Stakeholder reactions: Peter Core

Peter Core is Director of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. He has seen the CGIAR come a long way during the past four months with the reform framework.

I’ve been really pleased at this meeting to see the development and the detail of the pillars of the new CGIAR. Yesterday, we had an excellent presentation on options for the Consortium and the Consortium Board – a process strongly supported by the Boston Consulting Group, with real and different options being put to the Alliance in May, leading up to the Executive Committee meeting in June. At this meeting, we have also seen a lot of good work on the Donor Council and Funders’ Summit and, again, I’m confident we can develop pillars with broad support.

There is still a lot of work to do on the results framework and the Mega Programs but I believe Joaquim von Braun’s leadership on these will lead to progress.

In summary, I’m optimistic. The work has progressed rapidly. With the commitment of the Transition Management Team, we should be ready to launch the new CGIAR in 2010, recognising that we are in a process of continuous change and evolution, but one that is built on much stronger foundations than in the past.

Who is here?

Group photo of participants at the informal donor workshop in London!

Key points of discussion on the Fund

The discussion focused on two main points: accountability and governance.

Regarding accountability, people felt this should be seen not only as an issue of roles and responsibilities, which at present has a rather ‘punitive’ bias, but also as a value that should be important to everybody, from Centre local staff, scientists and directors to donors and the Fund Council. There was good consensus on the need to develop a coherent framework that simplifies management and clarifies what accountability means.

Discussion on governance issues centred around the Fund Council and Funders’ Summit. There seems to be some desire to revisit the Maputo decision regarding membership of the Fund Council, with some donors advocating for a shareholder model, i.e. the Council members should be contributing donors only, rather than including a range of stakeholders. It was felt that this might improve the efficiency of decision-making and incentivise donors to contribute. On the minimum threshold contribution for members there was no consensus. Neither was consensus reached on whether the Funders’ Summit would serve as an overarching governance body.

Lystra Antoine and Shey Tata, who worked with Ren Wang on drafting the Framework Document for the CGIAR Fund

How will the Fund work?

Today’s discussions are focused on funding and accountability. Ren Wang, CGIAR Director, outlined current proposals for the new CGIAR Fund. This is going to be a central, pooled fund providing multi-year support for the Mega Programs – under the Strategic Results Framework – and the Centres and their partners implementing the Programs. It intends to harmonize donor support by providing a single entry point.

The proposal is for donors to designate their funds through different ‘windows’:
1.    Unrestricted, to the entire CGIAR program portfolio
2.    To one or more of the Strategic Objectives (Food for People, Environment for People, Policies for People)
3.    To one or more of the Mega Programs
4.    To one or more of the Centers

Donor discussion and feedback was framed by four key areas:
1. Allocations into and out of the Fund; for example, what should be the expected frequency of donor contribution? How should the Consortium manage cash flow needs of Centres as well as implementation of Mega Programs?
2. Allocation of un-earmarked funds; e.g. what incentives for donors to provide un-earmarked funds?
3. Accountability and reporting; e.g. donor expectations for reporting
4. Funders’ Summit and Fund Council; roles and responsibilities.

A view from the South

Yusuf Abubakar, Executive Secretary of Nigeria’s Agricultural Research Council, puts the discussions in an African perspective:

My hope for the new CGIAR is that it will give sub-Saharan African institutions the opportunity to participate more actively in CG activities. Particularly the increased focus on partnerships and the new format of the Global Conference should encourage broader collaboration between stakeholders, particularly between the CG Centres and national agricultural research systems. At the moment the link is missing in many cases; although around 50% of the CG funding goes to sub-Saharan Africa, impact on the ground is still small. Greater collaboration between the CG Centres and the NARS will ensure the international public goods produced by high-level research get to the people who need them. It is the NARS who are the closest to the farmers. A Mega Program for SSA would be a suitable vehicle for ensuring this happens. This includes collaborating together throughout the R&D continuum and value chain.

Progress so far…

Kathy Sierra sums up the day:

Testing ideas for Consortium design

The new CGIAR Consortium has many potential benefits in terms of delivering greater development impact. These include opportunities for a more coordinated research agenda, increased research collaboration, a stronger voice in world affairs, increased funding and improved cost-efficiency. However, it is impossible to develop a model that delivers all the benefits equally. The Consortium Planning Team is currently consolidating feedback on what is the optimum structure; one that balances ‘what works’ with centre needs AND donor requirements. Efforts are focused on seven main questions (although these are not the only ones):
1.    How are decisions made on the Strategy, Strategic Results Framework and Mega Programs?
2.    How are funds allocated across and within Mega Programs?
3.    How is the Consortium office financed?
4.    How are Mega Programs and Partner relations managed?
5.    What is the Consortium’s role in consolidating Centres, adding new Centres and other organizational redesign?
6.    What is the Consortium’s role in Centre leadership appointment and strategic Human Resources?
7.    How will the Consortium Board be appointed?

Centre feedback and external reviews have led to several options being proposed to answer each question; now the donors get a chance to voice their opinions. Andrew Bennett, CIFOR Board Chair and member of the Consortium Planning Team, sums up donor feedback on Consortium design:

We saw a degree of convergence of views on the best options for most of the questions. Perhaps not surprisingly, the liveliest discussion centred on the issue of consolidation and potential merger or alignment of Centres. Some donors felt that creating a central fund would necessarily result in a reduction in the number of Centres. But it is not as simple as that. There are legal issues surrounding the responsibilities of Centres to their staff. And there is strong recognition of the need to keep the doers and the funders separate. What we do need is more impact and efficiency, which will attract greater resources. The result should be a bigger, better CGIAR, with improved career options and security for staff.

For the Consortium Planning Team, what we need to do now is firm up proposals on the areas on which we have broad consensus. At the same time, we need further discussion to help narrow down the options on the remaining issues.

Message from Rudy Rabbinge

Rudy Rabbinge, Science Council Chair, gave an overview. He said it was great to see the high level of momentum for change created at the AGM in Maputo continuing with a good level of willingness to participate from donors. As he sees it, there are five critical factors that will ensure the change process is effective. Firstly, the new CGIAR needs to have a clear vision and mission. Secondly, all stakeholders must have a sense of urgency on the need for change. Thirdly, they also have to be willing to accept change and to be fully committed to the process. The fourth factor relates to the need for financial discipline and performance contracts. And finally, leadership. He believes the CGIAR is fortunate to have good leadership from Kathy Sierra and Ren Wang, and this, combined with the strong belief in the work of the CGIAR that is held by many, bodes well for the future.

Why a donor workshop?

It is vital to involve donors in the process of designing the new CGIAR. Only when donors feel excited and engaged in what we are doing, and suggest how we can do it better, will we get the support we need to make it happen.

During this meeting, we want to develop a shared understanding of the implementation approach, the sequencing of activities, and the principal risks we face along the way. We also want to get early feedback on our working hypotheses and the options for moving forward, as well as some idea of potential donor commitment to the Fund.

Your window on the Donor Workshop

Westminster Abbey

It’s a bright and sunny spring day in London as people arrive at the Church House Conference Centre (right next door to Westminster Abbey) for the first of two days of informal consultation on CGIAR reform implementation.

Items on the agenda include developing a shared understanding on what the new Consortium will look like and how the Fund will be set up, as well as how to keep donors involved in the ongoing change process.

Watch this space for regular updates and key messages coming out of the workshop over the next three days and early next week.