1. 2012 Reflections and 2013 Outlook:
Accountability for Performance
through Partnerships
Frank Rijsberman, CEO CGIAR Consortium, January 14, 2013

2. Overview
• Reflections on 2012:
– Funding
– SRF Action Plan
• Outlook 2013:
– Priority Setting & Performance
– Governance Review and Accountability

3. Reflections 2012
• 2012: the year the New CGIAR got legs
• Complete CRP Portfolio now approved
• Now have SRF and SRF Action Plan approved
• Funding sharply up:
– allocations $900M;
– expenditures $850M (carry forward $60M)
– $150 Window 2 (partially decoupled from W1)
• Governance a new top priority / Dec retreat

4. Food Insecurity and Undernutrition
Remain Persistent
Prevalence of Micronutrient
2011 Global Hunger Index
Deficiencies
GHI components: Deficiencies in:
• Proportion of undernourished • Iron
• Prevalence of underweight in children • Vitamin A
• Under-five mortality rate • Zinc
20 countries have alarming or
extremely alarming levels of
hunger
Source: von Grebmer et al. 2011 Source: HarvestPlus 2011 Shenggen Fan | December 2011

5. Food Price Spikes
Inflation-adjusted prices of maize, wheat, rice,
soybeans, and oil, 1990–2011
Source: IFPRI

6. For food prices to remain constant, annual
yield gains would have to increase
• From 1.6% to 2.4% for maize
• From 0.9% to 1.5% for rice
• From 1.1% to 2.3% for wheat
• On essentially the same land area, with less water, nutrients, fossil fuel,
Climate
labor and as climates change change
Water, nutrient &
energy scarcity Projected
demand by
2050 (FAO)
Diseases
World-wide average yield
Linear
extrapolations
• First concerns: late 1990s of current
trends
(tons ha-1)
• The more we delay investments, Potential effect
the steeper the challenge of climate-
change-induced
heat stress on
today’s cultivars
(intermediate
Agronomy Breeding
CO2 emission
scenario)
Year

7. CGIAR in 2008 – Pre-reform
• 60 donors loosely coordinating through CGIAR
• 15 independent research centers
• 3000 bilateral projects
• Unrestricted support down from 50-60% to 20-30%
• Overhead costs 24% on average
• Very little strategic research
• Funding stagnant at about $400M/yr

8. New CGIAR in 2012
• Donors united in CGIAR Fund
• Centers united in CGIAR Consortium
• 16 CGIAR Research Programs
• Core support through Fund ~ 35%
• Overhead costs down to 16%
• Some space for strategic research
• Funding up to over $850M in 2012

9. Remaining reform priorities
1. Making the CRPs a focused set of 15(+1)
programs that are an attractive investment
portfolio with clear outcomes, demonstrated
value for money, and effective but efficient
monitoring and impact assessment
2. Fulfilling the partnership promise: opening up
the CGIAR so that partnership expectations
match self assessment

10. Strategy and Results Framework
A strategic partnership dedicated to advancing science to address the central
development challenges of our time:
4 SLOs:
• Reducing rural poverty
• Improving food security
. • Improving nutrition and health
• Sustainably managing natural resources

11. Issues in the 2011 CGIAR SRF
1. Include a dynamic foresight dimension
2. Include a process for setting priorities
3. Identify metrics to measure success & connect
performance of CRPs to SLOs

12. ISPC white paper on priority setting
7 recommendations:
1. Develop Intermediate Development Outcomes (IDOs) at
system level, linked to SLOs
2. CRP level: specify IDOs & impact pathways
3. Prioritize within CRP & develop value for money
4. System level decisions on priority domains: geographies,
agro-ecosystems, commodity systems
5. Guidance for resource allocation at portfolio level
6. Performance contracts that reflect priorities
7. Cyclical updating of SRF – including analysis of external
environment thru scenarios drawing from foresight
analysis

13. SRF Action Plan:
1. Prioritization at two levels:
– System level “top down” development of IDOs
– CRP level “bottom up” development of IDOs & value
propositions
2. Performance management system, supporting resource
allocation to optimize impact and value for money
3. Partnerships for demand and for delivery
4. Cyclical Updating: 2013 Management Update for SRF

14. Upswing in Investment
1,100 CGIAR Total Funding Trends
Nominal and in 1972 dollars 1,000
1,000
900 855
800
766
700
725
600
US$ million
500
400
300
200 1972 dollars, 121
100
20
0
Actual, Nominal 1972 dollars Target _____ projected, nominal

15. Institutional Cost Rate (a.k.a. overhead)
CGIAR average
2004: 24% 2008: 19%
2005: 21% 2009: 17%
2006: 20% 2010: 19%
2007: 20% 2011: 16%
Goal: 2015: 13% (+2 % system cost)
Declines due to:
- Implies improving efficiency
- Revised calculations (more items direct charged)
- Larger budgets overall

16. Progress on Mainstreaming
Gender Research
• A CGIAR-wide Gender Research Strategy approved
• Gender and Agriculture Network established
• Almost all CRPs have initiated Gender Strategies
• Proposal developed for Gender Performance Fund to incentivize
mainstreamed implementation of Gender Strategies

17. The Dublin Process
Enhancing CAADP and CGIAR
Alignment and Partnership
• Strong demand for CGIAR engagement from African partners
• Efforts underway:
• MoU African Union - CGIAR
• African Science Agenda
• Regional Productivity Workshops
• Mapping & Alignment Tool
• Shared leadership among CAADP, CGIAR and development
partners
• Political momentum through the G8 and G20 in support of
this process, will include Technology Innovation Platform
• Involves joint planning and priority setting

18. GCP’s Integrated Breeding Platform:
major public launch Dec ‘12
Marker-assisted breeding can cut 3-5 years from breeding cycle, with estimated
benefits in order of hundreds of millions of US$ for cassava alone
www.integratedbreeding.net

19. ACIAR Impact Assessment of CGIAR
• ACIAR 2011 impact
assessment of IRRI’s rice
breeding in
Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippin
es
• Benefits: $1.46 billion
per year from 1985 - 2009

20. CRP Genebanks approved
March 2012: >$100M over 5 years
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Partnership with Global Crop Diversity Trust

21. Outlook 2013
• External Governance Review:
– Accountability & Risk management
• Priority Setting Processes:
– Performance through Partnerships

22. CGIAR Consortium Board’s Dual Accountability
Fund Council / Funders Forum
Consortium
Consortium Activities
Centers (Consortium Members)

23. Consortium Office
Products and Services
1. Policies: the Common Operational Framework and
other Consortium policies and standards.
2. Core business: Management of the CRP portfolio
and annual CRP cycle.
3. Shared systems or services.
4. Communities of Practice (COPs), Partnership
enabling and external relations.
5. Internal Consortium back-office support:
Consortium internal business; support for CB &
members.

24. Policies
Fund Council
Consortium
Common
Consortium
Operational
Policies
Framework
Centers (Consortium Members)

25. Core business
Fund Council and Funders Forum
CB/CO
CRP
Portfolio &
Annual
Cycle
Centers (Consortium Members)

26. Shared Systems / Services
Fund Council / Funders Forum
CB/CO
Shared systems
OCS
or services
Centers (Consortium Members)

27. CoPs / Partnerships / Ext. Rel.
Fund Council / Funders Forum
CB/CO
Comms CoPs /
CRP Partnerships /
partnerships Ext Relations
Centers (Consortium Members)

28. Internal / Back Office
Fund Council / Funders Forum / Donors
CB/CO
CB &
Resource Member
mobilization
Support
Centers (Consortium Members)

29. Figure 1: Process for Determining System Level
Metrics of Performance and Prioritization
The System Level Prioritization Process Working group has been tasked to:
•Think through the iterative process of defining metrics at the system level, including the inputs (data, modelling, advice)
required for such a process, the interaction with the CRP level prioritization process, as well as the engagement and
consultation of key stakeholders.
•Establish a timeline and key milestones in the process.
•Develop Terms of Reference for key inputs to the process to be commissioned by the Consortium.
The deliverables from the working group are expected to be:
•A System Prioritization Process design memo; and
•Terms of Reference for key inputs to the process to be commissioned by the Consortium.
Time-phased Milestones and Deliverables
Phase I Phase II Phase III
Outline Process for System-Level Background Studies for System- Negotiate Targets at System and
Metrics and Prioritization Level Work, and Coordination with CRP Levels and approve 2014
CRP-Level Effort Management Update
1. Appointing Working Group to
Design SLO-IDOs Process 1. CRP –IDOs refined by CRP- 1. Participatory stakeholder process to
2. Draft ISPC TORs for a white paper Working Group. validate recommended system level
on the Theory of Change and 2. ISPC paper on Theory of IDOs. Target levels negotiated at
Impact Pathway at CGIAR System Change, use and limits of metrics the System Level (with donors and
level. based on current state of stakeholders) and at the CRP Level
3. Draft TORs for key additional knowledge. (with science leaders).
studies 3. Key commissioned analyses & 2. Revised IDOs, work-plans and
studies (modeling of promising budgets completed, approved by
technologies, mapping of CG CB and submitted to Funders
work, NRM) incorporated. Forum.
4. One-day meeting, ISPC presents 3. 2014 SRF Management Update
and discuss white paper and review Approved
candidate CRP IDOs with the CRP
leaders. Candidate system-level
IDOs selected.

30. Process Flow and Timeline
Phase I Phase II Phase III
(I.1) Aspiration: Achieve Global (III.3)
(II.1) Participatory process aligns priorities of
Funders Forum
Development Outcomes (SLOs)
Stakeholders
diverse CGIAR stakeholders into a set of System (II.12) (III.8)
(III.7) Approve 2014 SRF
(III.3) Negotiate Target values SL-IDOs
Management Update
level priorities
&
(I.2) Commissioned White
Paper on Prioritization
(II.2) White Paper on System Level (III.1)
(II.1)
TOC, Pathways to Impact and IDOs
(I.3) First draft
(III.1) One-day meeting, ISPC to present and discuss white paper and review CRP
And (II.11)
CRP-IDOs
ISPC
IEA
Review CRP IDOs
+
(II.2)
(III.9)
IDOs with the CRP leaders; System-level IDOs proposed
Management Update
(III.6) Submit 2014
(II.6) CRP-2
Commission ISPC White Paper
(II.4)
ex ante (III.4)
Synthesis of Key Studies
& Key Studies/Analyses
Consortium
(I.4) Appoint Working Groups to:
Select CRPs to Pilot Performance Management
Negotiate CRP IDOs (geographically explicit and time-
CB - CO
Design SL Process (II.9)
(II.7) CRP-2
&
Mapping
Refine CRP - IDOs
(III.2)
bound), work-plan budgets
(II.8) Natural
Resource
CRP IDOs Refined (Version 3)
(I.7)
Mangment
(III.5) Report on Final CRP
SLO-WG Outline Process, Draft
(I.5) Memo and TORs (II.5)
for ISPC & Key Inputs (II.13)
IDOs
CRPs
(I.6)
(II.3) (II.10)
CRP Working Group Refining CRP IDOs
09-12 11-30-12 03-24-13 04-13 06/07-13 08-13 09-13

31. Concluding
• The CGIAR reform is already a major
institutional achievement -“just in time” for
renewed focus on food security as top priority
• Centers are growing again – 30-40% in 2012
• CRPs are beginning to make a difference
• 2013 should be the year we make a major step
forward on the development of a performance
management system

32. THANK YOU