125. The discussion was opened by Dr. Guido Gryseels, Deputy Executive Secretary of TAC, who recalled the endeavours to introduce a project-based research management system in the CGIAR and to move from input-oriented programmes to output-oriented projects. Efforts had been made to improve the CGIAR activity classification and to develop a logframe for the CGIAR. A first meeting had been held in Feldafing; Germany during February 1997 with strong support from the German Government. The report of that meeting had been circulated to Centre Directors for comments and a second meeting had been held during February 1998, again at Feldafing, to take the discussions a step further. Subsequently a progress report had been prepared and circulated to TAC Members for comments. Dr. Gryseels provided an overview of Centre comments on the first draft of the Feldafing report and how these had been incorporated in the subsequent proposal. Dr. Gryseels reiterated the collaborative nature of the development of this logframe and the close involvement in this exercise of the CGIAR Secretariat, the IAEG, the Finance and Oversight Committees, donors, representatives of NARS, Centre Directors and Board Chairs, with strong support from the German Government.
126. A new terminology had been suggested to describe the hierarchy of objectives: project outputs, System activities, System products and System outcomes. A separation of high potential and low potential ecosystems was seen as arbitrary since a clear distinction was impossible. It was, therefore, necessary to join these outputs. At a small workshop organized by the TAC Secretariat in December 1997 in Rome, much progress had also been made in the further development of the concept of milestones and the characteristics these should have in CGIAR projects. Milestones were defined as key intermediate targets necessary for achieving and/or delivering a project's output within an agreed time frame. A central focus of the 1998 workshop had been the formulation of indicators for the CGIAR logframe. Much effort had been put into the development of the characteristics these indicators should have. At the meeting, indicators were formulated for all outputs and purposes of the proposed CGIAR logframe. Dr. Gryseels subsequently presented the elements of the proposed CGIAR logframe in terms of purposes, outputs and their indicators. Finally, he presented an overview of the implication of a logframe implementation for priority setting, resource allocation and impact assessment. He also indicated that the formulation of the proposed logframe would be finalized at a meeting of a small working group during July 1998. A draft proposal would then be circulated to all centres and stakeholders of the CGIAR during the month of August. Thereafter, an ultimate draft would be discussed at TAC 75 prior to its submission to ICW98.
127. Dr. Ravi Tadvalkar of the CGIAR Secretariat highlighted the importance of the introduction of a logframe which was part of the System's endeavour to introduce greater accountability in the CGIAR. He also reiterated that the change from an input to an output driven System would have major implications for the functioning of the CGIAR.
128. In the ensuing discussion, TAC Members asked for clarification on the degree of congruence of Centre- and System-level logframes, the nature of outputs as defined in the logframe, and a clarification of the proposed hierarchy. Dr. Geoff Hawtin, Chair of the Centre Directors Committee, was pleased with the progress in this interesting exercise and stressed the need for continuity when moving from the existing activity classification to a system of research themes. Clarification was also requested about the word "productivity" and whether actual or potential was meant. He also indicated that distinction between high and low productivity outputs was probably not a good one as both areas needed different research approaches. A question was also raised about the target date for the introduction of the proposed CGIAR logframe and about the need for ex-ante and ex-post indicators as well as the need to give greater emphasis to products rather than process.
129. Dr. Gryseels indicated that it was hoped to complete the logframe in time for the 2000 programmes and budgets, that Centre and System logframes would hopefully be able to go side-by-side but that a bottom-up approach was required. He also reiterated that further work was required with respect to: the separation of low and high potential; the need to clarify the water management issue; the need to improve the quality of indicators, particularly for capacity building; and the need to improve the formulation of indicators, particularly for goals and intermediate goals.
130. The TAC Chair concluded the discussion by expressing his gratitude for an excellent discussion and the participatory nature of this exercise. Much had already been achieved and progress was very encouraging.
