroda, Lucy Muchoki and

David Radcliffe. Dr Holderness attended as a resource person and Thomas Price, GFAR

Secretariat, was secretary for the Search Committee. Out of the 66 applications received, Dr

Yao noted that there were a number of very strong candidates under consideration that would

bring the relevant skills, experience and knowledge to the appointment. She informed the

Committee of the Search Committee’s preferred ranking.

Dr Jones thanked the committee for its fine work. The committee then viewed two video

presentations and followed one teleconference presentation by the three top candidates short

listed for consideration. The top candidates were: Dr Mario Allegri, Professor Ruth Oniang’o

and Mr Juan Lucas Restrepo. He then invited each member of the committee to intervene with

their observations on the candidates and expression of their respective assessments.

There was collective agreement from these discussions that the strongest candidate, given the

fit to the desired qualities and noting particularly his breadth of background in different

sectors, management capacity, cross-cutting experience, current role and strategic vision on

AR4D was Mr Juan Lucas Restrepo, who was selected as the next Chair of GFAR.

There was then discussion on the selection of the Vice-Chair, which becomes vacant when Dr

Barriga’s term finishes at the end of September. Members agreed that Professor Oniang’o

should be offered this position, given that her skills and fields of expertise were most

complementary to those of Mr Restrepo. In addition, there would be gender balance and

sectoral and geographical diversity between the Chair and Vice-Chair. Members proposed

that Dr Jones approach the candidates to advise them of their decision and the proposals for

appointments as Chair and Vice-Chair.

Decision

Juan Lucas Restrepo was selected as GFAR Chair with immediate effect. Ruth Oniang’o was

selected as GFAR Vice-Chair elect, to take office at the end of September 2013.

Actions Arising

The Chair to contact Mr Restrepo to propose his appointment as GFAR Chairperson and

Professor Oniang’o as GFAR Vice-Chairperson and confirm their acceptance. The other

candidates will be informed of the result of their application (done and both candidates

accepted).

19

13. GFAR 3rd

External Review

The Executive Secretary introduced the topic. The GFAR External Review is a requirement of

funders and is good operational practice. The last External Review was in 2006. It should

build on rigorous case studies across AR4D stakeholders and furnish feedback to help take

forward the evolutionary process of AR4D transformation. The review should include all

actors, should not be too long and should avoid duplication of the other reviews, building on

the results of the GFAR Governance and GCARD Reviews. Some orientation is needed from

stakeholders on the composition of the review panel: neutral, with diverse perspectives and

ways of thinking.

The CGIAR representative noted that its last external review was a constructive stepping

stone for change. Such a review can be a very valuable exercise. The GFAR mission

statement should be the point of departure. The ToRs need to be relatively specific and the

panel of experts should include resource persons specialised in partnerships.

The SC members emphasized the need to build on the preceding reviews and receive

guidance on the way forward from the SGWG to ensure success. The M&E process should

also feed into the review.

Decision

The Chair noted that these processes, leading to the External Review should proceed over the

next eight months. The Secretariat will proceed with development of the ToR. It will be

critical to identify and secure the best people for the review in light of the finalized ToR.

Actions Arising

The Secretariat will develop the draft Terms of Reference for the External Review. The

SGWG will provide inputs and the Steering Committee will endorse the ToR. The review will

start in the first quarter of 2014.

14. Conclusion of the 28th

Meeting of the GFAR Steering Committee

The Committee warmly thanked and formally expressed its appreciation to the outgoing

Chairperson Monty Jones and to Vice-Chair Claudio Barriga, who leaves office in September,

for their exceptional contributions to the Global Forum.

The Chair closed the meeting, concluding that he was very pleased that through these

decisions GFAR was now very well equipped to play the role of excellence expected of it and

be recognized at the highest political level. He was proud of GFAR and would always be

there to support its work. He thanked the Secretariat for their very valuable work in support of

all involved and wished his successor as Chair all success in his role.

20

Decisions and Actions Arising out of the 28th

Session of the GFAR Steering Committee (Istanbul, 29-30 April 2013)

Taking into consideration the results of GCARD2, the Governance and GCARD Reviews, and the GFAR Medium Term Plan.

Topic Decisions and Actions Arising Action by Timeline for Actions GFAR Annual Report All Steering Committee constituencies produce 1 page of text

(max. 500 words plus pictures), describing impacts and achievements in 2012 towards the GCARD Roadmap. The text should be submitted by all stakeholders in order to allow production of the report to be completed by the end of July.

Steering Committee Members Secretariat

Submission texts by 24 May 2013 Completion report by end July 2013

Appointment of the

GFAR Chair and Vice-

Chair

Juan Lucas Restrepo was selected as GFAR Chair with immediate effect. Ruth Oniang’o was selected as GFAR Vice-Chair, to take office at the end of September 2013.

Steering Committee Decided

Renewal of the GFAR

Executive Secretary Dr Holderness’s appointment renewed for three years as from January 2014.

Steering Committee Decided

GFAR Medium Term

Plan 2013-2016 The Plan was fully endorsed by the Steering Committee. Specific additional comments and inputs are requested from all GFAR stakeholders by the end of May for incorporation by the end of June. All stakeholders should draw on their own Medium Term Plans and provide timebound indicators of impacts as set out in their own plans, so that the overall Plan is based on clear deliverables and committed indicators of progress in each sector. The Secretariat will finalize the MTP document by the end June, including an Executive Summary. The Secretariat will explore with Committee members possible avenues for strategic and targeted contributions to the Post-2015 Agenda and SDGs development. The Plan was recognized as an evolving document, which required the elaboration of commitments and costs for the different programmes into fundable implementation plans.

Steering Committee Steering Committee GFAR stakeholders Secretariat Secretariat; Steering Committee and other GFAR Governing Bodies

Decided Comments and inputs by end May Completion end June Ongoing

21

GFAR and the CGIAR

Fund Council In the light of having full recognition of GFAR in the CGIAR Fund Council, GFAR stakeholders need to provide timely responses to the GFAR Secretariat on papers circulated before each Fund Council meeting. The GFAR Secretariat will collate responses received to inform the Fund Council discussions.

GFAR stakeholders Secretariat

Ongoing Ongoing

GFAR Finances and

Budget The Steering Committee approved the Financial Report. The Management Team and Donor Support Group will address finances and budget in greater depth in their next meetings. Priorities were determined and agreed as: 1) meeting existing contracts, 2) rebuilding the reserve, 3) fulfilling the governance review and then after those, progressively consider activities that could be supported. The Secretariat will proceed with progressively recovering the reserve back to the USD 500,000 level, in order to meet obligations at the start of 2014. The Reserve should cover at least three months of operations. The Committee agreed that there will have to be some delay in Regional Fora and other stakeholders receiving funds for previously anticipated actions and this would need some reprioritization. The Secretariat was asked to determine priorities among the requests received. The level of reserve should be reviewed in future to ensure it was sufficient to ensure continuity of actions. The Donor Support Group will also meet to discuss how to help increase large scale support to GFAR and establish a higher level of income to sustain the dynamic programme now agreed. The Executive Committee will be kept regularly updated on the state of GFAR finances through this challenging period.

Steering Committee Management Team and Donor Support Group Secretariat Secretariat Donor Support Group Secretariat

Decided Virtual meetings to be scheduled summer 2013 Immediate action, continuing through early 2014 Immediate and ongoing, with activities funded as resources become available Virtual meeting; date to be fixed by the Chair Ongoing

22

GFAR Governance

Review The Steering Committee accepted the report, recognizing that further work was required in regard to some of the proposals contained. Specific Actions Arising are as follows:

1. Endorsement of the report’s proposals for a new and interim

governance framework with the creation of the Strategic Governance Working Group (SGWG), the Executive Committee (replacing the Management Team) and the Resource Allocation Committee. Further work is necessary on some of the components, for example regarding the governance basis of Regional Fora and outreach to additional regional stakeholder groups.

2. Creation of the SGWG with the following members to be identified by the relevant Steering Committee members: Chaired by the GFAR Chair or Vice-Chair; for Regional Fora, a representative from FARA and AARINENA; for stakeholder groups, a representative from Farmers’ Organizations and Advisory Services (entailing a diversity of actors); the Chair of the Donor Support Group; and the FAO representative (for the GFAR establishing institutions). The SGWG members would be expected to consult fully and openly with representatives of all other sectors. Ex officio, MANNET would be re-commissioned to provide consultant support and the Secretariat would continue its support to all. Its scope will include guidance on the needs for subsequent revision of the GFAR Charter.

3. Draft TORs for the SGWG circulated to the SC by the end of June, with 3 weeks opportunity for feedback from the SC before finalization by the Secretariat and final agreement by the SC on a no objection basis by the end of July.

4. The Executive and future Resource Allocation Committees

Steering Committee Steering Committee Steering Committee and SGWG Secretariat to Steering Committee Steering Committee;

Accepted Decisions on creation and initiation of new governance bodies starting July 2013 Initial meetings in July 2013; active through early 2014 Draft ToRs end June; SC review and then decision end July Steering Committee

23

will play specific roles for enhanced guidance; and for management the Chair, Vice-Chair and Executive Committee will have oversight of the Secretariat’s role. The optimal composition and nature of GFAR statutory committees will be further explored by the SGWG, building from the review recommendations and will be agreed through the wider Constituent Assembly.

5. Resource Allocation Committee formulated among individuals from a spread of sectors and with no direct stake in fund use, to oversee expenditure decisions and help generate further investment though the members roles (the final decision making body remains the Steering Committee).

6. Dr Nikita Eriksen-Hamel was appointed to the SGWG as Chair of the Donor Support Group.

7. GCHERA (for education institutions), GFRAS (for advisory services) and YPARD (for youth) are confirmed as full and equal constituents of GFAR Steering Committee and governance.

8. The Programme Committee ceases to operate and Dr Raj Paroda was thanked for his past Chairmanship of the Committee. Future programme discussions will be by thematic teleconference among all sectors involved in the Steering Committee rather than by a separate committee structure.

9. Regarding the timeframe, results of the SGWG’s review and recommendations will be available to the Steering Committee for agreement on the Constituent Assembly in the First Quarter of 2014.

10. Noting its importance and the need to take into account prerequisite reviews and processes, the External Review should commence in the first quarter of 2014, capitalizing on the results of the GFAR Governance Review, GCARD Review, SGWG deliberations and Constituent Assembly outcomes.

Executive Committee Steering Committee; Resource Allocation Committee Steering Committee Steering Committee Steering Committee SGWG and Steering Committee External Review team

establishes Executive Committee in July 2013 Resource Allocation Committee established by September 2013 Decided Decided Completed; role ongoing as assumed by Steering Committee members To start in July through end 2013 First quarter 2014

24

GCARD Review The Steering Committee endorsed and approved the review. In the light of the Review and comments of the Steering Committee, the GFAR Secretariat in consultation with the CGIAR Consortium will prepare a short brief for consideration by the CGIAR Fund Council in July 2013. The Fund Council is expected to take a position on desired format and possible timing and make a decision on CGIAR financial support to GCARD3. Systematic consideration will be given to the GCARD review recommendations during the reform of GFAR governance and the GFAR External Review. Results will contribute to the process towards GCARD3, including regional events.

Steering Committee Secretariat with CGIAR Consortium SGWG with Secretariat under the guidance of the Executive and Steering Committees

Completed July 2013 Ongoing through 2013 and 2014 to GCARD3

Monitoring and

Evaluation The Steering Committee endorsed the phased introduction of the M&E approach going through to the end of 2013. The Firetail team of consultants will be supporting the M&E implementation over the coming months as per the previously approved ToR with development and implementation of systematic reporting practices across the GFAR MTP areas in all actions, as each comes into operation. There will be a session at the Africa Agriculture Science Week in July 2013 to discuss practicalities among the relevant regional or international organizations representatives present.

Steering Committee Firetail team Firetail team

Decided Contract in process; initial review initiated 15-20 July 2013

GFAR 3rd

External

Review

The GFAR Secretariat will develop the draft Terms of Reference for the External Review. The SGWG will provide inputs and the Steering Committee will endorse the ToR. The review will start in the first quarter of 2014.

Secretariat SGWG External Review team

October 2013 November 2013 March 2014