Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Die SlideShare-Präsentation wird heruntergeladen. ×

CRP on MAIZE independent evaluation: Brief summary of findings, conclusions and recommendations

Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige
Anzeige

Hier ansehen

1 von 7 Anzeige

CRP on MAIZE independent evaluation: Brief summary of findings, conclusions and recommendations

Herunterladen, um offline zu lesen

Independent evaluation of CGIAR Research Program on MAIZE: Brief summary of findings, conclusions and recommendations

Independent evaluation of CGIAR Research Program on MAIZE: Brief summary of findings, conclusions and recommendations

Anzeige
Anzeige

Weitere Verwandte Inhalte

Diashows für Sie (20)

Ähnlich wie CRP on MAIZE independent evaluation: Brief summary of findings, conclusions and recommendations (20)

Anzeige

Weitere von Independent Evaluation Arrangement of CGIAR (8)

Anzeige

CRP on MAIZE independent evaluation: Brief summary of findings, conclusions and recommendations

  1. 1. Independent Evaluation Arrangement (IEA) Evaluation Workshop FC13: Bogor, Indonesia Evaluation of CGIAR Research Program on MAIZE Team Leader: Guido Gryseels April 2015
  2. 2. Introduction MAIZE is led by CIMMYT and implemented in partnership with IITA and more than 300 other partners. Aim: Double the productivity of maize-based farming systems, making them more resilient and sustainable and ultimately increasing farmers’ incomes and livelihoods. Main target group is smallholders living in stress-prone environments with poor market access - ~640 million people, 72 million of them maize dependent. Start: late 2011 Total expenditure: USD 225m (over 3.5 year period)+ 49m supplementary funding, of which W1/W2 USD 43m (19% of total)
  3. 3. Main Findings • Promising program delivering results • On track reaching milestones and targets, particularly related to productivity improvement • Strong comparative advantage due to genetic resources, partnerships, long-term presence in and delivery of germplasm in priority regions • Coherent program with good science • Effective and complementary partnerships • History of widespread adoption of improved varieties • Appropriate governance evolving in a positive way
  4. 4. Main Findings RELEVANCE • Coherent set of five Flagship Programs • Clear rationale for research strategies on Sustainable intensification and Stress resilient and nutritious maize • Social science should be cross cutting • Impact pathways should be strengthened for interlinking FPs • Effective priority setting but comparative advantage is changing • Role in deploying finished hybrids? • Need for further integration separate CGIAR programmes • Need for foresight on emerging issues • Low level W1/W2 funding affects focus and integration
  5. 5. Main Conclusions QUALITY OF SCIENCE • Good to excellent quality of research and breeding • Strong publications record • High production of genetic data and germplasm • Scope for learning from best practices private sector • Strong partnerships with ARIs for science quality • Need to link with other CRP’s for agronomy • Need for mentoring young scientists
  6. 6. Main Conclusions EFFECTIVENESS - On target for reaching milestones and goals - Need for dynamic ToCs regarding assumptions - Need common processes, protocols, working methods - Need to standardize data generation - Major investment in capacity development: training, innovation platforms - More analysis on gender needed for priority setting and feedback - Impact assessment strategy needed to enhance use and feedback
  7. 7. Main Conclusions & Recommendations • Added value through broad partnership, good research rationale and strategy, and target-orientation • 11 Recommendations relating to: – Changing comparative advantage – Pro-active research capability – Best practices – Efficiency and effectiveness – Agronomy – Gender – Strategy impact assessment – Single MAIZE program headed by director

Hinweis der Redaktion

  • Limit to standardization – except for quantitative indicators;
    Learning with experts who are implementing IEA approach;

    H-index: limitations – does not lend to comparison across fields of research – it would require to do a much braoder analysis than can be done in the framework of these CRP evaluations, to place the staff in the context of peers from other organizations.

×