1 relevance August 2024 Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray, Bettina I.G. Haussmann, David H. Meyer, Glenn James Bryan, Supreme Edwin Asare IAES: Ibtissem Jouini Correct citation: Cover image: Marta Maria Molinari August 2024 Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 Rodrigo Paz Ybarnegaray, Bettina I.G. Haussmann, David H. Meyer, Glenn James Bryan, Supreme Edwin Asare IAES: Ibtissem Jouini i Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Evaluation Purpose, Scope and Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Evaluation Findings .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 1 Background and Evaluation Context .................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Evaluation Scope, Purpose and Use ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Evaluation Criteria and Key Questions ............................................................................................................................................... 7 2 Overview of CGIAR’s GISG ........................................................................................................................................ 8 2.1 Context (Objectives, Research Areas, Expenditures, Results, and Management) ................................................ 8 2.2 Genetic Innovation SG Theory of Change ........................................................................................................................................ 9 2.3 Management and Governance .............................................................................................................................................................. 9 2.4 GISG 2022-24 Budget ................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 3 Evaluation Approach and Methodology ..............................................................................................................13 3.1 Evaluation Approach .....................................................................................................................................................................................13 3.2 Methodological Approach ........................................................................................................................................................................ 14 3.3 Data Collection Methods and Tools ................................................................................................................................................... 15 4 Considerations and Limitations ........................................................................................................................... 16 5 Key Evaluation Findings by Evaluation Criteria/Questions ............................................................................. 17 5.1 Relevance ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 17 5.2 Effectiveness ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 5.3 Efficiency.............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 22 5.4 Coherence .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 5.5 Quality of Science .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 5.5.1 Design...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 5.5.2 Inputs ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 5.5.3 Processes .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 26 5.5.4 Outputs ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 5.6 Partnerships ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 5.7 Gender and Social Inclusion .................................................................................................................................................................. 30 5.8 Review of Uptake of Recommendations from the 2021 synthesis report and the associated MR Action Plans 32 6 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 33 6.1 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33 6.2 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 34 ii iii List of Tables Table 1: Evaluation Criteria and Key Questions (TORs) ............................................................................................................................ 7 Table 2. Status of the uptake of recommendations from the 2021 synthesis report ........................................................ 33 List of Figures Figure 1: SGs (Action Areas) and five Impact Areas (Research Themes) .................................................................................... 7 Figure 2: Managerial and Governance Structure of the GISG ............................................................................................................. 9 Figure 5: GISG 2022-24 Budgeted/Approved/Received Amount .................................................................................................... 10 Figure 3: CGIAR Action Area ToC: GI ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 4: GISG (revised) ToC ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 6: GISG Interviewees by stakeholder type and gender (N=68) ........................................................................................ 15 Figure 7: Online Survey - Profile of GISG respondents (N= 53) ......................................................................................................... 16 Figure 8: Internal stakeholders’ opinion on relevance of the GISG ................................................................................................ 19 Figure 9: Internal stakeholders' opinion on the level of adequacy of resources to achieve specific Outputs and outcomes-GISG .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 10: Internal Stakeholder:The level of gender tagging of initiatives at the design stage-GISG .................... 32 iv Table of Acronyms ARI Advanced Research Institution BT Breeding for Tomorrow CRP CGIAR Research Program CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Ghana DE Development Evaluation DOI Digital Object Identifier EA Evaluability Assessment EiB Excellence in Breeding FAIR Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reproducible GI Genetic Innovation GISG Genetic Innovation Science Group GloMIP Global Market Intelligence Platform IAES Independent Advisory and Evaluation Service IR Inception Report ISDC Independent Science for Development Council IMIC International Maize Improvement Consortium MER Monitoring, Evaluation, and Research MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning MYEP Multi-Year Evaluation Plan MR Management Response MS Market Segments NARES National Agricultural Research and Extension Systems PMEL Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning PMP Program Management Platform PP4I Private Partnerships for Impact QoR4D Quality of Research for Development QoS Quality of Science RAFS Resilient Agrifood Systems RII Regional Integrated Initiatives RTE Real-Time Evaluation v SARI Savanna Agricultural Research Institute SDG Sustainable Development Goal SG Science Group SP Science Program SIMEC Strategic Impact, Monitoring and Evaluation Committee SME Subject Matter Experts ST Systems Transformation ToC Theory of Change ToR Terms of Reference TPP Target Product Profile TRICOT Triadic Comparison of Technologies UFE Utilization-Focused Evaluation WP Work Packages W1/W3 Window-1 /Window-3 Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 1 Executive Summary The CGIAR 2030 Research and Innovation Strategy sets the stage for research that provides solutions for development. Priorities set out in the strategy were delivered through 33 initiatives grouped within three interlinked Action Areas: Systems Transformation (ST), Resilient Agri-food Systems (RAFS), and Genetic Innovation Science Group (GISG). This independent engagement evaluates the GI Science Group (GISG), therefore GISG is considered the evaluand. The evaluation scope covers the GISG portfolio implementation from January 2022 to February 2024, excluding the Genebank Platform, which was evaluated in 2023 (see the report). The evaluation criteria include relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, and quality of science (see ToR). The evaluation findings and recommendations should inform strategic decision-making, portfolio design, and the development of new GI and science program proposals. Additionally, the evaluation contributes to decision- making by the CGIAR System Council about the 2025-27 Multi-Year Evaluation Plan inform strategic decision-making, portfolio design, and the development of new GI and science program proposals. Additionally, the evaluation contributes to decision-making by the CGIAR System Council about the 2025-27 Multi-Year Evaluation Plan. Evaluation Purpose, Scope and Methodology The evaluation of the GISG work used mixed methods and a theory-based approach (see ToR). The evaluation team used both quantitative and qualitative data from primary and secondary sources. Aligned to the TORs and Quality of science (QoS) evaluation guidelines, primary data collection was conducted: 68+ stakeholders, which included semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs); and an online survey with total of 450 internal and external respondents, including 53 internal stakeholders associated with GISG. Secondary data collection included reviewing documents and reports. Key considerations included CGIAR evaluation guidelines, 2021 ISDC reviews, evidence from the 2023 Genebank Platform Evaluation report and three case studies (CS): CS 1 on feedback loops among GI initiatives; CS 2 about synergies in CGIAR breeding programs, centers, and targeted markets; and CS 3 about the status of partnerships with NARES and the private sector. These CSs complement each other to provide a comprehensive understanding of change and the contribution of GISG at crop breeding and food systems levels. Evaluation results were shared on several occasions throughout the GISG evaluation to respond to emerging demands from different groups of internal users, to inform strategic decision-making processes unfolding in parallel with the evaluation exercise. in parallel with the evaluation exercise. Evaluation Findings Relevance: There is clear evidence that GISG has engaged with key internal and external stakeholders at various levels to ensure that the breeding goals and priorities of CGIAR are aligned with national and regional needs and priorities, critically including those of farmers and end-users. Better integration with RAFS and other SGs could have strengthened the relevance of the GISG work, as well as improved prediction and orientation capacity (Market Intelligence initiative), enhanced feedback loops within and between GISG initiatives, formalized national and regional breeding networks, better communication with donors and alignment with SDGs, etc. GISG's strategies, rooted in CGIAR's prior interventions, were well outlined through a Theory of Change (ToC), however, critical assumptions and operative mechanisms regarding contribution to early outcomes weren't sufficiently clarified, hampering a common understanding of different yet integrated outcomes to impact pathways. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/6125b92c-01b6-480c-9d69-881cea4579b1/content https://www.cgiar.org/portfolio-narrative/action-area-focus/systems-transformation/ https://www.cgiar.org/portfolio-narrative/action-area-focus/resilient-agrifood-systems/ https://www.cgiar.org/genetic-innovation/ https://www.cgiar.org/genetic-innovation/ https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/publications/cgiar-genebank-platform-evaluation https://cgspace.cgiar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/eedd7b44-4ff7-4406-9d31-91c5e12a4f54/content https://cgspace.cgiar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/eedd7b44-4ff7-4406-9d31-91c5e12a4f54/content https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/publications/applying-cgiar-quality-research-development-framework-process-and https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/publications/evaluation-cgiar-science-groups-results-online-survey https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/publications/evaluation-cgiar-science-groups-results-online-survey https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/cgiar-evaluation-framework-and-policy#:~:text=The%20CGIAR%20Evaluation%20Framework%20and%20Policy%20are%20anchored%20on%20five,documents%20promote%20learning%20and%20transparency. http://isdc/ https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/publications/cgiar-genebank-platform-evaluation Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 2 Effectiveness: GISG has made significant progress in improving breeding program effectiveness by building on the results of the Excellence in Breeding (EiB)1 platform and applying best practices. Mapping Target Product Profiles (TPPs) to breeding programs has provided clear direction, and capacity-building efforts have become more strategic based on recent peer and self-assessments of breeding programs, including NARES. Notably, since 2023, effective changes in testing strategies of breeding programs were reported by the surveys (82%), as well as effective improvements in breeding pipelines (87% of the surveys) However, GISG faced challenges in balancing its focus, as breeding programs are stretched across multiple TPPs, diluting efforts. Excessive reporting demands from funders and bilateral projects, along with unclear integration with other Science Groups (SGs) like RAFS, have further reduced effectiveness. Insufficient integration initiatives between genebanks and breeders also reduced the effectiveness of the GISG work, as well as the lack of a comprehensive variety lifecycle strategy Efficiency: There are evident improvements in crop breeding efficiency within CGIAR and NARES programs, driven by stronger collaboration and improved financial planning. However, the GISG efficiency has been negatively impacted by several challenges. These include budget discrepancies, unexpected funding cuts, and inefficiencies caused by managing multiple CGIAR contact points, which led to confusion and delays. Stakeholders also raised concerns about being overextended and called for clearer prioritization of breeding programs and target traits. The general efficiency of the GISG work could have enhanced by sharing resources, reducing redundancies, learning from each other, fostering synergies and presenting a unified intervention strategy at breeding programs and food systems level. Coherence: The GISG activities are highly coherent, given the consistent approaches in plant breeding across crops. Feedback from Market Intelligence is effectively utilized to provide the product development team with relevant and useful breeding resources. The roles of individual initiatives were clearly defined, specifying their interventions at various levels and stages of the crop-breeding process and detailing their specific contributions through relevant scientific outputs. Additionally, the relationships between the work of the initiatives and the wider GI work in CGIAR (bilateral, W3 and science project funding) were well elaborated for the largest grants. Although the initiatives are coherent, the details of their operations, mechanisms, effects on the crop-breeding process, synergies, and overall impact are not entirely understood and owned by all stakeholders. There is a need of a more explicit systems-oriented approach in breeding and better integration with RAFS and other SGs. There is plenty of room for improvement in aligning with the market needs and preferences of national partners. Quality of Science (QoS): GISG's research is widely recognized by both internal and external stakeholders as being of high scientific quality. The QoS analysis conducted by the evaluation team further supports this finding, showing an impressive number of science outputs produced by the GISG, as well as website visits and downloads of a sample of key science outputs purposefully selected by initiative leaders to be used as part of the QoS analysis. The deliberate inclusion of diverse stakeholders and the focus on gender and social inclusion in research activities have enhanced the credibility and acceptance of the process and outputs. Moreover, the integration of GloMIP and the Breeding Portal demonstrates CGIAR's adherence to FAIR data principles, open science, and equitable partnerships. However, recurring changes, uncertainties, and emergencies have impacted the availability of specialized resources, affecting the consistency of output quality. Cross-cutting Themes Partnerships: The evaluation finds that GISG has been effective in fostering collaborations with NARES, Advanced Research Institutions (ARIs), and private sector partners (several achievements in this particular area were reported and registered). Notable examples, such as partnerships with Intertec and the 1 Evaluated in 2022: https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/publications/evaluation-cgiar-excellence-breeding-platform-eib https://excellenceinbreeding.org/content/about-eib#:~:text=Initially%20an%20official%20CGIAR%20Platform,Breeding%20Resources https://glomip.cgiar.org/target-product-profiles https://excellenceinbreeding.org/event/introducing-new-service-portal-breeding-and-germplasm-resource-requests https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/publications/evaluation-cgiar-excellence-breeding-platform-eib Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 3 International Maize Improvement Consortium (IMIC), highlight GISG's ability to leverage these collaborations for innovation. However, some NARES partners have expressed uncertainty about their roles and alignment with GISG initiatives, suggesting a need for clearer communication that could have helped better understand alignment with and contribution of GISG initiatives. With little familiarity with the A CGIAR Engagement Framework for Partnerships & Advocacy (2022) there was a missed opportunity at CGIAR corporate level to pull out the key lessons from each of the partnerships and put together a capacity-building strategy and corresponding plan to be cascaded through the SGs at different levels. Gender and Social Inclusion: GISG has successfully integrated gender and social inclusion into its breeding activities, particularly through the Market Intelligence platform (GloMIP): gender-related trait preferences into product profiles, ensuring that breeding programs are tailored to the specific needs of men, women, and youth. The development of the Genetic Innovation Gender Strategy, which provides a five-year roadmap (2024-2028), further illustrates this progress, as it guides the implementation of gender-intentional breeding across CGIAR’s priority crops and market segments (this is a major achievement of the GISG in terms of gender and social inclusion across the board). In addition, the involvement of social scientists and the use of over 200 indicators offered by GLOMIP have strengthened stakeholders' ability to prioritize key impact areas, such as gender equality, climate resilience, and health outcomes. have strengthened stakeholders' ability to prioritize key impact areas, such as gender equality, climate resilience, and health outcomes. Recommendations The evaluation team presented the following set of actionable recommendations, with clear targeting of users, and with specific characteristics described in sub-recommendations: 1. GISG: Develop a transitional plan for GISG (the next six months and roll-out starting in 2025) a. Acknowledge and build upon past accomplishments: Document and leverage foundational achievements while addressing challenges from the past two years to inform the Breeding for Tomorrow (BT) Program design and implementation. b. Minimize unnecessary changes: Maintain consistency in effective processes, leadership, teams, and partnerships to foster ongoing success. c. Enhance breeding programs and partnerships: Strengthen CGIAR and NARES breeding programs, their interactions, and public-private partnerships. d. Include key voices in planning: Ensure the participation of individuals with deep understanding in the development of the next design phase. 2. CGIAR and BT science program writing team/management: enhance partnership effectiveness and communication a. Leverage breeding networks: Clarify roles and responsibilities of CGIAR, NARES, and partners in product design, development, delivery, and dissemination; increase NARES's responsibility and autonomy and incorporate Advanced Research Institutions (ARIs), as appropriate. b. Conduct specialized training: Offer short, impactful training-of-trainers modules for scientists on partnership identification, creation, and management. c. Re-balance resources: Ensure appropriate balance between product development, product dissemination and lifecycle management. https://www.cimmyt.org/services/international-maize-improvement-consortium-for-africa-imic-africa/ https://cgspace.cgiar.org/items/02c69880-babc-41ad-9d27-64be1f1f537a https://cgspace.cgiar.org/items/02c69880-babc-41ad-9d27-64be1f1f537a http://glomip/ https://cgspace.cgiar.org/items/7f33a7a0-665b-48df-b905-9ebc1b8ea97f Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 4 d. Promote participatory budgeting: Ensure inclusive and transparent budget allocation processes to boost ownership and motivation. 3. BT science program writing team/management: cultivate leadership with a seed business mindset a. Develop an effective leadership team: Balance scientific expertise with seed business, operational excellence, and change management skills; differentiate technical and leadership roles, dedicating equal effort to both. b. Adopt private sector principles: Integrate successful private company principles into BT practices to deliver better varieties to farmers more efficiently. c. Provide leadership training: Offer training at all management levels to build teams based on empathy, trust, and communication; use proven private sector training modules for soft skill development. d. Align with funders: Maintain close dialogue with funders to align the seed business mindset with CGIAR center finances while upholding CGIAR values. 4. BT science program writing team/management: partner for strategic roll-out and operational excellence a. Clarify roles and responsibilities: Address the current variability in understanding the GISG strategy and individual roles; emphasize effective roll-out, operational excellence, and change management in the new BT science program. b. Balance technical and organizational focus: Evenly allocate resources between technical solutions and continuous operational improvement. c. Design and implement training programs: Design and implement training to foster desired behaviors and celebrate examples of success at all organizational levels. 5. CGIAR: Enhance GI’s role in sustainable agri-food systems a. Promote a common understanding: Ensure GI’s contribution to productivity, nutrition, environmental sustainability, and that inclusion is widely understood. b. Drive market intelligence: Anticipate future genetic innovation needs in response to systemic and other relevant changes. c. Integrate genetic gains into broader contexts: Combine crop improvement with agronomy and plant health research, promoting crop and varietal diversity for resilience and environmental health. d. Strengthen geographic integration: Form transdisciplinary teams to optimize region-specific production and food systems, maintaining methodologies and standards across regions. 6. BT science program writing team/management: insist on a system-wide optimization mindset a. Focus on system optimization: Shift the focus from optimizing individual roles and processes to enhancing the entire system. b. Document role impacts: Recognize and celebrate how each role contributes to overall project outcomes. c. Facilitate coordination and collaboration: Encourage collaboration at regional, national, and global levels with dedicated budget allocations. 7. CGIAR and BT science program writing team/management: rationalize resource allocation Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 5 a. Address budgeting issues: Ensure financial stability to support long-term planning and continuity. b. Align funding with goals: Ensure all funding sources result in complementary goals and activities, providing financial stability and transparent budgeting. c. Foster open dialogue: Establish candid conversations between funders and BT leadership to prioritize activities and their funding effectively. d. Clarify roles and reporting Structures: Define roles for CGIAR and NARES staff working on BT projects and formalize reporting structures. e. Ensure transparent budget allocations: Use unbiased methods during budget allocations, considering contingency budgets to handle potential cuts. 8. CGIAR and BT science program writing team/management: embrace complexity in BT design and implementation a. Utilize complexity tools: Apply concepts designed for complex interventions in complex systems to guide the BT program. b. Co-create a ToC: Develop an overarching ToC with key stakeholders for shared understanding and ownership. c. Develop a nested Program representation: Detail pathways for change, contributions, interactions, feedback loops, and assumptions within the BT program. d. Build a complexity-aware PMEL System: Create a system to fulfil accountability and learning needs, allowing for swift adaptations. 9. CGIAR and BT science program writing team/management: transition to a new era of transformative change in GI a. Reflect on past efforts: Build mechanisms to ensure critical reflection on the past CGIAR research program (CRP)/SG efforts to inform future strategies and approaches in the BT program. b. Implement periodical learning cycles: Use critical reflection cycles to manage transitions towards transformative change within the BT program. Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 6 1 Background and Evaluation Context 1.1 Introduction This Evaluation Report was prepared for the independent external evaluation of the Genetic Innovation Science Group (GISG), which was carried out under the framework of the CGIAR Science Group (SG) evaluations (ToR)2. The evaluation of the GISG was commissioned by the CGIAR System Council and executed by the CGIAR Independent Advisory and Evaluation Service (IAES), with the support of external evaluation consultants and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) (Annex 10). The GISG evaluation was based on the IAES 2022-24 Evaluation Plan,. Aligned to the CGIAR Evaluation Framework and Policy, the purpose of the independent external evaluation of the GISG was to promote learning and lessons and support evidence-based efforts by CGIAR to adapt the 2025-30 portfolio design to reach the ambition and vision of the 2030 Research and Innovation Strategy. Key objectives of the GISG-level evaluation are: • Provide real-time feedback and recommendations to contribute to CGIAR’s institutional learning by those implementing and revising the CGIAR Portfolio. • Facilitate initial accountability for, and learning from, the first two years of implementing the CGIAR Portfolio pertaining to the efficiency and effectiveness of the portfolio. • Assist IAES and SIMEC to identify evaluative needs for the 2025-27 multi-year evaluation plan (MYEP). 1.2 Evaluation Scope, Purpose and Use The IAES within CGIAR is implementing a comprehensive multi-year evaluation plan spanning from 2022-24 . This plan outlines a strategic approach for evaluating the SGs using a cluster-based methodology as the starting point. As per the IAES plan, there is a planned independent external evaluation for the GISG. Therefore, the GISG is the evaluand of this evaluation. Scope: The GISG evaluation focused on learning from the implementation of the GISG Portfolio from January 2022 to February 2024. Even though this evaluation did not cover the GISG Genebanks Initiative, given that it was individually evaluated in 2023 (see report), it did use relevant results to support general findings and recommendations. Similarly, the evaluation did not cover the five Impact Area Platforms; instead, it examined how they interacted with the GISG. Use: Preliminary findings and recommendations of the GISG evaluation were generated and shared with immediate users on various occasions throughout the evaluation to inform strategic decision-making processes, particularly to inform the design of the subsequent portfolio scheduled from November 2023 to May 2024, and help enhance its coherence and efficiency. Furthermore, findings and recommendations are expected to assist in the development and refinement of new GI and other science program proposals. Additionally, the GISG evaluation aims to furnish evidence for decision-making by the CGIAR System Council during their meeting in December 2024. Finally, the evaluation is aimed at steering the identification of parameters for the 2025-27 MYEP. 2 Two other two SG: Systems Transformation (ST) and Resilient Agrifood Systems (RAFS). https://www.cgiar.org/genetic-innovation/ https://www.cgiar.org/genetic-innovation/ https://cgspace.cgiar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/eedd7b44-4ff7-4406-9d31-91c5e12a4f54/content https://www.cgiar.org/how-we-work/governance/system-council/ https://iaes.cgiar.org/about https://iaes.cgiar.org/publications/cgiar-advisory-services-2022-24-workplan https://iaes.cgiar.org/publications/cgiar-advisory-services-2022-24-workplan https://cgspace.cgiar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/46be39f4-f827-4a0f-9575-0af56971294c/content https://www.cgiar.org/how-we-work/strategy/ https://www.cgiar.org/how-we-work/strategy/ https://iaes.cgiar.org/about https://iaes.cgiar.org/sites/default/files/pdf/Advisory%20Services%202022-2024%20MYP.pdf https://www.cgiar.org/initiative/genebanks/ https://www.cgiar.org/research/publication/cgiar-genebank-platform-evaluation-report/ https://www.cgiar.org/portfolio-narrative/action-area-focus/systems-transformation/ https://www.cgiar.org/portfolio-narrative/action-area-focus/resilient-agrifood-systems/ Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 7 Figure 1: SGs (Action Areas) and five Impact Areas (Research Themes) Source: CGIAR 2022–24 Investment Prospectus 1.3 Evaluation Criteria and Key Questions Guided by CGIAR’s Evaluation Policy, the evaluation was framed by targeted evaluation criteria with key evaluation questions as shown in Table 1. The lines of inquiry included: • Comparative advantage and added value. • Compliance with relevant CGIAR frameworks and policies, such as the 2022 Engagement Framework for Partnerships and Advocacy and recommendations from the High-Level Advisory Panel Report on Partnership. • Integration of cross-cutting themes, such as gender and climate change. • Linkages to the five Impact Areas and platforms. In line with the evaluation objectives aimed at promoting learning, decision-making, and accountability for various user and stakeholder groups, the evaluation of the GISG systematically collected, analyzed, and presented relevant information according to the Terms of Reference (ToR). Table 1: Evaluation Criteria and Key Questions (TORs) CGIAR Evaluation Criteria Key Evaluation Questions (1) Relevance 1) To what extent does the GISG research Portfolio respond to the needs and priorities of its internal and external stakeholders? 2) How well have the GISG strategies and objectives been articulated in terms of a ToC and impact pathways and drawing on comparative advantage across the system? https://storage.googleapis.com/cgiarorg/2021/06/Document-SC13_02_Endorsed-2022-24-Investment_-Prospectus.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/cgiarorg/2022/03/CGIAR-Engagement-Framework-29-March-2022.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/cgiarorg/2022/03/CGIAR-Engagement-Framework-29-March-2022.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/cgiarorg/2023/01/Final-HLAP-Report-to-CGIAR-System-Board.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/cgiarorg/2023/01/Final-HLAP-Report-to-CGIAR-System-Board.pdf https://www.cgiar.org/research/cgiar-portfolio/ https://cgspace.cgiar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/eedd7b44-4ff7-4406-9d31-91c5e12a4f54/content https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/publications/terms-reference-cgiar-science-group-evaluations Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 8 CGIAR Evaluation Criteria Key Evaluation Questions (2) Effectiveness 3) To what extent has the GISG initiatives/WP achieved and/or is expected to achieve, its objectives, including any differential results across subgroups of users/clients? 4) How well were the cross-cutting themes of gender and climate change integrated into design and implementation (tagging)? 5) To what extent does the GISG draw on the capacities of the Impact Area platforms and vice versa? 6) To what extent did the GISG design enhance partnerships reach (internal and external) of CGIAR, and how aligned it was to the Partnership Framework (2022)? (3) Efficiency 7) To what extent is the governance and management of the GISG deemed suitable for achieving the objectives? 8) How has the CGIAR Integration Framework Agreement (2022) design and roll-out aided GISGs to effectively stimulate the learning, monitoring, and adaptability of the SG Portfolio, through Initiatives? 9) What are the internal and external factors influencing GISG efficiency within a system of fully independent centers, considering the constraints of limited resources? (4) Coherence 10) How coherent and compatible has been the design and implementation of the GISG Portfolio with Partnership Framework towards CGIAR’s 2030 Research Strategy? 11) How has the GISG operationalized CGIAR’s collective vision in the 2030 Research Strategy and CGIAR's Integration Framework Agreement? 12) In what ways has the GISG addressed key considerations and opportunities for enhancing coherence across, between, and within each SG? (5) Quality of Science (QoS) 13) To what extent does the GISG ensure the Quality of Science (scientific credibility and legitimacy)? 2 Overview of CGIAR’s GISG 2.1 Context (Objectives, Research Areas, Expenditures, Results, and Management) The CGIAR Research initiatives within the CGIAR 2022–24 Investment Prospectus were organized around three Action Areas: Genetic Innovation (GI), Resilient Agrifood Systems (RAFS) and Systems Transformation (ST). CGIAR scientists are organized into three SGs that correspond to these three Action Areas. While each initiative is managed by a specific SG, scientists working on these initiatives typically come from across the CGIAR system and partner organizations. The SGs were an attempt at a fundamental structural change in CGIAR, not just an arrangement to run a portfolio. The initial idea was that the SGs would, in the long run, replace the centers. The aim of this restructure was to make CGIAR fit for the purpose for complex 21st- century problems, rather than structured to address sub-sectoral problems separately via independent centers working on their own commodities or sub-sectors. This initial idea was later modified to a matrix model-that the SGs would provide functional leadership for all CGIAR’s science, while the centers would provide institutional homes for the scientists. The GI SG aims to improve food and nutritional security at global, national, and household levels by enhancing women’s equality of access to genetic resources, ensuring crop improvements lead to meaningful increases in household incomes and poverty reduction, boosting environmental performance, https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/126179 https://storage.googleapis.com/cgiarorg/2023/02/Integration-Framework-Agreement-fully-signed-21Feb2023.pdf https://www.cgiar.org/research/investment-prospectus/ https://www.cgiar.org/genetic-innovation/ https://www.cgiar.org/portfolio-narrative/action-area-focus/resilient-agrifood-systems/ https://www.cgiar.org/portfolio-narrative/action-area-focus/systems-transformation/ Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 9 raising nutritional content and diversity, and breeding for future climates and climatic instability. The GISG explicitly addresses all five CGIAR Impact Areas and integrates environmental sustainability by developing crop varieties resilient to changing conditions and conserving genetic diversity through a global multi- partner Genebank system. Additionally, GISG focuses on place-based integration innovation, working closely with National Agricultural Research and Extension Systems (NARES) worldwide to deliver improved varieties of crops and forages to small-scale farmers in specific geographic areas. This holistic and place-based approach ensures that genetic gains are realized in farmers’ fields, resulting in increased yield, biofortification, pest and disease resistance, resilience, and improved environmental tolerances, ultimately benefiting less resource-endowed producers and consumers across all five Impact Areas. 2.2 Genetic Innovation SG Theory of Change The CGIAR GI Theory of Change (ToC) (Figure 2) outlines a strategic framework aimed at significantly advancing crop improvement. This approach focuses on conserving and utilizing genetic resources, prioritizing breeding investments in high-impact market segments, and developing high-performing crop varieties. The GISG employs precision genetic technologies to accelerate the breeding process and provides tools, technology, and shared services to enhance the efficiency of breeding programs through six initiatives. Additionally, increasing investment in seed delivery is set to ensure farmers have access to improved varieties, boosting agricultural productivity, climate resilience and nutrition. By leveraging CGIAR's capabilities, as well as its innovation and scaling partners' capabilities, the GISG seeks to create innovative partnership models with NARES and the private sector. This collaboration focuses on research, breeding, and scaling up delivery of new varieties. Working in synergy with other SGs, the GISG intervention aims to create an enabling environment for testing and scaling innovations. The GISG contributes to the achievement of seven outcomes by working with demand and scaling partners, and through five Impact Areas to the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In 2023, the GISG developed a revised/working version of the ToC (Figure 3), to highlight entry points and interactions of different GISG initiatives along a generic breeding pipeline (product design, development and delivery). Furthermore, the ToC specifies spheres of control (breeding pipeline), influence (outcomes and impact) and interest (SDGs), the involvement of key internal and external stakeholders across the breeding pipeline, and connections and interactions with other SGs, e.g., ST and RAFS. Above all, the intent of this revised ToC diagram was to provide a framework for connecting CGIAR work to the GI area. 2.3 Management and Governance In terms of management and governance, the GISG is headed by a managing director who reports to the executive managing director of the CGIAR. Reporting to the managing director are the four senior directors, who oversee various departments including Genebanks, Plant Breeding and Pre-breeding, Strategy, and Delivery and Scaling, as illustrated in Figure 4. Each Initiative (Genebanks; Accelerated Breeding; Breeding Resources; Market Intelligence, Seed Equal) is aligned to one department and further divided into Work Packages (WPs), each managed by a WP lead (not included in Figure 4). Thus, Initiative leads report directly to the respective senior directors, and Work WP leads report to their respective Initiative leads (and to their respective centers). Bilateral and Window 3 projects are also represented and aligned to one or more initiatives. Figure 2: Managerial and Governance Structure of the GISG https://cgspace.cgiar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/906ae3f5-8346-41c4-ab23-946102e59adb/content https://sdgs.un.org/goals https://sdgs.un.org/goals https://www.cgiar.org/initiative/genebanks/ https://www.cgiar.org/initiative/accelerated-breeding/ https://www.cgiar.org/initiative/breeding-resources/ https://www.cgiar.org/initiative/breeding-resources/ https://www.cgiar.org/initiative/market-intelligence/ https://www.cgiar.org/initiative/seed-equal/ Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 10 Source: CGIAR, 2022 2.4 GISG 2022-24 Budget Budget data in Figure 5 are for 3 years (2022-24), indicating different stages of the budgeting process: the initial proposal, the approved annual financial plan, and the final budget received. In 2022, the proposed budget was USD 81.5 million, which received full approval from the System Council. However, only USD 73.3 million was received, resulting in a USD 8.2 million shortfall. In 2023, the proposed budget increased to USD 91.9 million, but the System Council approved only USD 75 million. The actual funds received amounted to USD 69.2 million, leading to a significant shortfall of USD 21.7 million compared to the initial proposal and USD 5.8 million compared to the approved amount. This demonstrates persistent difficulties in reconciling proposed budgets with approved and received funds. For 2024, the proposed budget rose significantly to USD 191.6 million. Despite this increase, the System Council approved only USD 79.2 million, with the actual amount received still pending. Over these three years, there was a growing disparity between the ambitious budget proposals and the more modest amounts approved, suggesting challenges in the budget planning and approval processes. Figure 3: GISG 2022-24 Budgeted/Approved/Received Amount Source: 2022-24 CGIAR Portfolio and Designated Financing Plan https://storage.googleapis.com/cgiarorg/2022/01/CGIAR-FINPLAN-2022-24_Approved16Dec2021.pdf Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 11 Figure 4: CGIAR Action Area ToC: GI Source: CGIAR 2022–24 Investment Prospectus https://storage.googleapis.com/cgiarorg/2021/06/Document-SC13_02_Endorsed-2022-24-Investment_-Prospectus.pdf Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 12 Figure 5: GISG (revised) ToC Source: Genetic Innovation Portfolio Narrative, 2022 https://www.cgiar.org/portfolio-narrative/action-area-focus/genetic-innovation/ Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 13 3 Evaluation Approach and Methodology 3.1 Evaluation Approach The CGIAR Evaluation Framework and Policy (2022) guided the general design and implementation of this process evaluation (endorsed TORs). The SG evaluations merged developmental evaluation (DE), utilization-focused evaluation (UFE) approaches and elements of real-time evaluation (RTE), focused on monitoring and real-time learning. RTE was adopted to ensure that authors of CGIAR proposals for the new 2025-30 research portfolio and CGIAR management, and ISDC reviewers. Namely the following steps were undertaken: ✓ Evaluation portal was set-up https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/science-groups-evaluations ✓ Since March, monthly Evaluation Insights were shared with SG teams and key stakeholders, offering methodological insights and updates on early learnings and findings on key topics. The bulletins also kept stakeholders informed about the evaluation process and key events. ✓ Meetings with SIMEC and SC (June 3rd) were conducted, where strategic findings and recommendations were presented. ✓ Two presentations were made to ISDC members, during which lessons learned and findings were shared by subject matter experts. These presentations fostered interactive discussions, offering insights through specific case studies and deep dives. Furthermore, 3 reports with 11 case studies were shared with review teams commissioned by ISDC to conduct ex-ante ✓ Three meetings with management of each Science Group (Genetic Innovation, Resilient Agrifood Systems, and Systems Transformation) were held to launch evaluations, present preliminary results and validate recommendations prior to submitting of reports to SIMEC. ✓ Two meetings were held with the 2025-30 Portfolio writing teams, and permission obtained and exercised to share SG evaluations reports and case studies/deep dives by request. ✓ Regional/Country Briefs and thematic briefs and reports (I,e.e QoS, and a report on the survey results were developed and links widely shared. The briefs summarized the learnings across the three SG evaluations around the priority topics. The Synthesis of Cross SG-learning and additional briefs (on partnerships, climate change, and MELIA) were being developed at the time of endorsing the SG-level evaluation reports. ✓ Several blogs were made public and shared with key stakeholders, highlighting strategic observations from country visits, particularly from the perspective of external partners. Furthermore, drawing on the 2021 Synthesis Evaluation recommendations and other relevant evaluations (e.g. platforms, including Genebanks (2023)), this evaluation assessed how the GISG initiatives during 2022- 24 considered relevant areas holistically through trade-offs/synergy analyses. It also considered the potential benefits and drawbacks of various strategies and actions within thematic areas, and how they interact. Synergies arose from implementing two or more adaptation strategies concurrently with respect to increased productivity, resilience, yield stability, sustainability, and environmental protection. This holistic approach should help CGIAR to make strategic decisions about which markets to serve and which products to develop to address the thematic areas that are being focused on. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/118467/CGIAR-Evaluation-Policy.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://cgspace.cgiar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/eedd7b44-4ff7-4406-9d31-91c5e12a4f54/content https://www.betterevaluation.org/methods-approaches/approaches/developmental-evaluation https://www.betterevaluation.org/methods-approaches/approaches/utilisation-focused-evaluation https://www.betterevaluation.org/tools-resources/real-time-evaluation-working-paper-4 https://storage.googleapis.com/cgiarorg/2024/05/SC20-04a_CGIAR-2025-30-Portfolio-Narrative.pdf https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/science-groups-evaluations https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/publications/evaluation-cgiar-science-groups-results-online-survey https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/publications/2021-Synthesis https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/platform-evaluations https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/publications/cgiar-genebank-platform-evaluation Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 14 A key feature of the methodological approach has to do with the context-specific circumstances under which the GISG was designed and implemented and its strategic importance for CGIAR now. The picture and description below illustrate how the evaluation team understood the pivotal role of GISG work and its critical importance towards the materialization of the evolving One CGIAR concept. Box 1. Symbolic representation of the general GISG Evaluation Approach Finally, the evaluation considered both direct and indirect contributions of GISG work to the improvement of crop breeding systems, processes, and programs, given that at ground level it is the work of CGIAR crop breeding programs that are more visible and accountable. A distinctive piece of the evaluation approach was understanding the added value of GISG work, making explicit the operative mechanisms by which initiatives and WPs contribute to the improvement of crop breeding systems, processes and programs, and through that to the development of more sustainable and inclusive food systems. 3.2 Methodological Approach The evaluation team used a mixed methods approach (see ToR), combining quantitative and qualitative data and information from primary and secondary sources. Key considerations included adherence to CGIAR evaluation guidelines, incorporation of 2021 ISDC reviews and recommendations, evidence from the recent Genebank Platform Evaluation3, and three case studies: Case Study 1: Feedback loops among the GI initiatives; Case Study 2: Synergies in CGIAR breeding programs, centers and targeted markets. ; Case Study 3: Status of partnerships with NARES and private sector. Primary data collection involved 68 interviews (individual and group interviews), observations, and a survey (Annex 6 and general SG results4). Secondary data collection included GISG document reviews and reports. A series of tailored analyses were conducted, including: • ToC analysis: involved a detailed examination of the ToC to understand how it was developed, revised, updated and used (see Annex 1, Figures 1 and 2). 3 https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/publications/cgiar-genebank-platform-evaluation . 4 https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/science-groups-evaluations January is named after the Roman God ‘Janus’. Janus was the god of beginnings and doorways (to the future). Janus is generally depicted with two faces in opposite directions as he supposedly can see both the future and the past. - The recent past being the foundational work of One CGIAR through CRPs, platforms, etc. -The present being the transitional work of the GISG so far, through initiatives and WPs (‘doorways to the future’). -The future being the consolidation work through the Breeding for Tomorrow (BT) science program. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/eedd7b44-4ff7-4406-9d31-91c5e12a4f54/content https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/publications/cgiar-genebank-platform-evaluation https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/science-groups-evaluations Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 15 • Portfolio analysis: included analyzing the portfolio of initiatives and WPs, focusing on leadership, objectives, budget, primary impact areas, targeted countries of operation, and the addressed SDGs, based on data and information availability (see Annex 9). • QoS analysis: included the analysis of the general production of scientific outputs by initiative, and the analysis of the most relevant and influential scientific outputs by initiative. • Additionally, the evaluation team considered recommendations from the 2021 synthesis report and the associated management action plans, as well as the Genebank evaluation report. The 2021 synthesis report identified specific gaps and management responses with action plans to address these gaps. As part of the evaluation, the team assessed the progress of action plans (see Annex 10). The three case studies were conceived and designed using a set of criteria (see Annex 1, Table 2) to respond both to specific (as intrinsic case studies) and general (as instrumental case studies) questions regarding the ways the GISG operated in line with its ToC. The case studies are not independent pieces of work, but ones conceived and designed to complement one another, and altogether contribute to tell a bigger story of change and contribution of GISG work (executive summaries can be found in Annex 2 and reports are avaialable upon request). 3.3 Data Collection Methods and Tools Primary data was collected through interviews and a survey. Furthermore, data collection included field visits to Ghana and Kenya, and specific online interviews with external stakeholders in Tanzania (NARES), as well as with several private sector informants at national, regional and global levels, and donors. The findings were triangulated with interviews and survey results, as well as with the results of other analysis (e.g. portfolio, quality of science, ToC). Interviews: The GISG evaluation team conducted interviews with stakeholders using both online and face- to-face methods. Face-to-face interviews were conducted during country visits to Ghana and Kenya, employing a combination of focus group discussions and individual interviews. In total, 68 stakeholders affiliated with the GISG were interviewed, comprising 48 (71%) males and 20 (29%) females, and representing different types of stakeholders and geographic regions (Figure 6). Figure 6: GISG Interviewees by stakeholder type and gender (N=68) Source: IAES SG Evaluation Survey, 2024 49% 34% 13% 3% 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% CGIAR ARI, NARIS, NARES Private sector Donor/Funder Academia/University Distribution of Interviewees by Stakeholder Type (N=68) 71% 29% Distribution of Interviewees by Gender (N=68) Male Female Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 16 Online Survey: The IAES conducted an online survey of the stakeholders of the three SGs (GI, RAFS and ST) to collect both quantitative and qualitative data on relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, QoS, and cross-cutting themes of gender, climate change and partnerships (see report here). The online survey was open from 26 April to 15 May 2024. While the survey was released in English, Spanish questionnaire was available upon request. A total of 437 responses were received across the three SGs, with 53 responses (30 males and 23 females) from internal stakeholders affiliated with the GISG. The geographical distribution of the 53 stakeholders spanned 23 countries across six continents (see Annex 6, Table 2). The findings from this survey were triangulated with data from interviews, document reviews, and other analytical approaches, as described in the subsequent section. Figure 7: Online Survey - Profile of GISG respondents (N= 53) Source: IAES SG Evaluation Survey, 2024 The survey results indicate a diverse group of CGIAR stakeholders, including management, scientists, funder, and administrative support (see Figure 7). Many respondents have a long-term involvement with CGIAR, with half having over a decade of experience, suggesting a stable and experienced group committed to CGIAR (from here onwards respondents from this group are called internal stakeholders). 4 Considerations and Limitations Disclosure of information: Despite the evaluation team's assurances of strict privacy and confidentiality of interviews, some stakeholders, particularly CGIAR staff, fear disclosing information. This was mitigated largely by a continuous assurance of privacy and anonymity throughout the interview process. Scheduling conflicts: Due to conflicting schedules, it was challenging to find suitable times for interviews between the evaluation team and stakeholders. This issue was mitigated by the evaluation team's flexibility in conducting some interviews early in the morning and others late in the evening. Responsiveness of points of contact: The evaluation team faced delays from country points of contact, necessitating changes in-country visits. Consequently, the evaluation team visited Ghana and Kenya, and had to cancel the visit to Tanzania. Specific online interviews with key internal and external stakeholders were conducted in Tanzania to gather data and information for the three case studies. 1.9% 15.1% 32.1% 51% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Donor/Governance Body Support and Administrative Staff (CGIAR) Management/Leadership team (CGIAR) Scientist/Researcher/MELIA/ PhD student (CGIAR) Distribution of GISG Survey Respondents by Stakeholder Type (N=53) 57% 43% Gender distribution of GISG survey respondents (N=53) Male Female https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/publications/evaluation-cgiar-science-groups-results-online-survey Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 17 To mitigate for the above and as part of the standard QA, across three SG evaluation teams, IAES conducted a layered quality assurance system, which involved: 1) an internal peer review within the evaluation teams; 2) a second-level review by IAES; and 3) an external peer review mechanism(s) and the evaluation reference group of IAES. 5 Key Evaluation Findings by Evaluation Criteria/Questions This section presents the key evaluation findings based on the criteria/questions listed in Table 1. Sources of data and information were used to support the findings as presented here onwards. 5.1 Relevance There is clear evidence that GISG has engaged with key internal and external stakeholders at various levels to ensure that the breeding goals and priorities of CGIAR are aligned with national and regional needs and priorities. These priorities include increase in productivity, resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses and climate change adaptation, gender-related considerations, grain quality traits, and better nutrition, thereby fostering genetic gains in farmers’ fields. By design, representatives of farmers and end- users participate in the Market Intelligence Initiative. They contribute especially to the identification of market segments (MS) and target product profile (TPP) design. More explicit feedback loops between product delivery (Seed Equal) and product design and development activities have the potential to further increase the relevance of GISG work. In addition, a more production/food-systems-oriented breeding approach, and better integration with RAFS, especially with agronomy and plant health research, could further strengthen the relevance of GISG activities. Such integration with RAFS could go hand-in-hand with a geographic integration effort in each country/region or agroecology. Transdisciplinary teams consisting of breeders, agronomists, plant pathologists, economists, nutritionists, social scientists, farmers, and end-user representatives would cooperate to address region-specific needs, optimize production/food systems, and collaborate with local partners and policymakers, to enhance climate change adaptation, environmental health, and nutrition. While enhancing the geographic integration and regional implementation focus, consistent methodologies and standards should be maintained across regions. There is a significant opportunity for Market Intelligence to put more energy/resources into predicting future needs. Most breeding takes a long time, and that means that Market Intelligence must be predicting market needs seven to fifteen years out and TPP is designed from that information. The real value of Market Intelligence is in looking forward, not just refining current data. Major donors are influential players when it comes to priority-setting at different levels (CGIAR crop breeding programs, as well as at national, regional and global levels). However, GISG aims at a prioritization that reflects the triangulation of regional/national, scientific (i.e., evidence based), and funder priorities. In doing so, GISG work already influenced, and can further influence, donors in the future, for them to more effectively respond to national, regional and global needs and priorities based on evidence (e.g. based on high-quality data and information on potential outcomes and impacts generated by the Market Intelligence Initiative). This is crucial to strengthen partnerships and to meet the SDG agenda. https://iaes.cgiar.org/ Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 18 For instance, a donor remarked, "One recent development we are excited about is the formalization of breeding networks. These networks involve shared responsibilities and decision-making among CGIAR and NARES partners. They concentrate on shared market segments and product profiles, significantly integrating NARES into CGIAR's work". During the online key informant interviews (key internal and external stakeholders), as well as during the field trip in Ghana, participating NARES partners confirmed that interaction with CGIAR was intensified compared to pre-2022, with an increased number of meetings, trainings, international workshops, and joint research activities. NARES scientists felt they were being listened to by CGIAR partners. Savannah Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) reported more ownership for joint activities with CGIAR because people’s opinions and needs were more considered (co-creation). For example, in Ghana, the One CGIAR has become more responsive to the needs of NARES and priorities during the last two to three years. To further enhance relevance, some NARES wish to be more closely integrated into the leadership teams and decision-making processes of the GISG. Furthermore, online interview results revealed that respondents have a strong positive perception of the applicability of CGIAR’s research, as one NARES stakeholder remarked: "The practical applications of CGIAR's findings are evident, making it highly relevant for implementation by end-users". In Ghana, GISG supports the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) rice breeding program to achieve Ghanaian National Research and Development priorities, namely, to reach self-sufficiency in rice and reduce rice imports from Vietnam and Thailand. Such alignment with national priorities reflects the important level of relevance of the GISG and its partner NARES in Ghana. The strategies and objectives of the GISG were well articulated in terms of an overarching/high-level ToC that was built upon the work of previous CGIAR interventions at system level (e.g. Excellence in Breeding (EiB) platform5). A ToC analysis conducted by the evaluation team revealed that critical causal assumptions about the contribution of initiatives and key research outputs to the achievement of early outcomes at crop breeding programs level (CGIAR and NARES), were not sufficiently explored or made explicit from the outset, nor throughout the implementation process, even with the development of a revised and more detailed version of the GISG ToC (See Figures 2 and 3). One example of critical causal assumptions about change and the contribution of GISG work not made explicit has to do with the importance of synergies and feedback loops between GISG initiatives, between GISG initiatives and crop breeding programs, and between GISG initiatives and crop breeding programs with the private sector, something intentionally explored by the three case studies that are part of this evaluation. Another example relates to assumptions regarding successful collaboration, as stated by one key informant: there is evidence in GI that scientists and technicians across the centers do want to work together. However, the organizational structure of independent centers with very different administrative rules, coupled with certain incentives among top management of those centers, militates against the kind of cooperation and enabling environment that scientists and technicians seek. While common goals and a desire to work together are essential for successful collaboration, so too is attention to resolving the administrative and managerial barriers to this collaboration. The design and production of key research outputs, in terms of their expected contributions to early outcomes along impact pathways, could have provided better insight and communication on how all CGIAR workstreams—whether CGIAR initiatives or bilaterally funded projects—individually and collectively contribute to transformation at crop breeding systems level. Periodical and critical assessments of critical 5 https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/publications/evaluation-cgiar-excellence-breeding-platform-eib. https://csir-sari.org/ https://www.csir.org.gh/index.php https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/publications/evaluation-cgiar-excellence-breeding-platform-eib Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 19 causal assumptions and progress along impact pathways would have helped reach a common understanding about change and contribution. This also would show the added value and comparative advantage of GISG work from the outset and throughout the implementation process, enhancing its relevance among internal and external stakeholders. Moreover, it could have helped coordination efforts within and between GISG initiatives. Although it can be argued that a two-year timeline was too short for multiple assessments against the ToC, and that a critical review of the ToC was indeed planned for 2024 (initiative later on dismissed by the new leadership), it is clear that at least one learning cycle involving key internal and external stakeholders could have helped enhance ownership of the ToC and create swift innovation processes. The GISG largely operated in line with its overarching ToC (both original and updated versions). The high- level rationale of the GISG remains current and relevant, however, there have been interesting changes along the way, revealing that there was room for even more purposeful and intentional learning and adaptation. The rationale behind the Market Intelligence Initiative is a good example of change given its evolution from a more instrumental focus on equity and impact to a more transformational focus on informing, prioritizing, and steering genetic innovation efforts at national, regional and global levels. The fact that it is now placed at the beginning of the pipeline depiction of GISG work instead of the end (see Figures 2 and 3) clearly shows an explicit recognition of its relative importance and relevance. It also suggests recognition of an interactive cycle rather than a simple pipeline. Revisions of the original ToC conducted in 2023 (Figure 3) more clearly illustrate envisaged feedback loops among the initiatives, but still as a linear process (a pipeline with only three intervention and interaction points between initiatives), instead of a comprehensive one with several intervention and interaction points at different levels of crop breeding systems and processes (see case studies in Annex 2). Figure 8: Internal stakeholders’ opinion on relevance of the GISG Source: IAES SG Evaluation Survey, 2024 Case study 1 of this evaluation revealed that in practice, synergies, co-creation, and feedback loops are strong among Market Intelligence and Accelerated Breeding/Breeding Resources initiatives. After the Market Survey (which consults all types of stakeholders including farmers and end users), economists and breeders Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 20 work together to design the choice trials where producers and other stakeholders choose trait combinations of interest. These choice trials feed into the product profile design. The integration of the Global Market Intelligence Platform (GloMIP) and the Breeding Portal marks a significant achievement in CGIAR GI toward more effective digital tools for breeding pipelines, promoting collaboration and transparency. By implementing a cohesive data management approach, these platforms drive CGIAR genetic innovations to new heights. Feedback loops from Seed Equal back to Market Intelligence were not yet visibly in place (more depending on personal relationships and interactions than on specific and formally established mechanisms), but such a feedback system is presently being worked on. In doing so, it will be important to also integrate data and learnings from partner private sector seed companies, as they might have profound insights and data regarding production and adoption constraints, and regarding the robustness/resilience of the newly introduced crop varieties. Taking these into account can in turn enhance the producibility and scalability of future new varieties. 5.2 Effectiveness To what extent have the GISG initiatives selected/WPs achieved and/or are expected to achieve, the objectives, including any differential results across subgroups of users/clients? By building on the results of the EiB platform6, GISG illustrated significant progress in achieving results through the application of best practices. The mapping of TPP to breeding programs provided clear direction to breeding pipelines. Based on recent peer and self-assessments of partners' levels of breeding activity, strengths, opportunities, and ambitions, it has become clearer which program, including NARES, needs capacity building. This allows for strategic assistance. Additionally, ensuring selection mimics the end use of the variety, 82% of breeding programs reported changes to their testing strategies in 2023 based on quantitative genetics and biometrics principles. There has been an increasing use of Triadic Comparison of Technologies (TRICOT), large numbers of farmers test candidate varieties on their own farms and provide feedback. Furthermore, measuring genetic gain in a standardized way has shown positive results. Realized genetic gain for yield was reported for 13 crops across centres, and was positive for 87% of pipelines, with 122 out of 140 pipelines showing improvement. GISG is encouraged to continue to monitor the evolution of realized genetic gains in its breeding pipelines, so that longer-term comparisons of the GISG impact on breeding efficiency can be made. Looking at successful activities and delivered research outputs, there is clear evidence that GISG initiatives and WPs made progress towards conducting activities and delivering research outputs as planned and expected (Annual reports 2022 and 2023, and Portfolio Analysis–Annex 9). Moreover, there are clear indications that the usefulness and potential of key research outputs are recognized by internal and external users/clients, particularly in terms of precision (markets and products), improving crop breeding systems, and shortening crop breeding processes. This finding about the usefulness and potential of key research outputs was substantiated using different sources of data and information, including interviews and survey results,. Despite the positive achievements, evaluation recognizes that GISG breeding and research efforts are stretched across a large number of targets. There are more TPP or more traits built into a TPP than most programs can do effectively without diluting the effort across all TPP. This is a prioritization issue. This issue is further exacerbated by the demands of external funders and bilateral projects leading to excessive reporting 6 https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/publications/evaluation-cgiar-excellence-breeding-platform-eib . https://glomip.cgiar.org/ https://www.rtb.cgiar.org/tricot/ https://www.cgiar.org/portfolio-narrative/action-area-focus/genetic-innovation/ https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/publications/evaluation-cgiar-excellence-breeding-platform-eib Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 21 (e.g., multiple reports with similar content packaged in slightly different ways for different groups) and conflicting demands on staff time, thereby reducing the overall GISG effectiveness. This issue, particularly regarding a reduction in the overall effectiveness of the GISG work, was mentioned and highlighted by initiative and WP leaders across the board during the interview process. Evaluation findings echo results and agree with recommendations from the recent Evaluation of the Genebank Platform that reported a lack of mechanisms to encourage linkages between genebanks and breeders, mainly due to the lack of funding for cooperative work and a lack of joint objectives. Enabling a better integration between the two could further improve GISG effectiveness. Concretely, the evaluation recommendation to “Expand efforts to encourage and facilitate the use of genebank collections” (Rec. 9) still stands. There was little evidence for a deliberate variety lifecycle management strategy. Entities releasing varieties must manage their entire life cycle, from introduction to discontinuation. The Seed Equal group should help with this process and ensure Market Intelligence can anticipate replacement needs. When discontinuing a variety, an improved alternative must be available to farmers, accounting for characteristics valued by them. These characteristics might not always be known to Market Intelligence and breeders. To adhere to the do-no-harm principle, feedback from diverse farmers is crucial to avoid discontinuing varieties that still hold value, especially for vulnerable communities. While decisions on discontinuing varieties may not be CGIAR’s sphere of control, CGIAR can control that the key traits valued by consumers are part of the new variety. There is no strong evidence suggesting that there was sufficient integration with other SGs (something expected at least from CGIAR interventions at food-systems level). For example, evaluation findings suggest that there was room for stronger integration with the RAFS SG, especially with the Excellence in Agronomy and Plant Health initiatives, and stronger geographic integration. Such integration could lead to a more production-systems-oriented approach in a target geographic area with stronger positive outcomes in terms of climate resilience, nutrition, and environmental health. Strengthened collaboration and feedback loops between GISG initiatives and partners such as the private sector or large development projects experimenting with/scaling the SG outputs, could render the GISG even more effective to reach envisaged impacts. Online survey results indicate a generally positive perception among internal stakeholders about improvements in the effectiveness of CGIAR post-2022. However, some internal stakeholders feel disconnected from policy incidence efforts, with 27% (out of 45) unsure about their own role and contribution. One respondent noted: "I am not sure which level of policy pathways we are discussing, and I do not see how my work contributes to country-level policy". Acknowledging that not all GISG staff are encouraged to interact with policy processes, but rather to focus on their area of expertise (e.g. breeding), this quote could be taken positively. However, it could also mean that some people are not aware, although they should be. It is a survey limitation that the functions and roles of the respondents are not known to the evaluation team. Feedback on multi-scale governance was mixed among internal stakeholders, with 51% agreeing on its effectiveness but 20% uncertain, highlighting a need for clearer communication (see Annex 6). While almost three in five (58%) support CGIAR's innovative approaches with some stated earlier, such as TRICOT and Target Product Profiles, concerns about resource allocation and a narrow focus on scaling initiatives persist. Despite concerns, internal respondents manifested strong support to scale the work of successful initiatives to ensure sustained progress and broader impact. Improvements on the effectiveness of genetic innovation efforts of the CGIAR post-2022 were also reported by several internal and external stakeholders interviewed during the evaluation process. Among external https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/publications/cgiar-genebank-platform-evaluation https://iaes.cgiar.org/evaluation/publications/cgiar-genebank-platform-evaluation Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 22 stakeholders, the factors of improvement most commonly mentioned are the existence of a new integrated approach that looks at crop breeding systems, processes and programs as a whole (pipeline approach), more participation in decision-making processes, improved availability of and access to modern tools and resources, tailored capacity building strategies, plans and processes, and demand led possibilities to improve local crop breeding infrastructures. It is important to highlight here and throughout the findings section that most of the external interviewees, particularly NARES representatives, can’t differentiate and fully understand the value added of the GISG work as one integral part of the CGIAR work. In other words, they see the CGIAR work as one single intervention at crop breeding system level. 5.3 Efficiency Promising improvements in breeding efficiency are more visible in CGIAR crop breeding programs (based on document reviews as well as on survey and interviews analysis) than in NARES crop breeding programs (based on interviews). Promising improvements in breeding efficiency were identified and evidenced in CGIAR breeding programs since 2022. CGIAR breeding programs build more on strengthened partnerships, shared resources, synergies, and joint learning. Further measures of the GISG to increase efficiency from a governance and management perspective include financial planning security, building more on the comparative strength of each partner, engaging even more with succession planning in breeding programs, and having fewer and more constant CGIAR contact persons interacting with the NARES in each target country, avoiding redundancy and conflicting requests. Additional collaboration and feedback loops with private sector partners is also increase efficiency. Training on management as part of GISG activities seemed to be effective and efficient, leading also to improved succession planning and reporting, and continuity of breeding programs. Many of the interviewees (internal stakeholders) felt like they were being pulled in many directions and could not focus as they used to since 2022. From an evaluation perspective that could be a clear positive indication of them being pushed to think and act outside the box (systems thinking under circumstances of uncertainty and emergency). However, at ground level (CGIAR and NARES crop breeding programs) it could also negatively indicate that they had to respond to individual demands from initiatives and even WPs, compromising not only the efficiency of GISG work, but also the efficiency of CGIAR and NARES crop breeding programs. Many internal and external interviewees felt like crop breeding programs were being asked to breed for more TPPs than they had resources for (product development and delivery). The evaluation teams see an opportunity for open and honest dialogue and a co-creation process to determine the realistic number of TPPs that can be developed by specific CGIAR and NARES crop breeding programs, followed by a transparent identification and prioritization process. What are the internal and external factors influencing GISG efficiency within a system of fully independent centers, considering the constraints of limited resources? Large discrepancies between the planned and approved budgets for GISG initiatives are affecting efficiency. The following summarize sentiments from internal stakeholders: "Firstly, finance has been a significant issue. The problem lies in the uncertainty surrounding our budget at the beginning of each year. There have been instances where our budget has changed unexpectedly, sometimes even being cut halfway through the year. This makes it incredibly challenging to plan and execute our initiatives effectively, especially when it comes to agricultural projects where timing is crucial." Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 23 "Regarding challenges, at the initiative level there has been a 60% budget cut while at the work package level about a 20% budget cut." Additionally, another internal stakeholder emphasized the broader impact of financial constraints, explaining that these financial issues emphasized the need for more stable and predictable budgeting to ensure the effective planning and execution of GISG initiatives (see Efficiency section). Moreover, key external informants consistently highlighted the challenge of dealing with multiple and frequently changing CGIAR contact persons. So far, the SG constellation does not appear to have reduced the number of CGIAR contact persons compared to the previous system of having contacts at each individual CGIAR center. Each new contact person forces NARES partners to re-explain the context, leading to inefficiency. A reduction in the number of contact persons to one per country and two per region and documenting internal briefs/materials for onboarding new CGIAR contacts, could increase the efficiency of GISG work. The current situation, with multiple contact people and a lack of feedback loops, results in conflicting and redundant requests to CGIAR and NARES breeders, making them inefficient. Furthermore, the online survey revealed that almost 36% of the internal stakeholders felt that the initiative's resources—funds, human resources, time, and expertise—were insufficient to achieve the expected outcomes (see Figure 9 below). Many respondents also believed that the efficiency of the entire system could be improved with increased funding and capacity building for NARES. There is a contradiction between the highly efficient reported outputs, the considerable budget cuts that negatively impact this efficiency, and the negative perception among internal and external stakeholders regarding the likelihood of achieving expected outcomes due to insufficient resources. Figure 9: Internal stakeholders' opinion on the level of adequacy of resources to achieve specific Outputs and outcomes-GISG Source: IAES SG Evaluation Survey, 2024 The general sentiment of respondents revealed the need to continue and reinforce the ongoing efforts to increase the efficiency of the CGIAR–NARES collaboration system by sharing resources, reducing redundancies, learning from each other, fostering synergies, and presenting a unified intervention strategy. The specific suggestion was to reduce the number of centres and stations, and improving the performance Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 24 of those that remain. The informant suggested that CGIAR should "be as centralized as possible and as decentralized as needed". However, structural changes involve more than just efficiency; they also relate to politics, ownership, and other factors. Therefore, the challenge lies in determining how and at what level this can be best achieved in future science programs. The evaluation team found evidence of visible actual improvements in crop breeding efficiency within CGIAR and NARES programs because of the GISG work in terms of financial planning security and better partner collaboration. Some interviewees revealed concerns about being stretched too thin and the need for more transparent TPPs prioritization processes. In other words, there is a need for more prioritization in the number of TPP and/or in the required traits of the TPP that better match what the breeding network can achieve. Significant discrepancies between planned and approved budgets for GISG initiatives impact efficiency, with stakeholders noting unexpected budget changes and cuts. The challenge of dealing with multiple CGIAR contact persons leads to inefficiency, and streamlining contact points is suggested. These points highlight the need for stable budgeting and efficient management to optimize the effectiveness of GISG initiatives. It took longer than expected to put the overall GISG work up and running. The roll-out process required: 1) building a new governance structure, reaching a basic understanding about change and contribution; 2) negotiations and agreements with internal and external stakeholders specifying roles and responsibilities; 3) looking for and hiring human resources with specific experience and expertise; and 4) developing and implementing new management systems, processes and tools. Targeted capacity development at different levels, on one hand negatively affects the efficiency of GISG work on a short-term basis, and on the other hand, positively affects it on a medium- to long-term basis. In any case, there is no sufficient evidence suggesting that identified shortfalls negatively impacted the GISG work. The envisaged transition to science programs should be designed in a way to assure continuity where appropriate and implement changes only where needed. A lengthy and inefficient startup period as with the GISG should be avoided. In summary, GISG initiatives face efficiency challenges due to the highly erratic inflows of finance to GI that do not fulfill the required budgets. Some key external stakeholders suggest reducing the number of contact points from CGIAR and improving resource allocation. Enhanced funding and capacity building for partners is essential for achieving desired outcomes and improving overall crop breeding systems, processes and program performance. 5.4 Coherence The GISG activities are highly coherent, given the consistent approaches in plant breeding across crops. Feedback from Market Intelligence is effectively utilized to provide the product development team with relevant breeding resources. The roles of individual initiatives were clearly defined, specifying their interventions at various stages of the crop-breeding process and detailing their contributions through relevant scientific outputs. Additionally, the relationships between the work of the initiatives and the wider GI work in CGIAR (bilateral, W3 and science project funding) were well elaborated for the largest grants. To further corroborate this finding, the online survey results showed that over two-thirds of both the internal and external stakeholders acknowledged the coherence of GISG initiatives. Survey results (see Annex 6) reinforced this finding, showing that coherence has reduced research duplication and improved alignment of interventions (about 21% of respondents disagreed). One member of a NARES said: "We collaborated with CIMMYT to streamline variety development across different countries and avoid duplication of efforts. In Uganda, the focus was on brown finger millet, while Tanzania concentrated on light brown finger millet, ensuring that resources were optimally allocated." Furthermore, an internal CGIAR stakeholder remarked the following on center priorities: Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 25 "Overall, there is a commitment to coherence and alignment with [CGIAR] center priorities, with ongoing efforts to enhance collaboration and efficiency within the group." Although the initiatives and WPs are coherent, the details of their operations, mechanisms, effects on the crop-breeding process, synergies, and overall impact are not clearly understood by all stakeholders. These concerns likely stem from issues with clarity in communication. Furthermore, demands from bilateral and externally funded projects can dilute GISG’s focus and coherence, and despite considerable effort over the past two years, there's still room for improvement in aligning with the market needs and preferences of national partners. Several interviewees mentioned that the strong donor dependency of NARES and a certain conflict between external priorities and local needs can hinder implementation of their own coherent priorities. Some NARES scientists wish to include locally important, nutritious, niche or underutilized crops in their breeding work, and the question raised was, whether this could be integrated in GISG work, although these crops are beyond the currently CGIAR–bred crops. CGIAR does not have a small budget for each partner country or for NARES to implement genetic and phenotypic diversity studies, nor for initial genetic improvement activities in minor, locally important crops (especially those that play a role in food and nutritional security and climate resilience of the most vulnerable and poor farming communities and/or women farmers). In a geographically focused, holistic and production/food-systems-oriented approach, including locally important crops would add coherence. This issue can also hinder the potential outcome and impact of GISG work. In the context of limited resources, CGIAR should at least continue to support the work of NARES and universities in partner countries to work on diverse crops primarily via capacity support-i.e. including breeding teams of ‘minor, ‘orphan’ and ‘opportunity’ crops in common data architecture, training opportunities, and access to equipment and services (including externally procured services). In what ways has the GISG addressed key considerations and opportunities for enhancing coherence across, between, and within SGs? A key to success of variety adoption is to predict performance in the cropping system in which it will be grown. When asked, several NARES breeders who were interviewed indicated that there was not enough attention given to how the crop was going to be grown or what type of cropping system, if any, it would be part of. There are many potential variables to be considered, these include intercropping, relay cropping, organic/regenerative, systems, and double cropping. Neglecting the target cropping system in breeding efforts reflects a lack of coherence between GISG and other SGs, especially RAFS and ST. This issue needs to be solved if there is to be real impact. It points again to the need of a more systems-oriented approach in breeding, better integration with RAFS and ST SGs, and the potential usefulness of geographic integration during implementation of future CGIAR science programs. In summary, the GISG activities are highly coherent due to their consistent approaches in plant breeding across centers, programs and crops and more effective use of feedback loops among initiatives, notably from Market Intelligence to breeding programs. Clear role definitions and interventions for various stages of crop breeding have been recognized by over two-thirds of survey respondents (internal stakeholders). However, there is a gap in considering how crops will be grown in specific cropping systems, leading to a potential misalignment with RAFS and ST groups and a missed opportunity to tackle climate resilience, better nutrition and environmental health. 5.5 Quality of Science To what extent does the GISG ensure the QoS (scientific credibility and legitimacy)? Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 26 5.5.1 Design The GISG largely ensured the production of high-quality outputs by considering users, practical uses and potential implications, which explicitly addresses the influence they are going to have among key stakeholders, and, to the specific contributions they are going to make to the achievement of expected outcomes and transformative change at systems level, as specified in the ToC. The survey results align with this finding, showing that over 90% of internal stakeholders perceive the research outputs of GISG as credible (see Annex 6). One statement supporting this view is: "CGIAR's research outputs are consistently reliable and trusted by the scientific community". 5.5.2 Inputs Uncertainty in financial and human resources was the norm much more than the exception for GISG. Several interviewees (internal stakeholders) stated that there is always a risk of losing highly specialized, trained, and valuable human resources who are unwilling to cope with uncertainty about funding and emergency (rapid reaction to changes, no sufficient time to think about potential implications and discuss changes with external stakeholders, particularly NARES), inevitably affecting the continuity of research efforts and the production of high-quality outputs. The survey findings corroborated the uncertainties surrounding the inputs of research at GISG that could pose a quality risk to the outputs produced. Stakeholders consistently highlighted issues related to funding and resource management. Decreased funding and increased competition for financial resources were common themes, with one comment noting the scaling down of funding and the need for accountability for funding across different centers. The unpredictability of resources (the bane of CGIAR interventions) complicates research continuity, impacting the design and implementation of research. One participant observed, "Continuous downsizing or adjustments affect the quality of research design". 5.5.3 Processes The evaluation team found several examples of collaborative processes that supported the production of high-quality scientific outputs. One is the integration between the GloMIP and the Breeding Portal that now aims at also integrating Seed Equal data and information (something to be encouraged and supported). The integration of these platforms underlines CGIAR’s commitment to findable, accessible, interoperable, and reproducible (FAIR) data principles, open science, responsible innovation, and equal partnerships. Although there is a CGIAR Research Ethics Code that guides CGIAR efforts, there seem to be no effective mechanisms in place that guarantee the participation of external stakeholders in the production of high- quality scientific outputs. Several interviewees from NARES manifested that their work and contribution should be more recognized, that they should be more effectively involved in production processes and be part of capacity-building initiatives (mentoring by CGIAR to better contribute to and lead the production of high-quality research outputs). More recognition and effective participation of external stakeholders, not only NARES, can enhance ownership among external users, accelerate use, and improve the relevance of GISG work. 5.5.4 Outputs The GISG research outputs have generally been perceived as of high quality. Over 85% of internal stakeholders that responded to the online survey agreed that the GISG produced high quality research outputs (see Annex 6) and perceive that they are highly relevant for targeted users. Several key external stakeholders interviewed (actual and potential users of GISG science outputs), including NARES, the private sector and donors, recognized the usefulness as well as the actual and potential contribution of key GISG science outputs to the improvement of breeding systems, processes and programs at national, regional and https://excellenceinbreeding.org/toolbox/tools/glomip-global-market-intelligence-platform https://excellenceinbreeding.org/toolbox/tools/welcome-cgiar-portal-breeding-services https://cgspace.cgiar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/fe85558e-45be-4851-b2ab-c2f9542ffb94/content Genetic Innovation Science Group: Evaluation Report 2024 27 global level. The QoS analysis further supports this finding, showing an impressive number of website visits and downloads of a sample of key GISG science outputs purposefully selected by initiative leaders to be used as part of the QoS analysis. Additionally, the development, availability and accessibility, and potential of TPPs (GloMIP) has been widely recognized by internal and external stakeholders (developers as well as targeted users). The use of GloMIP transcended the CGIAR sphere and it is already informing GI eff