Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
  • Who we are
  • News
  • Events
  • Publications
  • Search

Secondary Menu

  • Independent Science for Development CouncilISDC
    • Who we are
    • News
    • Events
    • Publications
    • Featured Projects
      • Inclusive Innovation
        • Agricultural Systems Special Issue
      • Proposal Reviews
        • 2025-30 Portfolio
        • Reform Advice
      • Foresight & Trade-Offs
        • Megatrends
      • QoR4D
      • Comparative Advantage
  • Standing Panel on Impact AssessmentSPIA
    • About
      • Who We Are
      • Our Mandate
      • Impact Assessment Focal Points
      • SPIA Affiliates Network
    • Our Work
      • Country Studies
        • Community of Practice
        • Bangladesh Study
        • Ethiopia Study
        • Uganda Study
        • Vietnam Study
      • Causal Impact Assessment
        • Call for Expressions of Interest: Accountability and Learning Impact Studies
      • Use of Evidence
      • Cross-Cutting Areas
        • Capacity Strengthening
        • Methods and Measurement
        • Guidance to IDTs
    • Resources
      • Publications
      • Blog Series on Qualitative Methods for Impact Assessment
      • SPIA-emLab Agricultural Interventions Database
    • Activities
      • News
      • Events
      • Webinars
  • Evaluation
    • Who we are
    • News
    • Events
    • Publications
    • Evaluations
      • Science Group Evaluations
      • Platform Evaluations
        • CGIAR Genebank Platform Evaluation
        • CGIAR GENDER Platform Evaluation
        • CGIAR Excellence in Breeding Platform
        • CGIAR Platform for Big Data in Agriculture
    • Framework and Policy
      • Evaluation Method Notes Resource Hub
      • Management Engagement and Response Resource Hub
      • Evaluating Quality of Science for Sustainable Development
      • Evaluability Assessments – Enhancing Pathway to Impact
      • Evaluation Guidelines
  • Independent Science for Development CouncilISDC
  • Standing Panel on Impact AssessmentSPIA
  • Evaluation
Back to IAES Main Menu

Secondary Menu

  • Who we are
  • News
  • Events
  • Publications
  • Featured Projects
    • Inclusive Innovation
      • Agricultural Systems Special Issue
    • Proposal Reviews
      • 2025-30 Portfolio
      • Reform Advice
    • Foresight & Trade-Offs
      • Megatrends
    • QoR4D
    • Comparative Advantage
Neil Palmer/CIAT
Blog

Future Thinking for Present Decisions: On the Importance of Foresight and Trade-Off Analyses in Agricultural Research Portfolio and Investment Plans

You are here

  • Home
  • Independent Science for Development CouncilISDC
  • News
  • Future Thinking for Present Decisions: On the Importance of Foresight and Trade-Off Analyses in Agricultural Research Portfolio and Investment Plans

Foresight and trade-off analyses are key tools to engage diverse stakeholders by jointly identifying different plausible future scenarios that inform the design and prioritization of investments and policies that aim for longer-run impacts across multiple domains. Shocks such as the current global pandemic COVID-19 emphasize the importance of anticipating multiple possible futures—and their impacts—to advance transformation of interconnected food, land, and water systems in a climate crisis. This blog considers the current design of the One CGIAR research portfolio and investment plan over the period 2022-2024, which offers a unique opportunity to thoroughly integrate foresight and trade-off analyses into ongoing One CGIAR research and management practices.

 

Integrating Foresight and Trade-Off Analyses Into the 2030 CGIAR Research and Innovation Strategy

Most research on agricultural research and development (R&D) investments shows that the measurable impacts typically peak between 10 and 25 years after R&D investments and that the more public goods-oriented the R&D, the greater the lag to impact. Although the current process of One CGIAR research portfolio and investment planning uses just a three-year horizon, it anticipates expected payoffs over the coming decade(s). Foresight is therefore required to anticipate future conditions that will influence when, where, and how much these investments ultimately diffuse, adapt, and scale so as to optimize today's agricultural research portfolio composition and performance.

The 2030 CGIAR Research and Innovation Strategy identified five impact areas. Decision-makers should keep in mind that there is no investment that will affect one of those impact areas without having some effects, many of them unintended but foreseeable, on the other areas. This requires trade-off analysis as a natural complement to foresight. The Independent Science for Development Council (ISDC) has solid experience in both tools with recent publications of foresight reviews and a follow-up ISDC trade-off analysis report, both adapted to a more general audience in the first issue of the peer-reviewed journal Q Open.

 

Easing a Complex Qualitative and Quantitative Process

A key recommendation, when designing a research portfolio, is to consider what demographic, economic, environmental, technological, institutional, or other structural changes might affect the impact pathways of a given research plan. Identifying prospective barriers to adoption, adaptation, and diffusion, and how they might change over time, appears crucial in a foresight process. Foresight does not have to be (exclusively) model based, although modelling can help to seed inclusive foresight discussions and identify (quantify) foreseeable consequences of changes in complex systems.

Quantification can be very useful, but the key step is really an early engagement in research co-design of diverse stakeholders who may have different visions of the future, and together identify performance targets and associated indicators. This can help anticipate prospective impediments, or accelerators, to intended as well as unintended changes, especially on non-targeted impact area(s). Foresight and trade-off analyses methods have to be rigorous but also participatory and easy to explain. The real purpose of the exercise is not so much a ranking or quantification of results, but rather the process of joint identification, monitoring, and evaluation of key performance measures. Regular discussion of those performances’ measures, and participatory revisiting of prior foresight and trade-off analyses, can inform ongoing portfolio review and eventual rebalancing.  

 

Building up the Capacities of One CGIAR and Partners

CGIAR, mostly under the umbrella of the Foresight Team, has been producing and using foresight analyses for many years (for example, the Global Futures & Strategic Foresight project). Given the complexity of interconnected human and natural systems, there is room for improving foresight methods and data. Gender, nutrition, social inclusion, and poverty impacts remain poorly covered, compared to productivity, economic growth, or greenhouse gas emissions impacts. Likewise, foresight analyses rarely convey likelihood intervals nor consider systemic shocks, although the COVID-19 pandemic clearly illustrates the need to consider such low-but-nonzero-probability prospects. Trade-off analyses have been much less common within CGIAR, although some cutting-edge work has been done in collaboration with the Research Centers. ISDC sees considerable value to CGIAR investment in foresight and trade-off analyses capacity within the One CGIAR community, including key stakeholders and partners, and mainstreaming foresight and trade-offs analyses in ongoing One CGIAR research investment planning, monitoring, and evaluation, starting at its inception phase.

Foresight and trade-off analyses can and should permeate all research activities in a structured and systematic way. This can ensure that One CGIAR research portfolio draws on diverse stakeholder perspectives to anticipate possible futures, challenges, and opportunities. Mainstreaming these practices will require implementing mechanisms for identifying and engaging key partners at agri-food system, country, regional, and global scales. Capacity building, including skills, tools, and data systems, will be necessary to make foresight and trade-off analyses routine operational management tools for the worldwide science community and future leaders.

In short, institutionalizing foresight and trade-off analyses across One CGIAR is fundamental to achieving lasting impacts at scale. Wise investment decisions today that consider multiple possible futures and impacts, and routine revisiting of those decisions in an adaptive management model, will maximize One CGIAR contributions to transforming the agri-food systems of tomorrow to benefit the planet and all its peoples.

Share on

Science ISDC
May 03, 2021

Written by

  • Chris Barrett

    Former ISDC Memeber
  • Pierre Boulanger

    Former Advisor, ISDC Secretariat

Related News

Posted on
09 Apr 2025

Join ISDC: Vacancies for Chair and New Members

Posted on
26 Mar 2025
by
  • Ines Gonzalez de Suso
  • Amy R. Beaudreault

ISDC 101: The Nuts & Bolts of the CGIAR Independent Science for Development Council

Posted on
16 Dec 2024
by
  • Domagoj Vrbos
  • Ines Gonzalez de Suso

Thoughts from Inside the Secretariat: Our ISDC Year in Review

More News

Related Publications

Assessments & Commentaries
Science ISDC
Issued on 2024

ISDC Review of 2025-2030 Research & Innovation Portfolio Proposals

Assessments & Commentaries
Science ISDC
Issued on 2024

ISDC Feedback on CGIAR Portfolio Narrative 2025-2030

ISDC Feedback on CGIAR Portfolio Narrative 2025-2030
Assessments & Commentaries
Science ISDC
Issued on 2024

ISDC Feedback on CGIAR Portfolio Narrative 2025-2030

More publications

CGIAR Independent Advisory and Evaluation Service (IAES)

Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT
Via di San Domenico,1
00153 Rome, Italy
  • IAES@cgiar.org
  • (39-06) 61181

Follow Us

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
JOIN OUR MAILING LIST
  • Terms and conditions
  • © CGIAR 2025

IAES provides operational support as the secretariat for the Independent Science for Development Council and the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment, and implements CGIAR’s multi-year, independent evaluation plan as approved by the CGIAR’s System Council.