GCARD3 Global Event Assessment M&E Summary report. - GFAR · GCARD3 were split between three bodies: GFAR, CGIAR and the South African ARC. All parties participated in the discussion

1

GCARD3Global Event:AssessmentM&ESummaryreport.

2

ContentsExecutiveSummary...............................................................................................................................3

BuildingImprovementsonthePast–asystematicapproach.......................................................3

Abroaderinternationalresearchsysteminastateofflux...........................................................5

MethodologyandLimitationsforM&E.........................................................................................5

Introduction.........................................................................................................................................15

GCARD3-Consultations....................................................................................................................25

Recommendations...........................................................................................................................27

GCARD3-Motivationsforattending....................................................................................................27


GCARD3-Logisticsandorganisation....................................................................................................30


GCARD3-Content................................................................................................................................32


GCARD3-Communication....................................................................................................................35


Diversity...............................................................................................................................................37


GCARD3-Legacy..................................................................................................................................40

ConclusionsandRecommendations....................................................................................................44

Responsefromtheorganisers.............................................................................................................47

Annex1-SummaryofMonitoringandEvaluationTools....................................................................48

Perceptualfeedbackquestionnaire:Attendeesofnationalandregionalconsultations.................49

Interviews:GCARD3attendees........................................................................................................50

Evaluationforms:GCARD3attendees.............................................................................................51

Perceptualfeedbackquestionnaire:GCARD3attendees................................................................52

Annex2-Nationalandregionalconsultations.....................................................................................55

Annex3-Mediatracker.......................................................................................................................58

Annex4-SpecificsonFCperspectivesonGCARDfromFCmeetingsSummary.................................60

3

ExecutiveSummaryThe Agricultural Learning and Impacts Network (ALINe) was appointed as the monitoring andevaluation (M&E) partner for the GCARD3 global event and was provided access to informationduringtheGCARDprocessleadinguptothisglobaleventbybothGFARandtheCGIARConsortiumOffice1.ALINehasextensiveexperienceworkingwithstakeholdersfromacrossthespectrumofARDandiscommittedtoenablingthevoicesofthesevariedstakeholderstobeheard.

The global event GCARD 3 conference took place from 6th-8th of April 2016 in South Africa. Theoverall theme for the conference was ‘No One Left Behind’ with thematic sessions, plenarydiscussions and parallel thematic roundtables based on five key themes identified during thenationalandregionalconsultations:

• Scalingup:Fromresearchtoimpact• Showcasingresultsanddemonstratingimpact• Keepingsciencerelevantandfuturefocused• Sustainingthebusinessoffarming• Ensuringbetterruralfuturesthroughforesightandcollectiveactions

Theeventincludedthe25thanniversaryoftheARCofSouthAfrica,andvisitstofieldtrialsitesandtheARCBiotechnologyPlatformlocatedattheOnderstepoortVeterinaryInstitutecampus.

GCARD3 focused on re-aligning research for development priorities and investment opportunitieswiththeresource-poor’sowndevelopmentneedsandcountry/nationalprocesses.InadditionitalsofocusedonalignmentwiththeSustainableDevelopmentGoalsformeasurableimpact.

GCARD3wasdesigneddifferentlyfromthepreviousGCARDeventsandinvolvedan18-monthrunupperiod including a set of consultations at National, Regional and the Global Event. Each of thesecomponentswasintendedtoprovideinsightsontheneeds,actionsandstakeholdersateachofthenational, regionalandglobal levels.Theresponsibilities fororganisingdifferentcomponentsoftheGCARD3 were split between three bodies: GFAR, CGIAR and the South African ARC. All partiesparticipated inthediscussionandselectionoftheGCARD3themes,wererepresentedmembersoftheSteeringandOrganisingcommittees,coordinatedthetechnicaldevelopmentofthethemesandGFARinparticularenabledparticipationofpartners inthe5themesandincludedtheoutcomesintheirmid-termplans.

BuildingImprovementsonthePast–asystematicapproachDr. Rodney Cooke’s report following GCARDs 1 and 2 “A Review of the Global Conference onAgricultural Research for Development (GCARD): An analysis of the way forward” reported thatGCARD2 was rated highly by participants. 79% of conference participants noted that GCARD2providedusefulorveryusefulopportunitiestointeractwithotherstohelpfurtherunderstandingofAR4D;and67%ofCGIARparticipantssaidthattheknowledgetheyacquiredthroughGCARD2wouldbe likely to change thedesignor implementationof their activities, and that theirparticipation inGCARD2was likely to change their approach to partnerships in their AR4D programmes. Overall,79%ofrespondentsfeltthattheknowledgetheyhadgainedwouldbelikelytochangethedesignorimplementation of their programmes, and the same percentage felt that it would change theirapproachtoexistingornewpartnerships.

1Withtherecentreformofthesystem,theConsortiumisnowknownastheSystemManagementOffice.

4

ConcernsofvariousnatureswerealsocitedinDrCooke’sreportontheGCARD2;includingthefocusofthepreviousconference,thedegreetowhichNationalAR4Dviewswereconsidered,theutilityofGCARD to promote effective interaction with CGIAR stakeholders and partners in CRPs and theeffectiveness and efficiency of GCARD. Following his analysis Dr. Cooke provided sevenrecommendationsforhowfutureGCARDscouldbecomemorefocused.Thesewerereflecteduponindetailby theGCARD3OrganisingCommitteeandhave led toconsiderable improvements in theconceptualisation,planningandorganisationofthesubsequentGCARD3processandglobalevent.

GCARD3was conceptualised, planned andorganisedby a jointOrganising Committeewith equalrepresentationbetweenCGIARandGFAR. Theemphasiswason innovationandpartnershipsatalarger scale between the CGIAR and other actors. The focus was not specifically on CRPs or forinformingdecisionmakingontheCRPs,butonthecontributionofagri-foodsystems,researchandinnovationtodevelopmentbymultiplestakeholdersintegratedwithotherlargerprocessessuchasthecountry-ledCAADP.

TheGCARDOrganisingCommitteewasconstitutedtoensureequalparticipationbytheCGIARandGFAR who were appointed Co-Chairs and members including a farmer representative, a CSO(cooperative)representativeandarepresentativefromFARA.Theprogrammaticcomponentswereestablished by amulti-stakeholder group of experts drawn from different sectors and ensuring abalanceofroles,stakeholdersandofgenderbalance.

In response to the recommendation that theGCARD3beorganised in a lesser-developed countrycapital,anopentenderprocesswasorganisedandtheSouthAfricanbidwasselected.Aregistrationfeewas charged to non-sponsoredparticipants andwas recoveredby SouthAfrica, offset againsttheircommittedsupportfortheevent.

ItwasrecognizedbytheGCARDOrganisingCommitteethatlongertermplanningandorganizationfor 12-months period prior to the Conferencewas important with attention tomulti-stakeholderparticipants. Furthermore the national dialogues, a pivotal and new addition to the processwereintentionallyconstructedtobringgreaterintegrationoftheCRPsandgreatercoordinationofCGIAReffortstoaddressnationalpriorities.RegionalpriorityactionsdeterminedbyregionalorganisationswiththeengagementofCRPleadersenhancedthemosteffectiveuseofresources.SiteintegrationprocesschampionedbytheConsortiumwasamajorstepforwardandbroadscaleswereagreed,thefirst,thatCRPsworkingindifferentsitesofthesamecountrywouldharmonizetheiractivities,andsecondlywithimprovedcoordinationwithpartnersandbetteralignmenttonationallevel.

TheGCARD3eventwassupportedathalftheoriginalleveloffinancialsupportbytheFundCouncilin previous years. At 400 participants, the GCARD3 event was deliberately aimed at being aconsciously smaller event than GCARD 1 (1,000 participants) or GCARD 2 (658). Internationalagricultural research involvement in this consciously smallerGCARD3 event fell from174 (26%oftotal)to95(23%),i.e.a45%reduction,whilethenumberoffarmers(allofwhomweresponsored)fell from 60 (=9% of the total) to 10 (=4%), i.e. an 83% reduction in numbers. This is a directconsequenceofthereducedfundingandhencereducedsponsorshiptoattend,amongthoseleastabletofinancethemselves.

5

AbroaderinternationalresearchsysteminastateoffluxAspartofthedevelopmentofCGIAR’snewStrategyandResultsFramework(SRF)2,theCGIARandGFAR implemented the stakeholder consultation that provided stakeholders and partners bothinsideandoutsideCGIARwithopportunitiestoprovideinputtothedevelopmentoftheSRF2016-30. This consultationwas part of the broader engagement process of GCARD3. It was created topromote effective, targeted investment and build partnership, capacities and mutualaccountabilities at all levels of the agricultural system so as to ensure that today’s agriculturalresearchmeetstheneedsofresource-poorendusers.OnSeptember4,2015,theCGIARFundCouncil(nowtheSystemCouncilandforthwithreferredtoassuch)approvedbymail,onano-objectionbasis,thePlanforthetransitiontotheestablishmentof the CGIAR System Organization. This Plan provided the agreed process for transitioning theexisting CGIAR Consortium to a CGIAR System Organization. The exact details of this transitioncontinued to be in a state of flux and uncertainty throughout the course of the consultations,conferenceandsubsequentanalysis.The second phase proposals of the CRP portfolio were expected to commence in 2017. Draftproposals detailing the plans for each program and their budgets were submitted at the end ofMarch 2016, prior to the GCARD3Global Event, and following the GCARD3 national and regionalconsultationprocess.TheGlobalEventwasinitiallyscheduledtotakeplacepriortothesubmissionof proposals. However, the South African government and ARC decided the final dates.3 It isimportant to note that the CGIAR site integration initiative - which was also one of the majorelements involved inandmakinguseof thenationalconsultations to influenceCGIARworktakingplace in 20 countries - incorporated much of the site integration work which was subsequentlyaccomplishedattheendofApril/earlyMay2016.”

MethodologyandLimitationsforM&EThroughoutGCARD3,avarietyofmethods(documentreview,perceptualfeedbackquestionnaires,face-to facekey informant interviews,hard-copyevaluation forms issued toattendees,analysisofsocialmedia,publicliterature)forwereemployedtomonitorthedifferentelementsoftheprocessandconveyperceptualfeedback.Thiscoveredallphasesfromplanningthroughtoimplementationaswellasthelegacyoftheconferenceafterattendeesdeparted.Theaimofthesemechanismshasbeen to both gather information and to identify opportunities for future improvements. It isimportantthatintheabsenceofacounterfactualandthedegreeofconfusioninthesystemcreatedbythereformprocessandfundingshortfalls,thisreportisnotafullevaluation.Inaddition,inorderto ensure independence the assessment of the GCARD3 process relied on the goodwill ofparticipants. The M&E process prior to the global event was not mandatory for participants torespondtoandassuchresponseratesweremuchlowerthanexpected.Afull inventoryoftoolsisincludedinthereport.Thismixedmethodsapproach,employingarangeoftechniquesandutilisingavarietyofdifferentformsofinformation,notonlyenabledabroadrangeofvoicestobeheardbutalso facilitated the validation of findings through triangulation. It is important to note that the

2http://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/4069/CGIARSRFOverviewWEB.pdf3http://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/3871/Delivering%20on%20CGIAR%20Strategy%20Portfolio%20Version%2019.pdf

6

insightsconveyedinthisreportarederivedfromindependentvoicesandthattheresponseratetothevarioustoolsusedwasvariable.

ConsultationsTwentylargemulti-stakeholderconsultationsatthenational leveland5regionalmultistakeholderconsultationstookplacebetweenOctober2015andApril2016(forafulllistseeAnnex2).Bothsetsofconsultationsprovidedanopportunityforavarietyofstakeholdersinthosespecificgeographiestomeettogethertodiscussprioritiesandactivitiesandtoprovideguidanceonfutureactivities.

Attendeesreportedahighlevelofsatisfactionwiththecontentandorganisationofthenationalconsultations

• 92%statedthattheissuesaddressedduringtheconsultationwereeither“Mostly”(51%)or“Very”(41%)relevanttotheirpriorities

• 82% of respondents rated the consultation either “verywell organised” (36%) or “mostlywellorganised”(46%)

• 54%statedthattheconsultationprovidedthemwithadequateopportunitiestocontributeandparticipateindecision-making.

• 28% of respondents felt “very satisfied” with the outputs of the consultation, 41% felt“mostlysatisfied”,28%felt“somewhatsatisfied”and3%felt“veryunsatisfied”

When discussing the key message they took away from the consultation, 22 out of the 38respondents cited the importance of “cooperation”, “alignment”, “working together”, “harmony”,“consolidating efforts”, “collaboration” and/or “common goals” as they key message of theconsultation. Overall particular mention was made of the open and honest nature of theparticipationandthesenseofcooperationestablished.

In terms of things that could have been improved, 11% of respondents suggested that theconsultation would have benefitted from having been organised with more time allocated forinteraction. 5% of respondents suggested the consultations should last two days or more.Separately, 11% of respondents expressed concerns about a lack of clear next steps or actionsfollowing-onformtheconsultation.

Accordingtotheperceptualfeedbacksurveycarriedoutwithregionalconsultationattendees[pleasenotethatonly9oftherespondentstothesurveystatedthattheyhadattendedaregionalconsultation]




• 22%ofrespondentsfeltverysatisfiedwiththeoutputsoftheconsultation,67%felt“mostlysatisfied”and11%felt“somewhatsatisfied”

Againrespondentsmadeparticularmentionoftheperceivedappropriatenessofthestakeholdersinvolvedand thequalityand freedomof thediscussions includingnoting that“therewasagood

7

balance of very technical people, and peoplewhowanted to focus on extensionwork”, that “freeviews were welcomed” and that there was “freedom for participants to express themselves”.Respondents suggested that theyparticularlyvalued theopportunities fordiscussionand informaldebate,insomecasesabovethatofthepresentations.Othersalsosuggestedthattheconsultationcouldhavebeenimprovedbymakingthepresentationsmoreaccessibleandattractiveandthatitwouldhavebenefittedfrombeingslightlylonger.

Overall awareness of the consultation processwas low.Amongst the 34 respondents interviewedduringGCARD3,only1 reportedhavingattendedanational consultation (Malawi)and3 reportedattendingaregionalconsultation(Asia-Pacific).

43%ofthe56conferenceattendeesurveyrespondentsreportedthattheywereunawareabouttheconsultationsuntil theyattended theconference.Only18%of these survey respondents reportedthat they had attended a national or regional consultation. The most common institutionalbackground was NARS- 21% of respondents, CGIAR centres- 14%, followed by NGOs- 12.5%,Internationalresearchcentres-7.7%,nationalextensionorganisations-6.7%,farmers’organisationsand donors- 5.8% each, the private sector- 3.8% and sub-regional organisations- 2.9%. Other(backgroundnotspecified)represented19%ofattendees.

MotivationsforAttendanceIn termsoforganisationalbackground the414 registeredattendees,23%ofattendeescame frominternational research centres (incl. CGIAR), 19% came from the South African ARC, 9% fromacademia, 6% from government and 6% from NARS, 5% from YPARD, 4% from donors, 4% fromfarmers’organisations. The remaining24%weremadeupofGFAR, theprivate sector,NGOs, civilsocietyandotherswhodidnotspecifytheirinstitution.

Ofthe316attendeeswhoregisteredtheirhomecountry,thelargestproportionofattendees(50%)camefromsub-SaharanAfricaparticularlySouthAfricaandKenyafollowedbyEurope(20%),Asia-Pacific (10%), North America (8%), Latin America and the Caribbean (7%)Middle East and NorthAfrica(3%)andCentralAsiaandtheCaucasus(2%).105attendeesdidnotcompletethissectionoftheirregistrationforms.

There were a number of potential motivations driving or pulling these diverse attendees to theconference. These included, technical content, networking, speakers, personal growth anddevelopment,policymaking,developingpartnerships, planning,meetingdonors, presentingwork,andrepresentativesoftheirorganisations.

The opportunity to network was the primary driver of overall conference attendance but withinsessions,technicalcontentwasthemainattraction.

• Accordingtotheperceptualfeedbacksurveyofconferenceattendees,themostcommonlycited reasons forattending theoverall conferencewere“Networking” (23%of responses)and“Representingmyorganisation”(21%)

• The next most popular reasons were “Developing partnerships” (15% of responses) and“Content”(13%)

• Ininterviewswithattendees,respondentsalsoemphasisedtheappealoftheopportunitytonetworkwithotherpeopleintheindustrytoeitherreinforceexistingrelationshipsorbuildnewones.Thisincludedrelationshipsthatcouldleadtoprofessionalpartnerships

8

• Anotherkeyfactorthatdrewpeopletoattendtheconferencewastheopportunitytohearand learn from other bodies, countries and continents. Respondents reported that theycametoshare ideasandgetagauge forwheredifferentactorsandtheoverall industry isheading. Respondents identified the conference as an important forum for keeping onesfingeronthepulseoftheARDindustry

With regards tomotivations for attending the themeworkshops,here theemphasis shiftedmore towards the technical content of the sessions representing 36% of evaluation formresponses. Beyond this, 20% of respondents cited networking, a further 20% mentioned‘personalgrowthanddevelopment’,10%policymaking,4%attendedbecauseofthespeakersadvertised,whilst4%citedanother(unspecified)reason.

LogisticsandOrganisationWith over 400 attendees from all across the world coming together for an intense schedule ofpresentations, plenaries, workshops, side-events and field visits over four days, GCARD3 wascertainlyalogisticalandorganisationalchallenge.

Overalltheconferenceperformedstronglyintermsoforganisationandlogistics

• 76%ofinterviewrespondentsratedtheconference“well”or“verywellorganised”• 89%ofconferenceperceptualfeedbacksurveyrespondentsratedtheconference“well”or

“verywellorganised”• Keyfeaturesthatwereparticularlyappreciatedwere:

o The conference mobile application, which provided an up-to-date schedule ofeventsandroomnumbers.Thiswasparticularlyappreciatedbyyoungerparticipants

o Thelackofqueuestoregisteronarrivalo Thehigh-quality venue- good spaces for presentations thatwaswell laid-out and

easytomovebetween,superioraccommodationfacilities.Thevenueachievedthehighest average rating of four logistical aspects included in the conferenceperceptualfeedbacksurvey

Some areas were identified as in need of improvement such as Internet access, timekeeping,organisationpriortotheevent,visaandregistrationandthelackofphysicalpublishedmaterials.

CGARD3ContentTheconferenceentailedanumberofdifferenttypesofactivity,fromgroupworkshopstolecturestofielddays.ThecontentofallelementsoftheconferencewasratedstronglybyrespondentsbutthatoftheARCfielddaywasratedhighestoverall.However,respondentsdidnoteseveralopportunitiesfor conference content to be improved, most notably around the coherence or logical flow ofpresentationsandtalks.

Thecontentofallconferenceelementswasratedhighly,butthecontentoftheARCfielddaywasperceivedmostpositively.Respondentsfeltthatthisdayprovidedinspirationfortheestablishmentof similar centres partnering with research institutions in other countries. The centre was verywidelyappreciatedaspositiveforattractingmoreyoungpeopleintoagriculturalresearch.

However,otherrespondentsnotedthat:• Themorningpresentationsover-ransignificantly

9

• Therewasinsufficienttimetoexploretheveryinterestingexhibitions• Thedaywasverylongandstartedataveryearlyhour,deterringsomefromattending

o 31%ofconferencesurveyrespondentsreportednotattendingtheARCday

Theme sessions overwhelmingly met respondent expectations with 97% of evaluation formrespondents stating that the sessions met their expectations “fully” (59%) or “to some extent”(38%).

Respondentscitedthefollowingasthemostbeneficialaspectsofthesessions:• Afocusonscalingup• Theopportunitytobeexposedtoandlearnfromadiverserangeofperspectives• Anemphasisonpracticalactions

However, despite this high level of satisfaction, a number of significant opportunities forimprovement of theme sessions were also identified which included more time especially forinteractive and collaborative discussion elements, a perception of a lack of coherence in thenarrative of the theme, a requirement for more specific case studies on successes and failures,scaling up etc. A small number of respondents expressed the view that land planning andenvironmentalissueswerenotgivesufficientemphasis.

GCARDCommunicationsIntermsofoutput,theconferencecommunicationseffortswerehighlysuccessful

SocialMediaOutreachAsocialmediabootcampwasrunalongsideGCARD3totrainagroupofagriculturalprofessionalsonsocialmedia communication techniques such as blogging/live-tweeting.Overall 68 onsite traineesjoined the 3 day GCARD3 boot camp: 19 sponsored YPARD members, 1 non-sponsored YPARDmember,6CGIARstaff,11ARCstaff,32traineesfromotherinterestedorganisations.Anadditional20communicationstaffandYPARDmembersjoinedthesocialreport’steamafterthetrainingwascomplete.Anecdotal feedback suggests the activitywashugely successful inbuilding socialmediaskillsandconfidenceamongthismostlyyounggroupofagriculturalprofessionals.Inthetwoweeksaroundtheconferencethesocialmediateamproduced:

• 78publishedblogposts,viewed170,000timesby10,200people(Aprilstatisticsonly)• 8,843#GCARD3 tweetsby966differentpeople in the twoweeksaround theconference.

Thesetweetsweredeliveredto2.3milliondifferentTwitteraccounts• 5videoblogsandpodcasts• Webcastto579differentviewers• PhotosonFlickrandSlideShare• Recordings of the plenary sessions, promotional videos, social reporting blogs and

interviewsontheGFARYouTubechannelorpodcastchannelIn addition to theGFAR communicationefforts (notedabove), IISDReporting Serviceswrotedailyupdates from GCARD3 Global Event and prepared a summary report in the Earth NegotiationsBulletin(ENB),whichreachesover158,000readers,includingpolicymakersandstakeholders.

Twomedia releases were issued in the lead-up to the conference to solicit interest in pre-eventinterviews and attendance at the event. CGIAR also issued amedia release on the opening day.Biographical notes onGFAR and CGIARmedia spokespeoplewere distributed. Two furthermedia

10

releaseswere issued during themeeting, highlighting aspects of keynote addresses including theissues of climate change, malnutrition and youth participation. These resulted in some mediainterest(seemediatrackerinAnnex3).Afinal“wrapup”mediareleasesummarisingtheoutcomeswasreleasedafterthemeeting.

The event was picked up by national television, with CNBC running at least three interviewsincludingwithheadsofGFARandARC. It also received somecoverage inSouthAfricanpressandradio and in key international media, including the Huffington Post, BBC news and the ChristianScienceMonitor.Thesocialmediabootcampprovedpopularwithsomeoutlets,particularlythosefocusedonmarketing.

Respondents felt that communicationswere largely strong, particularly during the event itself. Aspartof the conference survey respondentswereasked to rate theirexperienceof the conferencecommunicationsbefore,duringandaftertheeventonascaleof1-5(5beingexcellentand1beingverypoor).Allareasscoredstronglywiththemajorityofrespondentsratingtheirexperienceeither4or5outof5foreachofthe3aspects.However,communicationduringtheconferencewasthemost strongly rated,with70%scoring it a4or a5.Communicationprior to theevent scored theweakest,withonly55%ofrespondentsratingthisexperienceeithera4ora5and13%ratingita1.

Severalrespondentsreportedthatinformationabouttheagendaandcontentoftheeventhadbeenvery late arrivingwhich caused somedifficulties, particularly for those preparing presentations ortalks.

Themostcommonaspectspraisedregardingcommunicationduringtheeventconcernedthesocialmediabootcamp,whichwasperceivedtobeveryeffective,andtheeventapp.

DiversitySeveral respondents noted that they felt that the voices that had traditionally beenmissing fromtheseconversations-thoseofwomenandyoungpeople-werenowbeingincludedwell.Instructionstoensurediverseparticipationwerealsoprovided to theProgrammeTaskForceandChairs. Thesuccessfulbringingtogetherofthiswealthofdiversityisacauseformuchdeservedcelebrationand,aswesawwhenlookingatmotivationsforattendance,isoneofthemainattractionsoftheGCARDprocess.However,despitethisgreatachievement,asignificantproportionofrespondentsdisagreedwith the above sentiment and raised concerns about the lack of presence or visibility of somegroups,particularlysmallholderfarmers.

82%of interview respondents’ felt that somekeyvoiceswereeithermissing from theconferencedialogue or were too quiet. Many respondents felt that the voices and experiences of actualsmallholder farmerswere striking in theirabsenceand that theconferencewasweakenedby thisabsence. Whilst it was acknowledged that some farmer representative groups were at theconference it was often argued that such representative voices lacked the richness of realexperience.Somerespondentsquestionedwhethersmallholderfarmerswereindeedpresentattheconferencebutwerenotperhapsbeingprovidedwithanappropriateplatformforparticipation:

WomenSeveralrespondentsnotedthe involvementofwomenintheconferencepositively,andorganisershighlightthattheproportionofwomenpresentwasgreaterthanatanypreviousGCARD,CGIARor

11

GFARassembly(withtheexceptionoftheGlobalConferenceonWomeninAgriculture).However,othersstillfelttherewassignificantworktobedoneonthisfront.Severalrespondentsstatedthattheybelievedconferencespeakers,chairsandpanelswerepredominantlymaleandusedtheterm“manels”torefertopanelsthatdidnotcontainanyoraminorityoffemaleparticipants

YoungresearchersTherewas youth involvement across the conference – including through the YPARD socialmediareporterinitiativeandwithyoungpeopleaskeynotespeakers.SeveralrespondentsstatedthattheywerepleasedbythegreaterinvolvementofyoungpeopleinGCARD3thaninpreviousconferences.Some respondents reflected that althoughmanymore young people appeared to be involved inactivities surrounding the conference such as communication activities, very few were actuallyinvolvedasresearchersandscientists.Itisessentialtoengagesuchyoungscientists,itwasargued,inorderforthewordsandactionsagreedatGCARD3toliveoninfuturegenerations.

GCARDLegacy

FacilitatingpartnershipsThe conference was extremely successful at deepening existing connections and facilitating theformationofnewones.

• 62%ofinterviewrespondents,89%ofevaluationformrespondentsand93%ofconferencesurveyrespondentsstatedthattheymadeconnectionsattheconferencethatcouldbecomepartnersintheirwork.

• Inmostcasesrespondentsalsostatedthattheywouldnothavemadetheseconnectionsiftheyhadnot attended the conference (81%of evaluation form respondents) or that theymayhavemadesuchconnectionseventually,butthiswouldhavetakenalongtime(63%ofsurveyrespondents).

• Finally,followingonfromtheconference,mostsurveyrespondentsalsoreportedstayingintouch with their new connections. Only 10.5% stated that they had maintainedcommunicationwithnoneoftheirnewcontacts.

SharingideasTheconferencealsoseemstohavebeensuccessfulatexposingattendees tonew ideas thatwererelevanttotheirwork.

• 59%of interviewrespondentsand90%ofconferencesurveyrespondentsstatedthattheycameacrossideasattheconferencethatwillbeusefulintheirwork.

• 75%ofsurveyrespondentsagreedthatitwouldhavetakenmuchlongerforthemtoaccessthese ideas if they had not attended and 74% of interview respondents agreed that theywould not have come across these new ideas if they had not attended the conference(interview respondents were not given the option to respond that they may haveencounteredtheideabutthatitwouldhavetakenmuchlonger).

Inadditiontothesesignificantachievements,thereareinitialindicationsthatattendeesareactuallyintegratingthesenewideasintotheirwork.

12

• 29% of survey respondents stated that since the conference they have “made steps toincorporatetheidea(s)intotheirwork”

• A further 65% stated that since the conference they have “partially integrated” the newideas they encountered into their work (in this case partially integrated was specified tomean“sharingtheideawithsomeothersanddiscussingpossibilities”)

• Only6%statedthattheyhadnotdiscussedtheirnewideassincetheconference• Evenmorepromisingly,21%ofrespondentsstatedthattheyhadmade“significantchanges”

tothewaytheyhavebeenworkingasaresultoftheideas/peopletheyencounteredattheconference.60%hadmadesomesmallchangesand19%nochangeatall.

Themost commonways inwhich this change ismanifesting in actualpractices is throughgreatersharingandpartnershipwithotherpeopleororganisations:

1. Developingconcreteactionplans• 83%ofsurveyrespondentsreportedthatthey lefttheconferencewithspecificactions

foreitherthemselvesortheirorganisation

2. Generatingasenseofoptimism.Overallattendeeregardtowardstheconferencewasveryencouraging.• 84% of respondents stated that theywould recommend the conference to friends or

colleagues• 49%ofstatedthatwhenthey left theconference, theyfelt“verypositive”abouttheir

experienceand85%felteither“verypositive”or“positive”

3. Respondentswerealsobroadlysatisfiedwiththeoutcomesoftheconferenceitself:• Verysatisfied-23%• Mostlysatisfied-21%• Somewhatsatisfied-40%• Veryunsatisfied -15%

4. The primary driver of this satisfaction concerned the perceived focus on developing clear

andspecificoutcomes.

OverallRecommendationsThe GCARD3 global conference was a phenomenal success on many counts articulated andperceived by those who attended it. 89% of conference feedback survey respondents rated theconference“well”or“verywellorganised”,andalmostall(97%)evaluationformrespondentsstatedthatthesessionsthatthey’dattendedmettheirexpectations‘fully’or‘tosomeextent’.Inaddition,it fulfilled the ambitions of themajority of these attendeeswho came to network, establish andsolidifyrelationshipsandbuildpartnerships.62%ofinterviewrespondents,89%ofevaluationformrespondentsand93%ofconferencesurveyrespondentsstatedthattheymadeconnectionsattheconferencethatcouldbecomepartners in theirwork.Manyof theserespondentsnotedthat theywouldnothavemadetheseconnectionswithouttheGCARD3globalconference(81%ofevaluationform respondents)or that theymayhavemade suchconnectionseventually,but thiswouldhavetakena long time (63%of survey respondents).Amajorityofattendeesdeparted theconference,notonlywithadeepfeelingofpositivityabouttheirexperience,butalsowithconcreteactionsthat

13

we can see already being implemented through new partnerships and actual changes toworkingpractices.TheseactionshavethepotentialtoproducerealandwidespreadchangeswithintheARDlandscape. 59% of interview respondents and 90% of conference survey respondents stated thattheycameacrossideasattheconferencethatwillbeusefulintheirwork.Inaddition,83%ofsurveyrespondents reported that they left the conferencewith specific actions for either themselves ortheirorganisation.Withregardtoimplementation,attendeesappeartobeintegratingtheseideas.29%ofsurveyrespondentsstatedthatsincetheconferencetheyhave“madestepstoincorporatethe idea(s) into their work”. A further 65% stated that since the conference they have “partiallyintegrated”thenewideastheyencounteredintotheirwork.

Morewidely,ahighnumberofattendeeswereverysatisfiedwiththecontentandorganisationofthenationalandregionalconsultations.

1. However,despitetheseundeniableandimportantachievements,thereareseveralareastobe notedwhere essential improvementsmust bemade. The first of these areas concernstiming.Inseveralofthesectionsaboveithasbeenclearlyobservedthattheprocessleadinguptotheconferencewasrushedanddidnotallowsufficienttimeforconsultationinputstobe integrated, for attendee registration to be completed, for theme topics to be agreedupon,forpresenterstopreparetheirmaterialsandforresourcestobeproduced.This isashamegiventhatoneofthecorerecommendationsofDr.Cooke’s2013reportwasfortheGCARDOrganizing Committee to focus on longer termplanning andorganization in the 6monthperiodpriortotheConference.Giventhecontextinwhichtheconferencewasheld,at a time of unprecedented uncertainty within the CGIAR governance structures, theoutcomesfromthisconferenceareactuallyratherremarkable.

ThetiminginrelationtonationalscientistsandpolicymakershavingadequateinputtotheformulationoftheportfolioofinterventionsdesignedtodeliverontheSRFisstillaquestion,exacerbatedbyamovementofdatesforCRPsubmissions,andFundCouncilmeetingsthathaveimpactednegativelyonthisconferencebeingabletomeetitsfullconceivedpotential.

2. The second key area for attention are the national dialogues were new to the GCARDprocess and theseprocedureshaveneverbeenpracticedbeforeandwereappreciatedbythenationalcounterpartsaspointingtoanewwayofworkingwiththeCGIAR.Moreover,theGCARDprocess remains unique in engaging true stakeholder involvement beyond theimmediate research community. The innovative site-integration work leading from thecountryconsultationswasparticularlyimportantandchartedanewwayofworkingforallstakeholdersintheAR4Dprocess.Itiscriticalthatboththeseprocesseshaveadequatetime,planning and consideration in planning and executing on research for developmentopportunities.Thereweredifferences inhowthenationalconsultationswereorganised ineachcountryand iffurthertimepermitted,theauthorsofthisreportwouldhavelookedmore closely at their specific impact and their further evolution during theimplementation of the Phase II CRPs. This should have been a more structured andpublicised process and with the uncertainty in the system and many moving parts theirimportanceisunderstatedinthisreport.

14

3. Relatedtothispointisthethirdkeyareaforattention,thatofcoherence.Itwasfrequentlynotedthat thevariouselementsof theconferencedidnothangtogetherasonecoherentnarrative.Insteadtheseparatepartsoftenappearedtoexistinisolationfromeachother.Itwasanticipatedbysomerespondents that thiswasdue to the lackof timeandsuggestedthat,hadthepreparationprocessbeenlesshurried,presenterswouldhavebeengivenmoreguidanceastothecontributiontheirinputwasexpectedtomaketotheoverallstoryoftheconference.However,thisisasignificantcritiqueasthecontentoftheconferenceisoneofthemostimportantaspectsandshouldbeprioritisedoverallothers.Thepostglobaleventtogetherwiththeconsultationprocessshouldhaveledtopost-eventprocessesbutintheuncertaintyastowhomwouldtakethesefurther,theydidnotmaterialisefully.

A further reflection is thatdespite anumberoforganisations representing theorganisingcommittee, there could have beenmore joined-up thinking. For example, the differentcomponentsoftheCGIARandGFARsystemscouldhaveensuredthatthepublicityaroundthenationalandregionalconsultationswasmuchbroaderandmuchmorerepresentativeinorder to enable some of these individuals to carry the messages from national to theinternationalconferenceitselfinamoreauthenticway.

4. Thefourthareaforfurtherreflectionandchangeconcernsthestyleoftheconferenceitself.AsstatedatthestartofthisreportoneofthecoreaimsoftheGCARDprocessisto“meetthe needs of resource-poor farmers and their communities”. It is thus concerning that,although the objectives of the conference were aligned to this overall goal, the lack offarmersperceivedtobepresentandmeaningfullyparticipatinginconferenceactivitiesmaybeanareaforfurtherreflection.Theirabilitytoattendisalsoakeycomponentthatislinkedtothesupportsupportingtheirattendance.

5. Thefinalareaforconsiderationuniteseachofthepreviouspointsmentionedandconcernstheuseofanalyticalreportssuchasthisone.TheauthorsseeanumberofindicationsthatrecommendationsmadeintheanalysisreportpublishedbyDr.Cookein2013havenotonlybeen adopted but have been surpassed during a time of volatility in the system. In somecasesrecommendedactionssuchasincluding“anupdateontheCGSRFactionplananditsrelationship to national and regional priorities” within the conference schedule were notadopted.However the value of these events is predicated on learning aboutwhatworks,throughan independentvoiceandensuring thatparticipants strengthen their feedback toensurethatthatassessmentisimpartialinitsnatureandisbuiltontheirfeedback.

15

Introduction

BackgroundtoGCARDprocessThe Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD) is a consultation andconferenceprocessorganised jointlybyTheGlobalForumonAgriculturalresearch(GFAR)andtheConsultativeGroupforInternationalAgriculturalResearch(CGIAR).TheprincipalmandateofGFARistwofold;tofacilitateequitablerepresentativedialogueonpartnersprioritiesand;mobilizecollectiveactionwithregardtotheepriorities.TheCGIARworkstoadvanceagriculturalscienceandinnovationtoenablepoorpeople,especiallywomen,tobetternourishtheirfamilies,andimproveproductivityand resilience so theycan share ineconomicgrowthandmanagenatural resources in the faceofclimatechangeandotherchallenges.

InspecifictermstheGCARDconferencewasaimedat:

• Promotingeffective,targetedinvestmentintoagriculture• Buildingpartnerships,capacitiesandmutualaccountabilitiesatall levelsoftheagricultural

system• Meetingtheneedsofresource-poorfarmersandtheircommunities• Helpingtorefineregionalandglobalagriculturalresearchpriorities,asidentifiedbydifferent

stakeholdergroupsandrepresentatives,inaninclusiveway

Todate,therehavebeenthreeindividualconferenceeventsoftheGCARDprocess.ThefirstGCARDwasheldinMontpellier,FranceinMarch2010andthesecondinPuntadelEste,UruguayinOctoberandNovember2012.ThethirdandmostrecentconferencetookplaceinJohannesburg,SouthAfricain April 2016, co-hosted by the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) of South Africa, and is theprinciplesubjectofthisreport’sassessment.

TheevolutionofGCARDIn addition to sharing theaboveoverarchinggoals, all of the conferenceshavebeenprecededbyintensive consultation processes, engaging a broad range of stakeholders at both national andregional levels through both face-to-face and online formats. The outputs of these consultationswerethenusedtoshapethecontentandstructureofeachsubsequentconference.

Thethreeconferencesalsoallshare:

• Acommitmenttopracticalactionsandoutcomes• Anunderstandingthatthisprocessisajourneyandwillcontinuetoevolveasitprogresses• The prominent significance accorded to partnership-building, both within and across

nations,regionsandcontinents

Despite these similarities, the three conferences nonetheless sought to address quite differentquestions.GCARD1addressedtheoverallthemeof‘EnhancingDevelopmentImpactfromResearch’andfocusedonthefollowingkeyquestions:

• Whatarethedevelopmentneedswhereagriculturalresearchcanplayitsbestrole?• Howbestdoweturnresearchintodevelopmentimpactatscale?• Howcanmoreeffectivepathwaysbedevelopedtocreateimpactforthepoor?

16

• Whatinvestments,institutions,policiesandcapacitiesarenecessary?

GCARD1 resulted in the ‘GCARDRoadMap: TransformingAR4DSystems forGlobal Impact,’ a six-pointplantoadvanceinclusiveprioritysetting,equalpartnerships,increasedinvestment,improvedcapacitiesandbettercommunicationofachievements.

GCARD2 moved on from initial investigations into ‘Why’ investment in agricultural research andinnovationisimportantfordevelopmenttodigdeeperinto‘How’todothisand‘What’differenceitis expected to make. The conference centred on the theme of ‘Foresight and Partnership forInnovationandImpactonSmall-holderLivelihoods’andfocusedonaddressingthecorequestionof‘How do we reshape research together so that it better answers the needs of resource poorsmallholderfarmersandfostersrapidruraldevelopment?’

TheConferenceprovidedanopportunity for all sectors and regions to report their activities since2010andtoagreeoncollectiveactionsandnextsteps in implementingtheGCARDRoadMapandthe CGIAR Strategy and Results Framework (SRF). The SRF lays out CGIAR’s strategy towards thedevelopment of their second-generation portfolio of Research Programs (CRPs), commencing in2017.

Finally GCARD3 took this process few steps further by focusing on re-aligning research fordevelopmentprioritiesandinvestmentopportunitieswiththeresource-poor’sowndevelopmentneeds and country/national processes and with the Sustainable Development Goals, to realizemeasurableimpact.Theoverallthemefortheconferencewas‘NoOneLeftBehind’.

GCARD3GCARD3tookplacefrom6th-8thofApril2016.GCARD3thematicsessionswereheldon6thand8thofApriland includedplenarydiscussionsandparallelthematicroundtablesbasedonfivekeythemesidentifiedduringthenationalandregionalconsultations:

• Scalingup:Fromresearchtoimpact• Showcasingresultsanddemonstratingimpact• Keepingsciencerelevantandfuturefocused• Sustainingthebusinessoffarming• Ensuringbetterruralfuturesthroughforesightandcollectiveactions

On7thofApril,participantsheldaone-dayresearchsymposiumattheARC’sRoodeplaatCampus,incommemorationofthe25thanniversaryofthehostinstitution.Theprogrammeincludedplenaryandthematicdiscussions,aswellasvisitstofieldtrialsitesandtheARCBiotechnologyPlatformlocatedattheOnderstepoortVeterinaryInstitutecampus.

GCARD3wasdesigneddifferentlyfromthepreviousGCARDeventsandinvolveda12-monthrunupperiod including a set of consultations at National, Regional and the Global Event. Each of thesecomponentswasintendedtoprovideinsightsontheneeds,actionsandstakeholdersateachofthenational, regionalandglobal levels.Theresponsibilities fororganisingdifferentcomponentsoftheGCARD3 were split between three bodies: GFAR, CGIAR and the South African ARC. All partiesparticipated inthediscussionandselectionoftheGCARD3themes,wererepresentedmembersoftheSteeringandOrganisingcommittees,coordinatedthetechnicaldevelopmentofthethemesand

17

GFARinparticularenabledparticipationofpartners inthe5themesandincludedtheoutcomesintheirmid-termplans.

• GFAR took primary responsibility for organising and funding the regional consultationsthroughutilisingnetworksandpartnershipswiththeirregionalfora.Theyalsofundedthecostofattendancetothemainconferenceforthoseattendeesunabletofundtheirowntravelandfees.

• The CGIAR took lead responsibility for arranging and funding the national consultationsthroughCountryteamsmadeupofrepresentativesofCentresandCRPsledbyoneCentreineachcountry.

• TheSouthAfricanARCwasresponsibleforarrangingandfundingallofthelogisticalaspectsoftheconferenceitselfsuchasthevenue,refreshments,facilities,entertainment,traveletc.Theoverall financial contribution to the running of the process including the global event fromGFAR and CGIAR combined was approximately $350,000USD with more than double thatfigurecontributedinadditionbytheSouthAfricangovernment.

LandscapeviewoftheSystemintherunuptotheGCARD3A number of important contextual factors surrounding the conference are useful to raise at thispoint. These factorsnotonlyadd colour to the landscape inwhich the conference tookplacebutalsodeepenunderstandingofthepointsraisedbysomepartieslaterinthisreport.Combinedwiththeuncertainty inanewly reforming system, somediscontinuitiesbetweendifferent schedulesofsystem entities and a lack of coordination across the system will have negatively impacted theGCARD3processandglobalevent.Whilsttheauthorsofthisreportcannotquantifythis,thelevelsofanxietyamongallparticipantsoftheGCARD3werepalpable,includingnotleastthedonors.

Dr.CookeAnalysisReportThefirstofthesecontextualfactorsistheanalysisreportcarriedoutbyDr.RodneyCookefollowingGCARDs 1 and 2. This report “A Review of the Global Conference on Agricultural Research forDevelopment (GCARD): An analysis of the way forward” was published in March 2013 based ondiscussionswithande-surveyresponsesfromover200(10%)participantswhoattendedGCARD2.

The report identified that therewasmuchpositive feedback following theGCARD2conference. Inparticular, GCARD2 was rated highly by participants. 79% of conference participants noted thatGCARD2 provided useful or very useful opportunities to interact with others to help furtherunderstanding of AR4D; and 67% of CGIAR participants said that the knowledge they acquiredthroughGCARD2wouldbelikelytochangethedesignorimplementationoftheiractivities,andthattheir participation in GCARD2 was likely to change their approach to partnerships in their AR4Dprogrammes.Overall,79%ofrespondentsfeltthattheknowledgetheyhadgainedwouldbelikelytochangethedesignorimplementationoftheirprogrammes,andthesamepercentagefeltthatitwouldchangetheirapproachtoexistingornewpartnerships.

Majorconcernswerealsoexpressed inDrCooke’s reporton theGCARD2 that requiredattentionmoving forwards. Concerns of various natureswere cited in his report; including the focus of theconference, the degree to which National AR4D views were considered, the utility of GCARD topromoteeffective interactionwithCGIARstakeholdersandpartners inCRPsand theeffectivenessandefficiencyofGCARD.FollowinghisanalysisDr.Cookeprovidedsevenrecommendationsforhow

18

GCARD could become more focused in the future, effective and efficient to deliver results fornationalandinternationalpartnersinAR4D.Clearlyhisthoughtfulandrigorousreportacceptedbythe Fund Council and reflected in detail upon by the GFAR Secretariat have led to considerableimprovements in the conceptualisation, planning and organisation of the subsequent GCARD3conference.

Dr Cooke’s recommendations emanating fromGCARD2 are included belowwithevidence for therefinementsputforwardtoaddresstheseinthepreparationandorganisationofGCARD3:

Recommendation1-TheGCARDpartnershipthemeshouldfocustoagreaterextentthaninGCARD2onresearchuptakepathways:Partnershipwiththeagriculturaldevelopmentcommunity.

Inresponsetothisrecommendation,GCARD3wasconceptualised,plannedandorganisedbyajointOrganising Committee with equal representation between CGIAR and GFAR4. The key areasextractedfromtheMinutesoftheGCARDOrganisingCommittee(11thSeptember2015)includethefollowing:

“TakingadvantageoftheGCARD3nationalandregionalconsultationstowardssiteintegrationandthestrengtheningofnationalresearchandinnovationsystems,theGCARD3Globaleventshould emphasize innovation and partnerships on a bigger scale, with the CGIAR and otherresearchactorsaspartofthatbiggerpicture.FortheCGIAR,theGCARDGlobalEventwillnotfocusspecificallyonCRPs,norbethepurposeofinformingdecisiononthefinalCRPproposals(asthesewillhavealreadybeensubmitted)butwillleadtowardstheintegrationofthesewithother actions and actions towards impact in each area. As the CGIAR is in themiddle of itsstrategic renewal, and there are other large processing going on (e.g. CAADP, NEPAD) theCommitteefeltthatthefocusshouldbeonthecontributionofagri-foodsystemsresearchandinnovationtodevelopment(asdonebydifferentstakeholderse.g.ARC,CGIAR,otherresearchfordevelopmentinstitutionsandsystemsworkingtogether)…

TheoutcomesoftheGCARD3GlobalEventshouldprovideaninjectiontolargerprocessesandarticulate clearly and boldly how agricultural research and innovation respond to theSustainableDevelopmentGoals”

Recommendation 2 - The reformed and smallerGCARDOrganizing Committee should drawmoredirectly on the on-going national and regional programmes in designing the Conference. ThatCommitteealsoneedstooverseethechangedbalanceofparticipationcomprisingRecommendation5,below.

In response to this recommendation, The GCARDOrganising Committeewas reformed to ensureequalparticipationbytheCGIARandGFAR.FrankRijsbermanandMarkHoldernesswereappointedCo-Chairs.Theprogrammaticcomponentswereestablishedbyamulti-stakeholdergroupofexpertsdrawnfromdifferentsectorsandensuringabalanceof roles, stakeholdersandofgender.GenderbalancewasalsoestablishedintheselectionofSpeakers,Chairsandparticipants.

4TherepresentativesofthecommitteeincludedCGIAR:FrankRijsberman(GCIARCEO),KwesiAtta-Krah(CRPHumidTropicsLeader)andTomRandolph(CRPLeaderLivestockandFish).

19

Furthermore the national dialogues, new to the process were consciously constructed to bringgreater integration of the CRPs and greater coordination of CGIAR efforts to address nationalpriorities.

The regional events were drawn around regional priority actions determined by regionalorganisationsandengagingtheCRPleadersandstakeholderstoseetheimplicationsoftheirwork.As requested by the Fund Council, GCARD dimensions were added to these events to ensureeffectiveresourceuse.

Recommendation3-TheGCARDfocusshouldincludeprovidinganaccountabilitymechanismforCGIARSRFandCRPstostakeholders.

The response to this recommendation was that the CRP leaders and Centres talked with theirdefined partners at national levels to formulate the CRP proposals. However the site integrationprocesschampionedby theConsortiumwasamajorstep forwardtoproduceanationally ledanddriven reviewofhow theCGIARcanaddvalue tonationaldevelopmentplansandprocesses. TheMinutesoftheOrganisingCommittee(6thJuly,2015)indicate:

“3.PlanningofGCARD3consultationsrelatedtoCGIARResearchPrograms(CRPs)TomRandolphupdatedtheOrganizingCommitteeontheCRPScienceLeadersmeetingheldin1-5JuneinMontpellier….Hereportedthattherehadbeenbuy-infortheconceptofsiteintegration,althoughthetermitselfwasstillunderdebate.ThediscussionsatthescienceleadersmeetingechoedthediscussionsoftheOrganizingCommitteeinbetterunderstandingwhatwillbeobjectivesandtimingofthenationalconsultations.TheoutcomeoftheScienceLeadersmeetingwasclarificationonimplementingsiteintegration.OnonehandtherewillbeSiteIntegration+whereeffortsforsiteintegrationwillbefocusedonthosecountrieswherethereissignificantCGIARpresenceintermsofCentresandmultipleCRPsbeingactive.ItwasnotedthatsomeoftheCRPScienceLeaderswouldliketoconsideradditionalcriteria(e.g.thestrategicvalueofworkinginacountry).AnexerciseisbeingtakenbytheCRPsandCGIARCentrestoconfirmwhichcountrieshavesignificantCGIARpresenceintermsofinvestment,staffandinfrastructure.Notwithstandingadditionalcriteriaandbasedonearlierinformation,theSiteIntegration+isexpectedtoinvolve15-20countries.Theexercisewillconfirmwhichcountrieswillbeexpectedtohavesiteimplementationplansandforthesecountries,theCRPsandtheCentreswillagreeonacountryspecific,suitablecoordinationmechanism.Inafew–possiblythreetofivecountrieswherethereisparticularlyintensiveinvolvementofalargenumberofCRPsandCentre,thereareplansforCountryIntegration++.ThemodalitieswillbesimilartotheSiteIntegration+,butwiththeaddeddirectinvolvementoftheConsortiumOfficetofacilitatehigher-levelengagementwithstakeholdersandresourcemobilization.Itisthese3-5SiteIntegration++countriesthatwillbetargetfortheGCARD3nationalconsultationsin2015.

AdditionalworkbytheConsortiumOfficeandtheCRPsisbeingdonetodevelopatemplateforsiteintegrationthatmayalsobeusedindevelopinganagendaandprocessforthenationalconsultations.AsnotedbytheScienceLeaders,siteintegrationasalabelhasraisedsomeconcerns.Whilearrivingatanappropriateterminologyintheexercisethereiscommonacceptancethatconsultationsaregoingtobecrucialandtheintentisreal,improvedcoordination.AsnotedbytheFARAmemberoftheOC,siteintegrationshouldlinktoactivities/actionsoutsideoftheCRPsas

20

well.TheFarmerOrganizationsmemberontheOCaddedthatsiteintegrationwouldbewelcomedbysmallholderfarmersbutwonderhowthismightbeextendedtoneighbouringcountries……Itwasreiteratedthattoengagemeaningfullywithfarmersandfarmerorganizationswouldrequireface-to-facedialogue.Therewasagreementthatsiteintegration(orwhatevertermisused)willcomeattwoscales.Onescalewillbeamongsitesinacountrye.g.CRPsthatareworkingondifferentsitesinthesamecountrytofindwaystoharmonizetheiractivities.Theotherscalewillbeatthenationallevele.g.improvedcoordinationwithpartnersandbetteralignmenttonationalleveldemands.ResultsoftheCRPexerciseshouldbeavailableduringtheweekof13-17July.Whenthecountriesareidentifiedacoordinationcommitteefornationalconsultationswillbeestablished.ItisexpectedthattherewillbemodestcontributionsfromCRPSandthathopefullythiswillgrowastheCRPsrecognizetheefficiencygainsofdoingthesecollectiveconsultationsratherthanindividualconsultations.Afinalpointraisedinregardstothis,wastoensurethatthenationalconsultationsaremulti-stakeholder.”

Recommendation4-TheGCARDjointventurebetweenGFARandCGIARshouldorganizethistwo-yearprocessmoreeffectively, embodying this in the forthcomingSRFActionPlanand theGFARMTP,inordertohaveamorefocused,effectiveandefficientGCARDConference

In response to this recommendation, as identified in the above responses the OrganisingCommitteewasreformulatedandtheSRFActionPlanandGFARMTPsensuredalignmentwiththeoutcomes.

Recommendation 5 - The GCARD Conference should involve a larger proportion of ruraldevelopmentpractitionersinasmallermoreefficientmeeting,whicharticulateswiththetwoyearpreparatoryprocessesdescribedabove.

TheGCARD3eventwassupportedathalftheoriginalleveloffinancialsupportbytheFundCouncilin previous years and this reduced financial support inadvertently worked against therecommendation to include more rural development practitioners. At 400 participants, theGCARD3eventwasdeliberatelyaimed (as requestedby theFundCouncil)atbeingaconsciouslysmallereventthanGCARD1(1,000participants)orGCARD2(658).

Recommendation 6 - The GCARD Organizing Committee to adopt the principles demanded insection III involving longer term planning and organization in the 6 month period prior to theConference,andthedesignofaninteractive3-dayConferencewhichalternateshalfdaysessionsonnational/regionalprioritiesandreportswithhalfdaysessionsonCGIARSRF/CRPperspectivesand reports. Thiswould set the context for theFundersForumand the interactionbetween theCGIARanditsinvestors.

Inresponsetothisrecommendation,thereadershouldnotethattheCGIARFundCouncilremovedtheFundersForum.ItwasrecognizedbytheGCARDOrganisingCommitteethattheFundCouncilSecretariat’sdecision,madeaftertheplanningprocesswaswellunderway,toholdtheFCmeetingonemonthaftertheGCARD3,inRome,andtheFundCouncil’sdecisiontosupporttheseparatelyconvenedmechanismoftheISPC’sScienceForuminEthiopiadrewbothparticipantsandresourcesaway from the GCARD3 and created potential cost duplications. In the case of CGIAR donors,severalexpressedprivatelythattheycouldnotjustifytravellingtwicewithinsuchashortspaceoftime.

21

Recommendation7 -TheGCARDbeorganized ina lesser-developedcountrycapital,and that intheinterestsofefficiency,participantsbechargedaregistrationfeetocoverthecostsoflunchesandairportandfieldtriptransport.

In response to this recommendation, anopen tenderprocesswasorganisedacross Sub-SaharanAfricaandSouthAfricawasselectedfromamongthethreenationalbidsreceived.Aregistrationfeewaschargedtonon-sponsoredparticipantsandwasrecoveredbySouthAfrica,offsetagainsttheircommittedsupportfortheevent.

ReviewsoftheCGIARSystemin2008triggeredareformprocess,which,from2011,eventuatedinnewstructures,newpolicies,aStrategicResultsFramework (SRF)andasetof15CGIARResearchPrograms (CRPs). These pronounced and contemporaneous changes, however, led to varioussuboptimal issues inthesetofCRPs.Notwithstandingthesignificantprogressmadetodate intheCRPs,theimportantlessonslearnedinthefirstcycleofCRPsinclude:

1. CRPsbeingdeveloped largely before the SRFwas finalized leading to some lackof focus anddirection;

2. Asynchronous approval of the CRPs leading to differing scales, construction, modalities andoperation;

3. IsolatedandindividualdevelopmentofCRPsleadingtolittleinteractionandsynergy;4. InadequateattentionpaidtothearticulationoftheInternationalPublicGood(IPG)natureof

theCRPwork,anditsrelevancetonationalpriorities;5. Retro-fittingofpoorly-alignedlegacyprojectsintoanewstructureleadingtounclearpriorities;

Excessivetransactioncostsleadingtosubstantialinefficienciesandfrustrations.6. Based on various analyses since June 2014, in Feb 2015, the Centres proposed to the

ConsortiumBoard and FundCouncil that theybe givenanopportunity to address thesepastconcernsinformulatinganewcoherentportfolio.Itwasfeltthatatargetedcallwasmorelikelytodeliveranintegratedportfoliothananopencall.ThisrequestwassubsequentlyapprovedatCB19andFC13meetingswithvariouscaveatsandguidance5.

NewCGIARStrategyandResultsFramework(SRF)and2ndphaseCRPportfolioAspartofthedevelopmentofCGIAR’snewStrategyandResultsFramework(SRF)6,theCGIARandGFAR implemented the stakeholder consultation that provided stakeholders and partners bothinsideandoutsideCGIARwithopportunitiestoprovideinputtothedevelopmentoftheSRF2016-30. This consultationwas part of the broader engagement process of GCARD3. It was created topromote effective, targeted investment and build partnership, capacities and mutualaccountabilities at all levels of the agricultural system so as to ensure that today’s agriculturalresearchmeetstheneedsofresource-poorendusers.Theprocesshelpedrefineregionalandglobalagriculturalresearchprioritiesbydifferentstakeholdergroupsandrepresentativesineachregioninaninclusiveway.

5http://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/3871/DeliveringonCGIARStrategyPortfolioVersion19.pdf6http://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/4069/CGIARSRFOverviewWEB.pdf

22

CGIARTransitionTomaximizetheeffectivenessandefficiencyoftheCGIARandstrengthenitsgovernancestructuresanddecision-makingprocesses,theFundCouncildecidedinApril2015(atFC13)toestablishaCGIARSystem Organization consisting of a CGIAR System Council and a CGIAR System Office, to beestablishedinMontpellier,France.OnSeptember4,2015,theCGIARFundCouncil(nowtheSystemCouncilandforthwithreferredtoassuch)approvedbymail,onano-objectionbasis,thePlanforthetransitiontotheestablishmentof the CGIAR System Organization. This Plan provided the agreed process for transitioning theexisting CGIAR Consortium to a CGIAR System Organization. The exact details of this transitioncontinued to be in a state of flux and uncertainty throughout the course of the consultations,conference and subsequent analysis. At a Meeting of CGIAR Centres and Funders on the CGIARSystem in Washington, D.C. on June 6-8, 2016 entailed the refinement of the CGIAR Systemframework.

“Decisions taken by CGIAR donors in 2015 that bring the CGIAR system under one unifiedgovernancestructureprovidetheframework,incentivesandconditionsthroughwhichCGIAR,itsCentresandCRPs, candeliver results. Implementationof thegovernance reformsover2016–2017 will deliver improved coordination, accountability and transparency in decision makingthroughouttheCGIARsystemasawhole.”

CGIARSRF

23

TimingAsstatedearlier,theCGIARoperatesthroughaportfolioofCGIARResearchprograms(CRPs).AspertheSRF,proposalsforCRPswereexpectedtobedevelopedinclosecollaborationwithNationalandRegionalpartners,aimingforalignmentonallaspectsoftheproposalfromcontributingresearchtodeterminingoutcomes.The secondof this portfolio is due to commence in 2017. Draft proposals detailing the plans foreachprogramand their budgetswere submitted at the endofMarch 2016, prior to theGCARD3Global Event, and following the GCARD3 national and regional consultation process. The Africanregionalconsultationtookplaceafterthefirst-draftPhaseIIproposalsubmissionsTheGlobalEventwas initially scheduled to take place prior to the submission of proposals. However, the SouthAfricangovernmentandARCdecidedthefinaldates.7It is important tonote that theCGIARsite integration initiative -whichwasalsooneof themajorelements involved inandmakinguseof thenationalconsultations to influenceCGIARwork takingplace in 20 countries - incorporated much of the site integration work which was subsequentlyaccomplishedattheendofApril/earlyMay2016.”Inaddition,stakeholderswerealsoabletorefineproposalsfollowingthefirstIndependentScienceandPartnershipCouncil(ISPC)reviewandpriortothefinalisationoftheCRPsselectedinSeptember2016.ThishasprovidedafurtheropportunityforproposalstobeupdatedtoreflecttheactivitiesoftheGCARD3GlobalEventandwiderconsultationprocess.TheoutcomesfromthefivethemesarealsopartoftheGFARMTPandresultedinconcretealliancescarryingthenamesofthese5themesand have stimulated collective actions among partners. GFAR had also held its Partner AssemblyconcurrentwiththeGCARD3GlobalEvent.

MonitoringandEvaluationTheAgriculturalLearningandImpactsNetwork(ALINe)wascontractedastheofficialmonitoringandevaluation (M&E) partner for the GCARD3 global event and had some access to the processinformation prior to this event. ALINe is committed to proving the capacity for evidence-basedlearningandimpactacrossaglobalnetworkofpartnershipsintheagriculturalsector.Itsteamhaveextensive experience working with stakeholders from across the spectrum of ARD includinguniversities,NAOs,governments,NGOs,farmers’organisationsandscientists.ALINeiscommittedtoenabling the voices of these varied stakeholders to be heard through its work. ALINe also hasextensive experience of a very broad range of both qualitative and quantitativeM&E approachesandhascarriedoutM&EassessmentsofmanyeventsandinitiativesintheARDspaceoverthepast10years.

Following thereviewprocesspresentedbyRodneyCookeonGCARD1and2 to theFundCouncil,monitoring and evaluation continue to remain very important for the GCARD Process itself andtrackingtheoutcomessoughtfromtheconference.OneofthecorepillarsoftheGCARDprocessiscontinuous improvement and the tools were developed to identify what worked, well and what

7http://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/3871/Delivering%20on%20CGIAR%20Strategy%20Portfolio%20Version%2019.pdf

24

worked lesswellandhowanygapscould in futurecontribute toamore joined-up-processby thedifferent entities in the system rather thanwhat could bemanaged by the CGIAR andGFAR in acontextofuncertaintyaroundthegovernanceandstructureforthesystem, its fundingcontinuity,andanewsetofPhaseIICRPproposals.FurthermoretheimpactontheCRPsthemselvescanonlybeassessedoncetheyhavehadanopportunitytorolloutoveraminimumperiodofthenext6-12monthsof2017.

ToolsEmployed(SeeAnnex1forDetails)ThroughoutGCARD3,avarietyofmethodsandmechanismswereemployedtomonitorandevaluatethe different elements of the process. This covered all phases from planning through toimplementationaswellasthelegacyoftheconferenceafterattendeesdeparted.Theaimofthesemechanisms has been to both gather information and to identify opportunities for futureimprovements.Itisimportantthatintheabsenceofacounterfactualandthedegreeofconfusioninthesystemcreatedbythereformprocessandfundingshortfalls,thisreportisnotafullevaluationreport and should not be considered to be. In addition, in order to ensure independence theassessment of the GCARD3 process was not endorsed or mandated by any one organisation.Therefore, participation in the feedback process relied upon the goodwill of participants – at theGlobalConferenceaswellasbeforeandaftertheevent.Participantswereregularlychasedfornon-responsestosurveysandevaluationformsforaperiodnotleastthan5-6monthsbeforetheanalysiswasfinalised.

TheM&Etoolsutilisedinthisworkincluded(inorderofusage):

1. A perceptual feedback questionnaire issued to attendees of national and regionalconsultations (with 87 responses – 54 from attendees of national consultations, 20 fromregionalconsultations,and13whoattendedbotharegionalandnationalconsultation)

2. Face-to-faceinterviewswithattendeesoftheGCARD3conference(atotalof34interviews)3. Evaluation forms issued toattendeesof themeworkshopsatGCARD3 (131 respondents)A

perceptualfeedbackquestionnaireissuedtoattendeesoftheGCARD3conference(with104responses)Analysis of data relating to the social media activity carried out around theconference

4. Areviewofthepublically-availableliteraturesurroundingtheGCARDprocess5. Areviewofsourcesof informationfromOrganisingCommitteeMeetingMinutesandFund

CouncilMinutesthatareinthepublicdomain.

FurthermoreimpartialviewsweretakenoftheorganisationoftheconferenceintherunuptotheGCARD3eventthroughthesolicitationviainterviewswithattendees.Thismixedmethodsapproach,employinga rangeof techniquesandutilisingavarietyofdifferent formsof information,notonlyenabledabroadrangeofvoices tobeheardbutalso facilitated thevalidationof findings throughtriangulation.Forasummaryofthenatureandnumberofthesetoolsandtechniquesaswellasacopy of the full tools please see Annex 1.It is important to note that the views conveyed in thisreportarederived from independentvoicesand that the response rate to thevarious toolsused,wasvariable.Wherepossiblethesehavebeenindicatedinthetextthatfollows.

25

GCARD3-ConsultationsAs part of GCARD3, 20 largemulti-stakeholder consultations at the national level and 5 regionalmulti stakeholder consultations tookplacebetweenOctober2015andApril2016 (fora full listofcountriesandregionswhereconsultationstookplacepleaseseeAnnex2).

ThenationalconsultationswereledbyCGIARCentres,withdirectsupportfromGFAR.Theregionalconsultationswere organised by both organisations based on the region of the consultation, andalso leveraged other regional events to ensure cost effectiveness. Both sets of consultationsprovidedanopportunityforavarietyofstakeholdersinthosespecificgeographiestomeettogethertodiscussprioritiesandactivitiesandtoprovideguidanceonfutureactivities.

Attendees reported a high level of satisfaction with the content and organisation of theconsultations

NationalconsultationsAccordingtotheperceptualfeedbacksurveycarriedoutwithconsultationattendees:



“Organising an event in Kinshasa is always a difficult affair. The meeting was wellprepared,theparticipationfromhigh-levelpeoplefromIITAIbadanwasverygoodandthepanelwaswellcomposedandbalanced.Theworkinggroupswereactiveandtheywerehelpedwiththediscussionstokeepthefocusandtherighttrack.”

GovernmentMinistry


• 28% of respondents felt “very satisfied” with the outputs of the consultation, 41% felt“mostlysatisfied”,28%felt“somewhatsatisfied”and3%felt“veryunsatisfied”

DetailsofthenationalandregionalconsultationscanbefoundinAnnex2.

Veryunsassfied,3%

Somewhatsassfied,28% Mostlysassfied,41% Verysassfied,28%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Howsabsfiedwereadendeesofnabonalconsultabonswithnabonalconsultabonoutputs?

26

When discussing the key message they took away from the consultation, 22 out of the 38respondents cited the importance of “cooperation”, “alignment”, “working together”, “harmony”,“consolidating efforts”, “collaboration” and/or “common goals” as they key message of theconsultation. Overall particular mention was made of the open and honest nature of theparticipationandthesenseofcooperationestablished.

In terms of things that could have been improved, 11% of respondents suggested that theconsultation would have benefitted from having been organised with more time allocated forinteraction. 5% of respondents suggested the consultations should last two days or more.Separately, 11% of respondents expressed concerns about a lack of clear next steps or actionsfollowing-onformtheconsultation.

RegionalconsultationsAccordingtotheperceptualfeedbacksurveycarriedoutwithconsultationattendees[pleasenotethat only 9 of the respondents to the survey stated that they had attended a regionalconsultation-pleaseseebelowsectiononawarenessabouttheconsultations]:




• 22%ofrespondentsfeltverysatisfiedwiththeoutputsoftheconsultation,67%felt“mostlysatisfied”and11%felt“somewhatsatisfied”

Againrespondentsmadeparticularmentionoftheperceivedappropriatenessofthestakeholdersinvolvedand thequalityand freedomof thediscussions includingnoting that“therewasagoodbalance of very technical people, and peoplewhowanted to focus on extensionwork”, that “freeviews were welcomed” and that there was “freedom for participants to express themselves”.Respondents suggested that theyparticularlyvalued theopportunities fordiscussionand informaldebate,insomecasesabovethatofthepresentations.Othersalsosuggestedthattheconsultationcouldhavebeenimprovedbymakingthepresentationsmoreaccessibleandattractiveandthatitwouldhavebenefittedfrombeingslightlylonger.

Somewhatsassfied,11%

Mostlysassfied,67% Verysassfied,22%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Howsabsfiedwereadendeeswithregionalconsultabonoutputs?

27

“For such important discussion the consultation needed at least another day, theparallel sessions did not allow full attendance so that overall understanding of thevarioustopicsandtheirrelationshipleftgaps” NGOConsortium

Overallawarenessoftheconsultationprocesswaslow

Amongst the 34 respondents interviewed during GCARD3, only 1 reported having attended anationalconsultation(Malawi)and3reportedattendingaregionalconsultation(Asia-Pacific).

43%ofthe56conferenceattendeesurveyrespondentsreportedthattheywereunawareabouttheconsultationsuntiltheyattendedtheconference.Only18%ofthesesurveyrespondentsreportedthattheyhadattendedanationalorregionalconsultation.Attendeesurveyrespondentsweremadeupofindividualsfromabroadrangeofinstitutions.ThemostcommoninstitutionalbackgroundwasNARS-21%ofrespondents,CGIARcentres-14%,followedbyNGOs-12.5%,Internationalresearchcentres-7.7%,nationalextensionorganisations-6.7%,farmers’organisationsanddonors-5.8%each,theprivatesector-3.8%andsub-regionalorganisations-2.9%.Other(backgroundnotspecified)represented19%ofattendees.

RecommendationsOverall the feedback fromrespondentswhohadattendeda regionalornational consultationwaspositive regarding both organisation and content. However there are some clear areas whereimprovementscanbemadethatwillenhancetheircapacitytocontributepositivelytotheGCARDprocess:

• Allowmore time: many respondents reported that more time was needed to enable allparticipants to contribute fully. In many cases it was suggested that extending all theconsultationsover2dayswouldhavebeenbeneficial.Inaddition,adequatetimeshouldbegiventoinformaldiscussionanddebate,notonlytomoreformalpresentations.

• Preparation:ensurethatanybackgroundinformationissuppliedtoparticipantswellaheadof time to allow them to prepare. This will also help to make sure that time at theconsultationisspentmoreefficiently;indiscussingitemsratherthandescribing/presentingthem.

• Participationandawareness:therelativelylowlevelsofawarenessabouttheconsultationsamongstconferenceattendees indicate thatpublicityaround theconsultationscouldhavebeenhigherandcouldhaveintegratedawidergroupofstakeholders.

• Timing:feedbackfromrespondentsinvolvedinorganisingtheconsultationssuggestedthattheywerecarriedouttooclosetotheconferencefortheir insightsandoutputstobefullyintegrated. It is recommended to organise consultations with sufficient time for theirinsights tomeaningfully shape the structure, content and organisation of the conferencetheyprecede.

8GCARD3-MotivationsforattendingThe414 registered attendees came frommany countries and typesof background toGCARD3. Interms of organisational background, 23% of attendees came from international research centres(incl.CGIAR),19%camefromtheSouthAfricanARC,9%fromacademia,6%fromgovernmentand

8Theserespondentsdidnotspecifytheirinstitutionalaffiliations

28

6% fromNARS, 5% fromYPARD, 4% fromdonors, 4% from farmers’ organisations. The remaining24% were made up of GFAR, the private sector, NGOs, civil society and other.

In terms of background, of the 316 attendees who registered their home country, the largestproportionofattendees(50%)camefromsub-SaharanAfrica.Themostcommoncountriesoforiginwithin this regionwere South Africa and Kenya. The nextmost common region representedwasEurope(20%),followedbyAsia-Pacific(10%),NorthAmerica(8%),LatinAmericaandtheCaribbean(7%) and finallyMiddle East and North Africa (3%) and Central Asia and the Caucasus (2%). 105attendeesdidnotcompletethissectionoftheirregistration.

There were a number of potential motivations driving or pulling these diverse attendees to theconference. Through interviews with attendees, evaluation forms and perceptual feedbackquestionnaires, respondents shared their motivations for attending the conference. The optionsprovidedtorespondentswere:

23%

19% 18%

9%6% 6% 5% 4% 4% 3%

1% 1%

Overviewofadendeeorganisabons(n=414)

50%

20%

10% 8% 7%3% 2%

Sub-SaharanAfrica

Europe Asia-Pacific NorthAmerica LasnAmericaandthe

Caribbean

MiddleEastandNorthAfrica

CentralAsiaandtheCaucases

Breakdownofconferenceadendees,excludingthosewhodidnotspecifyregion(n=316)

29

1. Technicalcontent2. Networking3. Speakers4. Personalgrowthanddevelopment5. Policy-making6. Developingpartnerships

7. Planning8. Meetingdonors9. Presentingwork10. Representingmyorganisation11. Other(pleasespecify)

Theopportunity tonetworkwas theprimarydriverofoverall conferenceattendancebutwithinsessions,technicalcontentwasthemainattraction

• Accordingtotheperceptualfeedbacksurveyofconferenceattendees,themostcommonlycited reasons forattending theoverall conferencewere“Networking” (23%of responses)and“Representingmyorganisation”(21%)

• The next most popular reasons were “Developing partnerships” (15% of responses) and“Content”(13%)

• Ininterviewswithattendees,respondentsalsoemphasisedtheappealoftheopportunitytonetworkwithotherpeopleintheindustrytoeitherreinforceexistingrelationshipsorbuildnewones.Thisincludedrelationshipsthatcouldleadtoprofessionalpartnerships

• Anotherkeyfactorthatdrewpeopletoattendtheconferencewastheopportunitytohearand learn from other bodies, countries and continents. Respondents reported that theycametoshare ideasandgetagauge forwheredifferentactorsandtheoverall industry isheading. Respondents identified the conference as an important forum for keeping onesfingeronthepulseoftheARDindustry

“Ithinkit'sveryuseful,tomeetwithpeoplefromdifferentcountriesandtolearnfromdifferentareasof theworld. Forexample, thesession I justcameoutofwasbringingexperiences fromCaribbeancountries. Thosethingswillgivememoreperspectives toenablemetolookatthisglobalissueinperspective.”

CGIARCentre

Withregardstomotivationsforattendingthethemeworkshops,heretheemphasisshiftedmoretowardsthetechnicalcontentofthesessions,whichrepresented36%ofevaluationformresponses.Beyondthis,20%ofrespondentscitednetworking,afurther20%mentioned‘personalgrowthanddevelopment’,10%policymaking,4%attendedbecauseofthespeakersadvertised,whilst4%citedanother(unspecified)reason.

Recommendations• Embrace furthernetworking- Takeonanevenstronger role in facilitatingnetworkingand

partnership building. For example through dedicated partnership-building workshopsfocused around topics/areas suggested by attendees or throughmore coordinated socialevents. In addition, make sure that participant lists are made easily available so thateveryoneisawareofwhomtheycanpotentiallyconnectwith.

30

GCARD3-LogisticsandorganisationWith over 400 attendees from all across the world coming together for an intense schedule ofpresentations, plenaries, workshops, side-events and field visits over four days, GCARD3 wascertainlyalogisticalandorganisationalchallenge.

Overalltheconferenceperformedstronglyintermsoforganisationandlogistics

• 76%ofinterviewrespondentsratedtheconference“well”or“verywellorganised”• 89%ofconferenceperceptualfeedbacksurveyrespondentsratedtheconference“well”or

“verywellorganised”• Keyfeaturesthatwereparticularlyappreciatedwere:

o The conference mobile application, which provided an up-to-date schedule ofeventsandroomnumbers.Thiswasparticularlyappreciatedbyyoungerparticipants

o Thelackofqueuestoregisteronarrivalo Thehigh-qualityvenue-goodspacesforpresentationsthat,werewell laid-outand

easytomovebetween,superioraccommodationfacilities.Thevenueachievedthehighest average rating of four logistical aspects included in the conferenceperceptualfeedbacksurvey

Someareaswereidentifiedasinneedofimprovement:

• Internetaccess-Severalrespondentsreportedalackofaccessintheirroomsoracrosstheconferencespacewhichimpededtheirabilitytowork

• Timekeeping-Itwasnotedthatsessionsregularlydidnotruntotheoriginaltimeframe• Organisationprior to theevent-Respondentsperceived thisprocess tohavebeenrushed

and as placing significant pressure on presenters and chairs. Judging by this feedback,respondentsdidnotaccess,orrecallaccessing,onlinematerialsabouttheconferenceandprogramme.

“Iwouldhavelikedtohaveknownaboutthethemes,whattheyareaimingtoachieveandwhattheconferencewantstoachievewhenIregistered.Thiswouldhaveenabledusall tobemore focusedandhit theground runningmorewhenwegothere. Italsowouldhavebeenuseful to share thenamesof the themechairs so that theycouldbecontactedbeforehand.”

Average:4.06

Average:3.68

Average:3.70

Average:3.66

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Venue

Internetaccess

Foodanddrink

Timekeeping

Ratethefollowinglogisbcalaspectsoftheconference1-5(5beingexcellentand1beingverypoor)

31

NGO

• Visas and registration- Several respondents reported either having issues gaining visas toenablethemtotraveltoSouthAfricaorhavingdifficultiesregisteringfortheevent

• Physicalpublishedmaterials-Asmentionedabove,manyrespondentsweresurprisedandfrustrated by the lack of physical, published copies of the full list of participants at theconference.Sucha listwasarguedbymanyattendeestobecritical in facilitatingeffectivenetworking and partnership building. Similar points were made regarding the lack of aphysical programme. Although younger attendees liked the conference app, many otherattendees stated that they preferred to have a physical copy and did not use themobileapplication

Recommendations• Ensure that visa considerations are a top priority when arranging any future event or

conferences and that adequate time and support is provided to assist attendees in theacquisitionofvisas

• Ensure that the conference running order, topics and presenters are all confirmed inadequate time for this information to be shared with attendees before their arrival andprintedintophysicalcopiestobedistributed

• Beclearwithplenarypresentersabouttimelimitsandappointachair foreverysessiontokeeptheschedulerunningtotime

32

GCARD3-ContentTheconferenceentailedanumberofdifferenttypesofactivity,fromgroupworkshopstolecturestofielddays.ThecontentofallelementsoftheconferencewasratedstronglybyrespondentsbutthatoftheARCfielddaywasratedhighestoverall.However,respondentsdidnoteseveralopportunitiesfor conference content to be improved, most notably around the coherence or logical flow ofpresentationsandtalks.

Thecontentofallconferenceelementswasratedhighly,butthecontentoftheARCfielddaywasperceivedmostpositively

Respondents felt that this day provided inspiration for the establishment of similar centrespartneringwithresearchinstitutions inothercountries.Thecentrewasverywidelyappreciatedaspositiveforattractingmoreyoungpeopleintoagriculturalresearch.

However,otherrespondentsnotedthat:

• Themorningpresentationsover-ransignificantly• Therewasinsufficienttimetoexploretheveryinterestingexhibitions• Thedaywasverylongandstartedataveryearlyhour,deterringsomefromattending

o 31%ofconferencesurveyrespondentsreportednotattendingtheARCday

Themesessionsoverwhelminglymetrespondentexpectations

97%ofevaluationformrespondentsstatedthatthesessionsmettheirexpectations“fully”(59%)or“tosomeextent”(38%).

Respondentscitedthefollowingasthemostbeneficialaspectsofthesessions:• Afocusonscalingup• Theopportunitytobeexposedtoandlearnfromadiverserangeofperspectives• Anemphasisonpracticalactions

However, despite this high level of satisfaction, a number of significant opportunities forimprovementofthemesessionswerealsoidentified

Average:3.66

Average:3.83

Average:4.49

Average:4.00

0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00

Contentoftheplenarysessions

Contentofthethemeworkshops

ContentoftheARCday

Contentoftheclosingpresentasons

Ratethefollowingcontentaspectsoftheconference1-5(5beingexcellentand1beingverypoor)

33

• More time required- especially for interactive and collaborative discussion elements.Respondentsreportedthattheyonlyhadtimetoscratchthesurfaceofissuesbeforeitwastimetomoveon.

• Lackofcoherence-itwasperceivedthatpresentationsoftendidnotlinktogetherorformacoherent narrative and instead existed in isolation to the presentations/discussions thatprecededthemor followedthem. Itwasalsopointedoutthatsomepresentationsdidnotseemtolinkinwiththetitleofthetheme.Respondentsinthesecaseshadtheimpressionthat presenters had not been given adequate guidance and had instead been allowed todesign their presentations on whatever topic they preferred. Feedback from organisershighlighted thatmultiple layers of governance – including the Organising Committee, theProgrammeTaskForceandsessionchairs–mayhavealsocomplicatedprogrammingefforts.

“While individualpresentationsweregood, therewasno logical linkbetweensomeofthemandtheoveralltheme.Couldthisbebecausetheeventcontentwasputtogetherveryquicklyandinanunstructured/unplannedway?”

Organisationnotgiven

• Needformorespecifics-respondentsreportedalackofspecificcasestudies,examplesanddatatodemonstratewhetherthingsdoordonotwork, toolperformance, failures,scalingup,etc.

• Includeparallel conversations-Several respondentsexpressed theviewthat issuescriticalto the future of ARD such as land planning and environmental issues were not givensufficientemphasisandthattheorganisationsinvolvedintheseconcernswerenotincludedinthedialogue

“We didn't integrate water resource management and land planning and use in thethemes. Weneed to be focussing on these. Comingupwith useable technologies forsmallholderfarmers-onesthattheycanuseandthatareappropriate-isapriority.Onlanduse,wehavelotsoflandconflicts-oneofthebigreasonsiswedon'thavelanduseplanning. Weneedpeople tounderstandhow to coordinatewith land. In theCGIARFrameworkfor2016-2020,itdoesn'thavelanduseorwateruse.Ittalksaboutclimatechange,butyoucan'ttackleclimatechangewithoutunderstandinglandorwateruse.”

NGO

Recommendations• Provide more guidance and support to presenters- Provide all presenters with a clear

synopsis of the intended objectives of the overall conference as well as thesegment/theme/workshoptowhichtheyarecontributing.Inaddition,itmayalsobeusefultoprovideguidanceregardinghowtheirpresentation isanticipatedtocontribute to thesebroader goals. These steps should help to ensure a coherent and logical narrative topresentationsthatbuildsincrementallytowardstheintendedoutcomes.Inaddition,itmayalso be useful to share previous respondent feedbackwith presenters so that this can beincorporated-forexamplethroughtheuseofcasestudiesordatatodemonstratepoints.

34

• Include an even broader array of topics relating to ARD- Although the GCARD processalready focuses on the collaboration and integration of efforts, it should also extend thisapproachoutsideoftheimmediateARDcommunity.ManyotherconversationsthatdirectlyinfluencethefutureofagricultureareongoingandshouldbeincludedintheARDdialogue.

35

GCARD3-CommunicationTheobjectivesofthecommunicationsactivitiespromotingtheGCARD3eventwereto:

1. Buildawareness among target audiencesofGCARD3and the global event as a significantopportunitytoreshapethefutureofglobalagriculturefordevelopment

1. Engageandmobilizeconstituentstoactivelyparticipateintheprocessbyprovidingtimely,relevant,accessibleinformation.

2. Inform target audiences of key outcomes and commitments and any follow-upevents/activities

Amulti-prongedapproachwasusedtorealisetheseobjectivesincludingsocialmediaoutreachandotherweb-basedcommunications,sector/stakeholdercommunicationsandnewsmediarelations.

Intermsofoutput,theconferencecommunicationseffortswerehighlysuccessful

SocialMediaOutreachAsocialmediabootcampwasrunalongsideGCARD3totrainagroupofagriculturalprofessionalsonsocialmedia communication techniques such as blogging/live-tweeting.Overall 68 onsite traineesjoined the 3 day GCARD3 boot camp: 19 sponsored YPARD members, 1 non-sponsored YPARDmember,6CGIARstaff,11ARCstaff,32traineesfromotherinterestedorganisations.Anadditional20communicationstaffandYPARDmembersjoinedthesocialreport’steamafterthetrainingwascomplete.Anecdotal feedback suggests the activitywashugely successful inbuilding socialmediaskillsandconfidenceamongthismostlyyounggroupofagriculturalprofessionals.Inthetwoweeksaroundtheconferencethesocialmediateamproduced:

• 78publishedblogposts,viewed170,000timesby10,200people(Aprilstatisticsonly)• 8,843#GCARD3 tweetsby966differentpeople in the twoweeksaround theconference.

Thesetweetsweredeliveredto2.3milliondifferentTwitteraccounts• 5videoblogsandpodcasts• Webcastto579differentviewers• PhotosonFlickrandSlideShare• Recordings of the plenary sessions, promotional videos, social reporting blogs and

interviewsontheGFARYouTubechannelorpodcastchannel

Sector/Stakeholdercoverage:(IISD)In addition to theGFAR communicationefforts (notedabove), IISDReporting Serviceswrotedailyupdates from GCARD3 Global Event and prepared a summary report in the Earth NegotiationsBulletin(ENB),whichreachesover158,000readers,includingpolicymakersandstakeholders.

NewsMediaRelationsTwomedia releases were issued in the lead-up to the conference to solicit interest in pre-eventinterviews and attendance at the event. CGIAR also issued amedia release on the opening day.Biographical notes onGFAR and CGIARmedia spokespeoplewere distributed. Two furthermediareleaseswere issued during themeeting, highlighting aspects of keynote addresses including theissues of climate change, malnutrition and youth participation. These resulted in some mediainterest(seemediatrackerinAnnex3).Afinal“wrapup”mediareleasesummarisingtheoutcomeswasreleasedafterthemeeting.

36

The event was picked up by national television, with CNBC running at least three interviewsincludingwithheadsofGFARandARC. It also received somecoverage inSouthAfricanpressandradio and in key international media, including the Huffington Post, BBC news and the ChristianScienceMonitor.Thesocialmediabootcampprovedpopularwithsomeoutlets,particularlythosefocusedonmarketing.

Respondentsfeltthatcommunicationswerelargelystrong,particularlyduringtheeventitself

Aspartoftheconferencesurveyrespondentswereaskedtoratetheirexperienceoftheconferencecommunicationsbefore,duringandaftertheeventonascaleof1-5(5beingexcellentand1beingverypoor).Allareasscoredstronglywiththemajorityofrespondentsratingtheirexperienceeither4or5outof5foreachofthe3aspects.However,communicationduringtheconferencewasthemost strongly rated,with70% scoring it a4or a5.Communicationprior to theevent scored theweakest,withonly55%ofrespondentsratingthisexperienceeithera4ora5and13%ratingita1.

1(Verypoor)

2 3 4 5(Excellent)

Cannotsay

Communicationbeforetheevent 13% 17% 15% 28% 28% 0%

Communicationduringtheevent 6% 9% 15% 36% 34% 0%

Communicationaftertheevent 11% 11% 11% 47% 19% 2%

The main concern voiced by respondents regarding communication before the event regardedtiming.Several respondentsreportedthat informationabouttheagendaandcontentof theeventhad been very late arriving which caused some difficulties, particularly for those preparingpresentationsortalks.

“The pre-meeting communication, especially on both the content and logistical part,was terrible.Despite registeringearly for theevent, Ionly receivedan invitation letterlastminute(beforemytravel),havingtorequestitafewtimes.Thecontentalsowasn'tfinalizeduntil the lastminute,whichmade itabitdifficult to refineourorganization'spresentationsothatitwouldbetterfitthethemecontext.”

Organisationnotspecified

Themostcommonaspectspraisedregardingcommunicationduringtheeventconcernedthesocialmediabootcamp,whichwasperceivedtobeveryeffective,andtheeventapp.

CommunicationsactivitieswerealsocarriedoutaroundtheAsiaPacificandCentralAsia/Caucasusregionalconsultations.ThisinvolvedtheproductionofTwitteroutputs,blogsandslideshares.

Recommendations• Strengthenpre-event communication- Tying inwithprevious recommendations regarding

timingandpreparation, it iskeytoshare informationregardingbothcontentandlogisticalaspectswellaheadoftime.

37

DiversityAs has been mentioned earlier in this report, and as befits a global conference, attendees andcontributors to the conference process (including consultations) came from a great diversity ofgeographical locations and organisational backgrounds. Several respondents noted that they feltthatthevoicesthathadtraditionallybeenmissingfromtheseconversations-thoseofwomenandyoungpeople-werenowbeingincludedwell.InstructionstoensurediverseparticipationwerealsoprovidedtotheProgrammeTaskForceandChairs.Thesuccessfulbringingtogetherofthiswealthofdiversity isacauseformuchdeservedcelebrationand,aswesawwhenlookingatmotivationsforattendance, is one of the main attractions of the GCARD process. However, despite this greatachievement,asignificantproportionofrespondentsdisagreedwiththeabovesentimentandraisedconcernsaboutthelackofpresenceorvisibilityofsomegroups,particularlysmallholderfarmers.

82%ofinterviewrespondentsfeltthatsomekeyvoiceswereeithermissingfromtheconferencedialogueorweretooquiet

Thegroupsthatweremostcommonlymentionedasbeingeitherabsentorunderrepresentedwere:

SmallholderfarmersManyrespondentsfeltthatthevoicesandexperiencesofactualsmallholderfarmerswerestrikingintheirabsenceandthattheconferencewasweakenedbythisabsence.Whilst itwasacknowledgedthat some farmer representative groups were at the conference it was often argued that suchrepresentativevoiceslackedtherichnessofrealexperience:

“Weshouldhavegiven them[smallholder farmers]achance toexplain thechallengesthey are facing on this grand platform- lots of people don't really know what it isactually like for them on a day-to-day basis. This understanding would have givenresearchersextramotivationanddirection.”

NGO

“When Iwas thinkingofattending, I thought real smallholder farmerswouldbehere.Notrepresentatives...Nexttimeweneedadayforsmallholderfarmerstoshowcasethis.We had this at the ARC day with farmers there. We need smallholders here - theirpoints,theirviewswillbesomuchmorecomprehensivethantheirrepresentatives.”

NGO

Somerespondentsquestionedwhethersmallholderfarmerswereindeedpresentattheconferencebutwerenotperhapsbeingprovidedwithanappropriateplatformforparticipation:

“Ourlanguageandapproachisalsooftennotveryaccessibletofarmers”

Farmers’Organisation

“Farmersaremissing, the real farmers. Forme Iwouldhave liked tohave seen that.Theconferenceistooacademic-it'sokforme,butnotforfarmers.Ithinkweneedtoinvolvethevoiceofthefarmers.”

University

38

Onerespondentacknowledgedthebroaderchallengesofengagingsuchgroupsmeaningfully:

“The farmers we have here are very unrepresentative - someone with a 200ha dairyfarmisn'trepresentative.Iunderstandthatwedon'twanttobetokenisticandjustbringa smallholder for the sake of it. At these conferences you'll never really getrepresentationfromthesegroupsbecauseoftheexpensivehoteletc.you'llgettheelite,and involvingthemcanbeabit 'showvillage-y'but Ithink it’s importantnottoforgetaboutthem,sowe'renotdistortingwhoreallyarethefarmersinAfrica.”

CGIARResearchCentre

WomenSeveralrespondentsnotedthe involvementofwomenintheconferencepositively,andorganisershighlightthattheproportionofwomenpresentwasgreaterthanatanypreviousGCARD,CGIARorGFARassembly(withtheexceptionoftheGlobalConferenceonWomen inAgriculture).However,othersstillfelttherewassignificantworktobedoneonthisfront.Severalrespondentsstatedthattheybelievedconferencespeakers,chairsandpanelswerepredominantlymaleandusedtheterm“manels”torefertopanelsthatdidnotcontainanyoraminorityoffemaleparticipants

YoungresearchersTherewas youth involvement across the conference – including through the YPARD socialmediareporterinitiativeandwithyoungpeopleaskeynotespeakers.SeveralrespondentsstatedthattheywerepleasedbythegreaterinvolvementofyoungpeopleinGCARD3thaninpreviousconferences

“Iwas positively surprised how the youthwas treated -with respect, enthusiasmandequalstatus.”


However,severalrespondentsraisedconcernsaboutwhetheryoungpeople’sactualinvolvementintheconferencewasreallydiverse.Suchrespondentsexpressedtheviewthat,althoughmanymoreyoung people appeared to be involved in activities surrounding the conference such ascommunicationactivities,veryfewwereactuallyinvolvedasresearchersandscientists.Itisessentialtoengagesuchyoungscientists,itwasargued,inorderforthewordsandactionsagreedatGCARD3toliveoninfuturegenerations.

OthersSomerespondentsalsoexpressedtheviewthatvoicesfromthenationalandregionalconsultations,theprivatesector,donorbodies,academicinstitutions;nationalresearchinstitutions,policy-makingbodies and non-African origins were inadequately heard. It was emphasised that diversity wasrequired,notonlyinattendance,butalsoinactualparticipation.

“There are lots of people here but not all voices are heard equally- there are lots ofpeople here who don't talk because it is not in their culture to talk e.g. farmers,consumers. I am hearing the usual voices because they are the convenors and thepanellists.Theparticipantsarediversebuttheparticipationisnotalwaysequal.”

CGIARResearchCentre

39

Recommendations• Ensureallkeystakeholdergroupsarepresent-Makeadditionalefforts toensurethatthe

fullrangeofstakeholdergroupscanattend.Inaddition,asmuchaspossibleguaranteethatstakeholdersrepresentthemselvesandarenotsimplyrepresentedbyotherbodies.

• Adaptconferencepracticesandenvironmenttofacilitatemeaningfulparticipationfromallparticipants-Thismaymeanguaranteeingthattraditionallyunderrepresentedgroupssuchaswomenandyoungresearchersarenotjustpresentattheconferencebutthattheyplayanequal role inpanels, speakingpositionsandorganisational roles. It isalso important tomake sure that the language, environment and format of the conference does not overlyprivilege certain groups over others. An array of formats of dialogue and types ofenvironmentshouldbeprovidedtosuittheneedsofdifferentcommunicationmethods.

40

GCARD3-Legacy

FacilitatingpartnershipsThe conference was extremely successful at deepening existing connections and facilitating theformationofnewones.

• 62%ofinterviewrespondents,89%ofevaluationformrespondentsand93%ofconferencesurveyrespondentsstatedthattheymadeconnectionsattheconferencethatcouldbecomepartnersintheirwork.

• Inmostcasesrespondentsalsostatedthattheywouldnothavemadetheseconnectionsiftheyhadnot attended the conference (81%of evaluation form respondents) or that theymayhavemadesuchconnectionseventually,butthiswouldhavetakenalongtime(63%ofsurveyrespondents).

• Finally,followingonfromtheconference,mostsurveyrespondentsalsoreportedstayingintouch with their new connections. Only 10.5% stated that they had maintainedcommunicationwithnoneoftheirnewcontacts.

Q: Of the new connections youmade at the conference howmany of them have youcontactedsincetheconference?

SharingideasTheconferencealsoseemstohavebeensuccessfulatexposingattendees tonew ideas thatwererelevanttotheirwork.

• 59%of interviewrespondentsand90%ofconferencesurveyrespondentsstatedthat theycameacrossideasattheconferencethatwillbeusefulintheirwork.

Once again it was expressed that it would have been difficult for attendees to access thisinformationiftheyhadnotbeenattheconference.

• 75%ofsurveyrespondentsagreedthatitwouldhavetakenmuchlongerforthemtoaccessthese ideas if they had not attended and 74% of interview respondents agreed that theywould not have come across these new ideas if they had not attended the conference

All,10.5%

Most,35.1%

Afew,43.9%

None,10.5%

41

(interview respondents were not given the option to respond that they may haveencounteredtheideabutthatitwouldhavetakenmuchlonger).

Intermsof thetypesof ideasencountered,themajorityrelatedtoopportunities forcollaborationalthough ideas around methodological approaches and end-user needs were also frequentlymentioned.

Inadditiontothesesignificantachievements,thereareinitialindicationsthatattendeesareactuallyintegratingthesenewideasintotheirwork.

• 29% of survey respondents stated that since the conference they have “made steps toincorporatetheidea(s)intotheirwork”

• A further 65% stated that since the conference they have “partially integrated” the newideas they encountered into their work (in this case partially integrated was specified tomean“sharingtheideawithsomeothersanddiscussingpossibilities”)

• Only6%statedthattheyhadnotdiscussedtheirnewideassincetheconference• Evenmorepromisingly,21%ofrespondentsstatedthattheyhadmade“significantchanges”

tothewaytheyhavebeenworkingasaresultoftheideas/peopletheyencounteredattheconference.60%hadmadesomesmallchangesand19%nochangeatall.

Themost commonways inwhich this change ismanifesting in actualpractices is throughgreatersharingandpartnershipwithotherpeopleororganisations:

Q:Ifyesorsome,whichofthesebestdescribesthenatureofthechangeinyourwork(tickallthatapply)?

AnswerOptions ResponsePercent

Sharedinformation/funding/resourceswithanotherorganisation 25%

Startedapartnershipwithanotherperson/organisation 18%

Involvednewpeople/organisationsinourconversations 17%

Receivedinformation/funding/resourcesfromanotherorganisation 13%

I'vemadenochanges,19%

I'vemadesmallchanges,60%

I'vemadesignificantchanges,21%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Haveyoumadechangestothewayyouworkasaresultoftheconference?

42

Adaptedmethodology/approachofmywork 13%

Startednewpieceofwork 11%

Other(pleasespecify) 3%

Developingconcreteactionplans• 83%ofsurveyrespondentsreportedthat they left theconferencewithspecificactions for

eitherthemselvesortheirorganisation

The nature of these actions varied considerably, from “Learning the Foresight skills and applyingthem inmyworkwith rural communities” and “Leading theGCARD3 proposal on investment” to“DevelopingajointprojectproposalonagriculturaleducationtrainingatUniversitylevel”.Intermsofwhere these actionswere identified, themost common format throughwhich definite actionswereidentifiedwerethethemeworkshops:

Q:Ifyestopreviousquestion,pleasespecifywhereaction(s)wereidentified.

GeneratingasenseofoptimismOverallattendeeregardtowardstheconferencewasveryencouraging.

• 84% of respondents stated that they would recommend the conference to friends orcolleagues

• 49% of stated that when they left the conference, they felt “very positive” about theirexperienceand85%felteither“verypositive”or“positive”

The reasons for this positive feeling were varied but common factors cited included theopportunitiestospeakwithdifferentbodiesandactorsfromdifferentpartsoftheARDcommunityandtheworld,thefocusondevelopingclearandspecificoutcomesandthesmoothexperienceattheconferenceitself.

Themeworkshop,37%

Networkingdiscussion,27%

ARCday,14%

Closingplenary,14%

Openingceremony,5%Other,4%

43

“I learntalotandIwasexposedtoalotof informationthatIdidn’thavebefore.IfeltinspiredtomakeanimpactfulcontributiontotheagriculturalsectorinBotswana.”

Privatesectorrepresentative

“It was very inspiring to meet and interact with key players in the internationalagricultural committee, aswell as to see how far the international agricultural sectorhas comeand theplans for the futureof sustainability, food securityand longevityofGFARandGCARD.”

Nationalextensionorganisation

Respondentswerealsobroadlysatisfiedwiththeoutcomesoftheconferenceitself:

• Verysatisfied-23%• Mostlysatisfied-21%• Somewhatsatisfied-40%• Veryunsatisfied-15%

The primary driver of this satisfaction concerned the perceived focus on developing clear andspecificoutcomes.

“I am happy with the conference outcome statement because it concretelycommunicatesrequisitebuildingblockstowardsrealisationofthevisiontoincreaseandgrowcontributionagriculturesectortoeconomicdevelopmentandgrowthinAfricaandotherdevelopmentregionsoftheworld.” NARS

Concernspreventingthosefromexpressingevengreatersatisfaction largelyrelatedtoaperceivedlackofpre-conferenceorganisation,adesire tohavemore time in thematicdiscussionand less inplenary sessions, a perceived lack of diversity inmeaningful participation and a scepticism aboutwhetherdefinedactionswouldactuallybefollowed-through.

“The lack of momentum after the GCARD3 (in getting the conference report andDeclaration out, and the Collective Actions drafted) is very disappointing as theConference itself generated a lot of enthusiasmandgoodpartnerships amongpeoplewantingtotakethingsforwardforarealfutureimpact,todothingsdifferently.”


44

ConclusionsandRecommendationsTheGCARD3globalconferencewasundoubtedlyaphenomenalsuccessonmanycountsarticulatedandperceived by thosewho attended it. Purely in terms of a logistical achievement, it overcamemany challenges to deliver an experience that overwhelmingly satisfied the demands of the400+plus international delegates that attended. 89%of conference feedback survey respondentsrated the conference “well” or “very well organised”, and almost all (97%) evaluation formrespondentsstatedthatthesessionsthatthey’dattendedmettheirexpectations‘fully’or‘tosomeextent’.

In addition, it fulfilled the ambitions of the majority of these attendees who came to network,establish and solidify relationships and build partnerships. Providing attendees with a wealth ofopportunitytomeetandshareknowledgewithothersfromacrosstheARDcommunityandacrosstheworldhasmostcertainlyservedtodeepenintegrationwithinthiscommunity.62%ofinterviewrespondents,89%ofevaluationformrespondentsand93%ofconferencesurveyrespondentsstatedthat theymadeconnectionsat theconferencethatcouldbecomepartners in theirwork.Manyofthese respondentsnoted that theywouldnothavemade these connectionswithout theGCARD3global conference (81% of evaluation form respondents) or that they may have made suchconnectionseventually,butthiswouldhavetakenalongtime(63%ofsurveyrespondents).

Arguablythemostsignificantachievementoftheconferencehowever,isthelegacyitleavesbehind.An astonishing number of attendees departed the conference, not only with a deep feeling ofpositivity about their experience, but also with concrete actions that we can see already beingimplementedthroughnewpartnershipsandactualchangestoworkingpractices.TheseactionshavethepotentialtoproducerealandwidespreadchangeswithintheARDlandscape.59%of interviewrespondentsand90%ofconferencesurveyrespondentsstatedthattheycameacross ideasat theconferencethatwillbeuseful intheirwork. Inaddition,83%ofsurveyrespondentsreportedthattheylefttheconferencewithspecificactionsforeitherthemselvesortheirorganisation.

With regard to implementation, attendees appear to be integrating these ideas. 29% of surveyrespondentsstatedthatsincetheconferencetheyhave“madestepstoincorporatetheidea(s)intotheirwork”.Afurther65%statedthatsincetheconferencetheyhave“partiallyintegrated”thenewideastheyencounteredintotheirwork.

Morewidely,ahighnumberofattendeeswereverysatisfiedwiththecontentandorganisationofthenationalandregionalconsultations.

However, despite these undeniable and important achievements, there are several areas to benotedwhere essential improvementsmust bemade. The first of these areas concerns timing. Inseveral of the sections above it has been clearly observed that the process leading up to theconferencewasrushedanddidnotallowsufficienttimeforconsultationinputstobeintegrated,forattendee registration to be completed, for theme topics to be agreed upon, for presenters topreparetheirmaterialsandforresourcestobeproduced.Thisisashameandmeansthatthetruevalueofactivitiessuchastheconsultationscouldnotbefullyrealised,denyingattendeesperhapsanevenmore positive experience. This is additionally concerningwhenwe consider that one of thecore recommendations of Dr. Cooke’s 2013 report was for the GCARD Organizing Committee tofocusonlongertermplanningandorganizationinthe6monthperiodpriortotheConference.Given

45

the context inwhich the conferencewasheld, at a timeofunprecedenteduncertaintywithin theCGIARgovernancestructures,theoutcomesfromthisconferenceareactuallyratherremarkable.

The timing in relation to national scientists and policy makers having adequate input to theformulation of the portfolio of interventions designed to deliver on the SRF is still a question,exacerbated by amovement of dates for CRP submissions, and Fund Councilmeetings that haveimpactednegativelyonthisconferencebeingabletomeetitsfullconceivedpotential.

ThesecondkeyareaforattentionarethenationaldialogueswerenewtotheGCARDprocessandthese procedures have never been practiced before and were appreciated by the nationalcounterparts aspointing toanewwayofworkingwith theCGIAR.Moreover, theGCARDprocessremains unique in engaging true stakeholder involvement beyond the immediate researchcommunity. The innovative site-integration work leading from the country consultations wasparticularlyimportantandchartedanewwayofworkingforallstakeholdersintheAR4Dprocess.Itiscriticalthatboththeseprocesseshaveadequatetime,planningandconsiderationinplanningandexecutingon research fordevelopmentopportunities.Thereweredifferences inhow thenationalconsultations were organised in each country and if further time permitted, the authors of thisreportwouldhavelookedmorecloselyattheirspecificimpactandtheirfurtherevolutionduringtheimplementationofthePhaseIICRPs.Thisshouldhavebeenamorestructuredandpublicisedprocess and with the uncertainty in the system and many moving parts their importance isunderstated in this report.Furthermoretherewasuneven involvementofCRP leaders indifferentregions, forexample theMENAdialogues includedCRP leadersorsenior figures forwheat,maize,PIM,CCAFSanddrylandsystemsaswellasCentresactiveintheregion.Otherswerelesseffective,notable those that were confined to virtual platforms only, where the wider contest was not soapparent to participants, confirming that effective engagement must be highly visible, wellpublicisedandconsideredtransparentandobjectivewhilstbeingresponsivetostakeholderneeds.

Relatedtothispoint isthethirdkeyareaforattention,thatofcoherence. Itwasfrequentlynotedthat the various elements of the conference did not hang together as one coherent narrative.Insteadtheseparatepartsoftenappearedtoexistinisolationfromeachother.Itwasanticipatedbysome respondents that thiswas due to the lack of time and suggested that, had the preparationprocessbeenlesshurried,presenterswouldhavebeengivenmoreguidanceastothecontributiontheirinputwasexpectedtomaketotheoverallstoryoftheconference.However,thisisasignificantcritique as the content of the conference is one of the most important aspects and should beprioritised over all others. The post global event together with the consultation process shouldhaveledtopost-eventprocessesbutintheuncertaintyastowhomwouldtakethesefurther,theydidnotmaterialisefully.

A further reflection is that despite a number of organisations representing the organisingcommittee,therecouldhavebeenmorejoined-upthinking.Forexample,thedifferentcomponentsof the CGIAR and GFAR systems could have ensured that the publicity around the national andregionalconsultationswasmuchbroaderandmuchmorerepresentativeinordertoenablesomeoftheseindividualstocarrythemessagesfromnationaltotheinternationalconferenceitselfinamoreauthenticway.Theheavyprocessofcommitteedesignmayhavebeenlessefficientthatexpectedduringaperiodofmultiplemovingpartsanduncertainty. In futurethisaspectrequiresdedicationfromthekeyactors toa fully-fledged,structuredtimetable towhichagreementhasbeengiven in

46

adequate time to hold andmake consistent the consultations by representatives by 15 differentsectorsandsub-sectors.

The fourth area for further reflection and change concerns the style of the conference itself. AsstatedatthestartofthisreportoneofthecoreaimsoftheGCARDprocessisto“meettheneedsofresource-poorfarmersandtheircommunities”.Itisthusconcerningthat,althoughtheobjectivesofthe conference were aligned to this overall goal, fears were regularly raised about whether theformatandstyleoftheconferencewereinfactsupportiveofit.Thelackoffarmersperceivedtobepresentandmeaningfullyparticipatinginconferenceactivities,asistheperceptionthatthestyleoftheconferencewasperhapsnotinkeepingwithitsgoals:

“I thought it was rather grand with a certain paradox that a significant amount ofmoneywasspentonanetworktryingtoreducepovertyamongotherthings.”

Although it is understood that conferencesmust be attractive to awide range of attendees, it isessentialthattheconferencevenue, language,styleandethosreflect itscorevaluesandprioritiesandplacetheneedsofitscorebeneficiariesatitsheart.TheGCARD3organisersnotethattheSouthAfrican Government provided allmeeting facilities as part of their wider celebration of ARC, andperhapsthiscouldhavebeenhighlightedfurtherduringtheconferencetoassuageconcernssimilartotheabove.

Thefinalareaforconsiderationuniteseachofthepreviouspointsmentionedandconcernstheuseofanalysisreportssuchasthisone.Theauthorsseeanumberofindicationsthatrecommendationsmade in theanalysis reportpublishedbyDr.Cooke in2013havenotonlybeenadoptedbuthavebeensurpassedduringatimeofvolatilityinthesystem.Insomecasesrecommendedactionssuchas including“anupdateontheCGIARSRFactionplanand its relationshiptonationalandregionalpriorities” within the conference schedule were simply not adopted and in many other casesconcernsthatwereraisedbyparticipantsinthepastcanbeheardagaininthisreport,forexampleviews are raised in both reports questioning the valueof plenary sessions and thepreference forbreak-out sessions. If GCARD is to continue to meet its objectives (below), it must retain theresilience to reflect critically on both its strengths and its weaknesses as a collective and takedecisiveactiontoaddresstheseweaknessesbyvariousmembersofthecollective.Coordination,acommonandconvincingnarrativemustbesoughttoenableresearchtofulfiltheneedsofthepoorand theevolutionof this commitmentmustbenimbleand rewardingwith sufficient incentivesoffinancialsupporttounderpintherequirements.

• Promoteeffective,targetedinvestmentintoagriculture• Build partnerships, capacities and mutual accountabilities at all levels of the agricultural

system• Meettheneedsofresource-poorfarmersandtheircommunities• Help to refine regionalandglobalagricultural researchpriorities,as identifiedbydifferent

stakeholdergroupsandrepresentatives,inaninclusiveway

47

ResponsefromtheorganisersALINesubmittedthisreport,followinganalysisofsurveydataandwiderinformation,attheendofAugust2016.Feedbackonthereportfromtheorganiserswasintwotranches-onefromtheCGIARSystemOrganisationinmid-SeptemberandasecondfromGFARinlate-November.Thetwosetsoffeedbackwerebroadlyalignedbetweenthetwoorganisations.This section has been included to provide space for the organisers’ reflections on the GCARD3processandreflectivefindings.Substantivefeedbackfocusedon:

1. Clarifying that GCARD3 is a consultation process: GCARD3 comprised of a globalconsultation event and a series of national and regional consultations (alongside onlineconsultations).ThismarkedashiftfrompreviousGCARDprocesses.Similarly,thenational,regional and online consultationswere not designed to feed-in to the global consultationeventbutwerepartofawiderconsultationprocess.Thismulti-layeredconsultationprocessaimed to alignwith the reality thatmuchprogress inARD is achievedat thenational andregionallevels.

2. DescribingthecontextbehindGCARD3moreaccuratelychronologicalorder,this included

notingthattheorganisersmettheCookereportrecommendationsasbestaspossiblewithinthecircumstances.Beyondthis,theorganisershighlightedthatGCARD3wasenvisionedtoenable CGIAR, GFAR and other stakeholders to engage with the realities, concerns andpriorities in theARD sector during the development of a new SRF and a newportfolio ofresearchprograms.

3. Assumptionsmadeduringthecourseoftheevaluation:Theorganisershighlightedseveral

points whereby the evaluators sought to explain conclusions based on the survey andevaluationdata(andwithoutnecessarilydrawingonthe ‘completesetof facts’).Onesuchexample concerned the diversity of participants in GCARD3, where stakeholder feedbacknoted that several voices appeared to be missing from the process. Feedback from theorganisers noted that significant efforts were made to sponsor attendees, but this wasdifficultduetothereducedsponsorshipfundsavailablefromtheFundCouncilcomparedtoGCARD1 and 2. This impact could have been exacerbated by the higher proportion ofparticipantsabletoattendeventsusingtheirownresources

Morewidely,theorganisersprovidedclarificationaroundlanguageusage,terminologyandphrasingtoimprovecomprehensionandunderstanding.

48

Annex1-SummaryofMonitoringandEvaluationToolsTooltype Respondent

groupCoreobjective

Whendelivered

Numbercompleted

Respondentgendersplit

Othernotesonrespondentdiversity

Perceptualfeedbackquestionnaire

Attendees ofnational andregionalconsultations

Understandrespondentexperiencesof theconsultations

2nd April –27th May2016

45 10female

35male

71% of respondents had contributed to a nationalconsultation, 13% to a regional consultation and 16% toboth.

Interviews GCARD3attendees

Understandrespondentexperiencesof theconference

6th-8th April2016

34 13female

21male

Included representatives from: academia, internationalresearch institutions, NARS, farmers organisations, NGOs,privatesector,CGIARinstitutes

Evaluationforms GCARD3attendees

Understandrespondentexperiencesof the fivethemesessionswithin theconference

6th-8th April2016

131 48 female, 81male

2unspecified

Included representatives from: international researchinstitutions, NARS, farmers organisations, NGOs, privatesector,CGIARcentres,sub-regionalorganisations

Respondentscamefrom6continentsbutthemajoritywerefromtheAfricancontinent(54%)

Respondentscamefromeachofthe5themes

Perceptualfeedbackquestionnaire

GCARD3attendees

Understandrespondentexperiencesof the

31st May -14th June2016

104 47female

55male

2unspecified

Includedrepresentativesfrom:CGIARcentres,NGOs,NARS,Sub-Regional organisations, National extensionorganisations, the private sector, Farmer organisations,Donors,Internationalresearchcentres

49

conference Respondentsspannedeachofthe5themes

Perceptualfeedbackquestionnaire:Attendeesofnationalandregionalconsultations1. Wastheconsultationyouparticipatedinanationalconsultationoraregionalconsultation?National,Regional,Icontributedtobothanationaland

regionalconsultation2. WhichNationalconsultationhaveyoubeeninvolvedin?Bangladesh,BurkinaFaso,Cameroon,DRC,Ethiopia,Ghana,India,Kenya,Malawi,Mali,

Mozambique,Nepal,Nicaragua,Niger,Nigeria,Rwanda,Tanzania,Uganda,Vietnam,Zambia3. WhichRegionalconsultationhaveyoubeeninvolvedin?MiddleEastandNorthAfrica,CentralAsiaandtheCaucuses,Asia-Pacific,LatinAmerica,

Africa4. Whatbestdescribesthetypeoforganisationthatyouworkin?CGIARcentre/Non-CGIARorganisation5. Whatisyourgender?Male/Female6. Howhaveyoubeeninvolvedintheconsultation?Organiser,Participant,Presenter,Supportfunction,Other(pleasespecify)7. Pleasegivethreehighlights/keymessages/lessonsfromtheconsultationthatyouwereinvolvedin.

a. Pleaseexplainyouranswer8. Doyoufeelthattheissuesaddressedduringtheconsultationwererelevanttoyourpriorities?Notrelevantatall/Somewhatrelevant/Mostly

relevant/Veryrelevantb. Pleaseexplainyouranswer

9. Doyoufeelthattheconsultationwaswellorganised?Notwellorganisedatall/Somewhatwellorganised/Mostlywellorganised/Verywellorganised

c. Pleaseexplainyouranswer10. Doyoufeelthattheconsultationprovidedadequateopportunitiesforyoutocontributeandparticipateindecision-making?Noopportunitiesat

all/Veryfewopportunities/Someopportunities,butlimited/Adequateopportunitiesd. Pleaseexplainyouranswer

11. Howsatisfieddoyoufeelabouttheoutputsoftheconsultation?Veryunsatisfied/Somewhatsatisfied/Mostlysatisfied/Verysatisfiede. Pleaseexplainyouranswer

50

12. DidtheconsultationprovideyouwithaclearunderstandingofprioritiesandactivitiesforfutureCGIARactivities?Notatallclear/Somewhatclear/Mostlyclear/Veryclear

13. Whatworkedwellinthisconsultation?14. Whatworkedlesswellinthisconsultation?15. Whatcould/shouldbedonedifferentlyinfutureconsultationsorengagementactivities?Yourexperienceoftheregionalconsultationthatyouwere

involvedin

Interviews:GCARD3attendees1. Whatisyournameandwhatcategorybestdescribesyourorganisation:[NARS,Academia,Government,Privatesector,FarmerOrganisation,

Donor,InternationalResearchInstitution,Other]?2. Ifother,howwouldyoudescribeyourorganisation?3. Didyouattendanyofthenationalconsultations?Ifso,whichone(s)?[Yes/No]4. Whydidyouattendthenationalconsultation?5. WouldyousaythenationalconsultationyouattendedwasVerysuccessful/Successful/Unsuccessful/Veryunsuccessful6. Why?(Probe-whatdidyoufindmostuseful/helpful;andhowdidyouapplyit?Whatcouldhavebeenimproved/donedifferently?Ifanswering

unsuccessful/veryunsuccessful–whatwouldhavemadeitsuccessfulforyou?)7. Didyouattendanyoftheregionalconsultations?[Yes/No]8. Ifyes,whichone(s)?9. Whydidyouattendtheregionalconsultation?10. WouldyousaytheregionalconsultationyouattendedwasVerysuccessful/Successful/Unsuccessful/Veryunsuccessful11. Why?(Probe-whatdidyoufindmostuseful/helpful;andhowdidyouapplyit?Whatcouldhavebeenimproved/donedifferently?Ifanswering

unsuccessful/veryunsuccessful–whatwouldhavemadeitsuccessfulforyou?)12. WhatwouldyousayisthekeyobjectiveofthisGCARD3GlobalConference(Prompt-networking,content,partnership,planning,meetingdonors,

presentingwork,representingtheirorganisation,other)?13. Whatisthemainthingyouhopetolearn/takeawayfromthisglobalconsultation,bothforyou,andforyourorganisation?14. Haveyouconnectedwithanyorganisations/individualsatthisconsultationwhoyouwouldliketopartnerwithinyourwork?Ifso,who?(Probe-

wouldyouhavemadetheseconnectionsifyouhadn’tattendedtheconference?)[Yes/No]15. Haveyoucomeacrossanynewideasattheconsultationthatwillbehelpfulinyourwork?(Probe-wouldyouhavecomeacrossthesenewideasif

youdidn’tattend?Ifso,wherewouldyouhavefoundthem/wouldithavetakenyoulonger/howlong?Howdoyouintendtousethem?)[Yes/No]

51

16. Doyouthinkthatanykeyvoiceshavebeenmissingfromtheconsultationdialogue?[Yes/No]17. Ifyes,whoandwhatwouldthatvoice/grouphavecontributed?18. DoyoufeelthatthisglobalconsultationhasbeenVerywellorganised/Wellorganised/Poorlyorganised/Verypoorlyorganised?19. Why?(Prompt-communicationaheadoftheevent,logisticalsupport,communicationduringtheevent,smoothnessofscheduling,other)20. Thankyouagainforyourtime.Justtowrap-up,Iwanttoquicklygetasenseofwhatyou’vethoughtabouttheconferencemorewidely.Justtell

meiftheconferencehasmetanyoftheserequirements,ifithasn’t,orifsomeofthesearen’trelevanttoyouoryourwork:a. Well-run(Yes/tosomeextent/no/N/A)b. Diverseparticipation(Yes/tosomeextent/no/N/A)c. Growingintegrationofideasintonationalprograms(Yes/tosomeextent/no/N/A)d. Facilitatingpartnerships(Yes/tosomeextent/no/N/A)e. Raisingawarenessforadditionalinvestment(Yes/tosomeextent/no/N/A)f. Siteintegrationeffortsbetweennationalandinternationalpartners(Yes/tosomeextent/no/N/A)g. CreatingpartnershipforworkplansinAR4D(Yes/tosomeextent/no/N/A)

21. Wouldyoubewillingtoshareyouremailaddresswithus,shouldweneedtofollowupwithyou?

Evaluationforms:GCARD3attendees1. Pleasecirclethethemeorpathwaythatyouareattendingtoday:Scalingup-fromresearchtoimpact/Showcasingresultsanddemonstrating

impact/Keepingsciencerelevantandfuture-focused/Sustainingthebusinessoffarming/Ensuringbetterruralfutures/Animalproductionforfoodsecurity/Cropproductionforfoodsecurity/Sustainableuseofnaturalresources/Agriculturaltechnologiesformarketaccessamongsmallholderandcommercialfarmers

2. Pleasecirclethesessionthatyouareattendingtoday[allsessiontitleslisted]3. Pleasespecifyyourmainreasonforattendingthissession:Technicalcontent/Networking/Speakers/Personalgrowthand

development/Policymaking/Other(pleasespecify)4. Whichbestdescribesthetypeoforganizationthatyouworkin?CGIARcentre/NGO/NationalAgriculturalResearchSystem/Sub-regional

organisation/Nationalextensionorganisation/Privatesector/Farmerorganisation/Donor/Internationalresearchorganisation/Other(pleasespecify)5. Whatisyournationality?6. Whatisyourgender?7. Didthissessionfulfilyourreasonforattending?Yes/Tosomeextent/No8. Whatwasthemostbeneficialaspectofthesession?

52

9. Whatdidyoufeelwasmissing?10. Whatdoyoufeelcouldhavebeenimproved?11. Howdoyouintendtousetheinformationthatyougainedinthissession?Applyingnewideas/Researchingthetopicfurther/New

collaboration/Newfundingopportunity/Integratingresearchbetweennationalandinternationalorganisations12. Ifyoumetparticipantsthatcouldbepotentialpartnersforyouinthefuture,whattypeoforganisationarethey?CGIARcentre/NGO/National

AgriculturalResearchSystem/Sub-regionalorganisation/Nationalextensionorganisation/Privatesector/Farmerorganisation/Donor/Internationalresearchorganisation/Other(pleasespecify)

13. Beyondthissession,pleasecirclethemainreasonforyouattendingtheGCARD3conference:Technicalcontent,Networking,Speakers,Personalgrowthanddevelopment,Policymaking,Other(pleasespecify):

Perceptualfeedbackquestionnaire:GCARD3attendees1. Gender:Female/Male/Prefernottosay2. Nationality3. WhatcategorybestdescribestheorganisationyourepresentedatGCARD3conference?CGIARcentre/NGO/NARS/Sub-Regional

organisation/Nationalextensionorganisation/Privatesector/Farmerorganisation/Donor/Internationalresearchcentre/Other(pleasespecify)4. WhydidyouattendGCARD3(tickallthatapply)?Networking/Content/Partnership/Planning/Meetingdonors/Presentingwork/Representingmy

organisation/Other(pleasespecify)5. Whenyoulefttheconference,howdidyoufeelaboutyourexperience?Verypositive/Positive/Neutral/Negative/Verynegative

a. Whydidyoufeelthisway?6. Ratethefollowingcommunicationaspectsoftheconference1-5(5beingexcellentand1beingverypoor):Communicationbeforetheevent,

Communicationduringtheevent,Communicationaftertheeventa. Pleaseaddanycommentsyouhaveontheabove

7. Ratethefollowinglogisticalaspectsoftheconference1-5(5beingexcellentand1beingverypoor):Venue,Internetaccess,Foodanddrink,Timekeeping

a. Pleaseaddanycommentsyouhaveontheabove8. Ratethefollowingcontentaspectsoftheconference1-5(5beingexcellentand1beingverypoor):Contentoftheplenarysessions,Contentofthe

themeworkshops,ContentoftheARCday,Contentoftheclosingpresentationsa. Pleaseaddanycommentsyouhaveontheabove

53

9. Doyoufeelthattheissuesaddressedduringtheconferencewererelevanttoyourpriorities?Notrelevantatall/Somewhatrelevant/Mostlyrelevant/Veryrelevant.

a. Pleaseexplainyouranswer10. Doyouthinkthatanykeyvoicesweremissingfromtheconsultationdialogueorweretooquiet?Yes/No

b. Ifyes,who?Pleaseaddanycomments11. Doyoufeelthattheconferenceprovidedadequateopportunitiesforyoutocontributeandparticipateindecision-making?Noopportunitiesat

all/Veryfewopportunities/Someopportunities,butlimited/Adequateopportunities12. Howwellorganiseddoyouthinktheconferencewas?Verywell-organised/Wellorganised/Poorlyorganised/Verypoorlyorganised

a. Whydidyoufeelthisway?13. DoyouthinktheconferenceachievedthefollowinggoalsYes/Tosomeextent/No:14. Growingintegrationofideasintonationalprograms,Raisingawarenessforadditionalinvestment,Integratingeffortsbetweennationaland

internationalprogrammes,developingactualworkplansfornextsteps14. WhatisthemainthingyoutookawayfromtheGCARD3conference?

a. Pleaseexplainyouranswer15. Howsatisfieddoyoufeelabouttheoutputsoftheconference?Veryunsatisfied/Somewhatsatisfied/Mostlysatisfied/Verysatisfied16. HasattendingGCARD3madeiteasiertoengagewiththeCGIAR?Yes/Tosomeextent/No17. HasattendingGCARD3madeiteasiertoengagewithGFAR?Yes/Tosomeextent/No18. Didyouleavetheconferencewithanyspecificactionsforyourselforyourorganisation?Yes/No

b. Ifyes,pleasespecifythenatureofthisaction.19. Ifyestopreviousquestion,pleasespecifywhereaction(s)wereidentified:Openingceremony,Themeworkshop,ARCday,Closingplenary,

Networkingdiscussion,Other(pleasespecify)20. Didyouconnectwithanyorganisations/individualsattheconferencewhomightbehelpfultoyouinyourwork?Yes/No21. Ifso,whatkindoforganisations/individualsfromorganisations?CGIARcentre,NGO,NARS,Sub-Regionalorganisation,Nationalextension

organisation,Privatesector,Farmerorganisation,Donor,Internationalresearchcentre,Other(pleasespecify)22. Wouldyouhavemadetheseconnectionsifyouhadn’tattendedtheconference?Yes/Maybe,butitwouldhavetakenmuchlonger/No23. Ofthenewconnectionsyoumadeattheconferencehowmanyofthemhaveyoucontactedsincetheconference?All/Most/Afew/None24. Didyoucomeacrossanyideasattheconferencethatmaybeusefulforyouinyourwork?Yes/No25. Ifso,whatkindofideas?Methodological,Funding,End-userneeds,Collaborationopportunity,Newmarket,Other(pleasespecify)26. Wouldyouhavecomeacrosstheseideasifyouhadn’tattendedtheconference?Yes/Maybe,butitwouldhavetakenmuchlonger/No

54

27. Haveyoubeenabletointegratethesenewideasintoyourworksincetheconference?No-notdiscussedsincetheconference/Partially-sharedtheideawithsomeothersanddiscussedpossibilities/Yes-madestepstoincorporatetheideaintomywork

28. Haveyouchangedthewayyouhavebeenworkingasaresultoftheideas/peopleyouencounteredattheconference?Yes,significantchanges/Somesmallchanges/Nochangeatall

29. Ifyesorsome,whichofthesebestdescribesthenatureofthechangeinyourwork(tickallthatapply)?Involvednewpeople/organisationsinourconversations,Sharedinformation/funding/resourceswithanotherorganisation,Receivedinformation/funding/resourcesfromanotherorganisation,Adaptedmethodology/approachofmywork,Startednewpieceofwork,Startedapartnershipwithanotherperson/organisation,Other(pleasespecify)

30. Wouldyourecommendtheconferencetofriendsorcolleagues?Yes/Noc. Why/whynot?

31. Howcouldtheconferencehavebeenimproved?32. Whichtheme(s)didyouparticipateinduringtheconference(tickallthatapply)?Theme1Scalingup:fromresearchtoimpact,Theme2

Showcasingresultsanddemonstratingimpact,Theme3Keepingsciencerelevantandfuture-focused,Theme4Sustainingthebusinessoffarming,Theme5Ensuringbetterruralfutures

33. DidyouattendtheARCday?Yes/Nod. Ifno,whynot?

34. Wereyouaspeaker/presenteratanystageoftheconference?YesNoConsultationprocesse. Ifyes,pleaseexplaintheroleyouplayed

35. TherewereaseriesofnationalandregionalconsultationsleadinguptoGCARD3.Wereyouawareoftheseconsultationsbeforeyouattendedtheconference?Yes/No

36. Wereyouinvitedtoanyofthenationalconsultations?Yes/No37. Ifso,whichone(s)?Bangladesh,Ethiopia,Nicaragua,Nigeria,Tanzania,Vietnam,Ghana,Mozambique,Rwanda,BurkinaFaso,India,Nepal,

Cameroon,Kenya,Uganda,DRC,Malawi,Niger,Mali,Zambia38. Didyouattendanyoftheregionalconsultations?Yes/No39. Ifso,whichone(s)?Africa,LatinAmerica,CentralAsiaandtheCaucuses,Asia-Pacific,MiddleEastandNorthAfrica40. Howdoyouthinktheconsultationprocesscouldbeimproved?41. DidyouattendGCARD1?Yes/No42. DidyouattendGCARD2?Yes/No

55

Annex2-NationalandregionalconsultationsNational/Regional Nation/Region Location Date

Regional CentralAsiaandtheCaucuses

http://gcard3.cgiar.org/central-asia-and-the-caucases-regional-consultation/

Bishkek,KyrgyzRepublic

29February-2March2016

Regional Asia-Pacific

http://gcard3.cgiar.org/asia-regional-consultation/

Bangkok,Thailand

8-9December2015

Regional MiddleEastandNorthAfrica

http://gcard3.cgiar.org/north-africa-and-the-middle-east-regional-consultation/

Milan,Italy 5October2015

Regional LatinAmericaandtheCaribbean

http://gcard3.cgiar.org/latin-america/

On-linesurvey 19February-18March2016

Regional Africa

http://gcard3.cgiar.org/africa-regional-consultation/

E-consultation 28-29April2016

National Bangladesh

http://gcard3.cgiar.org/national-consultations/bangladesh/

Dhaka 20Dec.2015

National Ethiopia

http://gcard3.cgiar.org/ethiopia/

AddisAbaba 11Dec.2015

National Nicaragua

http://gcard3.cgiar.org/nicaragua/

17-18Nov.2015 Managua

National Nigeria

http://gcard3.cgiar.org/nigeria/

Abuja 16-17Nov.2015

National Tanzania DaresSalaam 3-4Dec.2015

56

http://gcard3.cgiar.org/tanzania/

National Vietnam

http://gcard3.cgiar.org/vietnam/

Hanoi 14-15Dec.2015

National BurkinaFaso

http://gcard3.cgiar.org/burkina-faso/

2Mar.2016

National Cameroon

http://gcard3.cgiar.org/cameroon/

2Mar.2016

National DRC

http://gcard3.cgiar.org/drc/

Kinshasa 15-16Feb.2016

National Ghana

http://gcard3.cgiar.org/ghana/

Accra 2-3Mar.2016

National India

http://gcard3.cgiar.org/india/

NewDelhi 22Mar.2016

National Kenya

http://gcard3.cgiar.org/kenya/

Nairobi 10-11Mar.2016

National Malawi

http://gcard3.cgiar.org/malawi/

Lilongwe 18-19Feb.2016

National Mali

http://gcard3.cgiar.org/mali/

Bamako 1-2Mar.2016

National Mozambique

http://gcard3.cgiar.org/mozambique/

Maputo 22-23Mar.2016

National Nepal

http://gcard3.cgiar.org/nepal/

Kathmandu 11Jan.2016

National Niger

http://gcard3.cgiar.org/niger/

Niamey 15Mar.2016

National Rwanda Kigali 5Apr.2016

57

http://gcard3.cgiar.org/rwanda/

National Uganda

http://gcard3.cgiar.org/uganda/

Kampala 9Mar.2016

National Zambia

http://gcard3.cgiar.org/zambia/

Lusaka 9-10Feb.2016

58

Annex3-MediatrackerMediaOutlet Date Headline Link

Television/online ChannelAfrica(SABC)

7/4/16 AfricanDialogue:InterviewwithILRI,GFARandCIAT

Broadcast

BBCFocusonAfrica

TBC InterviewwithNonoSekhototobefilmedincomingweeks

Broadcast

CNBCAfrica 9/4/16 LiveinterviewwithKwesiAtta-Krahonyouthinagribusiness

Link

CNBCAfrica 5/4/16 LiveInterviewwithDrShadrackRalekenoMoephuli,ARC

Link

CNBCBreakfast

7/4/16 LiveInterviewwithDrMarkHolderness,GFAR

Link

Web/online YahooNews 9/4/16 Gettingtheresearchresponsetohungerright:isitourlastshot?

Link

HuffingtonPost

8/4/16 Gettingtheresearchresponsetohungerright:isitourlastshot?

Link

TheMarketingSite

31/3/16 SocialMediaBootCampaimstoopenupagriculturalconference

Link

Agribusinessnews

1/4/16 Socialmediaopensagricultureconferencetoglobalaudience

Link

Academic FoodandAgPolicy


Link

MeridianInstitute


Link

Wire/agencyservice

InterPressService

11/4/16 FocusingonFutureofFood:What’sNextforGlobalAgriculturalResearch?

Link

Press/online FT:ThisisAfrica

19/4/16 Op-edbyKwesiAttaKrah Link

ChristianScience

19/4/16 InterviewwithBruceCampbell,heldat Pending

59

Monitor GCARD3

TheGreenTimes

12/4/16 Climatechangeandmalnutritionbiggestglobalchallenges

Link

Farmers’Weekly

6/4/16

7/4/16

Climatechangeinthespotlight

Investmentinagriculturemustincrease

Link

Link

NewAge 11/4/16 AgricultureUrgedasaChoice Link

Radio PowerFM987 InterviewwithNonoSekhoto Link

UNISAradio InterviewwithPeterCasier Link

IONOFM InterviewwithPeterCasier Link

60

Annex4-SpecificsonFCperspectivesonGCARDfromFCmeetingsSummary______________

A)FundCouncilexpectationsfromGCARD:

! ContributiontoCGIARprioritysetting(SRFandCGIARPortfolio/CRPs)! ProvidinganaccountabilitymechanismfortheCGIAR! Forum for strengthening partnerships with other stakeholders and help assessing CGIAR

impactCGIARFundCouncilInauguralMeetingFebruary23,2010Brussels,Belgium(FC1)

Page6

FundersForum

Keypoints/issuesraisedbytheFCmembers:

• As originally conceptualized, the Funders Forum is an event that provides the funders anopportunity to consider and discuss the Strategy and Results Framework (SRF). The ultimateobjective isanendorsementof theSRFby the funders.Thekeyquestion iswhetherornot theSRFwillbereadybyApril1forthefunderstoreviewandendorse.

Decisions:

• FCdecidedtousethetimetoholdaninformaldonors’consultationaimedatprovidinginputtothedraftSRFandMPportfolio(orfasttrackingMPsandthePlatforms)followingitsdiscussioninGCARD2010.

CGIARFundCouncilJuly14&16,2010Rome,Italy(FC2)Page5

Conclusionsanddecisions:

• AspecificandconcisestatementonGCARDwillbeprovidedbyGFARforinclusioninthechapeauorGovernanceFramework.

Page11

Conclusionsanddecisions

• Fund Council agreed that an external expert review of GCARD be conducted to help facilitatedecisionmakingbyFundCouncil.ThereviewshouldespeciallyassesstheGCARDcontributiontoCGIARprioritysetting.

CGIARFundCouncilNov1-2,2010Washington,D.C.(FC3)

Page12–13

AgendaItem8.UpdateonGCARD2012

Discussion:

61

• Therewas consensus on the importance and the relevance of GCARD for the CGIAR. GCARD isrecognizedintheMaputodeclarationandco-fundingofGCARDisincludedintheCGIARsystemcost,showingtheacceptedimportanceoftheevent.TheConsortiumBoardChairnotedalsothefollowingbenefitsfortheCGIARofGCARDI:strengthenedtheconceptofimpact,partnerships,andpromotedCGIARtootherstakeholders.

•GCARDIIcouldprovideanopportunitytoevaluatetheCGIARreformprocess,withthefullrangeofCRPsexpectedtobeintheinceptionorinitialimplementationphase.

•InadditiontohelpingtheCGIARindevelopingtheSRFandtheCRPs,GCARDwasconceptualizedasanaccountabilitymechanismfortheCGIAR;thisobjectiveshouldnotbelost.

CGIARPRINCIPLESAsadoptedbytheFundCouncilonNovember2,2010

Page3

ThePartiesagreedto:

iii)WorkwiththeCentresandotherCGIARDoerstodeveloptheSRF,withcivilsocietyAndregionalinputthroughtheGCARDprocessandscientificinputfromtheISPC.

Page4

6. Other features of the CGIAR that are expected to support the efforts of the Fund Council andConsortiuminclude:

•ThebiennialFundersForum,which,asaforumfortheexchangeofviewsaboutCGIAR,endorsesapproachestominimizingandsharingofSystemCosts,providesfeedbacktotheCGIARFundersontheimplementationoftheSRF,reviewsshortfallsandimbalancesinresourcesavailableforCRPsandapprovestheSRFproposedbytheConsortium;

•GCARD,thebiennialGlobalConferenceonAgriculturalResearchforDevelopment,whichprovidesa forum to engage stakeholders in the SRF and CRPs so the CGIAR can avail itself of GCARDrecommendations,includingtheidentificationofopportunitiesforpartnershipsanddemand-drivenresearchfordevelopment;

CGIARFundCouncilApril5-6,2011Montpellier,France(FC4)

Page7

•Onthequeryofwide-ranginglistofactivitiesthatdoesnotreflectprioritysetting,itwasclarifiedthatprioritiesfortheCRParedemanddriven,i.e.derivedfromchallengesandopportunitiesfacingpolicies,institutionsandmarkets.PrioritieswerederivedfromtheSRFtakingintoconsiderationthecomparative advantageof theCGIARCentres, and thenewprioritieswerederived from thewideconsultation with partners and policy experts. Linkages with this network in particular GFAR andGCARDroadmapshouldbemaintained.

CGIARFundCouncilMarch7-8,2012BMGF,Seattle,Washington(FC7)

AgendaItem3.ConsortiumReport

62

Page3-4

Discussion:

•MembersinquiredwhethertheActionPlanoftheSRF,promisedinMontpellierin2010,wouldbepresented at Uruguay and wished to know how the Action Plan will be derived. The CB ChairinformedthatworkisunderwayontheActionPlan,whichwillbepresentedatGCARD2andattheFundersForum.BetweennowandJune2012,the ISPCwillcollaborate inthiswork,specificallyonforesight studies,better linksbetweenSLOs (SystemLevelObjectives)andCRPs,andprioritizationacrossCRPs.A firstdraft is expectedby June,primarily for circulation toGFAR toenable them toholdregionalconsultationsbeforetheActionPlanisfinalized.

•OnthequestionofwhentheFCagreedthat theFundwouldprovideresources forGCARD2andwhetherthefundingwouldbefromWindow1and2orfromalternativesources,itwasclarifiedthatGCARDwasalwaysconsideredapartofthestructureofthe2pillarsystemandtherewasalwaystheexpectationtofunditasdiscussedatFC6.TheCSPamountwoulddefraywhatwasconsideredtheappropriateshareofCGIARcosts.

Page29

•BoththeConsortiumBoardandtheFundCouncilarecommittedtoensurethatindividualsfundedwith the additional $100,000 are highly relevant and will participate actively in GCARD2, givingaccurate feedback to theCentres and theConsortium. Itwasalsoagreed that atGCARD2, the FCwouldthinkonhowitengagesasaSystemwiththedifferentconstituenciesandstakeholdersonanon-goingbasis.

CGIARFundCouncilOctober31andNovember1,2012PuntadelEste,Uruguay(FC8)

Page17

•GFARandRegionalForawillcontinuetoserveasFCmembers,thusmaintainingtheNorth-SouthbalanceintheCouncil.

Page18

Agendaitem8.GCARD:TheWayForward

•FCmemberscommentedthatthelinkbetweenGCARDandtheCGIARisnotclear.TheGCARDistoolargetoprovidefeedbackonsystemsandprocessesthatcouldfeedCRPresearchintonationalprograms.

•FCmemberscommentedthatthegeneralperception,includingthatexpressedatGCARD2isthatthe CRPs are not adequately engagedwith the national agricultural research systems and do notappreciatethebenefitsofpartneringwiththem.

GFARChair,MontyJonesrespondedtoFCmembercomments.

HepointedoutthattheGCARDOrganizingCommitteehadtwomembersfromtheCGIARmandatedtoensureCGIARfocusinGCARD2andtostriketherightbalancebetweentheCGIARandtheotherstakeholders. He also noted that as requested by the CGIAR representatives in the OrganizingCommittee, theGCARD2Conference,and itspreparatory sessions,directly involved leadersof the13 active CRPs as central to discussion on partnerships required to impact, while the foresightsessions directly responded to the strong request for more attention to this area, in order tostrengthen the value of the SRF action plan. Twelve of the breakout session chairs or facilitatorscamefromtheCGIAR.

63

CGIARFundCouncilApril25and26,2013NewDelhi,India(FC9)

Page23-24

AgendaItem15.RevisitingGCARD

TheConsortiuminformedtheFundCouncilthatGCARDisbeingdiscussedbytheConsortiumanditsmembers. The Consortium attributes a high degree of importance to the conference because itoffersagoodopportunity forall stakeholders involved inagricultural research fordevelopmenttoreacttotheworkoftheCGIAR.TheConsortiumalsobelievesthatratherthaninventingadifferentform of interaction, it would be best tomaintain this currentmechanism and adjust it to fit theneeds of the CGIAR. The Consortium agreedwith the position of the GCARD Review Report thatGCARD3shouldbeorganizedasa jointventurebetweenGFARand theCGIARConsortium,withastrongerinvolvementofCGIARthaninGCARD2(where,forexample,CGIARhad2representativesinthe organizing committeewith 13 from other stakeholder sectors). It expressed itswillingness topartnerwithGFARtojointlyorganizeGCARD3.

Discussion

•Memberswelcomed theGCARDReviewReport and felt that itwas fair andobjective andwerereadytocontributetothecommonpositionasadvocatedbytheGovernanceCommittee.

•SomemembersremindedtheFCthatthechart,whichwasdistributedpreviouslytoillustratetherelationshipofthesystementities,showedGCARDbeingaprominentaspectofthestructure.ItwasfeltthattheopportunitythatGCARDprovidestostakeholdersneedstobepreserved,andthevoiceofthestakeholdersneedstobetranslatedintoactions.

•SomememberspointedoutthatindiscussionswithRodneyCooke,theconsultantwhopreparedtheGCARDReviewReport, itwasmentionedthattheintentionofthereportwastorecommendachange inthewayGCARDdidbusiness.The ideawastohaveasmallerandmorefocusedGCARD,involving stronger representation of members of the development community and withdevelopmentanduptakepathwaysas theprincipal focus.Thisshift in thebalanceofparticipationfrom the research community and from the development community would mean a downwardadjustment in the representation from the CGIAR and other research organizations. MembersrequestedthattheFCmakeanoteofitinthemeetingandreflectitinthesummary.

•GFARnotedthat if thedecisiononthenextGCARDwasdelayedtoNovember2013, itwouldbeverydifficult toorganizeGCARD3 in2014, and theeventwouldhave tobepostponed to2015.Avirtual decision in relation to the CRP process and GCARD3 would be very helpful for planningpurposes.

Page29

Annex 2: Aide Mémoire (April 25-26, 2013) I. Role of the Fund Council and the Consortium II.DiagramoftheReformedCGIARStructure

[GCARDprovidingtheoverarchinglinkbetweentheConsortiumPillarandtheFundPillar]

CGIARFundCouncilNovember6-7,2013Nairobi,Kenya(FC10)

Page14-15

64

(b)GCARD3Proposal

TheExecutive Secretary framed thediscussionby remindingmembers that theFChad tasked theFCGCwith reviewing the recommendations fromtheassessmentofGCARD2,aswellasmembers’commentsandfeedback,andpreparingabriefpaperonrecommendationsonfutureGCARDs.Thistaskhasnotyetbeencompleted.AjointGFAR-Consortiumproposalisonthetableforconsiderationin the amount of $750,000 for a three-day GCARD conference, with a stakeholder consultationprocessleadinguptothat.TheExecutiveSecretaryaskedmembersiftheywerepreparedtohaveadiscussionontheproposalintheabsenceoftherequestedanalysisfromtheFCGC.

Discussion

a) Some members expressed support for the current GCARD3 proposal, noting that the GCARDmeetingwillprovideaplatformforbetterunderstandingonprogressoftheCRPs.Whilesupportingthey suggested some refinements, including a smaller, more focused conference with greaterinvolvementofpolicymakers.

c)MembersemphasizedthattheFundCouncilshouldnotfundproposalsthatarevagueintermsof:whattheywilldeliver,howtheywillenhanceaccountability,howtheybringaboutchange,andhowchange will be measured. The FC should not set bad precedents. Members expressed theimportance of enhancing accountability and focusing on the demand side. Thus members needclarificationregardingGCARD3costsandsuggestedamorecarefulanalysisofhowGCARD3fitswithotherimportantprocesses,suchasthesecondroundofCRPproposals.

Responsetodiscussionpoints

viii. CEOemphasizedthatGFARandtheConsortiumhaveagreedtoworkcloselytogetherandthattheCOwilltakeonincreasedaccountabilityfortheevent.

CGIARFundCouncilMay7-8,2014MexicoCity,Mexico(FC11)Page34-35AgendaItem13:GCARD3:FundCouncilGovernanceCommittee‘sGuidanceNoteAtFC10,theFundCouncilGovernanceCommittee(FCGC)wasaskedto(i)reviewtheRodneyCookeassessmentreportonGCARD2;(ii)reviewtheFC’scommentsonGCARD,includingthedecisionsoftheFCfromFC8;and(iii)prepareabriefonhowtoproceedwithGCARD3.PriortoFC11,theFCGCprovidedtheConsortiumandGFARwithaGuidanceNotelayingoutavisionfortheroleanddesignofGCARD3.TheobjectivewastoprovideausefulpathforthepreparationoftheGCARDproposaland to elicit Consortium and GFAR views and “buy-in” before FC11. The Consortium and GFARdiscussed theGuidanceNote’s recommendationsduring theGFARSteeringCommitteemeetingattheCGIARConsortiumOfficeinApril.TheConsortiumandGFARendorsedtheFCGCGuidanceNoteandprovidedaresponsetotheideaspresentedafteradiscussionwiththeFCGCjustbeforeFC11.………….The FC Chair invited the FCGC Convener to frame to the discussion and introduce the GuidanceNote, which outlines the functions of GCARD as follows: establish demand for future research,facilitatetheexchangeofknowledge,andprovideaforumforCGIARaccountability.Basedonthesefunctions,theFCGCproposedspecialdesignconsiderationstoencourageGCARD3toaimforrealisticdeliverables and facilitate very high-level discussions to enable effective debate. This approachsuggests a restricted set of objectives for GCARD3, a smaller event and fewer participants thanGCARD2,andalowerbudget.

65

The FCGCConvener gave the floor to theGFAR representative,who in turn gave the floor to theConsortium CEO to provide the Consortium’s response to the FCGC’s Guidance Note. The CEOexpressedappreciationfrombothGFARandtheConsortiumfortheguidanceprovidedbytheFCGC,including thediscussion in theFCGCmeetingonMay5,andnotedthatGFARandtheConsortiumplan to develop a GCARD3 proposal built around the following elements: (i) a kick-off event forGCARD3inNovemberwhichwouldbeaone-dayeventontheSRF,linkedtoFC12,andbudgetedat$100K;(ii)aconsultationprocessin2015aroundnewCRPproposalsinkeycountriesandregionstobe funded through the CRPs; (iii) an on-line platform to collect and synthesize the results of theconsultations, budgeted at $150K; and (iv) a global event in November 2015 to bring togetherfeedback and consultation, budgeted for $200K. The full proposal would be submitted for FCapprovalbyendofJune2014.ResponsetoDiscussionPoints:

ii. The GFAR representative indicated that the private sector is already well represented in itsconstituencies and emphasized that appropriate balance would be sought to avoidoverrepresentation of any given group, and to involve, but not be driven by, big private-sectorinterests.

v.TheFundCouncilExecutiveSecretaryadvisedagainstaGCARD3kick-offeventinNovember2014alongsidetheFC12andFundersForumduetocongestionfromafullcalendarofactivitiesthatweek.CGIARFundCouncilMeetingNovember4-5,2014Brussels,Belgium(FC12)SRFDiscussionPage34d)Amemberexpressedconcernaboutthescaleandtimelineoftheconsultationprocess,aswellaspossible response from overwhelmed stakeholders, suggesting that it might bemost effective tofocusfirstontheintermediatedevelopmentoutcomes(IDOs)beforegettingintothesub-IDOs,andthen develop a process whereby work at the sub-IDO and CRP level could lead into the GCARDprocess.CGIARFundCouncilMeetingApril28-30,2015Bogor(FC13)Guidanceforthe2dCallPage13g) A member expressed concern that the regional layer has been lost, noting that regionalconsultationsareofcritical importance,proposedthatthetimeallottedfornationalconsultations,tobeconductedalongwiththeGCARD3process,istooshorttodeviseacredibleandopenprocess,suggestedthatthepre-proposalprocessistoolinearandCentre-drivenandrecommendedaprocessforthirdpartiestoengageintheprocess.Page14Responsetodiscussion:

66

ConsortiumCEOi. Regardingexternalconsultations,notedGFAR’sroleinprogressingtheGCARD3processandthatgiven the somewhat compressed timeline, there will be national consultations in a handful ofcountries during the pre-proposal stage, along with regional workshops, to be followed by a fullroundofnationalconsultationsduringthefull-proposalprocess.Page15ResponsetoDiscussion:ConsortiumCEO:

i.AgreedtoincludeashortdescriptionoftheGCARD3processintheguidancedocument.

FundCouncilMeeting,November3-5,2015,Washington,DC(FC14)

Agenda Item 2: CRP Pre-Proposals (For Discussion) and Agenda Item 3: CRP Pre-Proposals (ForDecision)

Page7

RepresentativeoftheCentreDirectorsGeneral

viii.SuggestedthattheFCtakeadecisionandendorsethepre-proposals,whileindicatingwhatelsetheportfolioshouldinclude,howitcouldbeorganizeddifferently,etc.,takingintoaccountISPCandFCfeedback,sothatCentreshavetheelementstostartconsultationsaspartoftheGCARD.

CGIARFundCouncilMeetingMay5-6,2016Rome,Italy(FC15)

Page9

AgendaItem5:TheNewCRPPortfolio

FundCouncilmembers’commentsincludedthefollowingpoints:

j) Offered GFAR’s help in terms of country profiling and supporting an enabling environment forresearchtodeliveroutcomes,particularlyintermsofcapitalizingonthenetworksthataremobilizedthroughGFARtomatchCGIAR’ssupplywithdemandfordevelopmentimpact.

k)NotedthatGCARDprocess includedcountrystudies,andsuggestedtheneedformore in-depthdiscussions around national strategies, associated actions (e.g., FAO’s Country ProgramFrameworks), country agencies’ commitments related to priority issues, and farmers’ desiredoutcomes,aswellastechnologiesandinputsthatareneededtoachievethem.

B)RecognizingthatGCARDisnotonlyabouttheCGIAR.

CGIARFundCouncilNovember8-9,2011IFAD,Rome,Italy(FC6)

67

Page20-21

CGIARFundingforGCARD2requestedbytheConsortiumBoardChair

• FCwas reminded that theG-20meeting inMontpellier had discussedGCARD in the context ofincreasingsupportforagriculturalresearchgenerallyandthatGCARDhasabroadersignificanceinnestingCGIARResearch into thebroader reformof agricultural research fordevelopment. Thus itshouldbeseenfromthestandpointofwhattherequirementsaretomakeGCARDasuccessratherthanwhetheritfitsintothe2%CSPthreshold.

CGIARFundCouncilMarch7-8,2012BMGF,Seattle,Washington(FC7)

AgendaItem3.ConsortiumReport

Page29

e)GCARD2Budget

•SomeMembersemphasizedthatthereisabiggerobjectiveinfundingGCARD2.PartofthereasonforfundingGCARDistolookatagricultureresearchdevelopmentoverall,ofwhichCGIARisamajorcomponent and to determine the best possible way of making the involvement of the differentstakeholder groupsmost effective. The decision therefore needs to reflect the broader picture ofhowinternationalagriculturalresearchfordevelopmentcanbereformedandmademoreefficientanddemanddriven;

Documents

GCARD3 Global Event Assessment M&E Summary report. - GFAR · GCARD3 were split between three bodies: GFAR, CGIAR and the South African ARC. All parties participated in the discussion