The document provides a summary of feedback from the Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC) on the pre-proposal for the second phase of the MAIZE CRP. Some key points from the ISPC feedback include: - MAIZE made a compelling case for further investment in maize research through CGIAR due to its global importance for food security. However, impact estimates need to be refined and validated. - MAIZE's comparative advantage was validated by a recent evaluation but the proposal could be strengthened by integrating sites from other CRPs like Humidtropics. - The overall theory of change and impact pathways are feasible but could show how they contribute to more SDGs. - Some

1. Independent Evaluation Arrangement of CRP maize
 The first part of the review was done in Mexico on May 2014
 Follow up review of regional activities under IITA conducted in Ghana
on September 2014
Relevance
 MAIZE is largely a coherent program
 The unique genetic resources at its disposal
 Its excellent research facilities
 Its considerable breeding capacity
 Its partnerships and global mandate
 Has a strong comparative advantage that is consistent with its
goals, SLOs and the SRF of the CGIAR
Quality of science
 MAIZE has maintained a strong publications record and visibility
in respected journals.
Effectiveness
MAIZE has made solid efforts to define measurable targets and attained
80–90% of milestones

2. Independent Evaluation Arrangement of CRP maize
Capacity development, gender and partnerships
 MAIZE has strong partnerships with the public and private sector
 Effective in ensuring use of the latest advances in science and
research approaches
 Facilitating downstream delivery of MAIZE products
Impact and sustainability
 It is too early to assess impact of MAIZE after only three years of
operation
.
Governance and management
 Governance and management of MAIZE has been satisfactory
 Well managed with clear reporting lines and transparent
decision making
 CIMMYT and IITA provide excellent overall research leadership
and have worked well together
Added value of MAIZE
 Progress in MAIZE is substantial and it is delivering results after only 3
years

3. FP2 Novel diversity and tools FP3 Stress tolerant and FP4 Sustainable intensification FP5 Adding value for maize
for improving genetic gains nutritious maize of maize-based systems and producers, processors and
livelihood consumers
2.1 Informatics, database 3.1 Climate resilient maize with 4.1 Multi-scale farming system 5.1 New and nutritious
management & decision abiotic and biotic stress framework maize-based products
support tools tolerance
2.2 Development of enabling 3.2 Tackling emerging trans- 4.2 Participatory adoption 5.2 Technologies and
tools for germplasm boundary disease/pest and integration of knowledge for small-
improvement challenges technological components to-medium-scale maize
processors
2.3 Unlocking genetic diversity 3.3 Nutritional quality and 4.3 Development and field-testing 5.3 Maize and maize by-
through trait exploration end-use traits in elite of crop management products for animals
and gene discovery genetic backgrounds technologies feed
2.4 Pre-breeding development 3.4 Precision phenotyping & 5.4 Improved post-harvest
of germplasm resources mechanization of breeding storage technologies
operations
3.5 Seed production research
and recommendations
MAIZE-II Flagship Projects (FPs) and Clusters of Activities (CoAs)
FP1 Foresight, targeting, adoption and impact
1.1 Foresight and targeting of 1.2 Learning from M&E, 1.3 Enhancing gender and 1.4 Value chain analysis
R4D Strategies adoption and impacts social inclusiveness
FP6 Scaling-up and scaling-out
6.1 Stronger maize seed systems 6.2 Broad adoption 6.3 Enhanced local capacities
and product delivery of sustainable intensification
options

4. AFS MAIZE Phase-II Pre-proposal: ISPC Feedback
 The MAIZE pre-proposal is very well written and convincingly describes
the global importance of the crop for food security and other uses for the
benefits of the poor
 MAIZE„s expected contributions (estimated number of people lifted out of
poverty or with improved food and nutrition security) to the SRF-SLO
targets for 2030 are significant
 These estimates need to be refined and validated by ex-ante
analysis rooted in a solid impact assessment strategy.
 MAIZE has a large area of influence and presented a compelling case for
further investment in maize research through the CGIAR.
 To tackle major challenges for increasing maize productivity in
developing countries.
 The pre-proposal shows scientific rigor and credibility and cited relevant
literature when appropriate.

5. AFS MAIZE Phase-II Pre-proposal: ISPC Feedback
 The pre-proposal argues for reorganizing its research from being a
commodity program to a “farm livelihood approach‟‟
 Will be further strengthened by integrating several sites from the
Humidtropics CRP
 The MAIZE comparative advantage was validated in general by the recent
IEA evaluation (2015)
 MAIZE impact pathway and Theory of Change
 Show how they contribute to seven of the SDGs, which are closely
aligned with CGIAR SLOs
 The overall ToC is plausible and consistent with the SRF
 The impact pathways are feasible and aligned with SRF IDOs and
sub-IDOs.
 Overall prioritization in MAIZE flagships is good, although not
systematically based on strategic foresight.
 Flagships are still defined by disciplinary boundaries.

6. AFS MAIZE Phase-II Pre-proposal: ISPC Feedback
 MAIZE also provides a plan on how it will operationalize gender and youth
in the maize research agenda
 MAIZE plans to collaborate with DCLAS, RAFS, WHEAT, RTB, Livestock,
A4NH, CCAFS and PIM
Flagsip
ISPC
Rating
FP1 Foresight, targeting, adoption and impact B
FP2 Novel diversity and tools A
FP3 Stress tolerant and nutitious maize A
FP4 Sustainable intensification of maize-based systems B
FP5 Adding value for maize B
FP6 Scaling-up and scaling-out B

7. MAIZE Phase-II Pre-proposal: ISPC Feedback: Gaps
General
 There was not a compelling argument that shows this CRP embraces an agri-
food-system integrated approach
The proposal should clearly spell out the lessons learnt from system CRPs
and Humidtropics and demonstrate how it plans to implement a MAIZE agri-
food system strategy.
 MAIZE should fully justify the rationale for its comparative advantage
 Giving more strategic consideration to the dynamics in demand and use of
maize products (food, feed, fuel) and research supply (private sector, ARIs,
NARS) to establish priorities in the CRP target areas.
 Flagships are still defined by disciplinary boundaries (socioeconomics, genetics,
breeding, Agronomy/farming systems, processing/marketing, and delivery).
 The pre-proposal has not provided clearly how the CRP will focus its future work
on improving the traits necessary for
 Climate change adaptation
 Carbon sequestration
 Aflatoxin contamination
 Striga management given its threat to food security.

8. MAIZE Phase-II Pre-proposal: ISPC Feedback: Gaps
 The pre-proposal does not have a research strategy nor a clear concept on how to
tackle youth-related issues in the AFS.
 Strengthen the gender strategy
 Provide guidelines on how the problems facing youth will be addressed in
the maize AFS in the target regions
Partnerships
 Capacity development has not been addressed as cross-cutting
 Should articulate the effort planned using the lessons learned in previous
phase and from interaction with nation programs as a guide
 To take NARS to the next level
 MAIZE vision for NARS institutional strengthening in the next 10-15
years
 A comprehensive MAIZE partnership strategy will be needed in the full proposal.
 The pre-proposal has not defined the linkages with other AFS in impact pathway
schematics.
 Which linkages can be supported by W1/2 funding need to be addressed

9. MAIZE Phase-II Pre-proposal: ISPC Feedback: Gaps
Partnerships
 MAIZE partnership seems to be largely focused on institutions in the North
 Some potentially key partners (e.g. AGRA) are hardly mentioned
 Some ARIs (e.g. Wageningen University) are disproportionately featured
in almost all FPs
 Recognition of the importance of an enabling environment has not been
addressed as cross-cutting
 It is referred to in most of the FPs under risks and assumptions of impact
pathways
Flagships
 FP1: The FP has not provided a clear indication about alignment of the issues
being addressed and expected outputs with national and regional priorities and
initiatives.
 FP3: The FP has not provided a clear indication about alignment of the issues
being addressed and expected outputs with national and regional priorities and
initiatives
 The FP has focused much more on MLN, but less on Striga and other
constraints, which are devastating to maize production.

10. MAIZE Phase-II Pre-proposal: ISPC Feedback: Gaps
Flagships
 FP4: The FP still needs to articulate the specific scientific hypotheses to be
tested in relation to the ToC and impact pathway.
 FP5: The comparative advantage of the proponents in processing or
“developing innovative and affordable animal feed formulations” needs further
justification.
 FP6: Methods for quick varietal identification need to be made available and
incorporated in this FP
 Need for more research emphasis on seed systems, availability and
access.

11. Thank you!