Directors+Update+-+key+documents

Back to SPAC4 Agenda

The following documents will be used as part of the Director's Update at SPAC4

** 1) 2013 Annual Report **
The was submitted to the consortium office on 10th March 2014. The report was well received by the Consortium Office who endorsed this as.

The report was written based on inputs from four sources, namely 1) Value Chain Country Reports, 2) Theme Annual Reports, 3) Cross Cutting Reports, and 4) Centre and ILRI Focal Point Reports. Individual reports can be found here

(Guidance Notes for Reading: Read the Annual Report, and skim the Consortium Reply; Other documents are presented only in case SPAC members wish to drill down)

2) 2013 CGIAR Research Program Portfolio Report
The was submitted to the Fund Council by the Consortium Office on 24th July 2014

(Guidance Note: On page 13, //Brachiara// breeding is highlighted as an L &F success. Pages 14 to 16 document the role of livestock in the overall portfolio; A cursory read is all that is required here)

3) 2014 Plan of Work and Budget
Original Plans of Work and Budget were drafted at the beginning of the year and can be review here

The d on these prompting a

(Guidance Note: Please review the revised POWB)

4) Extension Proposal
for the interim years of 2015 and 2016 was submitted to the Consortium Office in April 2014. For a total amount of US$81.9 million (of which US$34.7 would come from Windows 1 and 2), this proposal defines a transition initiative to position CRP Livestock and Fish for Phase 2. Four changes were proposed, namely

- a stronger focus on a theory of change that delivers IDO level impact in value chains - a theory of change that generates International Public Goods (IPGs) for enabling wider delivery of IDOs - a restructuring from themes into flagship programs, and - the use of product lines to bundle diverse yet connected work and use these as a means to measure performance

The proposal was and by the, the latter of which is summarized. Both reviews considered the proposal to be "very good", in the top third of all CRP submissions, and without need for revision. However, the requests that comments made be responded to by 25 August.

(Guidance Note: Read the extension proposal. We did well here.)

5) Bibliometric Analysis of Publication
, mainly covering the period 2011-2013, was conducted along side the evaluation of the extension proposal. This did not form part of the evaluation process but is likely to receive greater attention in future.

(Guidance Note: Not a critical document at this stage. However, the use of publications as a performance metric is arising, and the tenor of this trend is important to note)

6) Report to the ILRI Board of Trustees
In April, Tom Randolph reported to the ILRI Board of Trustees. His and  can be found here.

(Guidance Note: A good summary of everything)

7) CRP Management and Governance Review
In response to the Consortium Board's request for a review of CRP Management and Governance, a and its  was circulated in January 2014 for review. In February, On behalf of ILRI and CRP Livestock and Fish, the DG of in February. With other input from other CRPs and centers, and with, final agreement by all centres, was approved by the Consortium Board in March. This has implications for SPAC, PPMC and the position of the CRP Director. has been prepared for discussion on this.

(Guidance Notes: Governance Reviews are being proposed. You do not need to read all of these documents. The issue briefs offer specific implications).

8) Guidelines for the next CRP Cycle Proposal Development
In Montpelier in June, CGIAR Centre Director Generals discussed ways and means of becoming better prepared for the 2nd phase CRP call. reflect these discussion. Based on these notes, Frank Rijsberman (Consortium CEO), Jeremy Bird (DG IWMI) and Jimmy Smith (DG ILRI) have prepared a for this process.

(Guidance Notes: Not critical at this stage. Important only to be aware of what is happening)

9) Mid Term Review of the CGIAR - Preliminary Findings
To examine the progress of the CGIAR reforms, and the resulting appropriateness, effectiveness, and efficiency of the overall system, a Mid Term Review has been commissioned to make recommendations for course correction and improvements where necessary. In January, a defined for this. The panel first met in late January and have framed the basis for the report. The panel met again in July. Their findings will be made available to the SPAC for review and discussion when published.

(Guidance Notes: Not critical at this stage. Important only to be aware of what is happening)