October 28, 2015 [DCLAS RESPONSE TO ISPC REVIEW]

1

RESPONSE TO ISPC REVIEW COMMENTS

DRYLAND CEREALS AND LEGUMES AGRIFOOD SYSTEMS (DCLAS)

We thank the ISPC for the review of the preproposal for CRP Dryland Cereals and Legumes Agri-food

Systems (DCLAS), and welcome the recommendations towards the preparation of a concrete full

proposal. Following the ISPC review of DCLAS preproposal, our representatives met with members of

the ISPC team, including Maggie Gill, Tim Kelley, and Paul Harding, on 22 Oct 2015 to discuss the

comments and to seek clarifications. We very much appreciate the ISPC’s clarifications at this meeting

which have helped us understand the comments in further detail and positioned us to better address

them.

The preproposal for DCLAS has been prepared in response to the CRP Phase 2 call for proposals, for

which the guidance1 document identified a portfolio of programs, eight of which were prop`osed to be

“agri-food system CRPs”. The first of these (Dryland Cereals and Legumes Agri-food Systems) was

proposed to meet the remit:

The goal of research should be to improve inclusive income, food and nutrition security, and

environmental sustainability farming practices in small-holder agricultural systems that involve legumes

globally and dryland cereals in Africa and Asia. Research should focus on the transition from

underperforming to functional value chains in these regions by breeding reliable and marketable

commodities (sorghum, millets, barley, grain legumes, forages), that offers diversified land-use (crop-

livestock-tree integration) options for small farmers.

The Phase II CRP, DCLAS, is a merger of three separate but related Phase I CRPs, namely, Dryland Cereals

(DC), Dryland Systems (DS) and Grain Legumes (GL), brought together with the specific intent of

implementing a cohesive agri-food system program. The Phase I proposals, prepared and approved

originally for a period of 10 years, structured the commodity programs, DC and GL, around the strategic

components of priority setting, crop improvement, crop management, seed systems and output

markets. Lessons learned from the first three years of implementation of these programs (mid-2012 to

present) emphasized the need for truly integrated functioning of these strategic components for strong

outcomes and impact. At the same time, it became apparent that impact from system programs can be

enhanced when anchored on commodities. DCLAS attempts to bring these learnings together for

increased food and nutrition security, income and sustainable natural resource management in dryland

regions, the most challenging agricultural environments in the world. The merging of three Phase I CRPs

and its inherent complexity, unique to DCLAS in Phase II, necessitates effective coordination of prior

information and lessons from three separate sets of players/stakeholders within a short period of time.

We made significant strides in this coordination during the preparation of our preproposal, and intend

to further strengthen our planning based on guidance from the reviews of the preproposal.

ISPC SCORE FOR DCLAS: 1 https://library.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10947/3915/Guidance%20Note%20for%20CRP%20Pre-

proposals.pdf?sequence=4

October 28, 2015 [DCLAS RESPONSE TO ISPC REVIEW]

2

The preproposal for DCLAS received an overall score of C in the ISPC review. Individual topics received

the following scores: Integral part of portfolio (B); Theory of Change (B); Governance and Management

(C); Flagship 1 (A); Flagship 2 (B); Flagship 3 (C); Flagship 4 (D); Flagship 5 (B); Flagship 6 (B); Flagship 7

(B).

We present below first our general comments to the review, followed by our response to the key

concerns identified by the ISPC, and finally the clarification requests that we had presented to the ISPC

at the meeting on 22 Oct. We further attach a point-by-point address of the review comments, which

can also be accessed here.

GENERAL COMMENTS:

DCLAS is the one preproposal in the portfolio that face the complexity of making significant changes

from the previous mode of functioning by combining three CRPs to address agricultural research for

development on critical, but under-invested, crops of the subsistence farming communities of Africa

and Asia, together with their associated systems.

The lack of priority-setting analyses was one major driver of the overall ‘C’ ranking for DCLAS. We

recognize priority setting as a continuous process, and acknowledge that our current efforts in this

area were not fully presented in the submitted preproposal. This being an important ISPC ‘must-

have’ from the Phase I proposal, baseline surveys to assess demand and constraints have been

completed for most of our target crops in their respective target countries, and these studies are in

the process of being synthesized this year. In addition, we are also in the process of using geo-

informatic analyses, combined with ‘ground-truth’ing, to determine crop coverage across diverse

agroecologies and the prevailing abiotic stresses. Our completed and ongoing work towards priority

setting in DCLAS commodity research, including (a) data supporting our crop-country selections, (b)

demand assessment, (c) geo-informatic analyses, and (d) basis of our value proposition can be

accessed here.

Section FP4 (Seed Systems and Input Services) was rated D, though the SPPC preview in July

specifically appreciated the need and the structure of this FP. The nature of the crops targeted

(including the fact that most are grown as varieties and few as hybrids), and the difficulties in seed

production and distribution specific to these crops substantiates the plans outlined in the FP4

preproposal. Clarifications from the ISPC on 22 Oct identified the need to look at innovative systems

for seed production and distribution, including the involvement of youth and digital technologies.

They also revealed to us the importance of including critical specificities in this section, such as our

ongoing seed systems work within the Pan-African Bean Research Alliance (PABRA), an important

and well-regarded model, and our experience on the project, Integrated Seed System Development

in Africa (ISSD), both not in the current version.

The ISPC commentary, in general, points to the need to further clarify how systems flagships add

value in DCLAS. While we acknowledge that we can further improve clarity on this aspect, please

see our introductory comments on this.

A general, but extremely important, point that cannot be emphasized enough regarding the

nutrient-dense, climate-resilient crops of DCLAS is their significant genetic potential that has yet to

be tapped to any significant extent, as evidenced by productivity enhancements still in the range of

10 to 30% or more, when yields in the major crops are almost plateauing.

October 28, 2015 [DCLAS RESPONSE TO ISPC REVIEW]

3

The various actions made in the last two years in response to previous ISPC guidance, and the

associated progress have been presented in the extension proposals and annual reports of the

component CRPs. These were briefly summarized at the face-to-face meeting with the ISPC on 22

Oct. The list of ISPC must-haves from Phase I and related actions are provided as Annex 1.

RESPONSE TO THE KEY CONCERNS IDENTIFIED BY THE ISPC:

Key Concern 1 - Clarify and consistently present throughout the narrative the target domain of this CRP -

whether primarily defined as an ecosystem-based program targeting specific crops (and why those), or a

commodity-based program that targets dryland areas. In either case, the justification for including

humid-tropics legumes must be convincingly made on the basis of scientific opportunities; and the

rationale for (i.e., added value of) combining the 12 crops together clearly explained.

We present DCLAS in the preproposal as a multi-commodity program involving two classes of minor

crops, both integral to subsistence farming in Africa and Asia. While the two classes of crops occur in

two different ecologies in the target regions of the program, dryland is the predominant ecology for the

majority. Therefore, the system research of DCLAS will be centered on drylands. We, however, point

out that majority of the AR4D for the identified target crops in the identified target regions is driven by

the CG, with very few alternate suppliers. This fact, together with their current ‘minor’ (underinvested)

status and their collective significance in climate-resilient agriculture and nutrition, requires that they

are addressed under a single umbrella to ensure continued unimpeded commodity research (breeding,

crop management, seed production). The presence of a few of these crops in humid tropic ecologies

requires that research on cropping and farming systems, and livelihood improvements are addressed by

commodity CRPs operating in humid tropics such as MAIZE, RTB, RAFS, Livestock (forage, crop residues)

and FTA.

Significant advantages exist in addressing crop improvement research of grain legumes under a single

umbrella, advantages that are only just beginning to be realized in the three years of existence of the

Phase I CRP, Grain Legumes. Today’s crop legumes share evolutionary history, which imply significant

potential for cross-learning from genetics to inform breeding programs. Similarities in their plant

biology also support research on the target crop legumes within the same crop portfolio. Despite

differences in crop bio-geography, which in turn have been driven mainly by domestication preferences,

adaptation mechanisms at the molecular and biochemical levels have similarities across the crops. Once

understood, these adaptation mechanisms offer the potential to extend production areas between

divergent agroecologies. Thus, the current crop bio-geographies are not limits, but opportunities for

cross learning to deploy fundamental science in crop improvement. Legumes also have some similarities

and challenges in seed dissemination, and in agronomic requirements, facilitating synergies in seed

systems and crop management research.

The CGIAR is specifically recognised in Article 11.5 of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic

Resources for Food and Agriculture2, where the Multilateral System is intended to include the plant

genetic resources for food and agriculture listed in Annex I and held in the ex situ collections of the

2 ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0510e/i0510e.pdf

October 28, 2015 [DCLAS RESPONSE TO ISPC REVIEW]

4

CGIAR. The food legumes held in ex situ collections of the CGIAR referred to in Annex I are: Cajanus

cajan (pigeonpea), Cicer arietinum (chickpea), Lathyrus sativus (grasspea), Lens culinaris (lentil),

Phaseolus spp (bean), Pisum sativum (pea), Vigna unguiculata (cowpea) and Vicia faba (fababean). The

CGIAR Research Portfolio thus has a responsibility for the sustainable use of these plant genetic

resources for food and agriculture. Two of the species mentioned above (pea and grasspea) were

excluded from the Phase I CRP, Grain Legumes, on the basis of area and potential for impact3, and

substituted by the two most significant grain legume crops globally, with growing interest in Africa:

Glycine max (soybean) and Arachis hypogea (groundnut). According to FAO figures for 2013, together

they had a gross production value comparable to wheat. For soybean alone, the value is almost four

times that of groundnut. Alternate suppliers for these crops, though available in the developed world,

are not yet available in the developing counties, and until such time as this happens, their crop

improvement research needs would be covered by the program.

The figure above, derived from the FAO data4, demonstrates increasing gross production value for all

these crops over the period 1961 to 2013. The growth of soybean in Africa is especially notable, and is

worthy of attention considering that Africa imports 3 billion USD in soybean each year. This is a strong

reason for maintaining an interest in soybean within DCLAS. Groundnut has also grown, but less

dramatically, due to the constraint posed by aflatoxin contamination, which restricts its market value.

Recent success in aflatoxin management5 in Malawi has enabled Malawi to regain this as an export

market. This management (and breeding) opportunity remains important for the economy of

groundnut-producing countries in Africa, and constitutes a major reason for its inclusion in DCLAS.

3 http://1drv.ms/1ow7Iua 4 http://faostat3.fao.org/ 5 http://www.new-ag.info/en/focus/focusItem.php?a=2841

October 28, 2015 [DCLAS RESPONSE TO ISPC REVIEW]

5

Key Concern 2 - Establish priorities and focus the 12-crop/dryland system research agenda – define a

timeline and sequence of activities that will be undertaken over the course of the first year (or more) of

the Phase II CRP to arrive at a narrower set of crop, trait, and region-specific priorities for this CRP

We acknowledge that the significant amount of background work that led to the prioritization of crop

and country/region for DCLAS was not described in our preproposal. We also acknowledge that our trait

prioritization for research investment in the proposed crop x country matrix for DCLAS is in the process

of refining, and is noted in the Table heading on page 37 of our preproposal.

Our initial prioritization of crop and country/region for DCLAS leveraged the significant data, based

mostly on 2010 statistics, used in determining the crop and country focus for the individual commodity

CRPs, DC and GL, in their Phase I. Using more recent data on area, production, productivity, poverty,

undernourishment, and related information from FAOSTAT and World Bank, we have re-analyzed the

Phase I data to reduce the combined total of over 40 countries that were targeted by the three

individual Phase I CRPs, to 17 target countries for direct investment in AR4D. In addition, 16 neighboring

countries constituting regional transects with similar enabling environments and/or agro-ecologies as

the target countries were identified for potential spill-over effects. The direct target countries together

with the regional transect (spill-over) countries factor in the determination of our value proposition, the

development of which is outlined here. The FAOSTAT data used for our analysis for AR4D prioritization

in DCLAS is further substantiated by our country-based geo-informatic analyses, shown as example in

Annex 2, and summarized here for Ethiopia, Malawi, Mali, Myanmar and South Asia. Our ongoing and

future plans for crop-country prioritization for DC and GL by geo-informatic analysis, as they stand

currently, are listed here.

As indicated in the section on General Comments above, analyses of supply, demand, constraints and

value chains have been carried out to a good extent in the bilateral projects HOPE 1 and TL II, and in the

extension phase of the DC and GL CRPs (the demand studies for GL are still ongoing in 2015-2016).

Some of these efforts, primarily pertinent to GL, are captured in the hyperlinked documents in the

section on FP1 of the DCLAS pre-proposal. They are also presented in the response to review comments

on the DC extension proposals that can be accessed here. Priority setting for DC was initiated during the

preparation of phase 1 based on the data available on demand and constraints in the target countries.

Efforts have continued during Phase I and in preparation for the extension phase to collect and analyze

data on farmer preferences, consumption, end uses, adoption constraints and other critical information.

Synthesis of the available analytical information for each crop across the different countries/regions is

ongoing as part of the extension phase. Demand analysis for sorghum and millets in four countries

(Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania) in Eastern and Southern Africa was completed recently6, and

will inform and facilitate targeting and priority setting during full-proposal preparation. A study on

prioritization of sorghum and millets value chains (flour, beer, animal feed) in the same four ESA

countries is in progress and will be available early 2016, while demand analysis for sorghum and millets

in West and Central Africa (WCA) is on track for completion during 2016. In the case of GL, additional

6 http://oar.icrisat.org/9013/1/Gierend_Orr_2015_ISEDPS_35-low.pdf

October 28, 2015 [DCLAS RESPONSE TO ISPC REVIEW]

6

information from the ongoing analysis of demand and supply is planned to be included in the full

proposal. Such work including analysis of the divergence/congruence between farmers’

needs/preferences and scientists’ breeding objectives is expected to be part of DCLAS’ routine activities

to consistently inform priority setting from basic to advanced (more refined) levels. In addition to the

demand analysis initiated in response to the ISPC’s Phase I comments, priority setting is supported by

various impact and adoption studies and value chain analyses across many DCLAS target countries.

Previous projects such as DIVA and TRIVSA have provided analysis of current adoption status for a large

set of country-crop combinations as well as on the strength and research capacity of the national

programs for each crop. These offer additional dimensions for targeting and priority setting by

highlighting capacity gaps which are important bottlenecks and should be included in the research

support for countries.

Key Concern 3 - Develop a sequencing and feedback strategy for FP2 and FP3, such that evidence and

information emerging from FP1, FP5 and FP6 can inform other FP priorities

The organization of the current flagships of DCLAS is based on previous ISPC and CO guidance to

incorporate strategic R4D components (priority setting, crop improvement, crop management, seed

systems, and output markets) into a commodity research pipeline, with the expectation of routine

feedback loops. The utilization of feedback information is just starting to inform annual planning of the

commodity CRPs of DCLAS (DC and GL) in their three-year period of operation to date.

Operationalization of the concept will be made further explicit in the full proposal. The central point of

concern is the subsidiary feedbacks between systems FPs and other FPs. This would be considered at a

strategic level and elaborated in the full proposal development.

Key Concern 4 - Identify and justify a set of essential activities under FP2 and FP3 (trait discovery and

breeding) that must be maintained until such time as there is sufficient information to identify clear and

well-justified priority targets for pre-breeding and breeding.

As indicated in the response to Key Concern 2, and the hyperlinked documents, annexes and footnotes

in that section, research plans identified under FP2 and FP3 of the DCLAS preproposal is richly supported

by data on crop x country x trait prioritization collected in preparation for, and during implementation

of, Phase I and Extension Phase of DC and GL. Over the last two years (of the total of three that the

component CRPs of DCLAS have been in existence), we have started moving into a process of ongoing

analyses and feedback for research prioritization of crop x trait x country. While guidance and

recommendations from the ISPC, CO and donors (specifically in terms of bilateral projects) helped this

process significantly, part of such prioritization has also been driven by the more recent budget

reductions.

The breeding process is central to a commodity research program. It is a long-term process with single

delivery cycles spanning anywhere from 5 to 15 years depending on the nature of the crop and the

targeted trait. Continuous delivery of improved material to smallholder farmers is possible only by

maintaining a continuous pipeline of farmer-preferred new varieties. The commodities addressed in this

program are primarily subsistence-farming commodities. The AR4D for these commodities continues to

October 28, 2015 [DCLAS RESPONSE TO ISPC REVIEW]

7

be addressed primarily by the CGIAR in developing countries, with very few alternative providers. This is

reflected in the current varietal portfolio in many countries, which entirely/substantially in based on the

improved germplasm emanated from CG centers. Persistence of the associated CG Centers over several

years to address the needs for these crops from subsistence-farming populations in developing

countries has contributed to what limited productivity enhancements and consequent livelihood

improvements could be achieved under constraints of extreme climates, degraded soils, suboptimal

research investments and research capacity, weak infrastructure and political strife. Reducing or

holding back the required research until a comprehensive socioeconomic analysis is completed will

severely retard the breeding pipeline and impact in farmers’ fields. On the other hand, input from FP1

in informing breeding objectives will likely be in the areas of potential new products, future markets,

implications of population growth, etc. Finally, one could state that crop improvement efforts in CG

partnerships have always been demand-driven, to the extent that they included farmer-participatory

selection.

Key Concern 5 - Merge FP4 with FP3 or consolidate with other CRP FPs dealing with seed systems.

The SPPC review of the DCLAS preproposal states: “In addition to their breeding value, the new

delivered varieties with innovative traits will need to be adopted by smallholders. This last mile step will

request a strong stewardship commitment and services from DCLAS involving its CRP scientists and

developers directly or collaborating with development agencies (eg GIZ?). The role of DCLAS in this key

part of the adoption process has to be better described and financially supported.”

Seed production for these minor crops is primarily addressed by informal seed systems, as opposed to

the active interest and operation of formal seed systems including SMEs and large multinational

companies for major crops. Active interest from the private seed sector is lacking primarily because

these are mostly varieties of high-value low-volume crops, with hybrids available at the present time

only for 3 of the 12 target crops. Restricted adoption of improved varieties of these crops in most

locations is due, to a great extent, to the absence of systems in place for the multiplication and

distribution of quality seeds. Farmer seed producers and informal seed systems are the predominant

avenues. Therefore, specific and devoted efforts are required to meet local demands for quality seed of

improved varieties and hybrids. Substantial progress was made under the TL-II project in the testing of

novel legume seed systems to build on local seed systems or to complement these and a body of

knowledge has been accumulated. Successful interventions for seed systems policy through the CRP has

been reported in the Dryland Cereals Annual report for 2013 (Tanzania) and for 2014 (Morocco), and in

Grain Legumes Annual Report of 2013 (Ethiopia). Please see also the related section under General

Comments above.

CLARIFICATIONS REQUESTED OF THE ISPC, AND RECEIVED (on 22 Oct 2015):

We would appreciate specific guidance from the ISPC on further improving the ToC and Impact

Pathway for DCLAS.

It will be useful to know the basis for the ‘C’ rating for the section on proposed Governance and

Management for DCLAS, and we welcome any recommendations to strengthen this section further.

October 28, 2015 [DCLAS RESPONSE TO ISPC REVIEW]

8

Even as we work to address review comments from the ISPC and CB in the full proposal, we intend

to develop the full proposal from two different perspectives, a fully-funded scenario and two

reduced-budget scenarios. Towards this, we look to any recommendation from the Council on

critical components for two different reduced-budget scenarios.

October 28, 2015 [DCLAS RESPONSE TO ISPC REVIEW]

9

ANNEX 1. Status of ISPC and FC “Must-Have”s from Phase I proposal review of DC, DS and GL.

ISPC & FC 'Must-Haves' From Phase I Proposal Review

DRYLAND CEREALS

ISPC & FC "MUST-HAVE"s ACTION TAKEN ISPC-1 Provide an improved analysis and presentation of the target

populations who can realistically be expected to benefit from the CRP 3.6 research.

Baseline surveys and demand/constraint/value-chain analyses have been completed for all crops across most target regions/populations. During 2013, geospatial analyses have also covered parts of Africa and India to determine crop coverage, cropping system, agroecology, and prevailing stresses. All collected information is in the process of being synthesized.

ISPC-2 Justify and prioritize better the proposed work plans on a crop-specific basis; pool research efforts in identified areas across two or more of the dryland cereals for greater efficiency.

Adequately addressed in approved Phase I proposal.

ISPC-3 Reduce the scope of research in terms of crops and target areas when likely effectiveness of the research at scale cannot be demonstrated

We have substantiated the selection of crop-country targets based on all available data, and are working towards defining and prioritizing crop-country-trait targets currently.

ISPC-4 Do an analysis of current work to identify barriers to adoption and shifting to new areas of innovative research and approaches to overcome these barriers.

Adequately addressed in approved Phase I proposal.

ISPC-5 Present new and innovative approaches to overcome constraints to adoption of the range of technologies by the poor and vulnerable, particularly in Africa, and to increase the likelihood of impacts in their livelihoods

Adequately addressed in approved Phase I proposal.

ISPC-6 Present realistic and research-specific impact pathways that carefully address the conditioning factors and incorporate feedback loops.

We are working on this.

ISPC-7 Show better integration of CRP3.6 with CRP1.1 (Dryland Systems), as well as justification for their separate identities or merger; there needs to be a plan to monitor the impact pathways for CRP 3.6 cereals research drawing lessons from both CRPs

Restructuring of the program along the strategic components was done in 2014 in preparation for Phase II, and this is expected to allow integration of R4D across the two CRPs. Further integration is in planning for the Phase II proposal, Dryland Cereals and Legumes AgriFood Systems. The Dryland Systems M&E platform is in the process of being adapted for Dryland Cereals.

October 28, 2015 [DCLAS RESPONSE TO ISPC REVIEW]

10

FC-1 Provide further attention to Monitoring and Evaluation system Adequately addressed in approved Phase I proposal.

FC-2 Present evidence of linkages with the Regional For a Adequately addressed in approved Phase I proposal.

FC-3 Provide information on formal commitment of other partners Adequately addressed in approved Phase I proposal.

DRYLAND SYSTEMS

ISPC "MUST-HAVE"s

ISPC-1 Clearly characterize the target dryland systems. The proposal must define dryland areas of the developing world (including target populations) and identify geospatial distribution using a water balance approach that quantifies risk and severity of water shortage as the basis for categorizing regions that fall into the “reduced vulnerability” focus of SRT2, or the “sustainable intensification” focus of SRT3.

Dryland Targets now with greater specficity although we have not emphasized water enough in my view. The perforamcne matrix and other text addresses this must have.

ISPC-2 Establish clear set of hypotheses as an organizing principle to help prioritize the research and results agenda. reseach questions indicated for flagship 6 and others where appropriate

ISPC-3 Provide the criteria for choice of benchmark sites and development of relevant data to inform research requirements in both the biophysical and social sciences, and their synthesis.

This is now part of our statistics/data collection for the prioirty countries

ISPC-4 Refine site selection (including level of ambition regarding geographical reach and number of ‘action sites’) and characterization and prioritize activities to be carried out, working from impacts to activities.

FP6 now has few target countries/transects where the work will be done

ISPC-5 Provide more detail on the underpinning science and agronomic, genetic, and farming system approaches to be evaluated once the first phase has progressed.

Now part of the overall rationale for the new CRP

ISPC-6 Provide a more comprehensive theory of how social change will result from the livelihood, gender and innovation systems approaches espoused in the current proposal.

New ToC and impact patheays developed

ISPC-7 Discuss current research priorities and how they would inform and complement new initiatives.

We refer to other CRP's (CRP-CRP interactions) and external initiatives in the text

October 28, 2015 [DCLAS RESPONSE TO ISPC REVIEW]

11

ISPC-8 Identify clearly the research interventions proposed as a result of the diagnosis of the problems.

These are listred in FP6 cluster outputs to a greater specficity htan previously

ISPC-9 Describe the framework of selecting external and Centers’ partners, their respective research activities, how these activities collectively contribute to an integrated agro-ecosystem research agenda.

Partnership section to be finalized

ISPC-10

Differentiate the roles of the crop/commodity CRPs and this system CRP (including avoiding overlap and potential duplication between CRPs).

Now the flow between flagships covers this point where asystems work is anchored in commodity crop improvement work

ISPC-11

Integrate available lessons from the SSA-CP. ? No relevant now c/w other lessons

ISPC-12

Develop a logframe (together with a clear recognition of constraints and strategies for addressing risks) and articulate pathways to explicitly link a cluster of outputs to outcomes and impacts and to the SRF system level outcomes (including clear quantification of results as the base of the M&E system).

IP, TOC and performance matrix cover this

ISPC-13

Include a performance management framework. MEL system developed since this review and new management structure explained

ISPC-14

Build climate variability resilience and sustainable dryland systems through an integrated program combining indigenous knowledge with improved technologies, information dissemination and engagement with stakeholders.

Climate change one of the stresses emphasized in both commodity and systems work

ISPC-15

Must Have 15: Redefine management structure to ensure that the Steering Committee and the Research Management Committee are not both chaired by the DG for the lead centre to avoid potential conflict of interest.

Now not relevant but a new management structure is included in pre-proposal

ISPC-16

Must Have 16: Broaden the focus of the proposal to include Latin America and South Asia Both these are now part of the new CRP

GRAIN LEGUMES

ISPC & FC "MUST-HAVE"s ACTION TAKEN

October 28, 2015 [DCLAS RESPONSE TO ISPC REVIEW]

12

ISPC-1a

Objectively demonstrate the relative importance of these crops in the CGIAR portfolio, drawing on information related to GL-specific producers and consumers in the different target regions

Data/information collected. MDW to revise Justification. Additional information to be provided in Appendix.

ISPC-1b

Undertake a comprehensive assessment of past research efforts and current barriers to adoption of technology, as a basis for identifying key constraints and opportunities that could be influenced by CRP 3.5 research products

2nd draft of assessment of past research ready to be shared with other centers for further inputs. Information to be used for revision of Justification chapter, and will go as Appendix.

ISPC-1c

Establish targets for outcomes in a crop by region matrix to account for actual situations and current status from a regional and crop species perspective, and strengthen capacity to prioritize allocation of resources for GL research within this CRP and within the CGIAR

Comments/inputs received. 2nd draft to be shared with other Centers. Outcome targets being discussed (virtual).

ISPC-2 A workplan with more focus and fewer product lines: that this CRP concluded with such a large number of product lines (61 crop/traits for genetic improvement) indicates the difficulty of moving from individual programs to a global program within a CRP

2nd draft of workplan ready. Will be shared again with other centers for additional inputs (to be included as Appendix). Table of priority trait/crop revised.

ISPC-3 Given limited success to date in the adoption of improved GL technologies, demonstrate feasible impact pathways, citing relevant references and documentation

Revision being done.

ISPC-4 This CRP should be closely allied to and integrated into the system CRPs, and particularly CRP 1.1

Revised 2nd draft ready for sharing with Centers

ISPC-5 Highlight the new and most promising areas of research: the list of innovation initiatives and cross-learning opportunities on p122-123 are ambitious and commendable and deserve a more prominent place in the proposal, with an explanation of the value that would be generated by succeeding in each of these initiatives

Revised 2nd draft ready for additional inputs by Centers

ISPC-6 Management and Governance Revision being made

FC-1 Higher degree of prioritization, both at the thematic and at the geographic levels, is required

Data/information collected to revise Justification. Information to be used in revision.

FC-2 Further attention should be given to M&E system Revision after M&E report from Consortium Board.

October 28, 2015 [DCLAS RESPONSE TO ISPC REVIEW]

13

FC-3 Farmers’ organizations, extension workers and NGOs are under-represented; need to provide details on specific organizations and their role, especially in SSA; proposal needs to show evidence of involvement of sub-regional organizations and their networks

2nd draft of write-up ready. To be shared with Centers for inputs.

FC-4 Specify practical commitments and investments required of other partners engaged

2nd draft ready to be shared with Centers

FC-5 Further analysis is needed on possible trade-offs implied by the new emphasis on value chains; proponents need to consider location specificity that IPGs may be difficult to generate in deciding on which value chains to select for intensive research

2nd draft ready to be shared with partners

FC-6 Participatory technology development through enhanced on-farm research, with farmers managing their own fields, is recommended to be part of the program; it needs to refocus SO3 to include cropping systems research on farm and with farmers

Revised 2nd draft of SO3 ready to be shared with partners.

FC-7 Need better integration of the crop improvement aspects with resource management

Revised 2nd draft ready to be shared with partners.

FC-8 Provide description of the relationship with other initiatives like Tropical Legumes I and II (TL I and TL II)

Revised 2nd draft ready to be shared with partners.

FC-9 Links to CRP 2 could be better articulated on the issue of policy bias against small farm enterprises, which generally characterize grain legume production

Revised 2nd draft ready to be shared with partners.

FC-10 Budget allocations for SO1 (genetic resources) for CRP 3.5 should be differentiated from the budget allocation that was made for the genebanks

Revised 2nd draft ready to be shared with partners.

October 28, 2015 [DCLAS RESPONSE TO ISPC REVIEW]

14

ANNEX 2: Example of Analysis for Crop-Country-Tait Prioritization (more hyperlinked above)

October 28, 2015 [DCLAS RESPONSE TO ISPC REVIEW]

15