Change for Science

As we go through this change effort, it’s essential that we keep in mind the most fundamental reason why change is needed – to strengthen our delivery of science in support of sustainable development. The change process is intended to transform the CGIAR into a system that optimizes support to scientists, our most important asset.

Across the System, people understand what is at stake, and they know that something important is needed. By taking stock of what works well and identifying where we can streamline and improve the System, we are preparing to scale up agricultural research at a time when solutions are needed to address pressing issues such as the food crisis and climate change. While change isn’t easy, it's necessary if we are to attract the resources, financial and human, we need in order to deliver results to our stakeholders, most notably the world’s poor.

Already, we are making good progress toward workable solutions. While we want to show progress, we are not willing to unnecessarily unsettle the System. The goal is to change in a way that creates benefits for everyone, and that will require give and take from all. Moreover, we are not looking at organizational change alone, we need a cultural transformation.

Action to Date

We are now about halfway through the process of developing the formal change options. Following constructive meetings in July in Tervuren, Belgium, and Lima, Peru, the working groups have begun to emerge with their analyses, potential models and recommendations on governance, funding, and partnerships. Some outcomes from these meetings are highlighted below. The working group papers on these three topics will be available on the CGIAR change website in mid-August. Now that the options from the working groups are taking shape, we will be deepening our engagement with stakeholders to learn reactions to this preliminary thinking. There will be more opportunities for engagement throughout the System through face-to-face and electronic discussions.

The Art of Change

In mid-July, discussions at the Royal Museum for Africa in Tervuren centered more on the distinction between accountability and responsibility rather than on the influence of Central African masks on Picasso’s art. However, the dialogues were artful as participants carefully assessed options for incorporating the current influences of change into the CGIAR. The Working Groups on Finance and Governance further developed their comprehensive change papers. Representatives from the Partnership Working Group and the Change Steering Team (CST) also joined the discussions to ensure coordination and coherence across the groups.

Governance Options

The Governance Working Group considered models, discarding those unlikely to succeed due to offering too little or too much change. In the end, three options remained:

• One option, “the performance contract model,” would incorporate the CGIAR as an international non-profit organization that would fund results-oriented agricultural research for development programs. It would have an Assembly of Members and Stakeholders, a professional board empowered to carry out the CGIAR’s business with advice from both Science and Partnership Panels, an Independent Evaluation Unit and a central fund. Programs would be executed by CGIAR Centers but also be open to other highly qualified entities, based on performance contracts.
• A second option, “partnership board and donor council,” would create a CGIAR cooperative fund that would be established on a replenishment basis. Funds would be allocated through a Partnership Board comprised of donors, Centers, co-sponsors and partners. Members of the Partnership Board would be appointed by Centers and donors, and a Donor Council would provide broad guidance to the Partnership Board. An Independent Scientific Committee would also advise the Partnership Board.
• A third option, “separate consortium and fund,” would be comprised of a legally incorporated consortium of Centers and a pooled donor fund that would also be a legal entity. The fund would provide both programmatic and institutional funding. A Donor Council and Consortium Board, with 15 members, would agree to a joint results framework strategy and funding would be allocated based on performance and strategic relevance. This model also has an Independent Evaluation Unit and Science Council.

As a next step, the CST requested the Governance Working Group to evaluate these three options against key principles and criteria in order to assist the CGIAR in determining which option would best serve agreed objectives, namely: focus on results, increased efficiency and effectiveness, strengthened accountability, and potential transition costs. This assessment is forthcoming in the governance paper that will be available mid-August.

In addition to governance scenarios, the Working Group considered possible structural change needed to strengthen accountability and efficiency at the Center level to persuade donors to increase support while relinquishing a degree of sovereignty and contribute to a common funding mechanism. A strong results orientation will be critical. Possible structural changes were evaluated in terms of how they would help streamline governance, strengthen coordination, reduce duplication and minimize transaction costs. While there was broad agreement on the need for simplification and increased coordination, views varied on the approach, timing and responsibility for implementing structural changes.

Funding Mechanisms

The Funding Mechanism Working Group explored models for a common fund for agricultural research. Following the guidance of the CST, the working group suggested the creation of an international fund for agriculture with the flexibility to fund both institutions and programs and to allow donors to either contribute to a broad pot or direct their funding through specific windows. The fund would be used to address challenges inherent in the three strategic objectives set out in the Visioning Working Group paper . In addition, it would achieve the following goals: mobilize adequate resources for the 21 st century challenges in agricultural research, streamline and simplify financing for the CGIAR System, and increase accountability and efficiency.

Partnership Possibilities

Subsequent to the Tervuren meetings, the Partnership Working Group met in Lima. The participants expressed a broad range of views that provided for a lively debate. The group confirmed that partnerships are fundamental to the working of the System and crafted some initial recommendations related to how funding might be allocated to partners, how Centers can be assured of core funding, and the possible creation of a Partnership Facilitation Unit that would foster, monitor and promote partnerships within the System.

Stakeholder Voice and Blog

We are already hearing some insights coming from different stakeholders contributing to the Change Management Blog. When thinking about the vision and mission of the CGIAR, we hear the need to include soil fertility research that can help sub-Saharan Africa with techniques for improving integrated soil, water and nutrient management. ‎ Also, we are reminded of the intricacies of the System through an assessment of the current monitoring and evaluation systems’ high complexity and costs. On the cultural side of the initiative there is a call for deeper consideration of how to cultivate a sense of community within the CGIAR at the System level.

E-Discussions - Your Opportunity to Engage in the Debate

The partnership, governance and funding mechanism papers will be available on the CGIAR change website in mid-August. These papers include detailed descriptions and rationales behind the various change models under discussion. Join in on the debate through the e-discussions. You can offer your comments and insights and also learn about other stakeholders’ perspectives. The Visioning Working Group’s paper is already available on the website with an electronic forum dialogue underway.

Task Force for "Mindsets and Behaviors"

Trust, empathy, and a System mindset are critical elements for transforming the CGIAR. The need for such fundamental shifts in mindset has surfaced frequently throughout the Change Management process. Cultivating these traits throughout the System will take creativity, vision and commitment. To make this happen, a task force of insightful, energetic and innovative people is being established. The task force will identify a set of critical new mindsets and behaviors that the System will need to develop in order to implement the new change management plan. Stay tuned for more information on this task force at the Change Management website.

Opportunities to Engage Face-to-Face

The CST members are reaching out to stakeholders by presenting the change process and seeking feedback and input at all opportunities. The calendar on the Change Management website lists all events where the Change Initiative will be discussed. If you are attending any international meetings during this year that you think would be a useful opportunity to hold a Transforming CGIAR discussion, please let us know by sending an email to cgiar@cgiar.org – please include “change initiative” in the subject line. We will be pleased to follow up. A major stakeholder consultation will also be held at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in Los Baños, Philippines, September 7-10. All working groups will present their conclusions at this workshop.

Change Management "Briefcase"

Stay informed and up to date with the Change Management “briefcase” available from the Change Management website . The “briefcase” includes a presentation on the Change Initiative, frequently asked questions (FAQ) and an event calendar for individual use or as a set of information to take with you to your next meeting to share with colleagues and other stakeholders interested in how the CGIAR is evolving in tandem with our changing world. The briefcase is updated with new resources as they become available.