1 / 8

ISPC: Program Evaluation

ISPC: Program Evaluation . ISPC Commentary on Proposal for CRP 1.1 Strategic Research Theme 5: Enhancing the in situ management of agricultural biodiversity Kenneth Cassman , On behalf of the ISPC. ISPC: General comments on CRP 1.1 SRT5.

stacie
Download Presentation

ISPC: Program Evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ISPC: Program Evaluation • ISPC Commentary on Proposal for CRP 1.1 Strategic Research Theme 5: Enhancing the in situ management of agricultural biodiversity Kenneth Cassman, On behalf of the ISPC

  2. ISPC: General comments on CRP 1.1 SRT5 • Proponents justify proposal for SRT5 as responding to the Genetic Resources Scoping Study (2011). • Proposal seeks to become an addendum to CRP1.1 on Dryland systems but would have own objectives and global coverage. • Five main research activities: • Status and trends on target crops and species • Development of in situ conservation approaches • Facilitating use of target crops and species • Informationsupportingin situconservation • Policies to support in situ management and availability of agbiodiversity • Three year budget of USD50M including USD13M from Fund and USD18M funding gap (current 3-yr CRP1.1 budget USD123M).

  3. ISPC: General comments on CRP 1.1 SRT5 • ISPC assessment is based on: common criteria for CRP assessment, the “fit” within CRP1.1 and Scoping Study analysis. • In situ conservation and agrobiodiversity are potentially relevant research topics for CGIAR if it can be integrated with other systems research to ensure impact. • However, the SRT5 proposal is weak, and adding as component to CRP1.1 is not consistent with the CGIAR reform. • SRT5 proposal partially addresses some research areas identified in Scoping Study and expands significantly other areas. • CGIAR needs better strategy for genetic resources conservation research and policy through existing CRPs and a coordinating mechanism; addressing certain areas could be achieved through partnerships (e.g. livestock conservation, policy).

  4. ISPC: Commentary on CRP 1.1 SRT5 (Strategic coherence, clarity of objectives) Proposallackscoherence: • Drivers of change in agrobiodiversityare notanalysedas basisforclearproblemidentification • Strategicfocusmissing:focusisonspecies and ecosystemsratherthanonbroadlyapplicableapproaches and principles • Proposaldoesn’t link toSLOs and benefitsof agrobiodiversity are taken as a givenwithoutaddressingtradeoffs and opportunitycosts • Proposedactivitieslacklinkagesand sequence • Alternativeproviders, CGIAR’scomparativeadvantage, linkagestootherCRPsare notelaborated

  5. ISPC: Commentary on CRP 1.1 SRT5 (Delivery focus and plausibility of impact) Content regardingbenefits and impactsisweak: • Feasibility of research and deliverystrategies are notclear • Credibletheory of changeislackingboth at thelevel of SLOs and forenhancingin situ conservation and generatingbenefitsfromit • Impactpathwayisgeneric and lackingcredibleassumptions and analysis of conditionalfactors • Importanttrade-offs are notconsidered (e.g. on incentives forconservation and use, alternativeconservationstretegies, conservation vs. productivityobjectives, divergence of drivers at individual vs. regional and global level etc.)

  6. ISPC: Commentary on CRP 1.1 SRT5 (Quality of science and partnerships) Quality of scienceisweak: • Theproposallackshypotheses; cause and effectsand benefits are assumedalthoughscientificevidenceisscarce • Researchquestions are variable, many are verybroad • Earlierexperiences and lessons are notusedto guide strategicresearchchoices • Content onpolicycomponentdoesnotsufficientlycoverCGIAR’sgeneticresourcespolicyneeds • Livestockissues are notwellpresented, includingnecessarypartnerships

  7. ISPC: Commentary on CRP 1.1 SRT5 (Program management and accountability) Management and accountability are problematicwithin CRP1.1: • SRT5 seems a stand aloneresearchtheme • The focus and objectives of SRT5 do not match with CRP1.1 • Thus, accountabilitythrough CRP1.1 wouldnotbeclear: : • Sizeableamount of researchwould be managedwithoutreferencetogoals and objectives of CRP1.1 • Forlargeamount of Bioversity research (50% of SRT5 budget) fiduciaryresponsibilitywouldgoto ICARDA • Prospectsforfillingfunding gap of USD17.9 notstrong • Budgetrequest (includinghighlevel of staffing) notsupportedbydetail • Independentoversightmechanismnotadequate.

  8. ISPC: Recommendation for CRP 1.1 SRT5 Proposal should be rejected (Fund Council Category IV for decision making) because: • the proposal does not fit as a stand-alone component within CRP1.1 to which it is only peripherally related • the scientific justification and quality of the proposed work is weak • the plausibility of impact is low However, the CGIAR has a role to play in research on in situ conservation and use of agrobiodiversity, but continued effort is needed to define this role and develop the research in a manner that supports the CGIAR reform. The Consortium Board should provide active leadership in uniting the CGIAR approach to genetic resources and global and regional arrangements for genetic resources conservation, research and policy.

More Related