1

A review of the Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development

(GCARD): An analysis of the way forward

Dr Rodney D Cooke

Independent Consultant, Rome, Italy

March 2013

This report was assembled drawing on one-to–one discussions with many colleagues working

in the area of Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) who shared their views on the

understanding that their frank opinions would remain anonymous. An e-survey pursued views

on the evolution of GCARD from GCARD 2 participants. On this basis over 200 people have

contributed to this report, but any deficiencies are the responsibility of the author.

2

Table of contents Table of contents 2

Executive Summary 4

I GCARD: The CGIAR and GFAR Context 6

I.1 GFAR: where did it come from? 6

I.2 GFAR objectives and operations 6

I.3 The CGIAR reform and GFAR 7

I.4 The Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development 8

(GCARD)

II What has GCARD Achieved to date? 9 II.1 GCARD 1 Montpellier 2010 9

II.2 GCARD 2 – Intentions 10

II.3 GCARD 2 – Results 11

III The challenges and directions for the future 13 III.1 Concerns arising from one-to–one meetings with AR4D colleagues 13

III.1 1 Expressed by many stakeholders: getting better value for

the GCARD investment – a clearer focus 13

III.1 2 National Developing Participants: National AR4D views did

not receive enough attention 13

III.1 3 Participants from regional AR4D organizations and regional

Fora: effectiveness of linkages 14

III. 1 4 CGIAR participants: the utility of GCARD to promote effective

interaction with stakeholders and partners in question 14

III.1 5 Fund Council Views: Effectiveness and Efficiency of GCARD 15

III.2 The e-survey of GCARD participants 15

III.2 1 Scope of the e-survey 15

III.2 2 Key messages concerning national and regional participation

in GCARD 16

III.2 3 Key messages concerning CGIAR participation in GCARD 17

III.2 4 Key messages concerning the Structure and Organization of

GCARD 2 18

IV Directions to evolve GCARD 19

IV.1 GCARD must be more focused to deliver results for national and

international partners in AR4D 19

IV.1 1 GCARD to focus more on development partnerships and uptake

pathways 19

IV.1 2 GCARD a process to focus on giving a clearer voice to national

and regional stakeholders 21

IV.1 3 GCARD focus to provide an accountability mechanism for CG

SRF and CRPs to stakeholders 21

IV.2 The 2 -year GCARD processes between the GCARD biennial

Conferences to be more effective 22

3

IV.3 The GCARD Conference should be a smaller more efficient meeting 23

IV.4 The GCARD Conference to be organized and structured to maximize

Networking 25

IV.5 The GCARD Conference should be organized in a developing country with

a high Agricultural GDP 27

V Conclusion and Recommendations 28 V.1 A sharper definition of the GCARD partnership focus, its interaction

with national partners, and the accountability mechanism for the

CGIAR SRF and CRPs 29

V.1 1 The GCARD partnership focus 29

V.1 2 The GCARD interaction with national partners 29

V.1 3 An accountability mechanism for the CGIAR SRF and CRPs 29

V.2 A clearer set of mechanisms to deliver the GCARD process in the 2 year

period between the GCARD Conferences 30

V.3 The design of a smaller and more efficient GCARD Conference 30

V.4 Organization and structuring the Conference to optimize networking

and effective communication 31

V.5 Locating the Conference in an appropriate developing country, with

associated design modifications 31

V.6 Conclusion 31

Annexes

Annex 1 Delivering the Change Together – Reflections on GCARD2

(November 2012) 33

Annex 2 Immediate feedback questionnaire from Participants on GCARD 2

in Uruguay, 2012 (issued 1 November 2012) 42

Annex 3 Invitation to the e-questionnaire -The evolution of GCARD-

your views on the way forward 46

Annex 4 E-survey questionnaire on GCARD 2 Uruguay, 2012 47

Annex 5 E-survey results 55

Annex 6 E-survey on GCARD 2 – representation of GFAR stakeholder

categories in GCARD 2 and in the e-survey 72 Annex 7 Responses to Q32, sorted by category of GFAR stakeholder 73

4

Executive Summary

This review begins with a brief overview of the establishment of GFAR in 1996, when it was charged

to strengthen the voices of national systems in setting and implementing the international agricultural

research agenda. GFAR objectives are described and put in the context of the CGIAR reform and

advent of GCARD in 2008. That document cited GCARD as ‘ the biennial GCARD, organized jointly

by GFAR and the CGIAR to better align the work of the CGIAR with global and regional needs and

activities’.

Section II then reviews GCARD 1 & 2 (2010 and 2012, respectively) : their aims and results. The

CGIAR observed in the SRF (2011) that it looked to GCARD 2 ‘ to (i) take, together with partners

and other stakeholders, a critical look at the current portfolio of CRPs and identify possible

adjustments needed, and (ii) formally undertake a first approach at the monitoring and feedback from

the partnering strategies through which they are implemented’.

There was much positive feedback after GCARD2: including from the survey conducted at the

conference end (repeated in Annex 1 of this report): 80% of respondents found the sessions to have

been either useful or very useful to their work, while 79% felt that the knowledge acquired is likely to

change the design or implementation of their AR4D programmes and activities. And 83% found the

partnership sessions either useful, or very useful, to their work. GCARD2 also led to a range of fifteen

new commitments to partnership, capacity development and foresight1 in the CGIAR, as voiced by

Frank Rijsberman, CGIAR Consortium CEO.

But major concerns were also expressed that need attention looking forward. Concerns arising from

one-to–one meetings (70) between the author and AR4D colleagues at GCARD2 and at other AR4D

meetings are indicated in Section III 1: as a costly operation, GCARD needs more focus; National

AR4D views did not receive enough attention; how to increase the utility of GCARD to promote

effective interaction with CGIAR stakeholders and partners in CRPs was questioned; and the Fund

Council expressed concerns about effectiveness and efficiency of GCARD.

These concerns were built on to devise an e-survey on how the GCARD process could be further

improved. A total of 31 questions were organized around 4 sections: The structure and organization of

the Conference; the nature of regional and national participation; questions about CGIAR

participation; and GFAR/GCARD communications. A final open question was framed ‘Please add any

additional comment or observations you may have that could improve the next GCARD either in

terms of the conference event itself or the process leading up to it’. The questionnaire is given in

Annex 4, and the response summaries in Annex 5. The key messages emerging are brought together in

grouped questions (section III): National and regional views well represented? Balance of

participants at the Conference? Was the process leading up to GCARD effective? Was GCARD

useful to improve CRP research partnerships? The balance between research partnership and

development partnership (uptake pathways)? Was the time used to best effect? Preparation and

organization of the event should have been better?

Section IV looks at directions to evolve GCARD in response to the messages described in Section III.

Ways are proposed by which GCARD can be more focused, effective and efficient to deliver results

for national and international partners in AR4D. This is developed into 7 recommendations covering 5

areas of GCARD evolution. GCARD2 built on the RoadMap themes and considered diverse actions

towards impacts. These intentions now need to be brought into national and regional change processes

that embed research in development. Section V brings the 7 recommendations together:

V.1 A sharper definition of the GCARD partnership focus, its interaction with national

partners, and an accountability mechanism for the CGIAR SRF and CRPs

1 Available on http://www.cgiar.org/consortium-news/our-punta-del-este-commitments

5

The GCARD partnership focus

Recommendation 1 - The GCARD partnership theme should focus to a greater

extent than in GCARD 2 on research uptake pathways: partnership with the

agricultural development community.

The GCARD interaction with national partners

Recommendation 2 - The reformed and smaller GCARD Organizing Committee should

draw more directly on the on-going national and regional programmes in designing the

Conference. That Committee also needs to oversee the changed balance of participation

comprising Recommendation 5, below.

An accountability mechanism for the CGIAR SRF and CRPs

Recommendation 3 - The GCARD focus should include providing an accountability

mechanism for CG SRF and CRPs to stakeholders, as described in Section IV 1 3.

V.2 A clearer set of mechanisms to deliver the GCARD process in the 2 year period between the

GCARD Conferences

Recommendation 4 - The GCARD joint venture between GFAR and CGIAR should

organize this two-year process more effectively, embodying this in the forthcoming SRF

Action Plan and the GFAR MTP, in order to have a more focused, effective and efficient

GCARD Conference

V.3 The design of a smaller and more efficient GCARD Conference (indicative participant

numbers are given in section IV)

Recommendation 5 - The GCARD Conference should involve a larger proportion of

rural development practitioners in a smaller more efficient meeting, which articulates

with the two year preparatory processes described above.

V.4 Organize and structure the Conference to optimize networking and effective

communication

Recommendation 6 - The GCARD Organizing Committee to adopt the principles demanded

in section III involving longer term planning and organization in the 6 month period prior to

the Conference, and the design of an interactive 3-day Conference which alternates half day

sessions on national/regional priorities and reports with half day sessions on CGIAR

SRF/CRP perspectives and reports. This would set the context for the Funders Forum and

the interaction between the CGIAR and its investors.

V.5 Locating the Conference in an appropriate developing country, with associated design

modifications

Recommendation 7 - The GCARD be organized in a lesser-developed country

capital, and that in the interests of efficiency, participants be charged a

registration fee to cover the costs of lunches and airport and field trip transport.

These Seven Recommendations are to be considered by the GFAR Steering Committee and

the CGIAR Consortium – and, at their request, the Fund Council has asked to be kept

informed. This report is to be sent to these bodies at the end of March for discussion and

decision.

6

I GCARD: The CGIAR and GFAR Context

I.1 GFAR: where did it come from?

This history has most recently been summarized in the excellent ‘the CGIAR at 40’ prepared

by Selcuk Ozgediz for the CG Fund (August 2012). The following paragraphs draw on that

publication.

The GFAR idea arose from discussions at the 1994 CGIAR mid-term meeting (MTM) in New

Delhi. This initiated dialogue on ways of more fully integrating the concerns of developing

countries into the formulation of global priorities for CG research. Dr. Serageldin, the then

CG Chair, oversaw the approval of a CG reform plan at this 1994 midterm meeting which had

the following features:

▪ A new vision statement and refocused research agenda;

▪ Governance and management reforms to ensure predictability, transparency and

accountability;

▪ NARS perspectives fully integrated into the CGIAR’s policy framework;

▪ More effective linkages with farmers’ groups (especially women’s groups) and

nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and the private sector; and

▪ A comprehensive plan of action based on the features above to be ratified by senior

officials at an international conference.

The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) was asked at this MTM to help

organize a dialogue to strengthen the voices of NARS in setting and implementing the

international agricultural research agenda. IFAD organized an international consultation,

titled Towards a NARS’ Vision on International Agricultural Research, in Rome.

Following a 2-year consultative process, the first Global Forum on Agricultural Research

(GFAR) was convened just before the CGIAR’s 1996 business meeting. This marked the first

time that various components of the global agricultural research system came together. GFAR

brought together representatives of four regional fora in (1) Asia and the Pacific, (2) Latin

America and the Caribbean, (3) sub-Saharan Africa, and (4) West Asia and North Africa, as

well as participants from advanced research institutions, NGOs, the private sector and the

CGIAR. Chaired by Fawzi Al-Sultan, the then President of IFAD, GFAR adopted, after a day

and a half of deliberations, its Declaration and Plan of Action for Global Partnership in

Agricultural Research, which was later presented at the World Food Summit in Rome in

1996.

I.2 GFAR objectives and operations

The multi-stakeholder GFAR Steering Committee determines actions to be mobilized and

delivered through the many partnerships, collaborative networks and institutions brought

together through the Forum. Mutually-agreed actions are delivered directly through the

organizations, networks and agencies involved in systems of agricultural innovation around

the world.

7

The key strategic objectives of the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR Annual

Report 2010) are:

▪ Advocacy for change through agricultural research to meet the future needs of humanity

▪ Reshaping institutions for the future to link agricultural science and society

▪ Increasing ARD effectiveness by fostering inter-regional partnership and learning

▪ Bridging the knowledge gaps and enabling the poor to access critical knowledge to

empower their own innovation and development.

The GFAR Secretariat – hosted by the Food and Agriculture Organization - facilitates, and

coordinates actions undertaken by GFAR’s extensive stakeholder networks, supported by the

Secretariat and enabled by a number of funding agencies, to transform and strengthen all

aspects of agricultural innovation systems to achieve:

▪ Better priority setting and advocacy for agricultural research, responding to key challenges

and development needs around the world

▪ Better partnerships and synergies between different sectors and institutions in agricultural

research-for-development (AR4D) systems, with farmers at the centre of these processes

▪ Institutions and their capacities transformed to meet the needs of today – and tomorrow

▪ Funding systems are aligned between research and development;

▪ Sharing and scaling-out of new knowledge and learning of all forms to foster change and

innovation.

(This section quotes the GFAR Annual report 2011, more information is available on the

EGFAR website2)

I.3 The CGIAR reform and GFAR

The essence of the Integrated Reform proposal, agreed at CG AGM 2008, was the definition

of the twin “pillars” of the system, the Consortium and the Fund. These would be connected

by bridges to ensure the integration of the system as a balanced partnership; these bridges

were:

▪ The SRF as the overarching strategic agenda to which both the funders and the doers

subscribe;

▪ The biennial Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development, organized

jointly by GFAR and the CGIAR to better align the work of the CGIAR with global and

regional needs and activities;

▪ Binding program performance contracts for each CRP between the Fund and the

Consortium and between the Consortium and the Centres; and

▪ The reconstituted Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC) to conduct

foresight studies, facilitate partnerships and provide core scientific advice to the Fund and,

upon request, to the Consortium.

This is depicted on the following page – in a Powerpoint slide presented at AGM 2008.

A major focus of this reform was to enable effective partnerships between the CGIAR and its

partners in Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D). The AGM 2008 document noted

2 http://www.egfar.org

8

that ‘the complexity of scientific advances, socioeconomic developments, and environmental

impacts, along with the higher costs associated with new lines of research, make partnerships

essential for producing and delivering international public goods in agriculture. The

Consortium’s contribution to agricultural development through research and knowledge

management must be integrated with the wider development goals and activities of other

actors, notably countries, international and regional development organizations, multilateral

organizations, advanced research institutes (ARIs), the private sector and organizations such

as AGRA’.

I.4 The Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD)

Quoting the AGM 2008 document: ‘The GCARD will be held every two years, organized by

GFAR in collaboration with the Consortium, to showcase the Consortium and partners’

research and to serve as a marketplace of advances in science for uptake by stakeholders or

for further development by the contributors to the Fund. The Conference will provide a

platform for interactions among the contributors to the Fund, other donors of restricted funds,

the Consortium, partners and other stakeholders, but it has no decision making function’.

Indeed some CG observers saw the GCARD as an important part of the accountability

mechanism to donors and partners.

The GFAR Steering Committee endorsed the GCARD concept and welcomed the opportunity

2

CONSORTIUM FUND

FUND COUNCIL

Fund Office

The Integrated Reform Proposal relies on the Strategy and

Results Framework, the “Conference” and Performance

Contracting to link the System and establish clear accountability

FUNDER SUMMIT

Global Conference for Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD)

Strategy and

Results Framework

BOARD

Centers

Consortium CEO

Consortium

Office

Partners

Science and

Partnership Council

Program Performance Contracts

Accountability:

Center

Performance

Agreements

9

to merge the objectives of the triennial GFAR Conferences with GCARD. The GCARD was

defined in 2008 by the CGIAR AGM to replace and strengthen the objectives of the earlier

CGIAR Annual General Meetings and the triennial GFAR Conferences.

II What has GCARD Achieved to date?

II.1 GCARD 1 Montpellier 2010

GCARD 1 had the euphoric setting of the completion of the design and agreements on the

reform of the CGIAR. The Transition Management Team had built on the Integrated Reform

Proposal of 2008, options for mega-programmes (subsequently re-titled as CRPs) were under

discussion. The SRF was work in progress, consequently this conference looked at broader

issues in AR4D. A principal output was the GCARD Roadmap. This proposed a series of

transformative measures required to enhance the contribution of agricultural research and

innovation towards development outcomes. It identifies 6 key elements:

▪ Collective focus on key priorities as determined & shaped by science and society

▪ True and effective partnership between research and those it serves

▪ Increasing investments to meet the huge challenges ahead

▪ Enhancing capacities to generate, share and use agricultural knowledge for development

▪ Effective linkages that embed research in wider development processes and commitments

▪ Better demonstration of impacts and returns from agricultural innovation.

The Roadmap intended to pave the way towards more responsive and relevant agricultural

research for development systems around the world, and gained some high profile

recognition:

“We welcome the “Montpellier Roadmap” coming from the first GCARD of 2010” - G20

Agriculture Ministers, June 2011.

GCARD 1’s regional and global analyses and the CGIAR Strategy and Results Framework

both highlight the need to put smallholder producers and their development needs at the

centre of consideration and to focus agricultural research for development systems on

achieving desired impacts in reducing poverty and hunger, improving human health and

nutrition and enhancing ecosystem resilience.

The Strategy and Results Framework (SRF) for the CGIAR of February 2011 noted on page

91 that:

‘The SRF has evolved in close interaction with the GCARD within GFAR. Earlier

versions of the SRF were part of the regional discussions and the research

priorities and approaches existing at the time of the GCARD 2010 were subject to

extensive discussion at the conference itself. At this time it was found that there

was broad congruence between the eight thematic areas then proposed and the

priorities and needs identified through the regional consultation process.

These discussions have been summarized in the GCARD Road Map for a

Transformed Global AR4D System and have been fully considered in the

development of the SRF..……. the CRPs represent a critical instrument for the

implementation of the Road Map objectives

10

The CGIAR CRPs have set ambitious targets for research to impact in development changes

on the ground. Achieving these objectives requires concerted actions and effective partnership

with other sectors, with shared and agreed responsibilities across the AR4D continuum. It also

requires increased AR4D system capacities and investments to enable effective delivery in

each stage of innovation pathways to impact.

Since both the CG’s SRF and the portfolio of CRPs were at an incipient stage, there was little

scope in Montpellier in 2010 for the accountability with stakeholders actions foreseen in the

GCARD concept.

II.2 GCARD 2 – Intentions

The GCARD 2012 intended to bring together the practical steps now being undertaken to

deliver the changes demanded in the Roadmap, recognizing the diverse realities and political

economies.

GCARD 2 addressed how, in practice, the AR4D stakeholders are implementing these

Roadmap objectives at national, regional and international level. Conference processes were

to develop plans for concerted actions among these stakeholders and, through open

discussion, endorse plans and partnerships to address identified needs over the subsequent 2

years to the next GCARD.3

The SRF (2011) had observed on page 92 regarding GCARD 2:

‘In the future, the interaction with the GFAR/GCARD is expected with respect

to three main aspects. The first is related to the discussion of the future

scenarios that will contextualize research priorities in the CGIAR. GCARD

2012 will come at a most appropriate time for an open discussion of the

evolution of the main drivers of the context to be addressed as well as of how

the different actors of the AR4D global system plan to position themselves to

meet the emerging challenges.’

The SRF also underlined the accountability to stakeholders function foreseen for GCARD

(paragraph 228, page 92):

‘At a more operational level, GCARD 2012 will offer the opportunity to (i)

take, together with partners and other stakeholders, a critical look at the

current portfolio of CRPs and identify possible adjustments needed, and (ii)

formally undertake a first approach at the monitoring and feedback from the

partnering strategies through which they are implemented. The diversity of

stakeholders participating in the GCARD process provides an invaluable

opportunity to bring about the plurality of views, perspectives and needs that

make the essence of the collective action approach implicit in the conception

and implementation of the SRF’.

GCARD 2 was organized along three major themes derived directly from the GCARD

RoadMap, with a specific focus on women and on meeting the needs of smallholders:

▪ Foresight for impact - matching research priorities to future development needs

▪ Partnerships for impact

3 GCARD 3 may itself take a very different form from GCARD’s 1 & 2

11

▪ Capacity development for impact.

GCARD2 intended to take stock of progress made since 2010 in transforming and

strengthening agricultural research for development systems around the world. The focus of

all sessions was on the practical actions to which interested parties are prepared to commit

and their Outcomes that can be achieved over the next two years.

The expected outcomes foreseen for GCARD2 (from the GCARD 2 flyer) were:

▪ Collective actions agreed through a Global Foresight Hub, bringing together many diverse

analyses and reviews of future needs to better inform policies and priorities

▪ The CGIAR SRF Action Plan shaped by public consultations with stakeholders

▪ Likelihood of successful impacts for smallholders enhanced through agreement on

common purposes and mutual commitments to objectives of the CGIAR research

programmes (CRPs) and other global partnership programmes

▪ Major new initiatives launched to address capacity needs around the world, increase

investment, create more attractive careers and address key barriers to impact from

agricultural research and innovation

▪ Collective actions committed to reshape AR4D systems to better reflect women’s

perspectives and enable their direct access to innovation products and services

▪ Demonstrating and renewing commitments to the transformation and strengthening of

AR4D systems at national, regional and international levels.

II.3 GCARD 2 – results

The final session of GCARD2 was a report back from the parallel sessions and overviews

from the leaders of CGIAR and GFAR. There was also a brief single sheet 9 question exit

survey (Annex 1 designed by the author, analysed by the secretariat) which participants were

asked to complete before departure. That enabled the GFAR’s Executive Secretary to issue an

initial reflection on GCARD 2, entitled ‘Delivering the Change together’ (Annex 1). Principal

messages were:

GCARD2, organized by GFAR in partnership with the CGIAR and the Government of

Uruguay, set out to move the process forward from WHAT transformation of agricultural

research for development (AR4D) is required, to HOW to implement the GCARD

Roadmap in practice and the difference it makes.

GCARD2 was a global event: with about 630 participants in Uruguay from 101 countries,

including Ministers from the region and with over 1,000 people joining on-line. There were

over 220 speakers from all sectors and regions who presented their work and its implications,

enabling discussions on 20 themes of global importance. Twenty GFAR-supported pre-

conference sessions enabled organizations such as the CGIAR, Regional Fora and FAO to

discuss their programmes in more detail with others involved and shape their inputs to the

conference itself.

The GCARD2 has also specifically explored the practical implications of partnership and

pathways to impact around the themes addressed by the new CGIAR Research Programmes.

The CGIAR Research Programmes (CRPs) formed the core framework for discussion on

partnership, setting the CRPs, as requested by the CGIAR Fund Council and the Consortium

12

Strategy and Results Framework, in the wider context of the development changes. The

CRPs are at a very early stage of implementation and are exploring their own partnerships in

practice. The open discussion, in the pre-event meetings organized with NGOs, CSOs and

farmers organizations and in the GCARD2 itself on how these large investments can be

linked with the work of others and embedded in support of national commitments were

considered useful.

This led to a range of fifteen new commitments to partnership, capacity development and

foresight in the CGIAR, as voiced by Frank Rijsberman, CGIAR Consortium CEO

(http://www.cgiar.org/consortium-news/our-punta-del-este-commitments/). For example, the

three commitments relating to partnerships focus on:

▪ Engaging through a participatory approach key stakeholders in the development of the

2013 Management Update of the CGIAR Strategy and Results Framework,

▪ Aligning CGIAR research priorities with national and regional priorities and investment

plans,

▪ Carrying out a Stakeholder Perception Survey of more than 3 thousand partners of the

CGIAR Consortium and the CRPs to serve as a baseline against which to measure and

improve the CGIAR’s partnership performance.

Dr Holderness noted (Annex 1) that GCARD2 has:

▪ Considered how AR4D systems can align with major development policies such as those

of national Governments of the G8 and G20 and the establishment of post-2015

development goals.

▪ Repositioned women farmers’ needs firmly at the centre of AR4D processes.

▪ Directly engaged the voices of youth into consideration of the issues involved.

▪ Developed and agreed collective actions that will bring together diverse foresight analyses,

to better understand future needs and priorities and help us all to shape the future.

▪ Brought a range of innovative agricultural research-for-development agendas to centre

stage: household nutrition, gender-based needs, attracting young people into agriculture,

meeting the needs of communities shattered by protracted crises, linking farmers to

markets, adapting to climate change impacts and fostering community-centred innovation.

▪ Set out what is required for solid actions to track and stimulate investments and returns and

make these more effective and comprehensive, linking public, private and civil

mechanisms.

▪ Agreed practical concerted actions to develop required capacities at national, regional and

global levels, providing a launch pad for a wide range of new partnerships, including the

CRPs, the Tropical Agriculture Platform of FAO and partners, the Global Confederation of

Higher Education Associations for the Agricultural and Life Sciences, the Gender in

Agriculture Partnership and the New Extensionist focus of GFRAS.

▪ Re-emphasized the need to focus on smallholders and for knowledge and innovations to

help lift smallholder farmers out of poverty.

▪ Addressing major environmental issues: climate change, maintaining and using agro-

biodiversity and establishing resilient landscapes and use of land, water and other natural

resources through collective actions, working across many agencies at national, regional

and international levels.

He also observed that from the survey conducted at the conference end (Annex 2): 80% of

13

respondents found the sessions to have been either useful or very useful to their work, while

79% felt that the knowledge acquired is likely to change the design or implementation of their

AR4D programmes and activities. And 83% found the partnership sessions either useful, or

very useful, to their work.

III The challenges and directions for the future

III.1 Concerns arising from one-to–one meetings with AR4D colleagues

At GCARD 2, the author of this report chaired one of the GCARD2 sessions, but also took

the opportunity to discuss with around 70 participants the evolution of GCARD. He used

those discussions, and related discussions in other AR4D meetings in recent months such as

the science forum to mark ICRISAT’s 40th Anniversary, September 2012 (which involved a

cross–section of CG and non-CG partners, many of whom participated in GCARD 2) to

consider options for the future evolution of GCARD and to design a questionnaire to sound

more generally participants’ views on GCARD and the processes leading up to this

Conference. That comprised in total around 90 AR4D colleagues who shared their views on

the understanding that their frank opinions would remain anonymous. There was much

positive comment on the outcomes of GCARD 2 - including from many that it was an

improvement on GCARD 1, but also of course many constructive concerns. This section

summarizes the direct feedback as a set of grouped concerns; the next section gives the

messages from the e-survey. These are then synthesized into a set of recommendations for a

more effective and efficient GCARD.

III.1 1 Expressed by many stakeholders: getting better value for the GCARD investment –

a clearer focus

A common concern especially from investors was that GCARD was a big inefficient show in

an expensive and perhaps questionable location. Many indicated that future GCARDs should

be in lesser-developed countries depending in a major way on agriculture. There are many

different views about GCARD’s outputs, and a common view indicated that GCARD needs to

refocus more clearly in a way that it is able to produce concrete results in terms of AR4D

commitments. Some people commented that many aspects of the organization could have

been more efficient and some spoke of the need for professional facilitation; this while

accepting that such a large gathering always poses difficult challenges. Several people spoke

of the need for smaller meetings.

III.1 2 National Developing Participants: National AR4D views did not receive enough

attention

Questions were expressed that national AR4D meetings conducted in the two year period

prior to GCARD 2 received little space, and that the emergent CRPs drove the agenda.

Alternatively expressed: the national views were bystanders in an agenda driven by

international players. Participants were asked in the break out sessions to think about ways to

commit to actions to “deliver the change”, and that this should continue after the Conference.

A number of people expressed concern that this call was based on documents and

presentations made at GCARD 2, without the possibility of prior consultation with their

colleagues and their national decision making processes. This reflected again questions about

14

to what extent GCARD 2 had been a 2 -year process, as opposed to a stand alone conference

event. Questions were also common about how national sponsored participants had been

selected – questions about the transparency of the process. Many people indicated that they

expected more emphasis on the uptake of research results and the partnership issues between

research and rural development.

III.1 3 Participants from regional AR4D organizations and regional Fora: effectiveness

of linkages

A principal concern here was the effectiveness and transparency of the linkages between

national and regional priorities and programme implementation, especially in the context of

the GCARD roadmap and the CG SRF. Some of these issues were reflected in the on-going

consultation on GFAR governance (Mannet Consulting Group) some of which interviews

were also undertaken at GCARD2. Their draft report grouped the issues into six themes:

▪ Election and the membership of GFAR’s governance bodies;

▪ Representative nature of the membership of GFAR’s governance bodies;

▪ Governance structures and associated lack of clarity as to their roles,

▪ Lack of overall accountability;

▪ Transparency of decision making

▪ Costs and weaknesses in governance support processes.

III.1 4 CGIAR participants: the utility of GCARD to promote effective interaction with

stakeholders and partners in question

There were many critical and constructive observations from CG participants, unsurprisingly

since GCARD is a joint GFAR-CGIAR venture. To quote Monty Jones, GFAR Chair as

recorded in the FC8 minutes (which followed GCARD2): he pointed out that the GCARD

Organizing Committee (OC) had two members from the CGIAR (a DG and a member of the

Consortium Office) mandated to ensure CGIAR focus in GCARD2 and to strike the right

balance between the CGIAR and the other stakeholders. The author was provided with copies

of the OC minutes; and this aspect was illustrated by comments such as “The Consortium

Office representative noted that to maximize discussion on the substance of the GCARD2,

the Outline Agenda has been shared with the CRP Directors and DGs of the CGIAR Centres

at different stages of the work of the OC for their comments and feedback. No further

feedback has been received on the last draft, which she considers to be the CGIAR

Consortium’s endorsement of the agenda as now developed.” Prior to GCARD2, a GFAR

visit to Uruguay had involved also the Consortium Board Chair who agreed to the structure

(Chairs of Sessions, etc) and agenda of GCARD. And apart from the DG/Consortium Office

involvement with the OC, the ISPC including its Chair was also often consulted. The ISPC

was directly involved in shaping and chairing some of the sessions. That said the OC was a

large committee with sometimes around 24 people involved in the face–to-face and virtual

meetings. Such large and diverse committees are always going to be challenged to operate as

a decision making body.

Monty Jones also noted at FC 8 that as requested by the CGIAR representatives in the

Organizing Committee, the GCARD2 Conference, and its preparatory sessions, directly

involved leaders of the 13 active CRPs as central to discussion on partnerships required to

impact, while the foresight sessions directly responded to the strong request for more

attention to this area, in order to strengthen the value of the SRF action plan. Twelve of the

15

breakout session chairs or facilitators came from the CGIAR.

That said the CG participants views on what they desired GCARD to be were expressed in

different ways:

▪ CG feels GCARD offers inadequate interaction with donors – unlike the old Centres Week

▪ There should be a Centres Week/business meeting every 2 years alternating with the

broader GCARDs. Others state that donors do not want another meeting, especially one of

CG managers selling CRP virtues: they prefer to hear this from CG partners and by seeing

development outcomes drawing on CG research outcomes.

▪ GCARD is not working – for the CG reform – need for more objectivity and less ‘politics’

in the process; we need an AGM type component.

▪ CRPs were not given enough exposure in the programme – yet some CRP managers

indicated an extended interaction with stakeholders would have been too soon after

programme start-up.

▪ Too many constituencies at GCARD to permit a focussed meeting on CG progress.

▪ Some suggested variants of a hybrid GCARD: 2 days of GCARD broader AR4D sessions,

then 2 days of CRP updates and 1 day bringing this together.

III.1 5 Fund Council Views: Effectiveness and Efficiency of GCARD

Turning again to the FC8 minutes (CG Fund Office, 28 November 2012) the summary of

those in the majority donor members’ views (most of whom had participated in the

GCARD2) is expressed as follows:

▪ FC members commented that there is a need for a process to bring the range of

stakeholders into the research priority setting debate and providing an opportunity to

partner together to implement the research.

▪ Some FC members felt that the GCARD conferences were not providing stakeholder

feedback to the CGIAR or to the CRPs, which is what the GCARD is meant to do.

▪ Some FC members commented that a forum where CRP research and how to move the

agenda forward in an operational way would be very welcome, however GCARD is not

delivering it as yet.

▪ FC members commented that the link between GCARD and the CGIAR is not clear. The

GCARD is too large to provide feedback on systems and processes that could feed CRP

research into national programs.

▪ FC members commented that the general perception, including that expressed at GCARD2

is that the CRPs are not adequately engaged with the national agricultural research systems

and do not appreciate the benefits of partnering with them.

III.2 The e-survey of GCARD participants

III.2 1 Scope of the e-survey

The questionnaire was constructed around the concerns brought forward in the discussions

and meetings described in section III 1. A total of 31 questions were organized around 4

sections: The structure and organization of the Conference; the nature of regional and national

participation; questions about CGIAR participation; and GFAR/GCARD communications. A

final open question was framed ‘Please add any additional comment or observations you may

16

have that could improve the next GCARD either in terms of the conference event itself or the

process leading up to it’.

GFAR provided the author with a list of participants with 630 names. Of these 60 had no e-

mail addresses and when the list was incorporated into the Survey Monkey system, an

additional 35 were returned as not known. Despite Internet search, only 5 of these were

corrected. Finally 20 names were either out of office for most of the survey period and or

some of these declined to do the survey on the grounds that they had organizational roles in

GCARD 2. In total this left 520 names. After the defined three-week period for responses

(with a chaser message after two weeks), 152 responses were received. This corresponds to

29%, slightly higher than the globe-scan survey of CG perceptions of partnerships, conducted

in December 2012. This GCARD survey had the disadvantage that the CG launched a Survey

monkey directed at CG branding issues at an overlapping period. That said, the combination

of one-to-one discussions and this e-survey equates to more than 200 people contributing to

the clear messages summarized in the following pages.

The blank questionnaire and the invitation e-mail are presented in Annex 4 and 3 respectively.

The summary data for each question from the 152 respondents is given in Annex 5. These are

given in the form of clear bar charts, but the numerical data behind them are also presented.

The breakdown of respondents by category is given in Annex 6. A total of 62 respondents

offered views in response to the open question 32. These are given in Annex 7 where they

have been grouped by stakeholder category (as in question 1).

III.2 2 Key messages concerning the Structure and Organization of GCARD 2

The term ‘supported’ will be used in the following Q summaries to mean participants ‘agreed’

or ‘strongly agreed’ with the assertion in the Question; ‘did not support’ corresponding to

‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’. The detail can be seen in Annex 5. If there was similar

agreement across the stakeholder groups, the summary below will refer just to the ‘all

respondents’ position, commenting on any marked differences.

Was the time used to best effect? These concerns revolved around the themes selected, the

balance between side–events and plenary sessions, formal presentations and informal

discussions and networking. Q3 covered some of the same ground as in the one page exit

survey (conducted in the closing session of GCARD 2, the positive feedback from which is

summarized in section II 2). In answer to rating ‘The thematic balance of the presentations

and discussions in the plenary and break-out sessions’ 76% answered good or very good.

There was some diversity among the group with CG registering 60%, whereas the farmers,

CSO/NGOs and Public sector AR4D in the developing world groups all registered around

90%. Qs 4, 5 and 6 gave strong messages (in all three Qs the support exceeded 75%) that

there should be less formal presentations/PWPs, more time for break-out sessions and less

time for plenaries (Q 8). The open-ended responses to Q32 also criticized sharply the low

value of much of the plenary time. Q7 offered ‘More time should have been devoted to free or

open sessions outside the plenary and breakout sessions (eg market place, meetings at the

exhibits, bilateral meetings)’ this met with a cool response only 46% supported. But the field

trip (Q 9) was supported by 64% (26% disagreeing). The pressures on participants time

perhaps underlined that some structure and organization is necessary to maximize the

networking.

Preparation and organization of the event should have been better? Q 27 gained 86% support

17

for receiving an indicative programme much earlier – all the groups were close on this issue.

While Q 11 indicated that the session thematic briefing papers, and guidance notes on what

was expected of the GCARD sessions and their outputs were sent out too late to achieve the

best results (the donor group was especially critical); and Q 12 responses affirm that little use

was made of them. The communication questions 28-31 provide useful information on

communicating news on GCARD. Turning to social media, this achieved wide coverage for

GCARD beyond direct participants, but interestingly for participants, blog-posts and twitter

received little attention compared with news releases (Q 30).

III.2 3 Key messages concerning national and regional participation in GCARD

National and regional views well represented? Q 16 asked participants if national and

regional views were well represented. Only 39% of participants supported this assertion ie

agreed or strongly agreed, whereas 42% did not support it, ie disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Responses were similar across the stakeholder groups, except for the donors group that

strongly disagreed (68%).

Balance of participants at the Conference? Q13 &14 examined the question were research

stakeholders (public sector AR4D orgs., CGIAR staff, IARCs) over-represented, and

development partners (farmer, farmers' org, CSO, NGO, private sector) under-represented as

a proportion of all participants.

Half (50%) supported this assertion and 30% did not support it (the OECD and CSO/NGO

groups were most supportive: around 70%). Q 14 asked people to rate this in terms of the 7

categories of stakeholder group in Q1. Four groups were assessed as under-represented:

farmer/farmer organizations, CSO/NGO, private sector, and public sector AR4D

organisations in the developing world, as seen in the figure on the next page.

0 30 60 90 120 150

Over-represented

Farmer, farmers' organization

CSO, NGO

Private sector

Public sector AR4D organisation in the developing world

Public sector AR4D organisation in the OECD country

CGIAR staff, IARCS

Donor, bilateral or multilateral

Participation just right

Under-represented d

er-represe

18

Q 17 &18 followed this issue up in terms of national and regional participants.

‘National and regional research views were better represented than the views of national and

regional development partners’ – 53% supported this view as opposed to 43% against. In

reply to ‘The representation of regional and national AR4D participants at GCARD should

include more development partners’ - 75% supported and only 13% disagreed:

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Was the process leading up to GCARD effective? Q10 asked ‘Pre-conference events should

have been preceded by preparatory meetings and discussions in the regions’- 62% supported

this and only15% disagreed. Especially strong support was given by Public sector AR4D in

the developing world and by the CSO/NGO groups: 75% and 87%, respectively. The

GCARD 1 roadmap was raised in Q19 “The GCARD Road map was warmly welcomed, but

concerns were expressed that inadequate follow-up advocacy was undertaken. Regional Fora

executive meetings and associated events should include in their agenda and advocacy

programmes the GCARD road map?’ – 76% supported this and only 7% disagreed. The

process between GCARDs was again the topic of Q15 ‘GCARD is intended as a process

bringing together key issues identified by GFAR stakeholders as advances and or limitations

to AR4D, following the GCARD Roadmap. GFAR stakeholders continue to develop these

issues in the two-year period between GCARDs, during their regular electronic and face- to-

face exchanges and meetings. These national and regional actions on Road map issues were

well represented at GCARD 2?’- 39% supported this assertion and 42% disagreed. The donor

group were strongest in their disagreement (61%).

III.2 4 Key messages concerning CGIAR participation in GCARD

Was GCARD useful to improve CRP research partnerships? In the exit survey, 60% of the

CG participants indicated that GCARD2 was likely to change their approach to existing or

new partnerships. In this more detailed e-survey (conducted 3 months later), Q 25 asserted

‘GCARD 2 led to strengthening of research design and implementation of CRPs’ – 33%

supported this and 37% did not (30% no strong view). The CG group recorded only 22%

support for this assertion. This disappointment was examined in greater depth in Q 20 ‘The

sessions involving CRPs should include a clearer focus on linking CRPs to regional and

national research priorities’ – 80% supported this (the donors were most emphatic again

recording 90% support); Q22 asked ‘Perhaps in future the CRP sessions should be explicitly

Disagree entirely

Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

No strong view

19

linked to the CRP annual reports emerging in the two year period between GCARDs’ 68%

supported this with only10% disagreeing. Q 23 reverted to the SRF: GCARD3 should

include an update on the CG SRF Action Plan and its relationship to regional and national

priorities.’ – 88% supported this (the donor group recording 99% support, the CG group a

more ambivalent 51%).

The balance between research partnership and development partnership (uptake pathways)?

Q21 led on this with ‘CRP partnership sessions focused primarily on research priorities, and

perhaps more emphasis should have been given to uptake pathways and development

partners?’ – 75% supported this suggestion. All the groups were similar with the farmers

group recording the highest support at 83%:

This is consistent with Q 24 ‘GCARD2 was useful in improving the understanding of the

CRPs among non-CGIAR stakeholders’ led to a reply of 58% supporting , and 30%

disagreeing, with little difference between the groups. Similarly with Q26 ‘Do you consider

that GCARD 2 led to strengthening of CRP links to development, and to stronger uptake

pathways?’ - led to a negative reply of 34% supporting and 40% not supporting. The CG and

donor groups were most negative with slightly over 50% of each group not supporting this

assertion.

IV Directions to evolve GCARD

IV.1 GCARD to be more focused to deliver results for national and international

partners in AR4D

IV.1 1 GCARD to focus more on development partnerships and uptake pathways

GCARD 2 looked at issues pertinent to strengthening research partnerships and partnerships

with the development community –the way to uptake pathways. This was too broad a focus

Some say that the CRP partnership sessions focused primarily on research priorities, and that more emphasis should have been given to uptake pathways

and development partners. What is your view:

disagree entirely

disagree

agree

strongly agree

no strong view

20

and the feedback in Section III indicates that neither aim was a success – GCARD fell

between the two stools. The feedback is also clear that development and uptake pathways

should be the principal focus. The GCARD with its broad representation of AR4D

stakeholders should be a platform to develop agricultural innovation and interface with the

national and international rural development community. The CGIAR via its CRP meetings

with partners has research partnerships as a principal focus. The biennial CG Science Forum

alternates with the biennial GCARD; at the apex level, the CG Science Forum could be

employed in part to encompass the issue of strengthening CG research partnerships-

especially now that the CRPs are underway. GFAR sponsored some of the participants at the

Science Forum as part of its concern to strengthen partnerships. As in the case of GCARD 1

and 2, the focus of the first two Science Fora was on general issues of agricultural research

and foresight, perhaps now it can articulate closer with the CGIAR reality and the need to

strengthen research partnerships. Indeed the Centres have expressed concern that they have

yet to see any ‘P’ in ISPC, as defined in the Integrated Reform Proposal of 2008.

Responses to Q32

A donor: “future GCARDs to focus on concrete outcomes …and be used as a dialogue for

CGIAR prioritisation and development pathways, this should be an explicit aim and sessions

should be organised accordingly”.

A farmers’group member: “Farmers and FO's should be brought into the process …….Pre

conference meetings and side events may be the best way to achieve this, and to improve the

uptake success of the research”.

A Public sector developing country comment: “More discussions, interactions and analyses

should be held on the progress made in achieving the MDGs and the role of the regional and

international organizations”.

The SRF Action Plan approved in November 2012 necessitates that CRPs develop

Intermediate Development Objectives (IDOs) linking research outcomes to CGIAR’s

contribution to the development objectives embodied in the four SLOs. This is not easy for

the CGIAR, because of the complexity of rural development and the limited role that research

can play. The CG should look to effective partnerships with the development community-

national and international - for effective uptake pathways to SLOs. The outcomes of research

are unlikely to be realized at the level of SLOs unless they are articulated with national

development programmes. GCARD is one way to monitor and strengthen the routes to these

IDOs. In GCARD 2 developing country AR4D participation was very much from the

national agricultural research institutes. These should remain a key stakeholder group, but a

broader representation of the national agricultural system – especially those concerned with

national agricultural development should participate in future GCARDs, and in the two year

processes between the Conferences.

Recommendation 1 - The GCARD partnership theme should focus to a

greater extent than in GCARD 2 on research uptake pathways:

partnership with the agricultural development community.

This carries with it that future GCARDs need to re-balance the stakeholder participation as

outlined in Recommendation 5.

IV.1 2 GCARD a process to focus on giving a clearer voice to national and regional

21

stakeholders

The feedback of section III indicates concern that this joint GFAR-CGIAR process gives

inadequate attention to national priorities and constraints in AR4D. GCARD is intended as a

process bringing to a head, key issues identified by GFAR stakeholders as advances and or

limitations to AR4D. GFAR stakeholders continue to develop these issues in the two-year

period between GCARDs during their regular electronic and face-to-face exchanges and

meetings. For example the GFAR regional fora have regular Executive Committee meetings

and Assemblies. National partners have programme meetings with bilateral and multilateral

donors, involving CSOs, and technical assistance partners. National and regional partners

should also consider more closely their expectations of the CRPs during the two-year period

between Conferences.

The GCARD Organizing Committee comprises representatives of the 7 GFAR stakeholder

groups and interacts with the GFAR programme committee (drawing principally on regional

and hence national AR4D partners). The challenge to this Organizing Committee is to distil

messages from these different sources and to capture the key issues into a GCARD structure.

The Section III feedback clearly indicates that this needs closer attention. To facilitate this,

the GFAR is currently looking at ways of streamlining and reducing the size of its

committees. That reformed committee needs to orchestrate a more integrated two-year

process. This process must ensure that the voice of the national and regional stakeholders is

expressed more effectively in the design of future GCARDs. Furthermore the concerns about

representativity and balance (Section III.1 3) need to be confronted. The e-survey indicated

the need for a greater representation from national development partners rather than the

current heavy emphasis on national research institutes.

A CG/CRP response to Q32: “Development outcomes/ and impact are at the regional level

and regional fora should be the vehicle to engage with national partners/ and development

organisations in regions”.

Recommendation 2 - The reformed and smaller GCARD organizing

committee should draw more directly on the on-going national and

regional programmes in designing the Conference. That Committee also

needs to oversee the changed balance of participation comprising

Recommendation 5, below.

IV.1 3 GCARD focus to provide an accountability mechanism for CG SRF and CRPs

to stakeholders

A key part of the GCARD focus should be on providing an accountability mechanism for CG

SRF and CRPs to stakeholders. With the advent of CRP implementation, GCARD was

foreseen as part of the feedback process from stakeholders – whether partners in research,

development or investors- to the CG. Indeed the integrated reform proposal agreed by the

CGIAR membership at AGM 2008, indicated GCARD as one of the reform elements

bridging the two pillars of the reform - the CGIAR Consortium and the CGIAR Fund -

alongside the ISPC and the Performance contracts (with their associated M &E provisions).

22

GCARD 2 was hampered in performing this role by the only recent start-up of most of the

CRP portfolio and indeed by the early stage of design of the SRF. Future Organizing

committees should focus on the presentation of the SRF in the context of regional and

national IAR4D priorities, and present a forum for the CRP accountability process with

stakeholders (Section III 2 3). The CGIAR has regular meetings of various CRP committees

reporting to the Consortium and Fund Council. The outputs of these meetings should be

bought together as defining inputs to future GCARD Conferences - the analogue of the two –

year process at the national level indicated above. The GFAR governance review is pointing

at ways that the earlier large GCARD Organizing Committee can be subsumed in a smaller

GFAR Executive Committee which may operate more easily with a similar number of CG

Consortium Members to achieve a more effective GFAR-CGIAR joint venture.

A Public sector OECD response to Q32: “The cycle of GCARD processes leading to biennial

Conferences should be read as an institutionalized mechanism for better legitimizing and

providing increased accountability to the international agricultural research agenda, and

ensuring a global level of monitoring and evaluation”.

Recommendation 3 - The GCARD focus should include providing an

accountability mechanism for CG SRF and CRPs to stakeholders, drawing

on a two year CRP consultation process, similar to that described above.

IV.2 The 2 -year GCARD processes between the GCARD biennial Conferences

to be more effective

Section III suggests that much of the desired integrated 2-year process between the GCARD

Conferences is rather aspirational.

A Public sector developing country response to Q32: “The GCARD2 was good conference,

however, it was too big. It could be better if preceded by regional conferences for key issues

and resolutions presented during conference, with objective of establishing complement

between regions”.

The GFAR Mid-Term Plan is currently undergoing an update and focusing. This embraces

the AR4D actions of national and regional partners, together with the facilitation and

advocacy functions of the GFAR secretariat. This will be a medium to promote a more

coherent two-year process involving GCARD. The work in progress on the SRF Action Plan

should also integrate the re-cast GCARD as one of its accountability mechanisms. The

Communication processes covered in Qs 28-31, together with the CG Consortium media,

should then be brought into play to support this more effective GCARD process.

Recommendation 4 - The GCARD joint venture between GFAR and

CGIAR should organize this two-year process more effectively, embodying

this in the forthcoming SRF Action Plan and the GFAR MTP, in order to

23

have a more focused, effective and efficient GCARD Conference

IV.3 The GCARD Conference should be a smaller, more efficient meeting

A GCARD Conference which builds on a series of national and regional GFAR and CRP

meetings, as described above, could draw on principal representatives of that two year process

and could thus be smaller than the 800 participants of GCARD 1 and 630 of GCARD 2. This

would also permit the reduced number of sessions and parallel break-out groups demanded in

Section III, and facilitate more effective networking. The selection of participants should also

reflect the greater focus embodied in recommendation 1.

A CG/CRP response to Q32: “It is far too large (over 800 people); there are too many

sessions and speakers (over 200); the way the meeting is run does not allow a proper

interaction among participants in general and even less among attendees reflecting different

knowledge and experience in the various topics selected for the meeting”

The following paragraphs illustrate how the GCARD Organizing committee may accomplish

this. The table below gives the composition of GCARD 2 participants by stakeholder

category. And the breakdown of GFAR sponsored participants is given; 32 of these 132

participants were nominated by CRP managers. In addition some other donors supported

people, such as CTA (around 20 people from ACP countries).

The recommendations above necessitate a shift in the balance of participation from the

research community to the development community- this was a minor proportion of the

GCARD 2 participants. For this reason, the suggested number of national research institute,

CG/CRP and international research participants decreases. But their views are to be

communicated by their representatives drawing on the two-year processes indicated above.

GCARD 2

Participants’ list %

Sponsored by

GFAR %

National Research insts. 157 24.9 32 24.2

Regional orgs 38 6.0 9 6.8

CG and CRP 118 18.7 5 3.8

International research orgs 39 6.2 4 3.0

International orgs 55 8.7 8 6.1

Educational orgs 22 3.5 14 10.6

Donors and IFIs 34 5.4 0 0.0

Farmers orgs 23 3.7 18 13.6

NGO/CSOs 24 3.8 17 12.9

Private sector 5 0.8 5 3.8

Advisory services 8 1.3 6 4.5

Other 107 17.0 14 10.6

Total 630 100.0 132

Some participants spoke of some of these groups of participants being represented by ‘focus

groups’ who would be in contact with their constituencies before and during the conference

by web-cast and other ICT links.

24

The GCARD 2 participants from the national development community relate primarily to:

▪ Farmers orgs

▪ NGO/CSOs

▪ Private sector

▪ Advisory services.

In GCARD 2 this totalled 60 people. This should increase to at least 100 participants, and is

described here by the abbreviation National Agricultural System (NAS). The numbers of

international organizations, regional organizations are smaller decreases, but with the

expectation that the balance between such research participants and development community

participants would move in the direction of the latter. Similarly for the large number of ‘other’

which in GCARD 2 drew largely on consultants and other organizations largely in the

research sector.

What does this mean for the two largest groups in GCARD 2: national and regional research

orgs and the CG/CRP group? CRPs produce annual reports for the Consortium and Fund

Council, these involve interim stakeholder meetings both virtual and in person. CRP sessions

at GCARD should be based on distillation of this 2-year progress since the previous GCARD;

ie CG participation could be along the lines of 15 CRP managers, 15 DGs and one other

Centre representative (DDG or other) total 45 people with Consortium CEO plus 5-10, around

60 from CG.

GFAR regional fora have annual steering committees and various technical and associated

stakeholder meetings both virtual and in person. For GCARD 2 there were 15 sponsored

participants per region (4 of the regions in Africa, 2 in Asia, I in LAC; in addition but non-

sponsored EFARD and N. America) and some additional people from NARS sponsored at the

request of CRP and donors -For example, CTA (20 ish). If the GCARD becomes a more

effective process, the 2-year national and regional AR4D actions focused by e-sessions in the

6-month period leading up to GCARD could channel, via the GFAR organizing committee,

into a more focused participation. For example, around 6 a region may be appropriate.

Donor and FC participation – self –financed as now- is thought likely to be similar to present

participation.

A Public sector developing country response to Q32: “the formal invitation, the Program,

and Background reading material be sent out well in advance (minimum 2 months) to allow

enough time for travel arrangements and technical preparations”.

What does this mean for the number of sponsored participants? The proportion in GCARD 2

is estimated at around 200 financed from all sources of which 132 by GFAR. Many of the

national participants would look to sponsorship, but the expectation is that a higher proportion

of these would be financed by national and international development finance, including more

CRP partnership funds. One might estimate that even for this reduced total number, at least

150 participants would be sponsored, but perhaps only 70-80 directly by GFAR.

Model of possible participants list

GCARD 2 Future GCARD

National Research insts. 157

40

Regional orgs 38

20

25

CG and CRP 118

60

International research orgs 39

15

International orgs 55

20

Educational orgs 22

10

Donors and IFIs 34

35

Farmers orgs 23 NAS

NGO/CSOs 24 NAS 100

Private sector 5 NAS

Advisory services 8 NAS

Other 107

50

total 630

350

Recommendation 5 - The GCARD Conference should involve a larger

proportion of rural development practitioners in a smaller more efficient

meeting, which articulates with the two year preparatory processes

described above.

IV.4 Organize and structure the Conference to optimize networking and effective

communication

This was a very strong message from Section III. This necessitates less parallel sessions and

less low–value plenaries, incorporating less formal presentations and set piece presentations.

CG/CRP responses to Q32: “The informal networking is critical and we should make time

for this, and even provide semi-facilitated/catalyzed process spaces for this”…. “Next

GCARD: No more powerpoints. Better practical preparation of all sessions”

This might be achieved along the lines indicated here. In the 6 months period before the

Conference, the 15 CRPS would be meeting with stakeholders to update on targets, M&E and

agree reports to feed into the accountability operation of the GCARD Conference. National

and regional organizations would collate their processes in order to determine the GCARD

structure. Three months before the Conference the draft agenda and participants list would be

circulated.

There was much talk about the value of pre-conference events; perhaps half of the participants

arrived in time to participate in some of these events at GCARD 2. A danger of promoting

pre-conference events is that it may diminish the commitment to that essential 6 month pre-

planning and organization at national and regional level (the sentiment we can “wrap it up in

the Pre-conference weekend”). Some complained that they had not been granted a pre-

conference slot or at the wrong time. Others spoke of the merit of pre-conference events in

the 2 days before the conference focusing on 15 small CRP meetings with national partners.

One strong view emerging is that pre-conference events should not be part of the GFAR-

CGIAR organized Conference. The GCARD Organizing Committee could put in place with

the national partner of the GCARD Host Country an arrangement whereby GCARD

participants could book during the weekend prior to the conference, meeting rooms at the

hotel(s) hosting the GCARD. This would be for the national organization or CRP manager

26

wishing to convene the event to arrange and finance.

GCARD: interaction between national/regional partners and CRPs

Day one of the conference would open with a short welcoming plenary (max. one hour)

followed in the morning with 3 parallel CG coordinated sessions which could bring together 3

groupings of the CRPs. These would be defined by the Consortium for the scope for mutual

learning across theme and geographies. For example: the commodity /value chain group; the

systems group and the policy /institution set (perhaps including CRP 2, 4 and 7). The extent

to which these 3 sessions would be subdivided into breakout sessions would be for the CG to

decide. The afternoon would comprise coordinated regional meetings, drawing on national

partners and CRP stakeholders as they see fit. This alternating half-day session led by

CGIAR and half day session led by other GFAR stakeholders is repeated on day 3. Other

variants are of course possible especially if the period is extended to 4 days (or the field trip is

waived) in which case the alternating period could be one day.

Day two is for the field trip and bilateral meetings and the collation of reports from day 1.

Day three am is for CG update of SRF and accountability report (perhaps mix of the 3

groupings, followed by a summary plenary). Day three pm is for GFAR and their stakeholder

groups highlights to plenary, followed by GCARD closure. In all parallel and plenary sessions

formal report back time should be maximum half of the corresponding session time.

GCARD: interaction between national and international investors (donors) and CRPs

This is a concern expressed by many CG staff. Day 1 of this re-designed GCARD provides

for the informal discussion of progress and concerns between investors and CRPs. The

fundamental advantage to donors is that these discussions are not simply between donor and

CG, but involve principal CRP national stakeholders. As one donor commented we do not

want to listen to how well the CRP is going from CG staff, but to listen to their partners.

Similar pressures demanding evidence–based performance, and Results Management

Frameworks (RMF) are increasing on all (rural) development organizations. For example,

the Annual Report on IFAD’s Development Effectiveness is based on such an RMF. That

2012 report notes that IFAD’s RMF is an important step in the path from the world of

‘development anecdotes’ to one of recorded and measured performance in areas that are

important for the achievement of impact. It is also an attempt to move beyond self-assessment

by IFAD of its own performance: reports prepared by governments on project performance at

completion are compared with findings of the Independent Office of Evaluation of IFAD;

assessment of country programme performance is made by IFAD’s country partners; and the

quality of project designs is assessed by an arm’s-length panel of external experts. This is an

insistent requirement from the donor community. The old style CGIAR Centres Week, where

Centres would extol their virtues, based on their own reports and assessments is now likely to

command little traction from donors.

Day 3 morning of this re-designed GCARD provides for the more formal discussion of

progress: the SRF update followed by the headline results report and IDOs from the CRPs.

This is complemented in the afternoon by the perspectives from national partners.

Day 3 would ideally run into the Funders’ Forum of day 4 (day 1 of the Fund Council

27

Secretariat-organized Fund Council). This is now a smaller meeting: donors and CGIAR,

perhaps between 60 and 80 participants. An option is to devote the morning to participants

holding meetings at 15 different CRP locations – booths /small meeting rooms – to focus on

progress/indicators/finance. The morning to include breakfast and lunch time corresponds to 6

hours ie around 12 such meetings could be arranged by CRP managers (the previous evening

could also be used for such meetings, adding an additional 3-4 hours). The afternoon would

be plenary: The Consortium presenting and discussing the SRF and system level IDOs (1

hour of primary concern especially to window 1 investors); followed by maximum 3 CRP

managers presenting key advances and CRP level IDOs of the three groupings of CRPs. This

GCARD and Funders Forum would then inform the decision-making Fund Council sessions

of the following day (restricted of course to FC members and their invited participants); ie

The Funders Forum would be more useful if it precedes the Fund Council

Recommendation 6 - The GCARD organizing committee to adopt the

principles demanded in section III involving longer term planning and

organization in the 6 month period prior to the Conference, and the design

of an interactive 3- day Conference which alternates half day sessions on

national/regional priorities and reports with half day sessions on CGIAR

SRF/CRP perspectives and reports. This would set the context for the

Funders Forum and the interaction between the CGIAR and its investors.

IV.5 GCARD conference should be organized in a developing country with a high

Agricultural GDP

In other words using WDR terminology, an agricultural country (as opposed to a country in

transition or urbanized), confronting the rural development issues of GCARD and the

CGIAR. Many comments were received in section III, about the desirability of locating

GCARD in a developing country easier and cheaper to get to than Uruguay. Examples cited

included Ethiopia and Bangladesh. Inspection of the principal countries in which the 15 CRPs

are developing their programmes is likely to indicate a list of maybe 8-10 countries that

should be prime locations for future GCARDs. The choice of a capital city may ensure that

good Internet (and Skype) and video–conferencing may offer the possibility to further reduce

the in-person participation to less than 300 people. This possibility was raised in Section IV.3,

the notion that some of the categories of participants being represented by ‘focus groups’ who

would be in contact with their constituencies before and during the conference by web-cast

and other ICT links. This depends critically on effective Internet and ICT facilities. That said,

this is a global Conference which demands a certain critical mass of participants to cover the

broad range of AR4D issues, but keeping the numbers at or below 300 offers further

networking efficiency gains. An interaction of future GCARDs with FAO regional

Conferences may be worth exploring.

28

Responses to Q32

A Public sector OECD response: “The venue should be chosen based on the easiness to

reach: easy access and costs”.

A NGO/CSO response: “Although the conference got wide coverage on-line, not much of it

was reported about it in traditional media. We need to engage journalists from traditional

media especially in the developing world”

A CG/CRP comment: “Africa for the next GCARD eg, Ethiopia”

Many people spoke of the inefficiencies created in GCARD 2 by the necessity to use a large

number of dispersed hotels. Reducing the total participants to around 300 in a capital city

should offer the possibility of using maximum 1-3 hotels in close vicinity.

GCARD 1 & 2 were run in countries that were very generous and provided lunches and other

extras. This is unlikely in a developing country. But if participants have to pay for lunches,

time is lost as money is transacted and or people look for different places to eat. Both effects

decrease networking efficiency. The alternative is to charge participants a registration fee to

substitute for the generosity of a richer country. For example 300 participants charged US$

350 registration fee generates US$ 105, 000 which should cover 3 day lunches, the field trip

and airport transport costs and even a Conference dinner. Such a fee is a small percentage of

travel and accommodation costs (not to mention the value of participants’ time), and is

recommended for time efficiency reasons.

Recommendation 7 - The GCARD be organized in a lesser-developed

country capital, and that in the interests of efficiency, participants be

charged a registration fee to cover the costs of lunches and airport and

field trip transport.

V Conclusion and Recommendations

The recommendations developed in Section IV cover five areas

1. A sharper definition of the GCARD partnership focus, its interaction with national

partners, and an accountability mechanism for the CGIAR SRF and CRPs

2. A clearer set of mechanisms to deliver the GCARD process in the 2 year period between

the GCARD Conferences

3. The design of a smaller and more efficient GCARD Conference

4. Organization and structuring the Conference to optimize networking and effective

communication

5. Locating the Conference in an appropriate developing country, with associated design

modifications

29

V.1 A sharper definition of the GCARD partnership focus, its interaction with

national partners, and an accountability mechanism for the CGIAR SRF and

CRPs

V.1 1 The GCARD partnership focus

The partnership elements of GCARD 2 confronted both research partnerships and

partnerships with the development community –the way to uptake pathways. This was too

ambitious; the feedback in Section III indicates that GCARD fell between the two stools. The

Section III message is clear that the uptake pathways should be the principal focus. The

GCARD with its broad representation of AR4D stakeholders should be a platform to develop

agricultural innovation and interface with the national and international rural development

community. From the CG standpoint, the outcomes of research are unlikely to be realized at

the level of SLOs unless they are articulated with national development programmes. The CG

needs to develop effective partnerships with the development community for effective uptake

pathways to SLOs. This carries with it that future GCARDs need to re-balance the

stakeholder participation as outlined in Recommendation 5. In GCARD 2 developing country

AR4D participation was very much from the national agricultural research institutes. These

should remain a key stakeholder group, but a broader representation of the national

agricultural system – especially those concerned with national agricultural development

should participate in future GCARDs, and in the two year processes between the Conferences.

Recommendation 1 - The GCARD partnership theme should focus to a

greater extent than in GCARD 2 on research uptake pathways:

partnership with the agricultural development community.

V.1 2 The GCARD interaction with national partners

The feedback of section III indicates concern that this joint GFAR-CGIAR process gives

inadequate attention to national priorities and constraints in AR4D. Moves in hand to involve

more coherently the national and regional meetings and fora, and to sharpen the GCARD

organizing committee are indicated in Section IV 1 2. Further the concerns in Section III.1 3

on representativity, balance and transparency of the processes and mechanisms linking

regional and national issues needs to be confronted. The GFAR governance review is

assessing these issues. The survey conducted here also points to a change in GCARD

participation to a more balanced National Agricultural System: increasing the proportion of

development partners.

Recommendation 2 - The reformed and smaller GCARD organizing

committee should draw more directly on the on-going national and

regional programmes in designing the Conference. That Committee also

needs to oversee the changed balance of participation comprising

Recommendation 5, below.

V.1 3 An accountability mechanism for the CGIAR SRF and CRPs

A key message is the need for GCARD to include as a major feature the presentation of the

SRF in the context of regional and national IAR4D priorities, and presenting a forum for a

CRP accountability process with stakeholders. The integration of this with the on-going

30

implementation, M & E, and consultation processes during the 2-year period between the

GCARD Conferences is outlined in Section IV.

Recommendation 3 - The GCARD focus should include providing an

accountability mechanism for CG SRF and CRPs to stakeholders, as

described in Section IV 1 3.

V.2 A clearer set of mechanisms to deliver the GCARD process in the 2 year period

between the GCARD Conferences

At GCARD 2, there was reference to GCARD being a recurring two year process, and not, as

some imagined, a big stand-alone Conference. Section III suggests that much of the desired

integrated 2-year process between the GCARD Conferences is rather aspirational.

The GFAR Mid-Term Plan is undergoing an update and focusing. This embraces the AR4D

actions of national and regional partners, together with the facilitation and advocacy functions

of the GFAR secretariat. This will be a medium to promote a more coherent two-year process

involving GCARD, as may be the work in progress on the SRF Action Plan.

Recommendation 4 - The GCARD joint venture between GFAR and

CGIAR should organize this two-year process more effectively, embodying

this in the forthcoming SRF Action Plan and the GFAR MTP, in order to

have a more focused, effective and efficient GCARD Conference

V.3 The design of a smaller and more efficient GCARD Conference

The cost of GCARD has been the topic of much discussion. Clearly that should be viewed

first in the context of outputs and value for money, not simply costs; and second in

comparison with what it replaces – the CGIAR AGMs and triennial GFAR Conferences.

Much of that discussion was triggered by the finance sought to sponsor participants, rather

than the much larger opportunity cost of 600 participants in GCARD2. This report focuses on

routes to enhanced GCARD value for money.

A GCARD Conference that builds on a series of national and regional GFAR and CRP

meetings, as described above, could draw on principal representatives of that two year process

and could thus be smaller than earlier Conferences. The feedback from Section III

necessitates a shift in the balance of participation from the research community to the

development community- which was a minor proportion of the GCARD 2 participants. For

this reason, the suggested number of national research institute, CG/CRP and international

research participants decreases. But their views are to be communicated by their

representatives drawing on the two-year processes indicated above, and employing ICTs more

effectively, such as web-casts, video-conferencing, blog-posts, etc. Section IV.3 indicates

ways in which a GCARD Conference of around 350 (rather than 630) could be configured.

Recommendation 5 The GCARD Conference should involve a larger

proportion of rural development practitioners in a smaller more efficient

meeting, which articulates with the two year preparatory processes

described above.

31

V.4 Organize and structure the Conference to optimize networking and effective

communication

This requires better planning and preparation at least 6 months prior to the Conference. In this

period, the 15 CRPS would be meeting with stakeholders to update on M& E, targets and

agreeing reports to feed into the accountability operation of the GCARD Conference.

National and regional organizations would draw together their processes in order to frame and

determine the GCARD structure. Such preparation would permit the type of interactive 3-day

GCARD Conference outlined in Section IV 4, comprising less parallel sessions and less low–

value plenaries, incorporating less formal and set-piece presentations.

Recommendation 6 - The GCARD organizing committee to adopt the

principles demanded in section III involving longer term planning and

organization in the 6 month period prior to the Conference, and the design

of an interactive 3- day Conference which alternates half day sessions on

national/regional priorities and reports with half day sessions on CGIAR

SRF/CRP perspectives and reports

V.5 Locating the Conference in an appropriate developing country, with associated

design modifications

Many comments were received, about the desirability of locating GCARD in a developing

country that is easier and cheaper to get to than Uruguay. Examples cited included Ethiopia

and Bangladesh. The choice of a large or Capital city should facilitate good ICT and

encourage the number of virtual participants in some or all of the sessions during the 2 days

of principal sessions, offering routes to reduce further the participant numbers outlined in

Section IV 3. The adoption of a registration fee is also recommended in the interest of time

efficiency.

Recommendation 7 - The GCARD be organized in a lesser-developed

country capital, and that in the interests of efficiency, participants be

charged a registration fee to cover the costs of lunches and airport and

field trip transport.

V.6 Conclusion

The Seven Recommendations are to be considered by the GFAR Steering Committee and the

CGIAR Consortium – and, at their request, the Fund Council has asked to be kept informed.

This report is to be sent to these bodies at the end of March for discussion and decision.

32

ANNEXES