Add your comments and feedback here.
Transforming the CGIAR
As you read this, a group of about fifty committed, knowledgeable individuals are discussing transforming the CGIAR. They have heard the voices of stakeholders demanding a leaner, more effective and a more efficient CGIAR – a CGIAR that delivers the best possible impact for the poor in developing countries. And they understand the challenges the CGIAR faces.
The individuals come from every part of the broad CGIAR community including Members, Center Board members, Center management, Center scientists, the Science Council, national agricultural research institutions, and civil society. I have asked them to lead this Change process because I am convinced that change led by people with the most knowledge and experience is most likely to succeed. I am also convinced that we must transform the CGIAR. For more information on the rationale for Change and the working group members and updates go to http://www.cgiar.org/changemanagement/index.html
Our change agents recognize that the world of international agricultural research has shifted. New actors: Brazil, China, India and South Africa, today conduct research that was once the distinctive competence of the CGIAR Centers; national agricultural research institutions demand increased responsiveness from Centers; donors seek increased global impact and results; everyone wants reduced transaction costs and Centers need increased and reliable funding.
And today increased funding is a real possibility. The international community is once again recognizing the importance of agriculture as a driver for development, and is looking for short, medium and long term solutions to the current food crisis. Increased investment is a real option, but donors are waiting to see evidence of transformation before committing to increase support.
The change agents are divided into four working groups focusing on vision and mission; partnerships; governance, and funding mechanisms and a Change Steering Team is taking the lead. The group will be working throughout the northern summer to put together draft papers and scenarios for broader consultation and plan to deliver their proposals to the CGIAR Executive Council in October.
While there is consensus around the challenges we face, the solutions are less clear.
The current debate around clarifying CGIAR vision and mission is centered on fundamental questions: What impact does strong research capacity in China, Brazil, India and South Africa have on the CGIAR research mandate? What is the impact of new actors such as the Gates Foundation on international agricultural research? What research should the CGIAR undertake? what research, if any should it stop doing? A draft paper on a new vision for the CGIAR will be available for discussion soon in the CGIAR Change Management Forum.
If it is true that the CGIAR research has become too dispersed then we must better focus our research agenda, but in what direction? Should we focus on increasing food productivity, or on creating wealth for small farmers? Should we focus on sustainable agriculture ? Should we focus on the poorest of the poor, or small farmers, or all farmers in developing countries? Given our distinctive competencies, our partners and the current development challenges what are the key research opportunities that the CGIAR should address?
The governance working group is exploring a wide range of issues with the objective of developing several governance scenarios which will be available for comment in late August. Our objectives are reduced transaction costs, streamlined efficiency and increased effectiveness. Should CGIAR Members support research programs or only research institutions? Should CGIAR Centers remain autonomous or become a part of a single entity, or something in-between? Do we have the right degree of accountability in the System?
And the funding group is exploring what mechanism/s would create a stronger more stable resource base for the CGIAR’s agricultural research and how could such mechanisms balance donor sovereignty with Center autonomy. Should research be demand driven or supply driven? Should and would donors pool resources into a common fund and allow an independent entity to allocate them according to objective criteria?
The partnership group is currently exploring possible principles and guidelines for equitable and productive partnerships throughout the system
As the answers to these questions are explored over the next six months, we look forward to the ideas and inputs of the entire CGIAR community. This is the first in a series of E-conversations we will be hosting throughout 2008. As think pieces and papers are prepared and scenarios developed we will make them available online and welcome your reactions and guidance as we move forward.
More information is available at the Change Management website.
But for now we look forward to your comments and questions.
Katherine Sierra
CGIAR Chair
Add your comments and feedback here.
Filed under: CGIAR Change Management, Messages from CGIAR Chair
Dear Kathy, dear all,
Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to comment on the Change Management Process through this blog – an interactive tool which seems to give a taste of change indeed…
We have been talking with some colleagues of the CGIAR this morning, from IFPRI, ICRAF, and CIAT. Together, we are involved in a workshop were we try to explore innovative tools, and methods for effective collaboration and communication, an area which is pretty much part to the change management process, we thought.
But we also felt a little bit overwhelmed with the invitation to comment on such a big and strategic topic. Many of us rarely have an opportunity to approach our work from the CGIAR systems perspective, and also we know that this process can have huge consequences on the way we work in the near future, it is still hard to grasp the scope of it, and to figure out were we as individuals stand within this process. Which makes me ask you if you think that we are really and already part of a CGIAR community which would actually provide a secure space for sharing ideas and feedback, as you wish? Or, is becoming a community perhaps one of the major objectives of this change management process? In which case it would be interesting to see if and how the different working groups tackle this “community” issue.
Best regards,
Simone Staiger-Rivas
ICT-KM Program CGIAR
Project Leader, Institutional Knowledge Sharing
CIAT, Colombia
E-mail: s.staiger@cgiar.org
The Change Management initiative which is looking at vision, mission, governance, financial and structural needs, certainly has its hands full, but we hope (pray) some one will also look at the CG’s M&E (monitoring and evaluation) apparatus. This huge system is pervasive, invasive, omnipresent, and costly in more ways than one. Improving it is necessary if a reform is to succeed fully. Financial costs alone are not enough criteria to revamp a system, but the real cost to donors, the centers, and the developing countries, of this M&E system is the amounts of (scientific) energy, enthusiasm, and euros (EEE) it diverts from research. Pronounce the EEE as a long and painful EEEeee! The higher the EEE factor, meaning the diversion of EEE from programs, the lower the productivity of the CG.
Fixing the CG’s M&E system is not difficult. Only the will to do so is needed. Simplicity has merit. A less complicated, less costly, less intrusive research M&E system is possible. A simpler M&E that works in tandem between CG and center level systems is sufficient to create an effective system that does not undermine center and CG productivity. In such a system, centers monitor outputs and the CG monitors outcomes of the research it finances. Such improvements would have donors, centers and developing countries, alike saying a gleeful, YEEees!, instead of the painful EEEeee!
At the end of the day, it is CG funding and the scientific-drive and enthusiasm it brings that delivers on its mission not the CG apparatus.
Hartmann
A concerned development partner
Casablanca, July 28, 2008
To: Katherine Sierra
CGIAR Chair
Subject: Comments on your Message on Change Management,
Posted on June 20, 2008
Dear Katherine Sierra,
In clarifying the vision and mission of CGIAR, you reported that the current debate is centered on one of the fundamental questions: what research should CGIAR undertake? Understandably, International Agricultural Research is making an impact on improving agricultural productivity and food production. The new high yielding and stress resistant crop varieties are increasing food availability. These include new rice varieties for Africa, and improved bean, cassava, pearl millet, rice, sorghum and wheat varieties.
Yet, by CGIAR own admission (CgiarNews, May 2008), the yield potential of improved varieties already in use in some regions, especially of sub-Saharan Africa, far exceeds actual performance. To exploit such obvious opportunities for achieving yield gains, it is said, the world community…must invest in problem-solving agricultural research. Among the cited research options, there is a wide array of higher yielding, and stress-resistant varieties of all the major staples and improved practices for reducing crop losses after harvest. In our view, other research options need to be considered.
In fact, we hear very little from CGIAR about addressing soil fertility research problems. The New Partnership for Africa’s Development declared at the Africa Fertilizer Summit (Abuja, 13 June 2006) the following: “A move toward reducing hunger on the continent must begin by addressing its severely depleted soils”. For more than two decades, soil fertility depletion in smallholder farms has been repeatedly cited as the major biophysical root cause for the declining per-capita food production in most of sub-Saharan Africa (Sanchez et al., 1997). Without in-depth studies, it is at present impossible to present precise data on rates of return for investments in soil fertility, or the social benefits of land improvement. The full range of available technologies should be explored, from inorganic fertilizers to organic amendments, from integrated soil and nutrient management to irrigation.
You also reported that the current debate is centered on another fundamental question: What impact does strong research capacity in China, Brazil, India and South Africa have on the CGIAR research mandate? In our view, CGIAR may be well-advised to invest in a better focussed research agenda that is not geographically or thematically too dispersed. Research is badly needed in sub-Saharan Africa on factors that can make irrigation more accessible and less costly for small farmers, and techniques for improving integrated soil, water and nutrient management.
With these comments from the World Phosphate Institute, we mean to be constructive and we stand ready to help in any way we can.
Institut Mondial du Phosphate (IMPHOS)
Casablanca, July 28, 2008
To: Katherine Sierra
CGIAR Chair
Subject: Comments on your Message on Change Management,
Posted on June 20, 2008
Dear Katherine Sierra,
In clarifying the vision and mission of CGIAR, you reported that the current debate is centered on one of the fundamental questions: what research should CGIAR undertake? Understandably, International Agricultural Research is making an impact on improving agricultural productivity and food production. The new high yielding and stress resistant crop varieties are increasing food availability. These include new rice varieties for Africa, and improved bean, cassava, pearl millet, rice, sorghum and wheat varieties.
Yet, by CGIAR own admission (CgiarNews, May 2008), the yield potential of improved varieties already in use in some regions, especially of sub-Saharan Africa, far exceeds actual performance. To exploit such obvious opportunities for achieving yield gains, it is said, the world community…must invest in problem-solving agricultural research. Among the cited research options, there is a wide array of higher yielding, and stress-resistant varieties of all the major staples and improved practices for reducing crop losses after harvest. In our view, other research options need to be considered.
In fact, we hear very little from CGIAR about addressing soil fertility research problems. The New Partnership for Africa’s Development declared at the Africa Fertilizer Summit (Abuja, 13 June 2006) the following: “A move toward reducing hunger on the continent must begin by addressing its severely depleted soils”. For more than two decades, soil fertility depletion in smallholder farms has been repeatedly cited as the major biophysical root cause for the declining per-capita food production in most of sub-Saharan Africa (Sanchez et al., 1997). Without in-depth studies, it is at present impossible to present precise data on rates of return for investments in soil fertility, or the social benefits of land improvement. The full range of available technologies should be explored, from inorganic fertilizers to organic amendments, from integrated soil and nutrient management to irrigation.
You also reported that the current debate is centered on another fundamental question: What impact does strong research capacity in China, Brazil, India and South Africa have on the CGIAR research mandate? In our view, CGIAR may be well-advised to invest in a better focussed research agenda that is not geographically or thematically too dispersed. Research is badly needed in sub-Saharan Africa on factors that can make irrigation more accessible and less costly for small farmers, and techniques for improving integrated soil, water and nutrient management.
With these comments from the World Phosphate Institute, we mean to be constructive and we stand ready to help in any way we can.
Institut Mondial du Phosphate (IMPHOS)
Dear Kathy:
We recently convened the “Rethinking Impact Workshop (RIW): Understanding the complexity of poverty and change” to discuss how agricultural and natural-resources research can be more effective in contributing to solutions for poverty alleviation and improving gender, social inclusion and equity; and impact assessment and institutionalization of such research.
The issues raised at the workshop relate directly to CGIAR Change Management, so we are summarizing them here on the blog.
Several issues relate to rethinking what research we do and how we manage it in order to contribute to sustainable development and poverty reduction. Other issues relate specifically to concerns about the CGIAR’s current impact assessment standards and the performance measurement system.
1. We know that the causes of poverty, and gender and social inequality are multidimensional and complex. A strong emphasis should be placed on research related to increasing understanding of these complex dynamics and developing from the understanding solutions to development problems.
2. A lot of our ‘on the ground’ experience shows that distinctions between research and development are breaking down. Rather than aiming to isolate our research from development, our comparative advantage lies in conducting use-oriented research that deliberately aims to link knowledge with action. Thus we play a variety of roles including networking, capacity building and policy advocacy. The CGIAR must recognize the legitimacy and challenges of such work, reward it and dedicate sufficient time and resources to it.
3. Innovative learning organizations, like we aim to be are likely to be effective in engaging end-users. We need to thoughtfully assess who to involve and how, using participatory action research, planning and priority-setting processes, evaluation and other mechanisms in order to engage farmers and the poor, or the civil society organizations that represent them, in meaningful ways at appropriate points throughout the research process.
4. Impact assessment methods traditionally used in the CGIAR are often not well suited for evaluating the types of complex activities and roles described above. An assessment of CGIAR Financial Plans and the Workshop papers indicates that the CGIAR’s work is no longer concentrated around traditional crop-improvement research and that a wide range of methods is already in use to assess the diverse outcomes and impacts arising from the CGIAR investment portfolio. Thus, we need to acknowledge the legitimacy of this diversity and the broad range of impact assessment methods needed to evaluate it.
5. The CGIAR needs to build capacity if we are to adopt new approaches to research for poverty reduction and associated impact assessment. Capacity includes technical skills in a wide range of social science disciplines, and skills in other areas such as collaborative problem-solving, facilitation and systems thinking.
Changes taken at the strategic level in the Change Process must be followed through with practical changes at the level of work planning, impact assessment guidelines and performance assessment of the centers and individual scientists and managers.
One suggestion is to better distinguish between research that is conducted through more linear impact pathways with fewer partners (such as crop improvement) and research that requires more complex impact pathways with a wider range of partners (such as developing options for sustainable land management; high value product development; genetic diversity conservation, institutional or market innovation etc.) We need to recognize the legitimacy of both but also recognize that these cannot be managed or assessed in the same way. Attribution and causation for instance is much different in complex scenarios. We also need more clarity about engaging stakeholders in the research process, and a code of conduct for such engagement.
These issues and recommendations are not surprising to us because we have seen similar issues raised before. And it is encouraging to see some indications that that the change process could be coming to similar conclusions about the future of the CGIAR.
However, in order to fully embrace such new ideas, a new learning oriented culture needs to be built in the CGIAR, which is perhaps the most critically important issue for the change process. Such a culture would be characterized by continuous learning, flexibility and adaptability at all levels. Indicators of such a culture include:
Actively seeking out alternative view points
Adequate time spent on problem identification, reflection and knowledge sharing
Tolerance for risk and uncertainty
Dialogue and participatory decision making
Effective mechanisms for assessing and reacting to stakeholder perspectives
We hope that decisions at the strategic level in the change process will be quickly and effectively followed up with practical implementation and management including adjustments in planning processes, impact assessment approaches and guidelines and performance measurement, among other things.
More information about the Rethinking Impact Workshop can be found on the workshop web site http://www.prgaprogram.org/riw/
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Jamie Watts, Institutional Learning and Change Initiative (ILAC)
Nina Lilja, Participatory Research and Gender Analysis for Technology Development and Institutional Innovation (PRGA)
Patti Kristjanson, Innovation Works (ILRI)
CIMMYT AND THE CGIAR CHANGE PROCESS
Board of Trustees of CIMMYT
27 August 2008
1. CIMMYT strongly believes that the CGIAR needs to undergo substantial reform if it is to make a significant contribution in the future to pro-poor agricultural development in the world. Business as usual is not an option, and minor changes will result in a damaging wave of frustrated expectations which will further erode the capacity to perform of the CGIAR and of each of the Centers, CIMMYT included. The current complexity of the CG system results in inefficiency and ineffectiveness. This can be seen, for instance, in the number of system-wide control institutions and structural units which have emerged over time without their true added value being challenged.
2. We strongly support reform options and decisions that:
a. Streamline and focus our mission. Enhancing through scientific research the contribution of agriculture to sustainable poverty reduction in developing countries is the core of our mission. The three strategic objectives proposed by WG1 fit very well with CIMMYT’s mission and we endorse them. The areas of activities defined so far in the documents emerging from the change process also align well with the on-going activities of CIMMYT and the proposed framework allows for initiation of new activities which may require greater focus.
b. Align CGIAR and Centers’ research programs, missions, and objectives, as well as stakeholder and donor priorities, through a clear, simple, and highly effective system of incentives. The CGIAR Fund and the mechanism of programmatic contracts that has been proposed by WG3 can serve this purpose, and CIMMYT endorses their creation. Establishing a significant Fund would be a potent signal of political commitment by the donors, and would in all probability catalyze further functional and structural reforms. Such a Fund may also provide a much needed vehicle for structurally addressing core funding needs of the Centers’, such as long-term, stable support for the gene banks or for the advanced research needed to sustain a continuing flow of technological and institutional solutions and alternatives.
c. Drastically improve the governance of the CGIAR system, including the establishment of a system-level Board vested with legitimate power and authority to govern the system on behalf of all stakeholders. This board must be able to directly interact and consult with stakeholders and strategic partners; set strategic objectives and priorities, including the allocation of funds, promote mission focus; stimulate alignment of initiatives and synergistic use of the current and future assets of the system; and create healthy levels of competition among alternative research providers. The CIMMYT Board of Trustees endorses the system-level Board proposed by WG3 and the recommendations of the governance section of the draft report of the Independent Review Panel. This may require a new distribution of responsibilities between the System’s and the Centers’ Boards; we welcome the open and positive consideration of concrete and detailed plans for this kind of governance change. The constitutional rules of the new System Board should be such that it can effectively engage the diversity of stakeholders and avoid imbalances of power among members.
d. Revitalize the position of the CGIAR in the global development community and, in particular, in the rapidly changing global science system. This implies a new way of thinking about, and of working in partnerships. CIMMYT has a tradition of working in partnership with many different stakeholders inside and outside the CGIAR system, including such different models as the Challenge Programs, the Alliance with IRRI, the joint program with ICARDA, and new multi-stakeholder initiatives and private-public partnerships supported by the Gates Foundation in Africa. We are particularly concerned with the need to reinvigorate our alliance with the national agricultural research and innovation systems in the developing world, and with tailoring in a better way the work of the CGIAR to the particular needs and conditions of the developing regions of the world. The recommendations of WG2 would allow us to expand and build upon that tradition, and CIMMYT is committed to playing an important role to move forward in this critical component of the CGIAR reform process.
e. Enable the CGIAR’s work to be organized around clear and enforceable agreements that allow the Centers, the scientists and their partners to carry out their work in an environment conducive to top quality, mission-focused and impact-driven research for development. The system of programmatic contracts between the CGIAR Fund/Board and the Centers proposed by WG3 fits this need and we endorse it. Such a system allows the Centers to carry out other activities not covered by the contracts, and clearly defines those lines of work and results for which we are to be held accountable to the CGIAR. This system can also be a very powerful instrument to promote and support work and product-driven alignment and convergence of Centers.
f. Significantly reorganize structures and bureaucracies that are currently ineffective, streamlining all system-level support and administration functions in a single, efficient and small unit under the responsibility of the system Board and its Chair and CEO.
3. In the coming weeks we will hear valid arguments that many details remain unclear, that the changes do not go as far as needed, that the commitment to the change process of some key stakeholders remains unclear, that more time is needed for further reflection and consultation, and so on. CIMMYT welcomes all opportunities for building a solid consensus around a change platform and, in particular, for seeking greater clarity about the specifics of the change process. But CIMMYT clearly and forcefully states that we strongly favor making the key decisions now. There is more than enough analysis to support a decision to move forward with a clear set of concrete, substantial reform goals, and CIMMYT is prepared to move the process forward.
4. This process of change must very soon enter into a new stage of implementation. We urgently need to restore the focus on the challenges that we have in front of us. The CGIAR should not dedicate more resources than are essentially needed to strategize about boards of directors and funding mechanisms, when there is a food crisis on hand.