1

Change Management in the CGIAR Update

August 2008

Table of Contents

2

CGIAR System: the good, the bad, and the uglyCGIAR System: the good, the bad, and the ugly

The agricultural research landscape is shifting with the emergence of new funders

3

200

0 In

tern

atio

nal

$,

Mil

lio

ns

Growing Investment in Agriculture Research in Key Countries

Gates Foundation Annual Funding to CGIAR

Source: World Development Report, 2008 Source: CGIAR financial reports

4

$0.00

$10.00

$20.00

$30.00

$40.00

$50.00

$60.00

$70.00

$80.00

$90.00

$100.00

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year

US

$ B

illi

on

s

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

Pe

rce

nta

ge

ODA for agriculture Total ODA ODA for agriculture (%)

Official development assistance has grown, but the percentage allocation to agricultural research has decreased significantly

Source: External Review Panel, 2008

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003

Ave

rage

ann

ual g

row

th r

ate

(%)

maize

rice

wheat

The growth in crop yield gains has slowed, while food demand continues to rise rapidly

Source: World Development Report, 2008

Developing Country Consumption

Meat

Cereals

Horticulture

Growth in Crop Yield Gains

Increased demand together with high fuel prices, growing biofuel production and other factors have contributed to the food crisis

6

Table of Contents

7

CGIAR System: the good, the bad, and the ugly

8

CGIAR has evolved to a System with more than 8,500 CGIAR scientists and staff working in over 100 countries, addressing every critical component of the agricultural research sector

IFPRIWashington, DCUSA

CIMMYTMexico CityMexico

CIPLima, Peru CIAT

CaliColombia

Africa Rice Center-WARDACotonou, Benin

ILRINairobiKenya

IITAIbadanNigeria

IWMIColomboSri Lanka

ICARDAAleppo, Syria ICRISAT

PatancheruIndia

IRRILos BañosPhilippines

WorldFishPenangMalaysia

CIFORBogorIndonesia

World AgroforestryNairobi, Kenya

BioversityInternational

Rome,Italy

9

Without the CGIAR’s investment:

World food production would be 4 to 5 percent lower

Developing countries would produce 7 to 8 percent less food

13 to 15 million more children would be malnourished

Since its launch, CGIAR has delivered innovations that have resulted in feeding an additional 13 million people per year

Over the past 30 years, the CGIAR System has become increasingly complicated

10

1971 TODAY

11

The most important asset in the System is our world-class scientists, and we must enable them to do their best work

1000 internationally recruited staff, half from developing countries

44% of CGIAR staff are involved in core research activities

20% of scientists are women

Key Facts Women represent only 9% of Center management

positions

Annual staff turn over rate is about 12%

Of departing staff, 40% leave voluntarily

Staff feels that CGIAR needs to implement more consistent personnel practices across centers and thinking more about the role of international, "regional" and national scientists in an "international" system”

Staff feels that Centers should hire new people into the system to refresh the spirit *

Emerging Issues

To recruit and retain the most talented scientists we must create a learning environment along with management structures that enable scientists to do work with minimum red tape

Source: CGIAR; * Scoping Team Survey 2007

12

CGIAR planning, monitoring and evaluation processes are complex and duplicative STRATEGIC PLANNING

OPERATION PLANNING

Center Medium Term Plan (3 year rolling plan)

CGIAR Members and Stakeholders

Review System Priorities (by SC every 5 years)

Center priority setting and strategic planning (ad-hoc)

MONITORING and EVALUATION

Annual 5 years/regular Ad-hoc

Perform

ance Measurem

ent System

(PM

S)

CGIAR System Reviews

Inter-Center Stripe-

Reviews

External Reviews of

system-wide programs

CCERs

External Program and Management

of CPs

External Program

Management Reviews (EPMR)

Cen

ter

Leve

lIn

ter-

Cen

ter

Sys

tem

- Le

vel

Individual Donor/ Investor

Review

s

Each Center has a rolling 3 year medium-term plan

CGIAR commissions periodic External System Review (one is currently underway)

Inter-Center thematic (Stripe) reviews are commissioned by the Science Council to evaluate specific high priority themes

External reviews of Centers are performed every 5 years (approx. 4 EPMR’s per year costing$250,000 each)

Center commissioned external reviews (CCERs) are conducted every 3 to 5 years (costing $40,000 to $100,000 per program/division)

Centers report annually on their research results, institutional and financial health

13

Since the mid-1970s, CGIAR funding levels have stagnated

In $

mil

lio

ns

14

With additional resources, existing capabilities could be scaled up and out to provide even more impact on emerging challenges

Drought-tolerant chickpea Combating deforestation, the

source of 20% of annual GHG emissions

Pest resistant maize New Rice for Africa(NERICA)

- pests and disease resistant - reduced import dependence

Aquaculture techniques double yields

Disease resistant potatoes Drought-tolerant high-yielding rice Drought-tolerant maize with 30%

higher yields Flood-tolerant rice with yield 2-3 Super-early chickpeas

ILLUSTRATIVE

SOLUTIONS

CGIAR Capabilities

Untapped Capabilities

Capabilities Currently Leveraged Against Development Challenges

Table of Contents

15

Agricultural Research InvestmentAgricultural Research InvestmentCGIAR System: the good, the bad, and the uglyCGIAR System: the good, the bad, and the ugly

16

CGIAR launched a change initiative at the beginning of 2008 in service of greater impact

FROMFROM TOTO

Greater impact on food security and poverty reduction

Mission creep and trying to do everything

Duplicative mandate of the Centers without clear System-wide vision and strategy for impact

Complex and cumbersome governance and lack of accountability

Static partnerships that are not enabling scalable impact and research adoption

Lack of coordination among investors

Declining core resources

Clear vision with focused priorities that respond to global development challenges

Centers that collaborate, work toward the System agenda and priorities, and deliver impact

Streamlined and effective System-level governance with clear accountability

Strong and innovative partnerships with NARS, the private sector and civil society that enable impact

Strengthened, coordinated funding mechanisms that are linked to the System agenda and priorities

Stabilization and growth of resource support

The change initiative is designed as a highly consultative and internally driven process that is focused on four focus areas

17

18

A broad group of stakeholders collectively aligned on an inspiring vision and identified three strategic objectives for the System

To reduce poverty and hunger, improve human health and nutrition, and enhance ecosystem resilience through high-quality international agricultural research, partnership and leadership.

CGIAR Vision

A world free of poverty and hunger, supported by healthy and resilient ecosystems.

Global Vision

FOOD FOR PEOPLE Create and accelerate sustainable increases in the productivity and production of healthy food by and for the poor ENVIRONMENT FOR PEOPLE Conserve, enhance and sustainably use natural resources and biodiversity to improve the livelihoods of the poor in response to climate change and other factors POLICIES FOR PEOPLE Promote policy and institutional change that will stimulate agricultural growth and equity to benefit the poor, especially rural women and other disadvantaged groups

CGIAR Strategic

Objectives

19

Fivegovernance models were considered by WG3 but concluded that only three are viable. Key commonalities and differences among the three models are as follows:

Commonalities between the alternative structuresCentral funding facility

Key differencesCGIAR becomes a formal (i.e., legal entity) or remains an informal organization Degree of autonomy of CentersFunding of programs vs. institutionsPossibility of direct funding for research implementation by non-CGIAR CentersRole and composition of central Board and/or Donor CouncilOversight of the central fund and decision-making power for fund allocationMechanism for seeking technical advice and conducting independent evaluations

19

Other Institutions

CGIAR Institutions

Programs with measurable development results

20

1. The “Performance Contract” Model

CGIAR AssemblyIndependent Evaluation Unit

CGIAR Board CEO

CGIAR Office

Center / Cluster A

Center / Cluster B

Institution N

Science Panel

Central Fund

Bilateral Donors

e.g., Regional Programs

e.g., Climate Change

e.g., Germplasm

Conservation

Center / Cluster C

Center / Cluster D

e.g., Challenge Programs

Partnership Panel

DEFINING FEATURESIncorporated as international non-profit-organization

Centers remain autonomous

CGIAR Assembly: highest decision making body (Shareholder with voting rights and invited Members from among Partners)

Programmatic funding through a central fund

Professional Board, which oversees programs and fund allocation

Central CGIAR Office

Independent Evaluation Unit

CGIAR Board approves performance contracts with Centers AND other qualified organizations through competitive bidding and by invitation

DEFINING FEATURES

Institutional funding through CGIAR cooperative fundCenters remain autonomous but limited by the prerogatives of the Partnership BoardOne Corporate OfficePartnership Board has representatives from Donors, Centers, Partners & Co-SponsorsDonor Council approve vision, strategic objectivesFund allocation by Partnership Board

21

DONOR COUNCILDonors providing unrestricted

funds

Functions: Agree on vision, Strategic

Objectives Establishment of replenishment

fund Oversight of replenishment fund

NEW PARTNERSHIP BOARD

Donors + Centers + Partners + Co-sponsors

Functions: Allocation of unrestricted funds to the

Centers Foresight and strategic planning Rationalization of mandates System level fundraising Encourage synergies / clusters

Chair

CEO & corporate office

CENTRES(15, and/or clusters, and/or less than 15)

Independent scientific

committee

Appoint members

Allocation of funds

Provide funds

Manager of Fund

Appoint members

2. Partnership Board and Donor Council Model (preferred by the Alliance)

DEFINING FEATURESTwo legal entities: (i) Centers form a legally incorporated Consortium for common voice and joint operations (ii) a pooled fund provides both programmatic and institutional funding, where Centers continue to receive some funds individually

Strategic and performance-based fund allocation through Donor Council

Consortium Board of 15 with eminent researchers, development specialists and other experts

Independent Evaluation Unit

22

3. Separate Consortium and Fund Model (recommended by the Independent Review Panel)

BOARD

COMMON SERVICES

CONSORTIUM(owned by the Centers)

Development Strategy

Committee

FUND(Consultative Group of Member Donors)

PROGRAMS

CEO

JOINT RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND

STRATEGY(Triennial

Replenishment)

Chair

Results Management (including Performance Measurement System)

COUNCIL

Resource Allocation Committee

Chair

DIRECTOR

THE CGIAR PARTNERSHIP

Independent Evaluation

Unit

Science Council

WORKING MATERIALS ONLY, SUBJECT TO CHANGE

OTHER PARTNERS

Side-by-side comparison of the three structural alternatives

23

"Performance Contract” ModelPartnership Board and

Donor Council ModelSeparate Consortium

and Fund Model

Legal Structure &

Center Autonomy

Incorporated as international non-profit-organization

Centers remain autonomous

Centers remain autonomous but limited by the prerogatives of the Partnership Board

2 legal entities: (i) Centers form a legally incorporated consortium (ii) donors form a pooled fund

Funding Structure

Programmatic funding through a central fund

Institutional funding through Central Fund (IFAR)

a pooled fund provides both programmatic and institutional funding

Fund Allocation

Fund allocation by Professional Board

Fund allocation by Partnership Board Fund allocation through Donor Council

Governance

CGIAR Assembly

Professional Board

CGIAR Boards approves performance contracts with Centers

Could consider funding other organizations through competitive bidding and by invitation

Central CGIAR Office

Partnership Board composed of representatives from Donors, Centers, Partners and Co-Sponsors

Donor Council approves vision and strategic objectives

One Corporate Office

Donor Council

Consortium Board of 15 with eminent researchers, development specialists and other experts

Evaluation Independent Evaluation Unit Independent Evaluation Unit

WG4 is proposing the establishment of a new CGIAR Fund for international agricultural research.

Purposes of the Fund:

To mobilize adequate resources to meet the 21st century food challenge and the CGIAR Vision and Mission

To streamline, simplify, and harmonize the financing of the CGIAR System

To provide a single entry point for donors

To increase accountability and efficiency of CGIAR funding to donors, partners, and beneficiaries

24

The preliminary fund design provides transparency and flexibility to donors while also increasing the overall level of support to CGIAR

Key Gains to Donors Key Gains to Beneficiaries Key Gains to Centers/Programs

Single point of entry to the System Greater accountability Ability to direct funds to specific

windows

Increased funding stability Increased overall contribution to agricultural research Funding linked to development challenges

Stability of funding Increased level of financial support Efficient reporting of results to donors

DONORS CGIAR FUND CGIAR CENTERS with programs

Window 1(SO1,

Food for People)

Window 6

(e.g., Blue Sky)

Window 2(SO2,

Environment for People)

Window 3(SO3,

Policies for People)

Window 4

(e.g. ,Gene Banks)

Window 5

(e.g., Center support)

AL

LO

CA

TIO

N M

EC

HA

NIS

M

Acco

un

tability

Acco

un

tability

25

CGIAR FUND

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Center 1 $ $ $ $

Center 2 $ $ $ $ $

Center 3 $ $

Center 4 $ $

Center 5 $ $ $

Center 6 $ $

Center 7 $ $ $

Center 8… $ $ $

26

WG4 recommends the Integrated Program Model

Window 2(e.g., Food for People

Window 3(e.g., Environment for People)

Window 4(e.g., Policies for People)

PROGRAMS

Window 1Center Window*

*Center Window provides an alternate flow of funding into the Programs

Window 5(e.g., Blue Sky)

Window 6(e.g., Unrestricted)

Set role for CGIAR Chair as a major player in the global dialogue and collaboration on research for development

Organize at the System level consultative processes with non-member stakeholders in defining priorities and strategies

Provide predetermined core funding to CGIAR Centers as well as allocate funding to development partners to assure that results lead to outcomes and impacts

Diversify relationships to include ministries of S&T and other relevant public sector institutions

Define a clear policy of engagement and strengthen technical capacities in promoting policy and institutional change

Redefine the CGIAR’s capacity strengthening strategy

Establish a “Partnership Facilitation Unit” that would foster, monitor and promote partnerships within the CGIAR system and among Centers

WG2’s recommendations around partnerships:

27

Key milestones for the change initiative: How would you like to be involved going forward?

August September October November December

Formal Retreats

Working Group Content Development

Stakeholder Engagement

28

WG’s 2-4 build change plan options

Change RetreatLos Banos

AGMMaputo

Change Retreat and ExCo

Lisbon

Finalize change plan for ExCo Refine change plan for AGM

Consult on initial options

Consult on change recommendations

Consult on final change plans