120. In introducing this item, the TAC Chair recalled that this topic was placed on the agenda because of the need to shape and better manage the new CGIAR external programme and management review model introduced in 1995. Dr. Selcuk Ozgediz was then requested to present the paper entitled: External review process - refinements suggested by the Secretariats. He stated that the current external review system stood on two legs - an internal self-assessment leg and an external review leg. During the last International Centres' Week, the CGIAR's external review process came under criticism which led to various clarifications and suggestions for its refinement as summarised in the paper under the following headings: appropriateness of the CGIAR's external review model; reliance on Centre Commissioned External Reviews (CCERs); consistency of reviews; influence by TAC-CGIAR Secretariat staff; and cost of CGIAR reviews. He went on to elaborate on the question - where was the CCER process?
121. The most significant change introduced to the external review process over the last two years had been the increasing reliance of the CGIAR reviews on CCERs. This change had been motivated by three main considerations: (i) to encourage. Centres to rely more heavily on focused peer reviews for their own purposes; (ii) to provide CGIAR reviews with more profound assessment of science and management conducted by specialists; and (iii) to streamline the focus of CGIAR reviews. From the outset it was recognized that Centres could commission CCERs for a host of reasons, that some reviews may not meet the requirements of a CGIAR review, and that there might be instances when a Centre finds it inappropriate to distribute widely the results of a given CCER. The implication was that some CCERs would not play a role in CGIAR reviews. CCERs were not substitutes for CGIAR evaluations, but could serve as building blocks for such evaluations if they met certain standards. To the extent that CCERs met those standards, the CGIAR review could focus more on strategic issues.
122. The experience to date had been mixed. Some CCERs had permitted CGIAR reviews to reduce or eliminate their attention to the areas covered by the CCERs. Some had not been utilized by CGIAR review teams because they were not intended to meet CGIAR needs or simply did not reflect the depth of inquiry required or because their results had not been formally considered by the Centre. TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat remained convinced that CCERs had great promise and the underlying rationale remained valid. Even so, there was a need to join Centres in working out a more effective modus operandi, e.g., defining what constituted an adequate CCER for CGIAR review purposes, what should be the timing of CCERs, and to what extent could it be expected that all aspects of a Centre be accorded a CCER. Given the experience to date, it was appropriate to initiate a concerted effort to review the logic of CCERs and, assuming a reaffirmation of their potential role, to redraw the lines of their effective utilization.
123. In opening the discussion, the TAC Chair requested that the discussion focus on the quality of CCERs and their use. In the ensuing discussion, a Board Chair stated that Centres were reviewed so that they could work better. He pointed out that CCERs might or might not be useful; they should not be judged from the EPMR point of view alone but to help the Centres work better. An external review could be more helpful to the Centre if it were a give and take process, including the sharing of panel drafts. Another Board Chair stated that there should be guidelines on CCERs so that they might be conducted to provide better value. A Centre Director General considered that there were far too many reviews taking place and that an attempt to rationalize the review process would be helpful, particularly if the rules of the game were defined clearly. Two EPMR Panel Chairs stated that CCERs were important management tools to make the Centres work better, but they needed to be timed better. If CCERs were to be used for EPMRs then externality and coverage became important; professionals of standing should be asked to examine the Centre activities which the EPMR panel could then evaluate.
124. In closing the discussion, the TAC Chair stated that the topic would remain on the TAC agenda. He noted several useful points had been made which included the following: the mind set conceptualizing the external review process was an important element in defining the usefulness of the reviews; CCERs were multi-purpose in nature; the external review process was a hall-mark of the CGIAR System; and guidelines for CCERs should be framed carefully to provide the needed flexibility. He thanked Dr. Ozgediz for his presentation and the participants for a lively discussion.
