Touchpoints

• 24 June 2025  (14.00 - 15.30) Touchpoint Session VIII

2025 SERIES

• 10 June 2025  (14.00 - 15.30) Touchpoint Session VIII Meeting Recording l Slide Deck

• 22 April 2025  (14.00 - 15.30) Touchpoint Session V Meeting Recording l Slide Deck

• Touchpoint Session IV was cancelled

• 19 March 2025 - 14.00 - 15.30 - Touchpoint Session III Meeting Recording l Slide Deck

• 05 March 2025 - 14.00 - 15.30 - Touchpoint Session II Meeting Recording l Slide Deck

• 19 February 2025 - 14.00 - 15.30 - Touchpoint Session I: Inception Report and Deliverables   Meeting Recording l Slide Deck

2024 SERIES

• 5 December 2024 -  14.30 CET - TOUCHPOINT II - Inception and Transition Meeting Recording  l Slide Deck 

• 27 November 2024  - TOUCHPOINT 1.5 -  Preliminary Work Plans, Budget Templates and PMU Interim  Meeting Recording  l Slide Deck

• 21 November 2024 - TOUCHPOINT 1 - Inception and Transition  Meeting Recording l Slide Deck

• 4 - 6 November 2024 - Report back from Nairobi 2025-30 Porfolio Inception Workshop  Meeting Recording (restricted access) l Slide Deck

Contact Database & Mailing Lists

• We have created separate mailing lists to better manage program-level communication, as outlined below. The lists, which will be continuously updated, are based on the most current information available in the portfolio contact database.

• CGIAR Portfolio Communication Focal Points portfolio-communication-focal-points@groups.cgiar.org 

• CGIAR Portfolio Program Coordinators portfolio-program-coordinators@groups.cgiar.org 

• CGIAR Portfolio Finance Focal Points  portfolio-finance-focal-point@groups.cgiar.org 

• CGIAR Portfolio MELIA Focal Points portfolio-melia-focal-points@groups.cgiar.org 

• CGIAR Portfolio Leadership Team (Directors, Deputies, AoW Leads and Co-leads and Program Coordinators) program-accelerator-leadership-team@groups.cgiar.org 

• CGIAR Center Delegates: portfolio-center-delegates@groups.cgiar.org    

• Please see the Portfolio 2025-2030 Communications Platforms and Mailing Lists  (updated 2 April) for more details.

Inception Report Submission Checklist New!

• Send your Final  Inception Report + attachments via email to:  Roland Sundstrom (R.Sundstrom@cgiar.org), Scarlett Crawford (scarlett.crawford@cgiar.org) and Roberto Rocha Correa (R.Rocha@cgiar.org )  by 17.00 CEST on 9 June  AND File the report + all attachments in the designated folder [000. Inception Report - Final Attachments (9 June)] and include links open to all CGIAR staff in your report.
  
  This includes the following files:  (1)  Inception Report; (2) Comparative Advantage raw outputs, (3) Prioritization raw outputs; (4) Results Framework; (5) MELIA Plan; and (6) PORB. Aside from those requested in the template, please do not attach or appendix any other documents. They will not be sent to ISDC and reviewers.

• For your report:

  • Convert font to Aptos size 11;   tables should be in size 10.

  • Please spell out all Program/Accelerator name in full - do not use acronyms.

  • Please follow the CGIAR Quick Style Guide

• Publish your ToC in the ToC Tool to obtain the Open Access link for both the ToC and the Results Framework. Include the link in your Inception Report in both Section 3.1  ToC and and 3.2 MELIA.  Detailed instructions will be provided to the MELIA FPs.  

• Submit your PORB separately to CGIAR Project Coordination Unit (PCU) projectcoordinationunit@cgiar.org

• Reminder that Appendix 2 is not required. The previous version of the Inception Report template included a table in Appendix 2 --- it is no longer required, however, we do request you refer to your engagements with the Evaluability Assessment team and their informal feedback in Section 3. 

Template

Final template provided to Program/Accelerator teams​ (v. 21/05/2025) l Template     

Resources

• ISDC Review of 2025-2030 Research & Innovation Portfolio Proposals (15 Nov 2024) l PDF

• ISDC Feedback on CGIAR Portfolio Narrative 2025-2030 )27 Nov 2024) l PDF

Resources

• W3/bilateral mapping operationalization Deep Dive presentation #1 and recording; Deep Dive presentation #2 (20 May)

• Process Note: Substantive mapping Feb 2025.docx

• Mapping Dashboard

• Key results folder

• "Green" spreadsheet: proposed mapping by Centers

• "Blue" spreadsheet: confirmed mapping by Programs/Accelerators

• Additional guidance on confirmation process for Programs/Accelerators

• Geographic overlay tool​

• Similarity match tool​

• Alignment Working Group

Timeline

• 11 March onwards – Continuous support inc. Deep Dives and 1:1 trainings

• 24 March – MELIA Planning and PORB Guidance and Templates shared for alignment of ToC with MELIA Plan and PORB

• 24 March to 23 May –  ToC refinement hand-in-hand with MELIA Plan, Risk Management Plan and PORB

• 23 May – ToC finalized; PORB finalized using updated ToC data and submitted to PCU

• 2 Jun – ToC narrative and diagram included in Inception Report

Resources

• ToC Tool l link

• ToC Guidance  l PDF

• ToC Tool Guidance l  PPT

Training Sessions (Invitations have been sent directly to the MELIA Focal Points for all Program & Accelerators)

• 27 March (15.30 - 17.30) Drop-in session 1 - Theory of Change population from TOC Board Template   Meeting Recording l Slide Deck

• 3 April  (15.30 - 16.30) Deep Dive 1 - MELIA planning session  Meeting Recording l Slide Deck

• 17 April  (15.30 - 16.30) Deep Dive 2 - Portfolio outcomes   Meeting Recording l Slide Deck

• 24 April (15.30 - 16.30)  Deep Dive 3 - W3 bilateral alignment on the TOC   Meeting Recording l Slide Deck

• 21 May - 22 May  (15.30 - 17.30) Drop-in session 2 - Towards Completion of TOC & MELIA Planning Template Meeting Recording l Slide Deck

MELIA Plan  (Jules Colomer)

• 24 March - Template and Guidance l PDF

• 2 June – Inclusion in draft Inception Report

Training Sessions and Recordings

• 27 March (15.30 - 17.30) Drop-in session 1 - Theory of Change population from TOC Board Template   Meeting Recording l Slide Deck

• 3 April  (15.30 - 16.30) Deep Dive 1 - MELIA planning session  Meeting Recording l Slide Deck

• 17 April  (15.30 - 16.30) Deep Dive 2 - Portfolio outcomes   Meeting Recording l Slide Deck

• 24 April (15.30 - 16.30)  Deep Dive 3 - W3 bilateral alignment on the TOC    Meeting Recording l Slide Deck

• 21 May - 22 May  (15.30 - 17.30) Drop-in session 2 - Towards Completion of TOC & MELIA Planning Template Meeting Recording l Slide Deck

Timeline

• 5 March 2025 - Launch of Risk Management process

• 11 - 20 March 2025 - 1: 1 Trainings

• 25 April 2025 - Deadline for submission of Risk Management Plans

Resources

• Risk Management Module Link:  https://risk.cgiar.org/

• Risk Management Guidance for Programs and Accelerators (5 March 2025) l PDF

• Risk Management Module User Guide (5 March 2025) l PDF

• Risk Management Module 1:1 Sign Up Worksheet I Excel (completed)

Feedback

• Please provide your feedback on the Risk Management Process l Survey Link

Planning Guidance

• CGIAR Program and Accelerator 2025–2030 Inception Phase Planning Guidance  - (v.16 May 2025) l PDF

PORB Template

• Template (v. 16 May 2025) l Excel

Resources

• Budget Guidance for W1 Funding Implementation in 2025  (17  March 2025 formatted version)

• CGIAR Preliminary 2025 Work Planning & Budgeting Guidance (4 Dec 2024)

• CGIAR  Preliminary 2025 Work Planning & Budgeting Template (2 Dec 2024)

• CGIAR Work Planning and Budget Inputs (Nov 2024)

• Finalizing preliminary 2025 work plans and budgets (16 Jan 2025)

• 2025 Portfolio Budget Summary (16 Jan 2025)

Lessons Learned

• User Research Report PRMS Planning Module

• 7 March – Template shared l Excel

• Guidance is included within the Inception Report Template and extracted here for ease, " Provide a summary of the results of the Program’s/Accelerator’s comparative advantage analysis. Outline how it assisted the Program/Accelerator in considering its research in the broader ecosystem of actors that undertake similar work. Describe any changes to the Program’s/Accelerators’ activities, proposed funding, or interactions with partners resulting from the analysis. In cases where analysis results show that CGAIR is weakly positioned to undertake the HLO, but your Program/Accelerator has chosen nonetheless to undertake the associated work, justify why."

• 17 March – Template shared - Phase 1 Step A Only l Excel

• 22 April - Template shared - Phase 1 Step A-B-B; Phase 2 (Updated 22 April) l Excel

• 7 April - Guidance shared l Word (updated 7 April)

Additional Resources

• Partnership continuity templates 

• Partnership Engagement Survey Report  (November 2024)

• Partnering Strategy (December 2024)

Guidance

• 8 April  - Shared via email to Science Program Leadership

Template

• 8 April  - Template l Excel (8 April)

Timeline

• 30 April - Top 10 Innovations Use 

• 30 May - Top 10 Innovation Development

The approved Preliminary Work Plan and Budget (POWBs) includes allocated Programs and Accelerator funding for the period January-December 2025. Development of the POWBs includes the proposed high-level deliverables for 2025 and is intended to serve as guidelines for Program/Accelerator leadership teams and Center teams to manage the spending of Center and Program/Accelerator and to provide accountability for the use of this funding from January 2025. 

POWBs serve as a vital component accompanying Center-level Decision Letters, confirming fund allocation as part of CGIAR Governance requirements specifically related to Financial and Programmatic performance oversight (refer to CGIAR System Framework, Article 6). It also recognizes that the 2025 planning process will be in two phases, including the Preliminary High-level Work Plan and Budget and updated detailed Plan of Results and Budget to be completed by Q2, 2025. 

Please find here the Program and Accelerator POWB completed in February 2025:

• Breeding for Tomorrow (3 March)

• Sustainable Farming (5 March)

• Sustainable Animal and Aquatic Foods (5 March)

• Multifunctional Landscapes (6 March)

• Better Diets and Nutrition (12 March)

• Climate Action (5 March)

• Policy Innovations (5 March)

• Food Frontiers and Security (5 March)

• Scaling for Impact (12 April)

• Gender Equality and Inclusion  (5 March)

• Capacity Sharing (5 March)

• Digital Transformation (28 February)

• Genebank (5 March)

Research

• Draft CGIAR Results Framework

• CGIAR’s 2025-2030 Science and Innovation Portfolio:  Preliminary Inception Guidance  (coming soon)

• CGIAR 2025-30 Portfolio Narrative 

• CGIAR Research Portfolio 2025-2030 

• Document SC21-05b: Proposal documents
  Better Diets and Nutrition program
  Breeding for Tomorrow
  Capacity Sharing Accelerator
  Climate Action Program
  Digital Transformation Accelerator
  Food Frontiers and Security Program
  Gender Equality and Inclusion Accelerator
  Genebanks
  Multifunctional Landscapes Program
  Policy Innovations Program
  Scaling for Impact Program
  Sustainable Animal and Aquatic Foods Program
  Sustainable Farming Program

• CGIAR’s 2025—30 science and innovation Portfolio: progress, status, and next steps  (Day 1 - Nairobi Workshop)

• List of Program and Accelerators AoW

Lessons Learned

• Audit Advisory Engagement Report on "Lessons Learned from Establishing CGIAR Initiative Support Systems

• User Research Report PRMS Planning Module

• Partnership Engagement Survey Report  (November 2024)

• Recommendations for enhancing PRMS planning tools to support CGIAR plans for the 2025–2030 period (October 2024)

People Assignments

• Management Arrangements for CGIAR's 2025-30 Science and Innovation Portfolio

• Terms of Reference for Program and Accelerator Transition Teams 

• Area of Work Transition Leads & Co-Leads: terms of reference 

• Process to select & assign AoW Transition Leads and Co-Leads

• Transition PMU Terms of Reference 

  • Program/Accelerator Transition Communications Focal Point     PDF I Word

  • Program/Accelerator Transition Coordination Lead   PDF I Word

  • Program/Accelerator Transition Finance Focal Point     PDF I Word

  • Program/Accelerator Transition MELIA Focal Point     PDF I Word

• Guidance Note: Transition Program Unit (PMU) roles for Programs and Accelerators - Selection and assignment

• Assignment Form for Program / Accelerator Transition PMU Roles

• Export of Initiative/Platform contact database for PMU roles

• Terms of Reference for the Center Delegates in CGIAR Program/ Accelerator Leadership Teams l PDF

1. If budgets are pre-allocated to Centers, how can Directors ensure they are actually used for transition and specific Program activities?
   While the Global Leadership Team (GLT) has endorsed the minimum allocation of 80% of anticipated pooled funding to Centers for the year 2025, the GLT has not provided guidance on how the Center allocations can be used in 2025. Program/Accelerator leaderships will need to work with Center Focal Points to draw a preliminary 2025 workplan and budget that will provide accountability on the use of these funds in line with the Program and Accelerator Theories of Change and the outcomes of the initial prioritization process conducted by Writing Teams and described in the proposals.  

2. How do we cover new AoW which was not funded under the 2022-2024 Portfolio? 
   Whether a Center’s initial allocation includes funding towards activities under a particular AoW (whether ‘old’ or ‘new’) has not been decided. The intended purpose of the funds allocated to each Center will need to be defined as part of the preliminary work plans for 2025. Therefore, although most of this funding will likely cover "critical, continuing W1/2-funded work”, part of these funds could be allocated to new work or Areas of Work. The relevant constraints are that the plans have to be aligned with (i) the proposed, preliminary W1/2 breakdown by Program/Accelerator as endorsed by the GLT and the breakdown of those allocations by AoW as set out in the final proposals, and (ii) the initial, minimum allocations to each Center.  

3. To what extent can programs or accelerators exercise flexibility in adjusting their budget allocations to better align with evolving priorities and needs? Specifically, is there room to reallocate funds if certain assumptions behind initial allocations no longer hold true?  
   The initial Center allocations (80% of each Center’s share of the $288.7m) are not at this stage tied to a defined purpose. The mapping of Initiative Work Packages to Programs and Accelerators tells us how we arrived at those amounts, not what they are for. The intended purpose of the funds allocated to each Center will need to be defined as part of the preliminary work plans for 2025. The relevant constraints are that the plans have to be aligned with (i) the proposed, preliminary W1/2 breakdown by Program/Accelerator as endorsed by the GLT and the breakdown of those allocations by AoW as set out in the final proposals, and (ii) the initial, minimum allocations to each Center. Beyond the preliminary 2025 workplan and budget, an updated workplan and budget will be developed in Q2, 2025; additional funding which might become available then could provide further opportunities to take account of evolving priorities.   

4. How should the Transition team manage budget allocations since it is currently not known who the Area of Work (AoW) leads will be, and how those individuals might be covered? 
   Plans are being made for Program/Accelerator inception funds (additional to Center budget allocations) to cover the costs of up to 50% of the time of AoW leads and co-leads for the first 6 months of 2025. Those individuals may not be in place before the preliminary 2025 workplans have to be submitted. The transition teams are expected to support the interim Program/Accelerator Directors and Deputy Directors in developing these workplans.  

5. How will anticipated designated funding to regions/sub-regions/countries be allocated as part of the pooled funding for the next portfolio?
   No W1/2 funding designation by geography is currently envisaged for the 2025-30 Portfolio. If this question refers to pledges made by some funders in 2024 to specific Regionally Integrated Initiatives for 2025, in these cases the funders will have the opportunity to confirm these allocations to the Programs to which these Initiatives have been mapped when they amend their contribution agreements.   

6. How will interim directors manage proposed discretionary budgets?
   Limited operating budget will be provided to interim Program/Accelerator leadership teams to deliver on critical, cross-Program priorities during the Inception Phase. This "discretionary" inception funding will cover ​Interim Directors and Deputy Directors​, AoW Transition Leads and Co-Leads​, and a small number of PMU staff (3-5, needs to be right-sized per Program/ Accelerator)​ at up to 50% of the assignees time for up to 6 months + limited operating costs (travel, meetings, small contracts) to enable the effective and timely delivery of the Inception Phase​.  

7. What is Inception Funding and what will it cover? 
   The inception funding is a separate allocation from the W1/2 pooled funding, additional to the $288.7 million allocated to Programs and Accelerators under the preliminary, proposed Baseline Scenario. This funding will be made available to cover costs related to the appointment of Interim Directors and Deputy Directors, Area of Work (AoW) Transition Leads/Co-Leads and a limited number of PMU assignments at approximately 50% of their time during the first 6 months of the year, as well as other operational expenses such as meetings, travel, and related costs.  

8. When will Decision Letters be issued? 
   Decision letters were issued in early March, and include a breakdown of the Center's allocation by Program/Accelerator.  

9. Will ICRISAT, CIFOR-ICRAF and WorldVeg receive allocations?  
   CIFOR-ICRAF and WorldVeg will receive W1/2 funding as partners contracted by a Center, whereas ICRISAT is included in the list of Centers receiving W1/2 allocations. 

10. There are some SPs where they have a Deputy Co-lead. Can we assume that Inception Costs will also cover those cases? If so, do we want to amend the guideline?
    The guidelines provided during the development of the POWBs was that inception funding was made available to cover costs for Interim Directors and Deputy Directors assignments, Area of Work (AoW) Transition Leads/Co-Leads, and a limited number of Transition PMU staff (calculated at up to 50% of their time during the first 6 months of 2025), as well as other operational expenses such as meetings, travel, and related costs.

11. We understand that the current letters of Interim Appointment delivered by the SO (Directors, Deputy Directors, AoW Leads, Co-leads, Deputy Co-leads and PMU) are valid until December 31st, and the guidelines mention that we can use Inception Funds to cover those positions until July 31st. If the SO provides those letters, does that mean all their costs will be fully covered with S/A programs until the end of 2025 using the remaining 20% to be allocated to the programs? Can you reconfirm with P&C.
    My understanding was that interim assignments for Directors and Deputies are to June 2025 with the 20% earmarked to cover costs for the full-term positions that are currently being recruited.

12. My understanding is that the allocated 80% has been fully budgeted for research activities and based on that the decision to budget a portion of the carry over (US$ 6.0MM) to cover the costs of that staff for the initial six months. We would need to secure that the pending 20% will be used to cover the next six months of the year to cover the period included on their letters. Is our understanding accurate?
    The inception funding was viewed as minimal to fully cover the P/A needs. Therefore, the overrun was distributed to the 80% and in some few cases to the 20%.

1. Who is responsible for developing high level work plans given that Area of Work leads and co-leads are not yet in place?  
   The development of high-level preliminary work plans will occur in parallel with the assignment and onboarding of transition Area of Work leads and co-leads. In the interim, the transition teams and especially interim Directors/Deputy Directors and transition Area of Work leads/co-leads will assume this responsibility.  

2. What are the exact timelines and expected deliverables for the transition and inception?  
   A high-level timeline with key deliverables has been shared on the P&R website. More detailed guidance at a granular level will be provided soon. 

3. How much will the Programs be held to their workplan, and how much is indicative?  
   The Preliminary Work Plan is intended to serve as a guideline for centers to manage the spending of pre-allocated funds starting in January. There will be flexibility to make adjustments as the Q2 detailed work plans are developed.  

4. What is expected under “High-level deliverables”?
   The “High-level deliverable” column of the preliminary 2025 workplan/budget template (Worksheet 3) should be populated with significant achievements from the activities to be conducted under a High-Level Output. Disaggregated, small products should not be listed individually but rather be embedded into one high-level deliverable heading. Note that the “High-level deliverable” term is used specifically for the purpose of the preliminary 2025 workplan [“one shot”] and is not meant to replace or be added to the CGIAR MELIA glossary or to be included in the updated results frameworks to be produced in Q2, 2025.  

5. Can proposals’ HLOs be adjusted in prelim 2025 workplans/budgets, or will this be done during the more detailed Q2 planning?
   Given the tight timeline for submission of the preliminary 2025 workplans and budgets, and since the inception phase is designed to allow for ToC improvements, please use the proposal HLOs in column A, Worksheet 3, leaving HLO changes for the inception phase.

6. Given that some work packages no longer align with their initial program allocation and would be better suited in a different program, is there flexibility to move them now, or is the allocation fixed? 
   The budget allocations to Centers based on the initial mapping of Initiative Work Packages to Programs and Accelerators have been approved by the GLT, and the development of the Programs/Accelerators' preliminary work plans and budgets will be guided by these "pre-allocations". Such changes are therefore not possible at this point but may be considered during the Inception Phase (first half of 2025).  

7. Can additional columns be added to the POWB template to account for proposed budgeted partners? 
   Yes. During the co-creation process for developing the preliminary 2025 workplan/budget, the Transition Team Working Group emphasized the importance of enabling Portfolio-level coordination in planning, especially in response to donor requests for improved country-level coordination. As a result, the template includes fields for identifying contracted partners, deliverables shared between Programs/Accelerators, and locations. Additional columns can be added to the template as needed to capture the contributions of more than three contracted partners for a high-level deliverable. 

8. When will the breakdown by Initiatives/Work packages to Centers for the total 288M be shared to guide the Centers’ allocations to Programs/Accelerators and their AoWs based on previous years?   
   The GLT’s decision on W1/2 funding allocations does not provide a breakdown of Centers’ initial minimum allocations (80%) by Program/Accelerator. Transition Teams have at their disposal (1) the September 2024 mapping of Initiative and Platform Work Packages to Programs and Accelerators based on 2022—24 W1/2 funding averages, and (2) the breakdown of 2024 W1/2 funding by Initiative/Platform, Work Package, and Center.
   Drawing on the above, where a 2022—24 Work Package is slated to continue – fully or partially – as part of a Program’s/Accelerator’s 2025 workplan, Transition Teams can use the 2024 funding breakdown for that Work Package as a reference for associated 2025 Center allocations.
   Given that the proposed Program/Accelerator allocations have been derived based on 2022—24 funding averages whereas Centers’ initial minimum allocations build on 2024 funding shares, the two cannot be reconciled in a single model. 

9. Is it possible to depart from the proposals’ budget breakdown by AoW? Do such adjustments need approval?
   Proposed W1/2 funding allocations by AoW may depart from those included in the November 15 Program/Accelerator proposals where necessary as long as the submitted preliminary workplan and budget aligns with the overall Baseline Scenario allocation towards the Program/Accelerator (100%) and total Center allocations across all Programs and Accelerators align with each Center’s initial, minimum allocation (80%). 

10. How will the Center Delegates and Country Convener roles be covered?  
    Center Delegates represent their Centers in the Program/Accelerator Leadership Team. This is not a management role. The time commitment for this role should not be significant and should be covered by each Center.  Work is underway to define the future Country Convening model. 

1. When will the CGIAR Global Science Team (GST) be formalized and operationalized?
   The CGIAR Global Science Team (GST), which brings together the Center DDG-Rs, the CGIAR Chief Scientist, and the Program and Accelerator Directors to drive coordinated science and innovation leadership across the Portfolio has now been established. 

2. What is the proposed duration of the Transition Area of Work lead and co-lead assignments?  
   The Transition Area of Work (AoW) leads and co-leads are planned from January 2025 to December 2025. However, some terms and duration of these assignments will be determined by the employer of record, based on the current staff contract. For the longer-term AoW lead and co-lead roles, the duration will be determined on a case-by-case basis, guided by the respective centers. 

3. What is the role of the center delegate?  
   Rather than a management role, Center Delegates help advise and oversee Program/Accelerator teams with a view to ensuring strong alignment, coherence, coordination, and collaboration across Centers. [Quote from "the Book"]  

4. Can Area of Work Leads/Co-leads be joint appointees (i.e. CG center + University)?   
   In the 2022-24 Portfolio, there are cases when joint appointees have been assigned as Work Package leads or co-leads. Similarly, consideration can be given to joint appointees for assignments as Area of Work (AoW) leads or co-leads. These individuals should have a joint-appointment arrangement, have accumulated at least 10 months of CGIAR service, and at least part of their salary costs should be covered by CGIAR.   

5. What guidance is there regarding sub-areas of work leads or Co-leads, and how should they be managed and funded within the current framework?  
   A structure below the Area of Work level has not been defined. Sub-AoW roles are not considered core Program/Accelerator management functions and are not included in the flow of accountability for Window 1 and 2 funding as described in the management arrangements. This topic will be addressed in 2025 as part of a broader work stream on organizational structures below the Area of Work level. In the short term, Program/Accelerator Interim Directors are empowered to find flexible solutions. If Sub-Area of Work leading roles are necessary, they should be considered non-official management roles and funded within the resources already allocated to the Programs and Accelerators.  

6. Has there been consideration of the ethical dilemma that could arise if transition directors or deputies, who may be interested in the longer-term roles of area of work leads or deputies, make recommendations for these roles while serving in interim positions? Is there a process in place to avoid potential conflicts of interest?  
   The potential risk of conflict of interest is noted. This concern will be included for the attention of the GST for clarification and guidance.  

7. How soon will center delegates be assigned? 
   Center delegates representing the Centers contributing to a Program/Accelerator in the Program/Accelerator's Leadership Team are expected to be in place in January 2025. In the interim, Center contribution to the development of Program/Accelerator preliminary 2025 workplans should occur via the Center representatives in the Transition Teams. 

8. Who will support the transition teams in their work until the Program Management Unit (PMU) is fully established? 
   TORs and a guidance note for assignment of Transition PMU roles were circulated the week of December 2, 2024. Transition PMU roles can be assigned from January 1, 2025 and these assignments are expected to end in December 2025. In the meantime, a pragmatic approach seems to be for people who supported Writing Teams to continue supporting transition teams if this arrangement works for all parties. 

9. Where will the PMU sit in the structure, and how will its coordination and funding be structured?
   PMU members' locations are not fixed. Staff assigned to PMU roles will stay in their locations. Transition PMU roles will be funded by Program/Accelerator's inception funding (modalities and funding amounts to be shared). 

10. What is the plan for fair and transparent selection, job descriptions, and compensation for PMU members, especially for roles that represent significant changes or promotions from current positions?
    Regarding the selection process and job descriptions, please refer to the Guidance Note and TORs for Transition PMU roles. The Transition PMU are time-based assignments and should not trigger any compensation action; such matters should be managed by the staff’s employer of record according to their internal procedures in this regard.
    How will the PMU ensure adequate support for Programs and Accelerators, including clarifying relationships with CGIAR central units, involving current PMs in the transition phase, and incorporating subject matter experts (e.g., Gender Specialists)?
    Gender specialists are not part of Program/Accelerator PMU roles. People assigned to Program/Accelerator PMU roles (performing functions related to MELIA, program management, communications and finance support) should liaise with staff of the Office of the Chief Scientist, the Communications & Advocacy Unit and Finance for coordination on matters related to the scope of their duties. At this point, the scope of the services provided to the science Portfolio by these "central entities" is not expected to drastically change from 2024

1. Why are Centers mapping their W3/bilateral projects and programs to the Programs and Accelerators?   
   Integration of CGIAR’s different funding streams into a single consolidated offer was a core justification for the System Council approval of CGIAR’s 2025–30 Portfolio. The Portfolio is intended to bring together and align all of CGIAR’s work, across all Centers and all sources of funding, including pooled funding from CGIAR Trust Fund Windows 1 and 2, and Centers’ bilateral and W3 funding. Substantive mapping of CGIAR’s W3 and bilateral projects to the Programs and Accelerators is required as part of the Portfolio Inception Phase by end Q1 2025.  

2. What is the benefit of mapping for Centers? 
   The Mapping of W3/Bilateral projects to Programs and Accelerators is expected to enhance CGIAR’s visibility and attribution through joint reporting and communication. This process will also foster a collective understanding of each Center’s strengths, helping to identify key opportunities for capacity building, resource mobilization, and cross-Center as well as portfolio-level collaboration. With the launch of the new portfolio, the mapping exercise will further strengthen CGIAR synergies by leveraging broader capabilities, strategic partnerships, and inter-Center collaboration to maximize overall impact. Additionally, cross-portfolio and cross-Center collaboration will enhance stakeholder engagement across countries and regions by integrating and aligning Centers' and portfolio (P/A) activities with regional needs. Finally, the mapping will support scaling efforts by identifying opportunities to expand the impact of results collectively and collaboratively generated through W3/Bilateral projects and pooled P/A funding. 

3. Which W3/bilateral projects/programs have been mapped?  
   All W3/bilateral projects and programs within Centers’ top 80% of funding were mapped. The mapping was carried out based on the guidance in the Process Note annexed to the 2025–2030 Technical Reporting Arrangement.   

4. Where can I find the confirmed mapping?  
   You can access the proposed mapping by Centers in the "green" spreadsheet, or view it via this dashboard. The mapping is being confirmed by Program and Accelerator Interim Directors via the "blue" spreadsheet (also viewable in the dashboard). A PRMS registry is being developed to replace the spreadsheets and dashboard as the official reference point, integrated into CGIAR Portfolio management tool.  

5. Were projects/programs in the W3/bilateral pipeline included?  
   No, the intention was to map projects that are actively being implemented.  

6. Is mapping the process of assessing the relevance of a W3/bilateral project/program for each P/A, or is it the confirmed association or linking of a project/program with a Program/Accelerator that follows? 
   Mapping refers to both the process and the end result, the confirmed linking. The process of mapping started with a Center-led assessment of the relevance of the projects/programs in the top 80% of its W3/bilateral funding to each Program/Accelerator based on the guidance and criteria outlined in the Process Note. Based on this assessment, the Centers have proposed a mapping of each W3/bilateral project/program to a maximum of three Program(s)/ Accelerator(s). Once this proposed mapping is confirmed by the Interim Director(s) of the selected Program(s)/Accelerator(s), following additional guidance shared, the W3/bilateral project/program is considered mapped. After the mapping is completed, it will be operationalized by the Programs/Accelerators through alignment and/or integration into the Program/Accelerator ToCs, MELIA Plans and PORBs, with input from the mapped projects.  

7. What happens after a W3/bilateral project/program is mapped to one or more Programs and/or Accelerators?  
   Once a W3/bilateral project/program is mapped to one or more Programs and/or Accelerators, each of those Programs/Accelerators will begin integrating the relevant results of the project/program into the their Program/Accelerator theory of change (ToC), as part of the ToC update that must be completed during the Inception Phase, based on the W3/ bilateral project/program’s logframe or key results shared by the Center. Based on the integrated ToC, joint planning and subsequently technical reporting will be pursued, with the aim of facilitating the progressive growth of complementarity and synergies among the different funding streams. Please refer to the W3/bilateral checklist in Annex 1 of the 2025 Work Planning and Budget Guidance for more details.  

8. Is the mapping permanent, for the duration of the Portfolio (until 2030)?  
   No, the mapping is valid for one calendar year, and will be reviewed annually. Process guidance will be developed.  

9. What criteria was the mapping based on? Was there a minimum ranking for each criteria to make an official association or link? 
   The Process Note guidance indicates that mapping should be based on clearly defined, actionable criteria, including, but not limited to: 1) thematic alignment and complementarity of results, and 2) geographic focus and partnership overlap or strategic expansion. As part of the mapping process, each W3/bilateral should have received a rating of High, Medium or Low for each criteria against each Program/Accelerator. There was no minimum rating requirement (e.g., High-High or Medium-High) for mapping a W3/bilat project/program to a Program/Accelerator.  

10. What are the “key results” that will be provided by Centers instead of a logframe for each project/program? 
    The “key results” that can be provided in place of a logframe are the end-of-project/program outcomes and 2025 outputs or deliverables. Logframes and key results are to be provided by Centers as soon as possible via this SharePoint folder (linked in the Process Note), ideally by 28 March.  

11. What is the sequence and timeline for Center mapping, Program/Accelerator confirmation of the mapping, and Program/Accelerator use of the logframes and key results provided by Centers?  
    Centers have completed their mapping, and the results can be viewed in the "blue" spreadsheet, or viewed via this dashboard. As outlined in the Process Note, the Program/Accelerator Interim Directors will confirm the proposed mapping no later than 28 March. This confirmation will support the operationalization of the mapping by enabling updates to Program/Accelerator ToCs, the development of MELIA Plans, and the formulation of Plans of Results and Budget, all due by May 23rd. The operationalization of the mapping should be carried out by Program/Accelerator teams in coordination with the Centers and W3/Bilateral project/program leads, as appropriate. This process should utilize the logframes and key results provided by the Centers. For details, please refer to the W3/Bilateral Mapping Operationalization Checklist in Annex 1 of the 2025 Work Planning and Budget Guidance. Further guidance on integration into P/A ToCs and MELIA Plans will be provided.  

12. Are Centers providing the logframes or key results for every project/program in the top 80% of their W3/bilateral funding? 
    The expectation is that all Center projects/programs are aligned with the CGIAR 2030 Research and Innovation Strategy, and that therefore all projects/programs in the top 80% of Centers’ W3/bilateral funding will be mapped and officially linked to a Program/Accelerator. Thus, a logframe or key results must be shared for each one. 

13. Will Programs/Accelerators be expected to review the logframe or key results provided for every W3/bilateral project/program, across all Centers? 
    No. Each Program/Accelerator team will only use the logframes or key results from the W3/bilateral projects/programs that have been mapped to their Program/Accelerator and confirmed by them as inputs for the operationalization of the mapping. This information will serve as a reference for updating Program/Accelerator ToCs, developing MELIA Plans, and formulating the PORBs, all due by May 23rd. 

14. The PORB template currently has only one row for adding the AoW and HLO. The same issue applies to the bilateral table, as the bilaterals contributing to the specific AoW can also be more than one, and the bilaterals contributing to a specific HLO in the AoW can also be more than one.
    The PORB template allows for additional rows as needed. At a minimum, the information provided should be at the AoW level for each W3/Bilateral project. A separate row should be used for each connection between a W3/bilateral and the Program/Accelerator. For instance, if a W3/bilateral is mapped to e.g. two different HLOs, use one row for each combination; similarly, if one AoW has e.g. three different W3/bilaterals mapped to it, use one row for each combination. 

15. Please clarify how quantitative impact results from Bilaterals will be counted towards the Programs.
    The requirements at the moment for W3/bilaterals according to the Process Note are: 1) to share key results and/or log frames to enable integration into P/A ToCs, 2) information sharing to enable joint planning (this could include MELIA planning), and 3) sharing of data meeting the minimum data standard (MDS) as outlined in the TRA 25–30 to enable the P/As and PPU to include W3/bilaterals in program- and portfolio-level reporting. Guidance on reporting will be developed and shared as soon as possible.