RTB at IITA - Background

34
James Legg RTB at IITA - Background

Transcript of RTB at IITA - Background

James Legg

RTB at IITA - Background

Peter Kulakow

EPL Nov 21

Arsenal 1:2 Watford

EPL Nov 21

Sthton 0:1 Stoke City

Figure of Pie-Chart

Humidtropics (28%)

MAIZE (10%) RTB (26%)

Grain Legumes

(10%)

A4NH (9%)

WLE (6%)

CCAFS (3%) Genebanks (1%)

PIM (7%)

W1/2 + W3/bilateral = 103 million USD

W1/2 = 24 million USD

CRP portfolio

CGIAR: The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

The CRPs Roots, Tubers and Bananas

Banana

Plantain Cassava Potato Sweetpotato Yam Other R&T

400 million farmers depend on RTB crops

Buffering role in food systems

Our Crops

Crop Expertise by Centre

CROP EXPERTISE

CENTER

BANANA

CASSAVA

POTATO

SWEETPOTATO

YAM

AROIDS

ANDEAN

Bioversity

CIAT

CIP

CIRAD

IITA

RTB 1.0: Programme Structure

RTB 1.0 Key Features

Feature

Theme-based programme structure

Funding through: Base (Core) & Complementary Projects

Gender Mainstreaming

Results-based Management (RBM)

RTB provides umbrella for both W1/2 and W3 funding

Reporting through Google-drive based Product Portfolio

ALL IITA activities on RTBs reported to RTB

Complementary projects 2014/2015

Title

Targeted use of global genetic diversity

Describing and managing diseases causing degeneration

of planting material

Conceptual Framework for Seed Systems

BBTD containment and recovery

Management of RTB-critical pests and diseases under

changing climates,

Integrating gender in RTB thematic research

Part I (Processing) and Part II (Production): Competitive

production and processing

Gender Mainstreaming in RTB

Impact Assessment/adoption studies

RTB 1.0 to RTB 2.0

6 Flagships and 25 clusters

Outcome Orientation (RBM)

Multidisciplinary teams from different Themes

Online software platform (M&E)

Google drive

Research / output

orientation

7 RTB Themes RTB 1.0

RTB 2.0

RTB: change and reviews

• CRP Phases

– Phase 1: 2012-2016 (2015-2016 transition)

– Phase 2: 2017-2022

• Structural Change

– Moving from themes to Flagship Projects and Clusters of

Activities

• Pre-proposal

– Written and submitted in August, 2015

• Reviews

– Independent Evaluation Arrangement (IEA) (RTB)

– Science, Programs and Partnerships Committee (SPPC)

– Independent Partnership Science Council (ISPC)

RTB 2.0: Program Structure

Governance & Management

Center &

Gender

Focal

Points

RTB 2: Hierarchical Programme Structure

Cluster

Flagship

Project

1 2 3 4 5 6

RTB Program Level

Outputs – Milestones – Activities/input

Products

(daisy)

New 'system’ of yam production

base on improved varieties, seed

system, integrated crop management and value chain

alliances.

High yielding market-

demanding improved candidate

varieties for release

Production and protecction

technologies to increase

productivity of ware and seed

yam

Business plan models and value chain productive alliances models

for profitable quality seed and

ware yam production

Seed system, high ratio

propagation techniques and certification for

quality seed.

Accelerated breeding cycle

integrating, participatory

value chain and modern breeding

methods and tools

Cluster of Activities

Product ‘Daisy’

Yam Varieties

And Sustainable

Seed Systems

Definitions

Flagship Project (FP)

• Large research components that add up to make a complete CRP

• Build on constituent clusters

• Each Flagship addresses (sub)-IDOs and achieve 2 to 3 of the CGIAR

SLOs

Cluster of Activity (CoA)

• Sub-projects within each Flagship (5 to 8)

• Units for planning, reporting, monitoring and budget / managing for

results/outcomes

• Basis for organizing scientists across centers / multidisciplinary

science teams

• About size of large BMGF grant

• Specific theories of change co-constructed with specific stakeholders

Timeline for RTB Full proposal

Date Stage

17 Aug 2015 Pre-proposals shared with Consortium Board (CB),

ISPC and FC.

16 November 2015 CB invites full proposals and initiates other follow-

up

Before – 31 March 2016 Prepare and submit full CRP proposals

17 Jun – 31 Jul 2016 Centers revise proposals & share with CGIAR

System Council

10 Nov 2016 CGIAR System Council decisions on CRP

proposals

10 Nov – 10 Dec 2016 Center revisions of CGIAR System Council must-

haves, if any

10 - 20 Dec 2016 ISPC final check of CGIAR System Council must

haves

Starts 1 January 2017 A rolling 6-year program of research with

committed funding for the initial 3 years, renewable

depending on progress.

Original Proposed RTB Structure

Business Cases: Cluster Writing Teams - 1

Writing Teams Spreadsheet

Cluster Writing Teams - 2

Impact Pathway

FP3

Impact

Pathway

Proposed Flagship Project Leaders

Flagship Project FP Leader Centre

Discovery Clair Hershey CIAT

Varieties and Seed Elmar Schulte-Geldermann CIP

Resilient Crops James Legg IITA

Nutritious Food Simon Heck CIP

Livelihood Systems Piet van Asten IITA

Impact at Scale Elisabetta Gotor Bioversity

IEA – Review Outcomes

• Summary. Overall successful, and is delivering

results after four year

• Global comparative advantage. Strong, but

should assess role in light of growing strengths of

NARS and Private Sector

• Science Quality. Sound, but high level of output

in non Thomson journals (39%) is worrying

• 18 recommendations. Notable. Stronger cross-

centre integration in cassava & banana breeding

programmes

ISPC – Pre-proposal Review Outcomes

• RTB founded on clear comparative advantage

CGIAR

• Well conceptualised, strong and stable

management

• Pre-proposal generally very high standard

• Role of other CRPs and partner organisations

explained succinctly with great clarity

• Theory of change and impact pathway for RTB

clear, focused, logical and plausible

• Greatest concern role of FP5 and FP6

Clusters Annex 5.1 Overview, coding and short titles of FP and clusters

Flagship Projects:

DISCOVERY DELIVERY

FP1:

Enhanced genetic resources

FP2:

Productive varieties & quality seed

FP3:

Resilient crops

FP4:

Nutritious food & added value

FP5:

Integrated livelihood systems

Clusters of Activity:

DI1.1 (Breeding platform)

DI1.2 (Next generation breeding)

DI1.3 (Game changing traits)

DI1.4 (In-situ conservation)

DI1.5 (Adding value to

genebanks)

CC2.1 (Quality seeds & access to

improved varieties )

BA2.2 (User preferred banana cultivars/hybrids)

CA2.3 (Added value cassava varieties)

PO2.4 (Potato quality seed)

PO2.5 (Potato varieties for Asia)

SW2.6 (User preferred

sweetpotato varieties)

YA2.7 (Quality seed yam)

CC3.1 (Pest/disease management)

CC3.2 (Crop production systems)

BA3.3 (Banana fungal diseases/Foc)

BA3.4 (Banana viral diseases/BBTV)

BA3.5 (Banana bacterial

diseases/BXW)

CA3.6 (Cassava biological

constraints, Asia/Americas)

CA3.7 (Cassava biological threats,

Africa)

CC4.1 (Postharvest innovation &

nutrition improvement)

CA4.2 (Cassava processing)

CA4.3 (Biofortified cassava)

SW4.4 (Nutritious sweetpotato)

CC5.1 (Sustainable intensification/diversi

fication)

CC5.2 (Institutional innovations)

PB5.3 (East and Central Africa)

PB5.4 (West Africa)

PB5.5 (Central Mekong)

PB5.6 (Tropical Americas and

Caribbean)

FP 6: Impact at scale

CC6.1 (Knowledge, capacities, partnerships)

CC6.2 (Strategic gender research)

CC6.3 (Foresight, impact assessment)

Note: prefix indicates crop where relevant: DI=discovery, CC=cross cutting, BA=banana, CA=cassava, PO=potato, SW=sweetpotato, YA=yam, PB=place based.

Cross-cutting

Place based

Cross cutting

RTB Planning – Next Steps

• Reporting. Product portfolio report (all scientists),

theme reports (theme leaders), crop reports (focal

points and lead crop scientists for each centre),

complementary project reports (project leaders

and centre PIs)

• Site Integration. IITA to lead in 2 of 3 African

priority sites: Nigeria and Tanzania (all CRPs)

• Annual Meeting. CIP, Lima. December 8-10

• Phase II full proposal. Deadline – March 31

And in Conclusion

• IITA and RTB

– Is it all too much effort?

• IITA and RTB

– Funding concerns call for innovation and

aggressive pursuit of new opportunities

And in Conclusion

• IITA and RTB

– Is it all too much effort?

• IITA and RTB

– Funding concerns call for innovation and

aggressive pursuit of new opportunities