Qualitative prioritization - Tim Kelley
-
Upload
independent-science-and-partnership-council-of-the-cgiar -
Category
Science
-
view
219 -
download
2
Transcript of Qualitative prioritization - Tim Kelley
Introduction
“CGIAR’s Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC) will strengthen the quality, relevance, and impact of new
investments through the provision of expert scientific guidance through an appropriate qualitative prioritization for the next generation of CRPs at both pre-proposal and final proposal stage. This will ensure that only the strongest, most directly
relevant CRP proposals are approved for funding.” Quote from the SRF (May 2015)
http://ispc.cgiar.org/ ISPC 12, Rome
Improved food and nutrition security for health
Increased household
capacity to cope with shocks
Reduced poverty
Increased incomes and employment
Increased productivity
Enhanced smallholder
market access
Increased resilience of the poor to climate
change and other shocks
Improved natural resource systems and ecosystem services
Improved diets for poor and vulnerable
people
Improved
food
safety
More sustainably
managed agro-ecosystems
Enhanced benefits from
ecosystem goods and
services
Improved human and
animal health through better
agricultural practices
Natural capital enhanced and
protected, especially from climate change
Cross-cutting issues: Gender and youth , Climate change , Policies and institutions , Capacity development
Increased access to productive
assets, including natural resources
Reduced pre- and post-harvest
losses, including those caused by climate change
Increased availability of
diverse nutrient-rich foods
Reduced production risk
Reduced biological and
chemical hazards in the food
system Increased livelihood
opportunities Reduced market
barriers
Increased resilience of agro-ecosystems and
communities especially those
including smallholders
More productive and equitable
management of natural resources
Land, water and forest
degradation (including
deforestation) minimized and
reversed
Improved water quality
Increased access to diverse
nutrient-rich foods
More efficient use of inputs
Increased value capture by producers
Closed yield gaps through improved
agronomic and animal husbandry
practices
Increased conservation and
use of genetic resources
Diversified enterprise
opportunities
Enhanced genetic gain
Improved access to financial and other services
Optimized consumption of diverse nutrient-
rich foods
Appropriate regulatory
environment for food safety
Reduced livestock and fish disease risks associated
with intensification
and climate change
Increased safe use of inputs
Enhanced conservation of
habitats and resources
Increased genetic diversity of
agricultural and associated landscapes
Agricultural systems
diversified and intensified in
ways that protect soils and water
Enhancement of plant and animal biodiversity for multiple goods
and services
Enhanced adaptive capacity
to climate risks
Reduced net greenhouse gas emissions from
agriculture, forests and other forms of land use
Climate change
Gender and youth
Policies and institutions
Capacity development
Mitigation and adaptation achieved
Reduced net GHG emission from agriculture, forestry and other
forms of land use
Increased above- and below-ground biomass for carbon
sequestration
Improved forecasting of impacts of climate change and targeted
technology development
Enhanced capacity to deal with climatic risks and extremes
Equity and inclusion achieved
Enabling environment improved
National partners and beneficiaries enabled
Gender equitable control of productive assets and resources
Technologies which reduce women’s labour and energy expenditure developed and
disseminated
Improved capacity of women and young people to participate in
decision-making
Enabled environment for climate resilience
Increased capacity of beneficiaries to adopt research
outputs
Increased capacity of partner organisations as evidenced by
rates of investment in agricultural research
Conducive agricultural policy environment
Conducive environment for managing shocks and
vulnerability as evidenced in rapid response mechanisms
Enhanced institutional capacity of partners research organisations
Enhanced individual capacity in partner research organisations through training and exchange
Increased capacity for innovation in partner research organisations
Enhanced capacity for innovation in partner development
organisations and in poor and vulnerable communities
Methodology The analysis was undertaken in two separate spheres:
http://ispc.cgiar.org/ ISPC 12, Rome
Donors Asked to indicate
their organisational priorities for sub-
IDOs
Experts
Drawing on experts’ knowledge of
agricultural R & D pathways to rate sub-IDOs against specific criteria that feed into
priorities
Caveats
Sub-IDOs are open to interpretation. Sub-IDOs are interlinked; some may be a necessary condition for others or impacting one may mean impacting several. Development strategies are contextual; variation by country or even within countries.
http://ispc.cgiar.org/ ISPC 12, Rome
I. The Donor Survey
Donors allocated 45 points across the 45 unique sub-IDOs (forcing choices !). Allocations reflected the relative importance of each sub-IDO for the organisation.
Of 70 stakeholders and donors approached, 19 respondents. 15 of these 19 contributed 59% of CGIAR funding in 2014.
http://ispc.cgiar.org/ ISPC 12, Rome
Results: Varying Discrimination between Sub-IDOS
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
# o
f su
b-I
DO
s as
sign
ed
ze
ro
Donor
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
4.3 4.1 3.3 3.2 4.2 4.4 8.1 9.2 4.5 2.1 1.1 5.2 10.110.2 3.4 5.1 7.2 1.2 8.3 9.1 2.2 3.1 7.1 8.2 6.1 5.3 6.2 9.3 7.3
Po
ints
Ass
ign
ed
Sub-IDO
Reduced pre- and post-harvest losses
Enhanced genetic gain
Increased value capture by producers
Increased livelihood opportunities
Optimised consumption of diverse nutrient rich foods
Enhancement of animal and plant biodiversity
Increased use of safe inputs
Regulatory environment for food safety
Donor Priorities: Total Points Assigned
II. Expert Opinion
7 experts (international agricultural research and development) were asked to undertake a prioritization exercise. Multi-disciplinary: economists, agricultural R&D expert, bio-physical scientist, international development expert, donors, ex CGIAR
http://ispc.cgiar.org/ ISPC 12, Rome
Methodology
http://ispc.cgiar.org/ ISPC 12, Rome
• Assign scores of 1-5 to sub-IDOs according to some of these criteria:
The relevance of
the sub-IDO for
achieving the SLO.
The centrality of
agricultural
research to this
sub-IDO.
The comparative
advantage of the
CGIAR for
achieving the sub-
IDO.
The International
Public Goods
orientation of CG to
achieve the sub-
IDO.
Expectation of
delivery in the
short and long
term.
Methodology
Initially wanted to establish some sort of consensus/majority. • Normalised scores • Divided into quintiles • Grouped into high, moderate and low • Combined relevance and centrality to form ISPC rating (high, moderate-high, moderate or low)
http://ispc.cgiar.org/ ISPC 12, Rome
Comparing prioritisation results
to sub-IDO targets in the CRP
pre-proposals
http://ispc.cgiar.org/ ISPC 12, Rome
Going Forward
“CGIAR’s Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC) will strengthen the quality, relevance, and impact of new
investments through the provision of expert scientific guidance through an appropriate qualitative prioritization for the next generation of CRPs at both pre-proposal and final proposal stage. This will ensure that only the strongest, most directly
relevant CRP proposals are approved for funding.”
http://ispc.cgiar.org/ ISPC 12, Rome