This report contains the Science Council commentary on the Sub Saharan Africa challenge program proposal. It also contains a letter from Per Pinstrup-Andersen, Science Council Chair to Ian Johnson. Both letter and report state that the Science Council does not find that there is sufficient information available in the proposal - in terms of specific research plans and science for the Science Council to make a judgement on the relevance and quality of the science and will therefore not justify a $ 70 million investment over the five-year plan. The Science Council, however, recommends an alternative plan which is described in the report.This report was discussed at the CGIAR Business Meeting during AGM 2004

CGIAR Science Council

CGSpace

Mr. Ian JohnsonChair, CGIARVice PresidentEnvironmentally and Socially SustainableDevelopmentThe World Bank1818 H Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20433 USADivision of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, 305 Savage Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853-6301, USATel.: +1-607 255-9429 • Fax: +1-607 255-1033 • E-Mail: pp94@cornell.eduConsultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)SCIENCE COUNCILPer Pinstrup-AndersenChair30 September 2004Dear Ian,The Science Council considered the SSA Challenge Programme Proposal in the opensession of the SC 2 Meeting. After discussion among members of the SC and observersduring the plenary and a special Working Group session with representatives of FARA, theSC concluded that, at this stage in the evolution of the SSA CP, sufficient information is notyet available within the proposal, in terms of the specific research plans and science to beapplied, for the SC to make a judgement on the relevance and quality of the science andtherefore to justify an investment of $70 million over the five-year plan.A major constraint for this CP, in terms of identifying specific research objectives andscience to be applied, is the lack of institutional arrangements as a prerequisite for furtherplanning and implementation. Therefore, the SC recommends to Ex Co that, at this stage,support be provided to the CP for activities to develop the appropriate institutionalarrangements and subsequently undertake the diagnostic phase for the research (Phase I) only.This phase is expected to be completed within 18 months, at which time the proponents wouldbe in a position to define in specific terms, the research priorities and expected outputs of theCP and would have in place the appropriate institutional arrangements. Funding for thisdiagnostic phase is recommended with the intention that after one year, the project will bereviewed by the SC, so that if a recommendation for continuation is made and endorsed at thattime, the project could continue beyond the 18 month period with a smooth transition.Attached is the full commentary and recommendation of the SC concerning the SSACP proposal.Yours sincerely,Per Pinstrup-AndersenSC ChairSDD/SC:IAR/04/18CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCHSCIENCE COUNCILAssessment of Challenge Programme Proposal:Improving Livelihoods and Natural Resources Managementin Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA):Securing the Future for Africa’s ChildrenSCIENCE COUNCIL SECRETARIATFOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONSSEPTEMBER 2004SC Commentary on the SSA Challenge Programme ProposalThe Science Council (SC) members considered the SSA Challenge Programme (CP) Proposalin the open session of the SC 2 Meeting. After discussion among members of the SC andobservers, which included extensive interaction during the plenary and a special WorkingGroup session with representatives of FARA, the lead proponent of the proposal, the SCconcluded the following:At this stage in the evolution of the SSA CP, the SC does not believe sufficient information isavailable within the proposal, in terms of the specific research plans and science to be applied,for the SC to make a judgement on the relevance and quality of the science and therefore tojustify an investment of $70 million by investors over the five-year plan. However, asindicated below, the SC is recommending an alternative plan to move forward with the CP.The SC notes that a major constraint for this CP, in terms of identifying specific researchobjectives and science to be applied, is the lack of institutional arrangements that the CPproponents see as a prerequisite for further planning and implementation.The SC recommends to Ex Co that, at this stage, support be provided to the CP for activitiesto develop the appropriate institutional arrangements and subsequently undertake thediagnostic phase for the research (Phase I) only. This phase is expected to be completedwithin 18 months, at which time the proponents would be in a position to define in specificterms, the research priorities and expected outputs of the CP and would have in place theappropriate institutional arrangements.Key PointsThe SC agrees with the proponents that within the new research paradigm described in theproposal - one which advocates working closely with farmers, local institutions and relevantpartners at the field sites - specific priorities can not at this stage, prior to in-field diagnosisand stakeholder agreement on the priorities for change, be expected without compromisingthe bottom-up, participatory research process itself.There was considerable discussion about the nature and objectives of the CP, in particular,whether it was aimed more at development through dissemination and uptake of existingknowledge via new types of partnerships, or aimed more at knowledge creation andgeneration of IPGs. The SC felt strongly about the need for the latter and that the CP shouldfocus on areas of CGIAR comparative advantage, including the generation of IPGs derivedfrom research for sustainable poverty eradication. The SC understands that an effectivepartnership is a necessary precondition, to be followed by the scientific generation of outputs.It also acknowledges that the institutional learning from the formation of this partnership is alegitimate research activity of the CGIAR which can produce IPGs. In order to provideresearch leading to IPGs on institutional learning, the SSA CP is advised to seek researchinputs from a partner skilled in research related to institutional development.The SC notes that there is a considerable risk that IAR4D approach as described by the SSACP may focus more on local public goods than on IPGs. The SC urges the SSA CP to clearlyexplore the development of IPGs through the purposeful selection of sites that provide a2transect in delivery variables (closeness to markets, infrastructure, institutional frameworks,social and economic conditions, etc.) so that generalisable lessons can be established from theotherwise “local activities”.The SC recommends that the SSA CP be funded as an investment in research, namely a largescale experiment in institutional development for conducting more effective and efficientresearch, with the end objective being sustainable alleviation of rural poverty through theintermediate outcomes of NARS and CGIAR research, and development of a research systemthat effectively identifies and carries out research on the key needs in rural areas withindifferent contextual situations. There is full agreement between the SC and the SSA CPproponents that the approval of the programme is at this stage only for a diagnostic phase of18 months. The experiment will be initiated in three sites with three different contexts, andwill initially focus on team building and training. It will be time-bound and will as a resulthave a detailed logframe prepared with milestones, and indicators that can be monitored.When the institutional arrangements have been put in place and specific research plans havebeen defined, the SC will evaluate the experiment and make a recommendation oncontinuation. This will be based on effectiveness in priority-setting, definition of the specificresearch to be conducted, identification and longer-term commitment of the partners to beinvolved, and the planned outputs and outcomes specified. Initial funding will be for eighteenmonths. FARA will make no financial commitment beyond the initial 18 months based onCGIAR funding. Funding for this diagnostic phase is recommended with the intention thatafter one year, the project will be reviewed by the SC, so that if a recommendation forcontinuation is made and endorsed at that time, the project could continue beyond the 18month period with a smooth transition.The summary budget for the first eighteen months (estimated at US $4.8 million) and themajor activities timeline for the diagnostic phase, as submitted by FARA in response to theproposed 18-month diagnostic phase, are attached. The Pilot Learning Site workplans, whichare targeted for delivery to the SC after 12 months, are expected to document the following:Identified site problems/development constraints; entry points; research and developmentobjectives; activities and milestones timelines; and science/technology to be used. This willinclude a logical framework, detailed budget, and the monitoring and evaluation process to befollowed.With respect to the budget, the SC has reviewed detailed budget tables provided by FARA foreach of the major CP activities to be undertaken during the inception (diagnostic) phase, i.e.,for the inception phase, full IAR4D actions, facilitation and mentoring, methodology analysisand dissemination, impact assessment, Programme Steering Committee and ProgrammeCoordination. The budget appears to be reasonable for accomplishing the stated objectivesduring that time period.The SC views this CP as potentially a major investment in institutional development. Ifsuccessful, it represents a broadly applicable model for making research more relevant andeffective in sustaining poverty alleviation through locally driven agriculturally research. Inthis strict sense of the word, it could be regarded as an ‘experimental activity’ - testingwhether this new research paradigm can successfully address major constraints in thedevelopment, dissemination and uptake of research results. The ‘learning process’component is fundamental and requires that all CP activities be thoroughly documented andperformance indicators well defined throughout. Deriving generalisable lessons will be of3key importance. Special attention needs to be given to identifying appropriate methods withrespect to observing, measuring and learning from setting up the programme.There was some discussion about need and desirability for selection of three sites, as opposedto only one, since developing the proof of concept for the new paradigm is the focus of thework. The SC believes that there is merit in implementing the diagnostic phase at three sitesrather than one but cautioned the proponents about the need to select the sites, and the areaswithin them, carefully, due to security risks. It also is important that the points of comparisonbetween the three sites be identified explicitly right from the start and that appropriate meansbe put in place to make valid comparisons among sitesProgramme EvaluationIt is suggested that the SC convene a review panel to evaluate performance at the end of oneyear. FARA has indicated that at that time the Programme Coordinator, the ProgrammeSteering Committee, and the three Pilot Learning Teams will be in place, trained, andoperating. The IAR4D structure and teams will also be in place and operating. Request forproposals will have been written for competitive bidding. The diagnostic phase will havebeen completed, with specific problems for research identified. Logframes will have beencompleted, with outputs and milestones specified by problem area (to cover the expectedproblem areas in biological/agronomic/horticultural, economics, institutions, policy andmarketing domains).The SC-commissioned external review of the CP would take place in January – February,2006 and would include a visit to at least one of the Pilot Sites by panel members to assessprogress and outcomes in the field at the site(s), as part of the review’s overall assessment ofthe entire programme, e.g., institutional arrangements, research teams, partners’ perceptions,and quality of the research proposed (logframes, etc.) over the next phase. The SC woulddiscuss the review findings at its Spring 2006 meeting, reach its own conclusion and make arecommendation about the continuation of the CP to the ExCo in May, 2006. As the 18-month funding period would expire in June or July of 2006 (depending on when fundingcommences), a rapid response by ExCo and the Group would help ensure continued fundingand minimal disruption for the CP in case the SC assessment is positive.4SSA CP Financing PlanB.11.1 Module 1 Funding and support for three Pilot Learning Teams (US$000)Year 1 Year 2 Total notesB.11.1.1 Inception phase 1,398 0 1,398 aB.11.1.2 Full IAR4D actions 0 1,968 1,968 bB.11.1.3 Facilitation and mentoring 279 132 411 cB.11.1.4 Methodology analysis and dissemination 0 169 169 dB.11.1.5 Information and knowledge management 0 0 0 eB.11.1.6 Local awareness and capacity for IAR4D 0 0 0 eB.11.1.7 Postgraduate exposure to IAR4D 0 0 0 eB.11.1.8 Impact assessment 140 62 202 fB.11.1.9 Programme Steering Committee 207 103.5 311 gB.11.1.10 Programme Coordination 238 121.5 360 gB.11.1.11 Total 2,262 2,556 4,818Notes:a. Start up activities for three pilot learning teams at US$466,000 per team.b. Forty five percent of Year 2 budget for three pilot learning teams (US$656 per team). This is 45% of the budget for Year2 pending full approval of SSA CP but with consideration of the need to ensure the capacity to sustain momentum shouldthere be a lag in disbursements for Phase II.c. Two-thirds of annual budget ($44,000 per team), on assumption that more facilitation and mentoring will be needed infirst six months as field work is launched.d. Full budget for year 2 activities, on assumption that if SSA CP is not renewed, full documentation of methodology will stillbe called for.e. Assuming the SSA CP is approved for full implementation, these activities will begin after the 18-month start-up phase.f. Over the 18-month period, assumes three person months of senior evaluator consultant time, six month of juniorconsultant time, and corresponding expenses. A workshop to present and discuss evaluation approach will take place inYear 2g. Assumes six months of Programme Coordination activity and one Programme Steering Committee meeting.5TIMELINE/MILESTONESFORSUB-SAHARANAFRICACHALLENGEPROGRAM(approximate,forfirst18months)ActivityExecutingbodya1stquarter2ndquarter3rdquarter4thquarter5thquarter6thquarter1.EstablishProgrammeSteeringCommittee(PSC)FARA2.RecruitProgrammeCoordinator(PC),staffofProgrammeCoordinationUnit(PCU)FARA,PSC3.PublishcallforExpressionsofInterestforparticipationinnuclearPilotLearningTeams(PLTs)FARA,PSC,SROs4.EstablishSSACPcorepoliciesandprocedures(e.g.,IPRagreements,legalagreementswithparticipatingparties,etc.)PCU,PSC,SROs,FARA5.FormnuclearPLTsbasedonExpressionsofInterestSROs,PC6.AppointFacilitationandMentoringTeams(FMTs);identify/appointimpactassessment/evaluationteam(IAEteam)PC,SROs7.NuclearPLTsprepareconceptnotesforpreliminarysitework;approvedbySROsPLTs,SROs(assistancefromPCandFMTs)8.SSACPcommunicationsstrategydeveloped(incl.website)PCU,PSC,PLTs,FARA9.PilotLearningSite(PLS)datacollection,sitecharacterization,andparticipatoryproblemdefinition(withstakeholders)PLTs(assistancefromPC&FMTs)10.DevelopandsubmitPLSworkplansb;approvalbySROsPLTs,SROs(assistancefromPCandFMTs)11.Strategydevelopedfororganizational/institutionalchange,liaisontopolicymakers,etc.;capacitybuildingrequirementsidentifiedPLTs,SROs(assistancefromPCandFMTs)12.DocumentbaselinecharacteristicsofPLSsandcriteriaforevaluationandimpactassessment,establishperformancemonitoringprocessIAEteam,PLTs,PC,SROs,PSC13.ProgrammeSteeringCommitteemeetstoreview/endorsePLSworkplansandproposedchangeprocessdesignPSC14.PilotLearningSiteworkplans/consolidatedSSACPworkplansubmittedtoCGIARScienceCouncilforreview,authorizationforfulllaunchofCPPC,ScienceCouncil15.PLSworkplanspresentedtostakeholders;collaboratorssoughtforworkplanimple-mentation(newcallforconceptnotesrelatedtoexecutionofPLSsub-activities?)PLTs,PC,SROs16.NuclearPLTsbeginsite-levelactivitiesforfullIAR4DimplementationPLTs(assistancefromPCandFMTs)17.SROsreviewconceptnotesforexecutionofPLSsub-activitiesSROs,PC18.DocumentPLTlearningprocessFMTs,PLTs,PC19.Communiqués/progressupdatestostakeholdersPLTs,PCU9999999Notes:aBoldfacetypeindicatesleadimplementingparty.bPLSworkplanswilldocumentidentifiedsiteproblems/developmentconstraints,entrypoints,researchanddevelopmentobjectives,milestones,proposedactivities,timelines/milestones,availablescience/technologytobeused,logicalframeworks,detailedfour-yearbudgets,andmonitoringandevaluationprocesstobefollowed.

Assessment of Challenge Program Proposal : Improving Livelihoods and Natural Resources Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA): Securing the Future for Africa's Children

Assessment of Challenge Program Proposal : Improving Livelihoods and Natural Resources Management in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA): Securing the Future for Africa's Children

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CGSpace