EIGHTH MEETING OF THE SCIENCE COUNCIL OF THE CGIAR

FAO and BIOVERSITY INTERNATIONAL, Rome, Italy 27-31 August 2007

END-OF-MEETING REPORT

OPENING SESSION AT FAO HEADQUARTERS Rudy Rabbinge expressed his appreciation to the Director General of FAO, Mr. Jacques Diouf and to the Director General of BIOVERSITY INTERNATIONAL, Mr. Emile Frison, for co-hosting the Eighth meeting of the Science Council in Rome. In particular, he highlighted the importance of the relationship between the CGIAR and FAO, noting the meeting held in April 2007, which agreed on a more intensive cooperation between the two organizations. Rabbinge welcomed the new Director of the CGIAR, Mr. Ren Wang, thanked him for participating in the meeting and wished him well as he prepares for the upcoming AGM. The SC Chair also welcomed the Director Generals of CGIAR Centers who were present at the meeting as well as Coordinators of CGIAR Challenge Programs. Rabbinge also thanked all SC Council and Panel members, FAO staff, CGIAR and donor representatives and several other observers present (see list of participants in Annex 1) for participating in the meeting. The SC Chair pointed out the key items on the very full agenda of the SC meeting, including discussions regarding four external reviews of CGIAR Centers, two external reviews of Challenge Programs and the annual assessment of Center and Challenge Program medium term plans. Rabbinge mentioned that he looked forward to bringing with him useful recommendations from the deliberations at SC8 to the forthcoming ExCo meeting to be held in October in Rome. The SC Chair declared the eighth meeting of the Council open and invited the Director General of FAO to address the audience.

Jacques Diouf , Director General of FAO, addressed the group, welcoming everyone to the FAO Headquarters. He recognized the CGIAR’s important role since its inception in agricultural development and in the reduction of poverty and hunger, having been instrumental to the green revolution in the 1970s, which helped eradicate famine in Asia. He noted that despite such successes poverty and hunger remain in the world on an unacceptable scale, and the United Nations has therefore mobilized unprecedented global commitment in establishing the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). He mentioned that the CGIAR’s unique role in applying research to the challenges faced by developing country small holders continues to make it an essential partner in achieving the MDGs, particularly through its expertise in adapting and applying emerging technologies for those farmers who would otherwise fall further and further behind.

Diouf also pointed out that FAO and the CGIAR must continue to build on their long and extensive collaboration, particularly in the areas of sustainable natural resource management – as important as ever with the current level of global concern over climate change and bioenergy production – and in institutional development and capacity building. He underlined the growing concern among the developing countries regarding their science and technology capacity, and stressed the need for collaboration between FAO and the CGIAR to train scientists on sustainable agricultural development and poverty reduction.

The FAO Director General noted the importance of the CGIAR Science Council within the CGIAR, in monitoring Centers’ performance and ensuring that the science and technologies generated by its research are of the highest quality. He pointed to the significance of this meeting being held at FAO, immediately following the FAO-CGIAR High-level Meeting in April, which added a further sense of commitment to the renewed strengthening of partnership between the two Organizations. In particular, future FAO-CGIAR collaboration were agreed in: genetic resources through support to the

1 International Treaty for Plant Genetic Resources; work on Animal Genetic Resources; transboundary pests and diseases, including further development of mapping and information systems together with monitoring and early warning systems; climate change mitigation and adaptation; policy development and technical assistance for the formulation of agriculture and agricultural research policies; and promotion of the ecosystem approach. He described a number of planned joint activities, such as the meeting between the Alliance of CGIAR Centers and FAO on genetic resources and climate change; capacity building; and collaboration within the framework of the National Programs for Food Security. In closing, he wished all participants a very productive meeting and encouraged all FAO professionals to participate to their fullest extent, to ensure that the partnership between both Organizations would continue to grow.

Ren Wang , Director of the CGIAR, mentioned that he has been appointed a little over a month ago and was very pleased to participate at the meeting. He mentioned that he was pleased to see that agricultural and rural development was finally back in the development agenda and that the CGIAR could be a key player in responding to several current global megatrends. He briefed participants on several major CGIAR issues, particularly on how to make the CGIAR more efficient regarding management of the System. He outlined the status on the “change management” process endorsed by the last ExCo, which resulted in a Scoping Team that would identify and develop a working plan for the change process through wide consultation with all members of the CGIAR. He stressed that the set of changes would be implemented in a stepwise manner and with an aim for maximum impact. On the issue of the forthcoming external review of the CGIAR, he reported that the ExCo has now broadened the ownership of the review and appointed an advisory group. He thanked the SC and its Chair for their continued collaboration. He emphasized that the success of the CGIAR relied on a strong collaboration and trust among all parts of the System, including the CGIAR Centers, the CGIAR Secretariat, the SC, Members and partners. He underlined his commitment to link the SC work on mobilizing science with the financial resource mobilization work of the CGIAR Secretariat, in order to improve the efficiency of the System as a whole.

Rudy Rabbinge thanked all participants of the opening session and mentioned that the agenda of the SC meeting had three main themes: a brief technical dialogue on key current agricultural research related issues, several internal CGIAR monitoring and evaluation items and issues about the future such as the proposed SC workplan for 2008/09, the CGIAR Scoping Team and SC commentary on the forthcoming IAASTD report. He invited participants to move into the technical presentations.

SCIENCE THAT MATTERS FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

Implications for the CGIAR of the Biofuel Revolution . Ken Cassman (Director, Center for Energy Sciences Research, University of Nebraska - Lincoln, USA) gave a presentation on the implication of the anticipated “biofuel boom”. He noted that “megatrends” such as rapid economic growth, climate change and uncertainty of future petroleum supply are affecting our current outlook on energy availability. This has led to the search for non-petroleum energy supplies with a resultant focus on biofuels research. A major concern is that a large segment of the world will continue to rapidly increase its energy consumption, which will in turn drive future demands from agriculture.

Cassman noted the likelihood of a major transition in trends of food crop commodity prices over the long-term – a historic reversal whereby the real cost of food crop commodities steadily rises because of competition between food and fuel. Even with the emergence of cellulosic ethanol, food-crop ethanol systems (or “first generation” biofuels production) will remain competitive and continue to exert pressure on the global food supply, especially as the change from a supply-driven to demand- driven agricultural market allows most populous developing countries to continue enjoying their

2 rapid rates of economic growth. A major implication for the CGIAR is the need to continue to accelerate productivity growth for the major food crops while reducing the environmental footprint. To keep up with future demands an annual growth rate in cereal yields of at least a 1.5% - well above what has been achieved recently – will be needed. Hence, considerably more research on sound ecological intensification is required.

Cassman emphasized that the diversion of food to fuel in the developed countries could place much pressure on the food producing system in the developing countries - the demand for biofuel is driving economic development in some rural communities, raising land prices and creating jobs. New advances in technology is also improving production efficiency. However, there have been negative effects such as the rapid rise in consumer food prices, energy inefficient biofuels, and environmental degradation. Enhancing overall energy efficiency is therefore vital in order to maximize the benefits of the biofuel promises and to minimize the potential pitfalls. Strategic research is needed on genetic yield potential of the major food crops (rice and wheat), on reducing the “yield gap” in irrigated systems through knowledge management of inputs and on greatly increasing the water productivity of rainfed system with more attention to underlying constraints to increase WUE such as fertility to balance the (perhaps) over optimistic reliance on a genetic solution for rainfed systems. The big question, however, remains regarding the competition between the fuel vs. food use of crops and the environmental degradation from expanding onto new agricultural land.

Looking to the future, Cassman predicted that alternatives to “first-generation” biofuels would need to be sought as the yield potential of these crops are already stagnating and only slow increases are likely. Ongoing research seems to promise energy efficiency from biofuels of cellulosic plant origin, and other crops show varying potentials as sources of biofuel. He warned that most “second generation biofuels” were still at an early stage of development and scientific breakthroughs were still required to realize this potential. He closed by emphasizing the massive scientific challenge that lies ahead, suggesting that the CGIAR has an important role to play in meeting this challenge.

The SC Chair opened the discussion by thanking Cassman for his well balanced presentation, and indicating that the ‘biofuel revolution’ was part of five mega-trends being observed currently (together with ecological intensification, industrial agriculture, value chain agriculture and food nutrition and health). Rabbinge stressed the need for a more bio-based economy. He stressed the importance of viewing agriculture in terms of an energy input/output chain, rather than as individual activities. Seen this way, intensification of agriculture might lead (counter-intuitively it may seem) to a healthier environment, where energy inputs and outputs are considered both at the farm and processing stage. As such, several agricultural and environmental goals might be tackled at once. Nutrition and health aspects of food must also not be forgotten.

The discussion focused on the potential for biofuels in general, and on research of alternative (non- crop) sources of biofuel. Recognizing that the efficiency potential of cellulosic biofuel might not be as promising as expected, it most likely will not replace food-based biofuel production in the short to mid term. Regional analyses were seen as important, as the trend to biofuels is still seen only in a number of countries that produce energy-efficient crops. There is a need to consider what precisely is meant by a “pro-poor biofuel”, and whether the long-term effects of biofuel energy use would improve or exacerbate problems for sustainable development. There was a suggestion for creating a knowledge Center where all global and regional trend analysis could be put together. In closing, the SC Chair emphasized the need to define a biofuel strategy for developing countries that is “people- centred”, i.e. one that enhances the share of renewable energy, offers opportunities for commodity producers but does not compromise food security for poor producers and consumers, improves water use efficiency, and has the potential to rehabilitate degraded lands. The SC is preparing a brief ‘think piece’ on the topic.

3

Assessing the International Spillover Potential of Agricultural Technologies: Implications for the CGIAR. Phil Pardey (Professor, Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, USA) presented key mega agricultural research funding trends, new metrics on international agricultural research spillover potential and their possible implication for the CGIAR. Pardey’s presentation comprised material from chapter 4 of the Science, Technology and Skills background paper commissioned by the SC as input for the upcoming World Development Report 2008, and material from new efforts to assess R&D impacts and spillover potentials from the HarvestChoice project, funded by the Gates Foundation.

Pardey mentioned that developing countries spend 21% of the global total investment on R&D, compared to 79% by developed countries, and that there is a slowdown in U.S. public agricultural R&D spending growth, particularly for farm productivity research, which may continue with a similar trend in Western Europe, Japan and Australia. He added that this slower growth in agricultural R&D spending is associated with increased demand for health-related research, largely because of continuing and predictable demographic developments, and an increased demand for income-elastic goods and services, such as environmental services, food safety, food quality, convenience (food processing), biosafety, and bio-energy. Since high income countries account for 70% of the CGIAR budget (and more than 90% if including foundations and international institutions funded largely by high income countries), he mentioned that the political economy pressures on high income countries research would spill over into the CGIAR portfolio. This may shift resources away from CGIAR research on maintaining and enhancing productivity in production agriculture. In addition, he noted, high income country farmers may put additional pressure on their development assistant agencies to slow down their investments in agricultural research, which they may see as a potential way of enhancing productivity of competitor agricultural countries.

Pardey also noted that the preponderance of public and private agricultural R&D is still done in higher income countries, and continues to become increasingly spatially concentrated in the developing world, with shifts towards Asia. He concluded that there is a need for a rethink and re- calibration of policy that gives serious consideration to potential for R&D spillovers, especially as the historical evidence shows that spillovers have been a pervasive and important source of local productivity improvements in agriculture. Pardey presented new measures of agroecological and agricultural (output mixes) similarity for pairs of countries and regions, using Jaffe’s (1989) “angular separation of vectors” metric. One key insight from Pardey’s model is that geographical proximity need not imply greater spillover potential. For example, Pardey shows that there is more potential for research spillovers between Ethiopia and Mexico, than between South Africa and Ethiopia. Pardey summarized his findings by stating that much improved targeting of research investments according to spatially explicit crop, problem, agroecology and production systems context is likely in the future. Finally, Pardey highlighted several current HarvestChoice activities, such as updating global crop distribution maps, modeling and assessing the effects of global abiotic and biotic constraints, and global yield gap simulations intended to systematically accumulate data, improve methods and analytical results and to openly share and package the results for other analysts and decision makers.

The SC Chair thanked Pardey for his presentation, considering it potentially important for future targeting by international agencies. Participants mentioned that Pardey’s model reinforces the rationale for the CGIAR’s work on GPGs, and underlines the need for the CGIAR to be more proactive in showing the global implications of its research. For example, it was suggested that spillovers of CGIAR work might need to be assessed. Participants mentioned that the model still needs to be improved, for example by addressing NRM research spillovers. Moreover, the model still needs to consider the influence that various factors have on spillover potentials, including: the presence of irrigation, countries’ research production function, soil fertility (NPK) constraints, policy (including on

4 IPRs), and market constraints. The model also needs to clarify why agroecological and output distances may be different from each other, and needs to incorporate risk, including ecological risk (ecosystem vulnerability), and the risk of pest and disease outbreaks. Participants also noted that, like any model, the robustness of Pardey’s model will depend on the quality of the data that it uses, which implies the need for CGIAR to work together with FAO to improve data collection and management.

In conclusion, both technical presentations were very well received by participants. Several participants mentioned that the presentations were very informative and encouraged the SC to continue to organize similar presentations in future SC meetings.

BIOVERSITY INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH AGENDA (AT BIOVERSITY HEADQUARTERS) Emile Frison , DG of Bioversity International, welcomed all participants and introduced the Center’s activities. He highlighted the history of the Center, created in 1974, which was originally designed to organize collecting missions of genebank materials. Additional research was added in the areas of seed and in vitro conservation, phytosanitary issues, genetic resource diversity, molecular characterization, documentation, in situ conservation, and intra-specific diversity, as a natural evolutionary process for the Center. The re-naming of the Center (from IPGRI to Bioversity International) in 2006 was a result of a new evolutionary step and reflected its widened vision, which now encompasses various aspects of agricultural biodiversity of which plant genetic resources is a key component. This expansion demonstrated that diversity, which could move from a storage function for possible use in the future to an active function of improving current agricultural productivity. Frison explained that Bioversity, currently with a staff of 300 operating from over 20 locations around the world, does not have laboratories or field sites but works as a facilitator with a global range of partners and particularly networks. He noted that the Center focuses on six specific program areas, namely managing agricultural biodiversity and using it in production systems; commodity systems and promoting its use; enhancing ex situ conservation; conservation and sustainable use of wild species of forest and crop species; fostering international collaboration, assisting in building the notion of interdependence on genetic resources; and methodologies to address the status, trends and valuation of agricultural biodiversity.

Presentations were then made by the four Program Directors. They gave a detailed descriptions of the various technical and policy tools used for the research, underlining their importance in achieving the objectives of the Center’s six focal areas. Mauricio Bellon (Diversity for Livelihoods) highlighted research areas in production systems (projects that utilize crop genetic diversity to control pest and disease in support of sustainable agriculture), human nutrition and markets. Richard Markham (Commodities for Livelihoods) mentioned activities aimed at conserving and promoting the use of genetic diversity in selected commodity crops of special importance for farmers, through developing distinctively new pro-poor agenda, diversifying and using it to enhance sustainability, and adding a value. Laura Snook (Understanding and Managing Biodiversity) described support to the International Treaty on Plant Genetics Resources for Agriculture (ITPGRFA) through genebank management and facilitation of use and information exchange. She also explained tools used to monitor trends and make predictions on adaptation to climate change, on the potential loss and underutilization of useful wild species and the monitoring of the status and trends of biodiversity/genetic erosion in support to the Convention on Biodiversity. Toby Hodgkin (Global Partnerships) mentioned that Bioversity provides technical inputs to global mechanisms aimed to help build effective global systems for the conservation and use of genetic resources, including the System- wide Program on Genetic Resources, the FAO Commission, several CBD programs of work, the global Crop Diversity Trust, the ITPGRFA and the Interlaken Declaration.

5 ITEM 1: CIP EPMR On behalf of the CIP EPMR Panel, Chair Edgardo Moscardi presented the main findings and recommendations of the Report. The Panel found CIP a Center much improved since the last EPMR, but that it relies too heavily on contract-based restricted funding that often includes resources for broad development endeavors that go beyond CIP’s expertise and comparative advantage, and that this has affected CIP’s core work significantly. Moscardi also mentioned that the Panel finds the Center to be well governed, with responsive leadership and management, but that there is scope to improve Board delegation of leadership responsibilities and replacement processes, as well as human and financial resource management.

Moscardi mentioned that the Panel’s 18 recommendations are meant to help CIP concentrate its research work on potatoes and sweet potatoes. He also explained the rationale behind recommendations addressing other key areas that require CIP’s attention, including the lack of a well- thought out strategy for partnerships, the need to empower CIP’s regions, lagging work on germplasm characterization, the lack of IPG focus of NRM research, and the current lack of critical mass and of focus in CIP’s social science research. The Panel Chair also questioned CIP’s need for an Agriculture and Human Health Division (AHH), and CIP’s convening role of the Global Mountain Program (GMP), Urban Harvest (UH) and CONDESAN, SWEPs that do not contribute to CIP’s core research.

Pamela Anderson , CIP’s DG, thanked the Panel Chair and members for the insight and advice received as a result of this EPMR, and for having motivated thinking about key issues. She added that while CIP had accepted most of the recommendations, many of them carry “price tags”, and so more discussion will be needed before rushing into what she described as “preemptive implementation”. In this regard, she mentioned that the cost of the Enterprise Resource Planning System recommended by the Panel is in the order of half a million dollars, and that its purchase will therefore require further examination. Regarding the Panel’s recommendations on SWEPs, she informed that, contrary to CIP’s earlier position, the Center was now willing to implement the Panel’s recommendations on GMP and UH, but still rejected the idea of CIP’s disengagement form hosting CONDESAN. She suggested that more decisions concerning SWEPs should be made at the System level. Dr. Anderson also gave various reasons for CIP not accepting the Panel’s recommendation that the Center mainstream the work of AHH into that of CIP’s other Divisions. Regarding the Panel’s concern about CIP’s heavy involvement in Latin America, Dr. Anderson argued that LAC has been an “IPG generator” for CIP, because CIP “does a lot of its learning” in that region, but added that CIP is expanding its work in Africa and Asia.

The SC thanked the Panel for its comprehensive, frank and analytical assessment of the Center’s research, management and governance, and for a report that is well written and has clearly documented conclusions. The SC appreciated Table 3.1 that compares CIP’s research scientists’ productivity for the previous five years with CGIAR averages, and expressed that it would like to see this kind of template in future EPMR reports of Centers. Concerns were raised about the fact that CIP’s recently finished Strategic Plan was developed to address MDGs, but does not relate to the CGIAR System Priorities (SP) explicitly, and the SC agreed with the Panel’s view that CIP needs to move to a business planning mode that considers financial scenarios. The SC was also concerned about CIP’s mission drift, and about the lack of congruence between the significant resource allocation to Latin America, and questioned why CIP has not used the information of its own ex-ante impact assessment study to develop its Strategic Plan. The SC noted the decline in CIP’s social science expertise, and explained that because this is a pervasive problem in the CGIAR, it plans to conduct a stripe review of social science research at the System level. The SC was also surprised at the slow pace of germplasm conservation and characterization, and underscored the fact that NRM research at CIP may be too location-specific. The SC agreed that the AHH Division should be phased-out and its work

6 mainstreamed into that of other divisions, noting that the Panel’s recommendation does not propose abandoning agriculture-health work. The SC also concurred that, given CONDESAN’s new focus on “innovation systems” and water management, there is no logic in CIP continuing to host the program.

The SC Chair concluded by thanking the Panel for their effort in making this a very constructive review, and noted that it was pleased to see that the Center has appreciated and responded positively to the review’s major findings and recommendations. The SC found the EPMR a sound report with a good strategic assessment, but understands that implementing the recommendations will have financial implications, and that in disengaging from its hosting role of GMP, UH and CONDESAN, CIP will need to design appropriate exit strategies. The SC decided to endorse the recommendations of the Report, and to prepare a commentary to be sent to ExCo.

ITEM 2: CIAT EPMR Eduardo Venezian , Panel Chair, thanked the Panel members and CIAT and presented the findings of the review. There is a large quantity and quality of research for development being conducted at CIAT. The Center is conducting relevant work and it has world leading scientists and a very dedicated pool of staff. The Panel was impressed by the work being done in the regional programs and in general believed that CIAT has a bright and long-term future. However, he referred to a long shadow cast by continued financial problems and the need for the Center to quickly emerge from recent turmoil and instability. The Panel concluded that CIAT needed to overcome governance and management shortcomings and to clarify its future strategic research agenda.

The Panel recommended that CIAT implement its future research agenda on “ product lines “ and on a smaller number of “outcome lines” in the regions that engage multidisciplinary research teams in a system-based approach that targets clearly defined constraints to outcomes. It also recommended to rebuild crop protection research capacity, strengthen forage research and rice research in LAC and to rebuild the collaboration for cassava research in Africa with IITA. A renewed regional research strategy and program for LAC was suggested as well as several improvements related to intellectual property management. Regarding management, the Panel recommended to reconstitute leadership and management in the short term proposing an action plan by March 2008, to strengthen financial management capacity and to prioritize human resource management and staff development. Regarding governance, the Panel has recommended that the Board presents a timetable to end, as soon as possible, its current intervention in the management of the Center as well as to strengthen the BOT in strategic and financial aspects. The Panel Chair concluded that CIAT has a strong potential to emerge from its present difficulties and to regain the status of a solid institute to make significant contributions to poverty alleviation. He also mentioned that this is a crucial time for CGIAR donors collectively to invest in CIAT’s turnaround and to do so promptly, subject to fundamental, program, governance and management changes detailed in the external evaluation.

Rudy Rabbinge thanked the Panel and said that he would be pleased to see CIAT on a new course as it celebrates its 40th year and invited the CIAT BOT Chair, Yves Savidan, and the DG, Joachim Voss, to respond to the EPMR Panel’s presentation. Yves Savidan thanked the Panel’s quest for solutions in order to reinvigorate the Center. He acknowledged that the Panel had a difficult task. Savidan stated that on governance issues he believes that the Panel stressed too much the BOT intervention mode and that the BOT didn’t intervene in management as much as suggested by the EPMR. He stated that the BOT intervention helped CIAT to recover and stabilize financial orientation and CIAT will soon attain the CGIAR finance indicators. He agreed that BOT lacked financial management expertise in the past but that they have solved that problem. He also mentioned that the BOT will continue to meet on a regular basis as an engaged board to effect the recommended changes. Savidan mentioned that they will implement all the agreed recommendations fully. Finally, the BOT Chair mentioned that, as a lesson for the CGIAR System, perhaps complex situations such as that of CIAT should be tackled with

7 a different review format. He also drew attention to the several Center commissioned external reviews (CCERs), some of them pointing to different directions, before the EPMR.

The Director General of CIAT, Joachim Voss welcomed the recommendations and appreciated the Panel’s constructive mode of operation under difficult circumstances. He confirmed that the Center has agreed with 13 of the 19 recommendations proposed by the Panel and partially agree with 6 of them, as stated in the written response to the review. Voss mentioned that he was pleased that the Panel felt CIAT has strong regional programs in Africa and Asia and his agreement with the need to re-engage with Latin America. The DG agreed to do the best possible to sustain key research themes and functions (crop protection, spatial analysis and social science work) in the face of budget cuts. He confirmed that a strategic plan needs to be prepared but that had to wait for the next administration of the Center. The DG accepted the recommendations to disband the advisory board of TSBF, rebuilding crop protection research, strengthening forage research for smallholders in SSA, rice research in LAC, IP-related recommendations and improving coordination of cassava research with IITA. He stressed that CIAT would seek ways to have access to IP expertise but also that System level support is needed.

Voss mentioned that the Center partially agrees with having a limited number of outcome lines as recommended, but that too much emphasis on regional research as proposed by the EPMR might be at the cost of global research. He also mentioned that the proposed structure might have too many managers, again at the cost of global integration of regional activities. Voss also disagreed with the recommendation to disband the agroecosystem team mentioning that it has been the real strength of CIAT in past. Concerning human resources, CIAT has combined the local and international staff policies seeking a more balanced policy, however there have been leadership difficulties. He stated that CIAT will improve HR management and devise a new IRS staff policy. On the recommendation to abolish the grant management unit, Voss mentioned that they were planning to make changes within the grant management and the finance office without the need to abolish it. On finance, the DG stated that CIAT suffered from the demise of the CGIAR Finance Committee and that in the future a functional equivalent is needed in order to have a place where key funding issues can be discussed. Voss explained that since CIAT is one of the Centers with the lowest proportion of core funding that created difficult circumstances and acknowledged that the mistake arose because of not putting a management structure behind the previous research areas.

Finally, Voss announced that, in order to help renew leadership, he has notified the Center of his departure in early 2008. He also mentioned that it was crucial to secure donor support to move the Center forward. During the discussion that followed, it was mentioned that the possibility of the BOT identifying an interim DG was being considered. The Director of the CGIAR promised full support during the transition as well as to continue to seek consensus among interested donors to prepare a new investment package. Ren Wang indicated that detailed comments on the governance and management issues will come from the CGIAR Secretariat later. He said that he fully supports the recommendations of the Panel and that a Director General is ultimately responsible for the management of a Center. He also mentioned that he has mixed feelings about the DG’s decision of early departure but recognized that the interests of the Center had been put uppermost. Wang mentioned the importance for the CGIAR that the Center gets back on its feet and that support from all stakeholders in this regard was needed. He welcomed the board plans to prepare a reinvigorating and succession plan but that a BOT disengagement plan was ultimately needed, although it was important to avoid a leadership gap. Finally the CGIAR Director said that it will be important to bring morale back and stabilize the Center. The new strategic planning exercise would necessarily be left to new management.

The SC Chair thanked the CIAT BOT Chair, the DG and the Director of the CGIAR for their comments and hoped that CIAT would implement changes. He invited comments from other participants. The

8 EPMR Panel Chair expressed his pleasure that the recommendations, despite some disagreements, were well taken as the Panel’s work was done in the best interests of the Center. He said that the review has achieved its purpose by putting in front of the stakeholders the important issues ahead and that it was important not to put the forthcoming management in a box but to be able to use the EPMR as a roadmap for CIAT to change. The Panel Chair mentioned that the CCERs were very useful for the EPMR Panel and although there is a risk that CCERs and EPMRs could become examiners of each other, in this case the Panel selected what it felt were the most important points from the CCERs.

During the general discussion, emphasis was placed on the need for a comprehensive strategic planning exercise, as well as the implementation by CIAT of other EPMR recommendations. Since most problems identified by the EPMR have happened before, it was felt that CIAT needs to prepare a clear strategy. Another major concern for the CGIAR was the repeated findings by different EPMR Panels of the poor or weakened social science research in many Centers. A forthcoming Social Science stripe review, which will be conducted by the SC, would help in this regard. On the issue of several CCERs commissioned before an EPMR, it was mentioned that CCERs are BOT-commissioned and that they need to be planned as a useful resource without being considered as duplicates to an EPMR. A CGIAR donor thanked the Panel for their detailed work and emphasized the need for change at CIAT. As investors analyze the CIAT situation it will be important to consider how the CGIAR, as a system, develops the capacity to handle crises such as this one. The SC Chair agreed that the CGIAR needs to have a mechanism to deal with these kind of crises and mentioned that perhaps the current CGIAR Scoping Team could look into that issue. The SC decided to endorse the recommendations of the Report, and to prepare a commentary to be sent to ExCo.

ITEM 3: AFRICA RICE CENTER (WARDA) EPMR On behalf of the WARDA EPMR Panel, Chair Eric Tollens presented the main findings and recommendations of the review. He presented an overall assessment of WARDA, followed by the Panel’s analysis and recommendations on the Center’s work on genetic improvement, NRM, social science research, partnerships, capacity building, research support, and governance and management. Tollens underlined WARDA’s growing strategic importance, as rice has become a major staple in Africa, and a driver for development in that continent. He added that WARDA should take advantage of the great opportunity for technological change provided by the increasing trend in domestic rice prices, and is poised for a period of consolidation and growth. And while governance is reasonably good, and management has taken appropriate measures to improve financial oversight and fraud prevention, Board guidance and oversight to ensure science relevance and quality needs to be strengthened.

Tollens noted that WARDA needs to target its research more strategically as it is more effective to produce varieties for specific environments than releasing a wide range of varieties with unknown GxE performance. Tollens said that WARDA should improve the balance between breeding and natural resource management research, should do more work on policy and seed systems, and should improve its approach to understand impact and adoption.

Tollens said that the Panel is optimistic about WARDA's future, and envisages a stronger and larger rice research Center serving all of SSA. Lack of critical mass and need for more strategic research remain problems that may be exacerbated by geographical expansion. On WARDA’s corporate alignment with IITA, Tollens explained the Panel’s recommendation that welcomes progress made so far, but cautions WARDA that in seeking efficiency gains through corporate alignment, it ensures that quality and relevance are not compromised, given that some research support services are being cut in the process. WARDA is also actively collaborating with IITA in IPM research, and potential areas of further collaboration include biotechnology, weed science and biometrics. The Panel believes WARDA

9 should reconsider its convening role in the HIV/AIDS “SWIHA” initiative, as the program does not have any bearing on WARDA’s comparative advantage.

Gaston Grenier , WARDA’s Board Chair, said that WARDA fully agreed with the EPMR’s recommendations, and that the Board is confident that WARDA’s new DG will follow through with their implementation. He added that the Board will work to strengthen the Center’s alliance with IITA and IRRI, will devote more time to program oversight, make more efforts to relocate WARDA to its original headquarters as soon as this is feasible, and will strengthen the financial oversight of the Center. The Panel’s recommendations would be discussed during WARDA’s next meeting of the Council of Ministers. Papa Seck , WARDA’s DG, thanked the Panel for a good review and for the transparent process followed in carrying it out. He reiterated that WARDA’s management believes that the recommendations will strengthen WARDA’s capacity to deliver IPGs, and has accepted all of them for this reason. Seck admitted that WARDA needs to find better ways to meet the competing demands of investors, while doing better and deeper science, and added that he was optimistic that WARDA is moving forward. Among the reasons for his optimism, Seck mentioned that the Center’s staff is keen to implement WARDA’s new Vision, that there is stronger ownership and commitment by member states. The programmatic alignment with IRRI and CIAT is progressing to help improve the quality of science and secure critical mass, and the WARDA-IITA alignment of corporate services is expected to increase resource efficiency. He noted that the various new proposals that have been recently approved will augment the Center’s budget significantly.

The SC thanked the Panel for a well-written and thorough report, and commended it especially for its excellent analysis of WARDA’s work on genetic improvement, and for the report’s section on quality assurance. The SC added that if WARDA is to strengthen its priority setting process and revamp NRM research among other research areas, it might wish to consider revisiting its Strategic Plan. The SC expressed its support for the Panel’s recommendation to move the Center into more strategic research, and noted the Panel’s characterization of NERICAs as a “black box” as an issue that needs the Center’s attention. In agreement with the Panel, concerns were raised about the Center’s planned expansion to eastern and southern Africa, which the SC considers less urgent than refocusing research towards strategic issues. The SC was pleased to hear that the Center is working on alignment, NRM research, realization of a critical mass of staff in critical areas and biotechnology. The SC supported the Panel’s recommendation that WARDA take a multidisciplinary approach to research planning. One SC member suggested that WARDA look into the recent meta-study of SSA agricultural research impacts by Raitzer and Maredia, and recommended that WARDA synthesize the vast body of information in the references to adoption studies contained in that report, and which have not been digested fully. Clarification was sought on the Panel’s concern regarding a possible negative impact of the corporate alignment with IITA on WARDA’s science quality. The SC would have liked to have seen the comment by the Panel on the opportunities for some programmatic alignment between IITA and WARDA particularly in areas such as biometrics and weed science which EPMRs in both Center have recommended need strengthening. The SC agreed with the Panel’s recommendation that WARDA disengage from hosting SWIHA, in spite of political pressures. Lastly, the SC listed several issues raised by the Panel, which have systemwide relevance, including participatory plant breeding and the gaps in social science research. Regarding the difficulty in attracting and retaining good scientists, the SC noted that brain drain is a pervasive problem in Africa, and commented that the lack of good schools for staff children, inadequate services, and insecurity exacerbate this problem. In this regard, the SC encouraged WARDA to develop a human resource strategy to address these issues. The SC decided to endorse the recommendations of the Report, and to prepare a commentary to be sent to ExCo.

10 ITEM 4: IITA EPMR Cyrus Ndiritu , the EPMR Panel Chair presented the key recommendations of the Report of the 6 th EPMR of IITA. The Panel had treated IITA’s Research for Development (R4D) approach as an important experiment, including as it did an increased focus on the production to market chain and value addition. The Panel’s major recommendations were for the Center to develop an overall strategy to contribute to R4D and to strengthen the alignment between such a Strategy and the Center’s MTP Projects and individual grant projects, and to focus more effectively on the management of its science.

The Panel noted that IITA has expanded partnerships to include the private sector, CSO, ARIs, opportunities from NEPAD, FARA, and science partnerships with other CGIAR Centers and the Bioscience for eastern and central Africa (BecA) facility. However, there was a need to assess partnerships in relation to the new agri-business activities and likely Center impacts. This required a strategic rather than a local focus and for more active, broader engagement with NARS to maintain traditional links and to ensure the sustainability of IITA’s research interventions. IITA was complimented for its dedicated workforce and its upbeat and sustained commitment. The Panel confirmed that the quality of science at IITA was not currently a constraint, and made a series of recommendations for strengthening specific areas, namely: the consolidation of biotechnology research, acquiring biometrics expertise, to raise the profile of cryopreservation and support to germplasm health and transfer systems, to document soil fertility research and advocate more efficient use and input supply systems, to reassess the strategic direction of the Opportunities and Threats Project and to strengthen the national agri-business consultative platform and ensure risk assessment and management for IITA.

There was a concomitant need to strengthen the support to research through the research management structure and accountability, to enhance the HR Unit to become proactive in recruitment, and strengthen the procurement function. The Panel noted the positive steps with WARDA in developing joint corporate service approaches and urged the Centers to manage the transition judiciously. The Panel Chair urged that if IITA agreed to take up the recommendations that they should do so promptly and avoid the delays evident in responding to the 5 th EPMR. Delay had an opportunity cost to IITA in terms of strategy development and the management of science.

Bryan Harvey , the Chair of the IITA Board responded that the Center acknowledged the work done by the Panel and had agreed to the Report’s recommendations. He noted that the Center was already moving to convene a strategic planning workshop later in 2007, and the Board is active in developing criteria for this event. He took the opportunity to note that Center’s progress and ability to work on urgent funding requests was sometimes hampered by the administrative overload engendered by CGIAR reporting.

In discussion, the SC noted many positive IITA achievements and outcomes, especially in relation to cassava. Particular emphasis, therefore, was placed in the restoration of the partnership with CIAT to conduct research on cassava in Africa. The SC also noted with some concern that IITA might be faltering on NR and crop management research and it is hoped that the recommendations in these areas would be built into a new strategy which the SC would like to review. For example the SC was concerned that in moving away from the benchmark sites and ecosystem focus could reduce the likelihood of NRM research being developed as IPGs. Also in developing the Strategic Plan, IITA was requested to carefully articulate the R4D paradigm as a guide to the System and to avoid multiple definitions of this type currently circulating in the CGIAR do not cause confusion. The SC confirmed that the recommendations on science and in relation to NARS were pertinent; national programs should not simply be seen as clients, but as partners in the R4D continuum. Also the commodity chain approach required analysis so that (a) the benefits of gains beyond the farm gate accrue to the poor and (b) that IITA carefully chooses its point of comparative advantage in the market chain. In this

11 regard, the SC noted the Panel saw IITA’s role more in the “ input markets” than in the “output” side of the market chain. The SC noted that meeting some of the recommendations (HR management, statistical support, natural resources management, and the observation in the Report of the WARDA EPMR for a scientific advisory Council at that Center) that perhaps more could be done between the Centers to draw some of these strands together. The SC accepted that more work on the impact culture PM indicator and its interpretation is needed, and noted the Panel’s warning of the danger of some PM indicators becoming an end in themselves.

In response, the Board Chair of IITA endorsed the idea that agreement on phytosanitary gateways for cassava germplasm entering Africa need to be sought with CIAT and that meetings were planned with CIAT to this end and for future collaboration. The Director General Hartmann confirmed that the focus of the Center’s R4D approach is on the poor and that IITA looks to NARS partners specifically for their ability to deliver applications of science to the poor. He stressed that it was important to work with the universities in Africa as such arrangements provide intellectual capital to expand the work of the Center, and which increases their capacity and, in the longer term, the capacity of NARS which hire scientists from the collaborating universities.

In summary, the SC will follow, in particular, the development of the CIAT-IITA relationship as a matter of importance. The SC looks forward to viewing a cohesive IITA Strategic Plan and design of the future projects. The SC suggested that IITA clearly defines the R4D paradigm as well as the role and pursuit of partnerships and the approach to capacity building. Finally, soil fertility remains a key issue in Africa and IITA should develop an overall strategy for NRM research and find its stance in relation to recent developments in fertilizer use such as those articulated in the Abuja Declaration. The SC decided to endorse the recommendations of the Report, and to prepare a commentary to be submitted to ExCo.

ITEM 5 - META-EVALUATION OF CENTER EPMRs The members of the meta-evaluation Panel, Howard Elliott and Maureen Robinson gave an overview of the study and presented the key findings. In addition to the items in the Terms of Reference (ToR) to identify common issues with System level significance and implications, and to assess overall quality and comparability of the reports and the EPMR process, the Panel was asked to explore whether EPMRs could minimize the need for additional donor reviews. This study, suggested by ExCo and commissioned by the SC, covered 11 EPMRs from 2004-06 and, in addition to the review documents, drew from interviews with donors, DGs, Panel Chairs, the CGIAR and the SC Secretariats.

A key finding was that the donors find EPMRs essential for the overall credibility of the System and for evaluating performance in reaching the objectives of the CGIAR, although donors do not rely entirely on these EPMRs for their own needs. The EPMRs go beyond being an audit of the other monitoring and evaluation components, and in the Panel’s view, they need to maintain this strategic and holistic view of the entire Center, as part of an integrated evaluation system.

In the EPMR, the Center is the unit of analysis, and the EPMR Panels seldom make recommendations that go beyond the Center’s power to resolve. In order to increase the utility of the reviews, the SC was advised to include in the ToRs questions relevant for System level perspective and for the de- centralized partnership mode under which the Centers operate. The process following the submission of the EPMR report was found to be unnecessarily prolonged leading to marginal utility of the discussion as the report moves from the SC to the ExCo and the Group at AGM. There is a need to get the governance and management views presented during the SC’s discussion of the report, which includes program, management and governance issues. The Panel also concluded that outsourcing of EPMRs or establishing a separate evaluation group would not make the EPMRs more independent than they currently are. The Panel highlighted several common issues in the programmatic areas (for

12 instance positioning the Center in the research-development continuum and generation of regional vs. global public goods), and in the management areas (particularly financial oversight and human resources management). It made several recommendations to standardize the approaches and guidance, involving careful and timely selection of the Panel Chair and maintaining the presence of a Panel Secretary, for assuring the quality and consistency of the reports.

The SC Chair thanked the Panel members for such a comprehensive review with several important suggestions for the CGIAR to improve monitoring and evaluation in the future. In the discussion the following issues were raised: the importance of involving partners in the EPMR process, including informing them about the results of the review; need to assure the transparency of the process to avoid perception of hidden agendas in the reviews; possibility of rating of the Center as is been done by several agencies; need for realistic estimation of time needed for a good review on one hand and requirement to streamline the EPMRs as part of an integrated evaluation system on the other hand, which relies on the quality of the other components of the M&E, particularly the CCERs. The SC agreed in principle with the main findings of the report and decided to prepare a commentary to be sent to ExCo.

ITEM 6: WATER AND FOOD CHALLENGE PROGRAM (W&F CP) EXTERNAL REVIEW Asit Biswas , Panel Chair, presented the key recommendations of the Challenge Program External Review (CPER) Panel report dealing with the relevance and effectiveness of the program, governance and management, resource mobilization and financial health. With respect to relevance and effectiveness, the Panel recommended a critical review of the benchmark basins concept and choice of basins with a view to achieving greater focus. The Panel also called for a more proactive documentation, especially in the preparation of synthesis reports for target audiences on specific issues resulting from the research. The Panel further recommended a new vision, mission statement and definition of internal program objectives for the W&F CP. Independent ex-post evaluations were proposed for all projects rather than attempting to measure ultimate development impacts at the global level. For governance and management the Panel recommended a thorough reform of governance. The current expert Panel should be strengthened to serve the function of a Scientific Advisory Panel with the requisite level of expertise. The management team should be strengthened to take on a more proactive role in program implementation. An iterative approach to management reform was proposed to minimize disruption to the program. Financial management and reporting need considerable improvement and the financial policy needs to be strengthened in a number of areas. The Panel acknowledged the success of the W&F CP in initiating a complex, multi-institutional, and ambitious research program which has strengthened linkages between CG Centers, NARES, ARIs and NGOs. The results so far justify the establishment of the W&F CP and, if the recommendations are implemented, it should generate good scientific outputs in the future.

Jonathan Woolley , W&F CP Coordinator, repeated that the CP management agreed with most of the recommendations, particularly those related to program analysis. He acknowledged the need to specify a set of achievable objectives more clearly for the next phase. The basin approach will be reviewed in Phase II but it was noted that the concept has been useful – the CP does not work on the entire basin in every project but the approach has helped to consider water availability issues both upstream and downstream. CP Management agrees with the recommendations relating to increasing the visibility of the program outputs and agrees on the need for a clearer publication strategy. It also recognizes the need for a stronger uptake strategy. The Consortium Steering Committee will look in more detail at the specific governance and management recommendations made by the Panel but it was felt by the acting DG of IWMI, David Molden , who spoke briefly, that IWMI should continue to have a leading role.

13 The SC noted that this was the first external review of a CP and the process may need to be amended to account for the complexity of the program under review by having more than two experts or more time or both. The SC noted the core recommendation is a need for more focus . The SC endorses fully the need to sharpen and re-define the vision, mission and objectives and in so doing clearly define the particular part of the complexity that will be amenable to solution through research and that will be the particular target of the CP (in the 2 nd phase). The SC notes it long-standing concern on the need for more focus as stated in its commentary on past MTPs. The SC noted that the Panel report is optimistic, but the SC plans to work with the CP in order to have more clarity on targets and focus for the next phase. It is important not to ‘retrofit’ work across the basins to get IPGs but instead plan the work a priori to achieve the IPGs. The SC also noted that the 2nd phase needs to address the time- bound nature of this CP—which was not adequately addressed in the report. There was some discussion of what specifically the ‘added value’ of this CP was, and a more critical analysis of this issue by the Panel would have been helpful to the SC. The assumption of the Panel that the CP can deliver in the 2nd phase if recommendations are adopted and implemented may be correct, but the big challenge is making the necessary changes to ensure that this can happen. The W&F CP responded that it has tried to bring more focus into the calls for Phase II and should not continue to be judged on Phase I alone. A number of other concerns emerged from the discussion touching on CP-related issues more generally, e.g. whether a CP is the best instrument for this type of research (in the long term) or whether it serves mainly the purpose of removing a funding bottleneck. What has been clear is that this CP brings attention to the water-food nexus and is helping to establish a critical mass of effort to address a key NRM challenge. The SC agreed in principle with the main findings of the report and decided to prepare a commentary to be sent to ExCo.

ITEM 7: HARVEST PLUS CHALLENGE PROGRAM EXTERNAL REVIEW On behalf of the CPER team, the Panel Chair, Ricardo Uauy, presented the findings of the first External Evaluation of HarvestPlus. The Challenge Program deals with 3 major micronutrients essential to tackle micronutrient deficiency: Iron (Fe), Zinc (Zn) and Vitamin A. The Panel agreed unanimously that HarvestPlus is an exciting and value-added initiative with major potential impact on nutrition and health especially to those living under poverty in low and middle income countries. It recommended the continuation of the program and put forward areas for improvement such as a need to focus and definition of the overall objectives. For example, it should be clear that the program does not target the age group less than 2 years of age as this has a different type of micronutrient requirements. In addition, a key issue addressed was to strengthen collaborations with other organizations and establish partnerships with NARS as end users of the product and thus involve them from the early stages of development.

The Panel found that steady improvements have been made with conventional breeding to increase carotenoid content in cassava and local yucca. In addition, non-conventional breeding using inhibitory RNA (iRNA), created a genetically modified plant that is high in carotene. Therefore, the Panel encouraged HarvestPlus scientists to use both conventional and non-conventional approaches (genetic mapping, QTL and MAS) to reach HarvestPlus objectives. The Panel recommended independent external evaluations of quality and cost effectiveness to be done for large contracts. The Panel also considered that the CP should stay within the proof of concept and testing mode, evaluating and facilitating the actual implementation by national partners, as a priority, rather than diluting activities by the introduction of Phase II crops.

HarvestPlus Coordinator, Howarth Bouis , agreed with almost all of the Panel's recommendations except one, arguing that collaborating partners were all involved with the work of development and dissemination of biofortified varieties and that “HarvestPlus should assist in coordinating, identifying and relieving bottlenecks, and learning lessons from dissemination efforts”. Bouis thanked the Panel for a constructive review and explained that an ex ante benefit cost analysis was made on

14 biofortification and proved to be highly effective. He further declared that HarvestPlus was also concerned with implementation (with emphasis from the Gates Foundation, a major donor to the Program, on scaling up). He referred to the issue concerning CIP regarding the recommendation to phase out its Division on Agriculture and Health, which is happening at a time when agriculture, health and nutrition should be strongly correlated in terms of program and funding.

On the governance and management front, the Panel recommended that institutional representatives (DGs of CIAT and IFPRI and one member each of CIAT's and IFPRI's Boards) should be full PAC members in all respects, but should not have formal voting rights. HarvestPlus management did not agree with that recommendation as it would be inappropriate to dilute responsibilities of both CIAT and IFPRI by excluding them from key decisions of the program. The Panel addressed the issue of competitive bidding as this has decreased from 25% to 5%. It has also recommended that HarvestPlus partner with organizations that have complementary programs to increase synergy (such as USAID, which examines agronomic traits of staple crops). In the area of transgenics, the Panel advised the CP to partner with other institutions that are already working in this field.

The SC congratulated the Panel on an excellent job and suggested that achieving results with Fe and Zn may be more difficult than the early successes achieved with Vitamin A. Bioversity International, which has worked on enhancing the diversity of fruits and vegetables in diets, was in no way antagonistic to the approach of HarvestPlus concerning staple crops, because it is known that Fe intake is highly enhanced by consuming foods that are high in Vitamin C such as fruits and vegetables. The SC addressed the issue of uptake by national programs and the importance of conventional breeding in the transgenic breeding approach. The SC requested more clarification on the use and feasibility of randomized controlled trials in China, India and Brazil. It was noted that the CGIAR will have to face the development community in evaluating the Controlled Randomized Trials (CRTs) and the issue of ethics. Furthermore, the issue of intellectual property rights was discussed especially the constraints to IPG spillovers.

CIDA, Canada noted that donors faced issues of choosing between granting money to supplementation versus biofortification programs. As much as the first is important in the short-run, the latter food-based approach would be more sustainable and would have longer-term impacts.

The CPER Panel finally recommended that the program should become more independently institutionalized, although continue as a CGIAR CP. The SC Chair concluded that HarvestPlus was an important experiement for the System and that the following elements should be considered and discussed at the System level: encourage donor commitment not only from the agriculture side but from the health side as well; the Program should stay within proof of concept so as not to become thinly spread; involve NARS and the private sector in partnerships with HarvestPlus; consider IP issues and ensure a mechanism of guarantee at the System level; and combine both conventional and non-conventional breeding in the activities of the Program. The SC agreed in principle with the main findings of the report and decided to prepare a commentary to be sent to ExCo.

ITEM 8 – SC REVIEW OF MEDIUM-TERM PLANS The MTPs are a high quality public document that link the planning of the Center to the System Priorities. The first year of the rolling MTP forms the “ contractual” Workplan between the Center and the donors and the Workplan is endorsed by SC and approved at AGM. The SC goal has been to help the Centers improve the quality of the public planning document through its commentary. The assumption by the SC is that a quality MTP is essential for internal monitoring of performance and helpful for external evaluation. Increasingly Centers are using the MTP for these dual purposes and the SC is lending assistance to the development of an online MTP system. Paul Harding , ADG of Bioversity International, demonstrated the prototype online MTP module which will allow

15 submission of MTPs to a CGIAR MTP Analysis Program. A few Centers and the ICT-KM, in consultation with the SC Secretariat, are developing this on-line application to streamline MTP submission making it more participatory and simple at the Center level while improving the ease of analysis at the Center and System level. The prototype will be demonstrated at AGM 07 and it will be available in 2008 for voluntary use by the Centers for developing their 2009-2011 MTPs.

The SC discussed the Center and CP MTPs for 2008-2010 with emphasis on SP alignment, generation of international public goods and the clarity of planning. The discussions were aimed at reaching a common view on the MTP for these key elements. The SC noted that the MTPs for 2008-2010 showed an overall improvement from the previous MTPs in terms of clarity and content. Framework plans for the SPs are needed for the Centers to plan their activities more strategically as part of a common plan to address the SPs. The SC also noted that most MTPs still do not identify the partners responsible for specific outputs and output targets.

In response to a request from an observer to provide criteria for judging Centers’ plans for expanding their geographical presence, the SC stated that it will assess such plans case by case depending on the nature and context of the expansion and whether there is a risk of diverting resources from core research. Regarding non-SP activities, the SC agreed that they should not be considered inherently undesirable and that “good non-SP research” within the 20% would be encouraged. However, the SC agreed that the SP research should also involve exploratory and high risk elements when such activities have potentially high impact. Regarding capacity building, the SC generally commended MTPs that showed the relevant activities integrated in the research and explicit in the logframes. The appropriateness of imposing MTP as a planning tool on the Challenge Programs was raised. Because of the time-bound nature of the CPs, the involvement of multiple partners at the start of the activities are vital in ensuring long-term sustainability. The SC decided to finalize commentary to the MTPs virtually for submission to ExCo. The SC will identify those Center and CP MTPs that are sufficiently clear and of high quality to be exempted from a detailed analysis next year (see discussion in Item 9, below).

ITEM 9 – STANDING PANEL ON MONITORING AND EVALUATION (SPME) REPORT Ken Fischer , SPME Chair, updated the SC about the Standing Panel’s work, including briefing the participants about the joint SPME/SPIA Performance measurement workshop held prior to SC8. Regarding the Medium-Term Plans , the development of an on-line tool for submitting MTPs and for creating a System level MTP database and the shift of the SC’s emphasis to assessing the Center Strategic Plans will allow the SC to move to a “needs to” basis of evaluating the Center and CP MTPs. In this MTP cycle the SC will identify Center and CP MTPs with sufficiently good structure and quality of the content such that they do not need a detailed assessment in the following year. The SC will monitor the implementation of SPs during the transitional period of completing the framework plans that need to be reflected in the MTPs. It will also assess MTPs when the Center/CP has gone through an external review or has completed a new Strategic Plan. Although the SC will need to monitor the annual updates of the logframes, the suggested de-coupling of the output target planning in the MTPs from the Performance Measurement System will shift the responsibility of monitoring achievement to the Centers as an internal measure. The MTP guidelines and on-line data compilation will need to be adjusted to better cater for self-tracking (inclusion of verifiable indicators for output targets) and to establish long term record with a tracking element of what is or is not accomplished.

As impact pathway descriptions are getting better, the impact column from the logframes could be dropped as at present generally the latter consist of generic and repetitive statements. A baseline for what constitutes a good and measurable output target in different areas of research is needed. The SC agreed to recommend de-coupling of the MTP from the Performance Measurement System (PMS). As MTPs are improving, the SC’s emphasis will move to the Strategic Plans while assessing the MTPs

16 only periodically. The SC gave indications at the meeting of those MTPs that require less intensive review in the following year and those that continue to require a close assessment. These results would be given in the Commentary to be developed subsequently.

Drawing from the discussion during the PMS workshop (organized in conjunction with the SC meeting), SPME will work to improve the indicator for outcomes, reconsider the indicators for publications so that they would cover both broad reach for relevance and high quality, which currently is not sufficiently covered, design an indicator for capacity building and communicate more effectively the rationale of the indicators and what is expected as good performance. SPME will work in consultation with SPIA as needed. The SC agreed that the indicators for publications in particular need to measure both relevance and quality and to avoid the perception that publications are considered an end-point in themselves. There was also a wish to link the EPMR follow-up better to the PMS. The need to be very clear about the purpose, strengths and weaknesses of the PMS was emphasized to avoid misconceptions and mis-interpretations. The SC supported the improvements to the PMS suggested by SPME to a) improve the insight on scientific quality and b) to consider relevance for impact. The SC agreed that the overall PMS should be made simpler with better communication of what is expected from Centers as good performance. It called for caution in re- grouping and re-titling indicators. The SC will discuss with the CGIAR Secretariat how to improve all components of the PMS.

It was noted that the EPMR schedule will become easier with three EPMRs planned for 2008 and 2009. Planning of the EPMRs needs to start ahead of time to ensure the appointment of very qualified Panel members. In order to mine the EPMR reports for issues of System level importance, SPME plans to identify such issues, “nuggets”, from the most recent reports to bring to the attention of Members, e.g. through the CGIAR newsletter. Based on the EPMR synthesis reports’ recommendations, SPME will revisit the EPMR ToR and Guidelines. It will also implement a brief post-EPMR survey to get feed- back from Panels and Centers for improving the process. SPME will prepare an update to the M&E strategy that will describe how different components fit together and how they can better be linked to each other. In preparing the strategy SPME will differentiate planning from evaluation and consider the limitations in the different tools and processes.

SPME has considered the experience from the two CPERs recently completed. There is scope to improve the operational manner in which the quality of these reviews is assured. Elements of quality assurance include thorough briefing of the Panel, getting the Panel together for drafting the report and peer-review of the draft report before it is submitted to the SC. The SC concluded that the complexity of the program should be one criterion for deciding whether a Panel Secretary traveling with the team was needed, instead of continuing with the current practice of virtual backstopping from the SC Secretariat.

At SC7 the Council approved a Social Science Stripe review to be conducted in 2008. Scott Rozelle presented a scoping paper that a small team involving external input had developed at SPME’s request. The recommendation was to conduct the study in two phases; first to collect information about the current status of social sciences and social scientists at the CGIAR Centers drawing as much as possible from existing information and, on the basis of these data and analysis, prepare the ToRs for the second phase that would focus on clearly defined functional areas on the basis of information from the first phase. It was important that, what ever the functional focus would be, the study would look at disciplinary mix, roles and management issues. The Panel Chair would be identified to oversee the first phase. According to an observer it was important to consider the interactions between the social scientists and the natural scientists and how these interactions have changed. The Council concluded that two phases were needed and the Panel Chair should work with the SC and the SC Secretariat to develop the ToR for the second phase.

17

SPME is in the process of developing a paper on lessons learnt from the Challenge Programs . This will be a joint paper with the CGIAR Secretariat that will focus on the management and governance issues while the SC will prepare the lessons on the program issues. While it was recognized that this paper and the new CPs are being developed at the same time, it was considered important to draw lessons - particularly about the process and initiation of the CPs and whether the CPs are in line with what was originally proposed. Furthermore the paper would provide lessons on the implementation of the CPs, and would therefore be timely for the full-proposal development stage of future CPs.

To follow-up on the SWEPs meta-study completed in February 2007 and using that as source of analysis, SPME is preparing a more complete typology of SWEPs and analysis of their current agenda to consider their utility for implementing the SP in the context of CPs and framework plans. This will help identify relevant and viable SWEPs.

ITEM 10: STANDING PANEL ON PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES (SPPS) REPORT Mike Gale , SPPS Chair, summarized the Panel’s work in the last six months. Arising from earlier work, the SC had proposed that the System should revise and renew CGIAR guidelines for the use of IPR in the context of IPG research. However, missing knowledge to make this possible included a better grasp of the expected stewardship regimes and issues surrounding liability of Centers in entering into arrangements with the private sector. ToRs for such new studies on Stewardship and Liability were presented and circulated. This activity, approved in SC7 and aimed to be undertaken in close consultation with CAS-IP, would inform the GRPC in its development of the System-wide IP policy. He would also solicit input from the CGIAR Secretariat and PSC.

Having completed a practical study of Ethics and CGIAR Research, which also resulted in the recommendation for new CGIAR guidelines, the SPPS is managing the initiation of a third study, Ethics and the Mission of the CGIAR. The team is to be assembled under the Chairmanship of Professor Peter Sandoe. The Panel was virtually complete and the projected start date was early 2008 for a report to be submitted at SC10.

Gale informed the SC that a workshop on Biosafety , which had been pending as one of the recommendations from an SC-commissioned study in 2004, was under discussion. The meeting aims to network key Centers and NARS involved in transgenic research in order to inform the scientists of the recent developments, as well as to involve national counterparts in the early stages of transgenic research activity. It is also hoped that the workshop would assist the work of Bioversity International in bringing together the Centers to discuss policy-related matters in this area. The workshop is planned for early 2008.

Rey Martorell , SPPS Panel Member, reported the outcome of a Workshop on Food Safety which was convened with IFPRI in Washington DC, USA, on 8-9 May 2007. He presented the draft commentary, which distilled the key conclusions relevant to the development of food safety research as part of the system priorities and highlighted some follow-up studies that the SC might wish to consider. In the discussion of these strategic studies, the importance was noted of linking food safety research as it relates both to income generation and to producer and consumer health. Successfully conveying such a message would be important for recognition of this research by the CGIAR membership.

The Panel Chair reported on the development of Framework Plans to articulate and implement System Priority research . It was noted that the Alliance Deputies’ Executive ( ADE) had agreed to a program and schedule development of FPs. Some SPs were identified as potentially difficult areas (because of the large number of Centers involved or the newness of the area) and the ADE has

18 requested assistance from SC for these. Nevertheless, a number of FPs were scheduled to be finalized by the end of the year, including five by the end of September. This would provide an opportunity to initiate and trial the peer-review process being developed by SPPS.

In the discussion of the draft SPPS workplan, it was noted that overseeing the development of framework plans, review and implementation would take until early 2009. The Chair reported that neither the FPs or SPs were expected to be static texts. The SPPS was already considering what would be required to judge the planned portfolio of research, recurrent issues and new science, so that work could also begin in 2009 in analysis and the preparation of a commentary on the SPs which could be made to provide advice to the CGIAR in 2010 (5 years after endorsement of the SPs). It was expected, given the continuing planning cycles, that this commentary would be more of a mid-course evaluation and correction than a complete review of Priority research, which was targeted for 2015. The Chair noted that the review of framework plans was expected to be an interactive process with the Alliance. In addition, other new proposed studies will be developed in close consultation with the Alliance and other stakeholders. The draft SPPS workplan was being discussed in relation to these needs and the completion of the IP, Ethics and Biosafety studies planned for 2008.

ITEM 11: STANDING PANEL ON MOBILIZING SCIENCE (SPMS) REPORT On behalf of Hans Herren, SPMS Panel Chair, who was not present at the meeting, Mariza Barbosa acted as the Chair to the Panel. Maggie Gill summarized the rationale for the recently completed study of CGIAR Centers’ partnerships with civil society organizations (CSOs), and introduced James Smith , one of the two consultants who carried out the study. In describing the main insights and lessons learned from the study, Smith summarised that all the partnerships studied, to varying degrees, articulate needs, deliver technologies, and build capacities, trust and the networks to support the work of CGIAR Centers and their CSO partners. Partnerships also often produce other, sometimes unforeseen, outputs and outcomes in the Centers, such as the development of new methodological approaches to demand-led research that have more than local relevance, and a shift towards more ‘innovation systems’ thinking. The meeting welcomed the study’s findings. Key points during the discussion included: (i) the link between successful partnerships and funding; (ii) the cost/benefit of partnering with CSOs, relative to partnering with NARS; (iii) the need to develop criteria to help Centers decide with which CSOs should partner; (iv) whether there is a risk that CSO partnerships may be crowding out Center collaborations with NARS; (v) the degree to which insights and lessons learned from CSO partnerships are different from those pertaining to collaborations with other types of partners; and (vi) the need for the study’s report to bring out more clearly those examples in which Center-CSO partnerships have contributed to mobilizing Center science. Barbosa noted that these comments and questions will be taken into consideration in drafting the final report of the study, which should be ready in October to be published in early 2008. A brief summarizing the study’s main results will be distributed at AGM07, and Hans Herren will present the study’s main findings and its implications for the CGIAR at lunch at AGM07.

Barbosa noted arrangements being made for the AGM07 Science Forum on Harnessing Advances in Science for Sustainable Agriculture , in collaboration with the CGIAR Secretariat. Dr. William Calvin has agreed to deliver the Crawford Lecture at AGM07. The SC is also preparing a list of potential experts to act as speakers and moderators in the first and second sets of Parallel Sessions of the Science Forum; the first, featuring major scientific achievements in and beyond the CGIAR in different regions; and in the second, on developments in various fields of science with potential to be used by CG Centers to better address challenges to achieve sustainable agriculture and its multiple roles, including molecular biology, agroecology, climate risk management and social science. Barbosa mentioned that the Science Fora, so far jointly organized with the CGIAR Secretariat at AGM05 and at AGM07 have been designed for a wide range of stakeholders, including research managers, donors, and NARS officials. In order to foster more specific dialogue on science, Barbosa proposed that the SC

19 sets aside (every other year) time for science discussions between CGIAR Center scientists and scientists outside the System. The SC could organize a “Meeting on Science for Development” for instance in 2009, designed especially for CGIAR scientists, to showcase and provide a platform for discussion of new developments in science outside the CGIAR, with potential to be used in CGIAR research. Because the objectives and audience would be different from those of the AGM Science Forum, the event could be decoupled from AGM09, and, ideally, would be organized and financed jointly with Advanced Research Institutes and Science Academies.

Barbosa reported that SPMS has drafted preliminary ToR for a study on CGIAR Centers’ partnerships with universities and other advanced research institutions (ARIs) , which will be circulated to the SC for input and endorsement. The study will identify and document ways by which upstream science can be mobilized through partnerships for the benefit of CGIAR’s System Priorities, in two phases.

The SC prepared a publication titled “Science for Agricultural Development” that was launched at AGM05. The original aim was for this to be published every two years, however, a series of influential policy reports on agriculture’s role in development will be launched soon; including the World Bank’s World Development Report (October 2007), IFPRI’s Vision 20/20 (December 2007), and the International Assessment on Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD; February 2008). Therefore, the preparation of the SC’s next publication of Science for Agricultural Development may be considered for 2008. This will not only avoid competing with the other major reports but will also allow the publication to draw on key policy messages of these documents.

ITEM 12: STANDING PANEL ON IMPACT ASSESSMENT (SPIA) REPORT Jim Ryan , SPIA Chair, reported to the SC the status of on-going SPIA activities and future SPIA initiatives. After observing some mis-interpretations of the 3a impact indicator of the CGIAR Performance Measurement (PM) System, the title of this indicator has been changed to reflect more accurately what it actually measures – commitment to documenting impacts and building an impact assessment culture. The results of this year’s exercise, including Center scores, the weights and scoring method used has been documented and shared with Center IA focal points (IAFPs) in the interest of transparency and feedback. SPIA members participated in the pre-SC8 meeting PM workshop where some concerns about the 3a and 3b impact indicators were raised by the Alliance. SPIA appreciates this feedback and discussed many of these in detail. Some suggested changes are being considered and will be discussed with IAFPs. However, it was agreed that no major changes in the 3a impact indicator should take place for the 2008 exercise.

SPIA is considering de-emphasizing hard (green) cover reports to save costs and reduce paper use. Hard copies of Briefs will still be produced and the full documents will be available on the CGIAR impact and SPIA websites for interested readers. In the discussion, some SC members felt there was still a need for hard copies of the full reports for selected audiences, e.g., those without easy access to websites. It was agreed that a reduced number of hard copies could be still be published but the focus would shift to Briefs and the electronic versions. SPIA also reported on its communication with the IAFPs – especially the consultative approach, the dissemination of IA information on CGIAR impact website and publication of books (e.g. the IFPRI-SPIA book on research and poverty) and submission of articles to professional journals as part of its communication activities.

Three of the seven draft reports on Center case studies for the Policy-oriented Research Impact Assessment (PORIA) study have been submitted; the remaining four are expected by mid September. Consultants and SPIA will review the draft reports and provide consolidated comments to the study leaders to make revisions. The key findings of PORIA will be presented at an AGM07 luncheon

20 session, if possible. SPIA is considering alternative workshop formats to discuss the PORIA case studies and several means (books, special issues of professional journals) to publish the final papers.

A brief background on the rationale, objectives and status of the South Asia Impact Assessment study was presented by SPIA. The study leader has submitted an annotated outline, which is under review. The study is timely in that it provides an excellent opportunity for the SC to present an objective and convincing rejoinder to the IAASTD report.

SPIA noted that the preparation of the Strategic Guidelines for Impact Assessment (SGIA) report is underway. SPIA will circulate the third draft to interested donors and research managers for their input. A teleconference will be held with focal points prior to completing the document and a drafting team consisting of SPIA, Center focal points and the lead author will finalize the document.

SPIA is searching for a new member in 2008 to replace its retiring member, Flavio Avila. A shortlist of candidates have been prepared for discussion, focusing on candidates with a non-economics disciplinary background, impact assessment experience and knowledge of the CGIAR.

A two-page draft SPIA strategy was presented that envisions making the CGIAR a leader in design and conduct of ex-post impact assessment, building investors’ confidence of past and future investments in the CGIAR and institutionalizing IA as an essential part of research management and planning. SPIA’s mandate is to provide quality and timely information to CGIAR members by partnering with Centers. SPIA strives to achieve that by maintaining its independence, objectivity and the quality of its work through a peer-review process, development of new methodologies and broadening the scope of IA. The meeting generally felt this was an important contribution and were favorable toward the strategy. A comment was received from a donor asking about the actual independence of SPIA. The SPIA Chair reminded the SC and observers that SPIA’s predecessor, IAEG, was set up to report directly to the CGIAR (for independence), as SPIA still endeavors to do at AGM. SPIA’s mandate would be considered in the light of the System’s External Review.

Under future initiatives SPIA reported the following ideas:

• Potential for Enhancing Utilization of ex-post IA-related Information: The project would make optimal use of ex-post IA-related information by enhancing learning from such evaluations. The persistent demand for more learning and change (e.g. ILAC, with strong emphasis on processes & institutional change) has been on the agenda for some time. The target audience for this study is research managers, senior scientists and donors. • Non-Economic Indicators of Impact: This study will address donor demands and the evidence of impacts beyond the traditional rate-of-return focus of impact assessment, including social and environmental indicators of impact. The study will make an inventory of case studies, methods and indicators of “non-economic” impacts of research. • Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT): At SC 7 Panel members encouraged SPIA to look into the potential use of the RCT method in ex-post IA. The RCT enhances the rigor and credibility of IA by establishing clear counterfactuals and causality. The method is extensively used by the health community and increasingly by economists as a component of experimental economics. HarvestPlus and SSA CPs are already using the method. SPIA’s null hypothesis is that RCTs may be more appropriate as a test of efficacy of intervention and potential for scaling up cost effectively but less relevant for ex-post IAs. SPIA plans to commission a position paper to examine the scope and feasibility of this approach for ex-post IA. • Impact of CGIAR Investments in Germplasm Collection, Conservation, Characterization and Evaluation: The CGIAR has invested almost $700 million (2002 dollars) in ‘Sustaining Biodiversity for Current and Future Generations’. The impact of this investment, however, has hardly been

21 assessed. This study would focus on estimating the value of stored material using concepts such as existence values, inter-generational equity, etc., in addition to their value as sources of genetic material for breeding & biotechnology. • Impact Assessment of Participatory Research in the CGIAR: SPIA believes there is a need to re- assess the evidence on the impacts from PR because several of the conclusions from the recent IA of PR study (part of the external evaluation of PRGA recently concluded) were not substantiated by the literature review and analysis. This assessment is an essential step to provide a sufficient and rigorous basis for estimating the added value of PR over conventional methods of conducting research.

SPIA held an IAFP meeting in 2006, in which 13 Centers, 4 CPs, donors, IA experts and SPIA participated. The response was very positive and a consensus emerged that regular meetings should be held. The next meeting is being planned jointly with EMBRAPA in Brasilia for November 2008. The agenda will be developed in collaboration with IAFPs. In addition, SPIA is planning to organize a special session on impact assessment at the International Association of Agricultural Economics meeting in Beijing in 2009. The forum will provide a good opportunity to present on-going work and interact with peers.

ITEM 13: SCIENCE COUNCIL WORKPLAN 2008/2009 Ruben Echeverría , SC Executive Director, briefly mentioned that as the Workplan 2006/07 comes to a close with an impressive amount of items, a new workplan and budget is being prepared for 2008 and 2009 based on the preliminary ideas presented at the meeting by each of the Panels. The new workplan under preparation is aiming at a limited number of substantive activities as well as at a slightly reduced budget. The workplan will leave some space for future demands, not yet specified, that is very likely to come to the SC in the next two years, taking into consideration demands from the Centers and CGIAR Programs as well as from members. The SC decided to finish the preparation of the workplan, to be submitted to ExCo, virtually as soon as the ideas mentioned at the meeting have clear rationales and expected costs.

CLOSING SESSION Rudy Rabbinge , SC Chair, thanked everybody for their participation stating that it was an excellent week of good and stimulating discussions and also of excellent hospitality provided by FAO and Bioversity. He noted that it was very important to continue to upgrade the quality of SC’s work to serve the CGIAR System. The SC Chair gave special thanks to Dr. Vir Chopra and Dr. Onesmo Ole- moi-Yoi, both departing the SC at the end of 2007, for their contributions to the SC of the CGIAR during the past four years. The Chair also thanked Dr. Favio Avila, member of SPIA departing at the end of 2007, for his contributions to the Science Council.

Regarding future SC meetings, SC9 was confirmed for March 28 – April 1 2008 in Nairobi (co- organized by ICRAF and ILRI). A preferred date for SC10 would be at the end of August 2008 to be organized at a venue to be identified.

22 EIGHTH SCIENCE COUNCIL MEETING FAO/BIOVERSITY INTERNATIONAL ROME, ITALY

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

SCIENCE COUNCIL MEMBERS

Rudy Rabbinge, SC Chair, University Professor Wageningen University, Lawickse Allee 11 6701 N Wageningen, The Netherlands, Tel:+31 317 483 988 Fax:+ 31 317 495 430 e-mail: [email protected]

Mariza M Tanajura Luz Barbosa, DS Agricultural Economics, SHIS, QL 16 Conj 06 Casa 11, Brasília DF 71.640- 265, Brazil, Tel: +55 61 3364 2430 or 3364 2304, Fax: +55 61 3248 2415, e-mail: [email protected]

Virender Lal Chopra, Member, Planning Commission, Yojana Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001 India Tel:+91 11 23096586 (Office), Fax:+91 11 23096708, e-mail: [email protected]

Ken Fischer, Adjunct Professor, School of Land and Food Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane Q4072, Australia, Tel: (617) 33789961, Fax: (617) 33651188, e-mail: k.fischer@cgiar.org

Mike Gale, John Innes Foundation Emeritus Fellow, John Innes Centre, Norwich Research Park, Colney, Norwich NR4 7UH, U.K., Tel:+44 1603 450599, e-mail: [email protected]

Onesmo K. ole-MoiYoi, MD, DSc (hc), Former Director: Research & Partnerships, and currently Senior Visiting Scientist, International Center of Insect Physiology & Ecology (ICIPE), Duduville, PO Box 30772 00100, Nairobi: Chair, Kenyatta University Council, Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254 20 8632000 or +254 722 473711 (direct), Fax: +254 20 860110/803360, e-mail: [email protected]

Jim Ryan, 18 Nungara Place, Aranda A.C.T., Australia 2614, Tel: +61 (0) 2 62511942 , e-mail: [email protected]

SCIENCE COUNCIL STANDING PANEL MEMBERS

Flavio Avila (SPIA), Researcher and Impact Evaluation Coordinator, Management and Strategy Secretariat (SGE). Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation – EMBRAPA, Parque Estação Biológica - PqEB s/nº, Brasília, DF - Brasil - 70770-901, Tel: +55 (61) 3448-4315, e-mail: [email protected]

Walter E. Baethgen (SPMS), Director, Latin America/Caribbean Program, International Research Institute for Climate and Society (IRI), The Earth Institute at Columbia University, LAC Office: UNDP Uruguay, Barrios Amorin 870 P 3, Montevideo 11200, Uruguay, Tel: +(598 2) 412-3357, Fax: +(598 2) 412-3360, USA Office: 124 Monell Bldg.,61 Route 9W, Lamont Campus, Palisades, New York 10964-8000, Tel: +1 845 680-4459, fax: +1 845 680-4864, e-mail: [email protected]

Osvaldo Feinstein (SPME), Profesor, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Torpedero Tucumán 18, 8 B, Madrid 28016, Spain, Tel: +34 91 350 8405, e-mail: [email protected]

Maggie Gill (SPMS), Chief Scientific Adviser, The Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs, Pentland House, 47 Robb’s Loan, Tel: +44 (0) 131 244 6042, e-mail: [email protected]

Mywish K. Maredia (SPIA), Deputy Director, Pulse CRSP and Adjunct Assoc. Professor, Dept. of Agric. Economics, 321 Agriculture Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1039 Tel: (517) 355-4693, Fax: (517) 432-1073, e-mail: [email protected]

23 Reynaldo Martorell (SPPS), Robert W. Woodruff Professor of Int. Nutrition & Chair, Hubert Department of Global Health, The Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University, 1518 Clifton Road, N.E., Atlanta, Ga. USA 30322, Tel: +1 404 727 9854, +1 404 727 9888 (Sec.), Fax: +1 404 727 1278, e-mail: [email protected]

Scott Rozelle (SPPS), Senior Fellow and Professor, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA 94305, USA, Tel: +1 650-724 6402, Fax: +1 650-862 0466, e-mail: [email protected]

Paul L.G. Vlek (SPME), Professor, Director Div. Ecology and Natural Resources, Center for Development Research (ZEF) Walter Flex Str. 3, D 53113 Bonn, Germany, Tel: +49-228-731866, e-mail: [email protected]

OBSERVERS

Adewale Adekunle, Coordinator, Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Program, Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), 2 Gowa Close, Roman Ridge, PNB CT 173, Accra, Ghana Tel: +233 21 772823, e-mail: [email protected]

Pamela Anderson, Director General, International Potato Center (CIP), Av. La Molina 1895, La Molina, Lima, Peru. Postal address: Apartado 1558, Lima 12, Peru. Tel +51 1 3496017 , e-mail: [email protected]

Kwesi Atta-Krah, Deputy Director General, Office of the Director General, Bioversity International, Bioversity Headquarters, Via dei Tre Denari 472/a, 00057 Maccarese (Fiumicino) (Italy), Tel: +39 066118349, e-mail: [email protected]

Enrico Baccioni, ARD Technical Adviser, Ministero Affari Esteri, Istituto Agronomico per l’Oltremare, Via Antonio Cocchi, 4, 50131 Florence, Italy, Tel: +39 055 5061311, Fax: +39 055 5522933, e-mail: [email protected]

Adel El Beltagy, Chair/Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR), Tel: +39 06 57055047, e-mail: [email protected]

Asit K. Biswas , President & Academician, Third World Centre for Water Management, Avenida Manantial Oriente No. 27, Los Clubes, Atizapan, Estado de Mexico, 52958, MEXICO, Tel. 52-55-5379-5429, e-mails: [email protected] , [email protected]

Howarth Bouis, Director of HarvestPlus (based at IFPRI), c/o IFPRI, 2033 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006- 1002, USA, Tel: +1 202-862-5600, e-mail: [email protected]

Ken Cassman , Director, Nebraska Center for Energy Science Research, and Heuermann Professor of Agronomy, University of Nebraska, 103 Alexander Building - West | 312 N 14th | Lincoln, NE 68588-0447 USA, phone: 402- 472-3852, e-mail: [email protected]

Gabriella D’Elia, Istituto Agronomico per l’Oltremare, C6 DGCS-UTC, Ministero degli Affari Esteri, Via S.Contarini, 25, Roma, Tel: +39 06 36916206, e-mail: [email protected]

Namita Datta, Governance Advisor, CGIAR Secretariat, The World Bank, MSN G6-601, 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433 USA, Tel: 1-202-473-3650, e-mail: [email protected]

Marlene Diekman, GTZ – BEAF Bonn, Postfach 120 508, 53047 Bonn, Germany, Tel: +49-228 4460 1865, e-mail: [email protected]

Howard Elliot, Consultant, 884 Wellington Crescent, Winnipeg, MB R3M 0C6, Canada, Tel: +1 2044874797, e-mail: [email protected]

Pierre Fabre, Executive Secretary, Commission pour la Recherche Agricole Internationale, French Ministry of Research. 1, Rue Descartes, 75231, Paris Cedex 05, France, Tel: +33 (0)1 55559116,

24 e-mail: [email protected]

Emile Frison, Director General, Bioversity International, Via dei Tre Denari 472/a, 00057 Maccarese (Fiumicino), Rome, Italy, Tel. +39 06 6118202, e-mail: [email protected]

Jim Godfrey, BoT Chair, Centro International de la Papa (CIP), e-mail: [email protected]

Gaston Grenier, Chair of the Board of Trustees, Afica Rice Center, WARDA, 56, Rue de Bromont Gatineau, Quebec, Canada J82 6E8, Tel: 8192430106, e-mail: [email protected]

Guido Gryseels, Director, Royal Museum for Central Africa (RMCA), Leuvensesteenweg 133080 Tervuren – Belgium, Tel : +32 2 769 52 85, Fax : +32 2 769 52 42, e-mail: [email protected]

Ayman Abou Hadid, President, Agricultural Research Center, 9 Gammaa street, Giza 12 619, Egypt Tel: + (202) 357 20944-35722069, Fax: +(202) 35722609, e-mail: [email protected]

Paul Harding, Assistant Director General, Office of the Director General, Bioversity International, Bioversity Headquarters, Via dei Tre Denari 472/a, 00057 Maccarese (Fiumicino) (Italy), Tel: Tel: +39 066118239, e-mail: [email protected]

Victoria Henson-Apollonio Senior Scientist, Project Manager, Central Advisory Service on Intellectual Property (CAS-IP), Bioversity International, Bioversity Headquarters, Via dei Tre Denari 472/a, 00057 Maccarese (Fiumicino) (Italy), Tel: +39 066118300, e-mail: [email protected]

Peter Hartmann , Director General, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Oyo Road P.M.B. 5320, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria, e-mail: [email protected]

Bryan Harvey , Chair Board of Trustees, Special Advisor to the V-P Research, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Box 5000 RPO University, 110 Gymnasium Place, Saskatoon SK S7N 4J8, Canada, e-mail: [email protected]

Anne Marie Izac, Chief Alliance Officer, Alliance of the CGIAR Centres, c/o IFAD, Via del Serafico 200, 00142, Rome-Italy, Tel: +39 06 5459 2671, e-mail: [email protected]

Shellemiah Keya , Assistant Director General for Research and Development, Africa Rice Center (WARDA), 01 BP, Cotonou, Benin, Tel: 00 229 21 35 01 88, e-mail: [email protected]

Manuel M. Lantin, Science Adviser, CGIAR Secretariat, The World Bank, 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433 U.S.A., Tel: (202) 473-8912 Fax: (202) 473-8110, e-mail: [email protected]

Iain MacGillivray , Principal Advisor, Agriculture, Economic Development, Policy Branch, CIDA, 200 Promenade du Portage Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A OG4 Tel: (819) 997-7690, e-mail: [email protected]

John McDermott, Deputy Director General of Research, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), P.O. Box 30709, Nairobi 00100, Kenya , Tel + 254-20 422 3000, + 1-650 833 6660 (USA direct), + 1-650 833 6661 (USA direct), e-mail: [email protected]

David Molden, Deputy Director General, International Water Management Institute (IWMI), 127, Sunil Mawatha, Pelawatte, Battaramulla, Sri Lanka, Mailing Address: P . O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka, Tel: +94-11 2787404, 2784080, e-mail: [email protected]

Edgardo Moscardi, Consultant, agricultural research and development, Av. Chenaut 1957, 11B. 1426 Buenos Aires, CF. Argentina Tel: +541147781257, e-mail: [email protected]

25 Alexander Müller, Assistant Director General, Natural Resources Management and Environment Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, Roma, Italy, Tel: +39 06 57053037, e-mail: [email protected]

Cyrus Ndiritu, , PhD (OGW, EBS), Greenplanet Africa Ltd, Beverly Court, Marcus Garvey Road, P. O. Box 10460- 00100, Nairobi. Kenya. Tel: +254 (0)20 2731037/8, email: [email protected]

Gerry O’Donoghue, Director, Corporate Services, Bioversity International, Bioversity Headquarters, Via dei Tre Denari 472/a, 00057 Maccarese (Fiumicino) (Italy), Tel: +39 066118201, e-mail: [email protected]

Phillip Pardey, Professor, Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota 1994 Buford Avenue, 231 Classroom Office Building, St Paul MN 55108, USA, Tel: +1 6126252766, e-mail: [email protected]

Prabhu Pingali, Director, Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESAD), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, Roma, Italy, Tel: +39 06 57054217, e-mail: [email protected]

Maureen Robinson, 8217 Hamilton Spring Court, Bethesda, MD 20817 USA, Tel: 301 365-7503 office, e-mail: [email protected]

Yves Savidan, Scientific Advisor and International Relations Officer, Life Science, Agropolis, Avenue Agropolis F-34394 Montpellier Cedex 5, Tel: +33467047569, e-mail: [email protected]

Papa Seck, Director General, Africa Rice Center (WARDA), 01 BP, Cotonou, Benin, Tel: 00 229 21 35 01 88 ext.310, e-mail: [email protected]

James Smith, The Graduate School of Social and Political Studies, Adam Ferguson Building,, 40 George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LL Scotland, Tel: +44 (0)131 651 1560 / 651 3244, e-mail: [email protected]

Mahmoud Solh, Director General, International Center for Agricultural Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), P.O. Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria, Tel: +963-21-2225517, e-mail: [email protected]

Meredith Soule, USAID, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523 uSA Tel: +1 202 712 1058, e- mail: [email protected]

Gioacchino Carabba Tettamanti , senior expert of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, e-mail: [email protected]

Eric Tollens, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Center for Agricultural and Food Economics, W. de Croylan 42, 3001 Leuven, Belgium, Tel: 32-(0)-321616/1614, e-mail: [email protected]

Ricardo Uauy, Professor of Public Health Nutrition, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 281 Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK, Tel : +44 (0) 20 7870 7930, e-mail: [email protected]

Eduardo Venezian, Dean, Faculty of Agricultural Forestry and Veterinary Sciences, University Mayor, Santiago, Chile. Tel: +5623281257, e-mail: [email protected]

Joachim Voss, Director General, International Center for Tropical Agriculture, Recta Cali-Palmira, km 17, A.A. 6713, Cali, Colombia, Tel: +57 (2) 4450000 (direct), e-mail: [email protected]

Ren Wang , CGIAR Director, CGIAR Secretariat, The World Bank, MSN G6-601, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 USA, e-mail: [email protected]

Jonathan Woolley, Coordinator, CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food, P.O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka, New Direct Tel (94 11) 288 0156, New Tel (via Switchboard) (94 11) 288 0000 ext 2325, e-mail: [email protected]

26

Beatriz Alvarez, Chief, Research and Extension Unit (NRRR), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, Roma, Italy, Tel: +39 06 57052787, e-mail: [email protected]

Johathan Wadsworth, Senior Rural Livelihoods Adviser, Central Research Department, Department for International Development, 1, Palace Street, London SW1E 5HE, United Kingdom, Tel: +44 (0) 207023 0872, e-mail: [email protected]

SCIENCE COUNCIL SECRETARIAT

Ruben G. Echeverría, Executive Director, CGIAR Science Council Secretariat, FAO, SDDC, C-626, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy, Tel +39 06 57054787, e-mail: [email protected]

Sirkka Immonen, Senior Agricultural Research Officer, CGIAR Science Council Secretariat, FAO, SDDC, C-634, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy, Tel +39 06 57054861, e-mail: [email protected]

Timothy Kelley, Senior Agricultural Research Officer, CGIAR Science Council Secretariat, FAO, SDDC, C-632, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy, Tel +39 06 57054210, e-mail: [email protected]

Peter Gardiner, Senior Agricultural Research Officer, CGIAR Science Council Secretariat, FAO, SDDC, C-624, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy, Tel +39 06 57052458, e-mail: [email protected]

Beatriz Ávalos-Sartorio, Senior Agricultural Research Officer, CGIAR Science Council Secretariat, FAO, SDDC, C-636, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy, Tel +39 06 57055659, e-mail: [email protected]

Haruko Okusu, Agricultural Research Officer, CGIAR Science Council Secretariat, FAO, SDDC, C-631, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy, Tel +39 06 57056091, e-mail: [email protected]

Nega Wubeneh, Agricultural Research Officer, CGIAR Science Council Secretariat, FAO, SDDC, C-687, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy, Tel +39 06 57053543, e-mail: [email protected]

Jenny Nasr, Agricultural Research Officer, CGIAR Science Council Secretariat, FAO, SDDC, C-633, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy, Tel +39 06 57056081, e-mail: [email protected]

Robert Chapman, Agricultural Research Officer, CGIAR Science Council Secretariat, FAO, SDDC, C-635, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy, Tel +39 06 57053104, e-mail: [email protected]

27

28 ANNEX: MEETING EVALUATION

As part of its process to evaluate and improve the workings of the Science Council, the SC Secretariat conducts an evaluation survey at the end of each meeting.

Twenty (20) participants answered the evaluation questionnaire, including six (6) observers. Excluding the observers, the response rates were: SC members 67% (4 out of possible 6); Standing Panel members 38% (3 out of possible 8); and SC Secretariat 78% (7 out of possible 9).

OPENING SESSION. Most respondents felt that this item was adequately timed (100%), and the meeting agenda/outcomes were clearly summarized (89%). One respondent felt that the agenda was merely introduced rather than presented for adoption.

SCIENCE THAT MATTERS FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT: 1 (BIOFUELS). All the participants felt that the topic was timely and interesting (100%). Most respondents agreed that the allocated time was sufficient (75%) and the major issues were summarized well (80%). Comments were generally positive, with some noting that the presentation time could be longer and include discussion on whether and how this subject area might be considered by SC in its work .

SCIENCE THAT MATTERS FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT: 2 (SPILLOVER). Most participants felt that the topic was timely and interesting (80%), and that the allocated time was sufficient (90%). While the majority thought that the major issues were summarized well (63%), over a third (37%) were not sure – some felt that the overall message was unclear and that the findings needed fleshing out. Need for a discussion on SC action was also mentioned.

Future topics: Suggestions for other topics to pursue in the future under this agenda item included: synthetic genomics; synthetic biology; agrarianism; nexus of health and agriculture; social sciences; climate change and agriculture; pandemics/livestock; use of randomized control trials; striga; nanotechnology; RNAi and agriculture; CGIAR gene banks in the rational global system (by Global Crop Diversity Trust); follow-up on the implications of prices/biofuels to R&D for developing country agriculture; and promoting delivery and uptake of research results.

ITEM 1: CIAT EPMR. Most respondents agreed that time allocated to this item was sufficient (90%), appropriate background information was provided (80%), the major issues were adequately discussed (84%), and that the discussion and outcome were adequately summarized (85%). Half of the respondents felt that the decisions taken were clear (50%); while a significant number was not sure (45%). One respondent commented that members would have gained from being briefed in detail during the “Working Dinner“ prior to the meeting .

ITEM 2: CIP EPMR. All the respondents agreed that time allocated to this item was sufficient (100%). Almost all felt that appropriate background information was provided (95%), major issues related to this were adequately discussed (95%), and that the discussion and outcome were adequately summarized (90%); A majority of respondents felt that the decisions taken were clear (75%); a amall percentage, were not sure (15%) or felt that they were inadequate (5%).

ITEM 3: WARDA EPMR. All the respondents (100%) agreed that sufficient time was allocated to this item and appropriate background information was provided. Most thought that the major issues related to this were adequately discussed (90%), the discussion/outcome was adequately summarized (85%), and that decisions taken were clear (75%).

ITEM 4: IITA EPMR. Most respondents agreed that time allocated to this item was sufficient (95%),

29 appropriate background information was provided (95%), major issues were adequately discussed (80%) and discussion/outcome were adequately summarized (85%). Although most thought that the decisions taken were clear (70%), 20% was not sure and 10% felt that the decisions were not clear.

ITEM 5: META-ANALYSIS OF EPMRS. Most respondents agreed that time allocated to this item was sufficient (80%) and appropriate background information was provided (95%). Most thought that major issues related to this were adequately discussed (70%), with the remainder not sure (30%). The opinions were divided for the next two questions (below right) *. Comments noted the lack of Discussion and outcome adequately Decisions taken (if any) clear to you? recommendations in the report, and summarized? thus the lack of clarity for the actions to No 5% No 10% be taken. One commentator Yes 50% Yes 40% Not sure 45% suggested that there should have Not sure 45% been a prior agreement with the report authors to use the SC8 as the venue for discussing specific recommendations .

ITEM 6: WATER & FOOD CHALLENGE PROGRAM EXTERNAL REVIEW. Most respondents agreed that time allocated to this item was sufficient (89%), appropriate background information was provided (79%), and the major issues Discussion and outcome adequately Decisions taken (if any) clear to you? related to this were adequately summarized? discussed (79%). Opinions were split No 5% No 5% on the next two questions (right). Yes 32% Not sure 63% Some comments pointed to the weak Not sure 42% Yes 53% presentation of the report, apparent Panel difficulties, and the lack of clarity on the next steps ahead.

ITEM 7: HARVEST PLUS CHALLENGE PROGRAM EXTERNAL REVIEW. All respondents (100%) agreed that time allocated to this item was sufficient, appropriate background information was provided, there was adequate discussion on the major issues, and that the discussion and outcome were adequately summarized. Most respondents felt that decisions taken were clear to them (78%), while 17% was not sure. Most of the comments commended the excellent performance of the Panel/Chair and the good presentation/discussion.

ITEM 8: SC REVIEW OF MEDIUM TERM PLANS (MTPS). This agenda item received a divided response in general. From the SC perspective, reviewing the MTPs on the basis of draft commentaries proved much more effective than the way it was done in 2006. However, some felt that the item was rushed and there was too little time for discussion. In particular the observers, who did not have the draft commentaries, felt that much of the discussion was not open to them, especially as the summaries highlighted items for resolution by the SC rather than the general key points.

Time allocated sufficient? Adequate background information Major issues related to this provided? adequately discussed?

No, 17% No, 26% No, 17% Not sure, Not sure, Yes, 61% Not sure, 22% Yes, 58% Yes, 61% 16% 22%

* Key to pie charts: I=Yes; I=No; I=Not sure.

30 Discussions adequately Decisions taken (if any) w ere clear summarized? to you?

No, 6% No, 17% Not sure, Yes, 39% 28% Yes, 67% Not sure, 44%

ITEM 9: SPME REPORT. Most respondents agreed that time allocated to this item was sufficient (89%), appropriate background information was provided (89%), the major issues related to this were adequately discussed (89%), and that the discussion and outcome were adequately summarized (83%). More than half felt that decisions taken were clear to them (63%) but a third of them (33%), half of them observers, were not sure. A few felt that there was too little time .

ITEM 10: SPPS REPORT. Most respondents agreed that time allocated to this item was sufficient (94%), major issues related to this were adequately discussed (75%), and discussion/outcome were adequately summarized (75%). More than half agreed that appropriate background information was provided (63%) and felt that Appropriate background information Decisions taken (if any) clear to you? decisions taken were clear to them provided?

(56%), although the responses were No 6% No 13% Not sure Yes 56% divided (right). Not sure 25% 38% Yes 63% Comments noted the lateness of the document, lack of sufficient time for discussion, and too much detail on certain items.

ITEM 11: SPMS REPORT. Most respondents agreed that time Appropriate background allocated to this item was sufficient (78%). Opinions were divided information provided? on the remainder (right and below). No, 25% Yes, 56% Comments noted the lack of discussion on the context of the CSO Not sure, study and whether/how its outcomes might be used, and raised 19% concerns on the absence of the Standing Panel Chair and the lack of clarity in the division between SC and Secretariat.

Major issues related to this Discussion and outcome Decision taken (if any) clear to adequately discussed? adequately summarized? you?

No, 6% No, 12% No, 25% Yes, 50% Yes, 47% Yes, 41% Not sure, Not sure, Not sure, 47% 47% 25%

ITEM 12: SPIA REPORT. All respondents agreed that time allocated to this item was sufficient (100%). Most also felt that the appropriate background information was provided (94%), major issues related to this were adequately discussed (94%), the discussion/outcome were adequately summarized (94%), and that decisions taken were clear to them (78%). Comments noted the lack of sufficient time for discussion.

ITEM 13: SC WORKPLAN. Compared to other agenda items, the positive response rate for this item was significantly lower (right and below). Only around half of the respondents agreed that time allocated to this item was sufficient (50%), appropriate background information was provided (50%), major issues related to this were adequately discussed (44%), the discussion/outcome were adequately

31 summarized (53%), and that decisions Time allocated to this item Appropriate background taken were clear to them (40%). sufficient? information provided?

Comments raised concerns about the No 19% No 25% Yes 50% lack of time for public discussion. A Not sure Not sure Yes 50% 31% number of respondents felt that many 25% issues were left hanging for the closed session.

Decision taken (if any) clear to you? Discussion and outcome Major issues related to this adequately summarised? adequately discussed?

No 27% Yes 40% No 33% No 31% Yes 44% Not sure 33% Yes 53% Not sure Not sure 13% 25%

Major outcomes of the meeting SC CHAIR’S CLOSING REMARKS. Most respondents agreed adequately summarised? that time allocated to this item was sufficient (79%), but less than No 14% Yes 43% half felt that major outcomes of the meeting were adequately Not sure summarized (43%; right). 43% Comments noted the need for more elaboration on the Scoping exercise and IAASTD report.

PARTICIPANT’S SELF-ASSESSMENT. Participants generally felt that they prepared well for the meeting. All respondents thought that they read the documents pertinent to their Standing Panel (100%), but only a quarter had felt that they read the documents (25%) for Standing Panels outside of his/her responsibilities. Two-thirds of the participants felt that they participated actively in the meetings (69%) and slightly more felt that they adequately prepared the summaries and commentaries of their responsibilities (73%). While they thought that their overall performance was acceptable, the overall preparation and performance seemed lower at SC8 compared toSC7.

My overall preparation for the meeting My overall participation in the meeting w as... was...

100% 100% Just OK, 12% Just OK, 23% 80% 80% Just OK, 53% Just OK, 63% 60% 60% Adequate, 40% 88% 40% Adequate, 73% Adequate, 47% 20% 20% Adequate, 38% 0% 0% SC7 SC8 SC7 SC8

RESPONSES TO GENERAL QUESTIONS. Respondents seemed relatively satisfied with the meeting. Most felt positively about the balance of agenda items to the overall goals of the CGIAR (100%), time allocation/balance (89%), participation of Standing Panel members (94%) and observers (95%), Chair’s performance (90%), and logistics (84% at FAO, 90% at Bioversity). Many were however concerned about the large number of agenda items (56%). Some also felt that the documents were provided at too short notice (26%) and that the participation of some SC members was too little (21%).

Matters that worked particularly well and should be continued were: preparation of materials by SC Secretariat; scientific presentations; logistics; Web-based background documents; inviting views from observers; and Chair’s performance. Matters that worked poorly and needed attention were: crowded

32 meeting room, room difficult to find (at FAO); poor audio/microphone arrangements, transportation tiresome (at Bioversity); need for commentary drafting time for EPMRs, need for time to read all documents; the Chair’s strong attempt to keep the meeting to time; need for more electronic means of documentation; lack of advance warning and background briefing on contentious issues (at Working Dinner); and difficulties in the way MTP discussions were structured to allow observers to join in.

A SUMMARY OF POINTS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION

Introduction. The feedback was by and large positive for SC8, particularly considering that it had one of the longest and most crowded agendas in its recent history. The rates of positive responses to almost all the “general” questions were higher than that from SC7. The two exceptions were the number of agenda items (which could have been predicted), and logistics (discussed further below). Nonetheless, there is a need to encourage further active engagement in order for the Science Council to maximize the opportunity provided. Based on the feedback in the evaluation, improvements can be made largely in two areas:

(i) Encouraging active participation 1: Improving clarity. Four agenda items received more divided responses than the others. Access to discussions and unclear summaries/outcomes were raised in items on MTP and the SC Workplan. A number of respondents were concerned that many major issues related to the Workplan bypassed the plenary and went into the closed session.

Of the four Panels, SPPS and SPMS required improvement in some areas. The SPPS was criticized that for some items background information was late (which was also mentioned at SC7). Some raised concerns about the lack of clarity in the decisions taken, possibly due to the fact that the participants had not been able to read the related documents adequately to follow the decision making. The SPMS also received comments that the discussions, summary/outcomes, and decisions taken on some of its major studies were unclear – perhaps due to the fact that the Panel Chair was absent.

(ii) Encouraging active participation 2: Prepare well for certain agenda items. Some respondents felt that a number of items required briefing and strategizing prior to the meeting in order for them to better participate in the meeting. In particular, agenda items with potentially contentious issues might have required further background information or advance warning. Agenda items that might be based on weaker reports may require enhanced preparation and discussion to get a clear outcome. The Working Dinner was mentioned as the venue to do so, possibly prepared with an agenda or list of potential issues, to allow the participants to be equally informed about issues and to enhance preparation for these.

Another way to encourage a more active participation in the meeting might be in the delivery of background documents. It has often been noted that some of the documents were sent out too late, and some were excessive, while others thought there were not enough background documents on certain topics. More non-paper means that would allow the participants to pick and choose the documents they need (e.g. password-protected Web page for each Panel, CD- ROMs) was mentioned in by some respondents, which should be considered for SC9.

Some thoughts on logistics. While most participants were generally satisfied with the logistics, the overall satisfaction rate has decreased from 100% at SC7 to 89-90% at SC8, perhaps due to a number of “glitches” noted in the evaluation: problems with finding the room (at FAO), room/table size, audio/microphone availability, document reproduction and distribution, and access to logistical staff. Noting that the SC changes its meeting venues, these could be eliminated by improving the meeting

33 preparation process by the Secretariat in conjunction with the host institute.

Is this evaluation useful to you? The average response rate has dropped from 83.3% at SC7 to 58.3% at SC8 for the core participants (SC members, Panel members, and SC Secretariat staff). The number of responses from observers also dropped from 11 to six. This could be due to a number of reasons: (a) Lack of interest/importance in the evaluation exercise itself (b) Problem with the evaluation form (length, detail, electronic vs. paper, timing of distribution) (c) Method for collecting responses (at SC7 forms were aggressively solicited in person at the end of the meeting, at SC8 reminders were sent by email) There is a need reconsider whether or not the evaluation in such detail and length is really necessary for a lengthy and busy meeting such as SC, and if so, how responses can be obtained without disturbing the participants excessively. Suggestions for improvement include: • Shorter evaluation length; • Advance transmission of the form by email; • A short time (10min) to be allocated in the agenda to allow participants to fill in the form; and • An agreed method/timing for sending reminders.

34