Final Results for identifying countries for Site Integration+ and Site Integration++ Based on results of survey for Steps 1, 2 and 3

Transcription

1 Final Results for identifying countries for Site Integration+ and Site Integration++ Based on results of survey for Steps 1, 2 and 3 Version: 23/07/2015 Summary of Results and Way Forward Actions Chosen name of initiative: CGIAR Country Collaboration Long list of + countries: Bangladesh Ghana Mozambique Rwanda Burkina Faso India Nepal Tanzania Cameroon Kenya Nicaragua Uganda DRC Malawi Niger Vietnam Ethiopia Mali Nigeria Zambia Short list of ++ countries: Bangladesh Ethiopia Nicaragua Nigeria Tanzania Vietnam ACTIONS: The lead entity/group (listed in the document) will need to do the following: - check that there is government interest, donor focus and existing mechanisms for coordination in that country - fill in a template of initial information about site integration for each country for the preproposal portfolio submission - establish a steering committee for planning and implementing site integration in that country o including planning a National Consultation in that country with other partners. A key first decision to be made is the date for the National consultations Note: The ++ countries will have national consultations carried out in 2015, so setting up of a steering committee and starting to make the relevant plansespecially dates for consultations- need to be done quickly ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Introduction and The Process At the meeting of Science Leaders held in Montpellier June 1-5th 2015 discussions were held on how to plan for site integration (the original name and the one used in this document until a change is agreed), one of the ways of improving coordination and collaboration of the new, more integrationfocused CRPII portfolio within selected geographies that will largely take place at country level. It was decided that there would be two levels/type of site integration: - Site Integration+: Efforts for improved coordination, collaboration and site integration will be carried out in a larger set countries - Site Integration++: In smaller set of countries an added effort will be piloted to showcase what the Consortium, CRPs and centres can achieve as a collective action. 1

2 As part of this discussion, a set of next steps was identified to move the planning forward: 1. Conduct quick survey of CRP investment (planned) by country to identify countries with significant activity 2. Based on the results of 1. a. Agree the countries for Site Integration+ ; b. Identify the subset of candidate countries for Site Integration++ A process for carrying out these steps was designed and carried out during June and July The process has involved the use of a number of criteria applied to countries around the world in order to determine a long list of site integration+ countries and a shorter list of site integration++ countries. Filtering countries based on their performance against the various criteria has allowed us to determine these two lists of countries. The steps undertaken and the criteria were as follows: Step 1. - A survey was deployed to all Center and CRP leaders using SurveyMonkey on 16 th June Applying criteria (Criteria 1) of investment, staff presence and infrastructure to determine significant CGIAR presence in countries resulted in a list of the top 30 countries, with a suggested list of 22 for Site Integration++. - All Centers responded (15) plus 11 of the 13 CRPIIs; total = 26 - These results were analysed and summarised in a document which was shared and feedback given on. Step 2. - A survey was deployed to all Center and CRP leaders using SurveyMonkey on 2 nd July Exploring what number of countries Centers and CRPIIs felt should be considered for site integration+ activities resulted in deriving a cut off of Applying criteria (Criteria 2) of impact potential, gov/partner interest, donor focus and existing coordination to the list of 30 from Step 1, combining the results through a weighting exercise, resulted in a top 20 list - Applying criteria (Criteria 3) of Center and CRPII feeling strongly that site integration should be done in particular countries to the list of 30 resulted in a top 20 list - Finding out whether Centers and CRPIIs felt it was reasonable to do site integration in a collection of countries which had low CRPII investment, low staff in country and minimal infrastructure resulted in suggestion of 2 countries (India and Cambodia) to go ahead with and 9 that should not be pursued-as shown in the graph below - All Centers responded (15) plus 12 of the 13 CRPIIs responded; total = 27 - The results of these steps with the criteria and questions applied were compiled in a document, which has been shared with all respondents. A summary is presented in the table in Annex I. The last two columns of the table highlight a possible final list of potential countries made up of: countries which were in the top 20 of all three of the criteria plus countries which were in the top 20 of two of the three criteria Step 3. - A survey was deployed to all Center and CRP leaders using SurveyMonkey on 15 th July Voting on smaller selection of options on the name for the initiative 2

3 - Asking for agreement on the list of site integration+ countries that has emerged from previous steps. Including indicating whether 4 of the countries-due to various reasons-should still be included. And also voting for possible focus States in India. - Asking for agreement and voting on particular countries in the list of countries for site integration Centers responded plus 11 of the 13 CRPIIs responded; total = 25 Details of results In this following section we provide the results of the various steps and the process and rationale they provide towards a final set of information. In some cases results were not definitive due to no majority or close results and a final decision had to be taken based on information from other parts of the process, comments provided or other information. A DECISION is highlighted for each section. DECIDING ON THE TERMINOLOGY FOR THE INITIATIVE The title of the Site Integration was also revisited during this process as it was felt by some that it created confusion and didn t clearly demonstrate the purpose of increasing CRP and Center collaboration and collective engagement and coordination with national and local stakeholders. The survey for `Step 2 therefore asked respondents to choose from a selection of alternative options as well as the original term. The results showed that the majority of respondents chose a name other than the original term site integration but there was no option that received a majority of the votes. Rather there was a close top three of options with the largest number of votes. In the survey for Step 3 respondents were asked to then make a choice out of these three options. The results of both steps are presented in the table below- showing that a majority of respondents in Step 3 chose CGIAR Country Collaboration as the terminology they would like used for this initiative. Options Votes in Step 2 (respondents were asked to choose from a longer list) CGIAR Country Collaboration 29% 67% CRP Country Integration 25% 29% CGIAR Consolidation in Countries 21% 4% Votes in Step 3 (respondents were asked to choose from this list of 3 only) Note: Site integration has been used in the SRF and the first Guidance note and these two documents will not be changed. CRPIIs may however choose to use the newly selected terminology of CGIAR Country Collaboration in their pre-proposals and this will be reviewed for the documentation for the full proposals. DECISION: CGIAR Country Collaboration can be used in CRPII pre-proposals for consideration for wider adoption as the terminology for the initiative IDENTIFYING SITE INTEGRATION+ COUNTRIES Following this step-wise process of applying the three sets of criteria resulted in a potential list of 20 countries. In the final survey we asked if Centers and CRPIIs could live with the list - and a majority of respondents- 92%- indicated yes they could. 3

4 For the four countries where there was still some question about whether they should be included- Centers and CRPIIs were asked if each should be included. The results and decisions based on these are as follows: Country Yes No Total DECISION/ACTION India 79%(19) 21% (5) 24 Clear yes majority- include in list Mozambique 70% (18) 31% (8) 26 Clear yes majority- include in list DRC 48% (12) 52% (13) 25 Although majority No, we recognise that the results are close-will discuss with those working there on viability Niger 36% (9) 64% (16) 25 Although majority No, we recognise that the results are close-will discuss with those working there on viability DECISION: A list of 20 site integration+ countries is therefore presented in the table below. Note- we also recognise a few comments made that there are no countries in the list from North Africa/Middle East/Central Asia, and we propose that CGIAR entities working in those regions discuss any potential collective decision on a country in these regions that they can agree on to carry out site integration activities. The table also contains supporting information of which CRPIIs and Centers are planning significant investment (>$1 million) in each, those entities with staff based in each country and those entities with major infrastructure in each country. For India, in Step 2 the majority of respondents suggested that the site integration work could be focused more on a State level (although some respondents did propose that some activities could be done on national level). In Step 3 Centers and CRPIIs were asked to vote for which states could be candidates for site integration work. Although no particular state received majority votes, the top chosen two states were Odissa (47%) and Bihar (42%). The full results are available in Annex II. DECISION: Based on the results which didn t give a completely clear choice for state(s) to focus on plus the comments made by respondents on how to handle India- the decision is to let the participating CGIAR entities in India decide how to make the final decision for site integration, noting the expressed preference for focus in Odissa and Bihar. In the survey for Step 1 we asked Centers and CRPIIs to indicate countries where they would be happy to take the lead in site integration work. The results were collated and presented in the Step 3 survey, asking respondents to indicate which they felt was most appropriate to take on leadership. The results showed some consensus or clear majority of a Center/CRPII for certain countries, while for others it resulted in a more refined group. DECISION: For those countries where there is a single clear leader, the leadership will be left to that entity. Where there was no clear single leader, the process of determining how leadership will be decided or handled will be facilitated with those entities working in that particular country. See column two in the table below for this information 4

5 Countries Lead Center(s)/CRPII(s) CRPIIs with significant investment >$1 Bangladesh Burkina Faso IRRI/GRISP, WorldFish/Fish IITA, GLADAS (Note FTA has already started some site integration work here with CCAFS and WLE) million (from Step 1) RTB, GLADAS, GRISP, WLE, CCAFS, A4NH, PIM, Fish GLADAS, A4NH, WLE,FTA, CCAFS Centers with significant investment (from Step 1) WorldFish, IFPRI, ICRAF, CIFOR Entities with staff based incountry RTB, A4NH, PIM, WorldFish, Fish, GRISP, WLE, IFPRI, ICRAF, GLADAS, Livestock, IWMI, ICRAF, CIFOR, FTA Entities with major infrastructure IRRI, WorldFish --- Cameroon CIFOR/ICRAF/FTA FTA IITA, ICRAF, CIFOR Bioversity, ICRAF, CIFOR, FTA DRC IITA RTB, A4NH IITA RTB, A4NH, Bioversity, ICRAF, CIFOR, FTA Ethiopia ILRI MAIZE, RTB, GLADAS, ILRI, Bioversity, IFPRI, MAIZE, RTB, GLADAS, ILRI, A4NH, PIM, Livestock, ICRAF, A4NH, PIM, Livestock, FTA, WLE, CCAFS Bioversity, WLE, IWMI, IFPRI, ICRAF, FTA, Ghana IITA, IWMI/WLE A4NH, CCAFS, RTB, India [Focus State(s) to be determined] ICRISAT PIM, WLE GRISP, FTA, MAIZE, RTB, GLADAS, A4NH, PIM, WLE, CCAFS Kenya ICRAF WLE, MAIZE, RTB, GLADAS, A4NH, PIM, Livestock, FTA, CCAFS IITA, ICRAF, FTA IITA ICRISAT, GLADAS, ILRI, IFPRI, ICRAF --- RTB, PIM, Fish, WLE, IWMI IITA, IWMI Bioversity, ICRAF, ICRISAT, IFPRI, ILRI, ICRAF, CIFOR, MAIZE, RTB, ICRISAT, GLADAS, A4NH, Livestock, Bioversity, GRISP, WLE, IWMI, IFPRI, ICRAF, FTA,, CCAFS MAIZE, RTB, GLADAS, ILRI, A4NH, Livestock, Bioversity, CIAT, ICRAF, CIFOR, FTA,, CCAFS ICRISAT, GLADAS, IRRI, IFPRI, ICRAF, ICRISAT, GLADAS, ILRI, CIAT, ICRAF, FTA, 5

6 Malawi ICRISAT, CIP/RTB MAIZE, GLADAS, A4NH, PIM,FTA, RTB ICRAF, MAIZE, RTB, GLADAS, A4NH, PIM, CIAT, WorldFish, Fish, ICRAF, FTA ICRISAT, IITA, CIAT, ICRAF Mali ICRISAT/GLADAS A4NH, GRISP, FTA, GLADAS, CCAFS ICRAF GLADAS, ICRAF, FTA, CCAFS ICRISAT, GLADAS, ICRAF Mozambique IITA, CIP/RTB MAIZE, GLADAS, MAIZE, RTB, GLADAS IITA A4NH, PIM, RTB Nepal IWMI, Bioversity, RTB, WLE, CCAFS Bioversity, IFPRI, Bioversity, IWMI, IRRI, IWMI Nicaragua CIAT RTB, PIM, Livestock, Bioversity Livestock, Bioversity, CIAT CIAT GRISP, CCAFS Niger ICRISAT GLADAS, FTA, CCAFS --- GLADAS ICRISAT Nigeria IITA WLE, CCAFS, MAIZE, GLADAS, A4NH, PIM AfricaRice, IITA, IFPRI MAIZE, GLADAS, A4NH, IITA, PIM, Fish, IFPRI ICRISAT, GLADAS, IITA Rwanda CIAT, CIP/RTB, IITA GLADAS, PIM, RTB, --- RTB, GLADAS, A4NH, CIAT, CIAT A4NH Tanzania IITA, MAIZE/, CIAT IRRI, IITA, CIAT, ICRAF Uganda Vietnam Zambia CIAT, CIP/RTB, Bioversity ICRAF, CCAFS/CIAT, RTB/CIP IITA, WorldFish, MAIZE/ MAIZE, GLADAS, A4NH, PIM, Livestock, GRISP, WLE, FTA, CCAFS, RTB GLADAS, PIM, Livestock, FTA, CCAFS, RTB, A4NH Bioversity, MAIZE, RTB, GLADAS, A4NH, Livestock, CIAT, Fish, GRISP, ICRAF, FTA, RTB, GLADAS, A4NH, PIM, Livestock, Bioversity, CIAT, ICRAF RTB, A4NH, Livestock, CIAT, A4NH, Livestock, CIAT, ICRAF, CIFOR GRISP ICRAF, CIFOR, FTA, CCAFS A4NH, Fish, FTA,, CIFOR MAIZE, RTB, A4NH, Bioversity, WorldFish, Fish, CIFOR, FTA, GLADAS, IITA, Bioversity, CIAT, ICRAF CIAT, ICRAF IITA, WorldFish 6

7 DETERMINING THE SITE INTEGRATION++ COUNTRIES In the Step 2 survey we asked people to suggest which countries they felt should be considered to be integration++ countries (Q7). In this survey we also asked if respondents felt there should be some planned distribution and 60% of respondents indicated that there should be some planned distribution down to the level of sub-regions. This information is provided in Annex III. In the Step 3 survey we presented that if the planned distribution is done amongst the top suggested countries for key regions CGIAR works in, the short list could look like below: 1. East Africa---Kenya/Tanzania (need to choose one as both scored the same) 2. West Africa---Nigeria 3. South Asia--- Bangladesh 4. South-east Asia--- Vietnam 5. Latin America--- Nicaragua In Step 3 respondents were asked if they could live with this process and 89% said yes. And when asked to vote in Q8 for either Kenya or Tanzania for East Africa the results were almost even with one more respondent voting for Tanzania (12 votes/ 52%) than Kenya (11 votes/48%). But Tanzania did get a majority and since there were also a number of comments that pointed to the need to have Southern Africa represented-tanzania would satisfy this as well as a member of SADC. Additionally since Ethiopia was the one country suggested by all respondents- Q 9 of Step 3 asked for respondents to choose an option for including it: As the choice for East Africa (instead of Kenya or Tanzania)? 34.62% 9 As a country from an additional region (making total of 6)? As an alternative region-and take out one of the other regions? (state below which region to take out) 38.46% % 7 Total 26 The results show that no answer received a majority vote and the options received very close numbers of votes. However in the comments many respondents felt it was key to include Ethiopia-and the option of including it as a sixth country received more votes than the others. DECISION: Given the results outlined above the list of site integration++ countries will be as follows: Country for Site Integration++ Region Lead CGIAR entity/group Tanzania East Africa IITA, MAIZE/, CIAT Nigeria West Africa IITA Bangladesh South Asia IRRI/GRISP, WorldFish/Fish Vietnam South-east Asia ICRAF, CCAFS/CIAT, RTB/CIP Nicaragua Latin America CIAT Ethiopia Horn of Africa/North Africa ILRI 7

8 Annex I: Process and Results of Steps 1 and 2 applying the three criteria for selection of countries *20 was used as a cut off for each criteria as the majority of respondents to Survey 2 indicated that the aim should be for 20 or less countries for site integration **Countries-while all in the top 20 are not in order of their ranking but rather are arranged alphabetically to allow for comparison *** Questionable elements include: low no. of CRPs investing in a country, low numbers of staff based in country, low numbers of infrastructure, large size Top 20* countries using Criteria 1: significant presence (investment) Top 20 countries using Criteria 2: combination of impact, interest and existing coordination Top 20 countries using Criteria 3:Interest by CGIAR entities to do site integration Considering Questionable elements***: is it reasonable to do integration in these countries? (Majority Answer) Satisfies all 3 criteria Satisfies 2 of the 3 criteria Bangladesh Bangladesh Bangladesh Bangladesh Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Burkina Faso Cambodia Cambodia (Yes) Cameroon Cameroon Cameroon China China (No) Colombia Colombia (No) DRC DRC DRC (Yes/No) DRC** Ethiopia Ethiopia Ethiopia Ethiopia Ghana Ghana Ghana Ghana India India India India (Yes) India* Indonesia Kenya Kenya Kenya Kenya Malawi Malawi Malawi Malawi Mali Mali Mali Mali Mozambique Mozambique Mozambique Mozambique (No) Mozambique* Nepal Nepal Nepal Nicaragua Nicaragua Nicaragua Niger Niger Niger (No) Niger** Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Nigeria Pakistan Peru Peru (No) Rwanda Rwanda Rwanda Rwanda Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Tanzania Uganda Uganda Uganda Uganda Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Vietnam Zambia Zambia Zambia Zambia 8

9 Annex II: Selection of focus states for site integration in India Answer Choices - Odissa - Bihar - Karnataka - UP - Andhra Pradesh - Rajastan - Gujurat - Punjab - Telangana - Maharastra - Madhya Pradesh - Chattisgarh - Assam Total Respondents: 19 Responses 47.37% % % % % % % % % % % % % 0 9

10 Annex III: Suggestions of countries for Site Integration++ In the survey for Step 2 we asked people to suggest which countries they felt should be considered to be integration++ countries (Q7). The results, showing the trends of the most often suggested countries, are shown in the graph below: In Q8 we asked how many countries should be considered for Site Integration++ and 62% of the respondents chose the option of 5 countries as being ideal. The top five countries based on the list of country choice frequency would therefore be: 1. Ethiopia 2. Bangladesh 3. India 4. Nigeria 5. Kenya or Tanzania (both scored the same) However 60% of respondents also indicated that there should be some planned distribution and it should be down to the level of sub-regions. If this planned distribution is done amongst the top suggested countries for key regions CGIAR works in, the short list could look like below: 1. East Africa---Kenya/Tanzania (need to choose one as both scored the same) 2. West Africa---Nigeria 3. South Asia--- Bangladesh 4. South-east Asia--- Vietnam 5. Latin America--- Nicaragua However it is worth noting/considering that Ethiopia was the one country suggested by all respondents 10