Transition Update

The System Management Office

September 2016

www.cgiar.org

1. Starting from the 2009 Base– Who did what ?

1

CGIAR Internal Audit Unit – Shared Service Initiative of Centers and

Consortium

www.cgiar.org

1. Elements of Bogor April 2015 decisionof Fund Council?

• Call for ‘Simplified’ governance structure – with single ‘System Council’ and single ‘System office’ (from 1 July 2016)

• Executive Director appointed by new ‘System Council’ with a Terms of Reference serving the system as a whole

• A replenishment style fund-raising approach to be the basis for predictable/sustainable funding

• Transition Plan prepared by end July 2015, and approved by the Fund Council by end September 2015

Overall – a decision taken by the Fund Council based on 4 “options” presented – but no one single “option” selected

2

www.cgiar.org

1. Elements of Bogor April 2015 decision: Legal effect on the Consortium?

Decision on the CGIAR System Organization:“After reviewing the four options proposed in the paper, the Fund Council agrees to establish a CGIAR System Organization which will be comprised of a CGIAR System Council and a CGIAR System Office, building on the existing legal personality of the Consortium”

Intended streamlined approach with one board & one office:• No change in the legal personality of the operating organization• Name of legal entity is changed to “CGIAR System

Organization” from “CGIAR Consortium” to “CGIAR System Organization”.

• Contractually – intent (and through various transitional decisions) CGIAR System Organization automatically replaces the Consortium

3

www.cgiar.org

There was a relatively clear outcome from the Bogor deliberations, right?

4

www.cgiar.org

2. Changes en route

• For the role of Centers: Right from when the Bogor April 2015 decision was taken, did ‘active observer’ status meet reform expectations of being key stakeholders in decisions affecting the “system”?

• As disclosed in April 2016, for a small sub-set of key donors: i. Legal prohibition on sitting on same governing board where

Centers have a voting seat & lingering discomfort of ‘active observer’ status for Centers

ii. Direct fiduciary responsibility (no ‘intermediary’ Board) may be problematic from a legal/donor perspective

• As an ongoing question, where was the element of independence in Board-level decision making that the Consortium and Center Boards all feature to strengthen the system overall?

5

www.cgiar.org

2. Changes and developments en route

Two governing boards:• System Council – strategic body, mission-driven broad guidance• System Management Board – “main” decision making body with

responsibility for overseeing implementation of the “CGIAR Portfolio”

One office: with a key facilitation; coordination; and development role• Undertaking the work of both the former Consortium Office and the

Fund Office

Inclusion of an ‘Internal Audit Function’ • Agreed to be decided after the transition took place• Defined to be “the arrangements agreed between the System Council

and System Management Board to provide independent and objective assurance and advisory services to the System Council and the System Management Board”.

6

www.cgiar.org

3. Main Legal Documents from July 2016

Broad principles – Agreed in February 2016 (annex to ‘Framework’)• 12 concepts to guide the development of policies, procedures, guidelines

and operations of the CGIAR System, including:• Collective responsibility and mutual respect• Subsidiarity should guide policies; ‘overreach’ must be avoided

Main System-level documents• ‘CGIAR System Framework’ – guide the role of the funders; System

Council defines the various entities and their respective roles• ‘CGIAR System Organization Charter’ – guides the work of the System

Management Board; role of Executive Director; and defines the role of the CGIAR System Management Office – key emphasis on facilitation

Agreements with the French Government – potentially “name changes”• International Organization Treaty (signed with Hungary & Denmark)• Headquarters Agreement & Social Security Agreement

7

www.cgiar.org

4. June 2016 outcomes: Common themes

Key features that remain A central “Trust Fund” as a pooled funding mechanism

- A Key change: it is a new trust fund, that starts in 2017 A governing body of the funders – the ‘System Council’

- A key change: purely bilateral funders are now included A decision making body with members decided by Centers –

the ‘System Management Board’- A key change: Center DGs/Board members are voting

members and comprise 7 of the 9 voting members An independent International Organization to support the

work – the ‘CGIAR System Organization- A key change: More facilitation focused role, but still

with clear monitoring and reporting aspects

8

www.cgiar.org

4. June 2016 outcomes: Important new parts

Two new entities reinforce the partnership between the Centers and Funders:

1. From the Framework, the Partnership ForumReplacing the ‘Funders Forum’ and Co-Chaired by the Centers and the Funders as a key evolution.

2. From the Charter, the ‘General Assembly of the Centers’A forum for the CGIAR Research Centers to discuss issues related to the CGIAR System and the CGIAR System Organization, which meets at least once per year.

9

10

11

12

www.cgiar.org

5. CGIAR System roles, responsibilities and accountabilities – an overview

Considerable description in the Framework & Charter on the respective roles and responsibilities

• 34 ‘functions’ of the System Council• 49 ‘functions’ of the System Management Board• 38 ‘functions’ of the System Management Office

Practically, for the Science/Program Team in the SMO, this means• Contributing to an integrated system for performance management

Annual WP&BAnnual Portfolio review

criteria for prioritizationand, allocation of unrestricted budget

• Input into system science considerations of the SMB – SRF, guidance on program proposal development

• Monitor implementation of decisions arising from system-wide evaluations

13

www.cgiar.org

6. July 2016 Paris meetings: Consolidating the transition

System Council, 12 July 2016i. Appointed Juergen Voegele as Chairii. Affirmed the operating budgets of ISPC, IEA and the System

Organization (board and office)iii. Ratified all the policies in the system to avoid disruptioniv. Agreed to take on relevant ongoing responsibilities of the Former

Fund Council for the existing CGIAR Fundv. Agreed to a “carry-over” of any uncommitted and unspent 2016

funds – if any – into 2017

System Management Board, 11 & 13 July 2016i. Appointed Martin Kropff as Interim Chairii. Ratified all system-wide policies also iii. Agreed for the transfer for the former functions of the Fund Office

to the System Management Office from October 2016

14

www.cgiar.org

7. Ongoing embedding of activities

1. The System Management Board has approved and is consulting on the formation of 1 Standing Committee + at present, minimum of 4 working groupsAudit & Risk CommitteeWorking Groupsi. Resource Mobilizationii. Rules of Governance, including supporting the development

of the General Assembly and its Rules of Procedureiii. Cost-sharing for Host Centersiv. Funding System Actions & Entities – Chaired by Interim ED

2. The new Executive Director of the CGIAR System Organization will take office on 3 October 2016

15

www.cgiar.org

8. Testing the SystemJoint May 2016 Rome Meeting• Funders and Centers talked about whether the transition system was “fit for

purpose”

Grain Legumes/Dryland Cereals (previously ‘DCL’) proposal provides important real example • System Council has indicated that it has no reservation in rejecting funding for a

proposal that does not meet CGIAR’s standards• Disallowed extra time for the DCL proposal, and was bound by 31 July deadline• 1 August 2016 – saw 1st key test for System Management Board

Key SMO functions continue (these are science –related only) Portfolio report for 2015 published Annual Report 2015 (and on-line version) in finalization Contributions to system level gender, CapDev, MELCoP, Open Access-Open Data,

IP and site integration all continuing in 2016

16

www.cgiar.org

9. Three forthcoming strategic pieces of work

Under the Charter, the System Management Board is to:1. Propose - Comprehensive risk management framework for the ‘CGIAR

System’2. Approve – process for and means of fulfilling Internal Audit Function in

consultation with System Council3. Propose - Integrated framework for a Performance Management

System for CGIAR Research

Anticipate:• The ‘how’ to go about these will be discussed by the System

Management Board in its 26 September 2016 2nd meeting • Broad consultation across the System, including with Centers Boards,

over the next 4 – 6 months, to address these complex topics• Call with Centers Board Chairs and DGs on 27 September to provide

progress update on how this work will move forward

17

www.cgiar.org

10. Some people

Nick Austin - Interim Exec. Director

Executive Director Designate –Elwyn Grainger-Jones – starts Oct 3.

Senior staff:Albin Hubscher – FinanceKarmen Bennett – GovernanceAlain Vidal – Strategy and Liaison Peter Gardiner – ScienceElise Perset – LegalPierre Pradal – Internal AuditMichael Marus – ITCMichael Veltman – HR

Departures:

Frank Rijsberman – CEO Wayne Powell – Chief Science OfficerEnrica Porcari – Head, Shared servicesHannah Edwards - Communications

New relationships with former FO staff:Lori Dagdag – to Finance and Trustee relationsMin Lee – to GovernanceLinks for Communications tbd.

18

www.cgiar.org