Qualitative prioritization - Tim Kelley

Qualitative

Prioritization

ISPC 12 Meeting, Rome, 15 Sep 2015

Introduction

“CGIAR’s Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC) will strengthen the quality, relevance, and impact of new

investments through the provision of expert scientific guidance through an appropriate qualitative prioritization for the next generation of CRPs at both pre-proposal and final proposal stage. This will ensure that only the strongest, most directly

relevant CRP proposals are approved for funding.” Quote from the SRF (May 2015)

http://ispc.cgiar.org/ ISPC 12, Rome

Improved food and nutrition security for health

Increased household

capacity to cope with shocks

Reduced poverty

Increased incomes and employment

Increased productivity

Enhanced smallholder

market access

Increased resilience of the poor to climate

change and other shocks

Improved natural resource systems and ecosystem services

Improved diets for poor and vulnerable

people

Improved

food

safety

More sustainably

managed agro-ecosystems

Enhanced benefits from

ecosystem goods and

services

Improved human and

animal health through better

agricultural practices

Natural capital enhanced and

protected, especially from climate change

Cross-cutting issues: Gender and youth , Climate change , Policies and institutions , Capacity development

Increased access to productive

assets, including natural resources

Reduced pre- and post-harvest

losses, including those caused by climate change

Increased availability of

diverse nutrient-rich foods

Reduced production risk

Reduced biological and

chemical hazards in the food

system Increased livelihood

opportunities Reduced market

barriers

Increased resilience of agro-ecosystems and

communities especially those

including smallholders

More productive and equitable

management of natural resources

Land, water and forest

degradation (including

deforestation) minimized and

reversed

Improved water quality

Increased access to diverse

nutrient-rich foods

More efficient use of inputs

Increased value capture by producers

Closed yield gaps through improved

agronomic and animal husbandry

practices

Increased conservation and

use of genetic resources

Diversified enterprise

opportunities

Enhanced genetic gain

Improved access to financial and other services

Optimized consumption of diverse nutrient-

rich foods

Appropriate regulatory

environment for food safety

Reduced livestock and fish disease risks associated

with intensification

and climate change

Increased safe use of inputs

Enhanced conservation of

habitats and resources

Increased genetic diversity of

agricultural and associated landscapes

Agricultural systems

diversified and intensified in

ways that protect soils and water

Enhancement of plant and animal biodiversity for multiple goods

and services

Enhanced adaptive capacity

to climate risks

Reduced net greenhouse gas emissions from

agriculture, forests and other forms of land use

Climate change

Gender and youth

Policies and institutions

Capacity development

Mitigation and adaptation achieved

Reduced net GHG emission from agriculture, forestry and other

forms of land use

Increased above- and below-ground biomass for carbon

sequestration

Improved forecasting of impacts of climate change and targeted

technology development

Enhanced capacity to deal with climatic risks and extremes

Equity and inclusion achieved

Enabling environment improved

National partners and beneficiaries enabled

Gender equitable control of productive assets and resources

Technologies which reduce women’s labour and energy expenditure developed and

disseminated

Improved capacity of women and young people to participate in

decision-making

Enabled environment for climate resilience

Increased capacity of beneficiaries to adopt research

outputs

Increased capacity of partner organisations as evidenced by

rates of investment in agricultural research

Conducive agricultural policy environment

Conducive environment for managing shocks and

vulnerability as evidenced in rapid response mechanisms

Enhanced institutional capacity of partners research organisations

Enhanced individual capacity in partner research organisations through training and exchange

Increased capacity for innovation in partner research organisations

Enhanced capacity for innovation in partner development

organisations and in poor and vulnerable communities

The Prioritization Exercise


Methodology The analysis was undertaken in two separate spheres:


Donors Asked to indicate

their organisational priorities for sub-

IDOs

Experts

Drawing on experts’ knowledge of

agricultural R & D pathways to rate sub-IDOs against specific criteria that feed into

priorities

Caveats

Sub-IDOs are open to interpretation. Sub-IDOs are interlinked; some may be a necessary condition for others or impacting one may mean impacting several. Development strategies are contextual; variation by country or even within countries.


I. The Donor Survey

Donors allocated 45 points across the 45 unique sub-IDOs (forcing choices !). Allocations reflected the relative importance of each sub-IDO for the organisation.

Of 70 stakeholders and donors approached, 19 respondents. 15 of these 19 contributed 59% of CGIAR funding in 2014.


Results: Varying Discrimination between Sub-IDOS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

# o

f su

b-I

DO

s as

sign

ed

ze

ro

Donor

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

4.3 4.1 3.3 3.2 4.2 4.4 8.1 9.2 4.5 2.1 1.1 5.2 10.110.2 3.4 5.1 7.2 1.2 8.3 9.1 2.2 3.1 7.1 8.2 6.1 5.3 6.2 9.3 7.3

Po

ints

Ass

ign

ed

Sub-IDO

Reduced pre- and post-harvest losses

Enhanced genetic gain

Increased value capture by producers

Increased livelihood opportunities

Optimised consumption of diverse nutrient rich foods

Enhancement of animal and plant biodiversity

Increased use of safe inputs

Regulatory environment for food safety

Donor Priorities: Total Points Assigned

II. Expert Opinion

7 experts (international agricultural research and development) were asked to undertake a prioritization exercise. Multi-disciplinary: economists, agricultural R&D expert, bio-physical scientist, international development expert, donors, ex CGIAR


Methodology


• Assign scores of 1-5 to sub-IDOs according to some of these criteria:

The relevance of

the sub-IDO for

achieving the SLO.

The centrality of

agricultural

research to this

sub-IDO.

The comparative

advantage of the

CGIAR for

achieving the sub-

IDO.

The International

Public Goods

orientation of CG to

achieve the sub-

IDO.

Expectation of

delivery in the

short and long

term.

Methodology

Initially wanted to establish some sort of consensus/majority. • Normalised scores • Divided into quintiles • Grouped into high, moderate and low • Combined relevance and centrality to form ISPC rating (high, moderate-high, moderate or low)


Results: Priority Levels for all Sub-IDOs under the SLOs

Results: Priority Levels for Sub-IDOs under the Cross

Cutting Themes

Comparing prioritisation results

to sub-IDO targets in the CRP

pre-proposals


Going Forward

“CGIAR’s Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC) will strengthen the quality, relevance, and impact of new

investments through the provision of expert scientific guidance through an appropriate qualitative prioritization for the next generation of CRPs at both pre-proposal and final proposal stage. This will ensure that only the strongest, most directly

relevant CRP proposals are approved for funding.”


Going Forward

To what extent is this information useful for evaluating CRP strength and relevance in this pre-proposal stage? How can this methodology be refined for a more robust analysis of full proposals?
