Update from the System Management Office

Transcription

1 For ISPC 16 th Meeting Rabat, Morocco Update from the System Management Office System Management Office 18 September 2017

2 CGIAR System Management Office (SMO) Executive Director Elwyn Grainger-Jones Financial and Programmatic Performance - Albin Hubscher Funder Engagement André Zandstra Governance Karmen Bennett Legal Elise Perset Four management units working on 14 tasks in

3 New faces André Zandstra Isobel Sinosi 2

4 Examples of Tasks for 2017 include:- Developing a Results Based Management framework for the System Developing a Risk Management Strategy for the CGIAR Completing the portfolio the call and review process for a new program for the drylands and 5 revised Flagships. A stock-taking of program governance arrangements and continuing tasks such as: Managing system financial performance Reporting to funders on performance at the portfolio level Supporting governance essentially the decision-making bodies of the system 3

5 Supporting CGIAR System Governance System Council System Management Board 1st meeting Paris 12/7/2016 2nd meeting Mexico City 25-26/9/2016 3rd meeting Virtual 23/11/2016 4th meeting Netherlands 10-11/5/2017 Ad-hoc meeting virtual late summer th meeting Cali 9-10/11/2017 1st meeting Paris 11 et 13/7/2016 2nd meeting Mexico City 26/9/2016 3rd meeting Virtual 1/11/2016 Washington 4th meeting DC 17/12/2016 5th meeting Rome 28-29/3/2017 6th meeting Virtual 18/4/2017 7th meeting Virtual 27/9/2017 8th meeting Washington DC 11-12/12/2017 4

6 New make-up of System Management Board Marco Ferroni, new SMB Chair 5

7 Supporting system Governance the Strategic Impact and Monitoring and Evaluation Committee SIMEC 1st meeting 7/6/2017 2nd meeting 26/7/2017 3rd meeting 18/8/2017 4th meeting 25/9/2017 5th meeting 17/10/2017 The further meeting schedule is not determined, however - SIMEC Chair will hold ad-hoc call with SC members on October 11 th. SIMEC paper on oversight arrangements by 23 rd October

8 Projected donor contributions excludes $15.5 million USAID W2 funding 7

9 W1-W2 funding At USD 155 million, W1-W2 funding would represent about 19% of total portfolio funding Total portfolio funding has been generally maintained However if the 2018 budget request reflected the original portfolio envisaged in 2016 (with the complete reinstatement of a GLDC program, full FP funding etc.) it would require around USD 890 millions (around USD 220 million W1-W2). Some rationalisation of what can be funded is inevitable. Despite the confirmation of the portfolio in late 2016 are we in a period of adjustment? From allocation of core resources to a marketplace of more granular funder support (e.g. flagship earmarking)? 8

10 Addressing the underlying concerns Does the reduction in W1-W2 funding actually reflect concern by donors that the portfolio is too broad? That it will not deliver on the development agenda? That we do not have the necessary tools in place to measure progress towards CGIAR goals adequately? That we have not allowed room for flexibility and new ideas? That the system does not adequately manage risk? That structural issues prevent the system achieving reliability in its funding? 9

11 Centrifugal versus centripetal forces

12 Implementation of new approach through 2018 A significant effort in 2018 will be made to tackle the many aspects of allocation that need to be resolved, including: Exploring a clearer common vision on priorities for CGIAR among the System Council as a follow-up to the SRF Exploring flexible modes of support (e.g. to respond to new opportunities for shared-system activities or initiatives; transparent reporting on the portfolio effects of Flagship funding, if implemented). Addressing the structural issues (late funding, annual versus multi-year for long term research). Completing the description of the scientific review and evaluation tasks, assigning and implementing system responsibilities; implementing results based management and risk management frameworks. Creating time and a clear direction for resolving the wider framing issues and detailed operational aspects of an effective approach to allocation 11

13 PBM key elements (Sept. 2017) PBM conceptual framework Monitoring, Evaluation, Impact Assessment Interoperable IT Supported PBM system Learning, Adjusting and Decision Making Reviewed IFPMS (SC3 Nov 2016) PBM and Quality of Research (ISPC) PBM and Impact Assessment (ISPC/SPIA) PBM and Evaluation (IEA) PBM and risk mgt. Etc Harmonized aggregable indicators Indicators consolidated & characterized From result-based to performance-based management Baseline assessment Planning & Reporting templates Online submission Dashboard Business intelligence Investment decision-making Testing harmonized indicators Testing templates Testing performance (narrative and quantitative indicators?) Reviewing interim documents

14 Is there data for making funding allocations? Performance Measure CRP and Platform POWB 2017 Historical assessment of parent CRP (phase I) Annual Report CRP or Platform (for prior year phase II) Funder investment data Other: CRP evaluations or ad hoc impact case studies (for 2017) No (portfolio guidelines only) Yes (but only phase I CRPs) + (for 2017) + (some cross-cutting evaluations) ++ (for 2017/18) ++ (for 2017/18) +++ (for 2017/18/19) +++ (for 2017/18/19)

15 For ISPC 16 th Meeting Rabat, Morocco Allocation depends on vision for financing system and the financing system depends on the vision for the system : System Management Office 18 September 2017