From Skepticism to Interest – Mindsets are Changing around the CGIAR Reform

As the thinking on the structure and way of doing business in the CGIAR has evolved over the course of the reform process, so have opinions and mindsets about the proposed changes. A succinct video tracks how views have changed from various perspectives – donors, researchers, partners and other stakeholders.

Preparing for ExCo-17

Dear Colleagues,
The next Executive Council Meeting (ExCo-17) will soon take place on November 3-4, 2009 in Rome. In preparation for the meeting, there’s been a lot of activity across the System to get ready for this important milestone in the change process. In addition to preparing new updated drafts of the primary  documents of the new CGIAR, consultations have been taking place amongst various constituencies to allow for dialogue on key issues that will be addressed at ExCo. These pre-meeting conversations are helpful for beginning to build the consensus we need to move the reform process forward.

For example, last week the Transition Management Team organized a three day e-consultation to provide a forum for discussion on four key areas: the development of the Consortium, development of the Fund, the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Framework, and roles and responsibilities for the Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC). All CGIAR Members, Center Directors General, Center Board Chairs and the Science Council were invited to participate in the consultations. A total of 83 individuals registered and about 100 messages were recorded across the four discussion topics during the three days.

During the consultations, exchanges on the Consortium centered on the balance of authority between the new Consortium Board and Center Boards, the Consortium Constitution, and performance agreements – the contractual arrangements between the Fund and the Consortium and the Consortium and the Centers in turn. Topics addressed related to the Fund included the responsibilities and the criteria for membership of the Fund Council, how to handle institutional funding, and how to design and manage the contractual relationships between the Fund, the Consortium and the Centers.  The M&E dialogue focused on issues such as where to host an independent evaluation unit and the exchanges related to the ISPC continued the discussion to clarify the roles and responsibilities of this new group.

I would like to thank all those who took the time and effort to be involved in this e-consultation.  The comments, feedback, and discussions shared during the consultation are critical inputs to the process as the details and working modalities of the new CGIAR are brought into greater focus.  I hope the consultations have helped to establish a good foundation for the discussions that will be held at ExCo-17. For more details on the agenda and documentation for ExCo-17, visit our website for the meeting: http://www.cgiar.org/who/structure/executive/exco17/index.html

Best regards,
Ren Wang

TMT Journal Update #10 from CGIAR Chair Katherine Sierra

Dear Colleagues,

Katherine Sierra

The Transition Management Team (TMT) recently met in Washington, DC, to continue to move implementation of the CGIAR reforms forward. I know the reform effort has been a long road, but we are getting closer and there are signs of significant progress that I am excited about:

• We are much closer to having a Consortium Constitution and Fund Framework that multiple stakeholders support. We have worked to achieve this comfort level through face-to-face meetings, teleconferences, and electronic consultations in recent months with donors, Alliance leadership, and the World Bank in its role as trustee. For example, several outstanding issues on the Fund were resolved during an e-consultation with donors earlier this month.
• The Strategy Team just completed their much anticipated fourth progress report on the Strategy and Results Framework and Mega-Programs. The Strategy Team welcomes your feedback on this paper as input to the final draft report that will be completed in late October. This document and subsequent versions will form the basis for consultations in lead up to the Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD) and inaugural Funders Summit.
• The Alliance has launched a formal search for Consortium board members and is expected to announce the members by December 2009. The Alliance is also nearing completion of a number of critical analyses (e.g. the net cost impact of the System reform, opportunities for System shared services, and design of the Consortium Office).
• The Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD) is off to a good start with the regional reviews nearly completed and regional electronic consultations underway with more than 1,000 participants. For the early takeaways from these consultations, please visit the GCARD blog: http://gcardblog.wordpress.com/
• In the coming weeks, we plan to share a draft of the CGIAR Declaration—a brief overarching document that clarifies how the various pieces of the new System fit together and the role of key players.
• The Members Survey completed last Spring is being updated to provide a current view of donor commitment to the new Fund.

As we move closer to ExCo-17, which will take place on November 3-4 in Rome, I am confident that we can get firm agreement on the design of a revitalized CGIAR System and that we will achieve the goals we set out for ourselves in December last year when we agreed to implement these reforms. I’d like to ask that we all keep these guiding goals in mind in the coming critical months:

1. Clear strategic focus;
2. Increased research output, outcome, and impact;
3. Greater efficiency, effectiveness, and relevance;
4. Simplicity and clarity of governance;
5. Enhanced decentralized decision making; and
6. Active subsidiarity to capitalize on complementarities of the Centers.

As we continue to resolve the remaining tough issues, I encourage you to also remember our shared values that have successfully brought us this far – trust, empathy, and a mindset that strongly believes the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Again, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel, and I’m looking forward to engaging with you in the coming months to successfully complete this stage of the CGIAR reform.

Warm regards,

Kathy Sierra
CGIAR Chair

A Question and Answer Dialogue with the TMT in Washington, D.C.

On September 10th, 2009, in conjunction with Transition Management Team (TMT) meetings in Washington, D.C., the CGIAR Secretariat staff had the opportunity to engage TMT members in an informal Q&A dialogue on the CGIAR reforms under way. Here, we share some excerpts from the conversation.

CGIAR TMT Members (from left): Steve Hall, Mark Holderness, Ren Wang and Jonathan Wadsworth

1. How does the Transition Management Team envision the implementation of two concepts advocated in the new CGIAR: a) mutual accountability for output and b) shared responsibility for outcomes?
Steve Hall (S.H) — Mutual accountability between doers and funders will be a primary obligation for both sides. The Strategy and Results Framework (SRF) will ensure that the accountability measures are in place. For it to work, the SRF needs to be well articulated, well explained and bought into. Expectations must be clarified and understood, which will lead to agreement on how things are done, and excitement to carry out the needed action. At the next level, performance agreements and contractual arrangements will ensure a shared responsibility by all stakeholders, which hopefully then translates in a sense of commitment.
Mark Holderness (M.H.) — These two concepts will bring a real shift for the CGIAR in terms of how it does its work- international agricultural research will be conducted in the context of the needs of farmers and consumers in the field. The Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD) will help figure out how the CGIAR’s research themes will mesh with the commitments to agricultural research of developing countries, including looking into neglected areas of work and how we can help to build more capacity, followed by exit strategies once we have done our work.
Ren Wang (R.W.) — To increase accountability, we are also engaging with national agricultural research system partners and national governments through a consultative process in bringing about this reform. The findings from regional consultations by the Global Forum for Agricultural Research (GFAR) will feed into the SRF and Mega-Program (MP) formulation process.

Mark Holderness (left), Ren Wang (right)

2. The TMT is significantly involved in the CGIAR reform process – what motivates each of you to carry out this work? What is your vision of how the reformed CGIAR will make a difference?
Jonathan Wadsworth (J.W.) — This is an extremely important opportunity to make a difference. If we don’t take action now, we will lose it. The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and others have come up with many studies, models and scenarios of what the world food situation will look like in the future. Evidence shows that the “perfect storm” is brewing. If we do not act and invest in global agricultural reform now, there will be consequences in the future.
S.H. — Three reasons: 1) I want to help change the world, 2) As Director General of WorldFish Center, I have an interest to want to make the CGIAR a better organization, so that WorldFish Center can operate better within this system, and 3) I want to make the CGIAR a place where people can achieve their fullest potential in contributing to agricultural research for development and where people enjoy what they are doing.
M.H. — I commit my time and effort to this process, because this is such an important catalyst for change that will influence other actors in agricultural research. We all can do a lot more.
R.W. — I am inspired by the endorsement of CGIAR Members at the Annual General Meeting 2008 (AGM08) in Maputo of the reform process. I am inspired by the hard work that many have put in so far to help make this change happen- including the TMT, CGIAR Secretariat, Alliance, Science Council, and many other teams.

Steve Hall

3. What is the perception across Centers about the process for developing the SRF and Mega Programs? What information has been made available to date? How are the Centers keeping their staff informed on the development of the Mega Programs and the viability of individual research programs in the new CGIAR?
S.H. — In terms of staff perception, frankly, I think there is suspicion and nervousness, people are waiting with bated breath to see what happens. The decision at AGM08 was to commission a small group of people, the TMT, to provide leadership and keep the CGIAR transition process on track. Given the time constraints, the TMT is trying its best to work on this, with inputs from different teams and consultants, and of course it will be further refined later on. The SRF report, which is independently peer reviewed, will reach us in a few weeks, and the plan is to present it at the December 7th Business Meeting, and continue to refine it up to GCARD in March 2010.

4. Is a summary or a survey of the results of the regional e-consultation in lead up to the GCARD available? What are the main conclusions?
M.H. — There are various regional e-consultations taking place to get feedback on this reform process, including face to face meetings, and we have documents with key issues identified coming in from the regional reviews which will feed into GCARD, forthcoming on our website soon.

5. When is the Consortium CEO expected to be in place?
S.H. —The Consortium CEO will be identified by the Consortium Board and the search process is currently ongoing for board members. When they are in place, the selection process for the CEO will take place. The estimated timing of when the CEO will be in place, at the minimum, is early 2nd quarter of 2010.

Jonathan Wadsworth

6. A lot of resources have been invested in the reform, how will the return on this significant expense be measured?
S.H. — Looking at the entire CGIAR budget, and given the extent of this reform process, the investment to date is not an unrealistic cost. The shared services reform will increase cost savings.
J.W. — With different donors having different funding mechanisms and with increasingly fewer donors having technical capacity, this investment for the reform – moving towards a global fund approach and a separation of doers and funders will help to generate huge cost savings for agricultural research in the long run.

7. What is the current status for incorporating gender into the CGIAR reform process? The proposal on gender integration presented to ExCo16 was well received, have there been more discussions? When will stakeholders be hearing some key updates or decisions on this area soon?
S.H. — The proposal on gender integration, led by Ruth Meinzen-Dick of IFPRI and others, is being integrated into SRF work. There is no doubt that it is going to be a central area of work in the new CGIAR, but what shape it will take is not clear yet at this point. But it is very much so on our radar.

8. When will we know the Consortium Office location? Is a timeline and process framework for selecting the Consortium location available? Who will decide on the location, how and when? How large will the Consortium Office be?
S.H. — The Consortium Board will decide on the Consortium Office location. Boston Consulting Group (BCG) is currently working with us to lay the analytical base to help the board to decide. It depends also on which country provides the best deal and best legal framework to carry out our operations. At a steady state, the Consortium Office is estimated to have about 20-25 staff.

TMT Journal Update #9 from Mark Holderness

Dear Colleagues,

The Transition Management Team held a brief teleconference to prepare for its face-to-face meetings later this week in Washington, D.C. We discussed the need to continue to engage stakeholders in the reform process to ensure that we understand their concerns and the key issues that must be resolved in the coming months. 
 
The reform process is at a critical stage as the proposed new core elements begin to take shape and we are working to ensure a seamless connection of all of the key pieces – the Consortium, the Fund, the Strategy and Results Framework and Mega Programs, and the Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development. We are working to ensure that these elements work together to create a lean, focused, and coherent organization. The various teams responsible for developing the different structures in the new CGIAR have been working closely together to resolve problems and ensure consistency across the structures.
 
Our aim is to have the new components of the CGIAR work together seamlessly, so that we have better targeted and integrated research that is openly implemented with partners and yields greater benefits for the poor and their environments. Now that the basic structures and responsibilities in the new CGIAR have become clearer, our emphasis is shifting to establishing the programs that the new CGIAR will implement. Two interwoven processes have been launched to help shape the programs the new CGIAR will conduct:

• the CGIAR Strategy and Results Framework team is using researcher surveys and economic modeling to identify where large-scale research investments are most likely to bring the greatest development returns; and
• towards the Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development, electronic consultations are being conducted to gather opinions from a wide range of stakeholders on their development demands and what needs to change in agricultural research policies, institutions, processes and systems for research, including that of the CGIAR, to make greater impacts on development.

Planning for the Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development is now in full swing, with a great effort building up from each region, to stimulate investment and change in research for development systems around the world. The Global Conference Task Force, established by the Global Forum for Agricultural Research, is working hard to pursue an innovative and exciting process, led and delivered through each region. These consultations also provide a mechanism for public discussion of the proposed CGIAR Strategy and Results Framework and Mega Programs as they evolve. 

We invite you to join any or all of the six regional electronic consultations for the Global Conference that are now under way. These will be followed by face-to-face meetings, in which participants will draft a set of overarching global agricultural research for development priorities and an overall action plan for discussion at the Conference itself, to be held in Montpellier in March 2010, with subsequent follow-up for changing agricultural research practices, institutions and systems.

Another TMT Journal Update will follow shortly after our meetings in Washington. As always, we welcome your questions, comments or feedback, which can be sent to TMT@cgiar.org. If you have received this email as a forward and would like to subscribe to the TMT Journal Updates please send an email to TMT@cgiar.org.

Best regards,

Mark Holderness
CGIAR Transition Management Team

TMT Journal Update #8 from Jonathan Wadsworth

Dear Colleagues,

I’d like to update you on some of the developments related to the change in the CGIAR and outcomes from the last few Transition Management Team (TMT) teleconferences.

Independent Science and Partnership Council

Earlier this year, the TMT commissioned an independent task group to offer recommendations to the TMT on the role and structure of the new Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC).  We wanted to get an expert opinion on questions such as: What should be the size and composition of the council? How should the council operate? And what should be the selection criteria and process for membership?  The task group submitted its report last week, and the TMT is now digesting its recommendations. We will share the report along with our comments in the next week or so. 

Fund Development Approach

The Fund work stream group led by Ren Wang has come up with a detailed approach for getting the new Fund up and running with buy-in from the CGIAR membership. All the steps required for this work stream between now and the December CGIAR Business Meeting are clearly laid out.  The TMT has provided feedback on the plan and now the Advisory Group for the Fund Framework Document is reviewing it and will provide their inputs. 

Transition Plan for 2010

The TMT is also focusing on the complex issues to be faced during the real transition over the next twelve to eighteen months.  A number of questions need to be addressed such as: what is the precise timing for various structures to be in place such as the Consortium Board and the Fund? How will cash flow and financial matters be managed to ensure the Centers are able to continue without any “hiccups”? And when is the right time for the TMT to disband? As we develop a clear sketch of milestones for 2010-11 we will continue to share our thoughts and seek inputs from you. 

The Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development

The TMT has been working to ensure momentum is maintained in the Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD) process timeline.   Discussions within the regional fora are beginning to get underway with the recent launch of a review of priorities and key issues. Face-to-face consultations have been scheduled for October.  Additionally, colleagues involved in the GCARD process and colleagues working on the Strategic Results Framework and Mega-programs consultations are working together to coordinate those consultation processes. 

More news to come, as we progress: In the meantime, feel free to email us at TMT@cgiar.org with feedback, questions, suggestions or ideas or post them on the Transition Management Team journal updates blog space at http://cgiarchangemanagement.wordpress.com/category/tmt-journal-updates/

 Best regards,

Jonathan Wadsworth
(on behalf of the Transition Management Team)

TMT Journal Update #7 from Steve Hall, CGIAR Alliance Executive Chair

Dear Colleagues,

Our recent TMT meeting in Washington was a rare opportunity for an in-person meeting not linked to a major event such as ExCo, allowing us to concentrate fully on reviewing progress, ensuring that coordination across the workstreams and identifying next steps.   The good news is that we are broadly on schedule.  Ren said it well in the last TMT journal—we are on track, but with lots of work to do.

Before I share highlights of our various discussions, let me offer some reflections about where we are and what’s now needed.  First, things are getting more complex at this stage of the reform.  In the first half of the year, each TMT member was highly focused on individual workstreams and ensuring they were moving along.  Now we have the added responsibility to weaving these elements together so that we achieve a coherent system.   Second, as we launch a series of inter-related consultations (e.g. for the Global Consultation on Agriculture and Rural Development and the Consortium Constitution),  we need to move beyond individual input toward dialogue, virtual or otherwise. We now need to help the various advisory groups (e.g. on the Fund, the Accountability Framework and the Consortium Constitution) work as teams to address concerns, arrive at durable solutions and achieve the buy-in that is so crucial for success.

Most of our time at the meeting was devoted to discussing accountability and monitoring and evaluation. We worked through each of the workstreams in some detail to get an overview of the accountability issues in each so that the overarching accountability framework and the accompanying accountability maps can be revised appropriately. One of the key discussions was how to reconcile the accountabilities we specify for each key actor in the system to avoid duplication or gaps. We haven’t worked out how best to do that yet, but we’re working on it.

Another key topic of conversation was stakeholder engagement. We reviewed a robust  list of key individuals/organizations to make sure we are not missing anyone out in our consultations, and that we focus especially on talking with and understanding the perspective of those people who have concerns so they can be addressed. This will be a standing item on our agenda from now on.

It will be no surprise to hear that we also discussed the topic of money, both for this year in terms of the Change Initiative Fund (CIF) and the transitional funding arrangements for 2009. Concerning the CIF, we are working to collect the funds pledged by donors, and attract the further funding needed to cover the necessary costs. We have also mapped the timing of payments to make sure we have enough in the pot when commitments fall due.

The other topic we discussed concerning funding is the transitional arrangements that will be needed next year. 2010 will be an important transition year for the CGIAR. Although we will have agreed the broad outlines of the new system and the high level of operational details, much more work will be needed to fully operationalize the new model. Entering 2010 we must recognize that, among other things:

· The SRF and Megaprograms will not be operational;
· The new CGIAR Fund, expected to be in place, will just be gaining momentum; and
· The Consortium will still be under establishment.

In consequence, 2010 carries particular risks. Key among these is the possibility of unintended funding instabilities for Centers that will disrupt current programs and damage morale. The TMT has now developed a preliminary proposal for how to handle this situation. We will be sharing that with everyone shortly.

Since these journal updates are meant to be informal and brief, I will stop here.  As always, we hope this update is informative and useful, and we welcome your feedback—both positive and negative – and, of course, your queries.

Regards,

Steve

(On behalf of the Transition Management Team)

In Memory of Robert McNamara, CGIAR Visionary

Dear Colleagues,

As many of you may already know, Robert McNamara, who served as president of the
World Bank from 1968 to 1981, died at his home in Washington, D.C., early
Monday, July 6, 2009 at the age of 93. I bring this news to your attention
because of the central role McNamara played, starting immediately after his
appointment as Bank president, in creating the CGIAR to provide adequate
financial support for international agricultural research. In a complementary
move, McNamara also succeeded
in expanding World Bank lending to agriculture in developing countries.

McNamara pursued a vigorous campaign to convince the World Bank’s Board and
others of the need to promote “the agricultural research of today that will be
the foundation of greater agricultural growth tomorrow.” He did so at a time of
high and unstable prices for staple foods, the result of agricultural stagnation
across the developing world.

In confronting a similar crisis today – one greatly magnified by the challenge
of climate change – we would do well to reflect on McNamara’s vision and
determination to bring the CGIAR into being. Our role and relevance live on.
But we must renew our commitment to agricultural research, if our efforts to
defeat hunger, poverty and environmental degradation are finally to succeed.

The CGIAR celebrates McNamara’s legacy of making a real difference in the lives
of the poor.  May He Rest in Peace.

Sincerely,

Katherine Sierra
Chair, CGIAR

TMT Journal Update #6 from CGIAR Director Ren Wang

Dear Colleagues,

As our Chair Katherine Sierra noted in the last TMT journal update, the Executive Council (ExCo) gave a green light at its June meeting for implementation of the CGIAR Change Initiative to continue.  I was very pleased with this signal, which came with an acknowledgement that much work remains to be done. The Transition Management Team met immediately after the ExCo meeting in Cali and via a subsequent teleconference to synthesize key conclusions and plan the way forward.

We have begun to weave together the different elements of the new CGIAR — the Consortium, Fund, Strategy and Results Framework, Accountability Framework and Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development — into a coherent and cohesive entity (scheme). ExCo members had flagged integration of these various work streams as a high priority.  Since ExCo 16, we have made good progress with all of the workstreams through the following activities:

• Ongoing establishment of the Consortium Board selection panel, to be composed of Center representatives, partners and donors
• Ongoing revision of the draft Consortium constitution, taking into account feedback from the ExCo
• Launch of the assessment and design of common services and the future Consortium Office
• Preparation for a face-to-face workshop of the Alliance Strategy Team at IFPRI in mid-July and publication of Progress Report No. 4 in August 2009 on development of the Strategic Results Framework and Mega-Programs
• Revision of the Fund Framework Document (draft version 4), incorporating feedback from the ExCo, and further consultations with potential Fund donors and the Trustee (the World Bank), focusing on key issues identified by the ExCo
• Establishment of an Editorial Panel for the accountability workstream and revision of the Accountability Framework (draft version 3), which will be available by mid-July
• Design of electronic and regional face-to-face consultations in preparation for the Global Conference for Agricultural Research and Development (GCARD), with the aim of linking this event to development of the Strategy and Results Framework and Mega-Programs
• Development of detailed financial transition plans for 2010 for the Alliance and CGIAR Secretariat

We are also planning critical meetings between now and the end of the year that are needed to determine what must be completed by when if we are to meet our goals and commitments in the reform process.  As part of this planning, we are carefully assessing what CGIAR stakeholders — especially the donors and Centers — need in order to bring about our shared vision of a revitalized CGIAR through a collective leap of faith. 

Last week, I attended the Science Forum in Wageningen, as did my fellow Transition Management Team member, Mark Holderness.  I was impressed by the organization of the meeting and by the high quality of the small-group discussions on such topics as resilient natural resource systems, breaking the yield barrier and agriculture beyond food. The team will draw lessons from this successful event, as we prepare for the inaugural Global Conference next March in Montpellier.  

As always, the other TMT members and I are interested in receiving your feedback — both on these communications and on the reform process in general.  Please feel free to contact me directly if you have some thoughts you’d like to share.

Warm regards,
Ren Wang
(on behalf of the Transition Management Team)

TMT Journal Update #5 from CGIAR Chair Katherine Sierra – ExCo Signals a Green Light for Reform Implementation

Dear Colleagues,

Last week the Executive Council met at CIAT in Cali, Colombia, to assess progress in implementing the reforms agreed to by the CGIAR Members at the Annual General Meeting in Maputo last December.  I’m pleased to report that ExCo expressed support for the work to date in broad terms and provided a “green light” to continue with the transition process. At the same time, the Members flagged several issues that will require more analysis and discussion to resolve.

ExCo’s Assessment of Progress to Date

Discussions at ExCo largely centered on progress to date in establishing the Consortium, the Strategy and Results Framework and Mega Programs, the Fund and the accountability framework, and preparations for the Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD).

The progress report on the Consortium constitution clearly demonstrated the Centers growing commitment to the new Consortium as a means to achieve great development results. There is a growing sense of the possibilities this offers and genuine excitement about what the Centers can achieve together through this new way of working. ExCo welcomed signals that the Consortium Board and CEO will have the authority and tools they need to effectively lead the Consortium.  This is a critical component.  However, more work is needed to clarify roles and relationships in this regard. The Center Boards are urged to undertake due diligence on the legal implications of the Consortium soon. An advisory group of ExCo Members will provide input into the further development of the constitution.

The update on the process for developing the Strategy and Results Framework and Mega Programs also demonstrated the Centers’ growing enthusiasm about the reform process leading to a cohesive results-oriented research program. ExCo confirmed that this process is moving in the right direction, but urged greater involvement of partners and beneficiaries in the upcoming consultations on the further development of the Strategy and Results Framework and Mega Programs. ExCo also emphasized the need to go beyond repackaging of existing research programs and maintain a truly open and creative process in developing the Mega Programs.

Regarding the new Fund, ExCo confirmed that we are on track with some remaining issues to be worked out around the composition of the Fund Council and Funders Forum, the role of the Independent Science and Partnerships Council and what the donor agreements with the Fund and performance contracts will look like. Scenarios and mock ups to respond to these questions will be developed and further consultations will be held with donors in the next few months to finalize issues on fund design and firm up donor commitments.

The Accountability framework is developing in the right direction. We are striving to identify the minimum set of tools that will combine clear accountability at both the program and systemwide levels with managerial simplicity. ExCo requested that the framework be expanded in several areas to provide clear accountability mapping and tools for enforcement. For example, they requested that accountability to beneficiaries be added, as well as a means for conflict resolution. The next step for the framework will be to further develop it to ensure coherent accountability across all the elements of the new CGIAR system.

The plans for the GCARD and the consultative process leading up to it demonstrated clear progress by the Global Forum on Agriculture (GFAR) in charting out this exciting and ambitious bottom-up approach to link agriculture research agenda setting with the needs of beneficiaries. The stakeholder consultations leading up to the GCARD in March 2010 are designed to be as participatory as possible, engaging regional and national research organizations, farmer organizations and CSOs through electronic and face-to-face regional consultations beginning in August. ExCo requested more detail on the outputs from each step of the consultations and how they will build on each other, called for greater engagement with the private sector and emphasized the need for visible interface between the GCARD consultations and those for the Strategy and Results Framework and Mega Programs. 

Next Steps

With the important milestone of ExCo reached, the Transition Management Team is now working hard to take us into the next phase of the transition.  The feedback received will be incorporated into the next steps for implementation. ExCo agreed to meet again in early November and this will be our next major landmark on the path to the December Business Meeting.

I’d like to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of all involved in getting us to where we are today. Our momentum is building as we develop a clearer vision of what we will be able to achieve through our new, more cohesive way of working together. The coming months will likely be even more demanding and very active with broad-reaching consultations on the Strategy and Results Framework and the GCARD.  However, leaving ExCo I am confident that the spirit of working together as a System is growing stronger and that we are determined to succeed in delivering on our commitments.  Together, we will build a CGIAR that delivers agricultural research with greater development impact on the ground. 

CIAT Town Hall Dialogue on the Change Initiative

I’d also like to recognize what a pleasure it was to hold ExCo at CIAT where we were able to see firsthand the enthusiasm among staff thanks to the arrival of the new Director General Ruben Echeverria and the new strategic directions charted under the leadership of outgoing Director General Geoff Hawtin. My TMT colleagues and I engaged in a Town Hall style dialogue with CIAT staff on the changes underway and the event proved to be a lively exchange in a full auditorium with staff asking diverse questions related to the development of Mega Programs, fund allocation in the new system, what the new CGIAR will deliver beyond what we do today, and what scientists should be doing during the change process. For more details on the dialogue I’d like to encourage you to read a blog post from CIAT staff (http://ciatlibrary.blogspot.com/2009/06/this-is-your-change-so-get-involved.html) or view the video of the event (http://snapst.ciat.cgiar.org/liveboard.htm).

Sincerely,
Katherine Sierra
For the Transition Management Team