Center s formal commentary on ISPC recommendations · 2019-08-23 · 1 A4NH – general comments on...

Version: 29 October 2015

Consortium Board Twenty Second Meeting CB22-12 Washington D.C., 1 – 2 November 2015

CB22-12

Additional input into CB deliberations on CRP portfolio

Center’s formal commentary on ISPC recommendations Purpose This document collates the Lead Center individual commentaries, received on Wednesday

28 October 2015, to the ISPC reviews released on 29 September 2015.

Contents (NB – This document is a collation of several received separately, therefore please disregard page numbers at the bottom of each. The numbers here refer to the page number of the overall document) A4NH Page 2 CCAFS 0 DCLAS Page 11 Fish Page 25 FTA Page 27 Livestock Page 30 Maize Page 32 PIM Page 34 RAFS Page 49 RTB Page 52 Wheat Page 54 WLE Page 56

1

A4NH – general comments on ISPC pre-proposal comments and ISPC and Consortium

portfolio comments with implications for the A4NH proposal

1. Overall Observations: We appreciated the ISPC review of A4NH pre-proposal and the “A”-rankings of the 3 CRP-level criteria assessed. For the phase 1 (2012-14) proposal and (2015-16) extension proposal, ISPC had expressed more concerns, which required considerable additional explanation. This greater concurrence seems to reflect a growing appreciation of nutrition and health outcomes by the CGIAR as well as their central role in the SRF. It also reflects important changes that A4NH has made in some past areas of concern. Most important have been (1) moving from a value chain to food systems approach that includes a new research in a partnership led by Wageningen University Research and (2) a new partnership with public health researchers at global and regional levels (co-led by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and ILRI) on improving human health which addresses a number of past concerns. We appreciate the ISPC’s support for these two initiatives and as suggested we will work on the details of the research and partnership arrangements. We also appreciate that support for our proposals for a more systemic role of A4NH in the CGIAR system with important details to be developed in the full proposal.

2. A more detailed response to “substantive” issues raised by ISPC are included in a response matrix below. There were no important factual areas. However there are some ISPC interpretations and concerns that need to be discussed and clarified (see below).

3. Concurrence of opinion: most comments - main points are summarized under point 1. 4. Areas requiring greater clarification are of 3 types: (1) those in which additional information is likely to

inform ISPC on areas of concern (point a; (2) those in which different perspectives will need to be discussed with ISPC to reach a consensus (points b and c) and (3) those in which ISPC and/or Consortium offer insufficient guidance (points d and e).

a. W3-bilateral funding – nutrition research is strongly demanded by donors, countries and partners. Currently A4NH is one of the largest CRPs and has a very high percentage of W3-bilateral funding (and low percentage of W1-W2 funding) compared to other CRPs. The ISPC expresses concern that the work is dictated by external interests and may limit the ability of the program to act as a Global Integrating Program. A4NH in its pre-proposal noted its capacity to coordinate a portfolio of large bilateral grants in its larger research areas. We propose to share with ISPC the details of our W3-bilateral research portfolio and how it is managed to come to a shared understanding of how different funding streams are and can be managed.

b. Role of A4NH research in support of scaling up and scaling out of development outcomes – we need to clarify with ISPC more details on research on “delivery science” research we propose. For example, we have proposed important delivery research with delivery partners in target countries for biofortification. Delivery is supported by W3-bilateral funding but there is important research and evidence for enabling (such as defining biofortification under Codex Alimentarius) that needs discussion.

c. Cross-sectoral engagement for nutrition outcomes – countries and development partners in nutrition understand that improving nutrition and health outcomes requires coordinated efforts across sectors. We need to clarify / negotiate with the ISPC in how we engage in these multi-sectoral processes for nutrition.

d. We need further comments on our estimates or impact and reach as proposed in the required Performance Indicator Matrix and beneficiaries table. This is critical for setting expectations on how we support development outcomes. Also the SRF target table covers only a subset of outcomes in the SRF and is not exhaustive. It is important that other outcome targets proposed are recognized.

2

e. The ISPC scoring of flagships seems to be based on a combination of research quality and ISPC priority considerations. Coming to an agreement on what is required is very different depending on which criteria (or combination) is an issue.

5. Areas in which we disagree: to be determined based on discussions under issues requiring greater clarification.

3

A4NH response matrix to the ISPC commentary on substantial issues in the pre-proposal

First half of the table is based on the ‘substantive issues’ listed in the memo dated September 25, 2015 Factual corrections in red.

Substantive issues identified by the ISPC A4NH response

The pre-proposal makes little mention of the impact of major nutrition trends/interventions on the environment. Not only is this a major gap relative to the SRF, but also little work has been done elsewhere. As such, this would be an ideal opportunity for the CGIAR to make a mark in the area. Elaboration from text: There does not yet appear to be much serious thought about how (or whether) this CRP’s research strategies should reflect the future impacts of climate. A4NH also does not explicitly target potential unintended consequences of nutrition trends and interventions on the environment… The ISPC recommends that consideration of these potential unintended consequences be given more consideration during development of the full proposal.

This is an important comment. Clearly food systems research offers a natural research platform for considering both health and sustainability. We are certainly willing to strengthen environmental aspects in food systems and this is relatively easy to do with partners with modelling work. For more detailed value chain and sub-national field research we look forward to discussing how much of this A4NH should do and what we do with CCAFS and perhaps other CRPs and partners (for example early partnerships with the World Economic Forum and the EAT initiative).

In the Biofortification CRP [FP], a strategy for greater consideration of trade-offs between biofortification and other breeding objectives should be elaborated, together with a strategy for comparing the cost effectiveness of biofortification in relation to other methods of meeting micro-nutrient requirements. Elaboration from text:

The ISPC considers that there are risks that what is proposed is too dominated by the one technology.

The ISPC would have expected to see strong links with PIM regarding the

intention to mainstream biofortification into policy.

The section on evidence gaps, research questions and issues is sound but not exciting.

The ISPC is not convinced that facilitator and convener roles should be priorities for precious W1/W2 funding. It is acceptable if these roles are fully supported by W3/bilateral funding. Similarly, the ISPC questions why HarvestPlus should develop regulatory standards and advocacy partnerships - both of which seem to veer into deep waters, especially given the complexity of the enabling environments in many target countries.

More discussion of the priority setting within this FP, i.e. how decisions will be made on which biofortification interventions should be scaled up in an equitable manner would be prudent. An enhanced focus on understanding the nutritional benefits to inform the longer-term strategy of diversifying and improving the quality of diets would be more convincing.

There is considerable evidence on the cost-effectiveness of biofortification relative to other options for addressing micro-nutrient requirements in different contexts that can be made available. Also in the delivery phase, there is much greater emphasis on how micro-nutrients can be provided by multiple foods. Mainstreaming of decisions on improving micro-nutrient traits with other breeding objectives is a critical goal in the next phase and more details will be provided in the proposal. The percentage of W1 / W2 funding proposed for the biofortifiation flagship is 20%. Delivery activities are funded through bilateral and W3 grants. W1 and W2 funding supports on-going breeding efforts as well as evaluation of effectiveness and efficacy. Of particular importance is research into scaling up and scaling out. The HarvestPlus program provides a great opportunity for the CGIAR to learn more about scaling up and scaling out challenges and opportunities that can be relevant for many other interventions and areas of CGIAR crop improvement research.

4

Gender also receives some consideration but perhaps not enough, especially with respect to the selection of specific targets for biofortification.

The Food Systems FP, though a welcome addition to the CRP, is not well defined in terms of its research activities. The FP needs to clearly specify the research questions as well as the approaches that will be adopted. More details are needed to make the case that the CRP has appropriate partners and a sufficient understanding of the enabling environment for effectively managing diets in the developing world. Elaboration from text:

There is a lack of specific detail on the kinds of data, methods and research products which will be targeted. Much more detail on what approaches will be adopted is required in the full proposal.

Regarding the Performance Indicator Matrix, measures for dietary quality need to move beyond simple diet diversity.

The FP’s attention to cross-cutting issues is, however, weak. While each cross-cutting issue is recognized, there is not much detail on how they will be addressed…It is not clear how A4NH’s recommendations for food systems would be put into practice…The ISPC recommends that these issues be mainstreamed and addressed in more depth in the full proposal.

More details on co-funding arrangements with the lead partner will also be essential in the full proposal. It is difficult to comment on the budget given the lack of detail.

We appreciate the support for this new flagship / partnership arrangement and we will carefully consider the comments in the proposal development.

The FP on Improving Human Health is speculative at this stage, though it seems like a promising direction. Greater emphasis is needed on understanding where the system may not have comparative advantage and if the CGIAR should be active in certain areas of research. Elaboration from text:

For the full proposal, it would be helpful to draw more focused conclusions from the convened consultations and the researchers’ specialist knowledge about the most significant agriculture-related diseases to offer more granular detail about the datasets, epidemiological methods and interventions that are likely to have the greatest impact.

The one at the landscapes level raises some concerns (as did the nutrition-sensitive landscapes in the extension proposal) in terms of the impact pathway - how will the research outputs lead to outcomes?

For the second area on zoonotic diseases, a lot of information already exists. The text mentions two priority diseases but then has a research question on “Characterization and prioritization” (presumably on the two priority diseases to keep the focus tight, but that is not clear). There is evidence of building on lessons learnt, but not strong enough.

We appreciate the support for this new flagship / partnership arrangement and we will carefully consider the comments in the proposal development.

5

This FP involves a move into areas where the CGIAR has not historically been very active. For instance, it seems to make sense to look at issues of farm management to reduce exposure to zoonoses, but it probably does not make sense for the CGIAR to get pulled in to issues like “vector resistance to bednet insecticides” or WASH interventions, where other organizations have far greater expertise and capacity.

Gender questions at least refer to women’s time but without more definition of the agenda, it is difficult to see where and how these cross-cutting issues will enter.

While the budget is probably appropriate for what is promised, more detail on the co-funding arrangements with the lead partner would be desirable (interactions with partners can become quite unequal if they are the ones bringing all of the resources; there is a danger that the partners would end up driving the intellectual agenda).

The Integrated Programs FP’s research agenda needs to be designed proactively and its evaluation work should be aligned more closely with the other FPs. The expansion into topics such as education interventions or delaying pregnancy goes beyond what was described in the call and does not capitalise on the comparative advantage of the CGIAR. Recommendations from text:

Research agenda needs to be designed proactively and driven by specific questions that reflect the CGIAR’s comparative advantage.

Evaluation work should be aligned more closely with other FPs.

Clarity is needed on the constituency for the evaluations conducted. Elaboration from text:

A key question is whether this FP is simply an umbrella for evaluations that are already taking place as a consequence of all the bilateral/W3 funding, or whether these are studies designed from scratch to test methods and theories. If the latter, it is important to test the effectiveness of different nutrition theories of change, but again there are valid questions about whether this CRP is the right entity to do this work. There are partners that can be mobilized more effectively; the CRP should not duplicate the work of entities like 3ie or J-PAL. The CGIAR is not responsible for nutrition work taking place in other sectors, and development budgets should be funding their own evaluations. CGIAR research funds should be targeted at considering how evaluation methods could be improved, not actually undertaking lots of evaluations. This FP would also do well to provide input to the other FPs, for example Biofortification, Food Safety, and to the policy-oriented

FPs and PIM…A key question to consider is: who is the constituency for these

evaluations?

We were surprised by the comments on this FP. This is an on-going research program and its contributions through high-quality research evidence to global and national nutrition strategies and plans are well known. The research portfolio was favorably reviewed in the 2015-16 extension proposal. The research team and the donors understand the details of comparative and competitive advantage of this team relative to other providers. While there is much to be learned to improve nutrition, we do understand that achieving SDG goals and targets and SRF ambitions for nutrition outcomes requires a much more integrated approach. As most of the target populations for stunting are in rural populations in low-income countries (or low-income rural populations in middle-income countries), agricultural interventions will be necessary but unfortunately insufficient by themselves. Siloed-sectoral approaches will not work and understanding the combinations of interventions in different contexts that will improve priority nutrition outcomes is essential. Much of this work is funded by large multi-year research projects linked to and supporting larger development programs implemented by NGOs and governments. We agree that it is important not to replicate work of other sectors such as water and sanitation. But understanding the interfaces and necessary contributions of agriculture and other development sectors in different contexts is critical and this will require much more joint research with other sectors than is currently the case if SDG ambitions are to be met. There are long-standing links with the integrated programs and biofortification. This FP also provides much of the evidence base for informing A4NH interactions with other CRPs and partners in improving agriculture’s contribution to improving nutrition.

6

A major issue for this FP is the relevance of the research that is proposed. The FP research agenda needs to be designed proactively and be driven by a more specific set of questions to avoid having project-related evaluations lumped together without much rationale.

The team indeed has multi-sectoral skills but environmental expertise should arguably be included. It would be important to see explicit attempts to pull in one or more external partners. The ISPC would recommend closer links with other CRPs so that the CGIAR can also benefit from the lessons learnt through undertaking these evaluations and not just donors in the nutrition sector.

The ISPC believes that this FP is over-funded relative to the main focus of the SRF. It is drifting away from its agricultural roots and not sharing the knowledge gained with other CRPs in an effective manner.

Policy engagement clearly is a reasonable target for the CRP. However, at present, the pre-proposal does not make a convincing case for this activity as a stand-alone FP on Supporting Country Outcomes. The FP needs to focus on policies relevant to the CGIAR’s SLOs, and justify the proposition that A4NH is the right actor to influence the policy environment in developing countries. Recommendations from text:

Revisit focus on policies relevant to the CGIAR’s SLOs.

Justify the proposition that A4NH is the right actor to influence the policy environment in developing countries.

Elaboration from text:

There is the potential for good research to be done, but presumably much of what is needed is not research, but policy advice. Whether the CGIAR is the right entity to provide policy advice is an open question. The ISPC is supportive of research on enabling environments but Stage 1 activities do not have any focus. If the CGIAR is really delving into cross-sectoral policies, then it needs to focus on policies relevant to its SLOs. Again, as throughout this CRP’s pre-proposal, environmental policies and impacts do not seem to get any attention.

The outcomes are not that obvious.

The full proposal will need to defend strongly the proposition that A4NH is the right actor and has the right skills to affect the policy environment in poor countries.

The ISPC does not have a problem with this activity being done under the auspices of IFPRI or this CRP, but it is a side activity rather than a research FP.

While this is a new FP-level program, it builds on impressive policy research linked to policy evidence and advice by a strong team of researchers, which is documented in the FP pre-proposal. The role of country ownership, leadership and performance is central to the SDGs and global development discourse, particularly for cross-cutting outcomes such as nutrition. Given the important role of agriculture for livelihoods in low-income countries and target populations, policies related to agriculture will be central but invariably linked to and coherent with health and social development policies. The policy focus and linkages will be elaborated more in the proposal and it would be helpful to have more specifics on ISPC concerns of focus and relevance. Support to country enabling environments will be central to success of the CGIAR in addressing SLO2 on improving food and nutrition security for health. This needs to include how agricultural policies interacts and fits with other policy areas. As noted in the proposal, the research team, led by IFPRI in partnership with the Institute for Development Studies (IDS) has excellent policy vehicles. From IFPRI these are through the ReSAKSS and Country-Strategy Support Programs (which complement the larger PIM research inputs through these vehicles) and through IDS with think-tanks and civil society networks developed through the Future Agriculture Consortium. IDS also brings complementary research skills such as greater emphasis on political economy. Addressing the specific ISPC concern on whether A4NH is the right actor for what is proposed and more specifics on what policies will be prioritized, should not be too difficult. The track record of the research team (CVs provided) speaks for itself. We see this policy FP as having considerable synergies with policy efforts in CCAFS and PIM. We will elaborate these and other points in the proposal.

[No substantive issues were raised about the Food Safety FP, but I’m including these here with comments on other FPs.]

Comments will be taken into account in the proposal development.

7

Food Safety. A lot of partners are mentioned…in the full proposal it will be imperative to see a strategic partnership strategy. Who are the core partners? What is their role in the FP? What is the role of donor partners, of international agencies, and other actors, etc.? The ISPC suggests that the full proposal should provide additional information about links with other CRPs as well as how this FP will be embedded with other FPs in A4NH. Gender consideration seems to be implicit in the pre-proposal rather than explicit, and it will need to be more obvious in the full proposal. There are also key issues related to value chains. The exposure to different food safety issues will depend critically on where the processing is done; and this in turn will have implications for gender, since in many systems women are responsible for guaranteeing household food safety through their selection of ingredients, methods of food preparation, and food service.

Other concerns and comments raised by the ISPC A4NH response

Overall analysis of the pre-proposal as an integral part of the CRP portfolio. There remains a strong sense that the work of this CRP is dictated by external interests…The ISPC is concerned that this dominance of W3 and bilateral funding may limit the ability of the program to act as a Global Integrating Program that would add value to the whole CGIAR system. The CRP is well aligned with the SRF…but there is much more to do in terms of prioritization of W1 and W2 budgets. It is challenging to talk about the coherence of the portfolio or the integration with the system-level portfolio when such a large fraction of the total budget comes from W3 and bilateral sources that necessarily dictate their own targets and priorities. The full proposal should be prepared to defend the proposition that there is clear alignment between donors’ research interests (especially with respect to biofortification) and the ToCs of the CGIAR.

In the first phase of CRPs, CGIAR funding allocations through the Consortium, were based on historical funding patterns. For the highly-demanded research in A4NH, the consequence was a much higher reliance on W3 and bilateral grants. Most of the W3 and bilateral grants are from a relatively small group of sophisticated donors that A4NH teams engage with and with whom we are co-learning. These donors have also made substantial inputs into the CGIAR SRF. We would be happy to provide further details of the considerable efforts our teams have made to raise funding strategically to support their work through W3 and bilateral grants. The funding constraint for coherence is primarily a lack of CGIAR funding, particularly W1. A4NH has attracted relatively large amounts of W2 funding compared to other CRPs. The consequence of relatively higher W2 funding has been that the Consortium correspondingly reduced the funding we received from W1. This overall lack of W1 / W2 funding does constrain A4NH from moving into new areas. To reflect this, we have proposed quite variable percentages of W1 / W2 funding across the FPs, much lower for more mature FPs and much higher for newer FPs such as food systems and food safety.

Overall analysis of the pre-proposal as an integral part of the CRP portfolio. The ISPC recommends that the CRP’s full proposal should explicitly address integration as an issue for future M&E…These [planned links to other CRPs] could be interpreted as laying the groundwork for potential site integration, but the topic is not addressed convincingly. The ISPC looks forward to seeing more details of how A4NH plans to undertake its agreed role as a GIP in the full proposal.

A4NH is happy to take on an integrating role. Can we assume that the propositions we made in the pre-proposal for this integrating role for nutrition and health in the CGIAR are agreed and that we can build on these? We also look forward to understanding the potential for site integration, for which there will be a number of national and regional consultations in advance of the proposal submission.

Overall analysis. There is some overlap in the objectives of A4NH and PIM, as much of the nutrition and health agenda operates through policies, institutions and

We actually reviewed this as we developed the pre-proposal and this can be clarified further.

8

markets. It would be helpful to be more explicit about the allocation of responsibilities and scientific specialization between these CRPs, in terms of which kinds of data, methods and research outputs each aims to produce.

Overall analysis. Another issue that has affected A4NH’s linkages with other CRPs has been the dual role of HarvestPlus/Biofortification as a donor and a collaborator. It is important that biofortification should not crowd out other potential areas of collaboration with other CRPs. Biofortification should not be seen as the only approach to addressing micro-nutrient deficiencies and important knowledge might emerge from more genuine co-design of research with other CRPs.

There are a lot of important lessons from the highly successful HarvestPlus research for development partnership that can be broadened to other integrating efforts that A4NH is proposing in food systems and food safety.

Overall analysis. There is little effort put into a discussion of the scientific opportunities. Currently, the A4NH pre-proposal is written as if each FP will be managed and held accountable to a logical framework with predictable impact pathways all the way from program outputs to development outcomes. This is a useful intellectual exercise, but it then offers little detail at the level of research activities and outputs. For the full proposal, the ISPC would like more detail about what each FP will do, including some discussion of intermediate outputs, in the sense of specific datasets, analytical methods or type of R&D to be conducted.

It is understood that more details will be required in the proposal than were provided in the pre-proposal. The question is how much detailed planning we can realistically do, particularly with our partners, without clear guidance on funding.

Cross-cutting themes. The importance of enabling environments is recognized through the work of two FPs but there seems to be a lack of connection between them and the enabling environment work within the other FPs.

These connections can be strengthened in the proposal.

Budget. The ISPC believes that W1/W2 spending needs to be prioritized. For example, given the level of external support and the delivery phase of this work, the ISPC suggests consideration be given to a downward revision of the W1/W2 budget for FP1 (Biofortification). Distribution of the budget among the FPs does not seem appropriate to their relative cost, positioning along the R4D continuum and expected impacts. Further, the ISPC is concerned that the W1/W2 funding is not being used to target the global public goods with the greatest potential impact. There may be missed opportunities to propose new initiatives to fill specific research gaps. The ISPC notes that [Biofortification] has the largest budget of all FPs: USD 50 million for 2017, whereas the guidance gave a maximum budget for a FP (over 6 years) of USD100 million.

The current expenditure in biofortification is $50M per annum. For Integrated programs and policies the current expenditure is approximately $20M per annum. Currently A4NH has 4 FPs and expenditure will be close to $100M in 2015. Based on this current data, this guidance on FP budgets is too low and should be revised upward. Achieving the ambitions in the SRF will require large, well-managed programs. We think that A4NH provides good value-for-money because it can manage large programs that have potential for large-scale impact. We would be happy to engage in discussions on how the limited W1 / W2 funding can be used to target global public goods with greatest potential impact. This will be even a greater challenge given low future expectations of W1 / W2 funding. A4NH strategies and skills for leveraging different funding sources in its overall portfolio will become even more important and as discussed above we will be happy to work with the ISPC on how we do this. Such information will also be important in understanding the likely W3-bilateral funding to CRPs. In our experience, W3-bilateral research funding success takes time to develop because it requires highly-skilled teams with a track-record of research success.

Governance and management. Differences between A4NH’s scientific structure and IFPRI’s management structure could impose very significant costs to researchers’ time and attention. To address that concern, it would be helpful for the full proposal to specify more precisely how the CRP will align with the operational structure of the lead center.

It would be useful to better understand this concern. We do agree that there are considerable costs to researchers that need to be managed. The management of A4NH works hard to manage those burdens within IFPRI and for other Centers but this is a more systemic problem.

Response from CCAFS to ISPC and SPPC reviews Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the ISPC and SPPC review of the CCAFS Phase II Pre-proposal. We would also like to take this opportunity to say that the pre-proposal process has been well conducted with clear guidance both in the form of guidance documents but also the process of discussing draft pre-proposals and receiving comments early on that the Consortium Office organized. We trust that, in light of resources available for Phase 2, the full proposal will need to be an improvement but not substantially longer than the pre-proposal. First, some more general comments: We note that Flagship 4 got a relatively lower rating. We agree with the ISPC that is a crucial Flagship

for CCAFS and are confident that we can turn that rating around in the final proposal. We note the proposed budget in Table 2 of the SPPC paper, and realise that some readers may see

CCAFS as having to deal with minor change, given that the 2015 funding is stated as 33 million and 2016 funding as 30 million, with also 30 million in the first year of Phase 2 (2017). We would like to point out that because of W2 resources we actually have 43 million in 2015, and that a drop to 30 million represents a major change. We are not asking for more; merely pointing out that the nature of CCAFS will have to change from its current form. The key focus will be in raising bilateral funds to fill the gaps, and we are optimistic that that is feasible.

We will work with whatever CRP portfolio structure is put in place, but that less CRPs makes that job easier. We think transaction costs should (and can) be reduced. As an integrative program it is a challenge dealing with 12 other CRPs and 15 Centers. We are thus in support of the proposal to reduce the CRPs to a lesser number as expressed in the SPPC document. Given the complexities of setting up the AFS CRPs, we believe that we can ensure that integration happens if they have a more time to consolidate the programs, and liaise with us. The currently proposed timeline is too challenging if there are to be major changes in the CRP portfolio.

The greatest challenge to a CRP is budget instability. We look forward to solutions to solve that issue and thus support the proposal to hold back some reserve at the central level to be used as a buffer to counter fluctuating funding.

Specific for comments to the summary: ISPC text page 3, paragraph 3 refers to research outcomes as part of the CSV partnerships. CCAFS comment: The term research outcome seems to be used in the same sense as research outputs and is furthermore confused with overall outcomes. It would be helpful if this could be clarified. ISPC text page 4, top paragraph, regarding M&E roles. CCAFS comment: CCAFS has organized its M&E roles in a different way than other CRPs and we therefore do not have full-time staff dedicated to M&E. Instead we have several staff members working on M&E, thereby making sure that the function is fully integrated within the CRP (one of those staff members previously led M&E work in a Center, so it is well covered in terms of expertise).

October 28, 2015 [DCLAS RESPONSE TO ISPC REVIEW]

1

RESPONSE TO ISPC REVIEW COMMENTS

DRYLAND CEREALS AND LEGUMES AGRIFOOD SYSTEMS (DCLAS)

We thank the ISPC for the review of the preproposal for CRP Dryland Cereals and Legumes Agri-food

Systems (DCLAS), and welcome the recommendations towards the preparation of a concrete full

proposal. Following the ISPC review of DCLAS preproposal, our representatives met with members of

the ISPC team, including Maggie Gill, Tim Kelley, and Paul Harding, on 22 Oct 2015 to discuss the

comments and to seek clarifications. We very much appreciate the ISPC’s clarifications at this meeting

which have helped us understand the comments in further detail and positioned us to better address

them.

The preproposal for DCLAS has been prepared in response to the CRP Phase 2 call for proposals, for

which the guidance1 document identified a portfolio of programs, eight of which were prop`osed to be

“agri-food system CRPs”. The first of these (Dryland Cereals and Legumes Agri-food Systems) was

proposed to meet the remit:

The goal of research should be to improve inclusive income, food and nutrition security, and

environmental sustainability farming practices in small-holder agricultural systems that involve legumes

globally and dryland cereals in Africa and Asia. Research should focus on the transition from

underperforming to functional value chains in these regions by breeding reliable and marketable

commodities (sorghum, millets, barley, grain legumes, forages), that offers diversified land-use (crop-

livestock-tree integration) options for small farmers.

The Phase II CRP, DCLAS, is a merger of three separate but related Phase I CRPs, namely, Dryland Cereals

(DC), Dryland Systems (DS) and Grain Legumes (GL), brought together with the specific intent of

implementing a cohesive agri-food system program. The Phase I proposals, prepared and approved

originally for a period of 10 years, structured the commodity programs, DC and GL, around the strategic

components of priority setting, crop improvement, crop management, seed systems and output

markets. Lessons learned from the first three years of implementation of these programs (mid-2012 to

present) emphasized the need for truly integrated functioning of these strategic components for strong

outcomes and impact. At the same time, it became apparent that impact from system programs can be

enhanced when anchored on commodities. DCLAS attempts to bring these learnings together for

increased food and nutrition security, income and sustainable natural resource management in dryland

regions, the most challenging agricultural environments in the world. The merging of three Phase I CRPs

and its inherent complexity, unique to DCLAS in Phase II, necessitates effective coordination of prior

information and lessons from three separate sets of players/stakeholders within a short period of time.

We made significant strides in this coordination during the preparation of our preproposal, and intend

to further strengthen our planning based on guidance from the reviews of the preproposal.

ISPC SCORE FOR DCLAS: 1 https://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/3915/Guidance%20Note%20for%20CRP%20Pre-

proposals.pdf?sequence=4

https://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/3915/Guidance%20Note%20for%20CRP%20Pre-proposals.pdf?sequence=4

https://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/3915/Guidance%20Note%20for%20CRP%20Pre-proposals.pdf?sequence=4


2

The preproposal for DCLAS received an overall score of C in the ISPC review. Individual topics received

the following scores: Integral part of portfolio (B); Theory of Change (B); Governance and Management

(C); Flagship 1 (A); Flagship 2 (B); Flagship 3 (C); Flagship 4 (D); Flagship 5 (B); Flagship 6 (B); Flagship 7

(B).

We present below first our general comments to the review, followed by our response to the key

concerns identified by the ISPC, and finally the clarification requests that we had presented to the ISPC

at the meeting on 22 Oct. We further attach a point-by-point address of the review comments, which

can also be accessed here.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

DCLAS is the one preproposal in the portfolio that face the complexity of making significant changes

from the previous mode of functioning by combining three CRPs to address agricultural research for

development on critical, but under-invested, crops of the subsistence farming communities of Africa

and Asia, together with their associated systems.

The lack of priority-setting analyses was one major driver of the overall ‘C’ ranking for DCLAS. We

recognize priority setting as a continuous process, and acknowledge that our current efforts in this

area were not fully presented in the submitted preproposal. This being an important ISPC ‘must-

have’ from the Phase I proposal, baseline surveys to assess demand and constraints have been

completed for most of our target crops in their respective target countries, and these studies are in

the process of being synthesized this year. In addition, we are also in the process of using geo-

informatic analyses, combined with ‘ground-truth’ing, to determine crop coverage across diverse

agroecologies and the prevailing abiotic stresses. Our completed and ongoing work towards priority

setting in DCLAS commodity research, including (a) data supporting our crop-country selections, (b)

demand assessment, (c) geo-informatic analyses, and (d) basis of our value proposition can be

accessed here.

Section FP4 (Seed Systems and Input Services) was rated D, though the SPPC preview in July

specifically appreciated the need and the structure of this FP. The nature of the crops targeted

(including the fact that most are grown as varieties and few as hybrids), and the difficulties in seed

production and distribution specific to these crops substantiates the plans outlined in the FP4

preproposal. Clarifications from the ISPC on 22 Oct identified the need to look at innovative systems

for seed production and distribution, including the involvement of youth and digital technologies.

They also revealed to us the importance of including critical specificities in this section, such as our

ongoing seed systems work within the Pan-African Bean Research Alliance (PABRA), an important

and well-regarded model, and our experience on the project, Integrated Seed System Development

in Africa (ISSD), both not in the current version.

The ISPC commentary, in general, points to the need to further clarify how systems flagships add

value in DCLAS. While we acknowledge that we can further improve clarity on this aspect, please

see our introductory comments on this.

A general, but extremely important, point that cannot be emphasized enough regarding the

nutrient-dense, climate-resilient crops of DCLAS is their significant genetic potential that has yet to

be tapped to any significant extent, as evidenced by productivity enhancements still in the range of

10 to 30% or more, when yields in the major crops are almost plateauing.

http://1drv.ms/1KmtPOA

http://1drv.ms/1M4qqoX


3

The various actions made in the last two years in response to previous ISPC guidance, and the

associated progress have been presented in the extension proposals and annual reports of the

component CRPs. These were briefly summarized at the face-to-face meeting with the ISPC on 22

Oct. The list of ISPC must-haves from Phase I and related actions are provided as Annex 1.

RESPONSE TO THE KEY CONCERNS IDENTIFIED BY THE ISPC:

Key Concern 1 - Clarify and consistently present throughout the narrative the target domain of this CRP -

whether primarily defined as an ecosystem-based program targeting specific crops (and why those), or a

commodity-based program that targets dryland areas. In either case, the justification for including

humid-tropics legumes must be convincingly made on the basis of scientific opportunities; and the

rationale for (i.e., added value of) combining the 12 crops together clearly explained.

We present DCLAS in the preproposal as a multi-commodity program involving two classes of minor

crops, both integral to subsistence farming in Africa and Asia. While the two classes of crops occur in

two different ecologies in the target regions of the program, dryland is the predominant ecology for the

majority. Therefore, the system research of DCLAS will be centered on drylands. We, however, point

out that majority of the AR4D for the identified target crops in the identified target regions is driven by

the CG, with very few alternate suppliers. This fact, together with their current ‘minor’ (underinvested)

status and their collective significance in climate-resilient agriculture and nutrition, requires that they

are addressed under a single umbrella to ensure continued unimpeded commodity research (breeding,

crop management, seed production). The presence of a few of these crops in humid tropic ecologies

requires that research on cropping and farming systems, and livelihood improvements are addressed by

commodity CRPs operating in humid tropics such as MAIZE, RTB, RAFS, Livestock (forage, crop residues)

and FTA.

Significant advantages exist in addressing crop improvement research of grain legumes under a single

umbrella, advantages that are only just beginning to be realized in the three years of existence of the

Phase I CRP, Grain Legumes. Today’s crop legumes share evolutionary history, which imply significant

potential for cross-learning from genetics to inform breeding programs. Similarities in their plant

biology also support research on the target crop legumes within the same crop portfolio. Despite

differences in crop bio-geography, which in turn have been driven mainly by domestication preferences,

adaptation mechanisms at the molecular and biochemical levels have similarities across the crops. Once

understood, these adaptation mechanisms offer the potential to extend production areas between

divergent agroecologies. Thus, the current crop bio-geographies are not limits, but opportunities for

cross learning to deploy fundamental science in crop improvement. Legumes also have some similarities

and challenges in seed dissemination, and in agronomic requirements, facilitating synergies in seed

systems and crop management research.

The CGIAR is specifically recognised in Article 11.5 of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic

Resources for Food and Agriculture2, where the Multilateral System is intended to include the plant

genetic resources for food and agriculture listed in Annex I and held in the ex situ collections of the

2 ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0510e/i0510e.pdf

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0510e/i0510e.pdf


4

CGIAR. The food legumes held in ex situ collections of the CGIAR referred to in Annex I are: Cajanus

cajan (pigeonpea), Cicer arietinum (chickpea), Lathyrus sativus (grasspea), Lens culinaris (lentil),

Phaseolus spp (bean), Pisum sativum (pea), Vigna unguiculata (cowpea) and Vicia faba (fababean). The

CGIAR Research Portfolio thus has a responsibility for the sustainable use of these plant genetic

resources for food and agriculture. Two of the species mentioned above (pea and grasspea) were

excluded from the Phase I CRP, Grain Legumes, on the basis of area and potential for impact3, and

substituted by the two most significant grain legume crops globally, with growing interest in Africa:

Glycine max (soybean) and Arachis hypogea (groundnut). According to FAO figures for 2013, together

they had a gross production value comparable to wheat. For soybean alone, the value is almost four

times that of groundnut. Alternate suppliers for these crops, though available in the developed world,

are not yet available in the developing counties, and until such time as this happens, their crop

improvement research needs would be covered by the program.

The figure above, derived from the FAO data4, demonstrates increasing gross production value for all

these crops over the period 1961 to 2013. The growth of soybean in Africa is especially notable, and is

worthy of attention considering that Africa imports 3 billion USD in soybean each year. This is a strong

reason for maintaining an interest in soybean within DCLAS. Groundnut has also grown, but less

dramatically, due to the constraint posed by aflatoxin contamination, which restricts its market value.

Recent success in aflatoxin management5 in Malawi has enabled Malawi to regain this as an export

market. This management (and breeding) opportunity remains important for the economy of

groundnut-producing countries in Africa, and constitutes a major reason for its inclusion in DCLAS.

3 http://1drv.ms/1ow7Iua 4 http://faostat3.fao.org/ 5 http://www.new-ag.info/en/focus/focusItem.php?a=2841

http://1drv.ms/1ow7Iua

http://faostat3.fao.org/

http://www.new-ag.info/en/focus/focusItem.php?a=2841


5

Key Concern 2 - Establish priorities and focus the 12-crop/dryland system research agenda – define a

timeline and sequence of activities that will be undertaken over the course of the first year (or more) of

the Phase II CRP to arrive at a narrower set of crop, trait, and region-specific priorities for this CRP

We acknowledge that the significant amount of background work that led to the prioritization of crop

and country/region for DCLAS was not described in our preproposal. We also acknowledge that our trait

prioritization for research investment in the proposed crop x country matrix for DCLAS is in the process

of refining, and is noted in the Table heading on page 37 of our preproposal.

Our initial prioritization of crop and country/region for DCLAS leveraged the significant data, based

mostly on 2010 statistics, used in determining the crop and country focus for the individual commodity

CRPs, DC and GL, in their Phase I. Using more recent data on area, production, productivity, poverty,

undernourishment, and related information from FAOSTAT and World Bank, we have re-analyzed the

Phase I data to reduce the combined total of over 40 countries that were targeted by the three

individual Phase I CRPs, to 17 target countries for direct investment in AR4D. In addition, 16 neighboring

countries constituting regional transects with similar enabling environments and/or agro-ecologies as

the target countries were identified for potential spill-over effects. The direct target countries together

with the regional transect (spill-over) countries factor in the determination of our value proposition, the

development of which is outlined here. The FAOSTAT data used for our analysis for AR4D prioritization

in DCLAS is further substantiated by our country-based geo-informatic analyses, shown as example in

Annex 2, and summarized here for Ethiopia, Malawi, Mali, Myanmar and South Asia. Our ongoing and

future plans for crop-country prioritization for DC and GL by geo-informatic analysis, as they stand

currently, are listed here.

As indicated in the section on General Comments above, analyses of supply, demand, constraints and

value chains have been carried out to a good extent in the bilateral projects HOPE 1 and TL II, and in the

extension phase of the DC and GL CRPs (the demand studies for GL are still ongoing in 2015-2016).

Some of these efforts, primarily pertinent to GL, are captured in the hyperlinked documents in the

section on FP1 of the DCLAS pre-proposal. They are also presented in the response to review comments

on the DC extension proposals that can be accessed here. Priority setting for DC was initiated during the

preparation of phase 1 based on the data available on demand and constraints in the target countries.

Efforts have continued during Phase I and in preparation for the extension phase to collect and analyze

data on farmer preferences, consumption, end uses, adoption constraints and other critical information.

Synthesis of the available analytical information for each crop across the different countries/regions is

ongoing as part of the extension phase. Demand analysis for sorghum and millets in four countries

(Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania) in Eastern and Southern Africa was completed recently6, and

will inform and facilitate targeting and priority setting during full-proposal preparation. A study on

prioritization of sorghum and millets value chains (flour, beer, animal feed) in the same four ESA

countries is in progress and will be available early 2016, while demand analysis for sorghum and millets

in West and Central Africa (WCA) is on track for completion during 2016. In the case of GL, additional

6 http://oar.icrisat.org/9013/1/Gierend_Orr_2015_ISEDPS_35-low.pdf

http://1drv.ms/1M4qNQ9

http://1drv.ms/1M4rTvi

http://1drv.ms/1M4spJW

http://1drv.ms/1M4sSf7

http://oar.icrisat.org/9013/1/Gierend_Orr_2015_ISEDPS_35-low.pdf


6

information from the ongoing analysis of demand and supply is planned to be included in the full

proposal. Such work including analysis of the divergence/congruence between farmers’

needs/preferences and scientists’ breeding objectives is expected to be part of DCLAS’ routine activities

to consistently inform priority setting from basic to advanced (more refined) levels. In addition to the

demand analysis initiated in response to the ISPC’s Phase I comments, priority setting is supported by

various impact and adoption studies and value chain analyses across many DCLAS target countries.

Previous projects such as DIVA and TRIVSA have provided analysis of current adoption status for a large

set of country-crop combinations as well as on the strength and research capacity of the national

programs for each crop. These offer additional dimensions for targeting and priority setting by

highlighting capacity gaps which are important bottlenecks and should be included in the research

support for countries.

Key Concern 3 - Develop a sequencing and feedback strategy for FP2 and FP3, such that evidence and

information emerging from FP1, FP5 and FP6 can inform other FP priorities

The organization of the current flagships of DCLAS is based on previous ISPC and CO guidance to

incorporate strategic R4D components (priority setting, crop improvement, crop management, seed

systems, and output markets) into a commodity research pipeline, with the expectation of routine

feedback loops. The utilization of feedback information is just starting to inform annual planning of the

commodity CRPs of DCLAS (DC and GL) in their three-year period of operation to date.

Operationalization of the concept will be made further explicit in the full proposal. The central point of

concern is the subsidiary feedbacks between systems FPs and other FPs. This would be considered at a

strategic level and elaborated in the full proposal development.

Key Concern 4 - Identify and justify a set of essential activities under FP2 and FP3 (trait discovery and

breeding) that must be maintained until such time as there is sufficient information to identify clear and

well-justified priority targets for pre-breeding and breeding.

As indicated in the response to Key Concern 2, and the hyperlinked documents, annexes and footnotes

in that section, research plans identified under FP2 and FP3 of the DCLAS preproposal is richly supported

by data on crop x country x trait prioritization collected in preparation for, and during implementation

of, Phase I and Extension Phase of DC and GL. Over the last two years (of the total of three that the

component CRPs of DCLAS have been in existence), we have started moving into a process of ongoing

analyses and feedback for research prioritization of crop x trait x country. While guidance and

recommendations from the ISPC, CO and donors (specifically in terms of bilateral projects) helped this

process significantly, part of such prioritization has also been driven by the more recent budget

reductions.

The breeding process is central to a commodity research program. It is a long-term process with single

delivery cycles spanning anywhere from 5 to 15 years depending on the nature of the crop and the

targeted trait. Continuous delivery of improved material to smallholder farmers is possible only by

maintaining a continuous pipeline of farmer-preferred new varieties. The commodities addressed in this

program are primarily subsistence-farming commodities. The AR4D for these commodities continues to


7

be addressed primarily by the CGIAR in developing countries, with very few alternative providers. This is

reflected in the current varietal portfolio in many countries, which entirely/substantially in based on the

improved germplasm emanated from CG centers. Persistence of the associated CG Centers over several

years to address the needs for these crops from subsistence-farming populations in developing

countries has contributed to what limited productivity enhancements and consequent livelihood

improvements could be achieved under constraints of extreme climates, degraded soils, suboptimal

research investments and research capacity, weak infrastructure and political strife. Reducing or

holding back the required research until a comprehensive socioeconomic analysis is completed will

severely retard the breeding pipeline and impact in farmers’ fields. On the other hand, input from FP1

in informing breeding objectives will likely be in the areas of potential new products, future markets,

implications of population growth, etc. Finally, one could state that crop improvement efforts in CG

partnerships have always been demand-driven, to the extent that they included farmer-participatory

selection.

Key Concern 5 - Merge FP4 with FP3 or consolidate with other CRP FPs dealing with seed systems.

The SPPC review of the DCLAS preproposal states: “In addition to their breeding value, the new

delivered varieties with innovative traits will need to be adopted by smallholders. This last mile step will

request a strong stewardship commitment and services from DCLAS involving its CRP scientists and

developers directly or collaborating with development agencies (eg GIZ?). The role of DCLAS in this key

part of the adoption process has to be better described and financially supported.”

Seed production for these minor crops is primarily addressed by informal seed systems, as opposed to

the active interest and operation of formal seed systems including SMEs and large multinational

companies for major crops. Active interest from the private seed sector is lacking primarily because

these are mostly varieties of high-value low-volume crops, with hybrids available at the present time

only for 3 of the 12 target crops. Restricted adoption of improved varieties of these crops in most

locations is due, to a great extent, to the absence of systems in place for the multiplication and

distribution of quality seeds. Farmer seed producers and informal seed systems are the predominant

avenues. Therefore, specific and devoted efforts are required to meet local demands for quality seed of

improved varieties and hybrids. Substantial progress was made under the TL-II project in the testing of

novel legume seed systems to build on local seed systems or to complement these and a body of

knowledge has been accumulated. Successful interventions for seed systems policy through the CRP has

been reported in the Dryland Cereals Annual report for 2013 (Tanzania) and for 2014 (Morocco), and in

Grain Legumes Annual Report of 2013 (Ethiopia). Please see also the related section under General

Comments above.

CLARIFICATIONS REQUESTED OF THE ISPC, AND RECEIVED (on 22 Oct 2015):

We would appreciate specific guidance from the ISPC on further improving the ToC and Impact

Pathway for DCLAS.

It will be useful to know the basis for the ‘C’ rating for the section on proposed Governance and

Management for DCLAS, and we welcome any recommendations to strengthen this section further.


8

Even as we work to address review comments from the ISPC and CB in the full proposal, we intend

to develop the full proposal from two different perspectives, a fully-funded scenario and two

reduced-budget scenarios. Towards this, we look to any recommendation from the Council on

critical components for two different reduced-budget scenarios.


9

ANNEX 1. Status of ISPC and FC “Must-Have”s from Phase I proposal review of DC, DS and GL.

ISPC & FC 'Must-Haves' From Phase I Proposal Review

DRYLAND CEREALS

ISPC & FC "MUST-HAVE"s ACTION TAKEN ISPC-1 Provide an improved analysis and presentation of the target

populations who can realistically be expected to benefit from the CRP 3.6 research.

Baseline surveys and demand/constraint/value-chain analyses have been completed for all crops across most target regions/populations. During 2013, geospatial analyses have also covered parts of Africa and India to determine crop coverage, cropping system, agroecology, and prevailing stresses. All collected information is in the process of being synthesized.

ISPC-2 Justify and prioritize better the proposed work plans on a crop-specific basis; pool research efforts in identified areas across two or more of the dryland cereals for greater efficiency.

Adequately addressed in approved Phase I proposal.

ISPC-3 Reduce the scope of research in terms of crops and target areas when likely effectiveness of the research at scale cannot be demonstrated

We have substantiated the selection of crop-country targets based on all available data, and are working towards defining and prioritizing crop-country-trait targets currently.

ISPC-4 Do an analysis of current work to identify barriers to adoption and shifting to new areas of innovative research and approaches to overcome these barriers.


ISPC-5 Present new and innovative approaches to overcome constraints to adoption of the range of technologies by the poor and vulnerable, particularly in Africa, and to increase the likelihood of impacts in their livelihoods


ISPC-6 Present realistic and research-specific impact pathways that carefully address the conditioning factors and incorporate feedback loops.

We are working on this.

ISPC-7 Show better integration of CRP3.6 with CRP1.1 (Dryland Systems), as well as justification for their separate identities or merger; there needs to be a plan to monitor the impact pathways for CRP 3.6 cereals research drawing lessons from both CRPs

Restructuring of the program along the strategic components was done in 2014 in preparation for Phase II, and this is expected to allow integration of R4D across the two CRPs. Further integration is in planning for the Phase II proposal, Dryland Cereals and Legumes AgriFood Systems. The Dryland Systems M&E platform is in the process of being adapted for Dryland Cereals.


10

FC-1 Provide further attention to Monitoring and Evaluation system Adequately addressed in approved Phase I proposal.

FC-2 Present evidence of linkages with the Regional For a Adequately addressed in approved Phase I proposal.

FC-3 Provide information on formal commitment of other partners Adequately addressed in approved Phase I proposal.

DRYLAND SYSTEMS

ISPC "MUST-HAVE"s

ISPC-1 Clearly characterize the target dryland systems. The proposal must define dryland areas of the developing world (including target populations) and identify geospatial distribution using a water balance approach that quantifies risk and severity of water shortage as the basis for categorizing regions that fall into the “reduced vulnerability” focus of SRT2, or the “sustainable intensification” focus of SRT3.

Dryland Targets now with greater specficity although we have not emphasized water enough in my view. The perforamcne matrix and other text addresses this must have.

ISPC-2 Establish clear set of hypotheses as an organizing principle to help prioritize the research and results agenda. reseach questions indicated for flagship 6 and others where appropriate

ISPC-3 Provide the criteria for choice of benchmark sites and development of relevant data to inform research requirements in both the biophysical and social sciences, and their synthesis.

This is now part of our statistics/data collection for the prioirty countries

ISPC-4 Refine site selection (including level of ambition regarding geographical reach and number of ‘action sites’) and characterization and prioritize activities to be carried out, working from impacts to activities.

FP6 now has few target countries/transects where the work will be done

ISPC-5 Provide more detail on the underpinning science and agronomic, genetic, and farming system approaches to be evaluated once the first phase has progressed.

Now part of the overall rationale for the new CRP

ISPC-6 Provide a more comprehensive theory of how social change will result from the livelihood, gender and innovation systems approaches espoused in the current proposal.

New ToC and impact patheays developed

ISPC-7 Discuss current research priorities and how they would inform and complement new initiatives.

We refer to other CRP's (CRP-CRP interactions) and external initiatives in the text


11

ISPC-8 Identify clearly the research interventions proposed as a result of the diagnosis of the problems.

These are listred in FP6 cluster outputs to a greater specficity htan previously

ISPC-9 Describe the framework of selecting external and Centers’ partners, their respective research activities, how these activities collectively contribute to an integrated agro-ecosystem research agenda.

Partnership section to be finalized

ISPC-10

Differentiate the roles of the crop/commodity CRPs and this system CRP (including avoiding overlap and potential duplication between CRPs).

Now the flow between flagships covers this point where asystems work is anchored in commodity crop improvement work

ISPC-11

Integrate available lessons from the SSA-CP. ? No relevant now c/w other lessons

ISPC-12

Develop a logframe (together with a clear recognition of constraints and strategies for addressing risks) and articulate pathways to explicitly link a cluster of outputs to outcomes and impacts and to the SRF system level outcomes (including clear quantification of results as the base of the M&E system).

IP, TOC and performance matrix cover this

ISPC-13

Include a performance management framework. MEL system developed since this review and new management structure explained

ISPC-14

Build climate variability resilience and sustainable dryland systems through an integrated program combining indigenous knowledge with improved technologies, information dissemination and engagement with stakeholders.

Climate change one of the stresses emphasized in both commodity and systems work

ISPC-15

Must Have 15: Redefine management structure to ensure that the Steering Committee and the Research Management Committee are not both chaired by the DG for the lead centre to avoid potential conflict of interest.

Now not relevant but a new management structure is included in pre-proposal

ISPC-16

Must Have 16: Broaden the focus of the proposal to include Latin America and South Asia Both these are now part of the new CRP

GRAIN LEGUMES

ISPC & FC "MUST-HAVE"s ACTION TAKEN


12

ISPC-1a

Objectively demonstrate the relative importance of these crops in the CGIAR portfolio, drawing on information related to GL-specific producers and consumers in the different target regions

Data/information collected. MDW to revise Justification. Additional information to be provided in Appendix.

ISPC-1b

Undertake a comprehensive assessment of past research efforts and current barriers to adoption of technology, as a basis for identifying key constraints and opportunities that could be influenced by CRP 3.5 research products

2nd draft of assessment of past research ready to be shared with other centers for further inputs. Information to be used for revision of Justification chapter, and will go as Appendix.

ISPC-1c

Establish targets for outcomes in a crop by region matrix to account for actual situations and current status from a regional and crop species perspective, and strengthen capacity to prioritize allocation of resources for GL research within this CRP and within the CGIAR

Comments/inputs received. 2nd draft to be shared with other Centers. Outcome targets being discussed (virtual).

ISPC-2 A workplan with more focus and fewer product lines: that this CRP concluded with such a large number of product lines (61 crop/traits for genetic improvement) indicates the difficulty of moving from individual programs to a global program within a CRP

2nd draft of workplan ready. Will be shared again with other centers for additional inputs (to be included as Appendix). Table of priority trait/crop revised.

ISPC-3 Given limited success to date in the adoption of improved GL technologies, demonstrate feasible impact pathways, citing relevant references and documentation

Revision being done.

ISPC-4 This CRP should be closely allied to and integrated into the system CRPs, and particularly CRP 1.1

Revised 2nd draft ready for sharing with Centers

ISPC-5 Highlight the new and most promising areas of research: the list of innovation initiatives and cross-learning opportunities on p122-123 are ambitious and commendable and deserve a more prominent place in the proposal, with an explanation of the value that would be generated by succeeding in each of these initiatives

Revised 2nd draft ready for additional inputs by Centers

ISPC-6 Management and Governance Revision being made

FC-1 Higher degree of prioritization, both at the thematic and at the geographic levels, is required

Data/information collected to revise Justification. Information to be used in revision.

FC-2 Further attention should be given to M&E system Revision after M&E report from Consortium Board.


13

FC-3 Farmers’ organizations, extension workers and NGOs are under-represented; need to provide details on specific organizations and their role, especially in SSA; proposal needs to show evidence of involvement of sub-regional organizations and their networks

2nd draft of write-up ready. To be shared with Centers for inputs.

FC-4 Specify practical commitments and investments required of other partners engaged

2nd draft ready to be shared with Centers

FC-5 Further analysis is needed on possible trade-offs implied by the new emphasis on value chains; proponents need to consider location specificity that IPGs may be difficult to generate in deciding on which value chains to select for intensive research

2nd draft ready to be shared with partners

FC-6 Participatory technology development through enhanced on-farm research, with farmers managing their own fields, is recommended to be part of the program; it needs to refocus SO3 to include cropping systems research on farm and with farmers

Revised 2nd draft of SO3 ready to be shared with partners.

FC-7 Need better integration of the crop improvement aspects with resource management

Revised 2nd draft ready to be shared with partners.

FC-8 Provide description of the relationship with other initiatives like Tropical Legumes I and II (TL I and TL II)


FC-9 Links to CRP 2 could be better articulated on the issue of policy bias against small farm enterprises, which generally characterize grain legume production


FC-10 Budget allocations for SO1 (genetic resources) for CRP 3.5 should be differentiated from the budget allocation that was made for the genebanks



14

ANNEX 2: Example of Analysis for Crop-Country-Tait Prioritization (more hyperlinked above)

WorldFish Response to ISPC Commentary on CRP Portfolio and fish agri-food systems pre-proposal

27 October 2015

We welcome the opportunity to provide feedback on the ISPC commentary on the pre-proposal for the fish agri-food systems CRP, and their observations on the CRP Portfolio as a whole. In doing so we draw on the constructive discussions held with the ISPC in Paris on 29 September, and in Rome on 23 October. CRP 2 Portfolio. We agree with many of the issues identified by the ISPC’s review of the CRP 2 Portfolio. In particular we welcome the analysis of the Portfolio’s contributions to the SRF and the reiteration of the importance of gender, of focusing upon the CGIAR’s comparative advantage, and of specifying clear scaling strategies. We note the ISPC’s comments about integration across the Portfolio and agree that more specificity around the steps required to achieve this will improve the full proposals. Fish agri-food system CRP. We have benefitted from meeting with the ISPC on 23 October to clarify comments made about the pre-proposal. This meeting focused on nine major issues where we sought such clarification: theory of change and impact pathways; alignment with SLOs; science content and approach; program coherence; geographical focus and beneficiaries (including scaling strategy); networking and partnerships; gender analysis and priority-setting; budget allocation vs science priorities; program governance and management. As a result of this discussion we now have a much clearer understanding of the ISPC’s view on these issues. In particular the ISPC clarified the overarching importance they place on specifying an overarching program level Theory of Change (ToC) and Impact Pathway (IP), and using this in a very practical way to drive prioritization of the program’s research, partnerships, capacity building and scaling strategies. We welcome this clarity and are confident that we can strengthen the program’s ToC and IP to address the ISPC’s concerns. This will involve tighter specification of the program’s alignment with the SLOs, our science content, and geographical focus. We also found the ISPC’s clarification of their perspective on comparative advantage and choice of partners to be particularly helpful. In response we will provide more detail on the comparisons made in identifying partners and how we have used out ToC and IP to guide this process. In our submission to the ISPC in preparation for the 23 October meeting we highlighted a number of areas where we considered the analysis to be mistaken or have misinterpreted our intent, including comments regarding the proposed governance arrangement for the program, the (inaccurate) suggestion that the program proposed “taking a major role in discussing the management of global oceanic fish stocks …”, and the interpretation of the summary budget figures

provided. Our discussion with the ISPC helped clarify these issues and we will endeavor to write the full proposal so as to avoid these misunderstandings. Recommendations going forward. On the basis of this discussion we have agreed to pursue the following steps proposed by ISPC (subject to retention of the portfolio of 12 CRPs):

(i) revise the 10 page Summary Narrative to reflect the feedback provided (ii) revise the two flagships ranked C (iii) resubmit these at a date agree with the other C-rated CRPs (December?)

– with a view to receiving ISPC comments back three weeks later (iv) continue to prepare for development of the full proposals in conjunction

with this further review process. We welcome this guidance and look forward to revising as proposed. In doing so we will consider some restructuring of the proposal in line with learning from this review process and the likelihood of reduced funding. This will probably lead to reduction to three flagships and some reduction of clusters.

1

Response to ISPC Comments on FTA Phase 2 Pre-proposal Prepared by FTA team and submitted by CIFOR as Lead Center 27 October 2015 Note: main ISPC comments are in italics We welcome the comments by the ISPC on the FTA 2 pre-proposal and find that none of the proposed changes is unattainable. We will therefore endeavor to address all relevant suggestions for improvement and better efficiency. We also want to emphasize the greatly improved integration introduced with the new portfolio of 12 CRPs. The development of FTA 2 has built on the agreed portfolio framework and is structured around the value chains and systems related to forests and trees that are key to 1bn+ livelihoods. This has helped to provide a specific focus on the role of forest and trees in the overall CGIAR mission, addressing each of the three SLOs. 1. FTA should continue to consider and explicitly state its comparative and collaborative

advantage in establishing and deepening strategic partnerships. Response: This is definitely an area where we will put significant effort in to providing more clarity in rationale and explanation about our partnership strategy in the full-proposal. We are currently developing new strategic partnerships for the FTA phase 2 to reflect changes in the outside world of FT&A policy and practice that affect our impact pathways.

2. The full proposal should specify assumptions (based on credible science) underlying the

CRP-level ToC and FP-level hypotheses, including consideration of the trade-offs. Response: The page limitation didn’t allow us to give full credit to the issue to the extent we wanted. We already presented the background, assumptions and rationale between the estimated FTA contribution to SRF targets by 2022 and the associated value proposition. Based on this solid basis and also in collaboration with the partners (see point 1 above), we will elaborate on assumptions and trade-offs more clearly.

3. The pre-proposal’s consideration of enabling environment is at a fairly high level, and the

full proposal should clearly spell out how this has (and will) influenced framing of research questions and strategies at all levels. Response: As recognized by the ISPC “FTA, in many senses, appears to be a hybrid of the old “systems” CRPs with integrative and AFS-CRPs. This approach, integrative in nature, is evident in the research questions which Flagships (hereafter FPs) address”. FTA represents a systems approach that has been tested and evaluated fully (FTA External Evaluation, 2014) and in its parts (e.g. FP4 was evaluated in 2015 by Overseas Development Institute – report to be released at the end of October). Our work is targeting manageable outcomes, changes in policies and therefore addressing the issue of enabling policy environment which is often forgotten in more biophysically oriented work. FTA is meaningfully and significantly

2

responding to many challenges identified in the SDGs and the CGIAR SLOs. A particularly important underlying link exists between FT&A resources and their management on one hand, and the underlying ecosystem services that support agricultural production, on the other (e.g. water, biodiversity). We will update and elaborate more fully our main research activities and frame this broad impact pathway to be reflected in our refined theory of change.

4. While FTA Phase II has a clearer rationale on sentinel sites, now nested within four

ecological observatory landscapes, the linkage and integration of activities in these sites (Flagship 6) with other Flagships needs to be clearly articulated. Similarly, site integration plans with other CRPs need better rationale and justification. Response: This is well noted. We continue to consider the sentinel landscapes network a signature product of FTA and will express better the various links and articulations between the SLs as long term research and monitoring sites and the FPs. We will also explain better our integration plan and work actively with the other CRPs or Centers leading integration in specific countries and region. We will put particularly emphasis on aligning FTA work with the sites identified for intensified integration (++ and + sites) where adequate and possible.

5. FP4 (management and restoration of trees) requires reconsideration, and three Flagships

(FP1, FP5, FP7) need reformulation or reconceptualization as per the commentaries below for specific Flagships (Section 6). Response: On FP1, we will take into account the suggestion to clarify the assumptions underlying

the hypotheses as well as the scientific approach. In the full proposal, we will also elaborate how priority setting will be undertaken.

On FP4, we intend to address the concerns expressed, strengthening the logic of the integration of restoration and management of forests and other approaches to address timber demand in the future and are scheduling a specific workshop to do so. All options will be examined but we will ensure consistency across and within FPs by possibly shifting CoA and redefining the whole objective of the FP. Without this work on sustainable production of legal forest products (timber and not timber) it will be very difficult to achieve some sub-IDOs and to answer to SDG 15.

On FP5, we will take full consideration of the comments received during the development of the full proposal. Main issues are the inclusion of a political economy analysis (consideration of power and political dynamics) in the theory of change by making explicit the conditions that would facilitate or constraint the adoption of improved practices and business models in the corporate sector, thus affecting the achievement of intended outcomes. We will also address specific issues raised with regards to CoA 5.2 by considering more explicitly the financial and economic feasibility on business models with potential to deliver improved social and environmental benefits, and CoA 5.3 by placing greater consideration to the political and economic conditions that work against the adoption of sustainable and inclusive business models, and the enabling environment that could facilitate scaling up of successful models.

On FP6, we are committed to take the valid comments raised into account in developing a full proposal, with the broadened partnership intended. Where the ecosystem services

3

work in this flagship is to be coordinated with PIM.5 (on governance and tenure aspects) and WLE (on interactions with wetlands, blue water use and land restoration), the ISPC-requested restructuring of WLE is a concern to us. We look forward to active dialogue on how best to take these comments into account in the next weeks, as soon as decisions on the portfolio as a whole have been made.

On FP7, we will work on elaborating more how a broader agenda (addition of biofuel-related research) provides a higher-level entry point for raising rural livelihoods through non-food FT&A products that are at the heart of non-fossil-fuel emission scenarios. We will reflect on the comments made and provide more specific hypothesis formulation and a link to and better justification of this under the aspect of IPG generation, and on the need for case studies (in our adaptation work) as a means to test approaches to joint landscape-level scenario development before scaling them up. We will elaborate on the fact that some of the addressed policy issues make logical sense to be placed in the climate change flagship; even if they touch upon the work in other FPs (FP2, and FP3 were suggested) we will make clear how an approach under a climate change perspective is beneficial. We will also demonstrate how the other points made (e.g. the questions around incentives for smallholders to invest in mitigation; incentives under a no-agreement scenario for Paris - which may become a fact by the time the full proposal is due; gender issues related to livelihoods) are at the heart of what FP7 researches (it was not possible to show all the ramifications of the work in the limited available space).

About Gender, the ISPC commentary conflates all the CoAs in the feedback, which is not really very helpful. We want to reiterate that Gender in FTA includes a strong downstream focus as well, at nested landscape scales, studying gendered behavior in multi-functional land use, identifying and promoting a diverse set of innovations and management options in complex production contexts; which complements the more high level policy relevant gender work relating to the Forest restoration/climate/REDD/REDD+, etc. Finally, we also have some concerns about the capacity to work in synergies (and not in parallel) and develop a complete portfolio given the various ratings received by the CRP pre-proposals. We are still wondering how to reconcile and move forward in particular the question of ecosystem services (WLE, PIM, FTA) and restoration (WLE, FTA) despite widely divergent ratings of interconnected work planned across the 3 CRPs. We would like to draw particular attention to the fact that in an interlinked world of complex problems, there will be many overlaps between FPs and CRPs, but that emphasizing certain viewpoints in coherence might be useful. As our mapping of the interface to CCAFS has shown, FTA is well aware of the synergies to the work of others, and is trying to minimize overlaps and duplication though frequent interactions with the partners.

ILRI Response to the ISPC Comments on the Livestock CRP Pre-proposal

28 October 2015

Reflecting the clarification discussions held in Rome on 22 October 2015.

The ISPC graded the Livestock CRP pre-proposal as a ‘C’ and provided four ‘must-haves’ and two

significant recommendations regarding flagship re-structuring.

While ILRI and its partners were disappointed by the ‘C’ grade, we very much appreciate the clear

message from the ISPC that this is not meant to hold back the development of the full proposal for

the Livestock CRP, but rather to ensure the full proposal is sufficiently strengthened to satisfy the

final criteria. The meeting with ISPC on October 22nd was extremely useful and constructive in

clarifying misunderstandings on both sides and getting direction for strengthening the proposal. It

became apparent that many of the issues relate to improving the presentation and justification

rather than questioning the content of the program as such. We will work to address these.

#1. The analysis of sector dynamics, ToC, impact pathways, targets, and budgetary allocations need

revisiting. Lots of facts about livestock are given but they need to be presented in a logical manner to

define where CGIAR research can add most value.

#2. The CRP needs to select its priority research opportunities based on the SRF, its comparative

advantage, the opportunity to link with other CRPs and its global remit.

The pre-proposal sets the context for the program by characterizing the major features and trends of

the livestock sector, including scenarios and trajectories that were developed in consultation with a

range of stakeholders when the ILRI strategy was developed in 2013. These scenarios and

trajectories were used as the basis for defining where the CGIAR could add value and the

contribution to the SRF. We agree that this presentation can be made sharper and better linked to

defining the appropriate research agenda and clarifying the comparative advantage of the CGIAR. A

very stylized ToC was presented in narrative form in the pre-proposal; we are developing a more

detailed one drawing more directly from the ISPC White Paper, the one currently used by the

Livestock & Fish CRP which has been well received and our current efforts to integrate the concepts

of spheres of control/influence/interest (inspired by IDRC) to define more clearly the role of the

program.

#3. There is little specific justification of partners and few national and regional partners from

developing countries are mentioned. The CRP needs to clarify its networking and partnership

arrangements, roles and responsibilities on the basis of comparative advantage and subsidiarity.

We had embraced the ISPC comments at the Bogor meeting about not wanting lists of hundreds of

partners, but rather a description of the strategy for identifying partners. We understand better now

ISPC’s expectations in this regard.

#4. The CRP needs to clarify how its country vs. system focus is aided by CRP and site integration, and

how this will be utilized to maximise IPG benefits across other countries and regions

ISPC’s expectations on this point have been clarified and will be more explicitly addressed by

explaining our approach to the perceived tension between local focus and generating IPGs.

Structural recommendations:

#.5 Merge Feeds & Forages with Livestock & Environment

We are not convinced by the argument to merge the Feeds and Forages FP with the Environment FP.

From the Feeds and Forages viewpoint, while the feed and forage work has strong links to and

implications for the environment, its main focus is on addressing the livestock ‘yield gap’ and so is

primarily linked to the other FPs concerned with increasing livestock (and crop) productivity. The

main objective of the FP is technology development and testing. We do recognize possible overlaps

in the pre-proposal text, and in the revision of the FP we will clarify the focus on technology. Some

of these technologies may have implications for environmental issues, e.g. adaptation to climate

change through enhancing stress tolerance and mitigation of climate change through Biological

Nitrification Inhibition. Environmental impacts and assessments of suitability of forages under

environment change will be measured in the Livestock and environment FP.

From the Livestock and Environment viewpoint we do recognize the need to clarify eventual

overlaps in the pre-proposal between the two FPs. However, given the importance of livestock-

environment interactions globally and the often distorted views of the role of livestock in developing

countries in relation to the environment we believe that a FP with a strong focus on the

environment is essential. Maintaining an environment FP also responds to the repeated comments

to the current Livestock & Fish CRP from ISPC on the need for increased visibility of a dedicated

environment agenda within the CRP.

When revising, we will clearly distinguish between the a) Livestock and Environment FP addressing

livestock-environment interactions at the systems level and b) the Feeds and Forages FP focusing on

technology development.

#6. Integrate Transformation & Scaling back into other FPs

We agree that Transformation & Scaling FP lacked a certain coherence. Certain components from

the original Transformation & Scaling FP related to testing and piloting of integrated packages will be

incorporated into the other FPs. Specifically, clusters on a) integration of technical and institutional

innovations into intervention packages and b) research on gender and youth will be moved to the

Livelihood, Resilience and Nutrition FP given its agri-food and livelihood systems perspective. We are

proposing, however, to retain a focus on the ‘science of impact’ as part of a new “Priority Setting &

Impact at Scale” FP that will focus on guiding the CRP’s research agenda towards achieving impact at

scale; placing smallholder production and the consumption of animal-source foods by poor people in

the context of broader sector trends; ensuring that CRP research results in integrated solutions by

analyzing trade-offs and synergies among socio-economic, environmental and public health

outcomes; and tracking how our research will bring about progress towards SRF targets through our

theory of change. GIZ and WUR remain strategic partners for the science of impact, with clarification

that GIZ is not our preferred partner simply to implement scaling-out activities – the CRP will

collaborate with and backstop a range of partners for such activities – but rather because they are

interested in contributing to research on the research-development interface and the science of

impact; bringing their particular development experience and perspective. We understand from the

October 22nd meeting in Rome that ISPC will be open to receiving a proposal in this regard.

Response to Independent Science and Partnership Council’s (ISPC) Review of the

MAIZE-AFS CRP pre-Proposal

1. Overall observation on ISPC understanding of the CRP and Portfolio a. In general, the ISPC review of the MAIZE-AFS pre-Proposal is positive,

constructive and fair. It is greatly appreciated that the report acknowledges the positive influence of the recent IEA MAIZE CRP evaluation report on the development of the MAIZEAFS pre-proposal.

b. The ISPC report identifies some gaps in areas where MAIZE-AFS is currently evolving, namely;

i. Ongoing learning from, and integration of, the systems work of the Humid Tropics CRP and the extension of MAIZE-AFS further down the value-chain and the concomitant emergent partnerships therein.

ii. Capturing, more explicitly, how MAIZE AFS creates opportunities for youth.

iii. Developing a better understanding of the dynamics in demand and use of maize products (food, feed, fuel) and research supply (private sector, ARIs, NARS) in the CRP target areas.

2. Any issues of factual inaccuracy?

a. No, there are no major issues of factual inaccuracy.

3. Concurrence of opinion on recommendations going forward. a. See points 1b.i-iii above. b. In addition:

i. MAIZE management agrees that greater efforts should be made to make explicit the incorporation of lessons learned from Phase I and from ongoing dialogue with MAIZE’s national partners.

ii. MAIZE’s Impact Pathway and Theory of Changes needs to better incorporate the contribution from, and interactions with, other CRPs.

4. Areas where you would request greater clarification. a. The ISPC Report is clear and unambiguous. Therefore, there is no need for

greater clarification.

5. Areas where you disagree. a. MAIZE disagrees with the statement that “no priority alignment or consultations

with governments were done”. MAIZE scientists and managers interact with the governments and government agencies, both formally and informally, on a routine basis in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and Asia. These interactions do inform the project prioritization processes of MAIZE. Some examples have been highlighted in the MAIZE AFS Preproposal (see page 4).

b. MAIZE disagrees that Striga management is not given a high enough priority. Indeed, integrated Striga management in Africa is an integral part of the MAIZE AFS Preproposal. In fact, Striga was mentioned 37 times in the pre-proposal. Developing and deploying new maize hybrids/varieties with Striga resistance, combined with NUE, in Striga-affected areas in SSA is one of the important targets of MAIZE (see page 104, 115, 116, 118, 119).

c. The ISPC Report states that there is overall good prioritization in MAIZE FPs, although not systematically based on strategic foresight. MAIZE simply does not have the financial resources to carry out the range of ex-ante studies highlighted in the Report.

1

Responses to ISPC commentary on PIM Phase 2 pre-proposal (September 28, 2015) and CGIAR Phase 2 portfolio (October 14, 2015)

This document includes the main comments made by the ISPC on the PIM pre-proposal on September 28 (Section I), some comments made by the ISPC on September 28 on other CRPs’ pre-proposals/platform EOIs that refer to PIM (Section II), and some comments made by the ISPC on October 14 on the overall portfolio that relate to PIM (Section III). Section I – Comments on the PIM pre-proposal

Comments at program level

Comment Response

Emphasize and outline a plan for engaging in a transparent and systematic exercise to establish priorities and achieve greater focus, with particular attention to PIM’s comparative advantage.

We welcome the suggestion to prioritize further. To do this, a clear indication from the FO on the W1-2 budget likely to be available is needed, so that we can scale the program accordingly. The outcome of the prioritization exercise will be heavily dependent on the W1-2 envelope. With the information presently available, in the proposal we plan to: (i) retain the six flagships, and prioritize clusters and activities within them; (ii) review pre-proposals from other CRPs to identify demand for input from and co-investment with PIM; (iii) glean priorities from country and regional consultations; (iv) leverage large bilateral projects; (v) provide explanations for the outputs of the prioritization, including highlighting the topics that were dropped.

Better articulate theories of change (ToC) at the CRP and flagship levels, and describe assumptions and risks within each Impact Pathway. PIM does not present an explicit ToC for the whole CRP. A ToC would provide a consistent overall structure, map out how FPs complement each other and thus help prioritize the FPs, placing the six FPs as the impact pathways to achievement of the overarching CRP outcomes (instead of the Global/ National/ Program/ Methods impact pathways provided). In the section that addresses PIM’s impact pathways (pp. 11-12), there seems to be little or no emphasis on a support role within the CGIAR.

Because of the breadth of the agenda for policy and institutional reform, we believe that a ToC for the program as a whole can only be generic, as are the four impact pathways that we have now. We will assert this more clearly in the proposal. ToCs at the flagship level can be more specific, and will be more fully developed, with a list of assumptions/risks and mitigation measures. Reference to the other CRPs’ proposals will allow more specific articulation of the supporting role within CGIAR (in addition to the already clearly stated contribution to foresight analysis and value chains work).

3

Comment Response

Define optimal linkages across and within flagships; show more clearly and present a more coherent rationale for the flagship structure and the value of linkages between clusters within each flagship.

Where linkage within and across flagships is relevant, we will devote more space to explaining these, and consider using a diagram to improve the clarity of these explanations.

End or substantially reduce some legacy projects and further consolidate the portfolio.

We will explicitly note lines of work that are dropped in Phase 2, and explain the rationale for this choice.

Reconsider topics missing from the policy agenda, e.g., related to input and output (especially seed) markets, farm size dynamics. There is hardly any reference to analysis of agricultural policies that have been widely debated in recent years, e.g., related to fertilizer subsidies, irrigation, seed systems and taxes. Subsidies are mentioned only a few times. There is virtually no discussion of seed system policies, food safety, water management or land degradation (although the latter two are implicit in FP5). It seems that some of the most basic areas of policy analysis have dropped off PIM’s agenda – especially those having to do with input and output markets and the corresponding distortions.

Input and output markets are covered at a general level in Flagship 3. Seed systems are specifically mentioned and addressed in Cluster 1.2. Farm size dynamics are covered in Flagship 2, in conjunction with work on land markets in Flagship 5, and we can elaborate on this topic. Fertilizer subsidies have been fully covered in recent work, and additional research would not have much impact. Subsidies and taxes more generally are covered under the work on distortions in Flagship 3, and picked up at the country level in Flagship 2, particularly in work on the policy process and decisions related to public expenditure. PIM has elected not to invest heavily in irrigation policy (covered by WLE), food safety policy (covered by A4NH), and land degradation (covered by FTA and WLE). Some work on land degradation and water is undertaken in Flagship 5, with emphasis on institutional mechanisms for management of NRM, but technical dimensions of these agendas are understood to be within the competency of other CRPs.

Define more clearly PIM’s linkages with other CRPs, through impact pathway schematics. While some information as to how PIM will work with other CRPs is provided under each FP, at the CRP level it is insufficient.

The collaboration matrix in Annex II spells out our thinking on this topic at the pre-proposal stage. With the benefit of full access to all CRPs’ pre-proposals and more time for discussion between CRPs, along with sufficient space, we can elaborate on plans for collaboration and co-investment with other CRPs in the full proposal.

More explicit reference to the grand challenges would be useful to see in the full proposal.

Grand challenges (climate change, urbanization, changes in age distribution, degradation of natural resources) are addressed implicitly throughout the pre-proposal. We can make this more explicit and accord more space to explanation of how PIM contributes to addressing these.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/agec.2013.44.issue-6/issuetoc

4

Comment Response

There are other PIM functions – such as data management and distribution – that fall outside the domain of any of its flagships. For example, there is no discussion of the management and dissemination of household survey data collected by PIM and its collaborators.

Data management is currently handled through procedures of the participating Centers, and we will make this clearer in the full proposal For example, IFPRI has well-developed procedures for this, managed by its Communications and Knowledge Management Division. It is not clear why PIM should establish separate (and possibly duplicative) procedures.

The PIM full proposal would benefit markedly from more detailed references to work completed under Phase 1 and how Phase 2 builds on that previous effort.

Agreed.

There is no mention of youth at the CRP level, which may need to be addressed in the full proposal.

PIM’s coverage of this topic, especially in Africa south of the Sahara, is actually rather significant. The comment from ISPC signals that this may not have been conveyed convincingly enough in the pre-proposal, and we will remedy this in the proposal. PIM addresses the systemic constraints to opportunities for young people, which are low competitiveness of agriculture due to underinvestment in agricultural research, lack of access to training, constrained inter-generational transfer of land, distortions in input and output markets that impede job creation, and blocked flows of information needed to produce and market successfully.

5

Comments on Flagship 1

Comment Response

Does the foresight work belong in PIM? Some of these functions can be performed with more independence outside this CRP, and this FP seems duplicative of work already taking place or intended to take place elsewhere in the System. The IMPACT model, its assumptions, and its applications should be more transparent to potential users.

We believe that PIM is the best home for this work within CGIAR. Independence of the research from material interests of PIM is not an issue. This concern has been raised several times in the past, and we would welcome a discussion with ISPC to understand and address it. The other CRPs’ pre-proposals that include work on foresight modeling explicitly note ongoing collaboration with PIM and intent to continue it, with PIM playing a coordinating role to avoid duplication. This should be perceived as co-investment, rather than as duplication. The details of co-investment will be spelled out in the full proposals. In order to avoid misinterpretation, each collaborating CRP could display the full conjoint work program for foresight analysis, to highlight its part in the whole. PIM’s foresight work goes beyond setting priorities for CGIAR. The foresight and policy scenario analyses in food supply and demand, impacts of technologies and investments, and estimated impacts of climate change and response benefit global and national debates beyond CGIAR.

The IMPACT model is already more transparent than available alternative modeling systems. A user guide to the updated version of IMPACT is nearing completion and will be released within weeks.

The work on technology adoption and impact assessment duplicates work in other CRPs. Technology adoption is an issue of obvious relevance to the CGIAR, although PIM’s comparative advantage in this area isn’t obvious. An alternative approach would be for PIM to play a minor supporting role with respect to other CRPs, rather than defining it as a CoA within PIM. On the adoption side, there are external entities such as ATAI and 3ie that are addressing many of the same questions about constraints to adoption with far more resources and rigor. It is not clear what role this cluster intends to perform, other than helping to develop a community of practice and enhancing internal coordination and quality–which would indeed be useful.

The value added by PIM lies in: (i) methods development; (ii) coordinating studies of mutual interest in CGIAR countries of collaboration (identifying key constraints to technology adoption); (iii) coordinating studies undertaken by other CRPs on issues important to CGIAR (on youth and technology adoption). ATAI has four ongoing studies on constraints to adoption: one in western Kenya, one in northern Ghana, one in Orissa India, and one in Uganda. None of these is in the tier++ countries of CGIAR collaboration. Few of the studies funded by 3ie are related to agriculture. To our knowledge there are currently 11 that are relevant to agriculture and technology. They are broadly spread in substance (markets, extension, insurance, credit, social networks…), and only one is in a tier++ country of CGIAR collaboration (Tanzania). These studies, although they contribute greatly to global knowledge, will not increase much the specific knowledge about CGIAR technologies in CGIAR priority geographies. In addition, those external studies generally do not include mechanisms for following through to achieve outcomes, whereas PIM is actively

6

partnering with African SROs to enhance their capacity to track technology adoption (through W1-2 funding and with funding of the Virtual Technology Platform). We believe the work on technology adoption is a relevant integrative element of PIM. If we receive consistent feedback that PIM should not be active in this subject area, however, we will reconsider this part of the program’s agenda.

Comment Response

It is not always clear where the demand comes from (e.g., ASTI). A specific question arises with ASTI, which does not seem like an obvious component of the CGIAR research portfolio.

Statistics from the ASTI website and the ASTI ex post assessment study attest to the high demand for the ASTI data. These data are essential for understanding the capacity of our NARES partners, for tracking the relative contributions of CGIAR and partners to growth in total factor productivity, and for measuring returns to agricultural research. If our NARES partners are to improve their capacity, they need to have the comparative data on levels of investment (coupled with evidence on impact) to show their Ministries of Finance that additional budget allocations are required. This is a critical input to the various sub-IDOs related to capacity building, and perhaps the only indicator of changes in capacity that can be measured with existing data.

Gender issues are not addressed in depth in this flagship.

ASTI addresses gender in capacity for agricultural research. Cluster 1.3 on adoption of technology has a focus on gender. We can make these contributions clearer in the proposal.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/s1z3bonqe1srtit/ASTI-web-stats-2015-5year.xlsx?dl=0

http://www.asti.cgiar.org/

7


Comment Response

How do CSSPs fit into PIM’s research agenda? It is disturbing to see that there does not seem to be much attempt to build strategically on questions and issues that arise in the CSSPs. If there is no feedback from the CSSPs into the program, then they should probably be moved to another institutional location.

Programming of the CSSPs is separate in timing and process from programming of the CRPs, and national clients have not always been interested to coordinate with PIM due to the modest additional funds leveraged. Work of PIM and the CSSPs is complementary, however, and we will be more explicit about synergies between the two in the full proposal, particularly for key countries of CGIAR collaboration (Bangladesh, Ethiopia and Nigeria). The feedbacks from CSSPs helps PIM to set priorities from the country perspective.

This flagship seems to have a research agenda that is distinct from what the rest of the CRPs are doing, yet it deals with issues that arise in almost every one of the AFS CRPs. This flagship needs to reach out more to other CRPs. To the extent that collaboration is discussed, it is envisioned as a one-way flow, with no real sense that PIM hopes to learn from other CRPs or to define its research questions in relation to issues arising in the field. Indeed, the text of the document says at this point, “… [A] number of AFS CRPs have expressed intent to examine rural-urban linkages. PIM encourages these CRPs to explore tools available within PIM, especially the country-specific SAMs and CGE models, before they invest in alternatives.” This does not come across as a serious effort to engage in mutually beneficial collaborative work.

We have been aware for some time of the need for Flagship 2 to better link with other CRPs. Our mechanism for communication with other CRPs in Phase 1 (through Center Focal Points) appears not to have helped much in addressing this challenge. We are currently using CRP pre-proposals to identify points of common interest related to rural transformation, a first step before seeking collaboration and co-investment with other CRPs. The wording of the ISPC comment suggests that the AFS CRPs are in the field, and PIM is not. It should be noted that PIM is very present in field-based research. The cautionary note in the PIM pre-proposal quoted by ISPC that other programs need not duplicate tools already available is relevant and consistent with collaboration. ISPC is in general a strong voice in favor of building on strengths already available within the system. We will check the tone of presentation in the proposal to assure that we properly convey our view of such collaboration as mutually beneficial. Cluster 2.3 on political economy and the policy process has an open invitation for collaboration, and this is understood on the part of PIM to be mutually beneficial.

8

Comment Response

A number of key issues around inclusive growth seem to be absent: issues around farm size and land distribution, remoteness and the economics of investment in marginal areas, inclusiveness of employment in large-scale farming and agri-processing, and contract farming and its ability to meet the livelihood needs of smallholders. It is not clear that the omission of these issues reflects a strategic choice, i.e., relevance for the CGIAR, as opposed to an agenda based on funding opportunities or current expertise inside PIM.

Issues of land distribution and farm size are covered in Flagship 2 and Flagship 5. Intersectoral labor flows and employment through mixed livelihoods are addressed in Flagship 2. Employment along the value chain is addressed in Flagship 3. In designing Flagship 2 we proceeded with selectivity and a realistic expectation that W1-2 funds will be constrained. Issues associated with inclusive growth that both attract bilateral funding and draw on staff capacity receive preferential treatment—this is consistent with comparative advantage and the funding environment in which we work.

The full proposal should flesh out how the first cluster will cover the landscape more strategically. Currently, this flagship agenda seems poorly developed, lumping together without explanation a wide range of topics.

We will show integration of the topics and improve the presentation in the full proposal.

In the case of the first cluster, it is surprising that there is so little information on the proposed methods.

We will provide more details on the methods for this cluster.

For the second cluster, there are some reservations about the use of SAM/CGE approaches to thinking about the prioritization of public investments. The results of this analysis will be heavily dependent on the assumptions that are made.

Scientific discourse accommodates differing views about the relevant methodologies. SAM/CGE tools are designed to explore options (for investment inter alia) and how they are affected by different underlying assumptions. The parameters to be used in the SAM/CGE modeling will increasingly come from micro-level empirical analyses as the availability of micro-level data has improved dramatically for the past several years from CSSPs. Some of the assumptions can also be relaxed through scenario analyses and simulations with alternative assumptions; e.g., about substitutability of factors..

Public investments are decided through various policy processes, and the analysis using SAM/CGE models is but one input. We can clarify the role of these analytical tools in the full proposal.

9

Comment Response

The comparative advantage of PIM with respect to compiling SPEED indicators on national government spending is not clear. Work on prioritizing public investment veers somewhat close to consulting work. It would make more sense to focus on developing the tools for this analysis and then making them available to other organizations for implementation in specific countries.

The SPEED data are in fact made available to a wide array of users for applications. Downloads from the SPEED website attest to the high demand for the data. We can make this clearer in the full proposal. We find the comment about consulting work a bit puzzling. PIM does not provide consulting services. PIM engages in long term partnerships with agents who are principals in policy processes. The intent of this engagement is to bring evidence from national and global experience to the attention of participants in the process. We are asked to report every year on the impact of the program on specific policy outcomes. We try to balance our engagement in specific processes with creation of global and regional public goods, both tools and research findings. So far we have not had instruction to withdraw from engagement in specific policy processes and work at a higher level of generality.

There are many other providers of analysis on employment issues in developing countries, especially when it comes to impact evaluation of different employment interventions, infrastructure investments, job training, etc. such as J-PAL, 3ie, the World Bank, and many university-based researchers. If this is the focus of the cluster, PIM should explain its comparative advantage in the full proposal.

The SRF has an IDO on employment, which presumably carries the assumption that CGIAR will undertake research on this topic. The focus of PIM is on employment in agriculture, especially youth employment, and intersectoral flows of labor out of agriculture with structural transformation. We do not focus on employment more generally. We can clarify this in the full proposal. The 2012 report of the World Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group on youth employment programs emphasizes the dearth of rigorous analytical assessment of the performance of such programs.

There is surprisingly little about gender in this flagship on “inclusive growth”.

Gender dimensions will be heightened in the full proposal.

http://www.ifpri.org/publication/public-expenditure-database

http://ieg.worldbank.org/evaluations/youth-employment-programs



10


Comment Response

The ISPC sees deficiencies in how the clusters are presented. A stronger rationale is needed in the full proposal.

Noted, and we will improve the presentation.

This flagship seems to have a research agenda that is distinct from what the rest of the CRPs are doing, yet it deals with issues that arise in almost every one of the AFS CRPs. To make this a more viable activity for the CGIAR, PIM must seriously engage with other CRP social scientists in collaborative research on value chains and the corresponding small and medium enterprise sector. Value chain analysis elsewhere in the CGIAR is focused on understanding the opportunities for value addition to increase the incomes and well-being of women and the poor. As presented, there is little here to support those CRPs that are primarily focused on domestic value chains. In spite of that, the pre-proposal seeks US $20 million annually. One could imagine a budget that is perhaps a small percentage of that, but the current allocation seems excessive.

The evaluation of PIM pointed out that PIM has developed in Phase 1 a multi-center community of practice for value chain research, with strong linkages to other CRPs. Most of the outputs of the work—tools and results—posted on the PIM value chains web site pertain to domestic value chains, and specifically to inclusion of women and poor producers. It seems that the text of the pre-proposal failed to convey this; we will strive to improve this in the proposal.

The science quality for the first cluster is moderate. To some extent it seems to draw on an old and problematic method for defining implicit taxation of producers. This method tends to conflate transport and transaction costs and quality differences with actual policy distortions, whereas the literature in more recent years has grown less confident in the notion that the Law of One Price should hold in all cases.

When price gaps (i.e., rejection of the law of one price) are large in developing countries, it is often not easy to see how much is contributed by traditional policy distortions, and how much by investment lacunae and market imperfections. The recent PIM work on implicit taxation does not assume that all gaps are due to policy distortions; rather the measurement exercise allows policymakers to zero in on the markets and value chains where the problems are greatest. The purpose of the research is precisely to diagnose what is causing the large price gap, and what interventions would reduce it most cost-effectively. This work is very important to help colleagues in the AFS CRPs see the factors depressing incentives for adoption of superior technologies developed within the AFS CRPs.

11

Comment Response

Trade: There is arguably less interest in this topic today than previously, since discussions of agricultural trade now have an institutional home in the WTO (which was not true during the peak era of this activity).

Work on international trade is highly relevant, particularly in addressing price volatility and the benefits of CGIAR’s investment to consumers (who may be a hemisphere away from the producers). ISPC has regularly questioned the relevance of PIM’s work on international trade. We would welcome views of other reviewing bodies, and particularly donors—some of whom have specifically emphasized their interest in PIM’s work on trade. The WTO addresses international trade, but the representatives of developing countries in the WTO are very weak on agricultural issues. IFPRI and PIM have an established record of assistance and capacity building in this area. It should be noted that other CRPs are upon occasion asked to assist clients and partners on agricultural trade issues, and do not have the tools to do so. For instance, AfricaRice recently approached PIM with regard to a request from ECOWAS on tariff policy for rice. In addition, PIM is using the tools of analysis of distortions developed for trade negotiations to diagnose breakdowns in domestic value chains, so that interventions can be steered toward the breakdowns that are most costly. Much of the work within the trade cluster has very clear domestic applications relevant to smallholders and poor consumers, as well as regional and global applications. We will await further comment on the relevance of trade work from other reviewers, and guidance as to whether and how to treat this topic in the full proposal.

The third cluster seeks to identify “best-bet options for scaling innovations.” This too is vague and hard to assess, but seems to verge very close to development implementation. There is not enough information to judge it effectively. It is not possible to assess the quality of the science in CoA3 since the methods are unclear.

We will revise accordingly in the full proposal.

Gender receives very little attention. A significant amount of gender work has in fact been done in Flagship 3, and will continue in Phase 2. We will make sure that this is reflected in the full proposal.

Capacity building receives very little attention. This will be addressed in the full proposal.

12


Comment Response

It is not clear that this subject area forms an obvious element of the CRP portfolio or indeed of the broader CGIAR portfolio. Social protection schemes are undoubtedly important for reducing poverty, but they do not have an obvious link to agricultural science or agricultural research. Comparative advantage of the CGIAR is at issue here. The pre-proposal does present a compelling case based on past work and current expertise, but there are now many other providers of this work, including university-based researchers and other development organizations. This is particularly true of the work on financial inclusion, which is a huge area of research outside the CGIAR. One might be more sympathetic to this work if the FP were able better to connect it to issues of more central concern to the CGIAR, such as technology choice and input use; or rural-urban population movements; or food demand and consumption patterns; or nutrition.

We agree with the view of ISPC that social protection is essential for reducing poverty. We disagree with the implication that the mandate of CGIAR should be interpreted narrowly within the confines of agricultural science and research. The SRF is written broadly to address poverty, nutrition, and NRM. Both the SLOs and IDOs require an interpretation of the mandate that is broader than the science of genetic improvement. The recommended way forward, to link the social protection work of the PIM portfolio with technology choice or other agricultural interventions, is mentioned in the pre-proposal and will be more fully elaborated in the proposal. Most of PIM’s work on social protection addresses needs of vulnerable rural clients, and the livelihood strategies of these people are linked to agriculture. We can elaborate more fully on comparative advantage and relevance to CGIAR in the full proposal.

A topic that may deserve more attention here is the extent to which social protection strategies allow for better uptake of technology by poor farmers or easier out-migration. This is mentioned in the section introduction but not given further attention.

This can be more fully elaborated in the text of the proposal.

More effort is needed in developing a more thoughtful capacity strengthening strategy.

This will be more fully developed in the full proposal.

13

Section II – Comments on other CRPs’ pre-proposals and platform EOIs and that refer to PIM

CRP Comment Response

Livestock Whilst the integration with other CRPs is mentioned and presented in an annex, further detail, particularly with respect to the functional integration with A4NH and PIM, is required.

Noted for follow-up.

Fish Moreover, it would be helpful to see how the research on institutions and policies proposed in Flagship 2 on Sustaining fish production systems would intersect with similar work in PIM (especially on the governance of common resources) and perhaps other CRPs. Flagship 3 on Fish value chains and nutrition: The rationale behind combining the value chains with the nutrition work requires further elucidation, as does the much-needed inter-CRP collaborations with PIM, A4NH, and perhaps other CRPs in this area.


DCLAS Flagship 1 on Priority Setting and Impact Acceleration: Generic statements about comparative advantage are given based on having ‘critical mass’ rather than showing professional expertise and profile available and noting areas in which skills will be sought through new partnerships. There would certainly be some advantages to working with IFPRI/PIM on this work, as well as with some external teams. Flagship 4 on Seed Systems and Input Services: For this and other issues cited above, the ISPC believes that this work should be merged with other CRP FPs dealing with seed systems. This might result in a single FP, possibly within PIM.

The scientific staff of DCLAS are already integrated into the PIM team working on foresight analysis. The full proposal will probably need to show the entire conjoint work program for foresight analysis, with the contributions of each Center and partner and funding by each CRP. Noted for follow-up. PIM welcomes joint work with DCLAS on seed systems, which already takes place under the bilaterally-funded CSISA program.

FTA Flagship 5 on Sustainable Global Value Chains and Investments for Supporting Forest Conservation and Equitable Development: FTA should also examine if it has sufficient finance and business modelling expertise to produce IPGs in CoAs 5.2 and 5.3 (is this vis-à-vis collaboration with PIM?).


CRP Comment Response

14

A4NH There is some overlap in the objectives of A4NH and PIM, as much of the nutrition and health agenda operates through policies, institutions and markets. It would be helpful to be more explicit about the allocation of responsibilities and scientific specialization between these CRPs, in terms of which kinds of data, methods and research outputs each aims to produce. Further, the ISPC would have expected to see strong links with PIM regarding the intention to mainstream biofortification into policy. The ISPC would encourage more discussion of interaction around value chains with PIM and other CRPs. Flagship 5 on Integrated programs to improve nutrition would also do well to provide input to the other FPs, for example Biofortification, Food Safety, and to the policy-oriented FPs and PIM.

PIM does very little explicitly on nutrition policy. In the interest of selectivity we prefer not to expand this work. A4NH has the technical expertise to address regulatory issues associated with biofortification. We will follow-up with A4NH to make the division of labor clearer in the proposal.

Gender platform

The ISPC notes the overlap in objectives and personnel with the 2nd cluster of activities in FP 6 of PIM. The ISPC considers there needs to be a strong case (added value over what already exists) to justify the creation of a new platform and considers that the case has not been made by the EoI proponents as to why the activities described in the expression of interest need to be implemented by a separate gender platform. The ISPC recommends that the functions proposed in the EoI which are complementary to those proposed in PIM Flagship project 6 are folded into the full proposal for the PIM CRP.

On technical grounds, we welcome the suggestion to fold a gender platform into PIM Flagship 6. PIM can provide strong strategic leadership for the platform, and would look forward to doing so. PIM will be able to allocate a modest amount of W1/2 for this purpose. In order to assure that the platform has adequate and secure funding insulated from the volatility of W1/2, a bilateral grant of $1 million annually will be required to assure sustained and effective operation of the platform. The assignment of the platform to PIM should therefore be considered conditional on assurance of $1 million annually in bilateral funding or commitments under W3.

15

Section III – Comments on the overall CRP portfolio that are related to PIM

Comment Response

There are numerous activities on foresight and prioritization at a range of levels within the CGIAR System without a common framework to capture synergies and avoid duplication.

The other CRPs’ pre-proposals that include work on foresight modeling explicitly note ongoing collaboration with PIM and intent to continue it, with PIM playing a coordinating role to avoid duplication. See Section I.

Impact assessment, particularly ex-post, is still generally under-budgeted across the CGIAR System, and seldom referred to in the CRP pre-proposals. The ISPC is concerned that there is still too much reliance on the work undertaken by SPIA. As the Portfolio as a whole becomes more integrated it would be good to see a strategy for how this could be co-ordinated across the System at the time of submission of full proposals.

This comment calls for more co-ordination and investment in ex post impact assessment, and hence contradicts the questioning of PIM’s comparative advantage in this area, as per the ISPC comments on PIM’s Flagship 1 (see Section I).

RAFS response to ISPC review 2.docx Page 1

RAFS response to ISPC review ISPC review Summary: The RAFS preproposal is conceptually coherent, well written and clear. RAFS expands the approach used in the GRiSP CRP and aims to be a more holistic agri-food system CRP by addressing challenges and opportunities for a profitable and sustainable rice sector while exploiting the particular CGIAR niche and building on the GRiSP comparative advantage. The CRP has taken on board recommendations from the ISPC review of the extension phase proposal, and made changes based on internal processes. ISPC review Recommendation: The ISPC considers this preproposal Satisfactory with adjustment (B), and recommends that the following substantive issues (elaborated upon in the subsequent commentary) are either addressed in the full proposal or a justification for lack of change is given:

1. Although the preproposal provides convincing evidence of the global importance of rice, it does not fully take account of scenario analyses regarding projected changes in future rice consumption in its conceptualization of research priorities.

2. Internal synergies and corresponding management options need to be optimized in Eastern Africa to capitalize on opportunities for impact at scale.

3. Four flagships (FP1, FP3, FP5 and FP6) need some adjustment as per the detailed commentaries included below for each specific FP.

RAFS response: We are pleased with the positive review of the ISPC endorsing the RAFS pre-proposal to be developed into a full proposal ‘with adjustments’. This agrees well with the overall conclusions of the recently concluded (final report shared with GRiSP for soliciting comments) IEA evaluation of GRiSP (the pre-cursor to RAFS): “The Team assessed that the GRiSP portfolio is highly relevant to the CGIAR’s SLOs and that the GRiSP objectives and portfolio address IDOs that map well to the system-level (SLOs). The Team concluded that GRiSP is poised to make major contributions to the SLOs given the strength of its portfolio, the global importance of rice, and recent technological breakthroughs in less favored rice environments.“ And: “This review finds that GRiSP has made a strong start that promises to produce major impacts for the CGIAR objectives of poverty reduction, sustainability, and food security and nutrition. However, GRiSP will require many years to develop a truly integrative and collaborative global rice science partnership.” We couldn’t agree more with this last observation which supports our proposed RAFS CRP which aims to “take GRiSP to the next level”. The brevity and limited number (3) of the overall recommendations suggests that the requested adjustments are few and relatively minor: Recommendation #1: Although the preproposal provides convincing evidence of the global importance of rice, it does not fully take account of scenario analyses regarding projected changes in future rice consumption in its conceptualization of research priorities. All scenarios of world food requirements agree that the still growing world population warrants a considerable increase in food production the coming decade. Differences exist among predictions as to relative requirements of various food items. For the last 2-3 decades, some predictions foresaw a reduction in the rate of increase in rice consumption in Asia because of changing food preferences in Asia – which some still predict. Others, based on the fact that these predictions have not been validated, predict that based on strong population growth in Asia with continued preference for rice – coupled with a surge in demand for rice


in Africa and the Middle East - demand for rice will continue to be strong in the coming decade(s), the vast majority of which will produced in Asia. Given either scenario, significant and challenging increases in rice production using less land, fewer inputs, and less labor are indicated. Over the life time of GRiSP, this prediction (already challenged at its inception) has come fully true; in fact, actual demand for rice has even been higher than envisioned at the outset of GRiSP. However, we do take the point of the ISPC review and will undertake comparative scenario analyses to widen the horizon scanning that will drive RAFS research agenda. Already in the RAFS pre-proposal, we point out the tremendous (ongoing and further anticipated) changes in rice markets globally and within Asia specifically, the implications of which have informed the RAFS agenda. Recommendation #2: Internal synergies and corresponding management options need to be optimized in Eastern Africa to capitalize on opportunities for impact at scale. Senior management and the Board of Trustees of AfricaRice and IRRI are undertaking a review on how collaboration can be further strengthened in Eastern Africa, the results of which will strengthen the full RAFS proposal. However, there seem to be missed opportunities in Eastern Africa (as also evidenced by the paucity of RAFS action sites). We thank the ISPC for bringing the importance of Eastern Africa to our attention. The overall geographic priority setting through the CRP portfolio (the 20 countries prioritized for site integration), and our own priority assessment based on size and importance of regional rice sectors and on the potential to contribute to the realization of the CGIAR SLOs and IDOs, will inform the number of RAFS action sites in Eastern Africa that will be elaborated in the full RAFS proposal. Clearly, the number of sites that can be accommodated will rely on the budget available to RAFS. Recommendation #3: Four flagships (FP1, FP3, FP5 and FP6) need some adjustment as per the detailed commentaries included below for each specific FP. We agree with most of the recommendations on these 4 FPs. In fact, it was mostly the limitations of the pre-proposal template that prevented the requested details, to be put forward. Also, we recognize, and are grateful for, new insights provided by the ISPC review that will strengthen the development the full RAFS proposal:

• Detailed recommendations on FP1: However, as indicated earlier, strategic foresight activities would benefit from more dynamic scenario analyses, including changes in demand projection. Agreed; see response above The ISPC recommends that the methods to be employed to go about "technology evaluation" or technology assessment "for impact" be spelled out, as this is the heart of this FP. Agreed; these details could not be provided in a pre-proposal but will be provided in the full proposal. The ISPC commends the CRP for these partnerships and suggests providing more details regarding integration with foresight at national and regional levels in the full proposal, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. Agreed; these details could not be provided in a pre-proposal but will be provided in the full proposal.

• Detailed recommendations on FP3: The impact pathway looks feasible. The ISPC does, however, have a concern - while the impact pathway refers to links with all the other AFS CRPs, Annex 10 does not mention any collaboration with the Livestock and FTA CRPs. This issue would therefore need to be addressed in the full proposal and details of the relationships with those CRPs elaborated upon. The proponents of RAFS did not attempt to create links with all other CRPs, but prioritized the most promising collaboration with other CRPs (including in particular Fish (currently AAS), MAIZE, WHEAT, RTB, PIM, WLE, A4HN, CCAFS) . Collaboration should be needs driven and not based on a tick-marking exercise against all CRPs out there. Having said that, we will review the potential and need for collaboration with Livestock and FTA and thank the ISPC for suggesting we review this again as we may have missed important opportunities. There were no other recommendations on FP 3.

• Detailed recommendations on FP5:


The preproposal lists partners at three levels: discovery, proof-of-concept and scaling-up, but the ISPC recommends that the full proposal provides further details on their roles. The ISPC also suggests that the CRP increases its interaction and expands its partnerships with ARIs (especially in India and China) that have substantial research programs in rice. The full proposal should provide clarification on the future role of RAFS and possible devolution of research efforts in certain regions, particularly in light of the growth of rice programs of the strong NARES. Agreed; these clarifications could not be provided in a pre-proposal but will be provided in the full proposal.

• Detailed recommendations on FP6: Nonetheless, the FP seems to be skewed more towards bringing to scale the results of activities from FPs 2-5, than research on effective models per se for achieving impact. The challenge is thus not only to better define this FP’s research in a way that fits the CGIAR agenda, but also to include a strategy to link local level partnership to groupings that have legitimacy and carriage for policy and institutional change at higher scales. The ISPC recommends that this aspect be given more attention in the full proposal. Agree; research on effective models for achieving impact is an important cluster of activities which will be further elaborated in the full proposal. It is an explicit strategy of RAFS to link local level partnership to ‘higher-level groupings’ for impact at scale. As stated in the pre-proposal “Effective and efficient knowledge exchange mechanisms and partnerships for large-scale outreach and dissemination will be identified early to accelerate the adoption of innovative research products and services in rice-based farming systems and value chains” And “Key technologies and services developed at the action sites will be brought to scale by linkages with enabling and scaling partners. Lessons learned will be communicated to policymakers and decision makers at the key regional and national levels through so-called “engagement platforms”—as much as possible shared with other CRPs” However, recognizing that the capacity of NARES is uneven, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, the ISPC recommends an enhanced focus on the weaker NARES. Agree; strong NARES do not really need institutional capacity development support – this was implicitly assumed in our write up but will be made explicit of the full proposal. However, individual capacity development of staff is still requested by even relatively strong NARES (and other) partners and will remain an area of importance to RAFS.

Urgent CRP Lead Centre Responses to ISPC Commentaries – CIP-RTB

1. Overall observation on ISPC understanding of the CRP and Portfolio (without being defensive or combative)?

We would like to commend the ISPC on a well conducted exercise and thoughtful review. We feel that ISPC has understood the logic of this portfolio arrangement and the linkages between the CRPs. Overall their commentary materially helps improve the overall coherence of the portfolio. The Paris meeting provided important additional pointers on areas which still need attention.


No

3. Concurrence of opinion on recommendations going forward

We generally agree with the recommendations for RTB which provides clear guidance for us to submit an improved RTB proposal. We note that ISPC appreciates "a clear and logical structure for the CRP, with interlinked flagships related to discovery (Flagship 1), delivery (Flagships 2, 3 and 4), integrated livelihood systems (Flagship 5) and impact at scale (Flagship 6)" and acknowledges that "the flagships together add up to a program that offers much more value than the sum its individual constituent parts", and that "the scientific arguments used in the pre-proposal rationale are rigorous and credible."

In terms of cross CRP collaboration we acknowledge the need for improved detail on interlinkages with global integrating CRPs and other AFS CRPs and will work on this for full proposal.

We acknowledge important feedback made on FP5 which we will take to heart as the FP is developed. We recognize the need to clarify the international public good content of FP5 and coherence with other RTB flagships.

4. Areas where you would request greater clarification

We recognize helpful feedback on FP6. However, it’s not clear to us why the ISPC believes that "the case for a stand-alone flagship 6 has not yet been made."

The two principal concerns regarding Flagship 6 mentioned are: "The selection of “grand challenges” that the FP responds to is something of a stretch: […]” this

section was an opportunity missed to articulate how the specific contributions of FP 6 would respond to other more proximal (but still “grand”) challenges. An example might be public skepticism over the effectiveness of international aid - still an ambitious challenge to tackle, but one that aligns more obviously with the work being proposed in this particular FP”

“Getting the right mix of staff on board with the right competencies, in what is quite a broad area of research and research support, will be a challenge and it would be reassuring in the full proposal if this could be elaborated on at length.”

We recognize these concerns and will address them but do not fully appreciate why, in the view of ISPC, this materially undermines the case for a stand-alone flagship. It would be helpful to clarify exactly what we should do with regard to the effectiveness of international aid.

An important point not really considered by the ISPC are the partnership and scaling models in Cluster 6.1 and the related research which, arguably, is highly innovative (in the CGIAR) and has high potential to increase the outcomes and impacts of RTB, with support from the gender and impact research under Clusters 6.2 and 6.3.

5. Areas where you disagree

The ISPC notes: “RTB management should reflect on the limited scientific value and long-term implications of the establishment of a “global network for in-situ conservation of RTB crops and some crop wild relatives"”.

This is a strong statement about scientific value. Given that a large amount of genetic diversity lies outside genebanks and the added value of linking with ongoing evolutionary processes and farmer knowledge we feel there is intrinsic scientific value in in situ work. Indeed this was recognized by the IEA review who commented in an initial response “RTB is unique among CRPs in giving emphasis to in situ conservation of crops and wild relatives through a complementary project and a Cluster of activities in the new program.”

WHEAT Formal Response to ISPC Review of Pre-proposal – 27th Oct 2015

1. Overall observation on ISPC understanding of the CRP and Portfolio a. We note that “considerable effort has been made (by all CRPs) to respond to the SRF 2016-2030” and

that ISPC did not recommend major alterations to the proposed portfolio (e.g. merge pre-breeding across crops; question the notion of inserting systems research into AFS-CRPs).

b. We note and recommend that CRP Lead Centers take on the ‘specific scientific issues raised’, ‘key conclusions’ and ‘key recommendations’ (ISPC Commentary 14th Oct).

c. We add the following observations: i. Systems research approach: WHEAT notes there is no shared definition of ‘systems research’

and that context-specific definitions should be provided in Full Proposals. Also CRPs should refer to the farming systems classification of FAO. Even though there is room for improvement for this classification, it is the only global system classification available. WHEAT is committed to successfully integrate wheat based systems related components of the Dryland Systems CRP.

ii. Integrated research portfolio: In order to ‘integrate’, each CRP must bring a core of substance to the table. With decreasing funding, there is an over-emphasis on ‘integration’, which WHEAT-ISC has warned against. ‘Integration’ must be broken down into forms of collaboration with different levels of intensity that remain manageable in their totality.

iii. Contributions to the SRF: CRP Leaders should come together to review and detail 2022 and 2030 targets, share assumptions/approaches to the estimation. It is obvious from the results that assumptions drastically differed. More standardized assumptions across CRPs should also be the focus for the outcomes-to-impact-monitoring approach.

iv. WHEAT value for money proposition and budget: WHEAT has opted for conservative targets, clarified its assumptions in estimating those and has opted for a comparatively reasonable 6-yr budget. The observation that WHEAT increases its budget significantly should be qualified given the historically low investment in view of the importance of the crop for poor consumers. It still entails only 7% of total proposed budget.


a. No issue.

3. Concurrence of opinion on recommendations going forward a. Proliferation of IDOs: Monitoring progress on 46 sub-IDOs is utterly beyond the CGIAR and its

partners. There is a strong overlap of sub-IDOs which inhibits outcome monitoring and budgeting by IDO and sub-IDO. The ISPC should give guidance how to resolve this as was discussed in the 29 Sep 2015 Paris meeting.

b. The ISPC has asked most CRPs to “complete the definition of impacts and identification of CRP IDO targets and indicators”. This should be made a joint effort of CRPs M&E&L specialists, CRP Leaders, CO, as well as the ISPC and the IEA. We would like to see these bodies working together in an aligned manner.

c. With the ISPC taking on a stronger role, we would appreciate the ISPC’s review and recommendations regarding the draft Full Proposal Guidance (including Financial Guidance) in view of the CRP Leaders/Lead Center’s feedback.

d. The ISPC has started to develop guidance on prioritization at the Portfolio level. Up to now, there are no draft criteria on the table by which FC/System Council can decide on allocations and re-allocations across the portfolio, still substantive funding shifts are being proposed by the CO which become much more pronounced as the overall funding levels shrink.

4. Areas where you would request greater clarification

4 The ISPC states “Overall, the ToC is consistent with SRF but further details are needed in the full proposal as was also noted by the IEA evaluation. WHEAT has responded that priorities are still in the process of being aligned with IDOs and SLOs which have been a moving target during 2012 to 2015 .(was rated A)” – WHEAT question: CRP and per FP ToC/IP has been done. It is not clear what remains to be done. Does the ISPC refer to the approach to verifying assumptions in ToC? Or Indicators for outcomes in Impact Pathway?

IEA Ext Eval Recommend 1: … Validation of assumptions and progress along the impact pathway should be used by WHEAT management for learning and adjusting plans, and re-prioritizing projects when assumptions prove wrong or better options arise.

WHEAT ISPC Nov 18-20 individual CRP-ISPC feedback, or earlier

6 The ISPC states: “Although WHEAT does not specifically address added value directly, through its 3 major thrusts which cut across its 5 FPs; its well-integrated wheat program partnership between CIMMYT and ICARDA; and its large network of partnerships, this CRP offers more value than the sum of its parts. However, more work is needed to fully articulate the value added.” – WHEAT question: We would like to receive information what more is required, or reference to a CRP where the ISPC thinks that it has done it well.

WHEAT ISPC Nov 18-20 or earlier

5. Areas where you disagree a. The assessment of realities of past, current and future private sector investment in wheat research.

Great differences exist depending on crop, markets, region and research phase (e.g. non-competitive or not). Less than 5% of the private sector R&D investment is directed at low and lower middle income countries where the main focus of the CGIAR is. Private R&D investments in a self-pollinating crop like wheat only pays out in markets where farmers invest in replacing seed annually or biannually which is not the case in the developing world. Wheat seeks collaboration with upstream private partners that are oriented towards high income countries, for use of insights in low and middle income countries. Also WHEAT seeks PPP for seed production. RAFS, MAIZE and WHEAT share a section on PPP. We would appreciate further feedback from the ISPC on what other opportunities they see.

1

Water, Land & Ecosystem (WLE) Phase 2 pre-proposal Formal response to the ISPC comments Prepared for the CGIAR Fund Council. 27 October 2015 We appreciate this opportunity to provide our formal response to what we feel, overall, was a constructive commentary by the ISPC on the WLE pre-proposal, albeit with areas that were insufficiently cross-checked. Summary response to ISPC commentary We note the positive reflection on the need for the program as part of the overall CRP portfolio in addressing the natural resources goals of the SRF, which is consistent with the recently approved SDGs. We also accept the primary points raised and re-iterated by the ISPC that recognize both the relevance and strength of much of the research for development proposed in the program as a whole and the flagship projects (four of six which scored satisfactory ‘B’ rating). We do acknowledge that more needs to be done to describe a clarity of focus, Theory of Change, outcome orientation and integration potential to the Program as a whole. By sharpening the focus of the proposed program, and reducing the breadth in several areas, we believe that we can demonstrate how the issues of coherence and (over) ambition raised in the commentary will be addressed. Herein we provide our formal response to the main recommendations from the ISPC to demonstrate

how these will be improved in the next stage of proposal preparation (see formal response section

below). The opportunity for WLE to meet with the ISPC on October 23, 2015 to clarify their feedback

was especially constructive, and based on that meeting, we are confident that the ISPC

recommendations can be fully addressed in the full proposal supported by an interim submission to

the ISPC as deemed necessary.

We have also clarified the feedback from the ISPC on the Governance & Management section of the WLE pre-proposal. We now understand that their lower rating was primarily based on the need for clarity in the coherence and strategic direction of the program, rather than partnership management, which was the main reason cited by the ISPC. As detailed in the pre-proposal, partnership management is recognized by the IEA as a strength of WLE, especially given the complexity of such partnerships in NRM related research. Furthermore, the IEA Governance and Management review of all CRPs rated WLE highly, and several other CRPs have now followed or copied our model/structure. With that background we still feel that the ISPC rating was unduly negative in comparison with that for other CRPs. Formal Response to the ISPC Recommendations

Recommendation 1: “Phase 2 of WLE should be more closely integrated in sites where the agri-food CRPs are working”. Response 1: This is certainly the intention as there is already considerable alignment of the CGIAR priority countries, WLE’s multi-country focal regions and the expressions of interest across the portfolio. Discussions have been held and continue with AFS-CRPs in relation to integration, docking stations, and further development and operationalization of thematic integration areas where WLE can add value. Over the next two months WLE will engage in a dialogue with the AFS CRPs to co-develop the WLE framework and further prioritize. As recommended by the ISPC, at the start of phase 2 we will focus on a few major opportunities to integrate with AFS CRPs. This will be then reflected more clearly in both the WLE proposal and also the AFS-CRP proposals, building on the point made in

2

Paris on co-responsibility. The WLE Steering Committee is also committed to the opportunity that the new portfolio approach provides for the CGIAR to make a difference in the area of sustainable intensification of agriculture. Recommendation 2: “Greater clarity is required with respect to the key leverage points for research to make a contribution in the impact pathways – both in aggregate and at flagship level. Clearer, simpler and more logical Theories of Change are required at both aggregate and flagship level in order for the CRP to effectively convey how its activities will bring about impact, and what the major assumptions are that underlie these theories”. Response 2: We agree that further elaboration of the overall theory of change and impact pathways can be provided and is being addressed. In Phase I, WLE has already established within each FP impact pathways and is starting to deliver results with and through a range of partnerships. WLE will draw more fully on this evidence to provide clearer assumptions and streamlined impact pathways, focusing in particular on the relevance of the research to achieving specific SRF SLO targets, and on how the Program as a whole will deliver this as a cross-portfolio integrating CRP. The major assumptions that underlie these theories will be elaborated. It is encouraging though to see the ISPC comment that the theories of change and impact pathways within each Flagship Project are generally plausible. These are being further strengthened and clarified at the overall program level in preparation for the WLE proposal workshop on November 24th. The WLE process is structured as a continual dialogue, learning and adapting to understand and respond to drivers of institutional change, likely barriers and leverage points. The core principles that are followed within WLE include: incorporating a wide range of skills and expertise to develop actionable solutions; setting aside time and resources to build partnerships, communication and trust; involving stakeholders from the start to support their use of research results; concentrating research, collaboration and uptake activities in targeted locations; allowing projects to adapt to changing circumstances; and planning towards long-term outcome and impact goals. Recommendation 3: “The Core Theme on Gender and Inclusive Growth should be seriously reconsidered” Response 3: The ISPC has provided useful guidance on the focus and identified areas that need strengthening in the proposal that can definitely be addressed in the next iteration including providing the level of detail that is requested. We do appreciate the need to better reflect the momentum of the gender research component throughout the program, and specifically in its role in influencing the research agenda in each of the Flagships. We propose to strengthen the analysis and approach while better focusing the overall ambition by taking a more functional approach around key research questions both for WLE Flagships and in support of NRM aspects as they appear in other parts of the portfolio. Our preliminary ideas for strengthening the structure and presentation of this fundamental component of the program and its influence on the research agenda of each of the flagships have been already been discussed with the Gender Coordinator of the CO and are seen to be going in the right direction.”

Recommendation 4: “The Flagship 5 on Sustainability, Ecosystems and Resilience has a particularly unconvincing Theory of Change, though there are some strong features that could be incorporated elsewhere in the CRP”. Response 4: We recognize that the approach, while scientifically rigorous, has been portrayed at a rather theoretical level. Within WLE we have been articulating these concepts within the framework more pragmatically in the thematic flagships, and in turn will use this to inform the messaging around overall theory of change, emphasizing the strong elements that the ISPC has noted.

3

We are in the process of reconsidering how best the most relevant parts of SER flagship can be embedded in the CRP and used as one element to guide our interaction and integration with the AFS CRP’s. Our review includes various options to ensure the evolution of the process from the ESR framework to guide the development of a pragmatic and integrated approach to sustainable intensification with related indicators within the WLE program and across the CRP portfolio. This also includes facilitating the continued development of WLE tools linked to the SDG process and the significant progress the program has made in engaging with the international community on ecosystem service research for development. Phase II provides the opportunity to WLE, as an integrating CRP, to contribute to sustainable intensification of agriculture and improvement of natural resources management and ecosystem services (SLO3) across the entire portfolio. This requires a broadened view of impact oriented NRM and ecosystems research including stronger attention to sustainable scaling of AFS technologies and system interventions. For this WLE phase II builds upon the theoretical underpinning of the original framework, and be operational and applicable across a range of agroecosystems and political and social ecologies. We intend that this process bring further coherence to WLE, and to CGIAR SLO 3. Recommendation 5: “Flagship project 6 on Integrated Solutions into Policy and Practice should be re-conceptualized and activities redefined”. Response 5: This recommendation supports the role of the program to better operationalize its role as an integrative CRP on addressing NRM challenges across the CGIAR portfolio. We will redesign the FP, building on the research and partnership networks developed to date, and, along with the relevant AFS CRPs and country integration programs, focus on a set of thematic areas that have been identified with the AFS CRPs during the pre-proposal stage and continue to be under discussion, like benchmarking sustainability and ecosystems resilience under a common framework (see above); sustaining agricultural water management at scale; resource recovery from food waste; maintaining and restoring soil health; gender and NRM; decision support and information under uncertainty; and reducing risk & managing tradeoffs between development and ecosystems. As part of the integration with the AFS CRPs, such targeting will also address the concerns raised about over-ambition. Parts of this dialogue on high demand thematic areas and priority CGIAR integration sites have already been started while developing the docking stations with the AFS and other GIP CRPs during the pre-proposal stage. Now that the shape of the overall CRP portfolio has been established, the role and mandate of WLE as a lead program on NRM within the country coordination and site integration priorities can be better articulated and implemented.

Center s formal commentary on ISPC recommendations · 2019-08-23 · 1 A4NH – general comments on...

Documents

Transcript of Center s formal commentary on ISPC recommendations · 2019-08-23 · 1 A4NH – general comments on...