Tuesday, March 30, 20 Session 1, Pasteur Hall Rapporteur: Kirsten Kienzler (ICARDA) Open Plenary

Transcription

1 Tuesday, March 30, 20 Session 1, Pasteur Hall Rapporteur: Kirsten Kienzler (ICARDA) Open Plenary What are we going to do, do differently to make the things happen. We know the challenges and the changes. Presentations from the CGIAR where they see the gaps and actions that can be taken to involve the NARS M. Solh Feedback from the stakeholders (demand-driven) needed Presentation on Developing the Strategy and Results Framework: The Process Expected output of the session to discuss and agree on the intersection between regional priorities and CG thematic areas (broader perspective), and feedback on possible well focused topics; elaborate concepts, principles and process to develop partnership for research; agree on mechanisms to ensure the involvement and input of stakeholders; We are not yet at the point where we would like to be with interaction and partnership Moving from the MD challenges to the research output, need partners in the development outcomes and research outcomes; Principles of the CGIAR reform: need clear strategic focus, increased impact, greater efficiency, simplicity, enhanced decentralized decision making, active subsidiaries, extended partnership; Process started in June 2009, first strategy team appointed, including Thomas Lumpkin etc Consultation with scientists and stakeholders going on Land mark was the CGIAR business meeting where several reforms were approved, particularly the declarations Selection of the consortium board chair completed After Dec 2009, members revised the SRF, in February meeting with stakeholders (Rome); Meeting with the found council for briefing where the process stands (Brussels); since 20 March, the revised draft was circulated Post GCARD Donor consultation meeting (donor representatives), where we are with the SRF Centers will wok with the partners to develop MPs May 10, consortium board will receive from alliance final draft of SRF, and description of each proposed MP (12 pages per MP) May consortium board meeting to consider the SRF Board approved documents will be submitted to fund council, and they can start discussing Between May and October, other mps may be developed, and again submitted to the fund council By end of fast-tracked MPs Key date: 10 May, when submission of the SRF with the proposed MDs Need to develop full proposals for the MPs with the NARS, to be approved by the consortium board SRF team chaired by Emile Frison (Bioversity) Emile Frison (presentation about SRF and thematic areas) Points for discussion

2 Rationale for and content of the framework, vision and system-level impact, 8 thematic areas and 3 platforms Why new strategy and results framework: develop one single framework for the whole system, not 15 strategies developed independently, to integrate the centers, to guide the system and partners over the next 6 years What is the strategy and results framework: for entire system, focus on resource poor farmers (very specific focus on resource poor as feature), results based and outcome oriented But still work in progress, at the stage of concept notes so far (strategy by g. Kim), currently still a draft Impact oriented and results driven which outcomes are needed to achieve, which partners to bring about the changes, in equity, empowerment, investments, and which research outcomes needed for mobilization extension, policy environment for the CGIAR with the partners to achieve the outcome, and then conduct the outputs change in knowledge, capacity etc CGIAR vision that was approved at the meeting last September reduce poverty and hunger improve human health and nutrition and enhance ecosystem resilience through high quality international agricultural research partnership and leadership, Partnership, nutrition as highlight Agreed on 3 system=level impacts to realize the vision Lift productivity and resource poverty, contribute to reducing of hunger and improve nutrition and xxx To implement the agenda, 8 thematic areas where CGIAR has comparative advantage, maximize coordination and integration, platforms address the need, development as iterative process with feedback Main areas of work: megaprograms as implementing units, but later agreed too large areas to be units, therefore thematic areas, recognizing that some will be divided into management units, to balance the synergies and integration, and managerial efficiency as criteria Still need to clarify the boundaries and interactions between the MPs and define the links with the partners, particularly the development partners for impact Also detailed description of the 8 thematic areas, and precise outputs etc, will be presented in the parallel sessions Theme 1: agricultural systems for the poor and vulnerable: most challenging, foresees the real integration fot eh CGIAR centers work on specific areas of poverty hotspots, resilience, sustainable agriculture, integrating promising crop livestock production, improving food security in sustainable manner Goal to improve 250 million poor people, achieving broad based productivity, conserving natural resources Theme 2: enabling agricultural incomes for the poor: policy institution investments and markets, required to achieve income for the poor, contribute to enhance opportunities for farmers, value chains etc; impact reduced marketing costs by 20 %, and reducing resilience Theme 3: sustainable crop productivity increase for global food security: focuses on the 3 main cereals, looks at research options for increasing productivity sustainable, genes for important traits, improving crop management, accelerating uptake; impact expected large part of population, impact figures by commodity, yield and production increase,

3 water, fertilizer etc efficiencies, food security, use of particular genes, innovation platforms, realization of upscale varieties Theme 4: agriculture, nutrition and health: promote coordinate research at the interface of agriculture nutrition and health, has been working in isolation, looking at issues of gender and access; impact to contribute to maternal and child malnutrition, larger impacts where highest burden, micronutrient deficiencies, disease reduction related to unsafe food supply Theme 5: water, soils and ecosystems: increasing productivity of water, land crops, etc, management as well, and harmonize ag productivity; impact: productivity increase for crops livestock fish agroforestry, benefit the poor and gender, improve access to water, reversing degradation and improve resilience of ecosystems Theme 6: forests and trees: promote technical and policy changes for enhanced productivity, conserve and develop agroforestry; impact: policies and implementation improvement, reduce deforestation, reduce co2, income increase, increase planting of appropriate tree genetic resources; elevating carbon stocks and income Theme 7: climate change and agriculture: coordinated action to diagnose the directions an potential impacts; identify developing adaptation and mitigation options; addressed: vulnerability assessment with science based diagnosis, with better national and global policies Theme 8: mobilizing agricultural biodiversity for food security: conserving ag biodiversity and genetic resources; global gateway to information, better and wider use of genetic diversity, research in to policies; impact: improved productivity, trait identification, essential biodiversity safeguarded and increased coverage Cross-cutting platforms: to ensure the integration and mainstreaming of all the thematic areas, but have cross cutting dimension; gender in agriculture-support integration and research and capacity building; capacity strengthening as integral component; strategic planning and intelligence, e.g. assemble data and intelligence, support to strategic priority setting Need to move forward with pilot efforts as examples; element s of three thematic areas: agricultural systems, crop productivity and climate change as start pilot, to start implement these elements as soon as possible Implementation: board accountable to the fund council; performance contracts, but research! Doesn t have all answers, therefore implementation needed in flexible way and possibility to adjust on the way, implementation by centers and NARS involved in formulation of MPs, also other strategic agendas may be pursued, provided there is full cost recovery without distraction from the framework Propose: strong investment in the traditional areas, with new focus on results for poor communities, gender differentiated approach, impact on development challenges, and much wider range of partnership sowing the seeds of success: consultation at this meeting for feedback and input in the process, board will lead finalization of framework; work with NARS to develop MP as implementation tools for the agenda Carlos: Chair of consortium board: Board is committed to finalize the process of SRF and MPs Decision on fast track on the understanding that components will not go at expense of others, and all are in line and considered for funding by donors,\ Science task forum for ensuring the quality before submission

4 CGIAR represents only small part of the ARD, GCARD important to receive the concerns and priorities, to build them into the MPs; Raj Paroda (on behalf of other partners involved in NARS and GFAR) Pleased that changes are occurring; if CGIAR was not yet in place, we would need to think about establishing it now CGIAR has its own place, although it is only covering 4% of the agricultural agenda, but the GFAR to cover the rest, complementarity is emerging, and in the process CGIAR is moving ahead through the alliance of all centers willing to have a change; change must be in the way that it is owned by everyone, meet the expectations, principles of reforms are important to stakeholders, but should also be implemented in practice, partnership, Happy that System approached to be accomplished through the new initiatives, e.g. through the consortium Hope focus will remain on resource poor; and outcome oriented Same message came from all the regional fora, and the GATe report (presented in the afternoon) Real opportunities for the 8 mega-programs; but wanted priorities given not only to the first 3, but also to the other 5 Move to eco-regional inter-center initiatives for added value to have strength to deliver; so very effective partnership of NARS and regional for a and global forum; Big challenge: for CGAIR ensuring that NARAS get extension, involvement of all stakeholders must be ensured, so GFAR/xx and CGAIAR must move together Inclusiveness and partnership needs involvement more effectively on all the different levels of the fora Commitment for transformation of the research system, need to ensure there is the global alliance; only possible if all join hands as equal partners not like in the past, and with mutual respect, that we don t ignore the representation of those that can make the difference, e.g. small farmers, households, private sector; channel and challenge in the past, must see how we meet the challenge, and move towards new initiatives Ready to work with the CGIAR centers to develop a program; CAC as good example, but needs different system of management and a system that can deliver, requires different approach Parallel Discussion Sessions Thematic Area 1: Integrated Agricultural Systems for the poor and vulnerable Key questions for the groups to work on Smaller group discussions: Impacts and outcomes: what are the research outcomes, which actors and what are the added outcomes; etc (slides too fast) Maarten van Ginkel CGIAR has defined itself by the products, but that didn t start at the users, so we should not start with the donors

5 Therefore agro-ecosystem approach; rationale: poor live in farming etc communities and depend on diverse agricultural systems; system consists of mixture and diverse and important crops all in the same area; there combinations of systems and access need to be integrated, supported by policies = think big Aiming for: develop resilient production systems; sustainable intensification and diversification; diversify rural livelihoods for income increase Start with agro-ecosystem mapping (e.g. land use soil characteristics, IPG ex-ante mapping ) for outscaling Also population and poverty mapping, climate change mapping to target the future production systems, particularly for the breeders who need more time Baseline socioeconomic surveys, household surveys, crop/livestock adoption zone mapping To allow prioritization mapping How to get there: community based consultation on needs and requirements, emphasis on women, GFAR fora inputs Participatory interaction, problem description and review of potential solutions Fund raising, then inceptions workshops with all stakeholders; e.g. gates foundation good example of a donor working closely with the scientists Research for development execution and M&E On-farm trials with communities And secure market linkages Official launching before upscaling Output categories: new cereal-legume systems, new crop/livestock systems; livestock/rangeland systems; crop/forestry systems; high value crop systems; home garden systems; conservation agriculture; fish production systems Further: biodiversity surveys, new crops identified, breeds created; farmers involvement in participatory breeding; gender related crop/livestock issues; public and private seed production systems Effective policies that enhance challenged agro-ecosystems; new partnerships Comparative advantage: multi component base, across national boundaries; structured around major system constraints generating completely new opportunities; opportunities for IPG potential are easier outscaled e.g. conservation agriculture; focused on most resource=poor farmers and vulnerable areas promoting regionally coordinated approaches What is new: new areas of research (better connection with biophysical and socio); new integration (integration across key agricultural sectors); new partnership Initial list of focal areas: dry ecosystems; humid tropics ecosystem; costal ecosystem; or geographic basis as sub-levels Clarification issues (facilitator): Agricultural system, what do we mean by the systems, because all themes are interlinked; clear distinction that no longer we will be producer focused, but it doesn t show in the rest of the slides, system approach does not target producer, producer should be more the focus, maybe producer family focus; if you are interested in the product, then you look at alternative sources of products, but men bring in new diseases, e.g. AIDS and spread in the rural communities, so no longer women alone but families as producer communities; resources what is it referencing to; if redefining it will be clear

6 Question: focus on commodities or on families IPG? International Public Goods Title with system for poor, in the presentation no focus on poor; agricultural systems can go on poor and vulnerable, is the focus really on the poor Maarten: the surveys will focus/target the areas and describe these systems; define the products after the characterization of the systems Q: agro-ecosystems in 3 systems: sub-humid areas where most people live for food production, although lots of people live in dry and semi-arid areas Q: will data be used by other themes, assessment and maps? Yes, building on the platform Suggestions and comments: Change from MPs to themes; focus issue; in the systems the theme should be addressed to go to geographic modes, as the systems differ globally, let them dictate the needs; it gets away from the biases, focuses on the regions, e.g. Sub-Saharan Africa, etc. would be more clear about the problems of research Professionalism of the CG centers acknowledged; question about partnership, it is a CG proposal and the partners are the NARS as beneficials, where are the other partners in knowledge partners, the ARIS etc, only on the last slide arose; but the question is how we work together, not only CG managing, but new partnership with all actors, other actors can contribute to the mega-program; second question: advanced in the design in the project, how share the responsibly with the partners in the already drafted proposal, where is the participatory approach in the design of the proposal; Concerned about the term production for development; people production doesn t mean value; lots said about trade, nothing said about fair trade, although we have to foster production, but we should also give value to the production Partnership question: only at the very end shown; where is the political institution, since 2 days we are talking about the political will, but they should be part of the process; at what appropriate time do the partners come in (USAID) Transform the issues into mega-programs, consider manageability of the complex programs, and also research units, not just management units; set of research institutions and their partners and actors, the degree of specificity for the manageable and researchable issues has to be reduced. Particularly to go to communality in the agro-ecosystems rather than cutting across 3 major areas, going lower to a sub-regional system, e.g. highland system of north Africa; it is important to reach out to specific kinds of institutions, so management units need to be smaller; from our experience of the gates foundation in India (rice-wheat), very strong participation from private sector and NARS, several topics, but very researchable production system and a manageable unit with respect to the partners; strongly support the idea of targeted system programs where everything can be put together, but lower level of resolution, start with small number of systems where there is a foundation of cooperation between centers and other actors, where you can build on quickly Ambitious agenda under theme 1; social institutional analysis, community based analysis, partnership with farmers, need skills that differ from what the scientists have been doing in the past, skills, need different skills and organizational procedures Title of the MP poor and vulnerable, but in the plenary presentation, also the impact supposed to be on 250 million people, wondering if the focus of this mega-progam is product-bias, and wants to make poor farmers efficient enterprises; how the analysis on the potential impact has been done

7 Assumption what we propose to the farmers will be done; what incentives do we have that they will do it and engage in the activities, motivate them; when linking to markets will come in? Do we start with research, do we start with farmers? Are scientists capable of organizing the producers? Moving from products to users change from products to new approaches; are we really moving to users? Address the question of farmers organizations, education, communication, exchange with farmers and generation of information; please inform on historical trends within the CG system, is the CG system equipped? Heard about the need to increase the output, emphasis has been on production, but absent on prevention of losses, e.g. staples in Africa, losses in post harvest (tomatoes etc), simple technologies can already reduce losses and increase productivity Peru: technical bureaucratic approach to solve the issues, we are putting horses before the car; culture has been the missing element in the science enterprise; it is not about the CGIAR, but all system with education and extension, which is based on euro- American view of the world; how can the mindset that has created the problem and change towards a new cultural approach and move to those people that have a different approach; presentation was based on euro American approach and view; we need not get lost in translation, well institutional funding of different levels of institutions, but also equip the indigenous, need to support culturally based and appropriate systems, so intercultural and interdisciplinary dialogue can be pursued; otherwise we shoot at our feed, and another major failure; e.g. Gates foundation is pushing for Africa book hungry for science what kind of science? We need cultural revolutions to move to sustainability; message: we should not forget indigenous knowledge and trample on it Theme selected for fast-tracking; not yet clear focus; focal areas presented, select one of the three, or another one and come up with a suggestion for regional program for fast tracking, could be a meaningful management unit for this theme Targeting poor farmers, but we know that it is not only technology, but also policy, what policies are needed was not shown, partnership is not with government and it is not addressing the question with support policies; also farmers organizations have a big role to play in that; putting the farmers also in the drivers seat not only consulting them; plan and organization needed Talking about farmers a lot in the past days; also in the last years; made some progress, but not substantial; working with farmers may not get us to the pint where we want to get; need to work with extension services, policy makers, end users, big companies needing the commodities, and other specialist; an all-inclusive partnerships, working with farmers looks fancy, but the reality farmers can get good technologies, but without the markets, they will not continue to working with it, so we need new arrangements; expand the partnership beyond the farmers; agriculture will be a problem, but institutions problems will also be problems, and without getting the other partners on board, these problems will not be solved; related to policies, funding etc. the starting point should be the value chain, and the analysis, to identify relevant partners for the system we are working in; learn lessons from the Africa challenge program, using principle of subsidiary Research for development; trying to get at is what is the research for development component of a development framework; we need to figure out where research fits in; easy to talk about the development aspects, but at the end of the day, it is the research for development agenda we need to figure out Arid areas have been posed as priority area, right to do so because many poor live in these areas; also important to have full involvement to have full representation which research has ignored for long time, and civil society has been demanding; need

8 expertise in methods, Desire Society has been working on soil degradation and has expertise on involving grass route experts; Summarized key points of the comments/discussion points during the plenary: focus of systems, geographic mode preferred how to go about partnership, participatory approach in designing and writing the proposal, at what appropriate time do the partners come in, when comes linkage with political institutions fair trade to give value to production, not only focus on production alone reduce level of resolution of activities (to sub-region level) to make the programs manageable and researchable, and where foundation is already in place for cooperation; focus fast-tracking themes Skills of carrying out the social, institutional, community-based analyses, may differ from what is available at the research centers; are scientist capable of organizing the target group and producers (motivate, give incentives, ) Product-bias of theme, is the goal to turn poor farmers efficient enterprises only? What about post-harvest losses vs. production increase? Poor farmers vs. farmers in their system as target group including political and governmental issues and all groups along the value-chain Euro-American view and approach of the proposal; need to change mindset towards cultural approach integrating indigenous knowledge and views Research for development vs. development framework

9 Feed-back (Summary) from the 2 discussion groups (detailed discussion notes are summarized in another document) Group 1: Global or regional approach where do the global issues come into the regions; need to focus on the regions, don t waste time on the global issues; Target the regional levels; go for mega-programs at regional levels, the region will determine the needs, not the CG centers; How to deal with the global issues at regional level? Considering the issues of the poor, land ownership, population has to be considered, regional issue; integrated approach to the regional needs Need to break biases, make the rural engines drive the regional issues; implementation will also be defined by the regional needs; cultural issues will then be incorporated There should be a clear understanding that research must flow across regions, where similarities are identified Researchable outputs: contributions to work on institutions to strengthen institutions, adaptation of farmers to technologies, and how it impacts their livelihood, not only to make them adopt it, but measure the improvement; risk issues, no over-dependence in the region on commodities, etc; nutrition should not be seen a side agenda, but an integral part, nutrient indicator e.g. malnutrition; also indicator for integrated systems, and how do measure success of bringing farmers to markets, and how to bring them to the markets; health extension services, not only private sector, but also regional communities, women as producer groups, universities, local chiefs (traditional leadership) and traditional authorities; Added use: new science, new ownership in the entire process; exciting cross-cutting and bridging issues, complex but very rewarding; Clean definitions on how to measure impact, and how governments respond to this, national financial services (micro credits, regional banks, etc, all levels) Women could be tackled by advocacy or education; encourage them to do the farming etc, curriculums are relevant, support women s association and empowerment, have women also determine the research agendas, shape the research; research focus on women; change day to day work at all levels; discover misconceptions and generalizations Rural infrastructure, health infrastructure, etc, reduce corruption Group 2: Issues of global importance: local importance was emphasized, local communities, no reference to global systems Important regional differences: focal on local community issues and the concern and work everything around that Research outcomes: which actors: need multiplicity of actors simultaneously, at all levels, which should facilitate the process; but the focus should be on the local actors, farmer organizations, not formally associated with the NARS, small producers, emphasizing on farmers, and those closely related to them Added value: not discussed, local systems Development outcomes: actors: who is vulnerable, focus on poor; the terms were clarified poor and vulnerable ; partners which are specifically connected, related to

10 the value chain of the farmers (financial, infrastructure provider), not only increasing production but entire productivity; not CG view or researcher prospective, but from the local marginal producers Capacities need strengthening: complementing activities, e.g. post-harvest, organizing, convince and motivate them; How can women be involved: vulnerable general Development investments: not in research as such, but research that is relevant to the producer groups; and research in the complementarities Incentive mechanism for producers to engage in the dialogue of exchange: linking them to the markets so that they find value for their engagement Tools for measurement: discussed, but no answer; question if small producers are more sustainable What is the role of the CGIAR in such a type of the research agenda, global public goods, can the CGIAR also have regional/local public good generation; these issues need to be clarified;