Lessons Learned from Developing Mega Program “Mock-Ups”

By John McDermott, Deputy Director General, International Livestock Research Institute

Source: CGIAR Embracing Change E-Newsletter, June 2009 Issue

A group of the CGIAR Alliance Deputy Directors General gathered in April to design three mock-ups of what the mega programs of the new CGIAR Consortium might look like and how they might operate.** In developing the three mock-ups, we worked with others to investigate what the mega programs might be, what they might aim to do, how they might operate and what their business model might look like. Each mock-up modeled a different type of mega program: (1) thematic   (improving the resilience of agricultural systems); (2) commodity-based (roots and tubers); and (3) regional (policies in sub-Saharan Africa). We drew the following lessons from this exercise, which are now informing the work of the Strategic Results Framework team as it designs the first portfolio of mega programs.

The three types of mock-ups fared differently across the criteria we employed (for more on that, go to http://alliance.cgxchange.org/mega-program-mock-up-team). For instance, measuring impact is more complex in a thematic than in a commodity-based mega program. A thematic mega program offers major opportunities for innovative frontier and integrative science but is likely to be more difficult to implement than a commodity-based or regional mega program. And partnerships are probably easier to build in a regional mega program because of the rich institutional and collaborative arrangements already existing within sub-regions.

Lessons on programmatic issues

Designing the three mock-ups led us to conclude that the mega programs offer real opportunities for making big leaps in research effectiveness and benefits. By bringing together a critical mass of research activities across disciplines and institutions to tackle high-priority global development challenges, a mega program, like the Roots and Tuber mock-up, could enable scientists working on different crops to jointly tackle common problems, such as lack of improved, disease-free planting material, post-harvest losses and inadequate markets.

Furthermore, the new dynamic partner-rich mega programs will better align research with development investments and actions while also increasing capacity development. They will allow us to draw lessons at the global scale (e.g., schemes for providing payments to the poor for ecosystem services) for tailoring to regional and national research needs (e.g., how to adapt and implement such schemes in “hot spots” identified by a resilience mega program).

Lessons on governance and management

We compared four models for an effective governance and management structure. We found that the model most likely to be efficient and effective in administrative terms would have the Consortium establish a contract with (and allocate funds to) a lead Center of a mega program, with this lead Center representing an association of partners, both internal and external to the CGIAR.

When the Fund starts operating, we believe we’ll need three types of funding mechanisms to implement mega programs effectively. First, we’ll need to coordinate and align existing research funded through Centre funding allocations with the business plan of a mega program. Second, research funded through allocations managed by the Consortium and targeted at joint research efforts will need to serve as the engine driving the new mega programs. Third, development investments obtained by partners and fully aligned to a given mega program will need to provide essential support for the development partners. The Consortium Board will need to work with the Fund Council and Centre leadership to align these different sources of funds.

The greater size of the mega programs, compared to the smaller programs the Centers manage today, with consequently more complex funding, management and research coordination, is an obvious challenge in itself. Further development of the mega programs awaits finalization of the Strategic Results Framework, consultations with partners of the CGIAR and final selection of the programs that will make up the first portfolio of mega programs.

**The team consisted of John McDermott (ILRI, chair), Hartmann (IITA Director General), Charles Crissman (CIP), Yemi Katerere (CIFOR), David Molden (IWMI), Jonathan Crouch (CIMMYT), Jean-Marcel Ribaut (Generation Challenge Programme), David Governey (IFPRI), and Albin Hubscher (CIAT).