About us-hidden menu

2013

2013-08-16T20:59:50-05:00

An internally commissioned external review was undertaken in the last quarter of 2013 by the CGIAR Independent Evaluation Arrangement – IEA (see terms of reference on the IEA website).

This review was at the request of GCP management and Executive Board, with the consent of the GCP Consortium Committee. The summative review was deemed necessary as GCP's sunset in December 2014 approaches.

Short news article on the 2013 review ratings and main conclusion, with a brief recap on previous reviews
Report of the final review (April 2014) (3.27 MB)
For a high-level summary of the main review elements, methodology, findings, conclusions, recommendations and GCP's response to the review report, see the Evaluation Brief on the IEA website.

2009

2012-09-02T00:48:45-05:00

The CGIAR Challenge Programme experience: A critical analysis – February 2009

A contribution to the CGIAR reform and programme design by four Challenge Programmes established by the CGIAR in 2002–2004 (Challenge Program on Water and Food, GCP, HarvestPlus and the Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Programme).

This white papter was prepared for the first meeting of the CGIAR Consortium Planning Team (CPT) with the Alliance Executives and Deputy Executives (17–20 February 2009).

2007

2012-01-04T01:51:35-06:00

Evaluation of EC Contribution to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Country Note--Generation Challenge Programme, CIMMYT, Mexico (417.5 kB)
2007 Annual Research Meeting (ARM) Survey Results (This survey included a section on GCP in general, and not just impressions on the ARM. For this reason, the survey was administered by a neutral and independed third party, in a bid to ensure candid responses from participants. Summary of findings on GCP: "In regard to GCP in general, 85% of survey respondents had a very good or good impression. 75% of respondents felt the GCP is doing a very good or good job creating synergy among institutions. 81% of people felt the GCP is doing a very good or good job supporting their work as scientists. And, 82% of respondents had a very good or good impression of GCP communications.")

2008

2012-01-04T01:49:58-06:00

Summary of results and actions: In a marked difference to the 2007 ARM survey, the 2008 version focused entirely on the ARM, with the exception of one open, non-ARM-related question, which addressed the crucial question of future investments, as follows:

One of the purposes of the ARM is to map and/or validate future directions in terms of GCP’s investments in research. From what you gathered at the ARM, please state one clear area that you consider GCP should invest in as a top priority.

Clustering the open-ended responses, we can report that nearly half of the respondents (44%) indicated breeding tools as the top priority for future investments. View full survey results

2010

2012-01-04T01:49:11-06:00

Review by European Commission, November-December 2010 - final report
Report by Scientific and Management Advisory Committee (SiMAC) for IBP