ISPC: Program Evaluation

1. ISPC: Program Evaluation • ISPC Commentary on • Revised Proposal CRP 3.6: Dryland cereals Kenneth Cassman, On behalf of the ISPC

2. Revised CRP 3.6: ISPC Commentary • Initial proposal – the niche for dryland cereals is focused on marginal areas where progress is hard to achieve, although there have been impacts from prior work. • Thus the proposal needed to better reflect the challenges of this particular niche for these crops and work prioritized on analysis of demand dynamics, constraints, and location of targeted populations. • Proposal needed considerable strengthening: • Analysis of target populations that can realistically benefit from the research, and analysis of past work to identify most important constraints for scalable impact • Prioritization of research for crops and constraints and better integration across crops • New approaches to address high priority constraints , particularly regarding the poor and vulnerable in Africa • Realistic and research-specific impact pathways that address constraining factors • More streamlined management and governance structure and better resourcing of management  Recommended CRP 3.6 proposal be substantially revised paying particular attention to seven key areas (Must Haves).

3. Revised CRP 3.6: ISPC Recommendation • ISPC Recommendation for Revised CRP 3.6: The ISPC recommends that revised CRP 3.6 Dryland Cereals is still not ready for approval until substantial revisions have been made, taking into account the original ISPC commentary to address the ISPC and FC list of “Must haves”. • In prioritizing research on dryland cereals, the following issues should be taken into account: • comparable poverty data • analysis of where demand comes from and implications of this to the poor • tight focus on constraints that can realistically be addressed • realistic funding level without funding gap

4. Revised CRP 3.6: ISPC Commentary ISPC Must-Have 1. Provide an improved analysis and presentation of the target populations who can realistically be expected to benefit from the CRP 3.6 research. Not sufficiently addressed. • Revised tables go some distance to providing critical data for prioritization, but this information needs clearer linkage to toresearch choices • Poverty data are not comparable across countries and thus do not support country selection • Targeting 20% area in most countries is not linked to analysis of demand or relative poverty within country

5. Revised CRP 3.6: ISPC Commentary ISPC Must-Have 2. Better justify and prioritize 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. Partially addressed. • Crop-specific plans are presented, but plans don’t show prioritization or how prioritization will be achieved in the future • Integration and potential for synergies and spill overs of research across the dryland cereals is not clearly articulated despite similar research needs for most of the dryland cereals (e.g. drought resistance, improved nutrient use efficiency, soil improvement, etc.) ISPC Must-Have 3. Reduce the scope of research in terms of crops and target areas when likely effectiveness of the research at scale cannot be demonstrated. Not addressed.

6. Revised CRP 3.6: ISPC Commentary ISPC Must-Have 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. and ISPC Must-Have 5. Present new and innovative approaches to overcome constraints to adoption... Not sufficiently addressed. • Barriers described are generic but constraints are not prioritized and research work plan is based on what is most likely to achieve impact • Policy research content is limited

7. Revised CRP 3.6: ISPC Commentary ISPC Must-Have 6. Present realistic and research-specific impact pathways that carefully address the conditioning factors and incorporate feedback loops. Not sufficiently addressed. • Impact pathways do not include constraints; yet they are likely to seriously affect progress from outputs to outcomes ISPC Must-Have 7. Show better integration of CRP3.6 with CRP1.1, 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 Partially addressed. • Separate identities are explained but no apparent common understanding of impact pathways between the two CRPs. ISPC Must-Have 8. Streamline the governance and management structure... Satisfactorily addressed.

8. Revised CRP 3.6: ISPC Commentary FC Must-Haves (not covered by ISPC Must-Haves) FC Must-Have 3. Provide further attention to Monitoring and Evaluation system. Not addressed, but CGIAR—IEA still in formative stage. FC Must-have 5. Elaborate on communicating results in different ways and specifically to women stakeholders. Satisfactorily addressed. FC Must-have 8. Present evidence of linkages with the Regional Fora... Partially addressed. Program development process is explained. Budget allocation information has been only slightly revised. FC Must-have 9. Provide information on formal commitment of other partners... Partially addressed. Initial list of partners is shown, but timing of new partnerships is not clear FC Must-have 10. Explore linkage to CCAFS... Satisfactorily addressed.