Fund%Council% WORKING(DOCUMENT(! CGIAR!Consortium!Report!!Fund!Council!13,!Bogor,!April!2015!!!! % % % % % Submitted!by:!! Consortium!Office!

Transcription

1 FundCouncil 13 th Meeting(FC13) Bogor,Indonesia April28?29,2015 WORKING(DOCUMENT( CGIARConsortiumReport FundCouncil13,Bogor,April2015 Submittedby: ConsortiumOffice

2 08 April 2015 CGIAR Consortium Report Fund Council 13, Bogor, April 2015 SUMMARY This report: 1. Supplements the Consortium s 11 October 2014 Report to the 12 th Fund Council (FC) meeting in November 2014 (Consortium FC12 Report), to give an overall view of implementation against the Consortium s 2014 Program of Work and Budget (PoWB) to end Provides an early update on progress on key 2015 initiatives, with particular focus on the collaboration between partners to finalize the new Strategy and Results Framework (SRF). Key messages include: The Consortium s 2014 ramped up external communications efforts resulted in much clearer visibility of CGIAR s relevance as a key stakeholder in the global debate on how best to ensure sustainable agri-food systems for future generations also saw considerable progress in the development and/or revision of key system-wide policies, although full attainment of planned outcomes was adversely affected by, predominantly, changing resources across the year. Based on work undertaken in the 2014 year, the Consortium Board (CB) approved a number of outstanding policies at its 19 th meeting in late March 2015 (CB19). It also revised the policy priorities in the context of additional resource changes for the 2015 calendar year Consortium Office (CO) stakeholder survey feedback identified a number of pleasing results. Areas of support included appreciation of the Consortium s renewed focus on external representation of the CGIAR system as a whole, and the strengthening of shared legal and communications experiences through wellperforming communities of practice. In other areas, satisfaction with the CO was not where the Consortium wishes it to be. This provides important data on which to focus increased effort across 2015 and beyond, to compliment significant change introduced at CB level to increase Center participation and collaboration. This Q initiative has resulted in improved confidence and trust between the Centers and Consortium. CGIAR Consortium, 1000 Avenue Agropolis, F Montpellier Cedex 5 t (+33 4) w

3 CGIAR Consortium Update, 08 April 2015 There has been strong early performance against the 2015 PoWB, including considerable focus on further strengthening the draft new Strategy and Results Framework (SRF) to have it ready for approval at FC13. This progress is notable given the significant drain on human resources that the Consortium and Centers have experienced in their collective effort to ensure sufficient engagement with the Options Team during the further governance review period. By end Q1 2015, the CO was able to fill a number of continuing vacancies, providing important capacity to meet multiple demands. One additional role remains key to fill this year, addressing directly the Centers request for increased Consortium focus on efforts to secure resources from non-traditional sources, seen as one part of an overall CGIAR system wide strategy to improve longer-term predictability and sustainability of funding. A. REVIEW OF 2014 OPERATIONS This part includes the following sections: 1. Recap of 2014 Program of Work and Budget (PoWB) outcomes, with a focus on Q4 2014; 2. Commentary on 2014 Performance Assessment by stakeholders; and Consortium Unaudited Financial Results. 1. Review of 2014 Program of Work and Budget outcomes Across the year, approximately 90 of the 2014 PoWB activities were implemented as planned, including all routine annual core business tasks (the various annual reports and financial management and reporting) and critical consultations to facilitate development of the initial draft Strategy and Results Framework (SRF) and the 2 nd call guidance note. More was done in 2014 with more input than ever before, with the Consortium highly appreciative of the helpful contributions. Concurrently, the CO was required to expend considerable unexpected additional energy on completing the essential legal requirements to separate from its former hosting arrangement with Bioversity. As foreshadowed in the Consortium FC12 Report, this entailed a very large amount of work performed in the second half of 2014 on top of regular duties (the cost implications of which are discussed in part A.3 below). Elements of work that were not completed relate to the planned revision of increasingly outdated system wide (Common Operational Framework, COF) policies and processes. Table 1, Annex 1 summarizes lists prioritized CO deliverables to end December 2014, with status updates compared to progress at end September was also characterized by significant increased external engagement, through representation of the CGIAR in various fora and meetings: e.g. Abu Dhabi Global Forum on Innovation in Agriculture, Economist Food Security Summit, Stockholm EAT Food Forum, UN SG s Climate Summit, the Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture (GACSA), and close Page 2 of 13

4 CGIAR Consortium Update, 08 April 2015 collaboration with IFPRI on the follow up of the CAADP alignment. A highlight of the year was the inaugural CGIAR Development Dialogues meeting in New York in September 2014, in association with the UN General Assembly meetings. In Q the Consortium again coordinated CGIAR communications around the 2 nd Global Forum for Innovation (GFIA) in Abu Dhabi. This included a shared CGIAR booth partnering with all 7 Centers/CRPs present at the conference with strong CGIAR branding; creating a shared communications strategy and media approach. 2. Commentary on 2014 Performance Assessment by Stakeholders Introduction Various stakeholders, depicted in Figure 1, Annex 2, completed questionnaires to assess the performance of CGIAR system entities. The rating was on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 being very dissatisfied and 4 as very satisfied. Three of the entities the CO, the Fund Office and the Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC), received ratings lower that 3 (on a scale of 1 to 4). The Independent Evaluation Arrangement (IEA) scored highest, with an average of 3.10 out of 4. Consortium Office specific results From underlying survey data, we know that 63 individuals contributed to the CO results. Areas of strength included the value stakeholders see in, especially, the legal and communications communities of practices, the CGIAR common annual report; the intellectual assets reporting framework, work on gender, and also how the Consortium represents the system as a whole. While noting that the questions were limited in depth and breadth, the CO recognizes that there are other areas within the assessment that fall well short of a more desirable range, and provides a meaningful input into the CO s identification of areas that require development and enhancement. Already efforts have been made to move in the right direction. A key Q initiative of the Consortium Board was to rebuild confidence and trust between the Consortium and the Centers. Key among this effort has been to expand the number of Center observers to the CB from 1 to 4 (2 DGs, a CRP Director and a Center Board Chair) and treat the observers as if they were full board members absent formal reform to the CGIAR Constitution. As a direct result, there has been a much more positive and constructive atmosphere in Center-Consortium engagements, as evidenced in the February 2015 meeting in Rome and the CB meeting in late March 2015 at CIMMYT. 3. Preliminary 2014 Consortium Unaudited Financial Results The table below, read with the accompanying notes, compares the 2014 Consortium expenditures to the approved 2014 budget. Taken together, the delayed final separation from Bioversity (note 5) and the once-off costs incurred in 2014 (part note 6) themselves account for 54 of the overall variance. Considerable effort will be made across the 2015 Page 3 of 13

5 CGIAR Consortium Update, 08 April 2015 calendar year to reduce total operational costs to address in part the deficit arising from the 2014 exceptional year without requesting additional support from the Fund Council. Actions include not filling a small number of CO roles. However, the CO will recruit a senior partnerships/ communications director to directly respond to a request of the Centers in light of the stringent financial situation that became known in February Budget Header Unaudited Actual as at 31 Dec 2014 ($) Approved 2014 Budget ($) Variance ($) Variance () (See notes) Board Fees 281, ,000-43, Staff Costs 3,788,188 3,842,049-53,861-1 Consultants 1,371,444 1,240, , Travel 802, ,000 92, Meetings 282, ,000 67, Overhead 571, , , Other Operating Expenses 522, , , Total 7,619,399 7,047, ,765 8 The CB will approve the 2014 Audited Financial Statements in May Explanatory notes on material variances (10 or more): 1 Board Fees: The budgeted Board fees were based on the 2014 daily rate for time anticipated to be spent on CGIAR matters, an element for indexation and an additional amount for Consortium Board visits to Centers to engage with Boards of Trustees. When it became apparent that a deficit was projected for 2014, the Board decided to reduce the number of Center visits for the remainder of the year. 2 Consultants were higher than forecast due to consultancies on SRF matters that had not been expected at the time the budget was prepared. 3, 4 Travel and meetings expenses exceeded the budget due to the fact that crucial meetings that had not been projected took place for SRF-related activities in the last quarter of the year 5 Overhead comprises Bioversity International administrative charges, as the immediate past hosting body of the CGIAR Consortium. There was an expectation that the Consortium would be recognized as an international organization, by the French Government, before the end of As a result, no overhead for Bioversity International administration charges was included in the initial 2014 budget. In May 2014, the budget was reallocated to cover Bioversity International charges for 8 months i.e. until 31 August Unfortunately, the relevant mandatory agreements were only finalized in December 2014, thus prolonging the outsourced activities for an additional four months, with the associated costs. 6 Other operating expenses for 2014 comprises 25 (approximately US$ 130,000) once-off nonrecurrent expenses directly resulting from the separation from Bioversity and implementation of the One Corporate System platform. With effect from 2015, recurrent expenses will be disaggregated to show Building Management expenses as a distinct budget chapter, as these were not able to be predicted with certainty at the time of development of the 2014 budget. Page 4 of 13

6 CGIAR Consortium Update, 08 April 2015 PART B: PROGRESS ON KEY PRIORITIES FOR 2015 This part includes the following sections: 1. Progress review of key priorities within the 2015 PoWB; and 2. CO Staffing overview. 1. Progress on Key Priorities for 2015 The Strategy and Results Framework (SRF) As background to the 2015 CB and FC approval timetable, 2014 saw deep engagement of the FC/ISPC, as well as the Centers in the development of the new SRF, with multiple iterations being shared, and the CB/CO receiving specific direction from the ISPC on the approach to be taken forward. To take the work forward in 2015, the SRF was discussed with major CGIAR and external stakeholders, through a consultation implemented jointly by GFAR and the CO. Over 300 individual responses were received in the consultation, mostly online, with many expressing the view that the overall direction of the proposed new SRF demonstrated great evolution and maturity. Whilst the development process for the proposed new SRF would have been far more efficient if all stakeholders came to the process with a united understanding of the need for quantification of targets in the final document, Q represents a period of significant progress towards a strong and dynamic SRF based on highly collaborative engagement between the Consortium and Centers. The proposed final new SRF is being submitted for approval at FC13, following final clearance by the CB by 14 April Guidance for the CRP 2 nd Call As the SRF nears completion, attention is also now focused on the CRP 2 nd Call. While the essence of the Consortium proposal (for a 2-stage call with pre- and full proposals in 2015 and 16 respectively) stands, discussion has focused on the Centers desire to define the CRP portfolio in advance of the Call. In workshops pre-fc13 (27 April 2015) and post-fc13 (11-13 May 2015) the CRP portfolio will be discussed, with the aim of issuing a targeted call for preproposals in May-June Presentations were contributed to various CGIAR meetings (ISPC, IEA etc.), and CO officers participated in different meetings organized by the CRPs to support the preparation of the 2 nd call; and harmonize commodity cross-crps monitoring and evaluation processes. Gender in Research The implementation of the Gender Action Plan is on track. The CO conducted a competitive Call for the gender Post-doctoral Fellowships. As a result 10 postdoctoral fellowship awards were made to the CRPs and contracts have been issued. To support Postdoctoral Fellows and their immediate supervisor/co-researcher in gender, a Request for Proposals was launched in January, 2015 to Universities for training in advanced research methods, coaching and mentoring. The CGIAR Gender and Agriculture Research Network, published a memo which contributed to shaping the gender IDO and sub-idos in the draft SRF and provided expert advice and commentary to sequential versions of the SRF and CRP 2nd Call Guidance. CRP annual reports were reviewed to assess adherence to the gender objectives and CRP plans of Page 5 of 13

7 CGIAR Consortium Update, 08 April 2015 work and budget and CRP extension proposals all are directed at advancing the capacity of CRPs to implement their gender research strategies. Core Business Related to the Ongoing CRP Cycle All Consortium Performance Agreement amendments for the 2-year CRP extensions ( ) have been signed by the FC Chair and are in the process of being signed by Bioversity International on behalf of the CGIAR Consortium. All associated Program Implementation Agreement amendments have been prepared and will also be signed by Bioversity on behalf of the CGIAR Consortium together with the Lead Centers of all CRPs. Following on from this, the Lead Centers will sign Program Participant Agreement amendments with the program participants of their CRPs. The 2015 Program of Work and Budget for CRPs are currently being reviewed by the Consortium and relevant feedback will be provided to the Lead Centers and CRP Directors. The deadline set for submission of 2014 CRP annual reports to the consortium is 30 April Subsequent to feedback, final versions will be ready before the end of June and incorporated into the 2014 CGIAR Annual Report. Intellectual asset management The 2014 CGIAR Intellectual Asset Report, prepared by the Consortium in collaboration with the FCIP Group and in consultation with the Centers, will be submitted for Consortium Board approval at the end of May Once approved by the Consortium Board, it will be submitted to the FC for approval, providing a comprehensive statement of the management of intellectual assets system-wide. Options Team engagement The Consortium also engaged with the Options Team, including during a visit to the CO by the Options Team in mid-february The focus of the day spent by the Options Team in Montpellier was elaboration by each department and its officials regarding its role and contribution to the CGIAR overarching mission and objectives. The Consortium Board has provided comments on strategic elements to the Options Team and also submitted their views on the proposed options as set out in the initial two draft reports. Additional Operational matters to end March 2015 As requested by the FO, the CO Science team is co-contributor to material to inform the Genebanks agenda item at FC13. The Phase I Open Access proposal, covering a one-year period, was resubmitted and approved by the FC. The Open Access Implementation Guidelines; and an Open Access Implementation Plan template have been prepared and distributed to help Centers and CRPs develop implementation plans easily and in coherence with each other. System-wide harmonization of finance and corporate services elements continues. Some Financial Guidelines are currently being reviewed and updated; disbursement policy for financial resources is in train; system-wide revenue recognition principles are being developed; and all centers have committed to have migrated to IFRS by the beginning of Page 6 of 13

8 CGIAR Consortium Update, 08 April 2015 During its FC12 meeting in November 2014, the FC requested that an enhanced Gender and Diversity Strategy be tabled during the April 2015 FC meeting. Substantive progress on this matter was impeded by the absence of specialized skills to take this critical topic forward. The CB is very pleased that the new Director of Human Resources and Talent Management, who took up his role on 9 March 2015, has seized on this as a core priority for early action. As a separate document, a third report on Gender and Diversity developments throughout the CGIAR system has been prepared for FC13. True to their commitment to improving the security of their staff, all Centers and the Consortium Office selected a common travelers tracking and security assistance system that will be implemented from May With the One Corporate System now operating in multiple Centers, the focus has now shifted to developing a common reporting tool. A highlight on the ICT front was the delivery of a new collaboration space on the Consortium Office 365 platform (one.cgiar.org), which includes utilities for online discussions, planning and tracking priorities, a new listserv, and an archive of documents from the previously used Google sites collaborations space. 2. CO Staffing overview To cover the breadth of 2015 CGIAR Consortium priorities, the CB and CO would ordinarily plan to be supported by 32 1 FTEs, including: 3 fellows seconded from Centers (with the dual purpose of enhancing cross-center- CO exposure and learning); 2 seconded staff whose salaries are contributed in-kind by the French government seconding these individuals; 3 persons who are supported through specific projects rather than core funding; and 1 Associate Gender Expert directly funded by SIDA. This figure represents a full complement of planned FTEs, including a now fully established senior management team to cover the full extent of management and governance responsibilities carried by the CO on behalf of the Consortium as a whole. To respond to the direct request of Centers, the role of Director - Communication and Development (included within the 32 FTEs) will be recruited during 2015, to serve the dual purpose of: (i) undertaking additional external engagement initiatives to those already planned, to further improve the publicity and reach of the good work that CGIAR is doing; and (ii) being the Consortium s designated officer responsible for resource mobilization efforts that target non-traditional funding sources to enhance the overall predictability and sustainability of essential funding to deliver on impact across the system. The creation of this post has been possible through the re-alignment of roles and responsibilities across departments and teams. In light of the stringent finance situation, two other roles also within the 32 FTEs are not presently planned to be filled. 1 Consortium Office FTEs do not include Internal Audit Unit (IAU) personnel who are hosted at the CO but comprise a shared service function across Centers. Page 7 of 13

9 Annex 1: Status of Consortium Office 2014 Program of Work and Budget deliverables to end December planned output End Q4 status update compared to Q A. Policies under the Common Operational Framework (CoF) Revision of Financial Guidelines (FG 2 ) 1 Good Q4 progress Additional Comment The first draft was produced by end Q4 2014, and will undergo Center consultation with a view to submitting it for Consortium Board and subsequent Fund Council approval during the course of Revision of FG 2 As above Draft manual agreed on by finance heads will be submitted to Center Directors General for their feedback by July 2015 Revision of FG 5 No additional Q4 progress The revised version was approved by the Consortium Board in June 2013 and submitted to the Fund Office for approval by the Fund Council. Feedback on the guidelines remains outstanding. Revision of FG 6 As above In consultation with the CB s Governance and Policy Coordination Committee (GPCC), and as approved at CB19 (March 2015), revision of FG 6 (procurement of goods, works and services) will be deprioritized. These guidelines remain sufficiently current and relevant to enable their continued application, pending a review in 2016, or earlier if time becomes available. Instead, the CB has approved the escalation of priority in 2015 of FG 4 Medium Term planning, which is directly relevant to preparation of 2 nd call proposals. Common Reserves Policy As above This is to be developed by the joint Consortium-Fund Council Working Group. The Consortium Working Group worked on a paper on how to generate and manage reserves and is awaiting the opportune time to engage with Fund Council Resource group. Centers identify this policy as of increasing importance in the current resource environment. 2 The CGIAR Financial Guidelines serve as control measures across the CGIAR system. The series is as follows: FG1 (Financial Management); FG2 (Accounting Policies and Reporting Practices Manual); FG3 (Auditing Guidelines); FG4 (Preparing the Medium-Term Plans and the 2010 Financing Plans; FG5 (Cost Allocation Guidelines); and FG6 (Procurement of Goods, Works and Services Guidelines). Some FGs are not part of the Common Operational Framework or have not been approved by the Fund Council, whilst others are outdated. The revision program takes into account the agreed priorities for the 2015 PoWB, with particular focus on the policies that are central to the SRF and 2 nd call. Page 8 of 13

10 2014 planned output System-wide Escalation Policy for whistleblowing Center Investment Policy framework End Q4 status update compared to Q Re-prioritized as important, and good Q4 progress No additional Q4 progress B. Consortium Policies (Non-CoF policies) Open Access Implementation Guidelines Revised Branding Guidelines Revised legal requirements for use of W1 and W2 funds Approved and implemented Approved and implemented Status quo C. Operational efficiency / Core Business Formal separation from Bioversity SRF and Guidance for CRP 2 nd Call Additional Comment The Consortium has verified that all 15 Centers have Whistleblowing and anti-harassment policies in place. The Consortium has one in place as well will see work focus on ensuring a systematic way to address incidents that require escalation to the Consortium (or de-escalation to the Centers), and those that require reporting to the FC other than in the ordinary course of the annual report of the Internal Audit Unit. An initial policy was approved by the Consortium Board in October 2013 (CB13) and submitted to the Fund Office for Fund Council review thereafter. Comments from the Fund Council Governance Committee were received in March 2015 (regrettably too late to be incorporated and dealt with during CB19). Revisions are ongoing on the draft revised policy based on FCGC inputs, and additional Center consultations. The CB s GPCC will review the material in May 2015, submit it for CB approval, and then re-submit the material for FCGC recommendation to the FC for approval during The Consortium Partnership Agreements and Program Implementation Agreements (PIAs) were amended in line with the extension of some CRPs. The revision of these and the Joint Agreement will be assessed and prepared by the Consortium legal team, in collaboration with the Centers and Fund Office legal teams, in advance of the 2 nd phase of CRPs. Finalized The considerable delay in separation procedures resulted in a significant additional once-off cost overrun for the 2014 budget, with focused attention in 2015 on finding every efficiency possible to seek to recover this overrun to the extent possible. Significant stakeholder engagement Critical elements of the CO work program for 2014 were the SRF and Guidance for CRP 2 nd Call, both of which entailed intense interaction with many stakeholders and resulted in the near completion of both streams of work. Page 9 of 13

11 2014 planned output CRP 2 nd Call initiated Gender Research Action Plan (GRAP) End Q4 status update compared to Q GRAP approved and implementation started Rescheduled to May-June Additional Comment The Fund Use Agreement and the disbursement of resources in place in early This project is now on-track. Page 10 of 13

12 Annex 2 Consortium Office Stakeholder Survey Results Figure 1: Categories of participants in the stakeholder assessment exercise Graphs: 2014 Consortium Office survey responses Overall, how would you rate the performance of the Consortium Office? To what extent are you satisfied with how the Consortium Office manages relationships with the following? Fund Council (FC) 2.23 CGIAR Global Research programs (CRPs) 2.46 Centers and Centers Boards Page 11 of 13

13 How would you rate Consortium Office's performance in: development and cyclical revision of the following Policies and Common Operating Framework? Branding Guidelines 2.84 Open Access 2.92 Harmonized Reporting 2.47 Reserves Policy 2.24 Financial Guidelines How would you rate Consortium Office's performance in managing the following aspects? CGIAR Annual Report Intellectual Assets Report Gender Research Action Plan CRPs Individual Program/Financial and Portfolio Reports CRPs Plans of Work and Budget (POWB) Guidance for second call SRF Revision To what extent are you satisfied with the following aspects of the Consortium Office's communications? Social media support to promote CRP and Center events 2.91 Representing CGIAR in Key Events/Venues 2.82 Are we pushing as much traffic as possible back to CRP and Center sites? 2.58 Do you find the gel for new websites the CO provides helpful? 2.62 Web space for your CRP and Center events/posts and promotion on cgiar.org Page 12 of 13

14 How would you rate Consortium Office's performance in: Shared standards /systems / services (both development and service provision) Shared Approaches/Experiences (HR, ICT, Finance, Procurement and Staff Security) 2.48 Integrated CRP Sites & Host country agreement for CGIAR Hubs 2.12 OCS Development 2.06 Development and support of Communities of Practice CoP (Other) Development and support of Communities of Practice CoP (Capacity Development) Development and support of Communities of Practice CoP (IT & Knowledge Management) Development and support of Communities of Practice CoP (Communications) Development and support of Communities of Practice CoP (Legal) Development and support of Communities of Practice CoP (CRP Leaders) Development and support of Communities of Practice CoP (Corporate Services) Overall, how would you rate Consortium Office's communications (website, mailings, publications, reports)? Page 13 of 13