Day 2 at GCARD and the CGIAR reform is still hot on everyone’s lips. A small blue pamphlet laid out in the press room today may look boring, but its content is far from it.
It contains the results of an informal survey of 13 large funders and more than 16 CGIAR centre chairs, director generals and deputy director generals, and suggests that these key stakeholders perceive the CGIAR to be failing in every one of its six ‘reform guiding goals’.
The survey was conducted informally by Hartmann, head of the International Insitute for Tropical Agriculture in Nigeria and vocal critic of the CGIAR reform (see CGIAR reforms make research decision-making distant).
It asked ‘funders’ and ‘doers’ to rank, from 1 to 5, how well the CGIAR reforms have achieved goals such as increased outcome and impact, simplicity, clarity, decentralised decision-making and subsidiarity.
The CGIAR failed to score above the ‘pass’ mark of 2.5 in any goal, although several respondents felt it was too early to assess some goals—most notably, those associated with impact, effectiveness and subsidiarity.
Hartmann includes some lively comments from respondents:
“The goals are too blah and self delusory—they do not allow choices to be made. We need clear principles and measurable criteria to differentiate options and quantify/qualify progress”, T. Simons.
He also includes some personal recommendations for the reform process, such as considering mega-programmes based on commodities or regions (rather than global) and streamlining administration requirements.
Hartmann said he is disseminating his pamphlet to GCARD delegates and using it to show that not all members of the CGIAR are happy.