Dryland Systems CRP

Dryland Systems CRP

Current Status and Next Steps

Outline

• Current status and challenges• Launch Meeting• IDOs• Second CRP Phase• June donor/stakeholder meeting in

Montpellier• ESA work plans

Drylands CRP Accepted

• A number of ISPC criticisms remain– Lack of a Program-level logframe

• Will end on Dec 31 2014!• 2012 Annual report (past) due

– Inception phase not implementation– Thematic or maybe regional emphasis (not center)– Resolving PPA format with new format– CO does not have to accept or forward to CB or FO

Outline



Steering Committee Meeting Independent Science Advisors Meeting Program-level logframe and IDOs Harmonization across regions Governance/Management Research Support and Performance Management Geoinformatics Models M&E/Impact Pathway Innovation Systems Communication Gender Youth Capacity Building Breakout Groups for Workplans (By Theme? Region? Activity?)

Workplans, logframes, etc. must facilitate Reporting

Launch Meeting May 21-23 Amman JordanAgenda being prepared for circulation

Outline



CRPIDOs and SLIDOs• There are now “system level IDOs” and therefore the new acronym “SLIDOs”,

as well CRP IDOs. • The CRP IDOs are intended to cluster to the SL IDOs, which in turn lead to the

“system level outcomes” (SLOs). • The three system CRPS (Dryland Systems, Humid Tropic Systems, and Aquatic

Agriculture Systems) met with a view towards – 1) harmonizing their IDOs, – 2) achieving a common or coherent narrative that defined and clarified the

roles and missions as distinct from the commodity and natural resource CRPs, and

– 3) come up with a common “SL IDO.” • For the moment, the SLIDO for the systems CRPs is “Capacity to Innovate”.• IDOs will play a very important role in 2nd CRP phase• Guidelines on their development are available• Final IDOs scheduled for September

Generic IDOs for Dryland Systems CRP:(associated with four Strategic Research Themes (SRTs))

SRT1. Approaches to strengthening innovation systems, building stakeholder innovation capacity, and linking

knowledge to policy action. Effective innovation systems identified and applied to the adoption of interventions or policies Enhanced capacity for innovation in trans-disciplinary research-for-development (R4D) processes Effective Linkages of research to policy action in a dryland context SRT2. Reducing vulnerability and managing risk. Combinations of institutional, biophysical, market, and management options for reducing vulnerability and increasing

resilience designed and developed Trade-offs among options for reducing vulnerability and mitigating risk analyzed within regions Knowledge-based systems developed for customizing options to sites and circumstances SRT3. Sustainable intensification for more productive, profitable and diversified dryland agriculture with well-

established linkages to markets. Sustainable intensification options designed and developed, including the development and servicing of profitable

niche markets Trade-offs among profitability and risk of sustainable intensification and diversification options analyzed within

regions. Knowledge-based systems developed for customizing options to sites and circumstances SRT4. Anticipating and measuring impacts and cross-regional synthesis. Livelihood and ecosystem characterization and monitoring Across-region synthesis of lessons learned from SRTs 1, 2, and 3 Impact measured

Outline



What’s wrong with the current round of CRPs

1. Programs were designed “in the rearview mirror” – putting together existing work of participating centers, sometimes lacking a strong internal logic – rather than answering the question: what program design would have the greatest impact on the problem to be solved and how can value for money be maximized.

2. Programs were designed in a stand alone fashion, without considering the value addition of each CRP to the system level portfolio-thereby raising questions about overlaps, missed synergies and lower impact/value for money of the entire portfolio

3. Milestones, outputs, and outcomes of the programs are long lists of items that may be of value for internal project management – but do not provide relevant information on progress for investors / donors. Even strong CRPs do not have an agreed way to show their performance in a satisfactory manner.

4. There is no clarity on the specific usage of W1-2 funds (in part because there is only weak linkage between actual activities and the original proposal – and the CRPs were initially not asked to provide) making it hard to report and demonstrate value for money.

5. There is lack of clarity on the role of bilateral projects in the CRPs – even CRP leaders in some programs have no overview what the bilateral projects do, or how they contribute to CRPs, if they do.

6. W1-2 and W3-bilateral funding streams are interlinked (in the sense that they leverage each other – with W1-2 funding a larger than proportional share of CGIAR staff; and W3-bilateral funding a larger than proportional share of partners) – but there is no clarity at the Consortium, Fund or donor level how this is done – and whether such leveraging is in fact good or bad.

7. There is no agreement among donors on harmonized reporting leading to multiple reporting requests – in part caused (or not helped) by the fact that there is not a strong monitoring system of relevant outcome indicators proposed by the programs (yet).

8. There is no system of priorities that helps assess relative contributions to system level outcomes across the CRP portfolio, or helps allocate resources across programs.

Process for CGIAR Research Program 2nd call for proposals (2015-2017)

1. Substantive guidance CRPs will be asked to develop proposals to meet the IDOs developed in 2013, along with other guidance

2. Harmonize / synchronize end dates of all current phase 1 CRP contracts (except the Genebank CRP) to 31/12/2014

3. Call for Concept Notes (10 page max) by invitation only, i.e. only the existing CRPs plus additional ones by invitation

4. Review and recommended guidance5. Approval for call for full proposals 6. Proposal development 7. Independent External Review 8. Approval of stage 2 CRP portfolio of “big project” CNs by CB and FC 9. CRP leadership develops full proposals for approved big project CNs and seeks

funding from W3 / bilateral donors. 10. CPA and PIA for CRP and projects.11. Project outcomes and performance12. Annual program (CRP) performance appraisal 13. Overall program (CRP) performance is externally reviewed every three years

Outline



CRP Engagement with Donors and External Stakeholders to Discuss Targets, Theory of Change, Impact Pathways and Indicators for Definition and

Prioritization of CRP-level IDOs

Montpellier FranceJune 17-28, 2013

Day 1 Plenary Session 8:30 - 10:30 CRPs Presentations (10 min) Followed by Discussions (20 min)

- Focus Areas - Cross Cutting IDOs - Regional Collaborations - Partnerships

10:30 – 11:00 Coffee Break 11:00 – 12:30 Donors & Stakeholder Presentations & Feedback Followed by Discussion

- Donor Investment Priorities - Partnerships, Boundary Work and Impact Pathways

12:30 – 14:00 Lunch 14:00 – 17:00 CRP-1 Presentation (30 min) (closed session of CRP1 with its investors,

partners and stakeholders) - IDOs, ToC, Impact Pathways - Time-Phased 10 year Work Plan - Estimated Budget

Discussion 19:00 – 21:00 Group Dinner

• An important step in the process of prioritizing at the system level, is the convening of meetings that will bring together the CRP leaders with donors and external stakeholders to:

• refine targets, • discuss explicit IDOs, Theories of Change Impact Pathways and

indicators, and • to ultimately negotiate time-phased investments to achieve agreed

upon IDOs. • The first set of meetings with donors and external stakeholders will be

organized in Montpellier between June 17 – 28, 2013. • A second meeting is expected in 2014 as part of CRPs’ proposal

development.• The deadline for CRPs to submit materials for review by the donors and

external stakeholders is 3 weeks before their meeting. These materials should be 10-15 pages length and fully incorporate progress made in the Working Group refining CRP IDOs.

Engagement with Donors and External Stakeholders

Guidelines on Presentations AvailableAnd forthcoming!

Key components. The presentations should cover each of the following elements:

i. Intermediate development outcomes (IDOs), Impact Pathways (IPs) and Theories of Change (ToCs). Detailed guidance on the IDOs, IPs, and ToCs is provided separately. Each presentation should summarize the IDOs, IPs and ToCs, showing how the CRP will contribute to common CRP IDOs and so to achievement of the SLOs. Best estimates of targets for each IDO should be provided.

ii. Flagship projects. It is envisaged that each CRP will deliver its work through a limited number of (3-6 ) large “flagship projects” with a value of between and US$20-100m over the course of the project. These projects may be either geographically or thematically focused. Each presentation should summarize these flagship projects and show how they will contribute to the IDOs. At this stage this is primarily intended to identify flagship projects and therefore the proposed structure of the CRP (key groups of activities; key streams of work; possibly organized by IDO, or in any other manner the CRP finds most helpful). It is intended that the pre-proposals submitted in March 2014 will have by and large the same components as the presentations in June 2013, and that the flagship projects will be further developed intoi specific concept notes for each of these flagship projects in the full proposal due later in 2014.

iii. Partnerships. The CRP’s ToCs depend on effective partnerships and it is therefore anticipated that the next round of proposals will provide greater detail on how the CRPs are working through partnership to achieve the IDOs. The presentations should therefore highlight partnership successes to date and how these will be built on in the coming phase, preferably being explicit about the role of partners in research (leadership on components, for example) and management / governance (membership of steering or management committees) . Indicative shares of budget, by partner or partner category, would be desirable.

iv. Regional collaborations. As part of the partnerships discussion each CRP should show how they are working with regional partners to pursue effective regional processes through which the CRPs can achieve greater impact at scale.

v. Phased workplan covering the 9 year period from 2015-2023. To provide donors with your current best sense of the future development of the CRP a phased workplan for the period 2015-2023 should be provided. This will necessarily be pitched at a high strategic level, but should aim to convey to donors what they can expect to see happening at what time, and when we expect to see results of different types and at different scales. For example you might show in which three year periods you envisage the CRP expanding into new geographies or developing new product lines.

vi. Budget. Current best estimates of cost of each of the flagship projects and each of the IDOs should be provided, covering the life of the CRP. It is understood that there will not be a detailed budget, and that not all CRPs have a good sense of the costs of each IDO, but it is expected that CRPs will share their current best estimates and improve these between June 2013 and March 2014.

I am proposing a bit more flexibility, depending on CRP structure – could be a few more, 8? 10? but should not become 20 or 30.

Guidelines on Presentations AvailableAnd forthcoming!

Flagship projects. It is envisaged that each CRP will deliver its work through a limited number of (3-6 ) large “flagship projects” with a value of between and US$20-100m over the course of the project. These projects may be either geographically or thematically focused. Each presentation should summarize these flagship projects and show how they will contribute to the IDOs. At this stage this is primarily intended to identify flagship projects and therefore the proposed structure of the CRP (key groups of activities; key streams of work; possibly organized by IDO, or in any other manner the CRP finds most helpful). It is intended that the pre-proposals submitted in March 2014 will have by and large the same components as the presentations in June 2013, and that the flagship projects will be further developed intoi specific concept notes for each of these flagship projects in the full proposal due later in 2014.

I am proposing a bit more flexibility, depending on CRP structure – could be a few more, 8? 10? but should not become 20 or 30.

Outline



Dangers of Laissez Faire• Each center does what it wants, where it wants• Marginalization of Regional Coordinators• Lack of Programmatic coherence• Challenge of reporting on program level using

disparate regional reports with no real data management, no thought given to common methodologies or experimental design, and no consistent reporting format*

*other than OCS reporting “someday”

“Simplified Standardized Logframe”Example from W. Africa (7 pages long)

West Africa Sahel and Dryland Savannas

SRT SRT Outputs Outputs Activities Site

2, 4

2.1, 4.2 Output 1.1 Best fit crop/livestock/trees management practices for addressing feed gaps and system productivity identified and documented

Activity 1.1.1 Identify, and document the performance of existing and alternative crop/livestock/trees management practices for enhancing food and feed security

SRT2

2,4

2.1, 2.3, 4.2, 4.3

Activity 1.1.2 Characterize and simulate livestock mediated nutrient flows at landscape level SRT2

1,2

1.2,2.1,2.2

Activity 1.1.3 Develop and promote improved crop/livestock/trees management practices to reduce feed gaps for livestock

SRT2

4

4.4

Output 1.2 Costs, benefits and tradeoffs of the proposed integrated management practices assessed

Activity 1.2.1 Analyze the economic profitability of the improved crop/livestock/trees management practices for enhancing food and feed security

SRT2

SRT SRT Outputs Outputs Activities Site

1,2,3,4 1.2, 2.1, 3.1, 3, 4.2

Output 2.1 Best practices for increasing biomass production that will result to increased soil organic matter, water holding capacity and

nutrients availability developed and disseminated

Activity 2.1.1. Assess and monitor the effect of management practices on whole landscape biomass productivity

SRT2, SRT3

1,2,3 1.2, 2.2,3.2

Activity 2.1.2 Develop and disseminate best practices for increasing biomass productivity SRT2, SRT3

2, 3 2.1, 3.1

Output 2.2 Options for increasing organic matters through effective use of trees, cover crops, crop residues and animal manure developed and promoted

Activity 2.2.1 Quantify the effects of management practices on nutrient fluxes at the farm scale SRT2, SRT3

Many activities identified but:• No budget • No obvious links to

“SRO x Center” budgets

• Unclear impact pathway

• No inter-regional harmony

• No global program• “Cracks”

CostGroup Budget Line Item ICARDA ICRISAT ILRI CIP IWMI ICRAF Bioversity CIAT

WorldFish

Total Project Costs

1 Personnel Cost 5,150 4,723 1,553 757 619 431 534 252 - 14,019

2 Travel 833 695 135 181 107 73 4 30 - 2,058

3 Operating expenses (see definition) 2,239 1,411 2,114 770 155 233 17 143 - 7,083

4 Traning / Workshop 1,002 170 - 12 - 42 217 3 - 1,446

5 Partners / Collaborator / Consultancy 1,666 1,498 312 583 238 215 5 21 - 4,537

6 Capital and other equipment 914 390 - 102 48 21 16 6 - 1,496

7 Contingency - 443 - - 24 - 95 - - 562

Sub-Total 11,804 9,330 4,114 2,405 1,191 1,016 888 455 - 31,202

8 Institutional Overhead 2,361 1,941 823 369 262 213 178 79 - 6,226

Total Project Costs 14,165 11,271 4,937 2,774 1,453 1,229 1,065 534 - 37,428

“New Table 13”. Project Costs and Funding Source - Year 1 of Implementation

Funding Sources ICARDA ICRISAT ILRI CIP IWMI ICRAF Bioversity CIAT WorldFishTotal

Contribution

CGIAR Fund (Windows 1 and 2) 8,478 5,970 1,936 621 1,143 470 959 534 - 20,111

Window 3 & Bilateral Restricted Grants 5,688 5,301 3,001 2,152 310 759 107 - - 17,317

Others - - - - - - - - - -

Total Funds 14,166 11,271 4,937 2,774 1,453 1,229 1,065 534 - 37,428

SRT1 Activities: $3,769,517

1.1: Developing models and approaches for strengthening innovation systems in drylands

1.2: Enhancing the capacity for innovation and effective participation in collaborative R4D processes

1.3: Developing strategies for effectively linking research to policy action in dryland context

“Program Level” Activity budgets for ICARDA

Common RIW outcomes from 5 RIWs

(Debatable) SRT Assignments and Budgetary Implications

SRT 1: $3,769,517• Improved access to and adoption of appropriate technology

and technical advice by smallholder farmers• Higher levels of empowerment for youth and women in

community decision-making• Stronger institutions to serve the rural poor and greater

government awareness about system and livelihood interdependencies, leading to more-effective policy changes and institutional innovations

• Broad stakeholder participation in the research and development cycle through innovation platforms


2.1: Developing and testing combinations of institutional, biophysical, and management options for reducing vulnerability and mitigating risk

2.2: Up- and out-scaling of options

2.3: Analysis, within target regions, of trade-offs among options and development of knowledge-based systems for customizing options to sites and circumstances



3.1: Developing and testing combinations of options for sustainable intensification and diversification of agricultural production systems

3.2: Up- and out-scaling of options

3.3: Analysis, within target regions, of trade-offs among options and development of knowledge-based systems for customizing options to sites and circumstances


Common RIW outcomes from 5 RIWs(Debatable) SRT Assignments and Budgetary Implications

SRTs 2 ($ 4,724,584) and 3 ($3,843,205)• Farmer attainment of higher plant and livestock productivity and profitability• Improved rural employment• Greater biomass availability for animal and cropping systems• Better access to markets and financial services by smallholder farmers• High-value product markets made accessible to smallholder farmers• More-effective buffering and system resilience to reduce vulnerability to

system shocks and climate change• Increased food security, including better nutrition• Higher levels of biodiversity and lower levels of land degradation facilitated

through better management of soil, water, and genetic resources• Farmers are equipped to manage their natural resources in a more

sustainable way• Postharvest and processing technologies have been improved and

communicated and value-adding options increased


4.1: Analysis of future scenarios and priorities

4.2: Baseline characterization of livelihoods and ecosystems, and synthesis across regions of lessons learned about the options developed in SRTs 2 and 3

4.3: Assessments of program outcomes and impacts


Common RIW outcomes from 5 RIWs

(Debatable) SRT Assignments and Budgetary Implications

SRT4 ($1,827,734)

• A widely agreed upon framework to define and measure vulnerability for the purpose of informing policy and programming

• Trade-off analyses to establish the optimal mix of land use/land cover and cropping systems

• Dryland Systems CRP to inform other CRPs, and vice versa• Improved options for mixed production systems are communicated

to smallholder farmers.• Better understanding of system characteristics, opportunities, and

constraints• Effective communication of CRP findings to all stakeholders

Reality Check

• We are already well in to 2013• Phase 1 will end in 2014• Especially for dryland agroecosystems, there

are no realistic outcomes unless from “legacy” activities or ongoing projects

• So we must muddle along and gradually realign

• But we still have to report!

CRPs concerned by this indicator

Indicator Glossary/guidelines for measuring the indicator Deviation narrative (if actual is more than 10% away from target)

2012 2013 2014

Target (if available for 2012)

Actual Target Target

KNOWLEDGE, TOOLS, DATA All 1. Number of flagship

“products” produced by CRP These are frameworks and concepts that are significant and complete enough to have been highlighted on web pages, publicized through blog stories, press releases and/or policy briefs. They are significant in that they should be likely to change the way stakeholders along the impact pathway allocate resources and/or implement activities. They should be products that change the way these stakeholders think and act. Tools, decision-support tools, guidelines and/or training manuals are not included in this indicator

7 (5 regional reports, one revised proposal, one inception report

7

All 2. % of flagship products produced that have explicit target of women farmers/NRM managers

The web pages, blog stories, press releases and policy briefs supporting indicator #1 must have an explicit focus on women farmers/NRM managers to be counted

Not available

All 3. % of flagship products produced that have been assessed for likely gender-disaggregated impact

Reports/papers describing the products should include a focus on gender-disaggregated impacts if they are to be counted

Not available

All 4. Number of ”tools” produced by CRP

These are significant decision-support tools, guidelines, and/or training manuals that are significant and complete enough to have been highlighted on web pages, publicized through blog stories, press releases and/or policy briefs. They are significant in that they should be likely to change the way stakeholders along the impact pathway allocate resources and/or implement activities

Not available

All 5. % of tools that have an explicit target of women

The web pages, blog stories, press releases and policy briefs supporting indicator #4 must have an explicit focus on women

Not available

“Annex 1” of current annual report template

Date post:	07-Feb-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	kuri
View:	42 times
Download:	0 times

Dryland Systems CRP

Documents