Review of CGIAR Research Programme (CRP) Pre-Proposals

Transcription

1 Review of CGIAR Research Programme (CRP) Pre-Proposals By Trine Hvoslef-Eide, Andrea Nightingale, Odd Arne Rognli, Torstein Steine, Paul Vedeld, Ola Westengen & Poul Wisborg September 2015 Norwegian University of Life Sciences, NMBU

2 The Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Noragric, is part of the Faculty of Social Sciences, at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU). The Department s activities include research, education and assignments. This report is prepared for the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, Norad, under the Frame Agreement between NMBU and Norad. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and cannot be attributed directly to the Department of International Environment and Development Studies or the Norwegian University of Life Sciences. Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU) P.O. Box 5003 N-1432 Aas Norway Tel.: Fax: Internet: 2

3 Contents Forests, Trees and Agroforestry: Landscapes, Livelihoods and Governance Evaluated by Paul Vedeld... 4 Livestock Agri-Food Systems Evaluated by Torstein Steine... 9 Roots, Tubers and Bananas Evaluated by Trine Hvoslef-Eide, NMBU AFS-WHEAT Evaluated by Odd Arne Rognli Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) Evaluated by Andrea Nightingale Genebank Programme submitted by the Global Crop Diversity Trust Evaluated by Ola T. Westengen Water, Land and Ecosystem (WLE) Evaluated by Poul Wisborg

4 Forests, Trees and Agroforestry: Landscapes, Livelihoods and Governance - Evaluated by Paul Vedeld This is based on a one-day browsing through a 207-page program document, which implies severe limits on the precision of the comments made; they should be taken as intuitive and tentative friendly remarks to a comprehensive and ambitious CRP research proposal. Is the justification for the research adequately explained? The justification of the proposal comes out well in the 7 Flagships outlined and in the result matrixes. There is a general challenge in the document that the overview narrative is rather weak and rambling in nature compared to the rest of the document. There is little clear direction, lacking both a clear theory of change and objectives and research ambitions. There is also a lack of a clear overview of the organizational structure in the overview narrative. However, the gender mainstreaming is well conducted there and the overall budget allocation seems reasonable with emphasis on livelihood and climate change (some 50% of total budget). The overview narrative could easily be amended. The Flagship presentations on the other side are much clearer and easier to relate to - also with the expected result outcome and target beneficiaries matrix. There are seven different Flagships with different research agendas as outlined and that are briefly discussed in the table below. The proposal gives in sum a reasonable justification for the research areas. When it comes to the organizational structure around the research activities ( the Flagships ), there may be a general lack of linking up to both developing countries universities and research centres at national and local levels and also to northern universities and research centres. This may reasonable given that it is CGIAR institutions core funding, but building institutional bridges and developing ideas for increased collaboration seems wise. What are intended impacts? There is a substantial list of expected performance outcomes and a list of target beneficiaries and target countries, which generally links up well to the different flagships. Below is a brief review of the different Flagship (based on a cursory reading). Is the background description for the proposal adequate? The backgrounds are basically well documented for the different themes in the different Flagships. The overview narrative can be improved and clarified as already stated. 4

5 The scientific/technical understanding reflected in the Flagships are strong on science and technical understanding but generally weaker in social sciences and often one does not see technical challenges and opportunities in their social and political contexts. We return to this below. The empirical account of problems and development challenges in different contexts is extremely well for most of the Flagships, while the theoretical contextualization of these are more mixed between the Flagships (see Table below) The Flagships account well for relevant policy and donor coordination activities. Research projects Flagship 1. Support platform 2. Tree genetic resources 3. Livelihoods 4. Management and restoration of forests 5. Global value chains/int. financing for conservation 6. Landscape dynamics 7. Forests and Climate change Comments Well written. Ties the Flagships together well. One could have more on institutional failure and governance, land policies power, participation throughout. Maybe consider mainstreaming of these issues? Also more on local knowledge and involvement. Interesting and important issue. Excellent design and flow of research cluster and innovations. Need more on institutions and governance and on delivery and adoption and local knowledge. More advanced on delivery between state, NGO civil society, private sector. Good integration with other Flagships. A crucial theme. Well written. The CoA seems well warranted and argued for. Gender is included. Could include more on complex trade-offs on land use for different purposes (Are forest and trees in practice a constraint for agr. development? One could do the calculus and /or observe rates of deforestation). Need more on institutions (failure) and governance, and on land use planning and landscape perspectives. More also on local knowledge, adoption challenges and on capacity and competence development in the south at national and sub-national levels. Important issue. The title leads towards forest policies, but the content is more on forest ecology. Themes and research focus are well developed, given that. Forest restoration is an important research field. It is a very tree and forest related approach and not a broader land-use competition approach on forest management. Miss something on why trees and forest disappear; in relation to trade-off towards agriculture. If main driver is land clearing for (a maybe more profitable) agriculture, then planting trees will not help much. A CB analysis would be interesting as well as an institutional/governance failure approach? More on local knowledge, adoption challenges and on capacity and competence development in the south at national and sub-national levels. Flagships are well involved, could also include Flagship 6. This is important and topical. Well conducted and with very relevant CoAs such as governance arrangements, business arrangements in global value chains and responsible investment and risk management. One could add more critical inputs to institutions, governance, power relations and political games at different levels. Would stress (as in the proposal) to utilize this Flagship s groups competence into other relevant Flagships. This is a very good, modern, theory informed proposal linking observed landscape change to ecosystems and health services, to local adaptive institutions around landscape. Has good links to the other Flagships, but stress that it must be followed up in practice? This is again a good proposal. The CoAs relate to mitigation, adaptation, bioenergy and MMRV practices. Could ponder if enough research has been carried out already, but new ideas are there, such as comparing REDD+ and other strategies on mitigation, synergies and trade-offs between mitigation and adaptation, adaptation economics etc. Well linked 5

6 8. General on flagships to other relevant Flagships. -In general, the Flagships are well written and form the basis for the overall well conducted proposal. Some issues can be raised; - Very empirical proposals- more assignment like than research with some exceptions, to some extent looking for technological fixes, where social and political context, structure and processes fall out. - The theories of change are to a large extent more empirically than theoretically founded. Some almost reflect a kind of social engineering. - Following this, more explicit theories could have been included, not least on issues around governance, participation and involvement, on power relations and interests, on adoption and adaptation, on institutions in general and local knowledge to mention a few. Insights from environmental governance, institutional analysis, political economy and political ecology could be used. - Several but not all Flagships have a rather narrow forest and tree focus, missing out on a broader landscape and land use trade-off perspective with accompanying governance issues - Should one consider to mainstream governance and politics issues? -Would it be an idea to develop one more basic, open and free research Flagship? - Too little proof of national and local research organizations involvements? One could discuss to what extent these Flagships will in fact link up together in practical research. Furthermore, for some Flagships, some issues are strikingly missing. These relate to governance, politics, power dynamics and institutional perspectives relating to land tenure and acquisition/control, and the possibilities of governance systems to secure some kind of land use control to achieve the many ideal goals cited for increased afforestation and agroforestry, mitigation and climate change adaptation etc. etc. Local knowledge as a social institution and as a source worth tapping into for research is more or less non-existent in the proposal, except for in the livelihoods flagship. Are gender issues addressed? Yes, they are thoroughly treated, through a general input in the overview narrative and also partly but not fully mainstreamed throughout the Flagships. Gender is also focus for a transformative gender research where an ambition is empowerment of women- and marginal groups, through looking into structural barriers to equal resource access, and to gender inequalities in participation. Participation is seen as a goal rather than as a means. Lastly, one will be looking into gender inequalities in relation to access to capital and markets. A second ambition relates to strengthening capacities or gender analysis, for developing learning monitoring and evaluation platforms, improving dissemination of experiences and general promoting gender as human rights. These issues should be 6

7 executed in all the flagships. A challenge will of course be that research participants in the different flagships should follow this up. Does the proposal have a communication strategy? In Flagship 1 (Support Platform), there is a well-written knowledge management, communication and outreach section. One points to the well-established system for this within the involved CGIAR actors and this seems well described. One could ask if it should be highlighted a bit more in the other Flagships and in the overview narrative. There is maybe a limit for how much should be explicitly mainstreamed, but this may be an area where this is warranted. One worry is that there seem to be more awareness of northern CGIAR institutions interacting than with national and research actors and local implementers in the south. There is little of communication in the overview narrative. Is the research programme likely to achieve its intended impacts? There are actually several hundred expected performance outcomes with accompanying impacts The FTA II proposal is thus very ambitious, which is inherently good in my taste. What is the overall quality and coherence of the proposal? The Flagships, with some comments, are basically of good quality and fit rather well together. The proposal reflects an ambition to be practical and applied and outcome and impact oriented more than a (purely) theoretically research oriented; which I assume is important for CGIAR and the donors. Some take-home messages - The overview narrative could do with some editing and sharpening. - Very empirical proposals- more assignment-like than research with some exceptions, to some extent looking for technological fixes, where social and political contexts are missing. - The theories of change are, to a large extent, more empirically than theoretically founded. - More explicit theoretical frameworks could have been included, on issues around governance, politics, power dynamics, participation and involvement and institutional perspectives relating to land tenure and acquisition/control. Looking into the possibilities of governance systems to secure some kind of land use control to achieve the many ideal goals cited for increased afforestation and agroforestry, mitigation and climate change adaptation etc. Local knowledge as a social institution and as a source worth tapping into for research is more or less non-existent in the proposal, except for 7

8 in the livelihoods flagship. Insights from environmental governance, institutional analysis, political economy and political ecology could thus be considered utilized. - Would it be an idea to develop one more basic, open and free research Flagship? - More national and local research organizations involvements? 8

9 Livestock Agri-Food Systems - Evaluated by Torstein Steine The background and justification for the research is well explained. The impact is to improve production by improved efficiency. It is stated very clearly that the main problem may be that there is no infrastructure and organization to manage improvements. This should probably be addressed more significantly. The research objectives are clear and appropriate within the separate fields. However, more description and ideas of more common work in genetics and disease resistance is recommended. Improving disease resistance by selection may be a very important tool in addition to the methods mentioned. In the improvement of animals by selection and genetics, the use of genomic data is listed as a very good method. This may be so, but it will not work within a few years. The method of sequencing and mapping genomes may be used anywhere, but to obtain useful information, a lot of good phenotypic data is needed. Therefore, my recommendation is to put much more energy into collecting good phenotypic data than in analysing genomes. Improvement by using improved breeds is listed very highly, but then it is necessary to know if these breeds work well under the given circumstances. Crossbreeding may be a way of utilizing improved breeds, but it is necessary to come up with a way of doing this. The crossbreeding method should be as simple as possible and include as few breeds as possible. Gender issues are well addressed. The proposal is, in general, very good and it covers all of the important aspects of what is needed to improve livestock production. There are some specific points regarding GHG emission, but it is hard to see that this is really necessary. Improvement of efficiency will reduce GHG emission if done in a proper way. Therefore, my opinion is that GHG emission should rather be discussed as background than as a separate point. The proposal should take into account that there is a strong relationship between improvements in feed utilization, disease resistance and genetics. It should be obvious that improvement of the animals by genetics is important to improve disease resistance and feed efficiency. These parts should therefore be discussed together rather than separately. 9

10 The overall quality of the proposal is very good. It may be rather ambitious, and it may be hard to believe it is possible to realize all the good ideas within a reasonable time frame. 10

11 Roots, Tubers and Bananas - Evaluated by Trine Hvoslef-Eide I am happy to see the alignment of the present proposal with the CGIAR Strategy and the other relevant CRPs. Particularly the integration of the previous systems CRP Humid Tropics, as this is to be integrated into the relevant proposed CRPs. It makes sense to do that, as we need to see the commodities in a systems perspective, and not each seen separately. RTB are important commodities in the humid tropics and the expertise and experiences from the previous CRP deserves to be followed up in a systematic manner. Is the justification for the research adequately explained? The justification is clearly explained on the first page, also including the target beneficiaries. It leaves the impression of the imperative of doing this research to the reader. What is the intended impact? The headlines clearly explains the intended impacts in the SLOs: 1) Reduced poverty, 2) Improved food security and nutrition for health and 3) Improved natural resource systems and ecosystems management. I am pleased to see nutrition for health included, as well as the natural resource systems and ecosystems management. Important goals to include today, often forgotten in the past. The added value of being a program is well described and explained. I see the sciences and the research to be done and also how it will be disseminated to the farming communities in the clusters. I like Fig. 1 and how it explains the complexity of the programme. Is the background description for the proposals adequate, for example with regard to: The scientific/technical understanding? The scientific and technical understanding of the research questions seems to be stateof-the-art with the use of the latest technologies within both traditional and biotechnology. The balance between these seems to be based on the necessity to include modern technologies when the outcome can only be reached through this route. In my view, this is the correct way of choosing technologies for the benefit of the developing world s food systems. 11

12 The Flagship projects are wisely divided into five, each with a specific theme allocated. The division makes sense, as each has its own approach to the research questions and the outcomes. The research questions and the way it all comes together seems logical to fit with the desired outcomes. The leaders of each of the FP have been chosen, apart from FP4 on Nutrition. The competences of the leaders seems unquestionable. For the remaining FP4, one can only hope that the choice is a female candidate, to have a better gender balance also amongst the leadership, when capable women are amongst the candidates to choose from. Account of problems and development challenges in different contexts? The teams for the FP seems to be carefully chosen to allow capacity building and competence exchange between the different partners, as well as two way communications with farmers of both genders for selection and improvement of planting materials. For vegetatively propagated crops, such as RTB, the provisions of healthy stock is imperative. This is taken into account. Hopefully, the systems approach in FP 5 will help with integrating the commodity approach into the farming systems and development of the local communities. This could be the benefit of integrating the previous CRP on Humid Tropics into the different commodity CRPs. On the other hands, having torn Humid Tropics into the other CRPs where it fits, there will be a need to coordinate between the different commodities. The farms will be growing a variety of crops. Account of relevant policy This CRP seems to be well connected with policy makers and stakeholders on the national level and well aware of the policies on important issues for RTB. Are the research objectives clear and appropriate? Yes, they are clearly spelt out under each FP and seem to be very appropriate. Are the research questions or hypotheses clear and adequate (covering the important issues)? This CRP covers many different aspects of RTB in a farming community and the agricultural value chain. Surely, there could be other aspects that could have been looked into. The ones chosen are the most important ones: how to secure and increase the diversity of RTB; how to breed better varieties for farmers in the developing parts of the world; how to make these crops better suited to the challenges ahead with pests, 12

13 diseases and climate change; how to improve the nutrition and health through RTB; how RTB can contribute to the systems level for improved livelihoods as well as the cross cutting ones for impact at scale. Together, these themes are a very valuable contribution to the world s agriculture and reduction of poverty. The research questions covers the themes well. One could ask if the poorest farmers have been targeted, but in order to reach the outcomes, the better farmers will be the first to benefit and the poorest will hopefully learn from the farmers better off. The research questions in FP 5 have not yet been outlined. Understandable, as these are the most challenging to describe. Proper baseline studies needs to be undertaken to ensure that the changes in livelihoods can be attributed to this CRP and not one of the others, or even changes beyond the CG-system. Is the proposed methodology clearly described and sound? Yes, good to read and understandable. Are gender issues addressed? Gender issues are generally excellently addressed, but I fail to see the reasoning behind omitting gender in the sub IDO Gender-equitable control of productive assets and resources under the FP 1 in Fig 1.I think the enhanced genetic resources also should be in an equitable context. Yet, there is a budget for gender issues on page 10 for FP 1, so maybe the omission is not intended? Gender issues are often regarded as a matter of cause, but unless they are included in such places, they tend to be forgotten and the women s perspective may be lost. In this proposal, the targets have been set also for gender issues through gender-responsive indicators. However, in order to meet the targets also on leading scientists, one should look at the FP leaders and ensure a better gender balance here as well (as mentioned elsewhere). Does the proposal have a communication strategy? Not one that stands out to communicate with the world outside the CG-system. There is a lot of well-described communication planned between partners and stakeholders. There may be a need for a Communication Strategy to the donors and the world in general. Is the research programme likely to achieve its intended impact? The intended impact is very ambitious for every commodity, yet it is quantifiable improvements in most cases. Hopefully, the baselines are in place for the measurement 13

14 of improved livelihood, as mentioned previously. I like the evidence on demand and the stakeholder commitment, as well as the crosscutting partnerships. I think this is achievable, if the money is provided as sought for. What is the overall quality and coherence of the proposal? The overall quality of the proposal is excellent, however, very broad and diverse. That has to be the case when one wants to cover all aspects of RTB. The coherence is as good as it can be in such a case. 14

15 AFS-WHEAT Evaluated by Odd Arne Rognli. Is the justification for the research adequately explained? Wheat is a key food staple providing 20 % of the global protein and calorie consumption. The demand for wheat is expected to increase with the growing world population, and the largest increase in demand will be in developing countries (34-60% increase by 2050). Wheat production need to increase, especially in developing countries, in order for poor consumers to afford to consume wheat-based food. In addition, dietary habits are changing in these countries with more young men and women moving to cities, increasing the demand for wheat. Wheat yields in farmer fields have stagnated in many parts of the world, and yields are further threaten by water shortage, climate change and the re-emergence of pests and diseases. The CGIAR Research Program on Wheat agrifood systems (WHEAT) aims to help smallholders to improve farming practices to make best use of their land in more difficult environmental conditions, i.e. improve water and nutrient use efficiency, avoid salinization in semi-arid regions, and adapt to climate change which will reduce yields when the temperature rise (heat and drought). Improved varieties and improved agronomy contribute equally (50/50) to crop yield increases, and wheat breeders will have to improve the rate of genetic gain substantially just to maintain the current yield levels, let alone increase them, which is needed. As pointed out in the proposal, these challenges are complex and require an agri-food systems approach, incorporating socioeconomic and political dimensions, innovation and change processes. Additional justifications of WHEAT is that wheat is the major staple crop that is most heavily dependent on public R&D funding for breeding, and that CGIAR germplasm is distributed to wheat breeding programs in numerous countries and used in the development of locally adapted varieties. What is the intended impact? The impact of WHEAT is to: 1. Make wheat-farming systems in less developed country more profitable and sustainable by developing, adapting and scaling out systems approaches. This will be achieved by implementing germplasm, sustainable intensification and diversification solutions targeted to six high priority wheat-growing mega-environments where poor people live. 2. Keep wheat-based products affordable and nutritious for poor people by maintaining yield gains despite climate change, new pests and diseases. In addition, improve connections between rural and urban markets in collaboration with CRP PIM. WHEAT addresses eight of the Grand Challenges of the SRF (competition for land; soil degradation; overdrawn and polluted water supplies; employment, income opportunities for men women and youth; climate change; diminishing genetic resources; nutritious and diverse agri-food systems and diets; and post-harvest losses). In addition, 15

16 several intermediate development outcomes (IDOs) of the three System Level Outcomes (SLOs) of the CGIAR results framework. Is the background description for the proposals adequate, for example with regard to: The scientific/technical understanding? WHEAT consists of 5 interconnected flagship projects underpinning the two main research strategies for Phase II, i.e. germplasm research and sustainable intensification. In addition, climate change is a cutting across research activity in collaboration with CCAFS, details of the collaboration in a separate annex. WHEAT is based on a multi- ARI/NARS partnership, which has a long history of collaboration with proven capacity to deliver R&D and products (improved wheat lines). The research program is utilizing the latest state-off-the-art research methods and technologies; this is done through an extensive provision of R&D services from the best non-cgiar ARI/NARS and private partners in the respective fields. This is necessary since the innovations in highthroughput genomic technologies and phenomics, creating the need for handling big data, are so rapid, and demanding that it is unlikely that the CGIAR institutes themselves would be able to develop these alone. The sustainable intensification strategy uses multi-scale innovation systems for trade-off analysis (prioritizing interventions), innovation platforms involving different stakeholders (including gender challenges), for devising appropriate scale mechanization, and will invest more in capacity development (innovation and a Learning Platform) this being a new activity. The five flagships and the connections and links between them are presented in figures and tables, and in a number of appendixes, giving a good overview of the research activities. Account of problems and development challenges in different contexts? The project is well aware of the problems and development challenges and has a separate CoA on learning from monitoring and evaluations (M&E), adoption and impacts in FP 1. Impact assessment tools will be used to ensure that the outcomes of the activities are consistently prioritized and valued. There are numerous challenges, both foreseen and unforeseen, for this type of R&D, e.g. climate change, policy interventions, regional unrest, wheat disease outbreaks, new pathogens, in addition to the technological challenges in using genomics, bioinformatics and phenomics to develop genomic selection for delivering improved wheat lines faster. The strength of WHEAT is that it is a global partnership involving a huge number of partners and testing locations with proven records of accomplishment. A specific challenge addressed is the problem of the slow adoption of new improved varieties by poor farmers. The project has specific actions on developing efficient seed delivery systems, working both with the private and public sector. This is very important and as far as I can see a new and very necessary action in order to deliver improved products to the poor farmers at affordable prices. 16

17 Account of relevant policy This CRP is addressing the relevant policy priorities very well, i.e. the Strategic Research Framework targets for 2030: reduce poverty, improve food and nutrition security for health, and improve natural resources systems and ecosystem services, with actions and quantified outcomes and indicators directly related to the long-term (2030) strategic developmental goals (SDG). Are the research objectives clear and appropriate? Yes, they are clear and adequate, and are detailed as 3-6 CoA s under each of the five flagship projects, e.g., annual genetic yield gains; added value by women and men farmers changing to improved varieties; reduced harvest losses in target regions by using resistant varieties; improve nutrition, increased water and nutrient use efficiency, and reduced agriculturally-related GHG emissions in wheat-based farming systems by Are the research questions or hypotheses clear and adequate (covering the important issues)? As far as I am able to judge, it seems like the research questions are adequate and are covering all the important issues. WHEAT is very much about delivering public goods through improved germplasm, and this type of research is less hypotheses driven and more towards development and implementation than traditional basic research. WHEAT will for example outsource all genotyping to ARI and private companies, which will provide genotype data, based on various technology platforms (there are many options). This is sound since the development in this field is rapid with large investment costs in technology. Assumptions and risks for each of the R&D outcomes of the flagship projects are clearly identified and nicely put together in figures and table in Annex 5. This is reassuring. WHEAT has addressed external evaluations (annex 10) and outlined actions relative to the present CRP program. Is the proposed methodology clearly described and sound? WHEAT is a large and complex program with a large number of partners and networks involved. The methods related to pre-breeding, germplasm development and breeding is state of the art and well known among plant geneticists and breeders. The wheat community is large and has a long-standing tradition of extensive global collaboration encompassing CGIAR institutes, ARI, NARS and private plant breeding companies. New technologies and methods are quickly shared in the community, ensuring that these will be available for WHEAT. This is also clear from the proposal. There are also a major focus on socio-economic issues in the proposal. These research challenges are being dealt with in collaboration with other CRPs, and the methods are well described and seem sound. Are gender issues addressed? 17

18 Yes, gender is included as a crosscutting activity (annex 9), gender inequality identified as an important issue in Phase I, priority areas for gender research are set in Phase II as a) technology development and b) technology diffusion and adoption. Women do most of the work but have limited involvement in decisions. Operationalization of gender and youth in the WHEAT phase II research agenda is well planned and will be carried out through gender analysis and gender research, very little knowledge about gender dynamics in wheat-based production systems. Also important to recruit female scientist to the research projects/programmes, monitoring and evaluation of this is an integral part of the WHEAT CRP Research Management Framework (RMF). This is good. The WHEAT leadership is very male-dominated; all flagship leaders are men, however, there are several women involved in various CoA under each flagship project Does the proposal have a communication strategy? Yes, strategies for communication outlined for various research activities. WHEAT will establish multi-disciplinary trait teams to improve communication and collaboration through stages of the discovery-validation-deployment pipeline of new tools across the FPs. An important part of WHEAT is scaling-out and up (FP5), and the is a need to examine models this can be optimized through private service-providers, farmer-tofarmer communication, demonstrations, information and communication technologies (ICT), extension, social networking, affordable market information in rural areas through smart integration of content providers etc. Also, WHEAT will address the need for guidelines for gender sensitive communication and farmer decision support information. Is the research program likely to achieve its intended impact? It is hard to say, but it is likely that the intended impact will be achieved. However, there are risks, e.g. climate change effects being larger than anticipated. What is the overall quality and coherence of the proposal? I find it excellent. 18

19 Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) Evaluated by Andrea Nightingale. The CCFAS pre-proposal places the idea of climate smart agriculture (CSA) as a central theme in organizing four thematic areas (Flagships) for research and intervention. One of the strengths of this proposal is the close links between research and practice with one informing the other and vice versa. The project also builds directly from successes and critiques of the earlier phase. Is the justification for the research adequately explained? The justification for the research is excellent. The CCFAS is an extension of an earlier phase wherein many of the needs for a climate smart agriculture approach were identified and quantified. Crucially, the work brings together adaptation and mitigation, seeing both as necessary for the security of food production in the medium and long term. It builds directly from earlier critiques of their program in phase one to tackle four main Flagship areas: F1 on Climate-Smart Practices and Portfolios; F2 on Climate Information Services and Climate-Informed Safety Nets; F3 on Low Emissions Development; and F4 on Food System Governance under Climate Change. These four together integrate different dimensions of promoting adaptation and mitigation, the potential synergies between them and the need to think about the trade-offs as well. What is the intended impact? The intended impacts are ambitious and well developed in the performance indicator matrix included as an appendix in the proposal. They include better integration of research and practice, with the use of field sites for testing climate smart agricultural practices. Here the goal is to target technical interventions (improved seeds, etc.) with market and state support mechanisms (insurance schemes, extension work) and social inclusion impacts (gender as a key entry point for tackling intersecting social exclusions based on ethnicity, geography and class). The project further seeks to capitalize on knowledge exchange across different CRP programs through cooperation and shared research objectives. Finally, the program links together field based, quantitative and qualitative research with modelling and analysis of large-scale data sets to bring together work done at different levels. This combination of practical, interventionoriented work with direct engagement with science and research seems likely to produce significant impacts in both domains. Is the background description for the proposals adequate, for example with regard to: The scientific/technical understanding? Yes, the scientific and technical understanding is strong and detailed where appropriate. 19

20 The use of acronyms is at times overwhelming, but once I became more fluent in them, it was fine. Account of problems and development challenges in different contexts? Here, the proposal excels. CCFAS already has experience working in multiple contexts and the desire to both use lessons learned across contexts and to create context specific projects illustrates the extent to which they understand what is at stake. These context specific issues are particularly well developed in the descriptions of the Flagship research programs. Account of relevant policy CCFAS has already been working with national governments and other current projects. As a result, they are clearly well informed and the program is embedded within both national and global policy contexts. CCFAS publications have fed directly into the last IPCC report and one goal here is to increase that impact. Are the research objectives clear and appropriate? Yes, the research objectives are spelled out very clearly through the four Flagship areas. There are also explicit descriptions of how they inter relate. Are the research questions or hypotheses clear and adequate (covering the important issues)? There is a detailed and convincing description of each of the research questions and hypotheses under each Flagship area. They tackle many of the key areas seen to be of top priority in climate change and agricultural debates today. They are also impressive in ranging across different concerns, showing how they are integrated and how they can be addressed, despite the cross cutting nature of climate change issues. Many of the research questions are quite technical in nature, and my one criticism of this program is that they need to reflect a bit more critically on the extent to which such technical interventions and scientific approaches are effective. Social scientists have shown convincingly how power and politics are bound up in science and technical solutions, so a bit more attention to that would make this program truly world class. Is the proposed methodology clearly described and sound? The methodology is very clearly spelled out under each Flagship area. A wide range of techniques are used, but the team has appropriate experience and expertise. The proposal is convincing in showing that they can address the research questions. Are gender issues addressed? Attention to gender in this program is excellent. Not only are gender issues assumed to 20

21 be important within households and communities, but the importance of thinking about gender and contributions from men and women is articulated in all dimensions of the program, including the need for a gender balance in the composition of scientists employed. They have hired a gender specialist and it is clear that they have taken seriously earlier criticisms on this point. Does the proposal have a communication strategy? Yes, there is a detailed framework for communication to different stakeholders from small-scale farmers, to national governments, to the global community. They have experience producing different kinds of communication outputs and show evidence of being influential with previous publications. Is the research programme likely to achieve its intended impact? Yes, I feel fully confident this research program, while ambitious, will be able to achieve its intended impact and potentially more. What is the overall quality and coherence of the proposal? Excellent. My only criticisms here are to include a bit more explanation of acronyms in the written text, to consider including a table summarizing the main research questions for each Flagship at the very beginning and to include a more detailed table of each hypothesis and research question. Perhaps space considerations preclude this. 21

22 Genebank Programme submitted by the Global Crop Diversity Trust Evaluated by Ola T. Westengen Introduction This pre-proposal targets the call for the Genebanks++ CGIAR Programme. Genebank++ is one of the five crosscutting Global Integrating Programs (GIP) intended to work closely with the eight major Agri-Food systems CRPs. The overall strategic direction, research priorities and result framework for the CRP Phase II is the CGIAR s Strategic Results Framework (SRF) and the UN s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), both with a time horizon to Thus, the pre-proposals is the first step towards formulating the major long-term programs that will guide the CGIAR in the coming decades. The Genebank ++ programme is NOT a research programme, but a genebank management programme. Figure 1 illustrates that conservation and access to genetic resources is fundamental to the Agri-Food System CRPs Figure 1. Visual representation of the portfolio and the place of the Genebank ++ GIP within the whole structure of CRPS and GIPs. Source: Guidance for Pre-Proposals The Genebank ++ pre-proposal is submitted by The Global Crop Diversity Trust an independent international organization based in Bonn. The Crop Trust was jointly established by FAO and CGIAR in 2004 and the organization s mandate is to build an endowment and finance a rational and efficient genebank system worldwide. In addition to the Genebank Programme pre-proposal reviewed here, the CGIAR has also received an Expression of Interest (EOI) to coordinate a platform for Genetic Resources Policy from the CG Centre Bioversity International. The intention is that the stronger of the two alternatives (the pre-proposal and the EOI) will be selected for further development during the full proposal stage. The pre-proposal is for management 22

23 of the CGIAR genebanks and the EOI is for leading the CGIARS policy work related to genetic resources. However, the Bioversity EOI does not rule out other possible management options: We are not therefore proposing this platform in addition to the policy cluster in the Genebank Proposal. Indeed, our preference would be to embed the core policy work (as agreed in Bogor by the Fund Council) to strengthen links with the most engaged community (to date) within the CGIAR on genetic resources policy issues, and to ensure stable base funding. This would need to be accompanied by appropriate governance mechanisms to accommodate the specific nature of the genetic resources policy work. However, if this platform goes ahead, and the policy cluster in the Genebank Proposal does not, then this platform would have direct links with, and provide services to, the genebank program that is eventually approved. This quote points to the main contention visible in relation to this pre-proposal: Should the Genebank++ programme be led by a CGIAR centre (Bioversity) or should it be led according to the model proposed by the Crop Trust in which Bioversity oversees Policy and IITA/CIP oversees Germplasm Health Units and the Crop trust oversees genebank management. The pre-proposal makes a good case for the latter model. Is the justification for the research adequately explained? The justification for the programme is well explained in section 1 and 2 of the preproposal. The overall justification for the need for a dedicated Genebank Programme is the crucial and fundamental role played by these institutions for the CGIAR to reduce poverty and enhance the productivity, sustainability and resilience of global food systems in the presence of climate change and other challenges. (P4). The justification for this particular proposal is that it builds on substantial work already done in Phase I ( Genebank CRP ( )) and represents the transition to the endowment funding from the Crop Trust. The Genebank GIP is well defined and well aligned with the Agri-Food CRPs. The conservation of the genetic resources is not part of the CRPs and the breeding is not part of the GIP. Exploring the genebank collections is among the most basic activities explored in the CRPs on rice, wheat, maize etc. -testimony to a process in which tasks are well shared. In this respect, the list of activities related to genebank operations that NOT will be done in the proposed GIP on page 19 in the proposal is very informative. In fact, the Fund Council of the CGIAR has already approved to support the basic operations programme outlined in an earlier document (Genebank Options Paper) and this has also been endorsed by the Consortium Board and the Independent Science Partnership Council (ISPC). The current preproposal is therefore basically an update of this option in the context of the CG s SRF. This is of course a very important part of the 23

24 justification: This is the kind of genebank system the central governing bodies of the CGIAR have asked for. What is the intended impact? The preproposal has a succinct impact section showing how the work in this programme contributes to overarching sustainable development goals. However, it is clear that a programme focused on the essential operations of genebanks is upstream of the development outcomes that CGIAR ultimately aims for. This reviewer appreciates that the pre-proposal is frank about this role: As a rule, however, genebank staff do not direct the fate of germplasm once disseminated. Their most important roles are to ensure that genebank materials are healthy, true-to-type and available, to promote the use of the diversity within the collections and ensure that the needs of users are met. Therefore, while the genebanks contribute to multiple CGIAR sub-idos, within the Genebank Program, their activities feed most directly into one sub-ido: Increased conservation and use of genetic resources. (P.8). Is the background description for the proposals adequate? The background description is clear and concise and the Crop Trust shows that it is the best-placed organization to lead the coordination of the CGIAR genebank management. The QMS work and the reviews of the CG Genebanks is a concerted and well organized effort and it is evident that the Crop Trust is enhancing the scientific and technical standards of the CG genebanks: The Genebank Program continues and extends the work of the Genebank CRP in aligning the 11 genebanks plus the GHUs in the CGIAR system towards shared standards and targets for quality management, performance, partnership and use. (P.7) The Crop Trust s work is part and parcel of the relevant policy on Genetic Resources and the account of the policy context of the preproposal is excellent. Are the research objectives clear and appropriate? The programme goal and objectives are clearly stated. The five strategic initiatives (SIs) and the lead organizations are illustrated in Figure 2. The Achieving and Maintaining SI and the Data Resources SI is arguably the core activities for ensuring high standard of the basic functions that the genebanks have within the CG. A process of establishing common standards for Quality Management across all 11 CG genebanks is well underway and the data management activities appears to be well integrated with the user groups in the different AFS CRPs. The structure of the management of the five SIs is clearly shown in table 1 in the preproposal, which also lays out the targets for each SI. 24

25 Crop Trust Crop Trust Bioversity International IITA/CIP Crop Trust Figure 2. The Genebank essential operations and the proposed lead centres/organization. Adapted from the Genebank Programme Pre-Proposal figure on page 11 (added responsible centres). Are the research questions or hypotheses clear and adequate (covering the important issues)? NA. This is not a research project. Is the proposed methodology clearly described and sound? Partly NA. This is a Genebank management programme and the methods for creating an effective and well-functioning genebank system that can serve the AFS CRPs are well laid out. The current and planned integration across centres and CRPs is convincing and the connection with user groups and key partnerships all seem like good Are gender issues addressed? NA Does the proposal have a communication strategy? NA 25

26 Is the research programme likely to achieve its intended impact? The IDO for which impact is envisioned is the sub-ido: Increased conservation and use of genetic resources. The pre-proposed programme is very likely to achieve this intended impact. The pre-proposal presents monitoring and performance target mechanisms that are well suited to measure the impact of the programme. Phase 1 of the programme is nearing completion with its external review of all 11 CGIA genebanks and this will provide a foundation for further work on achieving high management standards across all SIs. The genebank programme is designed for a transition to long-term sustainable funding based on the Crop Trust endowment: The management structures and mechanisms of the Program are designed to function both for the CGIAR and endowment financing mechanisms with the aim of ensuring stability throughout the transition. (P.4) Of overall relevance, phase 1 of the Genebank Program will be evaluated by the CGIAR s Internal Evaluation Arrangement in 2016 and this will provide guidance for further development of this GIP. What is the overall quality and coherence of the proposal? This pre-proposal is very straight forward and solid in its concrete focus on getting the Genebank operations of the CGIAR in good shape and on sound financial footing. The only place this reviewer sees a possible coherence problem is with the Policy SI. This SI is according to Table 1 supposed to be led by Bioversity International, but this is not visible in Figure 3 of the management structure on page 22. This would not be an important point of it had not been for the EOI submitted by Bioversity mentioned in my introduction above. There seems to be a need of better integration and alignment of the ++ elements (Big data, high-throughput technologies, etc.) and the essential operations elements in the Genebank Programme. The pre-proposal should show more clearly how Bioversity, IITA/CIP and the Crop Trust will share tasks and work together. Another issue that also has to do with coherence is the statement in the Guidance Note (the call) about the approval of both option 1 and 2 of the Genebank Options paper presented by the Crop Trust earlier this year. I do not have access to the document, but it seems strange that the Preproposal only mentions that option 2 (the less inclusive?) was approved. The impression these two points leaves me with is that the call actually opens for a more inclusive genetic resources GIP while the Crop Trust s preproposal is for a focused and less inclusive programme leaving it to the AFS CRPs to formulate how the genebanks shall be utilized. If this pathway is chosen, it will be very important to ensure that the AFS CRPs actually explicitly incorporates strategies for utilization and integration. 26