International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) seeks to engage the services of an individual consultant, or a group of researchers affiliated with an institution to do rigorous evidence synthesis of scientific knowledge on various aspects of climate change and agri-food systems. A total of five such evidence syntheses will be commissioned. Given the CGIAR's and ILRI's mandates, the scope of this evidence synthesis will be limited to countries in the Global South, specifically those in Africa, Asia, and South America.
ILRI works to improve food security and nutrition and reduce poverty in developing countries through research for efficient, safe, and sustainable use of livestock. It is the only one of 15 CGIAR research centers dedicated entirely to animal agriculture research for the developing world. Co-hosted by Kenya and Ethiopia, ILRI has regional or country offices and projects in East, South and Southeast Asia as well as Central, East, Southern and West Africa. www.ilri.org
Scope of Work for the Consultant
Proposals for conducting evidence synthesis using well-established protocols and methodologies are invited on any of the following broadly defined topics:
Topic 1: Impacts of climate change on agri-food systems now and in the future, with a particular focus on:
Health (either human health โ physical or mental health, animal health, or environmental health) related impacts of climate-induced extreme events such as extreme heat, droughts, and floods. Incomes, livelihoods, GDP, economic growth-related impacts of climate change on the agri-food sector including synthesis of evidence which links economic and/or non-economic loss and damage information in LMICs to climate change induced hazards. Impacts of climate change on smallholder producers, especially women farmers, Indigenous Peoples, and other marginalised communities in the Global South and their agricultural practices, including farming, livestock keeping, and fishing. Impacts of climate change on agrifood landscapes and ecosystems including land degradation and soil health, biodiversity, and water quality;Topic 2: Effectiveness of current or future adaptation measures to droughts, floods, pests, and diseases and value chain interruptions [roads, shipping, etc.] in the context of agriculture and agri-food systems, with a particular focus on:
Effectiveness (including cost-effectiveness) of climate information systems, early warnings, and agro-advisories in reducing climate change-related risks for smallholder producers[1]; Effectiveness (including cost-effectiveness) of insurance products for reducing climate-related risks for smallholder producers; Effectiveness (including cost-effectiveness) of genetic and agronomic innovations (e.g., drought- or flood-resilient seeds and production systems) coupled with various on-farm management practices in reducing climate-related risks for smallholder producers. Effectiveness of migration (in all its forms) and off-farm livelihoods in reducing climate-related risks for smallholder farmers. Effectiveness of socio-technical adaptation bundles and locally led adaptation (LLA) principles to identify effective adaptation options.Topic 3: Effectiveness of mitigation and low emissions pathways in the agri-food sector in reducing emissions without compromising food security, with a particular focus on:
Effectiveness (including cost-effectiveness) of various emissions reduction strategies in agri-food systems in the global south; Effectiveness (including cost-effectiveness) of various reducing nitrous oxide emissions reduction strategies from fertilizers in the global south; Changing dynamics of land and water as carbon sinks due to ongoing greenhouse gas emissions and their implications for current and future food production; Contribution of agrifood systems as a driver of deforestation; contribution to expanding domestic capacity for R&D. Effectiveness of measures to reduce energy and value chain emissions in agrifood systems.Topic 4: Innovations in climate finance and national R&D systems for understanding how resource-poor women and men food system actors in the Global South can access finance and innovations, with a focus on:
4.1 Effectiveness of existing climate finance mechanisms and/or interlinkages among various finance institutions for effective agrifood system transitions in economies in the Global South
4.2 Readiness and effectiveness of national agricultural research centres and other national-level agricultural research and development organisations in the Global South on research related to climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation in the agri-food sector.
Topic 5: Innovations in methodologies for measuring impacts of climate change and effectiveness and efficacy (including cost-effectiveness) of adaptation and mitigation measures, with a special focus on:
5.1 Methods for quantifying climate change's impacts on food, water, and land systems and their consequences on food security, income, and livelihood.
5.2 Methods for tracking and measuring the effectiveness of adaptation in reducing climate risks in the agri-food sector with a special reference to smallholder producers;
5.3 Methods for measuring greenhouse emissions from any activity within the agri-food sector value chain, with a particular focus on methodologies that contribute to Tier 2 and Tier 3 type methodologies.
Within the above-outlined topics, the actual scope of the reviews could be as broad or as narrow as needed. For example, if the primary focus of the review is on health-related impacts (Topic 1.1), a narrowly focused evidence synthesis/systematic could concentrate on one single occupational group (say, smallholder farmers, livestock herder, or fisherfolk) or one part of the value chain (say production or post-production processes), or tackle only one or two selected climate hazards (slow onset event or extreme event);. In contrast, a broadly focused one could focus on a single geography and examine various occupational groups, as well as multiple hazards and slow-onset events. We welcome applications across varying scopes and geographies, provided the geographies are from the Global South.
This call is a part of CGIAR's Climate Action Science Program's Area of Work 1 and is being led by ILRI. However, the topics for evidence synthesis are not limited to ILRI's mandate on livestock alone but should cover the topics mentioned above.
ILRI works to improve food security and nutrition and reduce poverty in developing countries through research on the efficient, safe, and sustainable use of livestock. It is the only one of 11 CGIAR research centers dedicated entirely to animal agriculture research for the developing world. Co-hosted by Kenya and Ethiopia, ILRI has regional and country offices, as well as projects, in East, South, and Southeast Asia, as well as Central, East, Southern, and West Africa. www.ilri.org
Methodology
Evidence synthesis should employ a systematic approach, such as a systematic review, including:
A protocol that has a clear definition of the scope of the review, the method (includes cumulative reviews such as scoping review, mapping review, and descriptive review or aggregative reviews such as systematic reviews, meta-analyses, realist and umbrella reviews (also known as overviews of reviews), with explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria Comprehensive literature search and review. Define what sub-sectors are focused on in each systematic review. Use of scientometric analysis where peer-reviewed literature is limited. Synthesis of findings to identify gaps, trends, and key insights.Timelines and deliverables
The entire commission is expected to be completed within nine months from the date of signing the contract. Key milestones and deliverables include:
Month 1: Inception Report (deliverable 1) Month 2: First draft of protocol for scoping review and systematic maps (deliverable 2) Month 3: Final protocol for a scoping review and a systematic map published on either CGSpace (CGIAR's document repository) or any other publicly available specialized repository (deliverable 3) Month 4: First draft of the scoping review and systematic map (deliverable 4) Month 5: Final draft of the scoping review and a systematic map published either on CGSpace or any other public repository or submitted to a journal for publication (deliverable 5) Month 6: First draft of protocol for systematic review/meta-analysis protocol (deliverable 6) Month 7: Final protocol for systematic review/meta-analysis published on CGSpace (CGIAR's document repository) or any other publicly available specialized repository (deliverable 7) Month 8: First draft of systematic review/meta-analysis (deliverable 8) Month 9: Final draft of systematic review/meta-analysis ready for submission to a journal (deliverable 9) and a PowerPoint presentation (deliverable 10). The PowerPoint presentation must summarize all outputs (protocols, systematic maps, systematic review) and key findings and takeaways for a lay audience.Essential skills and qualifications
The selected individual consultant or group of researchers affiliated with an institution should possess:
Advanced degree (Master's or PhD) in fields related to climate change, with experience in carrying out rigorous evidence synthesis, including systematic reviews and meta-analysis. The principal investigator must have at least 5 years of research/academic experience and particularly proven expertise in conducting meta-reviews in related fields of study Proven experience of working with interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary teams is an advantage A track record of publishing systematic review papers in peer-reviewed journals is essential.Reporting and Coordination
Teams will work remotely with regular bi-weekly (twice a month) reporting to the project manager at ILRI via regular online calls.
Consultancy Fee: By mutual agreement based on agreed milestones and deliverables.
Post location: Home-based
Contract duration: 9 months
How to apply: The applications should not exceed 8 pages (excluding the title page and list of references, and an annex containing CVs of team members and names of referees). Your proposal must follow the specified structure and adhere to the word limits. Any proposal that does not adhere to these instructions will not be considered.
Title page (1 page, will not count towards word limits):
Title of the proposed review: Title should be self-explanatory Identify the topic number to which this call responds (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and so on). Ideally, your review should address only one topic. Include the names and affiliations of the team members, as well as their respective roles in this proposed review. We encourage applications from diverse teams in terms of disciplines, gender, and nationalities. If the topic is related to Indigenous Knowledge, there must be an Indigenous Knowledge holder in the review team. In annex 1, please provide a 2-page CV of each of the team members.Summary (2 pages โ 1000 words maximum) -- Given the large volume of applications that we receive, a small screening team from among the proposal evaluators will read the 2-page summary document to decide whether the proposal will go to the full team of proposal evaluators for further consideration. Therefore, please ensure that this 2-page document includes a comprehensive summary of your proposal.
The summary of the proposal should have the following sections:
Problem definition, justification for the proposed review and objectives of the review Research questions that can be answered effectively through systematic reviews using PICO/PECO framework. A brief description of the methodology, which should include standard steps such: Strategy for scoping of evidence and a search strategy including key search terms and search strings. Strategy for a protocol using ROSES diagram A tentative idea about the volume of the literature, along with databases that will be searched (peer reviewed, published and/or grey literature) Eligibility criteria for inclusion and exclusion of literature that helps answer the research question within the PICO/PECO framework Plans for data coding and extraction โ mention any software that will be used Plans for critical appraisal and synthesis, including if any critical appraisal tool, will be used. Plans for assessing internal and external validity, and criteria for assessing risk of bias Your main stakeholder groups โ those who may have an interest in the research questions or are likely to use the evidence for their work. Plans for use of evidence and its disseminationSection 1 (1 page, 500 words) Background and justification
Provide background and justification on why the chosen topic (which must fall within the list of broad topics identified in this call) is important from a policy perspective, what is the current status of knowledge on this topic, including if there is existing evidence synthesis on this topic, and how your evidence synthesis will fill in a knowledge gap thatโs worth filling.
Section 2 (ยฝ page, 250 words): Objectives and research questions
Explain the objectives and formulate the research questions that the review will address. Formulate the research question using PICO/PECO framework used in environmental evidence synthesis.
Section 3 (3.5 pages, 1750 words) Review method
Please follow the standard methodologies for systematic reviews and structure this section, making sure you have covered all the needed steps, such as protocol design, search strategy, search words and strings, sources of information, likely volume of the literature you expect, inclusion and exclusion criteria, plans for data extraction and coding, critical appraisals and synthesis, and plans for assessing internal and external validity and risks of bias, and expected outputs.
Section 4 (ยฝ page, 250 words) Involvement of stakeholder groups
Describe your stakeholder group. Stakeholder groups would include anyone (individuals or organizations) who have an interest and influence in the way you design your review questions or anyone who may be interested in using the evidence you generate for their work. Please describe how you will incorporate feedback from these identified stakeholder groups during the design stage, as well as during the dissemination stage.
Section 5 (ยฝ page, 250 words): Publication and dissemination strategy
List possible journals where you will want to publish your review, and a brief plan for dissemination of your results.
References (limit to 10-15 references only, this will not count towards your word limit)
Annex (this will not count towards word limits, but keep it brief)
Evidence of previous work on systematic reviews, which should not exceed 1 page. Here is a list of all publications related to systematic reviews by the PI and team members. Bios of PI and team members, which should not exceed two pages per person. Activity and deliverable plan in a Gantt chart (assume projects are commissioned by Aug-Sept 2025, and continue for 9 months). The names and addresses (including telephone and email) of three referees who are knowledgeable about the candidate's (or the team's) professional qualifications and work experience, particularly in context of their expertise in systematic review.Applicants should send a cover letter and full proposal (maximum 8 pages for main proposal, supported by Annex) expressing their interest in the consultancy assignment to the Head of People and Culture through our portal ilri.simplicant.com on or before 22 July, 2025. The position title and reference number 1935/2025 should be marked on the subject line of the cover letter. We thank all applicants, whether individuals or teams, for their interest in working at ILRI. Due to the volume of applications, only shortlisted candidates will be contacted.
ILRI does not charge a fee at any stage of the recruitment process, including application, interview, processing, or training. ILRI also does not require information on applicants' bank accounts.
To find out more about ILRI, visit our websites at http://www.ilri.org/