ISDC Feedback on CGIAR Portfolio Narrative 2025-2030 and Review of Program and Accelerator Proposals: preliminary Management Action Plan November 20, 2024 Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2 Section I – Responses to the Portfolio Narrative feedback ....................................................... 3 Section II - Responses to ISDC feedback at the Program and Accelerator Level ....................... 9 Climate Action Program .................................................................................................. 9 Multifunctional Landscapes Program ............................................................................. 13 Policy Innovations Program ........................................................................................... 20 Better Diets and Nutrition Program ................................................................................ 24 Breeding for Tomorrow Program ................................................................................... 28 Sustainable Animal and Aquatic Foods Program ............................................................ 33 Sustainable Farming Program ....................................................................................... 38 Food Frontiers and Security Program ............................................................................ 42 Scaling for Impact Program ........................................................................................... 47 Gender Equality and Inclusion Accelerator ..................................................................... 49 Digital Transformation Accelerator ................................................................................. 52 Capacity Sharing Accelerator ........................................................................................ 55 Genebanks ................................................................................................................... 59 2 Introduction Management thanks the Independent Science and Development Council (ISDC) for its thorough review and constructive feedback on CGIAR’s 2025—30 Portfolio Narrative and Program/ Accelerator proposals. ISDC’s feedback will be carefully considered and addressed during the Portfolio Inception Phase in Q1- Q2, 2025 with a view to improving the coherence, relevance, and impact potential of the Portfolio and its components. To maximize the time available for the Portfolio Writing Teams to design the individual Programs and Accelerators before ISDC submission on 27 September, the final version of the Portfolio Narrative – which builds on the individual proposals – was only submitted on 1 November. Management recognizes that this caused a sequencing challenge for ISDC’s review process; which was in part mitigated through a substantive cover letter that accompanied Management’s 27 September submission. This document comprises two sections: I/ Responses to ISDC’s Portfolio-level suggestions; II/ Responses to ISDC’s suggestions on each Program and Accelerator. In its review of the 2025-30 Portfolio Proposals, ISDC provided several comments that are common to all proposals, on the need to provide a more detailed analysis of risks; complete comparative advantage analyses; refine research questions, outputs, and theories of change; and develop more robust MELIA plans. To avoid repetition, a common response to these comments is provided in Section 2. It should be noted that each Program/Accelerator will submit an Inception Report at the end of the Inception Phase in Q2 2025. These reports will demonstrate in further detail how ISDC’s feedback has been addressed. In both sections of this document: • efforts have been focused on responding to forward-looking comments, as opposed to those related to the structure and contents of the proposals; • comments have been grouped and summarized for ease of reading and to keep this document within a reasonable length; • responses are focused on qualitative feedback (as opposed to scores). 3 Section I – Responses to the Portfolio Narrative feedback Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed Codesign of the Portfolio – “The proposals reviewed by ISDC do not meet the ambitions of the Engagement Framework or the demand for proposal codesign expressed in the Listening Sessions. It recommends that during Inception Phase, the commitment to advance Program and Accelerator codesign as an engagement enabler should be prioritized.” Management will ensure that Programs and Accelerators apply agreed principles and best practices in co-designing the 2025-30 Portfolio, building on the Engagement Framework and guided by the forthcoming Partnership Strategy. A key first step will be to “create a shared definition of codesign used across CGIAR” as recommended by ISDC. One of the key components of the Inception Phase is to further develop detailed priorities and plans alongside partners in a transparent manner. “Some proposals are still largely rooted in a linear and technologically-focused research paradigm that belies the systems orientation CGIAR espouses in the Strategy. Moving from linearity to complexity will require a sustained, significant cultural shift within the organization, changing attitudes, behaviors, and approaches.” CGIAR’s continued progress towards a systems orientation is indeed a priority for CGIAR to achieve its mission and intended impacts. The linear appearance of several of the visuals included in the Portfolio Narrative and proposals often reflects simplification rather than the intent of the Portfolio. Refinement of theories of change, including adding clearer assumptions, should help alleviate this concern. Regarding the observation that some proposals are too technologically focused, this feedback will be conveyed to Program/Accelerator teams to guide their codesign processes and ensure that all teams have a good balance of research disciplinarity. CGIAR’s Value Proposition – “A value proposition is a key component of an organizational plan and essential to engage new funders. However, the value proposition was cut from the May Narrative draft”. The Value Proposition included in the May version of the CGIAR Portfolio Narrative was found to be inadequate by many internal stakeholders. An improved Value Proposition statement will be finalized as part of the Portfolio Inception Phase, once CGIAR’s new science leadership is in place, and will be anchored in a 2025—30 Portfolio Investment Case. ISDC has highlighted several subject matter topics that did not receive the level of attention that it expected in the Portfolio Narrative and/or proposals. These include: i. water systems, ii. climate mitigation, iii. tradeoffs and synergies in mixed systems, iv. the Environmental Health and Biodiversity Impact Area, v. youth and social inclusion, and vi. orphan crops and pulses. Management agrees that all of these topics deserve significant and increased attention. Actions to achieve this will include creating new lines of research, raising the profile of existing research, and enhancing coordination across Programs and Accelerators on planned work on these topics. More work on orphan crops and pulses and youth and social inclusion in particular needs to be newly built into the Portfolio. In the case of youth and social inclusion, strategy papers commissioned by the Gender Equality, Youth and Social Inclusion Impact Platform will provide a starting point for discussions. In the other cases (water systems, climate change mitigation, mixed systems, and the Environmental Health and Biodiversity Impact Area), existing areas of planned research on these topics in multiple Programs/Accelerators will serve as starting points for developing more coordinated approaches and identifying remaining key research gaps. 4 Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed Taking the example of the Environmental Health and Biodiversity Impact Area, the Platform Director has shared with all Programs and Accelerators a background document on priority areas of attention by CGIAR and provided comments on all draft proposals. While more work is needed to deliver a compelling and connected portfolio of research products, there are several areas of strength to build from: environmental health and biodiversity is the primary Impact Area for the Multifunctional Landscapes Program; the Sustainable Farming Program features strong components on soil health and water-use efficiency; environmentally-oriented research is also included in the Policy Innovations, Sustainable Animal and Aquatic Foods, and Food Frontiers and Security Programs; finally, innovations to enrich the natural resource base feature as part of larger resilience bundles in the Climate Action Program. Similarly, ISDC’s comment on mixed farming interdependencies across Multifunctional Landscapes, Sustainable Farming and Sustainable Animal and Aquatic Foods points to another case where coordination is required for assessing tradeoffs and synergies across Programs. Developing such coordination mechanisms will be prioritized during the Inception Phase. More generally on linkages and synergies across Programs and Accelerators, the management arrangements for the Portfolio provide several mechanisms to strengthen these, including a cross-Portfolio Global Science Team and Center-level coordination and collaboration across teams delivering on different parts of the Portfolio. Geographic coordination – “As CGIAR proceeds with the Inception Phase, coordination details of collocated, integrated research at sub-national scales are needed. What will be the role of the Scaling for Impact Accelerator in the overarching structure of colocation at varying scales?” Improved coordination of Portfolio efforts at country and sub-national levels is essential for CGIAR to contribute to country objectives and to avoid duplication and foster synthesis and learning. In the 2022-24 Portfolio, a number of coordination approaches were used, including Country Conveners, leadership from the Regionally Integrated Initiatives and/or other Initiatives and Centers, as well as more bottom-up approaches led by groups of Initiatives. In the 2025-30 Portfolio, the Scaling for Impact Program is expected to play a significant role alongside Country Conveners in conveying country demand and coordinating scaling efforts. Pilots will be put in place during the Inception Phase to test the operationalization of this approach. CGIAR’s country and regional engagement functions will be organized under a new Continental structure. In addition, the preliminary 2025 workplans will highlight shared deliverables across Programs/Accelerators, and principles for Program/Accelerator coordination and collaboration will be defined by the end of 2024. CGIAR’s role among partners – how will the new Partnership Strategy inform the Portfolio Narrative and proposals? The new Partnership Strategy will enable CGIAR to maximize the shared value of diverse partnerships, especially in the Global South; drive a stronger partnering culture across CGIAR; and enable CGIAR to become more fit-for-purpose to partner. Specifically, 5 Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed through a more systematic and intentional partnership approach, the Strategy will guide the Programs and Accelerators to make better investment/ divestment decisions on partnerships, strengthen pathways to scale, seek out new and more diverse partnerships, apply clear metrics to demonstrate when partnerships are delivering value, and mitigate operational and reputational risks. As noted above, a new Continental structure and Country convening functions will promote strong and cohesive partnerships at the national, sub-national, and local levels. Externally facilitated comparative advantage process For the initial comparative advantage (CA) exercise undertaken at proposal stage, a coordinated approach steered by a working group proved highly beneficial. Nonetheless, the teams highlighted some challenges in applying ISDC’s comparative advantage methodology. Thus, the recommendation to set up an externally facilitated CA process is appealing. Management thanks ISDC for this suggestion and will be in touch on how to take this forward. Capacity sharing and decolonization of research – “Capacity sharing is primarily externally focused, training partners and others. Will there be an internal component? While two-way learning encompassed in the capacity “sharing” positioning is noted, success relies on CGIAR learning to learn from others, which represents a deep cultural change in the organization.” Inward-facing capacity strengthening is indeed included, as noted in the CGIAR-level theory of change visual graphic and in some of the proposals. Management agrees with the cultural shift recommendations about CGIAR learning how to learn from others. The shift from “capacity development” to “capacity sharing” recognizes the importance of this cultural change. The Capacity Sharing Accelerator will provide leadership in this area. Decolonization of research has been extensively discussed within CGIAR, with sharing among CGIAR staff of emergent best practices from the literature. CGIAR leadership will work to formalize and coordinate efforts to mainstream these practices, with the Global Leadership Team and Global Science Team driving cultural change. CGIAR impact ambitions (Section 4 of the Portfolio Narrative) – “Some stronger justification for assumptions is required. For instance, the 1% productivity gain per annum needs to be evidenced, while regional differences need to be accounted for. Is the 1% productivity gain based on CGIAR only research or does it reflect aggregate growth rates, of which CGIAR is a contributor?” More details on the methods, including assumptions, will be provided. The ambition assumes collective efforts by partners. As for the assumption of 1% productivity gain per annum, the figure was drawn from work undertaken under the Genetic Innovation Science Group, with some regionalization of the figures based on historical evidence. It is close to the target CGIAR set for itself in the 2016-2030 Strategy and Results Framework (“Improve the rate of yield increase for major food staples from current < 1% to 1.2%-1.5% per year”) and in line with estimates from a recent Fuglie and Echeverria paper. mailto:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X23003418 6 Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed Plans have been made to update the analysis in 2025 through integration of more detailed Portfolio research plans. Role of Accelerators – “An Accelerator definition and a clear mandate in CGIAR’s context would be beneficial.” As pointed out by ISDC, the Portfolio Narrative describes the general purpose of Accelerators without providing a definition of the term. The Accelerators’ theories of change rely heavily on enhancing the quality of research and use of key methods and tools within the Portfolio. Thus, most of Accelerators’ activities will consist in engaging collaboratively with the Programs. It is expected that the conceptual model of Accelerators will become clearer in the Inception Phase when put into practice. Research ethics – “CGIAR should consider developing and using clear standards for upholding scientific integrity, research ethics, and accountability” Agreed. Sharing and coordination of IRB procedures (including country level- requirements) within CGIAR has undergone recent improvements. Centers continue to strengthen their own IRBs or deepen their use of external review boards. The recommendations related to other areas (e.g. working with minors, digital tools) will be addressed under the leadership of the Chief Scientist. Through the implementation of the Partnership Strategy and Engagement Framework, we will work towards developing guidelines for promoting the use of high ethical standards in CGIAR partnerships, consistent with international best practice. Risk management – “A robust risk framework is essential for strong proposals and enhances their robustness and credibility. Proposals must clearly outline risk mitigation to allow for the assessment of feasibility and preparedness. The Narrative risk framework is a good starting point and CGIAR proposals should adopt it. Currently, the proposals lack adequate risk analyses, which are apparently earmarked for the Inception Phase. Developing detailed risk frameworks is an area flagged for further development during the Inception Phase. ISDC was unable to assess this specific QoR4D criterion because of the lack of information provided.” As noted by ISDC, the identification of key risks and development of risk management plans at the Program and Accelerator levels is a key priority for the Portfolio Inception Phase and will be captured in complete Plans of Work/ Results and Budgets as well as Inception Reports. Integration of bilateral and pooled funding – “How will CGIAR manage the integration of pooled and bilaterial funding for Portfolio? What levers will the Chief Scientist deploy in their work with Center Directors General considering the integrated partnership structure and lack of line authority? Principles and mechanisms to drive progressive alignment of W3 and bilaterally funded projects and programs with the objectives and theories of change with the Programs and Accelerators are detailed in the Technical Reporting Arrangement for the 2025—30 Portfolio. These include, but are not limited to: (i) mapping of key results to Program/ Accelerator theories of change; (ii) a minimum data standard for W3 and bilaterally funded projects to describe, consistently, the impact the project seeks to contribute to (by Impact Area/ SDG), the specific results the project/ program contributes to, the partners with 7 Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed How will CGIAR prevent and/or manage competition among Centers for pooled funding? 1. How will scientists be incentivized and motivated to work seamlessly within a pooled and bilateral system? 2. What happens if System Council (SC) approves a mechanism to earmark W2 funding to Areas of Work and some Areas of Work receive relatively little funding? What was learned about managing this challenge in the 2022-24 cycle? How will geographies with little Program crossover be managed across pooled and bilateral funding?” whom those results are generated, where the results are generated, and their cost; and (iii) monitoring and reporting against the common CGIAR Results Framework. In addition, the agreed management arrangements for the Portfolio introduce mechanisms to foster integration and synergies between W1/2-funded and W3/ bilaterally funded work at all levels, including the CGIAR Global Leadership Team at the executive leadership level, the CGIAR Global Science Team at the Portfolio level, as well as Program/ Accelerator Leadership Teams. While recognizing that elements of competition and collaboration will always be present in a partnership, the allocation and deployment of W1/2 funding will be based on clear, agreed decision-making processes and criteria. With a joined-up performance and results management approach, including a minimum data standard and technical reporting across all sources of funding, individual scientists have an incentive to deliver against shared, higher-level objectives and Program/ Accelerator theories of change regardless of how their work is funded. Management has proposed that earmarking to Areas of Work through W2 be limited to 50% of a Funder’s total W1/2 contributions. Through agile, scenario-based budgeting and planning, Programs and Accelerators will be designed to adapt and adjust to different possible funding outcomes. MELIA – “During the Inception Phase, strengthening the MELIA sections is essential. Some proposals lack sufficient detail on how recommendations from external evaluations will be incorporated, while others omit evaluation recommendations entirely.” As mentioned in the proposal guidance provided to Writing Teams, Program/Accelerator MELIA plans will be developed during the Inception Phase. MELIA Focal points will be appointed to deliver on these plans with support from the Office of the Chief Scientist. Recommendations from relevant external evaluations were shared with Writing Teams at proposal stage and a deliberate effort will be made for them to be used more systematically in future design and implementation of the Programs and Accelerators. Theories of change and assumptions – “The main question from ISDC is why assumptions were not included in the Portfolio-level Theory of Change. Knowing how the Programs and Accelerators contribute to the Portfolio-level Theory of Change is useful, but this does not replace assumptions (p. 22). Assumptions are a critical component of Theories of Change. Without them the veracity of the analyses and causal linkages cannot be established. Most proposals did include Compared to the theory of change (ToC) versions included in CGIAR’s 2030 Strategy and in the Companion Document to the 2022-24 Portfolio, improvements to the CGIAR-level ToC include an explicit articulation of contextualization, prioritization, and comparative advantage analysis, as well as a better articulation of the core CGIAR impact pathways. Although the format of the Portfolio Narrative did not allow more details to be included, Management recognizes the value in developing a more elaborate version of this ToC. This will help justify how the Portfolio is fit to deliver CGIAR’s intended impacts and will serve as a guide for refinement of Program/Accelerator-level ToCs during the Inception Phase. 8 Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed assumptions related to the outcome level. However, assumptions at all levels of the Theory of Change—from input to impact—will be important to explore, record, and monitor.” 9 Section II - Responses to ISDC feedback at the Program and Accelerator Level As a reminder, ISDC provided several comments that are common to all proposals (on comparative advantage, risk assessments, MELIA plans, and refining research questions, outputs, and ToCs). Please see Section I for a common response to this feedback. Considering that the Breeding for Tomorrow and Genebanks proposals were submitted to and reviewed by ISDC separately, their responses below remain separate. Climate Action Program Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed [Section 4. QoR4D] …the proposal emphasis adaptation at the expense of mitigation... To strengthen scientific credibility, research questions should be more targeted and specific. Given the Program’s broad geographic scope, it would advisable if region- and country- specific research questions were developed with partners with a strong focus on enhancing social inclusion…Further, local knowledge and innovations arising from climate change impacts should be specifically included to enable codesign and ensure impact. The Theory of Change…needs a more critical assessment of assumptions and risks. Greater clarity on roles, division of labor, and funding allocation among partners would help assess collaboration incentives and success prospects. Incorporating relevant R4D work by CGIAR and others would complement a climate change vulnerability analysis. The MELIA approach still lacks mechanisms for transparency, governance, and accountability, which are necessary for adaptive management. Effectiveness could be improved by explicitly addressing risks associated with specific activities’ outputs, outcomes, and impacts. During the Inception Phase, the Transition Team will: • revisit the Areas of Works’ (AoW) scope to balance mitigation and adaptation. • implement a country and partner engagement plan to co-develop relevant research questions with partners and output users, assess and adjust the Theory of Change (ToC) assumptions and risks, and better understand the root causes of vulnerability in different geographies. [Section 5, Overall weakness] Socially inclusive frameworks and approaches are mentioned at a general level in all Areas of Work, but the focus is largely on beneficiaries. To empower a greater diversity of people, it is important to include them in the cogeneration of knowledge and to respect and seriously consider their own sources of knowledge. The Transition Leadership Team acknowledges the need for an approach where co-design translates into a different way of conducting research. This approach includes diverse types of knowledge in the co-creation of innovations for mitigation and adaptation, allowing CGIAR to learn from other sources of knowledge as well. This will be addressed during the Inception Phase. [Criteria 1] As a basis for prioritization of activities, this Program could benefit from more specific ex-ante appraisal of the climate problems it intends to address, specifically which elements of total food system The recommendation to better define which elements of the food system this Program will influence ex-ante towards creating low- emission, less vulnerable food systems and communities is well 10 Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed GHG emissions does it aim to influence and (relative to the total) by how much? This could then lead seamlessly into a root cause analysis of vulnerability, thereby increasing the chances of well-tailored technical and social innovations. acknowledged. This will be addressed during the activity planning for 2025. [Criteria 2]… “listening sessions” do not equal “codesign” and it is not clear how codesign will be done after the program commences. Given the complex and uncertain domain of this program, developmental and participatory evaluation methods could be combined with MELIA and training programs to inform adaptive management and ongoing codesign. This will be addressed during the Inception Phase. The Leadership Team acknowledges this recommendation and will incorporate it during the partner engagement process in the Inception Phase and later throughout the overall implementation, monitoring, and learning process. [Criteria 3] However, for this to be successful, these partnerships need to be resourced and given agency in design. In other areas there is little evidence supporting CGIAR’s comparative advantage…his should then be included in the comparative advantage analysis. Finally, there are many assertions—e.g., “a key player in shaping climate change policies;” “a strong position to collaborate with financial institutions;” and “a key partner in shaping international policies and processes;” which are plausible but neither evidence nor examples nor anecdotes are presented in support. This will be addressed during the Inception Phase. The mentioned assertions will be reviewed in the light of evidence, previous CGIAR evidence-based outcomes, and feedback from partner engagement and co-design sessions. [Criteria 5.1] Prioritization and coordination...Two-way communication with on-ground initiatives and MEL to track program results are essential to adaptive capacity and merit specific attention in Area of Work design and budgeting; this Area of Work also needs adequate funding to build regional capacity and avoid bottlenecks of centralized processes. This will be addressed during the Inception Phase, and specifically during revision, adjustment and planning of this AoW. [Criteria 5.3] 3. Local adaptation…Cross-scale coordination, governance, and accountability could be challenges and will deserve attention. Assumptions regarding adoption appear to be unrealistic given timeframes and extent of planned impact (8 million producers). Area of Work 3 has very high- level generic questions which seem to assume that there has not been much done already. It would be important to highlight which participating countries already have ongoing CGIAR work, and how such experience will be used to inform and advance work at new sites. This will be addressed during the Inception Phase, and specifically during revision, adjustment and planning of this AoW. [Criteria 5.4] 4. Low emissions transitions…scaling pathways are not clear and causal links to outcomes are not articulated clearly and may This will be addressed during the Inception Phase, and specifically, during revision, adjustment and planning of this AoW. Trees, forests 11 Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed be unrealistic within the timeframe…Surprisingly, there is no mention of trees, forests, and reducing deforestation driven by agricultural land use, why? And why is there no mention of energy efficiency and alternative energy in the food-fuel-water nexus (including cooling for perishables and for human survival)? and energy are included but the Transition Team will make them more explicit during the Inception Phase. [Criteria 5.5] 5. Finance and policy… Two specific concerns: do CGIAR and partners have sufficient expertise in policy analysis, political economy, financial analysis, and social cost-benefit analysis to address real barriers to this approach? Second, and related to the first, is an unspoken assumption that there are many “bankable” projects languishing in agriculture and land use…is that true? Or could the proposal be placing too much confidence in private solutions and markets to address global public goods problems in this sector, which also includes sector-specific issues of impermanence, additionality, leakage, sink saturation, just transitions, and high transactions costs? How will issues of equity and justice be addressed? Finally, and most importantly, AoW5 requires much more explicit articulation of key uncertainties and risks, which obviously are central to finance and hence for feasibility of various instruments and mechanisms. This will be addressed during the Inception Phase, and specifically, during revision, adjustment and planning of this AoW. [Criteria 6] Methods have not been described in enough depth to assess their feasibility or fitness. In particular, methods for adoption and scaling need to be described further. To the extent research methods are discussed, they aim to fill knowledge gaps but lack complementary capacity to understand contending interests and power imbalances. Additionally, there is mention of conducting work in conflict regions, but appropriate methods for conflict settings are not discussed anywhere. This will be addressed during the Inception Phase. During activity planning of Areas of Work, due attention will be given to research methods that are feasible and effective to generate the planned outputs. [Citeria 7] The proposal includes elements of social inclusion in Areas of Work 1 and 3, however this needs to be further embedded within and across Areas of Work to drive transformative change…It would be good to see more inclusive approaches being adopted in science and knowledge creation…The inclusion of Indigenous group’s voices and perspectives is lacking…Overall, one would have expected more attention to specific collaborative connections with the proposed Gender and Social Inclusion Accelerator both in the Theory of Change (Fig. 5.1 and narrative) and specific narratives on approaches to research and scaling. This will be addressed during the Inception Phase. The Leadership Transition Team acknowledges the need to incorporate inclusive approaches across the Program's Areas of Work, especially for co- creating knowledge and innovations for low-emission, resilient food systems. 12 Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed [Criteria 8] adoption pathways are not clear. It is therefore challenging to assess their effectiveness. One concern is that so much emphasis is placed on filling knowledge gaps without sufficient attention to conflicts of interest and power imbalances among key actors, which have been shown to have blocked progress on emissions reduction quite generally. This will be addressed during the Inception Phase. [Criteria 9] Linkages to other Programs have been identified in the Theory of Change, but there is little evidence or discussion of how these linkages will produce impact. Given the complexity of the Program, greater clarity on roles, division of labor, and funding allocation among partners within the program would be helpful in assessing incentives to collaborate and prospects for success… approaches for scaling are not adequately elaborated in the proposal. Adding more detail on mechanisms for scaling could make the outcomes more credible and enable tracking of effectiveness and opportunities for adaptive management. The proponents may wish to consider strategies for “scaling deep”; it also could be helpful to distinguish measures (quantitative indicators) from outcomes (beneficial changes in behaviors, policies, and capabilities) with the aim of avoiding incentivizing actions focused exclusively on meeting specific narrow targets. (Moore et al., 2015). This will be addressed during the Inception Phase, including with in- depth discussions and plans with other Programs to co-define joint work programs amongst other actions. [Additional comments] Links to the CGIAR Impact Area Environmental Health and Biodiversity are weak. As climate adaptation and mitigation in food, land, and water systems directly impact ecosystems and biodiversity, and vice versa, it would be good to see stronger connections to this Impact Area in the Theory of Change and elsewhere This will be addressed during the Inception Phase as part of the reevaluation of how the Climate Action Program interacts with other Programs and Accelerators. 13 Multifunctional Landscapes Program Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed Overall weakness No.1: “Requires clarification on how Area of Work 6 ‘Performance Assessment and Evidence’ may integrate outputs from Areas if Work 1, 2, and 3 that will be used for MELIA and quantifying their impact on Gender, Policy and Education outcomes. We recommend that Areas of Work 4, 5 and 7 be merged”. • We acknowledge the comment about the links between AOW 6 and other AoWs. AoW 6 assesses the ‘overall performance’ of various AoWs in contributing to their objectives using solutions (AoW 1), planned land use and governance systems (AoW 2), financial mechanisms (AoW 3), enabling environments (AoW 4), and equity considerations (AoW 5). It also monitors changes in near real-time for adaptive learning and informed decision making (AoW 7). Data and relevant outputs from AoWs 1-5 will be used for AoW 6, while AoW 6 informs the other AoWs on evidence of performance. In addition, data and outputs from AoWs 1-6 inform MELIA; data and results from MELIA can in turn be used under AOW 6. These linkages will be spelled out in more details during the Inception Phase. • The suggestion to merge some AoWs will be taken into consideration. Overall weakness No.2: “Section 6.7 on Global engagement and Learning. One key gap is that knowledge outputs are still defined/described generally, thus not based on the CGIAR definition and categorization of knowledge products. It is not clear how many knowledge products will be generated”. • The output “capacity sharing and learning” of AOW 7 will include knowledge products, mainly 1) toolkits (AOWs 1-6), 2) PhD and Masters opportunities, 3) exchange programs between countries, 4) knowledge products to inform the Rio conventions, including synthesize of scientific evidence (metanalysis) across the CGIAR Portfolio. A flexible, adaptive approach will guide activity planning and knowledge product development between 2025 and 2030, aligned with CGIAR standards and evolving priorities. Overall weakness No.3: “Some elements make 6.1 (Solutions and Innovations) a promising section. It has clear strengths in studying incentives and factors that enable actors to replicate and scale the proposed solutions. However, it seems to be a top-down approach to investigate agroecological, nature-positive, and regenerative agriculture ideas. Effective climate adaptation and mitigation strategies are mentioned, though these are undefined. Enhanced farm productivity is mentioned, though 6.1 does not acknowledge that for farmers to be more sustainable or nature- positive, they need to be profitable and able to manageable risks. • About design of AoW 1 activities being ‘top-down’: The Program builds on the co-creation, participatory, and inclusive approaches under the Initiatives to ensure sustainability and success. The Program will continue to adopt a convergence approach, involving farmers, communities, value chain actors, policymakers, and extension systems in co-designing and co-developing landscape transition pathways. We will emphasize ‘co-creation, co-design, co-implementation, and co-holistic assessment’ as key for success and sustainability. • We acknowledge that the climate adaptation and mitigation focus needs to be further specified across the AoWs. In AOW 1, integrating tools such as conservation, restoration, and 14 Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed These concepts should be included in this section and the program overall”. regenerative practices will form a critical part of the solutions. Specific approaches will be refined during the Inception Phase. • We acknowledge that solutions have to balance profitability and risk management while achieving ecosystem services. We will elaborate this during the Inception Phase. Criteria 1. Clearly defined research problem that addresses Impact Areas, is a high priority in the targeted geographies, is well aligned to the 2030 Strategy, multi-funder priorities, and is well informed by previous research findings and lessons from the 22-24 Portfolio Initiatives. Feedback on proposal Section 2. High-level vision and Section 3. Evidence-based and demand-led prioritization “The problem is well-known and complex, the vision is highly ambitious, and the expected outcomes are highly optimistic. Greater clarity of how landscapes, different ecological systems and countries are prioritized is needed. Needs better reference to Theory of Change or Tables 6.1/6.2/6.3. Evidence on the value of the innovative solutions and innovations (6.1) needs strengthening. While the proposal is aligned with the Strategy and multi-funders priorities, examples of priority landscapes that will be the focus for research at the country and sub-regional levels would help clarify how the research problem will be addressed”. 1. As to prioritization – key criteria used include: a. Primary focus: Continue research with demonstrated impact and relevant progress in high-demand landscapes. These include areas where Initiatives have co-designed solutions with partners and achieved promising outcomes. b. Secondary focus: Expand to include underrepresented socioecological landscapes (e.g., islands, wetlands, coastal areas, lakes, peri-urban zones) to ensure methodological diversity and better representativeness. c. Funding considerations: Prioritization also depends on the availability of additional funding from bilateral sources. 2. Better integration with theories of change and partnership strategies, as well as prioritization of landscapes and evidence about the value of innovations and solutions will be designed during the Inception Phase through: a. Collaborative workplans: Engage food, land, and water systems actors in co-developing plans based on prior results. b. Cross-program coordination: Leverage dialogues with Programs such as Breeding for Tomorrow, Sustainable Farming, Sustainable Animal and Aquatic Foods, and Scaling for Impact to identify and integrate the needed innovations and establish actionable strategies. Criteria 2. Evidence that the Science Program is demand driven through codesign with key stakeholders and partners (NARES, governments, farmers, private sector, funders) and research collaborators within and outside CGIAR. Feedback on proposal Section 2. High-level vision, Section 3. Evidence-based and demand-led prioritization and Section 7. Country integration • We acknowledge that we need to emphasize further how the Program is designed to build on previous co-designed and co- developed work with stakeholders through Initiatives and bilateral grants. For example, the Agroecology Initiative has already engaged with over 5,000 food system actors involving 56 partner organizations across eight countries through a vision-to-action process which has led to context-specific and inclusive transition pathways identified by local stakeholders. This process will be 15 Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed “Evidence of need is clear in sections 1 and 2, but there is limited evidence of codesign or detail on what actual consultation has taken place beyond reference to CGIAR priorities. Specify how stakeholders other than the writing team contributed to codesign. Cross reference: Table 5 Partners and “landscape stakeholders” in Theory of Change; Table 7.2 in section 3; include list of stakeholders consulted. It will be useful to link key partners to specific roles and activities in section 6, for example, the partners providing the land for living landscapes that are the operational units for action research”. continued and expanded, with a focus on locally driven needs and priorities. • During proposal development, extensive consultations were held with partners and donors, incorporating feedback from various organizations and experts. We will cross-reference text and tables and provide details of partners who have been engaging and will be engaged in the program. The Inception Phase will allow further collaboration with key partners and donors to finalize the workplan in alignment with regional priorities. Criteria 3. Analysis of comparative advantage of CGIAR in delivering key outputs and outcomes (rather than focus on inputs) necessary for impact and how this has created opportunities for new partnerships. Feedback on proposal Section 4. Comparative Advantage “The selection of priority countries and linkages across outputs is described but it is not clear why these were prioritized. And ‘NEW’ partnerships are not provided. The comparative advantage statement of CGIAR in delivering key outputs is clear and would benefit from listing specific partnerships needed to complement areas where CGIAR lacks capacity or capabilities were included. For example, section 6 proposes to work with crops and livestock across many countries, though no mention of CIMMYT or ILRI is made in the comparative or Theory of Change or how those skills will be resourced”. • See response to “Criteria 1” above for a justification of selection of countries. New partners will be identified during the Inception Phase based on needs and priorities. • An analysis of current partners highlights the need for more academic partnerships. To improve coordination with other programs (Climate Action, Sustainable Farming, Sustainable Animal and Aquatic Foods), partner engagement in target countries and landscapes will be strengthened. Discussions are ongoing between CGIAR Centers and IUCN, EcoAgriculture, and others to sign an MoU to enhance collaboration and delivery. • Further screening to prioritize activities and outputs will be completed during the Inception Phase. Criteria 4. Research questions address well defined knowledge gaps and emerging megatrends, with a particular emphasis on climate change, and are supported by underlying hypotheses. Feedback on proposal Section 2. High-level vision and Section 6. Areas of Work “The research questions are not supported by research hypothesis. Clear linkages to megatrends are well articulated. Areas of Work: (i) Need to ensure system agronomy approaches suggested match tools and solutions to local conditions and provide comparisons with well tested approaches (conservation agriculture and sustainable intensification) across all demonstration/experimental The comments on AOW’s research questions will be taken onboard for the Inception Phase, specifically: • AoW 1: Matching options with locally specific contexts started during 2022-2024 and will continue. We will provide details on the types of incentives that would be most relevant to stimulate the adoption of improved practices. Focus on incentives and climate change will also be enhanced. • AoW 2. The gaps to be addressed to achieve Program objectives will be further elaborated based on the lessons learned from the Agroecology, Nature-positive, and Livestock and Climate Initiatives. 16 Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed sites (6.1); (ii) Research incentives for technology adoption and change should be more central; (iii) climate adaptation technologies to be scaled within and between landscapes should be central to the whole program. 6.2 questions are important, define known gaps in understanding, and are critical to the overall success of the program. Research questions in 6.3 should take advantage of the opportunity to promote startups and small and medium enterprises. 6.4 will be critical for identifying incentives to assess policies within a more multidimensional framework. 6.5 questions focus on addressing a well-known problem. 6.6 could more clearly focus on needs for farmers to be profitable and have the ability to effectively manage risk. 6.7 research questions are unclear”. • AoW 3: The promotion of startups and small and medium enterprises started in 2022-2024; we agree that they need to be more prominent in this new Program. • AoW 4. Incentives to assess policies will be elaborated. • AoW 6. Profitability and other ecosystem services will be included as KPIs (already achieved under the Agroecology Initiative); adoption and risk will also be considered. • AoW 7: this AoW mainly aims to (a) inform the other AoWs on research priorities based on feedback from national, regional and global engagement and benchmarks set by regional and global processes, and (b) carry out outreach, evidence-based engagement and advocacy, collaboration and cross- regional/country learning. Therefore, research questions were not defined for this AoW. Criteria 5. Theory of Change with intended outputs, outcomes, and impacts at scale clearly described. Assumptions are documented, causal linkages are clear, especially the role of partners in driving impact through inclusive innovation, and all indicators made explicit. Feedback on proposal Section 5. Program-level theory of change “Assumptions well documented with clear causal linkages in Theory of Change. There is need to articulate outcomes and associated indicators for resilient landscapes and to provide specific targets on poverty reduction. Consider reducing the number of Areas of Work to make the Program of work focus on MFL, which will make the Theory of Change sections clearer and less repetitive”. Feedback on proposal Section 6. Areas of Work “Given the assumption that multifunctional landscapes can be effectively managed, Areas of work 2, 3 and 4 will be crucial to the Program's success. Well written content would benefit from a summary statement integrating across all Areas of Work to lead section 6. Feasibility of funding the management of real-world proof of concepts in Areas of Work 1-2, which will be critical to MFL, should be linked to • Specific targets on poverty reduction will be further articulated during the Inception Phase in consultations with partners and stakeholders. • On reduction of number of AOWs, see above under "Overall Weakness No. 1”. • An improved summary statement integrating the different AoWs will be put together. • We appreciate the comments related to AoW 3 on creating self- sustaining business models through linking with financial institutions and will give thought to how this can be handled. We will also include outputs related to cost-benefit sharing, as well as highlight linkages with AoW 4. • The relations between AoW6 and other AoWs in terms of data- and output-sharing will be elaborated during the Inception Phase as mentioned earlier. • We are keen on better understanding the comment about CGIAR collaboration and its impact on the validity of Section 4 on comparative advantage. 17 Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed Area of Work 3 creating self-sustaining business models. Existing business models in carbon, nature-based solution and ecosystem service markets should be engaged as well as linking this work to “financial institutions” (6.3). For Area of Work 3, there are no outputs/interventions targeted at addressing costs and benefit sharing from the business models implemented at landscape level, which may be addressed in Area of Work 4. Area of Work 4 could also focus on developing policies that impact gender (Area of Work 5) and education (Area of Work 7) to bring these three themes together into one Area of Work. Area of Work 6.6 provides tangible outputs that stakeholders may use to understand the impacts of MFL and linkages to data collected from Areas of Work 1, 2 and 3 should be made explicit. The lack of CGIAR collaboration questions the validity of section 4 on comparative advantage”. Criteria 6. Research approach and broad methods are fit for purpose, feasible, are innovative and rigorous in data collection and analysis, and make appropriate use of laboratories, field sites, modelling assets, and digital infrastructure (soft and hard). Feedback on proposal Section 6. Areas of Work “As suggested above, identifying key partners for activities will help to ensure non-CGIAR capacity is available to support the delivery of on- ground activities. Consider systems and integrative/whole farm/landscape dynamic modelling and foresighting techniques to address the lack of evidence on the production approaches to be tested”. • On key partners, see response under Criteria 3. • On ‘systems and integrative approaches’ - as highlighted in the proposal, particularly in the description of AoWs 2 and 6, we will employ systems thinking and integrative approaches such as whole farm and landscape dynamic modeling along with foresight techniques to understand linkages, interactions, feedbacks, emergent behavior, trade-offs, and synergies across themes, value chains, and scales. In addition, we will further elaborate the needs for and benefits of these approaches. Criteria 7. Research design and proposed implementation demonstrates genuine gender and social inclusion in both the research process and in its intended outcomes with explicit linkages to the Gender and Social Inclusion Accelerator. Feedback on proposal Section 11. Gender and social inclusion “The outcomes do not clearly highlight how gender will impact MFL. Incorporating a specific example of how gender will be addressed in each Area of Work rather than a separate Area of Work 5 is • The Program describes ambitious action research focusing on gender, social inclusion, and fairness. Next steps in Program planning will consider how to best address gender and social inclusion to achieve specific AoW outcomes. ‘GESI related outcomes’ will be adjusted to highlight how fairness, gender and social inclusion will impact the development of ‘equitable’ multifunctional landscapes. 18 Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed suggested. Though the Program does provide high level outcomes aiming to advance gender equality and inclusion”. Criteria 8. Anticipated research outputs (knowledge, technical, or institutional advances, specific technologies or products, policy analyses) are described and knowledge/gaps they will fill are evident with a demonstrated focus on quality and impact relevance. Feedback on proposal Section 6. Areas of Work “There will be valuable learnings from research on institutional, policy, collective actions and business approaches to support positive landscape outcomes. However, there are no specific technologies or products proposed in 6.1. The knowledge outputs are defined/described generally, thus not based on the CGIAR definition and categorization of knowledge products. Nevertheless, each Area of Work includes a Table that explicitly describes “outputs and intermediate outcomes,” which are rather general. The knowledge gaps are clarified in each Area of Work as a list of research questions, which are clear for Areas of Work 1-3 and 6”. • Specific innovations/solutions will be defined and co-designed with stakeholders once the areas of implementation are determined. • Knowledge products will be better defined and categorized. • We will work on AoWs 4, 5, and 7 to clarify knowledge gaps. Criteria 9. Evidence that the Science Program will likely lead to impact at scale through approaches that drive inclusive innovation in research and partnerships, with explicit linkages to other Science Programs, Impact for Scaling, and Accelerators. Feedback on Section 7. Country integration, Section 8. Boundaries and linkages with other components of the portfolio and Section 10. Capacity sharing. “The linkages to other Programs such as Impact for Scaling, and Accelerators are encouraging. Avoid imposing agricultural production systems conceived for purposes secondary to food production and income on vulnerable farmers. The Identification and inclusion of key partners in this section provides evidence the program understands who is working in what countries, although there are many gaps. Summarize “Area of Work” and “Program and Accelerator collaboration” in table 7.2 as it is repetitive. • We note the comment associated with the gaps in the identification and inclusion of key partners. We will generally build on existing partnership assets built through the Initiatives while bringing on board new partners based on the prioritization and comparative advantage exercises as well as interactions with partners during the Inception Phase. • AoW/Program/Accelerator collaboration will be summarized to provide a crisper picture. 19 Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed Connectivity with other initiatives is clearly described in 8”. 20 Policy Innovations Program Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed Comparative advantage is “superficial” (p. 30, 31) • Through its strong partnerships with national and regional governments and other partners, including multistakeholder partnerships for water and land governance, CGIAR has a unique comparative advantage and strong track record in influencing institutional reforms and strengthening institutional analytical capacity. For example, through the country program model discussed in AoW 5, CGIAR has worked with partners to help design and implement the Agricultural Transformation Agency in Ethiopia. The fundamentals of this model, including performance-based targets for clear transformation objectives embedded within cross-ministerial delivery units, has been replicated in several African countries. In several other countries which have undergone major decentralization reforms (e.g. Ghana, Nepal), CGIAR has offered critical analytical support to government partners about how public sector institutions could be re-structured to bolster agricultural service provision. • CGIAR’s expertise in social science policy and institutional research combined with technical agricultural research is key to enable uptake of agricultural technologies and contributes to CGIAR’s comparative advantage over organizations that solely focus on technological innovation and extension services. Research on institutions related to food, land and water is an area in which CGIAR has a very well- established body of work carried out over 20+ years. Three critical activities can build on this to advance science under the Policy Innovations Program: 1) build strong multi-country comparative analysis, scaling and sharing insights (on governance, political economy, etc.) across major FLW system geographies in collaboration with the Scaling Program; 2) build on existing, embedded and, in some cases, historical partnerships with governments, academic and civil society in multiple geographies; 3) conduct high-quality social science research (such as policy modelling, political economy analysis, and causal impact evaluation) complementary to the more technical agricultural research. • During the Inception Phase, a more elaborate comparative advantage analysis will be developed, including details of the areas of weakness of CGIAR, alternative providers of research on policies and institutions, and partnerships that will be established and/or strengthened with advanced research institutions. For adoption and impact analysis, for instance, the selection of partnerships will build on SPIA’s "matching" exercises, whereby CGIAR Centers were matched with advanced research institutions which possess scientific leadership in specific topics to jointly implement SPIA-funded studies. 21 Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed Coordination and collaboration across AoWs (p.31, 32) • The ISDC suggestions on better integration and collaboration across the AoWs (including a possible realignment of AoWs and/or selected parts of them) will be taken into consideration. As a first step towards cross-AoW integration, selected demand from national, regional and international partners will be prioritized to develop a cross-AoW approach to selected value chains, topics, and countries. Building on ISDC’s recommendation to emphasize macroeconomic and GESI aspects, candidate topics for Program-wide integrated analysis across AoWs could be: (i) repurposing of subsidies; and (ii) the role of youth in food system transformation. The rapid response mechanism will also provide an opportunity to foster cross-AoW collaboration. • During the Inception Phase, the risk of duplication of efforts across AoWs will be assessed and measures will be taken to clarify respective responsibilities, foster synergies (e.g. between modelling approaches), and promote efficiency and effectiveness. • About ISDC’s specific comment on the role of AoW 4, we would like to point out that AOW 4 serves as a home for research on water policy and its links with food, land and energy policies, and will therefore help address ISDC’s recommendation to strengthen research on sustainable water use, conservation and management policies in the CGIAR Portfolio. • Regarding the coordination and integration of the modeling tools and activities in AoW 1 and AoW 4: the models used in AoW 1 cover food, land and water (river basin) systems, as well as the energy sector and environmental outcomes. AoW 4 uses core water, biodiversity, and energy systems models (e.g., SWAT, Pwyr, IMPACT-WATER, Agro-biodiversity index) and in some cases links these to economic modeling systems (IFPRI’s IMPACT, CGE models, etc.). In addition to these technical differences, the Foresight and NEXUS Gains Initiatives had different focus geographies, making it difficult to harness synergies. The Policy Innovations Program will unlock new opportunities to combine modeling efforts across the two AoWs, resulting in enhanced modelling apparatus and reduced model development and maintenance costs. The 2025 workplan will include piloting new joint research and policy engagement activities across AoW 1 and AoW 4. This will allow us to assess the potential benefits of further integrating modeling tools and teams versus the risk of losing momentum in the respective teams’ work programs. 22 Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed AoW specific feedback (p.31-33) • Thank you for bringing up the importance of codesign for policy uptake and institutional capacity development. The lack of mention of codesign as an approach for modeling (AoW 1) is an oversight in the proposal. Indeed, a strong level of co- design has gone into model development and the model-based studies conducted under the Foresight, Nexus Gains, and NPS Initiatives. For example, country models (RIAPA) are typically developed together with National Statistical Agencies and researchers from national institutions. Country model scenarios are also designed together with national stakeholders, including government counterparts. This process of engagement and co-design has proved very successful. Another example of co- design is the IMPACT modeling work, which is co-created by all CGIAR Centers. In addition, country variants of the IMPACT model are being developed together with national research institutes and government agencies in Brazil, China, and India. Nexus Gains has also built collaborations through co-design of models used in river basins. Close collaboration between all AOWs will ensure that co-creation of models and other tools will become a signature feature of the Policy Innovations Program. • We agree that AoW 2 needs to be strengthened and better integrated with other AoWs and we appreciate ISDC’s specific suggestions on how to do this, such as linking AoW 2 with the investment decision making under AoW 3 by testing hypotheses deriving from the political economy analysis. AoW 2 will also generate new adoption and impact parameters for modeling economy-wide or cross-sectoral outcomes under AoW 1 and AoW 4. Building on that, AoW 2 can directly support the investment prioritization and rapid response analysis conducted by AoW 1 by providing (rapid) value chain-specific “deep dive” assessments. Linking AoW 2 more strongly to other AoWs and related demand from partners will ensure that the questions addressed by this AoW are relevant and inform national, regional, and global policies. During the Inception Phase, we will better specify the description of AoW 2 methods and the underlying theory of change to ensure research quality. This AoW will address the market and policy failures that were identified by the Rethinking Food Markets initiative as holding back value chain development, as well as on other recent research. In addition to market and value chain analyses, we expect AoW 2 to contribute rigorous impact assessment for evaluating interventions to address key market failures and social policies for protecting the poorest and most vulnerable, using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Review pieces and diagnostics that apply these findings to address on-demand requests for policy advice, as well as methodological work on improving the cost-effectiveness and external validity of impact evaluation methods (without sacrificing internal validity), will contribute to more evidence-based programming by national stakeholders and scaling agents for CGIAR innovations. 23 • We acknowledge that the methods section in AoW 4 will benefit from further elaboration during the Inception Phase. We also agree that a clearer delineation is needed on the intermediate outcomes resulting from AoW 4 versus those that are expected from collaborative efforts across AoWs. Spelling this out will help clarify the unique contributions of AoW 4 as well as the synergies between AoW 4 and other AoWs. • ISDC’s concerns about AoW 6 (potential overlaps with other AoWs and potential lack of adequate resources) are gratefully acknowledged. Building on ISDC’s suggestion to explore “the potential learning from and interaction between institutions engaged in high-level planning across countries”, we are considering placing a stronger emphasis on the cross-country-learning component (6.6.3.1). An increased focus on cross-country learning could also help coordination and collaboration across AoWs and with other Programs and Accelerators. We will also consider how the policy advisory functions (6.6.3.2), multi-stakeholder platforms (6.6.3.3) and capacity sharing activities (6.6.3.4) can be linked and/or integrated with the other AoWs. 24 Better Diets and Nutrition Program Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed Actionable Recommendation #1: Strengthen the demand-led prioritization section, making clear the extent of external consultation and the rationale for country prioritization. Key shortcomings and overall weakness of the proposal (1/10): The extent to which prioritization of the research agenda was informed by demand expressed by stakeholders (beyond CGIAR) is not clear, and similarly the rationale for the choice of specific countries for focused work is unclear…For example, why Vietnam where there has been longstanding investment and the indicators are mostly good, rather than other countries where the need may be greater? • The Inception Phase will be a critical step in the co-creation process. The Program’s constituent Initiatives have built healthy working relationships and nurtured them into partnerships conducive to meaningful dialogue which will provide a strong foundation for this new Program. The numerous consultations held during proposal design as well as the additional consultations to be held during the Inception Phase will be documented in the Inception report. • We will use the Inception Phase to further prioritize the 11 target countries more closely. Prioritization criteria will be documented in the Inception report. • Vietnam is an ideal case to study how food systems transformation can be supported by government commitment. It is one of the few LMIC that has demonstrated a commitment to changing its food system towards more sustainable production and healthier diets, as described in a national action plan approved by the Prime Minister and currently under implementation. Vietnam has also become a regional and global reference point as a leader in food systems transformation, providing an opportunity for CGIAR science to be scaled via South-South collaboration. Actionable Recommendation #2: Bolster climate change and other sustainability aspects throughout, including at Areas of Work workplans level. Key shortcomings and overall weakness of the proposal (2/10): The focus is on sustainable and healthy diets; climate change and other sustainability aspects receive too little attention in the proposal. • Thank you for this suggestion. Climate and sustainability considerations will be bolstered, for example through assessing the environmental footprint of current diets and modeling how changes in diets will change that footprint in selected countries (AoW 1) and using national food-based dietary guidelines as an entry point for integrating nutrition, health, and environmental sustainability (AoW 3). • During the Inception Phase, collaboration will be planned with other Science Programs such as Breeding for Tomorrow and Genebanks, Multifunctional Landscapes, and Climate Action to jointly analyze potential trade-offs and synergies between planetary and human health traits (AoW 4) and the effects of bringing in a consumer and diet focus on business models for agroecological production (AoW 1-4). 25 Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed Actionable Recommendation #3: Bolster other social inclusion aspects throughout, including at Areas of Work workplan level. Key shortcomings and overall weakness of the proposal (9/10): While gender is well emphasized in the proposal, other aspects of social exclusion such as disability, indigeneity, etc., receive little attention. The extent to which other sources of exclusion and disadvantage are important varies across countries and contexts. Consultations with stakeholders during the Inception Phase will allow to identify priority areas for research and action. Actionable Recommendation #4: Revisit Area of Work 1, placing consumers more centrally into the Theory of Change and explaining more clearly how food environments can be realistically changed and transformation catalyzed. The extent to which consumers can be put at the center of efforts to transform food systems is context-specific. We will refine and strengthen the TOC during the Inception Phase. As part of this process, the evidence base on consumer-centered behavior change and consumer-centered design with respect to food environments will be incorporated. Actional Recommendation #5: Harmonize and leverage overlapping Areas of Work (for example, on MSMEs and governance systems), and Areas of Work 2-3. Key shortcomings and overall weakness of the proposal (5/10): Areas of Work 2-3: There would appear to be significant overlaps between the agendas of these two Areas of Work, and it would be helpful to know how they interface and how synergies are maximized. During the Inception Phase, as part of revising all the TOCs, we will look more closely at how to address the perceived overlaps between AoWs. The respective responsibilities of AoW 2 and AoW 3 will be clearly delineated, and mechanisms will be put in place to maximize synergies, including identification of common areas of collaboration and learning. For example, the AoW 2 and AoW 3 teams will work together to ensure that lessons learned in AoW 3 are applied in AoW 2 and vice versa, while keeping country specific dynamics in mind. In addition, TOC revisions will include clarifying the assumptions and geographies and identifying key indicators. We will re-frame the centrality of consumers in the AoW 1 ToC and highlight the linkages with other Programs working on climate-resilient and environmentally sustainable production systems to show how these linkages are critical to ensure both the production and consumption of sustainable healthy diets. Actionable Recommendation #6: Revisit Area of Work 4, with indication of demand, potential cost-effectiveness and co-creation aspects of the new biofortified varieties proposed. Key shortcomings and overall weakness of the proposal (7/10): Area of Work 4 does not provide much indication of demand for and potential cost-effectiveness of the proposed new technologies. It also does not • To address demand, cost-effectiveness, and stakeholder co- creation in the development and deployment of new biofortified crops, a strategic stakeholder meeting (including country-level stakeholders, researchers, and private sector partners) will be convened during the Inception Phase to (1) assess the current biofortification landscape, (2) identify consumer and business demand for biofortified crops, and (3) review ex-ante evidence of the cost-effectiveness of proposed crops in target geographies. The outputs of this meeting will ensure that research and 26 Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed indicate whether and how the proposed technologies were co-created with country and other external stakeholders. interventions are tailored to meet demand and co-create a strategic pathway to biofortification research that delivers impactful, economically viable solutions. This meeting will also provide a foundation for a transdisciplinary community of practice (see AoW 4 ToC). • Close collaboration will be established with Breeding for Tomorrow and Genebanks (especially its AoW 1 on Market Intelligence) to plan for rigorous analysis of demand for biofortified and nutrition-enhanced staples based on the nutritional needs of the target populations in the market segments. These staples will be integrated into target product profiles (following a co-creation process between CGIAR and NARES and experts and stakeholders, see the Breeding for Tomorrow proposal) that will guide the breeding pipelines to serve the identified market segments with future biofortified and health-enhancing staple varieties. This will be reflected in the detailed 2025 workplan. Actionable Recommendation #7: Consider including some material early on that captures the work of the 2022-24 initiatives and how that leads on to the proposed work. Key shortcomings and overall weakness of the proposal (8/10): There is not a sufficient up-front description of what has been undertaken and achieved by the multiple 2022-24 Initiatives and how that leads on to the proposed Program. During the Inception Phase, summative reports from the constituent Initiatives and Nutrition Impact Area Platform will be compiled, and a summary included in the Inception report. CGIAR’s Science Week (in April 2025) will also provide an opportunity to share the progress made by the Initiatives and Nutrition Platform in the context of the new Program. Key shortcomings and overall weakness of the proposal (7/10): Area of Work 5: The importance of leveraging complementary systems to maximize the potential of food systems to impact diets and nutrition is appreciated. Nevertheless, it is worth keeping in mind the centrality of a food systems focus for this funding, the comparative advantage of the CGIAR and to ensure limited resources are not spread too thinly. Food system actions alone are insufficient to deliver impacts on healthy diets. Thus, it seems appropriate to leverage an already robust pipeline of research to meet policy demands for insights on multisectoral interventions and how they can help tackle malnutrition. Combining limited pooled funding with potentially expanding bilateral funding will create synergies and provide robust systems-linked evidence. Criteria 9: The Bangladesh example provides a good illustration as to how impacts can be achieved at scale through sustained multisectoral investment. It is less clear how the program aims to achieve large scale impact in countries where only a couple of Areas of Work are • In countries where only a few AoWs are operational, the focus will be on integration and synergy of efforts by supporting and strengthening existing country coordination mechanisms. Using 27 Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed operational. Also, achieving impact at scale requires country stability and sustained commitment from national budgets—which target countries can offer this? capacity sharing as a cross-cutting goal, learning exchanges and cross-fertilization will be facilitated between the different AoWs. • With regards to the comment about country stability, one way to maintain a stable agenda is to build and maintain partnerships across diverse types of partners, which has been a high priority of the constituent Initiatives and will be continued under this Program. • (Also see the response above to the feedback about prioritization) 28 Breeding for Tomorrow Program Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed Breeding Resources and Data Quality Risks: Sharing breeding resources and IT platforms is well-intentioned but raises concerns around data quality and security. With more users outside CGIAR contributing data there is a risk of data degradation, incorrect entries, or even misuse. Integral to the use of shared data platforms is quality and security. Platforms of this nature are not new to CGIAR Centres nor CGIAR- partner breeding networks; we will continue implementation work and continue to prioritize data quality (work on and support of automated and human data quality control and inbuilt and human data curation), security and data privacy/ownership, aligned with CGIAR, Centre and partner, policies, procedures, guidelines and network membership agreements. Change management and training are integral activities which will continue, as well as technical backstopping to users from CGIAR Centres and external partners on data management and IT security. This will minimize risks associated with data integrity/security breaches. A comprehensive risk assessment will identify potential threats to data quality, security, and platform adoption, prioritizing mitigation strategies. The Theory of Change in fig. 1 is effective in discussing the overarching goals of this proposal and the intended effects on society. However, the details are not clear. For instance, the links between outputs, outcomes, and impacts are not clear, with the large arrows from “Areas of Work” to “High-Level Outputs” and “2030 Outcomes” to “Impact Areas” being too unspecific. In addition, integration with other Programs is missing. Fortunately, Table 2 helps to clarify many of these problems as it includes Outcome Statements, Partners, Assumptions, and Indicators. In addition, the individual Area’s of Work Theory of Changes add clarity to the overall Theory of Change, as discussed on pages 60-64. Yes, given the nature and diverse scope of B4T, the overall TOC at the Program level does not include copious amounts of details (to maintain high-level clarity). The Program TOC presents how the intermediate and 2030 outcomes contribute to each other with dedicated arrows. High level outputs have arrows to show which outcomes they contribute despite the linkages between high level output and outcomes are defined at the AoW level with corresponding assumptions. We have prioritized two impact areas (marked with a star) to identify the two main pathways for generating evidence. The detailed pathways, linkages, and integration points with other initiatives are fully elaborated in Table 2 (pages 60-64) when you go through the TOCs for each of the AOWs collectively. The proposal’s focus on standardized crop outputs poses risks of monoculture with all the attendant risks. It should consider how to incorporate more diversified crop varieties tailored to specific environmental and market considerations. Leveraging both generative AI and analytical AI could allow CGIAR to support polyculture leading to greater resilience. Smallholder farmers could then command higher price premiums by offering more specialized as well as diverse crops. Breeding networks and seed systems are driven by market demand and opportunities rather than breeding programs. Information on species and variety usage, and their potential to improve farming systems, will be gathered using a transdisciplinary approach involving a broad range of stakeholders. These activities will be central to the Market Intelligence work, which currently targets 21 major food crops and is expanding to additional species, including neglected crops. This effort will involve collaborations and access to core breeding and seed services. 29 Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed Proposal section 2 and 3: More details could have been given regarding different funding strategies, as well as the “gender-intentional systems approach” and the “viable pathways out of conflict and migration.” There is an emphasis on LMIC which is appropriate, including geopolitical instability-related challenges. The alignment with the Strategy could be made more prominent. • Funding strategies will respond to the funding landscape and prioritization processes. • The initiative recognizes that viable pathways out of conflict and migration require integrated approaches that combine food security, economic opportunity, and social cohesion. This includes supporting resilient local food systems and agricultural livelihoods in conflict-affected areas. Alignment with the strategy will be elucidated through the prioritization process and the activities and deliverables that result from prioritization. This Program targets “impactful geographics and user needs,” seeking to identify areas with the lowest 35% impact and reallocate these resources to the top 25% impact. However, more acknowledgements could be given to the crucial role of the NARES and farmers and their local knowledge which should be integrated with modern tools to enhance adoption. While targeting “the highest scale for potential impact,” care must be taken to include the most vulnerable and poor. More detail could be given to the methods of the implementation of “co-creation and co-testing.” NARES and SMEs are integral to breeding networks’ success and ability to deliver. Our approach recognizes NARES as implementers and key knowledge holders and co-creators in the innovation process. Their deep understanding of local farming systems, traditional practices, and community needs is essential to our work. Some of our commodities’ co-creation process include regular joint planning sessions, integration of indigenous knowledge systems with modern breeding tools, and participatory research methods that capture farmers' experiential knowledge. Breeding product concepts and knowledge moves through design stages in line with customer driven approaches. This ensures the voice from next-stage users is incorporated into processes. Moving from global and regional levels, these actors together with other local stakeholders are fundamental to the assessment and adoption of tools. Vulnerability, including poverty, impact of climate change, and hidden hunger are considered in prioritization processes. When targeting areas for highest potential impact, we employ specific safeguards and metrics to ensure the most vulnerable are not left behind, including explicit inclusion criteria for resource-poor farmers and marginalized communities in fragile contexts. The capacity development and strengthening of NARES will enable their adoption of proposed interventions. The comparative advantage of CGIAR is well articulated and includes its global research infrastructure, publicly available breeding materials and vast genetic diversity in germplasm banks, and access to advanced breeding technologies. This is a general comparative advantage, however, and may not apply to each individual case. Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on the comparative advantage of B4T in delivering key outputs and outcomes. We are aware our assessment of comparative advantage was carried out at the Area of Work level, and in some cases at the High-Level Output level, within a given Area of Work (rather than at the crop, food system, geographic, or business level). We recognize that comparative advantages are 30 Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed Specific opportunities should be continuously monitored to ensure this comparative advantage is leveraged. dynamic and will implement regular assessment mechanisms to monitor and leverage these advantages as contexts evolve, ensuring they remain relevant and impactful at both system and individual case levels. The rationale was that all CGAIR Programs undertook the same comparative advantage methodology. In Genetic Innovation, the TRANSFORM Initiative, with partners, undertook over 100 Breeding Program Assessments on partners’ breeding programs to co-identify specific strengths and weaknesses in their programs and allow CGAIR to collaboratively work them based on their sources of comparative advantage. These assessments will be continued in B4T. More clarity could be given to how the transformational partnerships will be implemented to advance the seed sector’s policies and practices. During the Inception Phase, we will provide additional nuance about transformational partnerships’ (mainly CGIAR-NARES breeding networks within the remit of B4T) implementation and how spillovers to the seed sector policies, guidelines, and practices are delivered for maximum impact. The research questions and hypotheses are clearly stated but could be improved by being more quantitative and giving clarity to how they can be tested. For instance, the research question in the Program- level Theory of Change as shown in fig. 1 seems to be too general and not clearly actionable. For example, “How do breeding network actors innovate and strengthen their research…?” is answered with “Breeding network actors increase uptake of quality products in priority market segments.” In addition, potential negative outcomes and time frames could be discussed. How to address and answer the research questions with KPIs will be a key part of the Implementation process. If needed more specific research questions and the research required to answer them will be developed during the implementation process as funding and prioritization allow/guide. In developing and addressing research questions potential negative outcomes and timeframes will be identified. 1. MARKET INTELLIGENCE is a robust and important area with tremendous impact potential. The integration of foresight modeling for climate, crops, and pests/diseases enhances its capacity to effectively target, design and deliver products. Areas that could be included are substitute meat, crops that support the biome and urban climate- controlled farming. Does a focus on maximum RoI risk reducing the benefits for the poor? 2. ACCELERATED BREEDING is a major strength of this Program. Is there a reason (other than policy restrictions imposed by a group of funders) for not including GMOs? Maybe not now but what about in the future when they might become a necessity? Farmer organizations • To ensure the effectiveness of our Program, several key areas have been identified for focused efforts and strategic development. Each area has specific goals and follow-up actions designed to enhance our overall impact and drive progress toward our objectives as follows: • Market Intelligence: Focuses on being forward-looking, capturing assumptions about significant changes (like dietary shifts and urban farming) and their impact on future crop markets. Prioritizes understanding smallholder farmer needs, informal markets, and opportunities for vulnerable groups, ensuring inclusive 31 Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed are not listed as partners in the PARTNER/TRANSFORM high-level output. 3. INCLUSIVE DELIVERY. This is a strong point in this proposal. Missing, however, is the dimension of linking smallholder farmers to markets. Lack of market access by the most vulnerable farmers can result in constraint for variety adoption. 4. The BREEDING RESOURCES Theory of Change is very well articulated but might hold risks (see section 10). 5. ENABLE. It is not clear why ENABLE is a necessary part of this proposal. The added value and essential contributions of ENABLE should be made more explicit. development. ROI measures development outcomes per dollar spent, aligned with CGIAR Impact Areas. • Accelerated Breeding: Utilizes precision genetics, GMOs, and gene editing to address market and farmer needs. Collaborates with key partners (farmer organizations, universities) to define breeding priorities and conduct on-farm trials. Emphasizes the importance of stewardship and good practices. • Inclusive Delivery: Works with partners to improve seed systems and market access. Builds on positive experiences involving traders and aggregators in seed supply chains. Provides innovation packages to partners and end users in collaboration with other programs. • Breeding Resources: Involves risk assessment and mitigation strategies, formulated and updated as activities are defined, ensuring effective project and program management. • Enable: Addresses the need for high-level functions to improve collaboration across breeding domains and partners. Focuses on cohesive development, alignment, and coordination of enablers at the system level while tactical implementation remains with specific areas of work. However, a more explicitly farmer-centered approach would be desirable, recognizing the value of local knowledge alongside modern tools to effectively target improved crops and varieties. Perhaps a little more experimental details could have been included. • NARES and SMEs, together with local actors including farmer groups and processors are integral to the breeding networks. Knowledge from local farmer and consumer contexts is key to the initial development of market opportunity information and captured through national stakeholder discussions and product advancement meetings. This is in addition to leveraging knowledge and feedback from seed systems and through partnerships with the Scaling for Impact, Gender and Social Inclusion, and Sustainable Farming Programs into the initial formulation of product concepts. The shift to earlier on-farm testing of products additionally brings in earlier input of farmer feedback into germplasm development, bringing in scaled local knowledge to the product development process in a more aligned, inclusive, and data driven manner. Through early-stage field testing, farmers' experiential knowledge directly shapes breeding decisions and variety development. 32 Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed • Based on the Market Intelligence and Seed Equal Initiatives, the Market Intelligence and Inclusive Delivery Areas of Work will to engage with farmers, processors, and consumers to gather information to better prioritize breeding investments and clarify gaps in current market intelligence. By lifting those who have been historically excluded there could well be a pushback from those who may feel as if they are losing their relative positions of power, wealth, respect and overall dominance. There is evidence suggesting that the rise of extreme political movements is partially driven by a perceived loss of power and status among groups who historically held social, economic and political dominance. Despite the unjustness of this stance, it would be well for this proposal to include consideration of how to deal with such situations. Additionally, CGIAR should have an active “influencer strategy” to support their work and to shape acceptance. While it is concerning that historically powerful groups push extreme political movements in response to their perceived loss of power, it falls outside the Program’s scope to deal with this. Conversely, those who have been historically marginalised also have a tendency to politically rise, in response to a lack of opportunities, food, basic necessities, etc. By providing farmers with more options of more stable (in terms of climate, yield, etc.) and healthy food, we are contributing to meeting basic needs, helping prevent social uprisings. Perhaps too much concentration on building standardized crops for rapid growth and expansion, which could result in certain alleles becoming too dominant in a monoculture leading to susceptibility to diseases, climate changes etc. Rather use a more resilient approach using a variety of similar traits but from various sources leading to greater crop diversity. Stronger farmer participation in all stages of crop improvement could strengthen this. The population improvement breeding approach over time ensures equilibrium of allelic frequencies and maintains genetic diversity. Gene stacking/pyramiding is another approach followed by the CG breeders that ensures durability of resistance to various biotic and abiotic stresses. Moreover, this is addressed through the diverse participatory breeding approaches that are already in place along several phases of breeding pipelines and will be built on during the Inception Phase, where we will carefully seek additional entry points to gather the insights and needed of farmers, both female and male. The impact of scale factor is listed and explained through various examples. The Program works with 107 countries in a market-driven approach that is likely to lead to higher adoption. It will expand its coverage in the revised Portfolio to include vegetable crops, neglected species, tree and agroforestry, and animal breeds. Linkages include Better Diets and Nutrition Program, Multifunctional Landscapes and Sustainable Animal and Aquatic Food Programs. The question is, how to assure these linkages? CGIAR could benefit from the introduction of three models of scaling: scaling up, scaling out and scaling deep. It could explore how to foster all three to enhance their impacts. To facilitate scaling, and work with other Programs, in addition to sharing funding and collaborating on deliverables, currently CGIAR is outlining principles for fostering inter-Program/Accelerator work and collaboration. This is to ensure this cross collaboration is deeply rooted in the way we work and becomes a part of the culture. 33 Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed It is important to address what is new in this Program, as well as how it builds on previous Initiatives. What successes are being built upon and how will this Program help in this process? Continuation of what has gone before is important, and if mistakes were made to ensure they are not repeated. On p. 6, the last paragraph details some of the improvements the program aims to achieve. However, to do so, the section starting on p. 60 (Boundaries and linkages with other components of the Portfolio) will need to be strongly adhered to. This will ensure the linkages lead to specific actions. It would be important to do this if we don’t want to be facing the same or similar problems in 10 years’ time. B4T builds on the work accomplished in the Initiatives especially the baseline of current market segments and Target Product Profiles. The new areas addressed by this Program include a forward-looking view on what crop market systems will be required in future and how these crop market segments fit in future cropping systems. Strengthening CGIAR-NARES partnerships and adding more players (particularly SMEs and advanced research institutes, such as Universities) to these networks will be a key component of this Program. Integrating new technologies such as AI to help understand the future and identify new market segments is another key new area. Support and empower the Breeding Networks. Continue advocating Advanced Breeding Technologies integrating cutting-edge ones such as AI, allele mining, genomic tools, and advanced digital infrastructure such as GIoMIP. Always bear in mind the importance of aligning with national breeding targets as this can contribute to global food security and economic sustainability for smallholder farmers, particularly in the designated regions (LMIC). The Program will continue its strong engagement with partners, through Aide Memoire events (that help dictate the overall direction of partnership engagement between the CGAIR breeding and NARES partners) and through close work based on Breeding Program Assessments (elucidating sources of comparative advantage) with the CGAIR-NARES-SME breeding networks and developing network agreements; Moreover, in defining new products for breeding, Market Intelligence and Accelerated Breeding will engage with national partners on their priorities through structured national and regional product design and advancement meetings to ensure alignment with national and regional strategies. The use of modern data collection methods, modeling and analysis techniques can lead to substantial advances in agricultural development improving productivity and sustainability. Use of modern breeding tools and advocation for which tools to use where is part of the continuation of breeding optimization work. Where tool use is in demand and can be scaled breeding support is prepared to broker services (internal and external) to meet capability and capacity needs enabling networks to access the tools needed to deliver candidate varieties to the seed system. Sustainable Animal and Aquatic Foods Program Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed 34 Codesign: (1) Include more concrete examples of stakeholder codesign and feedback integration to strengthen the demand-driven approach. (2) Additionally, alignment with regional policy frameworks, such as the Blue Economy Agenda in Africa, would ensure that the Program meets local and regional demands effectively. (1) Co-design is a central component of SAAF. SAAF builds upon the co-design and partnerships established under the Initiatives, and further investment in co-design will be prioritised, particularly for new geographies. Co-design processes will be further addressed during the inception period. (2) Alignment with regional frameworks, including Africa’s Blue Economy Agenda, will be strengthened by mapping Program components to policy priorities and collaborating with regional and national bodies to ensure the program meets local demands effectively. Geographic focus: Expand geographic and programmatic scope, particularly in underrepresented regions like Central and Southern Africa, which will require additional prioritization in the 20 focus countries in the proposal. Geographic focus of the Program to be further defined during the inception period, including consideration of the revised comparative advantage analysis for better regional representation with additional consideration for Central and Southern Africa. AoW integration: While the Areas of Work are comprehensive, more integration across them is recommended, particularly between Productivity+ and other areas like One Health and nutrition. Integration between AoWs, including Productivity + and One Health, is a high priority for SAAF, with all Program outcomes being achieved through the efforts of two or more AoWs. Modalities for achieving this integration, such as working on common sites, will be further elaborated during the inception period. 35 Feedback Brief description of how feedback will be addressed Research questions: (1) The broad scope of the research presents challenges in addressing all gaps effectively. A more focused approach, targeting region-specific gaps and underrepresented issues like gender equity, would enhance the Program’s relevance. (2) Furthermore, while the proposal addresses environmental degradation, it could provide mor