Strategy & Results Framework

ISPC Meeting, CIFOR

30thth March 2015

Session 12.0

Consultative and Collaborative Process.

CB

Consultation Process

• CGIAR Consortium Office & GFAR jointly organized and implemented

a broad stakeholder consultation both within and outside CGIAR.

Information available at: http://www.cgiar.org/srfconsultation.

• Two main phases:

– phase 1- 20th Nov to 12th December 2014 focus on: vision;

mission, goals, niche.

– Phase 23-27th Feb 2015 focus on “How well does the CGIAR

Strategy and Results Framework reflect a good roadmap for

effective agricultural research for development”

• Contributions Publically available at

http://www.cgiar.org/srfconsultation/srf-consultation-results/-

• SRF had seen “great revolution” and “maturity” benefiting from the

many voices that have been heard.

Decision from Consortium Board, Mexico

• Approved subject to following amendments:

– Inclusion of aspirational targets (as per earlier drafts of SRF)

– More excitement in write up identifying what is new.

– Shorten the document

– Focal point Marion Guillou, Ann Tutweiller, Wayne Powell &

Frank Risjberman

• Develop a two page “flyer” that provides an attractive investor

friendly document to be used by donors.

– Focal points Wayne Powell, Tony Simmons & Ganesan

Balachander.

CRP 2nd Call Guidance

(work in progress)

Introduction • This draft document provides guidelines for the CRP second call that

the CB will be invited to authorize after the FC approval of the SRF (April 2015).

• Recent discussions with Centres, ISPC and Funders indicate a preference for the establishment of a designed portfolio of CRPs with appropriate cross cutting platforms.

• Agreement on the portfolio will enable a targeted two step pre-proposals in early June 2015, followed by Full proposals in Jan 2016.

• “Level playing field” concept needs to be finalized and incorporated into final document.

Timeline Present - June 2015 Designing an SRF-responsive and internally coherent CRP II portfolio 16 March Circulation of final Meridian Institute report on the various options for clustering CRPs (the bottom-

up analysis)

16 March Sub-groups of Centers (and others) follow up on Rome meeting discussions to start work on (i)

producing an analysis/mapping of how the sub-IDOs of SRF influence the portfolio design options

(the top-down analysis) and (ii) identifying internal management mechanisms for the CRPs that

remove any perception of a preferential position for being a lead / coordinating Center (the level

playing field)

16-18 March ISPC proposes holding a virtual call of the working group that was involved with the SRF

(representatives of donors, CB/CO, FO, Centers, CRPs) to bring everyone up to speed on CRP II

process and solicit their ideas

24-26 March CB meeting in Mexico – to come to a decision on the second call process (as outlined here or

subsequently modified)

30 March-1 April ISPC meeting in Bogor – provide guidance on CRP portfolio including CRP alignments, new

initiatives, proposal template and evaluation criteria. ISPC intends to submit a paper to FC

summarizing their discussions.

Week of 13 April 2nd virtual call of the group convened by ISPC

3rd week April Draft outputs of the working groups on ‘top-down analysis’ and ‘level-playing field’

27 April “Berne-style” meeting on sidelines of FC meeting in Bogor facilitated by ISPC to provide feedback

from donors and others on the CRP portfolio design options and content

11-13 May 3-day meeting of Centers (and CRP representatives) to agree on the composition of the CRP

portfolio and cross cutting platforms/mechanisms – possibly facilitated by the Meridian Institute.

(Tony is sending out a doodle poll to check dates). Suggest ISPC / CO /CB involved in the second half

of the meeting to review and amend proposals for the final portfolio design (virtually or in person)

Timeline (cont’d)

June - Dec 2015 Pre-proposal stage and review

Early June CB invites Centers to submit pre-proposals (2 months)

Mid-August CRP pre-proposals submitted. Review period starts by relevant entities.

Week of 14 September ISPC meeting to finalize their review and subsequent submission to the FC by end September

Period for feedback from Centers on the review comments

Propose a pre-CB/FC meeting of Centers with ISPC and CB representatives to consider implications

of the review comments on the portfolio design as a whole and identify any revisions that could be

tabled to FC and also consider transitional arrangements for any elements to be dropped

7 November CB/FC meeting(s) provides feedback on the pre-proposals

Jan - Nov 2016 Full proposal stage and review – as earlier proposed in Guidance Document

1 January CB invites full proposals

30 April Centers submit CRP proposals

May to September review of CRP proposals by relevant entities and feedback

Mid November CB/FC approval of CRPs

From Jan 2017 CRP II implementation

Starts 1 January 2017 A ten year research portfolio

Assessment Criteria Pre-Proposals

To be applied to each CRP & Flagship

Cross-cutting themes (also to be applied to each Flagship)

Strategic relevance Gender and youth

Potential unintended consequences ‘grand challenges’ in particular climate change

scientific quality Enabling environment

Comparative advantage Capacity development

Named partners Intellectual asset management, Open Access/Open Data

Lessons learned

Assessment Criteria (cont’d)

Budget and staff time Cohesion

Staff time Programme of research

Budget interaction with other CRPs

contribution at the CGIAR-System level

Governance and management

Leadership & Management

Partnership

Target Beneficiaries

Target IDOs

and sub-IDOs

Total number of

poor

smallholders

Total number

of other

beneficiaries

Target

countries

Key

assumptions

CRP level

Flagship 1

Flagship 2

Flagship 3 etc

Bill

& M

elin

da

Gat

es F

ou

nd

atio

n

CGIAR Genebanks Options Paper

The genetic diversity treasure chest

Beans staple diet for 0.5 billion people

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-

environment-32039991

.

Vintage traits, Tempary bean & heat tolerance. (CIAT)

Process; Engagement, Planning & Preparation

• International workshop on the promotion of Public-

Private partnerships for Pre-breeding, Montpellier 2nd 3rd

& 4th Feb 2015 (Philippe Ellul organizer and motivator)

• Workshop 5th & 6th Feb in Montpellier with Genebank

managers, CO Science Team, Bioversity (Policy), Crop

Trust & FO.

• Weekly skype calls & iterative writing of final document-

March 6th.

• Circulation to Centres, FO & ISPC.

• Accountability matrix in preparation and will be finalised

to accompany final document to FC.

Purpose of the document

• This document responds to a request from the Fund Council for an

analysis of the: “funding for and management of the CGIAR

genebanks, including identifying potential implications in the event of

a short fall in the Crop Trust’s target endowment and proposing a

plan for submission to the Peer Review Team for its review and

input”.

• Due to a shortfall in the endowment continued investment is

required from the FC from 2017 to 2021 to support the genebanks.

• Three funding options are presented:

– minimum international and legal obligations.

– additional support to collecting, outreach and partnership,

– a potentially “game changing” concept for a more ambitious

proposal for transforming the genebanks and their use.

Core Activities of Genebanks (Option1)

• Core genebank operations: the minimum non-research activities

that must be undertaken by a genebank, and without which the

fundamental security of the collection or its use is at serious risk.

These operations will eventually be funded entirely by the

endowment ( Described Table 3 pge 11)

• Core collective needs: the minimum activities that are needed to

upgrade and empower the CGIAR genebanks to fulfill their

international obligations and achieve expected standards. These

activities will generally not be funded by the endowment in the long-

term: achieving minimum standards, data management & policy.

The needs for support to achieve standards will reduce significantly

once standards are met. ( Described Table 4 pge 13 & 14)

Koo B, Pardey PG, Wright BD. 2002. Endowing Future Harvests: the long-term costs of conserving genetic resources at the CGIAR Centers.

International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy. http://www.bioversityinternational.org/e-library/publications/detail/endowing-future-

harvests-the-long-term-costs-of-conserving-genetic-resources-at-the-cgiar-Centers/

Shands H, Hawtin, G, MacNeil, G. 2010. The Cost to the CGIAR Centres of maintaining and distributing germplasm

http://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/2566/fc4_funding_proposal_CGIAR_Genebanks.pdf

Summary of total funding needs and contributions from the endowment and CGIAR fund according to Funding Option 1

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total

Coregenebankrequirements 18.46 18.83 18.93 18.82 18.70 18.56 93.83

Collectiverequirements 1.60 7.82 6.69 5.42 3.67 3.08 26.68

Programmanagement 0.90 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.59 0.60 2.87

TotalDirectCosts 27.20 26.18 24.81 22.95 22.24 123.3810%Overhead(CGIARfundsonly)

&2%CSP 2.63 2.27 1.85 1.44 1.18 9.37

Grandtotal(Option1) 29.83 28.45 26.66 24.39 23.42 132.75

Contributionfromendowment 6.75 9.06 11.53 13.35 15.03 55.72FundsrequiredfromCGIAR

Fund 23.08 19.39 15.13 11.04 8.39 77.03

Timeline for Genebanks to reach performance

targets to be eligible for funding from

endowment (indicators & targets Table 2, page 7)

Use of Projected income from the Trust in 2017

(Page 16, table 6)

Expenditure item Projected use of the

endowment income in 2017

(USD millions)

Svalbard Global Seed Vault 0.15

Non-CGIAR collections 0.92

Crop Trust Secretariat 1.33

Existing grants to CGIAR Genebanks 2.65

Additional funds available to CGIAR

Genebanks eligible for long-term funding 4.15

Total 9.20

Projected contribution of Crop Trust Endowment

Recommendations 2 & 3

• Collecting, outreach and partnership activities: are activities that

make an immediate and critical contribution to the collections and to

the global system of conservation and use within which the CGIAR

plays a pivotal, leadership role. Such activities include targeted

collecting, capacity building and partnership projects, and monitoring

and communication of impact.

• Opportunities: correspond to the possibilities open to the CGIAR to

take advantage of developing trends and technologies and carry out

large-scale initiatives to genotype and phenotype the collections.

These Opportunities are outlined in Section 4.

Summary of total funding needs and contributions from the endowment and CGIAR fund according to Funding Option 2 ( more detail table 7 pge 17)

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total

Coregenebankrequirements 18.46 18.83 18.93 18.82 18.70 18.56 93.83

Collectiverequirements 1.60 7.82 6.69 5.42 3.67 3.08 26.68Programmanagement 0.90 0.55 0.56 0.57 0.59 0.60 2.87Collecting,outreach&partnership 1.09 0.75 1.35 1.35 1.15 0.40 5.00

TotalDirectCosts 27.95 27.53 26.16 24.10 22.64 128.38

10%Overhead(CGIARfundsonly)

&2%CSP 2.72 2.43 2.02 1.58 1.23 9.98Grandtotal(Option1) 30.67 29.96 28.18 25.68 23.87 138.36

Contributionfromendowment 6.75 9.06 11.53 13.35 15.03 55.72FundsrequiredfromCGIARFund 23.92 20.90 16.65 12.33 8.84 82.64

Funding Options related to these 3

recommendations

Summary comments from PPP workshop in

Montpellier- Feb 2015

• Broadening genetic diversity in most key food crops is an

imperative

• Genomics, informatics and high throughput systems

have changed the scientific landscape for gene

identification, characterisation and introgression –

challenges can be tackled now: previously too

technically difficult, slow or just prohibitively expensive

• Funding for pre-breeding is typically too low or

inconsistent for many food crops or non-existent for

under-utilised crops in developing countries

Funding & Clarity of Leadership roles

Public sector

• Collection, conservation

and enabling utilisation of

sovereign germplasm and

wild relatives

• Characterisation of gene

bank collections

• Fundemental crop

diversity research and

methodology creation for

pre-breeding

Private sector

• Systematic, rapid

development of new

varieties

• High-throughput testing

• Demand-led best

practices

• Seed systems and

deployment of new

varieties to reach farmers

Funding Options related to these 3

recommendations

Total funds required from the

CGIAR Fund between 2017-2021 Activities covered

1 USD 77.03 million Core genebank and collective requirements

(Recommendation 1)

2 USD 82.64 million

Core genebank and collective requirements

Collecting, outreach and partnership activities

(Recommendations 1 & 2)

3 USD 150+ million

Core genebank and collective requirements

Collecting, outreach and partnership activities

“Genebank Plus” (Recommendations 1, 2 & 3)