Initial impressions of portfolioMaggie Gill 05 May 2016

Scale of the task• 21st century challenges needs cross-Center, inter-

disciplinary and trans-disciplinary working – vision is ‘on message’ (SDGs)

• 15 Centers, 15 Boards, 15 cultures, operations and commitment/expectations in multiple developing countries

• Diverse disciplines but origins in crop-breeding• SRF with 3 SLOs – trade-offs are inevitable and

impact pathways complex• Donors varying in investment levels, key priorities and

priorities are dynamic• Volatility of funding

http://ispc.cgiar.org/

Where have we come from and progress towards- integration

across CentersWe started from 15 discrete programs developed over a 2.5 year period (2010-2013).

• Site integration – significant progress• iCRPs – significant progress• AFS-CRPs – varying progress towards food

systems rather than production• 3 platforms – developed collaboratively

http://ispc.cgiar.org/

What has improved across System?

• Theories of Change & Impact Pathways at FP and CRP levels

• Partnership strategies and new partners (9.1-24.6)

• Budgets for impact assessment (0.2-5.8%)• Gender issues embedded in research design• Initial thinking about opportunities for youth

employment• Innovative capacity development• ………

http://ispc.cgiar.org/

SRF and CRP figures

• 3 System level Outcomes• 45 sub-Intermediate Development Outcomes

• 12 CRPs• [3 platforms]

http://ispc.cgiar.org/

http://ispc.cgiar.org/Alignment with SRF

Alignment with donor priorities

7

Alignment of Flagships with donor priorities

8

http://ispc.cgiar.org/Funding per Flagship

Agreement needed – rating of CRPs!• GREEN: minimal revision between 16 June and 31 July 2016; ISPC

recommend to the System Council (in November 2016) that such CRPs/platforms should be approved to proceed with no further input from the ISPC, but annual monitoring by the SMO.

• YELLOW: key points would be listed and a plan as to how they would be addressed would be expected to be provided in a revised submission by 31 July 2016. The ISPC would then outline how progress should be monitored in the first annual reports of any CRPs or platforms in this category. This monitoring would then be done by? Annual reports of CRPs and platforms in this category could be passed to the ISPC to provide assurance to the System on the quality of the monitoring process, at least in the first year.

• AMBER: ISPC is signalling that it feels that further face to face contact with the CRP leadership is required, to help them understand how they could make a greater contribution to the portfolio as a whole. The exact nature and duration of ISPC intervention would depend on the nature of the issues identified. This might be expected to last longer than the first Annual report as suggested for category yellow.

01234567

Leadership andpartnership

Budget

Cross-cuttingthemes

ToC and ImpactPathwats

Strategic relevance

Possible ways of providing feedback at FP level

01234567

Scalability

Alternative suppliers

Donor prioritiesAlignment withSRF/SDGs]

Timeline to delivery

Agreement on future criteria?