the CGIAR s Future - Change Design and Management

Transcription

1 Cowdative Group on internationa Agricutura Research (CGIAR) Mid-Term Meeting 2001 May Durban, South Africa Charting the CGIAR s Future - Change Design and Management Report of the Science Partnership Committee CGIAR Secretariat 0 Maiing address: The Word Bank, MSN G6-601, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA Office Location: 1776 G Street, NW, Washington, DC Te: (202) Fax: (202) IO * Emai: CGIAR@cgiar.org Web site:

2 Prof. Werner Arber UNI DASEL piie i44 t E-mai May o, 2001 Mr. Ian Johnson Chairman Consutative Group on Internationa Agricutura Research The Word Bank 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. U.S.A. Dear Mr. Johnson: I am writing on behaf of the CGIAR Science Partnership Committee (SK), which I have had the priviege to chair. The Committee recenty hed its third meeting in the Internationa Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies (CIHEAM), Paris, France. The two previous meetings of the SK were hed in conjunction with the CGXAR meetings, i.e. one or two days before the meetings and at the same venues, In order to ensure members participation, the Committcze decided to hod its me&ng for MTNI2001 earier and in a more centra venue. We are gratefu to a member, Dr. Mouti Ham=, for his hep in making arrangements with UHEAM to host the meeting. The meeting sought to exchange views on the recommendations of the CDMT and formuate a osition on aspects reevant to the Committee s roe in the CGJAR. I am peased to in P orm you that the Committee accompished iti objectives. As you know, SPC is one of the CGLAR committees that woud be affected by the proposed changes in the structure and governance of the CGIA?. System. The Committee wecomes the I recommendations in the context of the Group s desire to enhance the science output of the CGIAR, a key component of its terms of reference. We agree that the roe of the SPC coud be subsumed and merged with the scientific mandates of TAC under the proposed Science Counci. The Committee aso endorses the proposed shift to a programmatic approach to defining, funding, and managing the CGIAR research agenda. It notes that a focus on chaenge programs is consistent with the work it envisioned in its report at ICW2000 on how the CGLAR can faciitate a deeper understanding of the pubic poicy debate on the direction of agricutura sciences tid its impications for research and deveopment at the Centers. I am transmitting herewith a brief summary report of the main points discussed in the meeting, incuding sug estions pertinent to the work of the Science Counci and issues that the Committee fee 7 s important in considering the shift to a programmatic approach based on merit review and competitive funding. room

3 I-Johnson Noting that the meeting in Paris woud be its ast, the Committee woud ike to convey to you and coeagues in the CGLAR their thanks for having been given the opportunity to interact with various components of the System, abeit for just a period of one year. We very much appreciate this experience, and rest assured that we woud remain interested in foowing the deveopmems in the CGIAR. We regret our inabiity to join you and other coeagues at MTM in Durban, South Africa because of pressing individua commitments. We trust, however, that our report wi be shared with the participants at MTh4. With best wishes for the continued success of: the CGLAR. Sincerey, Werner Arber Professor, Dept. of Microbioogy Biozentrum (Base) and Chair, CGIAR Scienm Partnemhip Committee cc: Francisco Reifschneider, CCXAR Director Manue Lantin, Science Adviser, CGIAR Secretariat 3I3010I80~xII-~tI.~zoIff ST TZ LQZ TQ TV+ XVd LP :TT O(I TO, SOOI

4 Report of the Science Partnership Committee MTM 2001, Durban, South Africa The Science Partnership Committee (SPC) hed its third meeting for two haf-days on May 4-5, 200 1, in the Internationa Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies, (CIHEAM), Paris, France, This venue was chosen to faciitate maximum attendance and participation by the members of the SPC. Participants in the meeting were Werner Arber (Chair), R. James Cook, Mouin Hamze, Lydia Makhubu, Sudha Nair, and Satohiko Sasaki. Jose Israe Vargas was not abe to participate. He has informed the CGIAR Chairman earier that duties in a new position precude his continued participation as a members of the SPC. Manue Lantin of the CGIAR Secretariat served as resource person, provided information on the deveopments in the CGIAR since ICW 2000, and heped carify issues pertinent to the Change Design and Management Team (CDMT) report. Estabished as a committee of the CGIAR in eary 2000, the SPC hed its inaugura meeting in conjunction with MTM 2000 in Dresden, Germany. The SPC reviewed the report from the Change Design and Management Team (CDMT) on changes in the CGIAR proposed for decision at MTM2001. Specificay, the SPC examined those recommendations in the CDMT report on: 1)enhancing the output of science at the CGIAR Centers, and 2) the programmatic approach to defining, financing and managing research. Enhancing the output of science In considering the changes recommended by the CDMT, the SPC referred to its Terms of Reference which are: To strengthen communication and coaboration between the CGIAR system and the broader internationa science community; and to hep provide the CGIAR with advice and guidance on major scientific issues in environmentay, sociay and economicay sustainabe agricutura deveopment. The SPC had sought to identify its unique roes and opportunities within the arger CGIAR system that woud compement but not dupicate the work of TAC. The SPC endorses the CDMT recommendation to merge the scientific mandates of TAC and the SPC into a Science Counci. Consistent with the Terms of Reference, the SPC endorses the changes in the CGIAR designed to enhance scientific standards as a centra part of the research definition and priority setting process within the CGIAR System. The SPC aso reviewed the three topics intended to make up the work of the SPC for the foreseeabe future within the Terms of Reference. These were presented in the SPC report to ICW2000 as foows: 1. As a goba emerging issue, consider how the CGIAR through TAC can faciitate a deeper understanding of the pubic poicy debate on the direction of the agricutura sciences and its impications for research and deveopment at the

5 Centers; 2. Consider ways by which merit review of the science by peers (where merit incudes an assessment of both reevance and quaity), can be achieved or improved for the research and deveopment programs at the Centers; and 3. Address the specific issue of baance between core funding and competitive grants in the context of the need at the Centers for continuity of programs, increased funding, and greater access to or use of merit review. Consistent with the work envisioned in item 1, the SPC had noted from the CDMT proposa that the Science Counci woud be composed of members with strong backgrounds on science poicy and strategy questions, and with broad vision on the major issues. Science organizations (at goba/regiona and nationa eves) can contribute much to hep identify individuas with appropriate expertise and quaifications. The SPC suggests that the Science Counci foow cosey the rapid advances in science, incuding socia sciences, and criticay evauate these advances with regard to their reevance to the CGIAR and its partners for the evoution of research activities at the CGIAR Centers. The SPC proposes that the Science Counci periodicay ca top experts in seected fieds of science to brainstorming workshops. As a resut of such workshops, new topics for GCPs and for the evoution of the Centers coud be identified. This strategy coud hep CGIAR respond in a timey and appropriate way to the expansion of knowedge reevant to agricutura deveopment in deveoping countries. Programmatic approach to CGIAR research The SPC noted that a focus by the CGIAR on Goba Chaenge Programs (GCP) proposed by the CDMT is consistent with the work envisioned by the SPC on how the CGIAR can faciitate a deeper understanding of the pubic poicy debate on the direction of the agricutura sciences and its impications for research and deveopment at the Centers. The Committee woud ike to emphasize that ecoregiona diversity, participatory approach invoving the NARS and other stakehoders, and science output shoud be given high priority in designing GCPs. The SPC discussed at ength the proposed shift within the CGIAR to a programmatic approach in defining, financing and managing research activities, noting the intent that the CGIAR shoud move to have a substantia proportion (e.g., around haf) of its research agenda deivered through the GCPs by Specificay, the SPC considered this shift in the context of items 2 and 3 of its proposed work. The foowing assumptions were made in an effort to fuy understand and comment on the impications of this proposed shift. The shift to programmatic approach woud be a shift to funding research (up to a certain percentage) at the CGIAR Centers and their partners through the equivaent of

6 competitive research funding subjected to rigorous merit review by peers, where merit incudes both scientific quaity and reevance of the proposed research. The remainder of the research at the CGIAR Centers, i.e., not shifted to a programmatic approach, woud continue to be supported through core funding. The two categories of funding, i.e., competitive grants in support of the programmatic approach and core funding woud become the equivaent of soft and hard funds, respectivey, as known today in advanced research institutions, universities, and arge programs invoving many institutions. Funding some portion of a tota research program with competitive grants, even if ony a sma portion, e.g., o-20%, can have the effect of increasing the scientific quaity of the entire research program of that scientist or team of scientists (e.g., see Keman, A. and Cook, R. J., The roe of a competitive research grants program for agricuture, food, and natura resources, Bioscience , 1996). On the other hand, much if not most research carried out at the CGIAR Centers may not fit or compete we in the typica competitive grants program, hence the need for continued core funding. Finding the right baance is critica but might not be easy. In further preparation for making a shift to a programmatic approach based on merit review, the SPC recommends consideration of the foowing issues: Most scientists, and especiay the younger scientists, are accustomed and wiing to compete for research grants. However, scientists must be assured that the process is fair, incuding, that the peer reviewers are not biased because of a confict of interest, that the awards are based soey on the merits of their proposa, and that information in the proposa wi be hed in strict confidence; The programmatic approach where awards are made competitivey based on rigorous review by peers, incudes two fundamenta eements: definition of broad programmatic areas, and generation of specific proposas. Mechanisms might be needed to enhance the competitiveness of historicay ess competitive Centers; Merit review of research supported by core funding wi be just as important as merit review of competitive research funding, athough the procedures for such merit review may differ for the two funding mechanisms. The Science Partnership Committee acknowedges the intention of the CGIAR to strengthen the scientific basis of its activities. The Committee fuy beieves that putting the highest quaity science to the service of CGIAR programs must increasingy account for environmenta and sustainabiity issues in a socioogicay compex context and remain essentia to achieve its primary and basic goa in contributing to the reduction of poverty. 3