WHEAT Formal Response to ISPC Review of Pre-proposal - cgiar
WHEAT Formal Response to ISPC Review of Pre-proposal – 27th Oct 2015 1.
Overall observation on ISPC understanding of the CRP and Portfolio a. We note that “considerable effort has been made (by all CRPs) to respond to the SRF 2016-2030” and that ISPC did not recommend major alterations to the proposed portfolio (e.g. merge pre-breeding across crops; question the notion of inserting systems research into AFS-CRPs). b. We note and recommend that CRP Lead Centers take on the ‘specific scientific issues raised’, ‘key conclusions’ and ‘key recommendations’ (ISPC Commentary 14th Oct). c. We add the following observations: i. Systems research approach: WHEAT notes there is no shared definition of ‘systems research’ and that context-specific definitions should be provided in Full Proposals. Also CRPs should refer to the farming systems classification of FAO. Even though there is room for improvement for this classification, it is the only global system classification available. WHEAT is committed to successfully integrate wheat based systems related components of the Dryland Systems CRP. ii. Integrated research portfolio: In order to ‘integrate’, each CRP must bring a core of substance to the table. With decreasing funding, there is an over-emphasis on ‘integration’, which WHEAT-ISC has warned against. ‘Integration’ must be broken down into forms of collaboration with different levels of intensity that remain manageable in their totality. iii. Contributions to the SRF: CRP Leaders should come together to review and detail 2022 and 2030 targets, share assumptions/approaches to the estimation. It is obvious from the results that assumptions drastically differed. More standardized assumptions across CRPs should also be the focus for the outcomes-to-impact-monitoring approach. iv. WHEAT value for money proposition and budget: WHEAT has opted for conservative targets, clarified its assumptions in estimating those and has opted for a comparatively reasonable 6yr budget. The observation that WHEAT increases its budget significantly should be qualified given the historically low investment in view of the importance of the crop for poor consumers. It still entails only 7% of total proposed budget.
2.
Any issues of factual inaccuracy? a. No issue.
3.
Concurrence of opinion on recommendations going forward a. Proliferation of IDOs: Monitoring progress on 46 sub-IDOs is utterly beyond the CGIAR and its partners. There is a strong overlap of sub-IDOs which inhibits outcome monitoring and budgeting by IDO and sub-IDO. The ISPC should give guidance how to resolve this as was discussed in the 29 Sep 2015 Paris meeting. b. The ISPC has asked most CRPs to “complete the definition of impacts and identification of CRP IDO targets and indicators”. This should be made a joint effort of CRPs M&E&L specialists, CRP Leaders, CO, as well as the ISPC and the IEA. We would like to see these bodies working together in an aligned manner. c. With the ISPC taking on a stronger role, we would appreciate the ISPC’s review and recommendations regarding the draft Full Proposal Guidance (including Financial Guidance) in view of the CRP Leaders/Lead Center’s feedback. d. The ISPC has started to develop guidance on prioritization at the Portfolio level. Up to now, there are no draft criteria on the table by which FC/System Council can decide on allocations and reallocations across the portfolio, still substantive funding shifts are being proposed by the CO which become much more pronounced as the overall funding levels shrink.
4. 4
Areas where you would request greater clarification The ISPC states “Overall, the ToC is consistent with SRF but further details are needed in the full proposal as was also noted by the IEA evaluation. WHEAT has responded that priorities are still in the process of being aligned with IDOs and SLOs which have been a moving target during 2012 to 2015 .(was rated A)” – WHEAT question: CRP and per FP ToC/IP has been done. It is not clear what remains to be done. Does the ISPC refer to the approach to verifying assumptions in ToC? Or Indicators for outcomes in Impact Pathway?
WHEAT
ISPC
Nov 1820 individual CRP-ISPC feedback, or earlier
WHEAT
ISPC
Nov 1820 or earlier
IEA Ext Eval Recommend 1: … Validation of assumptions and progress along the impact pathway should be used by WHEAT management for learning and adjusting plans, and reprioritizing projects when assumptions prove wrong or better options arise.
6
5.
The ISPC states: “Although WHEAT does not specifically address added value directly, through its 3 major thrusts which cut across its 5 FPs; its well-integrated wheat program partnership between CIMMYT and ICARDA; and its large network of partnerships, this CRP offers more value than the sum of its parts. However, more work is needed to fully articulate the value added.” – WHEAT question: We would like to receive information what more is required, or reference to a CRP where the ISPC thinks that it has done it well.
Areas where you disagree a. The assessment of realities of past, current and future private sector investment in wheat research. Great differences exist depending on crop, markets, region and research phase (e.g. non-competitive or not). Less than 5% of the private sector R&D investment is directed at low and lower middle income countries where the main focus of the CGIAR is. Private R&D investments in a self-pollinating crop like wheat only pays out in markets where farmers invest in replacing seed annually or biannually which is not the case in the developing world. Wheat seeks collaboration with upstream private partners that are oriented towards high income countries, for use of insights in low and middle income countries. Also WHEAT seeks PPP for seed production. RAFS, MAIZE and WHEAT share a section on PPP. We would appreciate further feedback from the ISPC on what other opportunities they see.
Overall observation on ISPC understanding of the CRP and Portfolio a. We note that “considerable effort has been made (by all CRPs) to respond to the SRF 2016-2030” and that ISPC did not recommend major alterations to the proposed portfolio (e.g. merge pre-breeding across crops; question the notion of inserting systems research into AFS-CRPs). b. We note and recommend that CRP Lead Centers take on the ‘specific scientific issues raised’, ‘key conclusions’ and ‘key recommendations’ (ISPC Commentary 14th Oct). c. We add the following observations: i. Systems research approach: WHEAT notes there is no shared definition of ‘systems research’ and that context-specific definitions should be provided in Full Proposals. Also CRPs should refer to the farming systems classification of FAO. Even though there is room for improvement for this classification, it is the only global system classification available. WHEAT is committed to successfully integrate wheat based systems related components of the Dryland Systems CRP. ii. Integrated research portfolio: In order to ‘integrate’, each CRP must bring a core of substance to the table. With decreasing funding, there is an over-emphasis on ‘integration’, which WHEAT-ISC has warned against. ‘Integration’ must be broken down into forms of collaboration with different levels of intensity that remain manageable in their totality. iii. Contributions to the SRF: CRP Leaders should come together to review and detail 2022 and 2030 targets, share assumptions/approaches to the estimation. It is obvious from the results that assumptions drastically differed. More standardized assumptions across CRPs should also be the focus for the outcomes-to-impact-monitoring approach. iv. WHEAT value for money proposition and budget: WHEAT has opted for conservative targets, clarified its assumptions in estimating those and has opted for a comparatively reasonable 6yr budget. The observation that WHEAT increases its budget significantly should be qualified given the historically low investment in view of the importance of the crop for poor consumers. It still entails only 7% of total proposed budget.
2.
Any issues of factual inaccuracy? a. No issue.
3.
Concurrence of opinion on recommendations going forward a. Proliferation of IDOs: Monitoring progress on 46 sub-IDOs is utterly beyond the CGIAR and its partners. There is a strong overlap of sub-IDOs which inhibits outcome monitoring and budgeting by IDO and sub-IDO. The ISPC should give guidance how to resolve this as was discussed in the 29 Sep 2015 Paris meeting. b. The ISPC has asked most CRPs to “complete the definition of impacts and identification of CRP IDO targets and indicators”. This should be made a joint effort of CRPs M&E&L specialists, CRP Leaders, CO, as well as the ISPC and the IEA. We would like to see these bodies working together in an aligned manner. c. With the ISPC taking on a stronger role, we would appreciate the ISPC’s review and recommendations regarding the draft Full Proposal Guidance (including Financial Guidance) in view of the CRP Leaders/Lead Center’s feedback. d. The ISPC has started to develop guidance on prioritization at the Portfolio level. Up to now, there are no draft criteria on the table by which FC/System Council can decide on allocations and reallocations across the portfolio, still substantive funding shifts are being proposed by the CO which become much more pronounced as the overall funding levels shrink.
4. 4
Areas where you would request greater clarification The ISPC states “Overall, the ToC is consistent with SRF but further details are needed in the full proposal as was also noted by the IEA evaluation. WHEAT has responded that priorities are still in the process of being aligned with IDOs and SLOs which have been a moving target during 2012 to 2015 .(was rated A)” – WHEAT question: CRP and per FP ToC/IP has been done. It is not clear what remains to be done. Does the ISPC refer to the approach to verifying assumptions in ToC? Or Indicators for outcomes in Impact Pathway?
WHEAT
ISPC
Nov 1820 individual CRP-ISPC feedback, or earlier
WHEAT
ISPC
Nov 1820 or earlier
IEA Ext Eval Recommend 1: … Validation of assumptions and progress along the impact pathway should be used by WHEAT management for learning and adjusting plans, and reprioritizing projects when assumptions prove wrong or better options arise.
6
5.
The ISPC states: “Although WHEAT does not specifically address added value directly, through its 3 major thrusts which cut across its 5 FPs; its well-integrated wheat program partnership between CIMMYT and ICARDA; and its large network of partnerships, this CRP offers more value than the sum of its parts. However, more work is needed to fully articulate the value added.” – WHEAT question: We would like to receive information what more is required, or reference to a CRP where the ISPC thinks that it has done it well.
Areas where you disagree a. The assessment of realities of past, current and future private sector investment in wheat research. Great differences exist depending on crop, markets, region and research phase (e.g. non-competitive or not). Less than 5% of the private sector R&D investment is directed at low and lower middle income countries where the main focus of the CGIAR is. Private R&D investments in a self-pollinating crop like wheat only pays out in markets where farmers invest in replacing seed annually or biannually which is not the case in the developing world. Wheat seeks collaboration with upstream private partners that are oriented towards high income countries, for use of insights in low and middle income countries. Also WHEAT seeks PPP for seed production. RAFS, MAIZE and WHEAT share a section on PPP. We would appreciate further feedback from the ISPC on what other opportunities they see.
