Dryland Systems CRP update

Report
Dryland Systems CRP
Current Status and Next Steps
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
Current status and challenges
Launch Meeting
IDOs
Second CRP Phase
June donor/stakeholder meeting in
Montpellier
• ESA work plans
Drylands CRP Accepted
• A number of ISPC criticisms remain
– Lack of a Program-level logframe
• Will end on Dec 31 2014!
• 2012 Annual report (past) due
– Inception phase not implementation
– Thematic or maybe regional emphasis (not center)
– Resolving PPA format with new format
– CO does not have to accept or forward to CB or FO
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
Current status and challenges
Launch Meeting
IDOs
Second CRP Phase
June donor/stakeholder meeting in
Montpellier
• ESA work plans
Launch Meeting May 21-23 Amman Jordan
Agenda being prepared for circulation















Steering Committee Meeting
Independent Science Advisors Meeting
Program-level logframe and IDOs
Harmonization across regions
Governance/Management
Research Support and Performance Management
Geoinformatics
Models
M&E/Impact Pathway
Innovation Systems
Communication
Gender
Youth
Capacity Building
Breakout Groups for Workplans (By Theme? Region? Activity?)
 Workplans, logframes, etc. must facilitate Reporting
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
Current status and challenges
Launch Meeting
IDOs
Second CRP Phase
June donor/stakeholder meeting in
Montpellier
• ESA work plans
CRPIDOs and SLIDOs
• There are now “system level IDOs” and therefore the new acronym
“SLIDOs”, as well CRP IDOs.
• The CRP IDOs are intended to cluster to the SL IDOs, which in turn lead
to the “system level outcomes” (SLOs).
• The three system CRPS (Dryland Systems, Humid Tropic Systems, and
Aquatic Agriculture Systems) met with a view towards
– 1) harmonizing their IDOs,
– 2) achieving a common or coherent narrative that defined and
clarified the roles and missions as distinct from the commodity and
natural resource CRPs, and
– 3) come up with a common “SL IDO.”
• For the moment, the SLIDO for the systems CRPs is “Capacity to
Innovate”.
• IDOs will play a very important role in 2nd CRP phase
• Guidelines on their development are available
• Final IDOs scheduled for September
Generic IDOs for Dryland Systems CRP:
(associated with four Strategic Research Themes (SRTs))
SRT1. Approaches to strengthening innovation systems, building stakeholder innovation capacity, and linking
knowledge to policy action.
 Effective innovation systems identified and applied to the adoption of interventions or policies
 Enhanced capacity for innovation in trans-disciplinary research-for-development (R4D) processes
 Effective Linkages of research to policy action in a dryland context
SRT2. Reducing vulnerability and managing risk.
 Combinations of institutional, biophysical, market, and management options for reducing vulnerability and
increasing resilience designed and developed
 Trade-offs among options for reducing vulnerability and mitigating risk analyzed within regions
 Knowledge-based systems developed for customizing options to sites and circumstances
SRT3. Sustainable intensification for more productive, profitable and diversified dryland agriculture with wellestablished linkages to markets.
 Sustainable intensification options designed and developed, including the development and servicing of profitable
niche markets
 Trade-offs among profitability and risk of sustainable intensification and diversification options analyzed within
regions.
 Knowledge-based systems developed for customizing options to sites and circumstances
SRT4. Anticipating and measuring impacts and cross-regional synthesis.
 Livelihood and ecosystem characterization and monitoring
 Across-region synthesis of lessons learned from SRTs 1, 2, and 3
 Impact measured
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
Current status and challenges
Launch Meeting
IDOs
Second CRP Phase
June donor/stakeholder meeting in
Montpellier
• ESA work plans
What’s wrong with the current round of CRPs
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Programs were designed “in the rearview mirror” – putting together existing work of participating centers,
sometimes lacking a strong internal logic – rather than answering the question: what program design would
have the greatest impact on the problem to be solved and how can value for money be maximized.
Programs were designed in a stand alone fashion, without considering the value addition of each CRP to the
system level portfolio-thereby raising questions about overlaps, missed synergies and lower impact/value for
money of the entire portfolio
Milestones, outputs, and outcomes of the programs are long lists of items that may be of value for internal
project management – but do not provide relevant information on progress for investors / donors. Even
strong CRPs do not have an agreed way to show their performance in a satisfactory manner.
There is no clarity on the specific usage of W1-2 funds (in part because there is only weak linkage between
actual activities and the original proposal – and the CRPs were initially not asked to provide) making it hard to
report and demonstrate value for money.
There is lack of clarity on the role of bilateral projects in the CRPs – even CRP leaders in some programs have
no overview what the bilateral projects do, or how they contribute to CRPs, if they do.
W1-2 and W3-bilateral funding streams are interlinked (in the sense that they leverage each other – with W12 funding a larger than proportional share of CGIAR staff; and W3-bilateral funding a larger than proportional
share of partners) – but there is no clarity at the Consortium, Fund or donor level how this is done – and
whether such leveraging is in fact good or bad.
There is no agreement among donors on harmonized reporting leading to multiple reporting requests – in
part caused (or not helped) by the fact that there is not a strong monitoring system of relevant outcome
indicators proposed by the programs (yet).
There is no system of priorities that helps assess relative contributions to system level outcomes across the
CRP portfolio, or helps allocate resources across programs.
Process for CGIAR Research Program 2nd call
for proposals (2015-2017)
1. Substantive guidance CRPs will be asked to develop proposals to meet the
IDOs developed in 2013, along with other guidance
2. Harmonize / synchronize end dates of all current phase 1 CRP contracts
(except the Genebank CRP) to 31/12/2014
3. Call for Concept Notes (10 page max) by invitation only, i.e. only the existing
CRPs plus additional ones by invitation
4. Review and recommended guidance
5. Approval for call for full proposals
6. Proposal development
7. Independent External Review
8. Approval of stage 2 CRP portfolio of “big project” CNs by CB and FC
9. CRP leadership develops full proposals for approved big project CNs and seeks
funding from W3 / bilateral donors.
10. CPA and PIA for CRP and projects.
11. Project outcomes and performance
12. Annual program (CRP) performance appraisal
13. Overall program (CRP) performance is externally reviewed every three years
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
Current status and challenges
Launch Meeting
IDOs
Second CRP Phase
June donor/stakeholder meeting in
Montpellier
• ESA work plans
CRP Engagement with Donors and External
Stakeholders to Discuss Targets, Theory of Change,
Impact Pathways and Indicators for Definition and
Prioritization of CRP-level IDOs
Montpellier France
June 17-28, 2013
Day 1
Plenary Session
8:30 - 10:30
10:30 – 11:00
11:00 – 12:30
12:30 – 14:00
CRPs Presentations (10 min) Followed by Discussions (20 min)
- Focus Areas
- Cross Cutting IDOs
- Regional Collaborations
- Partnerships
Coffee Break
Donors & Stakeholder Presentations & Feedback Followed by Discussion
- Donor Investment Priorities
- Partnerships, Boundary Work and Impact Pathways
Lunch
14:00 – 17:00
CRP-1 Presentation (30 min) (closed session of CRP1 with its investors,
partners and stakeholders)
- IDOs, ToC, Impact Pathways
- Time-Phased 10 year Work Plan
- Estimated Budget
Discussion
19:00 – 21:00
Group Dinner
Engagement with Donors and External Stakeholders
• An important step in the process of prioritizing at the system level, is the
convening of meetings that will bring together the CRP leaders with
donors and external stakeholders to:
• refine targets,
• discuss explicit IDOs, Theories of Change Impact Pathways and
indicators, and
• to ultimately negotiate time-phased investments to achieve agreed
upon IDOs.
• The first set of meetings with donors and external stakeholders will be
organized in Montpellier between June 17 – 28, 2013.
• A second meeting is expected in 2014 as part of CRPs’ proposal
development.
• The deadline for CRPs to submit materials for review by the donors and
external stakeholders is 3 weeks before their meeting. These materials
should be 10-15 pages length and fully incorporate progress made in the
Working Group refining CRP IDOs.
Guidelines on Presentations Available
And forthcoming!
Key components. The presentations should cover each of the following elements:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
Intermediate development outcomes (IDOs), Impact Pathways (IPs) and Theories of Change (ToCs). Detailed guidance on the IDOs, IPs, and
ToCs is provided separately. Each presentation should summarize the IDOs, IPs and ToCs, showing how the CRP will contribute to common CRP
IDOs and so to achievement of the SLOs. Best estimates of targets for each IDO should be provided.
Flagship projects. It is envisaged that each CRP will deliver its work through a limited number of (3-6 ) large “flagship projects” with a value of
between and US$20-100m over the course of the project. These projects may be either geographically or thematically focused. Each
presentation should summarize these flagship projects and show how they will contribute to the IDOs. At this stage this is primarily intended to
identify flagship projects and therefore the proposed structure of the CRP (key groups of activities; key streams of work; possibly organized by
IDO, or in any other manner the CRP finds most helpful). It is intended that the pre-proposals submitted in March 2014 will have by and large the
same components as the presentations in June 2013, and that the flagship projects will be further developed intoi specific concept notes for each
of these flagship projects in the full proposal due later in 2014.
Partnerships. The CRP’s ToCs depend on effective partnerships and it is therefore anticipated that the next round of proposals will provide
greater detail on how the CRPs are working through partnership to achieve the IDOs. The presentations should therefore highlight partnership
successes to date and how these will be built on in the coming phase, preferably being explicit about the role of partners in research (leadership
on components, for example) and management / governance (membership of steering or management committees) . Indicative shares of
budget, by partner or partner category, would be desirable.
Regional collaborations. As part of the partnerships discussion each CRP should show how they are working with regional partners to pursue
effective regional processes through which the CRPs can achieve greater impact at scale.
Phased workplan covering the 9 year period from 2015-2023. To provide donors with your current best sense of the future development of the
CRP a phased workplan for the period 2015-2023 should be provided. This will necessarily be pitched at a high strategic level, but should aim to
convey to donors what they can expect to see happening at what time, and when we expect to see results of different types and at different
scales. For example you might show in which three year periods you envisage the CRP expanding into new geographies or developing new
product lines.
Budget. Current best estimates of cost of each of the flagship projects and each of the IDOs should be provided, covering the life of the CRP. It is
understood that there will not be a detailed budget, and that not all CRPs have a good sense of the costs of each IDO, but it is expected that CRPs
will share their current best estimates and improve these between June 2013 and March 2014.
I am proposing a bit more flexibility, depending on CRP structure – could be a few more, 8? 10? but should not become 20 or 30.
Guidelines on Presentations Available
And forthcoming!
Flagship projects. It is envisaged that each CRP will deliver its work through a
limited number of (3-6 ) large “flagship projects” with a value of between and
US$20-100m over the course of the project. These projects may be either
geographically or thematically focused. Each presentation should summarize these
flagship projects and show how they will contribute to the IDOs. At this stage this is
primarily intended to identify flagship projects and therefore the proposed
structure of the CRP (key groups of activities; key streams of work; possibly
organized by IDO, or in any other manner the CRP finds most helpful). It is intended
that the pre-proposals submitted in March 2014 will have by and large the same
components as the presentations in June 2013, and that the flagship projects will be
further developed intoi specific concept notes for each of these flagship projects in
the full proposal due later in 2014.
I am proposing a bit more flexibility, depending on CRP structure – could be a few more, 8? 10? but should
not become 20 or 30.
Outline
•
•
•
•
•
Current status and challenges
Launch Meeting
IDOs
Second CRP Phase
June donor/stakeholder meeting in
Montpellier
• ESA work plans
Dangers of Laissez Faire
• Each center does what it wants, where it
wants
• Marginalization of Regional Coordinators
• Lack of Programmatic coherence
• Challenge of reporting on program level using
disparate regional reports with no real data
management, no thought given to common
methodologies or experimental design, and
no consistent reporting format*
*other than OCS reporting “someday”
“Simplified Standardized Logframe”
Example from W. Africa (7 pages long)
Many activities
identified but:
• No budget
• No obvious links to
“SRO x Center”
budgets
• Unclear impact
pathway
• No inter-regional
harmony
• No global program
• “Cracks”
West Africa Sahel and Dryland Savannas
SRT
Outputs
SRT Outputs
Activities
Activity 1.1.1 Identify, and document the
performance of existing and alternative
crop/livestock/trees management practices for
enhancing food and feed security
2, 4
2.1, 4.2
2,4
2.1, 2.3, 4.2, 4.3
Output 1.1 Best fit
crop/livestock/trees management
practices for addressing feed gaps and Activity 1.1.2 Characterize and simulate livestock
mediated nutrient flows at landscape level
system productivity identified and
documented
Activity 1.1.3 Develop and promote improved
crop/livestock/trees management practices to
reduce feed gaps for livestock
1,2
Site
SRT2
SRT2
SRT2
1.2,2.1,2.2
Output 1.2 Costs, benefits and
Activity 1.2.1 Analyze the economic profitability of
tradeoffs of the proposed integrated the improved crop/livestock/trees management
management practices assessed
practices for enhancing food and feed security
4
SRT2
4.4
SRT
1,2,3,4
SRT Outputs
Outputs
Activities
Activity 2.1.1. Assess and monitor the effect of
Output 2.1 Best practices for
management practices on whole landscape biomass
increasing biomass production that productivity
will result to increased soil organic
matter, water holding capacity and
nutrients availability developed and
disseminated
1.2, 2.1, 3.1, 3, 4.2
Activity 2.1.2 Develop and disseminate best practices
for increasing biomass productivity
1,2,3
SRT2, SRT3
SRT2, SRT3
1.2, 2.2,3.2
Output 2.2 Options for increasing
organic matters through effective use
Activity 2.2.1 Quantify the effects of management
of trees, cover crops, crop residues
practices on nutrient fluxes at the farm scale
and animal manure developed and
promoted
2, 3
Site
2.1, 3.1
SRT2, SRT3
“New Table 13”. Project Costs and Funding Source - Year 1 of
Implementation
Cost
Group
Budget Line Item
1
Personnel Cost
2
Travel
3
ICARDA ICRISAT
ILRI
CIP
IWMI
ICRAF Bioversity
WorldFis Total Project
h
Costs
CIAT
5,150
4,723
1,553
757
619
431
534
252
-
14,019
833
695
135
181
107
73
4
30
-
2,058
Operating expenses (see definition)
2,239
1,411
2,114
770
155
233
17
143
-
7,083
4
Traning / Workshop
1,002
170
-
12
-
42
217
3
-
1,446
5
Partners / Collaborator / Consultancy
1,666
1,498
312
583
238
215
5
21
-
4,537
6
Capital and other equipment
914
390
-
102
48
21
16
6
-
1,496
7
Contingency
-
443
-
-
24
-
95
-
-
562
11,804
9,330
4,114
2,405
1,191
1,016
888
455
-
31,202
2,361
1,941
823
369
262
213
178
79
-
6,226
14,165
11,271
4,937
2,774
1,453
1,229
1,065
534
-
37,428
Sub-Total
8
Institutional Overhead
Total Project Costs
Funding Sources
ICRISAT
CGIAR Fund (Windows 1 and 2)
8,478
5,970
1,936
621
1,143
470
959
534
-
20,111
Window 3 & Bilateral Restricted Grants
5,688
5,301
3,001
2,152
310
759
107
-
-
17,317
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
534
-
Others
Total Funds
14,166
11,271
ILRI
4,937
CIP
2,774
IWMI
1,453
ICRAF
1,229
Bioversity
1,065
CIAT
Total
WorldFish Contribution
ICARDA
37,428
“Program
Level” Activity budgets for ICARDA
SRT1 Activities: $3,769,517
1.1: Developing models and approaches
for strengthening innovation
systems in drylands
1.2: Enhancing the capacity for
innovation and effective
participation in collaborative R4D
processes
1.3: Developing strategies for effectively
linking research to policy action
in dryland context
Common RIW outcomes from 5 RIWs
(Debatable) SRT Assignments and Budgetary Implications
SRT 1: $3,769,517
• Improved access to and adoption of appropriate
technology and technical advice by smallholder
farmers
• Higher levels of empowerment for youth and women
in community decision-making
• Stronger institutions to serve the rural poor and
greater government awareness about system and
livelihood interdependencies, leading to more-effective
policy changes and institutional innovations
• Broad stakeholder participation in the research and
development cycle through innovation platforms
“Program
Level” Activity budgets for ICARDA
SRT2 Activities: $4,724,584
2.1: Developing and testing
combinations of institutional,
biophysical, and management
options for reducing vulnerability
and mitigating risk
2.2: Up- and out-scaling of options
2.3: Analysis, within target regions, of
trade-offs among options and
development of knowledgebased systems for customizing
options to sites and
circumstances
“Program
Level” Activity budgets for ICARDA
SRT3 Activities: $3,843,205
3.1: Developing and testing
combinations of options for
sustainable intensification and
diversification of agricultural
production systems
3.2: Up- and out-scaling of options
3.3: Analysis, within target regions, of
trade-offs among options and
development of knowledge-based
systems for customizing options to sites
and circumstances
Common RIW outcomes from 5 RIWs
(Debatable)
SRT Assignments and Budgetary Implications
SRTs 2 ($ 4,724,584) and 3 ($3,843,205)
• Farmer attainment of higher plant and livestock productivity and profitability
• Improved rural employment
• Greater biomass availability for animal and cropping systems
• Better access to markets and financial services by smallholder farmers
• High-value product markets made accessible to smallholder farmers
• More-effective buffering and system resilience to reduce vulnerability to
system shocks and climate change
• Increased food security, including better nutrition
• Higher levels of biodiversity and lower levels of land degradation facilitated
through better management of soil, water, and genetic resources
• Farmers are equipped to manage their natural resources in a more
sustainable way
• Postharvest and processing technologies have been improved and
communicated and value-adding options increased
“Program
Level” Activity budgets for ICARDA
SRT4 Activities: $1,827,734
4.1: Analysis of future scenarios and
priorities
4.2: Baseline characterization of
livelihoods and ecosystems, and
synthesis across regions of
lessons learned about the options
developed in SRTs 2 and 3
4.3: Assessments of program outcomes
and impacts
Common RIW outcomes from 5 RIWs
(Debatable) SRT Assignments and Budgetary Implications
SRT4 ($1,827,734)
• A widely agreed upon framework to define and measure
vulnerability for the purpose of informing policy and programming
• Trade-off analyses to establish the optimal mix of land use/land
cover and cropping systems
• Dryland Systems CRP to inform other CRPs, and vice versa
• Improved options for mixed production systems are communicated
to smallholder farmers.
• Better understanding of system characteristics, opportunities, and
constraints
• Effective communication of CRP findings to all stakeholders
Reality Check
• We are already well in to 2013
• Phase 1 will end in 2014
• Especially for dryland agroecosystems, there
are no realistic outcomes unless from “legacy”
activities or ongoing projects
• So we must muddle along and gradually
realign
• But we still have to report!
“Annex 1” of current annual report template
CRPs
concerned
by
this
indicator
Indicator
KNOWLEDGE, TOOLS, DATA
All
1. Number of flagship
“products” produced by CRP
All
All
All
All
2. % of flagship products
produced that have explicit
target
of
women
farmers/NRM managers
3. % of flagship products
produced that have been
assessed for likely genderdisaggregated impact
4. Number of ”tools”
produced by CRP
5. % of tools that have an
explicit target of women
Glossary/guidelines for measuring the indicator
These are frameworks and concepts that are significant and
complete enough to have been highlighted on web pages,
publicized through blog stories, press releases and/or policy
briefs. They are significant in that they should be likely to
change the way stakeholders along the impact pathway
allocate resources and/or implement activities. They should be
products that change the way these stakeholders think and act.
Tools, decision-support tools, guidelines and/or training
manuals are not included in this indicator
The web pages, blog stories, press releases and policy briefs
supporting indicator #1 must have an explicit focus on women
farmers/NRM managers to be counted
Deviation
narrative (if
actual is more
than
10%
away
from
target)
2012
Target (if
available
for 2012)
Actual
7
(5
regional
reports,
one
revised
proposal,
one
inception
report
Not
available
7
Reports/papers describing the products should include a focus
on gender-disaggregated impacts if they are to be counted
Not
available
These are significant decision-support tools, guidelines, and/or
training manuals that are significant and complete enough to
have been highlighted on web pages, publicized through blog
stories, press releases and/or policy briefs. They are significant
in that they should be likely to change the way stakeholders
along the impact pathway allocate resources and/or implement
activities
The web pages, blog stories, press releases and policy briefs
supporting indicator #4 must have an explicit focus on women
Not
available
Not
available
2013
2014
Target
Target

similar documents