08 September 2016

Towards a prioritization process for the CGIAR

Panel Discussion

In the new CGIAR system, the ISPC is likely to play a leading role in advising and guiding prioritization at the system level. One of the items in the draft of the terms of reference for the ISPC that will be finalized and approved by the system council in coming months calls on ISPC to:

“lead and advise on prioritization of the portfolio of CGIAR Research programs, based on insights from scientific foresight exercises and impact assessments, among other sources”

The issue of prioritization in the CGIAR is not new: the issue has been the subject of much discussion and analysis over recent years. Likewise the role of the ISPC in system-level prioritization has also been the subject of much discussion. Most recently, in the 13th ISPC meeting held in May 2016 a session on the issue of system level prioritization was held. The session highlighted some of the difficult issues to resolve around system level prioritization, including the need for valuing non-market and non-quantifiable outcomes, the need for considering the role of CGIAR research vis a vis other suppliers and strong links to foresight activities, and the need for including political economy dimensions in the prioritization process. Two presentations were made during the session that focused on approaches to Quantitative Priority Setting (QPS) for the CGIAR, focusing primarily on methodological issues – and particularly on the potential use of the IMPACT modelling suite. In the ensuing discussion, the limits of QPS were highlighted, as well as the need for clarity on the assumptions behind quantitative models, and the difficulty in actually validating model results. Another important issue that was raised was the need to address any potential conflicts that could arise between system and CRP level prioritization exercises. The importance of considering qualitative values was raised, as well as the need for better understanding of the comparative advantage of the CGIAR system work, how it could change over time, and how this can be articulated into a prioritization process. A set of studies and activities to address these issues was proposed during the session, including a survey of processes used by other research organizations for prioritization, analysis of the CGIAR comparative advantage from leading experts in the field, and a process of dialogue within the CGIAR system to address key concerns and build consensus on a way forward.

These discussions about system level prioritization are being held against the backdrop of debate on funding the new CGIAR research portfolio that has taken place in the last Fund Council meeting of May 2016, as well as the first System Council meeting held in July 2016. The issues of identifying comparative advantage, qualitative as well as quantitative values of the research outcomes, the political economy of prioritization and need to consider donor priorities have been key in this debate as well, indicating the urgent and critical need for resolution. Additionally, a

major issue that has arisen in this context is the changing nature of the funding mechanisms, particularly the shifts from non-restricted window 1 and 2 funding streams to window 3 and bilateral funding. An important question for system-level prioritization is thus also how different funding windows should be considered in a prioritization exercise – what should be included and how?

The ISPC plans to build on past discussions and provide a forum to respond to these controversies in the session on system-level prioritization planned for the 14th meeting of the ISPC. The intention of the session is to hold a focused discussion on three critical issues that need resolution in order to move ahead on building an effective system-level prioritization protocol, in order to identify a set of next steps that can be implemented in 2017. The session is organized as a panel discussion, with key CGIAR members discussing three key issues in system-level prioritization. The panel members have been asked to respond to these three questions – as well as comment on the proposed next steps for each.

PANEL DISCUSSION

Chair: Patrick Webb

Panelists: Maggie Gill (Chair ISPC), Keith Wiebe (Global Futures & Strategic Foresight), Jonathan Wadsworth (SC/FEWG), Peter Gardiner (SMO)

1. What should be included in the system level prioritization process?

The term "prioritize" means different things to different members of the CGIAR. At the system level the question of whether it should address only the allocation of W1/W2 funding to the CRPS or the entire spectrum of funding streams and research activities of the CGIAR system is one that needs clarification.

The discussion on this first issue asks the panelists to consider the type of decisions the system level prioritization will be needed for – e.g.:

• Donor allocation of funds to the CGIAR as a whole, or to particular CRPs, Centers, or IDOs?

• System Council allocation of funds to particular CRPs, Centers, or IDOs?

• CRP allocation of funds to particular activities, regions, or commodities?

• Center allocation of funds to particular configuration of activities in the CRPS?

• Some of the above? All of the above? Others?

And related to these questions, for what timeframe are priorities being set: 1 year? 2 years? 5?

Possible next step:

- ISPC sponsored consultation with donors/’FEWG (in late 2016 or early 2017) - Recommendations made to SC (in 2017)

2. How should ongoing foresight modeling efforts be considered in a system level prioritization process?

There is already considerable work being done in the system on foresight modeling related to activities within CRPs and other system components. In particular, the Global Futures and Strategic Foresight program is a CGIAR initiative led by IFPRI, which includes all 15 CGIAR Centers and is working to provide support for the prioritization of research across CRPs as well as within CRPs and Centers. The question is whether this foresight modeling work can and should contribute to the system –level prioritization process. We need to consider the timeframes used in these sub-system level analyses vis a vis that needed for the system level prioritization. Also the approaches and tools currently in use – how can these be utilized in the system level prioritization. Specifically we need to consider the use of:

• Ex-post impact assessments

• Ex-ante impact assessments

• Qualitative foresight exercises

• Quantitative foresight modeling

• Some of the above? All of the above? Others?

Possible next step:

Workshop organized by the Global Futures & Strategic Foresight program in 2017 on margins of ISPC meeting consisting of facilitated discussion and presentations on specific aspects of ongoing modeling efforts and their possible use/inclusion in the system level prioritization process.

3. What criteria should be used in the system level prioritization process – and how can

we move ahead in getting agreement on measuring them?

• CGIAR comparative advantage – now and in the future o How to integrate results from quantitative and qualitative foresight work into a

dynamic analysis of CGIAR comparative advantage? • Rates of returns to research investments (how to deal with trade-offs)

o Complementing Value for money analysis of SMO? o How to handle non-market/qualitative values in such analysis?

• Maturity of the research program (e.g. some system of “handicapping” so new research programs can be compared with those that have many years of experience)

o In prioritizing research areas it is important to consider that new areas of research will be at an earlier stage of development in terms of the research questions, theory of change, partnership strategies etc. The prioritization system should explicitly consider this difference when assessing the research. Can we come up with a system that

would provide an indication of the maturity of the research program, so as to allow for comparison between well-established CGIAR research areas, and newer ones?

• Political economy of donor’s priorities o Can we develop a funding mechanism that would be more effective in reflecting donor

priorities (and their shifts over time) as well as meet long term funding needs of CGIAR?

Possible next steps:

ISPC Strategic study on developing system level prioritization consisting of:

o Set of background papers produced in 2017: Determining comparative advantage of CGIAR Linking foresight results to prioritization Approaches to estimating rates of return to CGIAR research – what makes

sense for system level prioritization Designing an efficient and flexible funding mechanism for allocating

w1/w21 resources Accounting for research program maturity in prioritization

o Workshop/consultations (2 will be needed) o ISPC commentary o Recommendations to SC