Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page


PREFACE


This is the report of the Sixth External Programme and Management Review (EPMR) Panel appointed to evaluate the research programme and management of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). The composition of the Review Panel and short biodata of its members are given in Appendix I. The Terms of Reference for this Review are found in Appendix II. In this EPMR less time than in previous ones was spent at the Centre and Panel members consequently did more work away from the Centre. The Guidelines for EPMRs, revised for this EPMR, are presented in Appendix III.

The EPMR Panel was guided by the general objectives of EPMRs: (a) providing the CGIAR members with an independent and rigorous assessment of the institutional health and contribution of the Centre; and (b) providing the Centre and its collaborators with assessment information that complements or validates their own evaluation effort. It reviewed IRRI’s past performance, achievements, strengths and capabilities, institutional health, and vision in the light of what IRRI’s role should be to contribute effectively towards serving poor households depending on rice, and sustaining the production environment in the future.

The Panel itinerary is provided in Appendix IV. The information, on which the Panel based its decisions regarding the key concerns and issues, and its assessments and conclusions, was gathered in a number of ways. These included:

The Panel’s point of departure was the 5th EPMR of IRRI and its key recommendations and analysis. The recommendations, IRRI’s responses and the Panel’s observation on progress are given in Appendix VI.

The Panel made every effort to conduct the review in an open and transparent manner. Due to the relatively short time spent at the Centre during the Main Phase, as compared to the earlier EPMR process, the Panel was not able to interact with individual staff members as much as might have been desirable during a process the outcome of which is of major interest to staff. However, the Panel members interacted with key Project and Programme staff during both visits to discuss key issues and receive clarification. During the Main Phase, daily contact was kept with the DG for discussing emerging issues and practical arrangements. Panel drafts were shared with the Centre for factual corrections.


Previous Page Top of Page Next Page