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

Review of 2025-30 Portfolio

You are here

  • Home
  • Independent Science for Development CouncilISDC
  • 2025-30 Portfolio

In 2024, CGIAR research portfolio for pooled funding—which currently comprises 30% of all CGIAR funding—went through a reorganization. The revised portfolio for 2025-30 resulted in 13 Science Programs, Accelerators, and Asset. 

As part of ISDC’s terms of reference, ISDC provided feedback on the draft and final versions of the Portfolio Narrative, the companion document that essentially is the roadmap for the portfolio. In addition, ISDC conducted a moderated review of the 13 proposals using QoR4D as its backbone. 

Reporting

  • November 2024
    • ISDC External Review of 13 Proposals
    • ISDC Review of Portfolio Narrative
  • May 2024
    • ISDC Feedback on CGIAR Portfolio Narrative 2025-2030
  • January 2024 
    • ISDC Feedback on Emerging Portfolio25 Draft

 

The Process

Each proposal was reviewed by an independent and anonymous review team comprised of three external subject matter experts (SMEs), led by an ISDC member, and supported by the ISDC Secretariat, within the Independent Advisory and Evaluation Service (IAES). The ISDC Secretariat identified SMEs through a competitive roster enrollment that contains more than 200 social and biophysical scientists representing more than 50 countries. The ISDC Secretariat matched SMEs to proposals based on their expertise to each proposal review team, with one serving as a coordinator who aggregated and built a consensus among the team, working closely with the ISDC member proposal lead. The ISDC member lead vetted the matched SMEs prior to the reviews.

  • List of reviewers
  • Areas of expertise of reviewers

To adapt to this independent review and lessons learned from the 2021 assessment, ISDC developed condensed QoR4D criteria, resulting in 11 for Science Programs and 10 for Accelerators and Asset. 

  • QoR4D Science Programs Criteria
  • QoR4D Accelerator/Asset Criteria 

Learn more about the process in this video: 

 

The Process Reviewer Composition and Diversity

Each team had a minimum of one social scientist. The composition was 43% female and 57% male, located across 20 countries, with 70% having a university affiliation. Diversity among the review teams was essential because of the cross-cutting goal of the Initiatives and five Impact Areas. The diversity of the reviewers explains, in part, the variance among the QoR4D scores of each review that can be found in the proposal reporting.                        

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.