CMAG 2017 Self evaluation review

 15 November 2017

 Review of the 2017 CMAG self evaluation document

 @Cathy Richardson

Please post your final responses in the Country response table below. Discussion comments can be made as comments.

 U.S.

 15OCT2017

 Esstially OK. Here are a few suggestions.

• To substantiate out contribution, would recommend to list (at least some of) the projects and topics on which CMAG has provided national perspective.

• Would also mention the venues to which the extension analysis has been reported (business meetings in April 2017, poster at the Expo in October 2017).

• Finally, would point out that several new menmbers have joined in 2017, providing a broader perspective from member countries, while remaining agile and engaged.

 NZ

 5Dec17

 OK by me

 CA

8Dec2017

 It looks good

 UK

 8DEC17

 Looks good though agree with Olivier's suggestions for some additional information.

 SE

 8DEC17

Agreeing in principle with Olivier, but I'm not sure of the function of this document. If it's a box-ticking exercise, everything in the table is true and we've done some good work, and it is fine as is. If it's to be distributed more widely then more details, through links etc., could be provided.

Member countries without a CMAG rep