Purpose: Show how the Program learned and adapted during the year. 

Format: 1,000 words total for the  Adaptive Management enablers you choose to mention: 

• Evidence and learning. You must include this enabler and explicitly reference the Evaluability Assessments recommendations you plan to address and the expected outcome.

• W1/2 Funding and Financial Planning  

• W3/Bilaterals Data 

• Risk Management  

• Demand and Scaling Readiness  

Guidance:

• For each enabler, provide concise information on the approach, planned actions, and expected results. 

• Not all enablers need to be mentioned; only include the adaptive management enablers that are applicable. 

• If adaptive decisions relate to multiple enablers, select the most relevant and avoid repeating content across sub-sections. 

• Where relevant, this section may also draw on Program-specific data and metrics that informed learning and adaptation. Ensure that appropriate sources are cited. 

• For Risk Management, please use the Export PDF function from the Risk Management Module and paste it into your Technical Report. 

• If you need support in drafting this section, contact: planningandadaptivemanagement@cgiar.org    

Reflect on how evidence shaped strategic or operational adaptive management recommendations in 2025. 

Guiding Reflect Questions

• To what extent were planned outputs, outcomes, and impact achieved as set out in the ToC and PORBs? 

• Do the ToCs need to be updated with revised indicators or result types?

• Where do MELIA findings and quality-assured results show strong performance, underperformance, or outliers—and why?

• Is the MELIA plan appropriate and does it need to be revised with more realistic costings and studies underpinning key outcomes and impacts?

• What IAES evaluability findings should inform future design or measurement?

• What key lessons emerge from audits, ISDC reviews, and independent evaluations?

• Based on evidence, what should be continued, adjusted, or stopped?

• Are the KPIs sufficiently clear, concise, and accurate? Were the KPI review recommendations implemented ?

• Reflect on the logic of how the 2030 Outcome targets were set? Do outcome targets need to be revised?

• Are the plans to provide evidence for achievement of outcome and impact goals sufficient?

Resources

• MELIA findings

• Quality-assessed and reported results stakeholder feedback and demand signaling; audit reports

• CGIAR’s Independent Advisory and Evaluation Service (IAES) and publications from  ISDC,  SPIA  and the  Evaluation function.

• Result Dashboard

• MELIA Hub

• CGIAR Zero Draft Reports

Reflect on how financial planning and resourcing were recommended to be adapted in response to evidence or funding conditions.  

Guiding Reflect Questions

• How well did budget allocations and actual resource use support delivery of program objectives?

• Where did flexible funding mechanisms add value or face constraints?

• Do expenditure and burn-rate data indicate under- or over-utilization of resources, and why?

• What lessons from prior planning and replans should inform current-year adjustments?

• What budget changes were made, and were approval processes clear and transparent?

• What resourcing adjustments are needed for the replan phase?

Resources

• Approved PORBs

• Center Financial allocations

• Expenditure and burn-rate data

• Analysis of flexible funding mechanisms; performance review evidence

• Documentation of budget changes and approvals[AP1] 

• Lessons from previous planning and replan cycles

Reflect on recommendations related to  non-pooled funding and how it is integrated into planning and delivery.  

Guiding Reflect Questions

• To what extent are W3 and bilateral projects aligned with the current Program/Accelerator ToC and overall portfolio priorities?

• How have the mapped W3/bilateral projects contributed to planned outputs, outcomes, and impact pathways? Where are contributions strong, weak, or unclear?

• Where do pooled and non-pooled investments reinforce each other, and where are there gaps, overlaps, or fragmentation?

• Does the distribution of pooled and non-pooled funding reflect strategic priorities and expected results? Are there mismatches between investment and contribution?

• Is the current mapping of W3/bilateral projects to specific ToC results still valid, or does it require adjustment?

• What coordination lessons have emerged, and what concrete adjustments are needed in the next planning or replan cycle?

Resources

• Mapping Dashboard

• 2025 Results Reporting Monitor

• Program and Accelerator ToCs

• Planned results and budgets for W3 and bilateral projects

• Budget information

• Documentation of coordination and collaboration practices

• Lessons learned from previous cycles

Reflect on how risk identification influenced strategic or operational changes 

Guiding Reflect Questions

• Which risks materialized during implementation, and how effective were mitigation actions?

• Which risks were well managed, and which require different approaches?

• What new or emerging risks were identified during the year?

• How did risk events affect delivery of results, timelines, or budgets?

• Based on these reflected risks, what updates should be made to the risk registers in the  PRMS Risk Management Module to strengthen future risk management?

Resources

• • PRMS Risk 

    • Submitted risk registers

    • Documented risk mitigation actions

• Risk Management Update - March 2026

• Information on risk materialization and outcomes

• Lessons learned related to risk management

Note: we are working on updating the export function to provide you with a summary of your risks and related mitigating actions.  It should be available by mid-March  2026. 

Reflect on how evidence and learning translates into decisions about responsible upscaling, adaptation, replication, or downscaling of innovations.

Guiding Reflect Questions

• Which innovations progressed along scaling, adaptation, or replication pathways during the previous cycle, and what evidence demonstrates their effectiveness and relevance across contexts?

• In which settings did scaling perform as expected, and where did contextual factors such as institutional capacity, gender and equity dynamics, environmental conditions, or political economy enable or constrain results?

• What assumptions underpinning scaling strategies were validated or challenged during implementation, and what unintended consequences, positive or negative, were observed for people, systems, or environments?

• What trade-offs emerged between scale, speed, depth of impact, inclusiveness, and sustainability, and how were these managed in practice?

• Which innovations required adaptation, phased scaling, or responsible downscaling, and what lessons can be drawn from these decisions based on evidence and learning?

• How did stakeholder and end-user feedback inform understanding of adoption, ownership, and system-level effects, and how should these lessons inform revised scaling pathways, resource allocation, and partnership strategies in the Replan phase? 

Resources

• S4I Scaling Task Team 

• Demand Intelligence Dashboard