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

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)

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

By Tom Remington, Principal Agriculture Advisor, Catholic Relief Services

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

In late April, Catholic Relief Services (CRS) organized a half day CGIAR and Civil Society Organization (CSO) dialogue in Washington DC. The event was co-hosted with InterAction, a coalition of US based international non-governmental organizations, and followed the CRS Agricultural Symposium on Holistic Innovations in Agriculture Programming on April 20, where Kathy Sierra, CGIAR Chair and Vice President of the World Bank Sustainable Development Network, joined CRS President Ken Hackett in giving keynote addresses, and CGIAR Director Ren Wang delivered a presentation on CGIAR-CSO Partnerships and the CGIAR Change Initiative (http://symposia.crsprogramquality.org/2009-agriculture-symposium/).

At the CGIAR-CSO dialogue, I briefed InterAction members on my participation in the Change Initiative as an NGO representative in the Partnership Working Group during the first phase of the process in 2008. Ren engaged in a rich discussion with those present, sharing updates on the change process, responding to questions, and listening to feedback. After our presentations, current CGIAR-CSO partners highlighted the success stories of joint work through a series of short presentations.

Our discussion made clear that US NGOs and CSOs more broadly are critical partners in agricultural development.  Advocacy groups such as InterAction, through its 174 members, can play an important role in advocating for the support of agricultural research within national governments (e.g. U.S. Congress) – a role that can be significantly enhanced through a strengthened mechanism for dialogue between these groups and the CGIAR. In 2006 alone, US NGOs invested almost US$9 billion dollars in developing countries; with private donors contributing two thirds of these resources and the US government providing the remaining third.  The single largest sector invested in was Long Term Sustainable Development (The Other Partner: NGOs and Private Sector Funding for International Development & Relief, InterAction Brief, February 2009;  http://www.interaction.org/files.cgi/6692_NGO_Finance_Brief_FINAL_3.2.09.pdf).

CSO partners also play an important role in putting research into use. It was acknowledged that the CGIAR has a tremendous amount of knowledge, but that knowledge is only useful when it can be leveraged in partnership with others.  Given the urgent need to increase investments in agricultural research and development, strategic collaboration with CSOs could help to both improve the allocation of resources to agricultural development and deliver more impact on the ground. Some key questions for the new CGIAR are how can it develop strategic partnerships, harness the significant resources of CSOs and the private sector, and achieve significant and sustainable impact on poverty at scale?

Successful complex partnerships need to recognize and embrace asymmetries in knowledge, funding and power. If the new CGIAR can do this, it will go beyond research provision to knowledge creation through mutual learning. If the Change Initiative succeeds in doing this, the CGIAR will remain a leader in both agriculture research and development, and a partner I and others from the CSO community will look forward to working with for years to come.

Tom Remington
Principal Agriculture Advisor,
Catholic Relief Services

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).

On behalf of the TMT you have already received Journal Updates from Steve Hall, Jonathan Wadsworth and Katherine Sierra – now it is my turn to fill you in on our latest work. In our most recent meeting via teleconference on Thursday, May 14th , our conversation focused on three items: 1) outcomes of the May 11-13 Alliance meeting in Rome; 2) next steps in follow up to the informal London donors meeting; and 3) plans for the upcoming ExCo at CIAT in Cali, Colombia.

Outcomes of the Rome Alliance Meeting
Steve Hall had good news for us – he had just finished a very productive meeting with the Alliance in Rome.  We were all very pleased to learn that the DGs and Board Chairs had managed to find unanimous agreement on what they aspired to in an initial Consortium Constitution.  Steve was very excited by the quality of discussion and by the outcome.  What I also found very encouraging was Steve’s belief that the Alliance was able to reach unanimity on a good answer for the System that he felt also met the concerns raised by donors in London – and not simply descending to the “lowest common denominator” of minimal change without giving any real role to the new Consortium Board.  I think we all recognize that these are not easy changes for any institution to make when dealing with so many individual centers and management/governance layers. To increase the development value and impact of the system each Center has to take onboard the implications of working in new ways both with other CGIAR Centers and with their partners, and we are all encouraged that this change is beginning to become real.  Signs of a truly cooperative system seem to now be emerging and I hope will continue to grow between and beyond the CGIAR Centers. The Alliance will provide more details on the outcomes of the meeting soon.

Next steps from the Informal Donor Workshop
We revisited some of the action items we need to deal with on developing the Fund and the Accountability Framework prior to the ExCo in Cali.  The CGIAR Secretariat is working on another revision of the Fund Framework document, which includes a clear roadmap for setting up the Fund. Calling on volunteers from the London Workshop, an informal advisory group on the Fund is now being established to provide high level strategic advice on Fund governance. At the same time, Jonathan Wadsworth is leading the effort to refine the Accountability Framework for the new CGIAR. The team is acting on the feedback from donors to make the framework practical and actionable.  We are all looking forward to the revised version that will be presented at ExCo.

Preparing for ExCo-16
Now that ExCo is less than two weeks away, the TMT is rapidly preparing its presentation and papers, taking on board the feedback we received in London on each of the workstreams.  With a primary focus on the reforms underway, this ExCo will not be “business as usual” and will even be structured somewhat differently with breakout groups to allow members more time to digest the latest thinking on implementing the changes and discuss their reactions with each other.

The TMT will have another conference call on May 27th before we next meet in person in Cali on June 3rd  prior to ExCo.  Kathy Sierra will also join us that day and we will have an open ‘townhall’ discussion on the ongoing changes with CIAT staff. We are also planning a face-to-face meeting between the TMT and the Alliance DGs and Board Chairs who will be in Cali that afternoon. This will help ensure that we are all better informed about the Centers points of view prior to ExCo.

I hope you found this update useful – and as we have said before we welcome your feedback, positive or negative.

With warm regards,

Mark Holderness
(on behalf of the Transition Management Team)

London Donor Workshop Confirms CGIAR Reform Is “On Track”

The Transition Management Team (TMT) convened an informal donors’ workshop in London on April 29-30 to provide an update on progress to date and our latest thinking on many of the key elements of the new CGIAR.  This workshop was an important milestone for us as it marked the first point at which we’ve had substantive, if still highly preliminary, ideas and plans about key elements of the process to share for feedback.

The good news is that the meeting was an overall success. Donors left the two-day workshop reassured that we are on the right track. Those of us in the Transition Management Team left with constructive feedback for refining our ideas and processes. We now have a clear path to the meeting of the CGIAR Executive Committee (ExCo) next month at CIAT’s headquarters in Cali, Colombia.

However, concerns among some donors were not completely laid to rest regarding two things: whether we are moving quickly enough, and whether the change we are effecting is deep enough for the new CGIAR to serve development goals directly and broadly. These are critical questions the Transition Management Team will continue to ask and address as we move through the next stages of implementing the change process to ensure that we are indeed moving swiftly and effectively to bring about the changes we’ve committed to deliver.

At the workshop, I led a dialogue on understanding what donors need (from the TMT and in general) to be able to commit to the Fund. Some donors reported that when weeks ago the Secretariat surveyed members on the level of their likely commitment to the Fund, they didn’t have enough information yet, and many of them now see much progress.  As mentioned above, others feel that large pieces of the overall puzzle are still missing (especially around the specifics of the Strategic Results Framework and the Mega-programs) and they will need to see those filled in before they can confirm their commitment.

The following are some of the key issues and conclusions that emerged from the meeting:

• On the future Consortium organizational structure, the donors appreciated the progress and rigorous process followed to get to this point, and yet some noted that the Alliance’s early preferred option needs further development to make it fully consistent with the promise of change in Maputo.
• On the Strategic Results Framework and the Mega-programs, both currently at their early stages, donors emphasized the need for focused attention as we move to ExCo and beyond as these elements will define how donors will participate in the new CGIAR.  Joachim von Braun, Director General of IFPRI, has been leading a task force to develop these further, and the plan is to share the next level of thinking at the ExCo meeting in June.
• On the accountability framework, donors appreciated our taking a system-level approach to matters of CGIAR governance and accountability, but indicated that the somewhat theoretical accountability framework needs refinement and greater specificity. Our plan is to finalize the framework based on ExCo’s recommendation in the early summer, and move to implementation as soon as possible.
• Regarding the Fund, donors appreciated that significant progress has been made on the design. However, further detail is needed on how the Fund will become operational, specifically with regard to the roles of the Funders Summit, Fund Council and other bodies related to the Fund’s operations.
• Additionally, there is work required to generate a greater level of alignment across the donor community on these matters.
• Donors are eager to be engaged in the consultative processes being planned for the upcoming Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD).
• Most donors report that communications about the CGIAR change process meet their needs and have asked us to maintain the current level of information sharing.
• Donors are eagerly waiting to see the plan around the Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC). Based on the TMT’s sequencing of the transition, the TMT is just now launching an independent task group to work through the issues and come up with a proposal. 
• We see the need for a second workshop this year in the early fall to engage the donors after more progress has been made and ensure greater alignment across the donor community.

To learn more about this meeting, visit the change blog at http://cgiarchangemanagement.wordpress.com  where you can hear the reactions from those who attended the workshop, including my own reaction to the first day. Please also contribute your feedback on this and other aspects of the change under way either through the blog or an email to the TMT (tmt@cgiar.org). Your personal engagement and investment in this reform effort is fundamental to its success. 

Thank you for your continued support and commitment to the CGIAR and this change initiative.

Kathy Sierra
for the Transition Management Team

After thanking the participants for their input over the two days, Jonathan Wadsworth, Senior Agriculture Research Advisor, Department for International Development, UK and member of the TMT, summed up progress made during the meeting:

It appears that the Transition Management Team (TMT) and workstreams are more or less on track and we have received lots of encouragement to focus more on cross-workstream links, issues and integration. Feedback – particularly from the session on accountability – highlights the need for us to drill down into specifics as soon as possible. We now need to move forward by putting more meat on the bones and getting away from intellectual framing and into specifics. We see that all have an appetite for engagement; the level of participation at this meeting proves this and shows that we need to keep opportunities for participation open.

Next steps are to look at how the workstreams will come together and to focus on communications. Our efforts in this direction have improved and we will continue to ensure we communicate effectively.

Now, in the spirit of true, two-way accountability, we need something from you, the donors. We have reached a point where hard questions are starting to emerge and we need help to continue working on these – we cannot do it on our own. In trying to answer these hard questions, we’d like to ask you to continue to be available to the TMT. In view of the tight timescale, we’ll need you to provide us with rapid responses to our requests for your views and feedback. This might be solicited or unsolicited. Why not use this blog to feed in your suggestions? We also need money! But this will be a small investment compared with the very large potential returns.

Finally, we all need to have the courage to make this leap of faith in revitalising the CGIAR. It’s true that we cannot answer all your questions yet, but we will build solutions as we go, because we have the passion to make it work. The change process is worth doing, so let’s do it!

Jonathan looks ahead to the Executive Committe meeting in June:

Steve Hall, Director General of WorldFish, Alliance Chair and member of the TMT (he’s been quite busy lately!), gives his impressions from the Donor Workshop:

CIDA is one of the CGIAR’s longest-standing donors. CIDA Senior Analyst Catherine Coleman explains why she is now more encouraged about a continuing relationship:

Although we indicated we were not sure about contributing to the Fund, this wasn’t based on scepticism about the reform process, but rather on a lack of information on how this would be implemented. I am now getting a better idea of how it will work and I’m encouraged by the depth of thinking that has taken place.

Looking ahead, there is a lot of work still to do. The Executive Committee will be important in checking donor signals with other parts of the system and in ensuring the different work streams are working together. There are many relationships between the different frameworks and these have yet to be defined. As an analogy, this means paying just as much attention to the arrows between the boxes as to the boxes themselves.