1. 1 Change Management in the CGIAR Update August 2008

2. Table of Contents Agricultural Research InvestmentAgricultural Investment & The Food CrisisTransforming the CGIAR 2 CGIAR System: the good, the bad, and the ugly

3. The agricultural research landscape is shifting with the emergence of new funders 3 2000 International $, Millions Growing Investment in Agriculture Research in Key Countries Gates Foundation Annual Funding to CGIAR Source: World Development Report, 2008 Source: CGIAR financial reports

4. 4 Official development assistance has grown, but the percentage allocation to agricultural research has decreased significantly Source: External Review Panel, 2008

5. 5 The growth in crop yield gains has slowed, while food demand continues to rise rapidly Source: World Development Report, 2008 Developing Country Consumption Meat Cereals Horticulture Growth in Crop Yield Gains

6. Increased demand together with high fuel prices, growing biofuel production and other factors have contributed to the food crisis 6

7. Table of Contents Agricultural Research InvestmentTransforming the CGIAR 7 CGIAR System: the good, the bad, and the ugly

8. 8 CGIAR has evolved to a System with more than 8,500 CGIAR scientists and staff working in over 100 countries, addressing every critical component of the agricultural research sector IFPRI Washington, DC USA CIMMYT Mexico City Mexico CIP Lima, Peru CIAT Cali Colombia Africa Rice Center-WARDA Cotonou, Benin ILRI Nairobi Kenya IITA Ibadan Nigeria IWMI Colombo Sri Lanka ICARDA Aleppo, Syria ICRISAT Patancheru India IRRI Los Baños Philippines WorldFish Penang Malaysia CIFOR Bogor Indonesia World Agroforestry Nairobi, Kenya Bioversity International Rome,Italy

9. 9 Without the CGIAR’s investment: World food production would be 4 to 5 percent lower Developing countries would produce 7 to 8 percent less food 13 to 15 million more children would be malnourished Since its launch, CGIAR has delivered innovations that have resulted in feeding an additional 13 million people per year “The CGIAR’s support for agricultural research is an essential contribution to the MDGs and to sustainable agriculture in a famine-free world.” – Louis Michel, EU Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid “We recognize the CGIAR as a gem.... It is one of the most successful partnerships in the history of development.” – James Wolfensohn, former President, World Bank

10. Over the past 30 years, the CGIAR System has become increasingly complicated 10 1971TODAY

11. 11 The most important asset in the System is our world-class scientists, and we must enable them to do their best work  1000 internationally recruited staff, half from developing countries  44% of CGIAR staff are involved in core research activities  20% of scientists are women Key Facts  Women represent only 9% of Center management positions  Annual staff turn over rate is about 12%  Of departing staff, 40% leave voluntarily  Staff feels that CGIAR needs to implement more consistent personnel practices across centers and thinking more about the role of international, "regional" and national scientists in an "international" system”  Staff feels that Centers should hire new people into the system to refresh the spirit * Emerging Issues To recruit and retain the most talented scientists we must create a learning environment along with management structures that enable scientists to do work with minimum red tape Source: CGIAR; * Scoping Team Survey 2007

12. 12 CGIAR planning, monitoring and evaluation processes are complex and duplicative STRATEGIC PLANNING OPERATION PLANNING Center Medium Term Plan (3 year rolling plan) CGIAR Members and Stakeholders Review System Priorities (by SC every 5 years) Center priority setting and strategic planning (ad-hoc) MONITORING and EVALUATION Annual 5 years/regular Ad-hoc Indicator-based Center-level Self-Assessment In-depth Evaluation Performance Measurement System (PMS) CGIAR System Reviews Inter-Center Stripe- Reviews External Reviews of system-wide programs CCERs External Program and Management of CPs External Program Management Reviews (EPMR) Center Level Inter-Center System- Level Individual Donor/ Investor Reviews Each Center has a rolling 3 year medium-term plan CGIAR commissions periodic External System Review (one is currently underway) Inter-Center thematic (Stripe) reviews are commissioned by the Science Council to evaluate specific high priority themes External reviews of Centers are performed every 5 years (approx. 4 EPMR’s per year costing $250,000 each) Center commissioned external reviews (CCERs) are conducted every 3 to 5 years (costing $40,000 to $100,000 per program/division) Centers report annually on their research results, institutional and financial health

13. 13 Since the mid-1970s, CGIAR funding levels have stagnated In $ millions

14. 14 With additional resources, existing capabilities could be scaled up and out to provide even more impact on emerging challenges Climate Change Food Crisis  Drought-tolerant chickpea  Combating deforestation, the source of 20% of annual GHG emissions  Pest resistant maize  New Rice for Africa(NERICA) - pests and disease resistant - reduced import dependence  Aquaculture techniques double yields  Disease resistant potatoes  Drought-tolerant high-yielding rice  Drought-tolerant maize with 30% higher yields  Flood-tolerant rice with yield 2-3  Super-early chickpeas ILLUSTRATIVE SOLUTIONS CGIAR Capabilities Untapped Capabilities Capabilities Currently Leveraged Against Development Challenges

15. Table of Contents Agricultural Research InvestmentAgricultural Investment & The Food CrisisTransforming the CGIAR 15 Agricultural Research Investment CGIAR System: the good, the bad, and the ugly

16. 16 CGIAR launched a change initiative at the beginning of 2008 in service of greater impact FROMTO Greater impact on food security and poverty reduction  Mission creep and trying to do everything  Duplicative mandate of the Centers without clear System-wide vision and strategy for impact  Complex and cumbersome governance and lack of accountability  Static partnerships that are not enabling scalable impact and research adoption  Lack of coordination among investors  Declining core resources  Clear vision with focused priorities that respond to global development challenges  Centers that collaborate, work toward the System agenda and priorities, and deliver impact  Streamlined and effective System-level governance with clear accountability  Strong and innovative partnerships with NARS, the private sector and civil society that enable impact  Strengthened, coordinated funding mechanisms that are linked to the System agenda and priorities  Stabilization and growth of resource support

17. The change initiative is designed as a highly consultative and internally driven process that is focused on four focus areas Initial direction from the four Working Groups is presented at the end of the document Partnerships Define strategies for the CGIAR to increase its impact through greater connections with partners Visioning and Development Challenges Define the unique contribution of the CGIAR and the resulting strategy for the System Governance Define a governance approach for the System as a whole and for the Centers that promotes efficiency, accountability, transparency and impact Funding Mechanisms Define a funding approach that meets the requirements laid out in the Funding System Priorities Report 17

18. 18 A broad group of stakeholders collectively aligned on an inspiring vision and identified three strategic objectives for the System To reduce poverty and hunger, improve human health and nutrition, and enhance ecosystem resilience through high-quality international agricultural research, partnership and leadership. CGIAR Vision A world free of poverty and hunger, supported by healthy and resilient ecosystems. Global Vision FOOD FOR PEOPLE Create and accelerate sustainable increases in the productivity and production of healthy food by and for the poor ENVIRONMENT FOR PEOPLE Conserve, enhance and sustainably use natural resources and biodiversity to improve the livelihoods of the poor in response to climate change and other factors POLICIES FOR PEOPLE Promote policy and institutional change that will stimulate agricultural growth and equity to benefit the poor, especially rural women and other disadvantaged groups CGIAR Strategic Objectives

19. 19 Fivegovernance models were considered by WG3 but concluded that only three are viable. Key commonalities and differences among the three models are as follows: Commonalities between the alternative structures  Central funding facility Key differences  CGIAR becomes a formal (i.e., legal entity) or remains an informal organization  Degree of autonomy of Centers  Funding of programs vs. institutions  Possibility of direct funding for research implementation by non-CGIAR Centers  Role and composition of central Board and/or Donor Council  Oversight of the central fund and decision-making power for fund allocation  Mechanism for seeking technical advice and conducting independent evaluations 19

20. Other Institutions CGIAR Institutions Programs with measurable development results 20 1. The “Performance Contract” Model CGIAR Assembly Independent Evaluation Unit CGIAR Board CEO CGIAR Office Center / Cluster A Center / Cluster B Institution N Science Panel Central Fund Bilateral Donors e.g., Regional Programs e.g., Climate Change e.g., Germplasm Conservation Center / Cluster C Center / Cluster D e.g., Challenge Programs Partnership Panel DEFINING FEATURES  Incorporated as international non- profit-organization  Centers remain autonomous  CGIAR Assembly: highest decision making body (Shareholder with voting rights and invited Members from among Partners)  Programmatic funding through a central fund  Professional Board, which oversees programs and fund allocation  Central CGIAR Office  Independent Evaluation Unit  CGIAR Board approves performance contracts with Centers AND other qualified organizations through competitive bidding and by invitation

21. DEFINING FEATURES  Institutional funding through CGIAR cooperative fund  Centers remain autonomous but limited by the prerogatives of the Partnership Board  One Corporate Office  Partnership Board has representatives from Donors, Centers, Partners & Co-Sponsors  Donor Council approve vision, strategic objectives  Fund allocation by Partnership Board 21 DONOR COUNCIL Donors providing unrestricted funds Functions:  Agree on vision, Strategic Objectives  Establishment of replenishment fund  Oversight of replenishment fund NEW PARTNERSHIP BOARD Donors + Centers + Partners + Co- sponsors Functions:  Allocation of unrestricted funds to the Centers  Foresight and strategic planning  Rationalization of mandates  System level fundraising  Encourage synergies / clusters Chair CEO & corporate office CENTRES (15, and/or clusters, and/or less than 15) Independent scientific committee Appoint members Allocation of funds Provide funds Manager of Fund Appoint members 2. Partnership Board and Donor Council Model (preferred by the Alliance)

22. DEFINING FEATURES  Two legal entities: (i) Centers form a legally incorporated Consortium for common voice and joint operations (ii) a pooled fund provides both programmatic and institutional funding, where Centers continue to receive some funds individually  Strategic and performance- based fund allocation through Donor Council  Consortium Board of 15 with eminent researchers, development specialists and other experts  Independent Evaluation Unit 22 3. Separate Consortium and Fund Model (recommended by the Independent Review Panel)

23. Side-by-side comparison of the three structural alternatives 23 "Performance Contract” Model Partnership Board and Donor Council Model Separate Consortium and Fund Model Legal Structure & Center Autonomy  Incorporated as international non-profit-organization  Centers remain autonomous  Centers remain autonomous but limited by the prerogatives of the Partnership Board  2 legal entities: (i) Centers form a legally incorporated consortium (ii) donors form a pooled fund Funding Structure  Programmatic funding through a central fund  Institutional funding through Central Fund (IFAR)  a pooled fund provides both programmatic and institutional funding Fund Allocation  Fund allocation by Professional Board  Fund allocation by Partnership Board  Fund allocation through Donor Council Governance  CGIAR Assembly  Professional Board  CGIAR Boards approves performance contracts with Centers  Could consider funding other organizations through competitive bidding and by invitation  Central CGIAR Office  Partnership Board composed of representatives from Donors, Centers, Partners and Co- Sponsors  Donor Council approves vision and strategic objectives  One Corporate Office  Donor Council  Consortium Board of 15 with eminent researchers, development specialists and other experts Evaluation  Independent Evaluation Unit

24. WG4 is proposing the establishment of a new CGIAR Fund for international agricultural research. Purposes of the Fund: To mobilize adequate resources to meet the 21 st century food challenge and the CGIAR Vision and Mission To streamline, simplify, and harmonize the financing of the CGIAR System To provide a single entry point for donors To increase accountability and efficiency of CGIAR funding to donors, partners, and beneficiaries 24

25. The preliminary fund design provides transparency and flexibility to donors while also increasing the overall level of support to CGIAR Key Gains to DonorsKey Gains to BeneficiariesKey Gains to Centers/Programs  Single point of entry to the System  Greater accountability  Ability to direct funds to specific windows  Increased funding stability  Increased overall contribution to agricultural research  Funding linked to development challenges  Stability of funding  Increased level of financial support  Efficient reporting of results to donors DONORS CGIAR FUNDCGIAR CENTERS with programs Window 1 (SO1, Food for People) Window 6 (e.g., Blue Sky) Window 2 (SO2, Environment for People) Window 3 (SO3, Policies for People) Window 4 (e.g., Gene Banks) Window 5 (e.g., Center support) ALLOCATION MECHANISM Accountability 25

26. CGIAR FUND 12345678 Center 1$$$$ Center 2$$$$$ Center 3$$ Center 4$$ Center 5$$$ Center 6$$ Center 7$$$ Center 8…$$$ 26 WG4 recommends the Integrated Program Model Window 2 (e.g., Food for People Window 3 (e.g., Environment for People) Window 4 (e.g., Policies for People) PROGRAMS Window 1 Center Window* *Center Window provides an alternate flow of funding into the Programs Window 5 (e.g., Blue Sky) Window 6 (e.g., Unrestricted)

27. Set role for CGIAR Chair as a major player in the global dialogue and collaboration on research for development Organize at the System level consultative processes with non-member stakeholders in defining priorities and strategies Provide predetermined core funding to CGIAR Centers as well as allocate funding to development partners to assure that results lead to outcomes and impacts Diversify relationships to include ministries of S&T and other relevant public sector institutions Define a clear policy of engagement and strengthen technical capacities in promoting policy and institutional change Redefine the CGIAR’s capacity strengthening strategy Establish a “Partnership Facilitation Unit” that would foster, monitor and promote partnerships within the CGIAR system and among Centers WG2’s recommendations around partnerships: 27

28. Key milestones for the change initiative: How would you like to be involved going forward? AugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember Formal Retreats Working Group Content Development Stakeholder Engagement 28 WG’s 2-4 build change plan options Change Retreat Los Banos AGM Maputo Change Retreat and ExCo Lisbon Finalize change plan for ExCo Refine change plan for AGM Consult on initial options Consult on change recommendations Consult on final change plans