AVRDC Board Nominating Committee (NOMCOM) Meeting

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

AVRDC Board Nominating Committee (NOMCOM) Meeting

AVRDC – THE WORLD VEGETABLE CENTER

ICRISAT Campus, Hyderabad INDIA

MINUTES Meeting of the Program Committee (PROCOM)

10 March 2009, Tuesday

1. Present:

PROCOM Members: Sally Smith (PROCOM Chair) Wen-Deh Chen Molly Jahn Il-Gin Mok Guy Riba Nicole Senécal Eugene Terry Paul Sun (Board Chair) Dyno Keatinge (ex-officio member)

Secretary of PROCOM: Jackie Hughes/Kathryn Hamilton

AVRDC staff attending: Yin-Fu Chang M.L. Chadha Abdou Tenkouano Kola Olatifede

Observers: Samakkee Boonyawat Tanu Pinyopummintr

Meeting minutes: Kathryn Hamilton

2. General Business:

Opened at 14:00 in the C. Fred Bentley Conference Center Hall

2.1 Approval of agenda and minutes of the PROCOM April 15 2008 (Document 19). Agenda accepted. The minutes and action statements were reviewed from the 2008 PROCOM meeting.

Clarification was given regarding seed held in trust in Svalbard, Norway. Material is defined as “black box” material that has nothing to do with FAO and is held in trust for AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center.

PROCOM had previously recommended embedding impact assessment into all projects and members enquired as to how they would hear about the impact of future projects. DDG-R indicated that all project proposals now incorporate impact assessments but that the actual impact may not be available until 4-5 years after a project is completed. To ensure staff report

42nd BOARD MEETING - PROCOM Meeting Page 1 on milestones, it was indicated that the MTP should include verifiable indicators for the projects; staff will be judged against these to assess their performance.

It was agreed to defer a decision on whether verifiable indicators/milestones in the MTP are sufficient to monitor project progress until the Board had reviewed the MTP.

RECOMMENDATION 1: PROCOM resolved to accept the 2008 minutes.

2.2 Report of 2008 Global Strategic Planning meeting (Document 20) Sally Smith noted that the Global Strategic Planning (GSP) Meeting clearly took on board suggestions from the previous year (2007). The Themes met during the week before the open GSP meeting.

One of the issues raised was developing a global identity. DG commented that he was actively raising the profile of the Center and would continue to do so. DDG-R indicated that the Center is developing corporate identity, maintaining the old logo, but trying to incorporate a similar/standardized style in posters. The need to standardize the look of email footers/business cards etc was emphasized. It was noted that Agenda item 2.4 also addressed this issue.

Sally Smith noted that some CG Board Members have business cards. DG will give instructions (again) to generate cards for AVRDC Board Members, but it will require good quality photos and contact details to be submitted to AVRDC from Board Members.

ACTION: All Board Members to be issued with AVRDC-The World Vegetable Center business cards (if so desired). PUBLIC AWARENESS and INFORMATION

ACTION: request Public Awareness and Information to acquire photos and correct titles and contact details of Board Members to order business cards. DDG-R (As PROCOM Secretary)

Guy Riba noted that evaluation of impact did not receive much attention at the planning meeting. He stated there was a need to push on five different axes to be able to demonstrate the impact of what AVRDC is doing. These axes are economics, training, academic outputs, internationalization, and transdisciplinary approaches (a Dutch concept providing a way to conceive science projects including socioeconomic impact to farmers, seed companies etc.). Sally Smith commented that we need to include a list of scientific publications and to not use the development umbrella as an excuse for not producing publications. There is a need to go from science through to translational end points. DG noted that there would be a workshop on impact pathways held at AVRDC later in the year.

Sally Smith asked about the Strategic Plan. DG reported Strategic Plan will be drafted by the time of the 2010 Board meeting. It is not yet far along, but the focus will be on it in the next 4-6 months. Management is looking to produce a short document dealing with bigger strategies. Ideas from members of PROCOM welcome.

RECOMMENDATION 2: Strategic Plan will require input from the Board.

ACTION: All Board Members seriously consider issues for the Strategic Plan of the Center and feed input to DG and DDG-R as soon as possible. BOARD MEMBERS

Sally Smith enquired whether the report from the PROCOM Chair on the Strategic Planning Workshop was valued by the Board and whether we should maintain Board presence at the

42nd BOARD MEETING - PROCOM Meeting Page 2 GSP meeting. Board Members commented they found value in the report. Discussions with researchers were noted as being important and so continued interaction by PROCOM Chair was encouraged. The DG felt Theme retreats need to be kept separate so that the researchers can be free to say what they want. It was discussed that Board Members need to be careful to discriminate between commenting as scientists and as Board Members, because a Board Member’s role is not at the detailed science level.

PROCOM Chair noted that evaluation of the GSP meeting by participants suggested that better communication could have explained the absence of management at the Theme retreats, which was raised as an issue by several participants. DDG-R noted that the five Theme leaders were playing a much stronger role. There was a discussion on how to facilitate interactions between Board Members as individuals and Center scientists. It was noted that at ICRISAT there is a day set aside where the Board interacts with scientists. It was suggested we might consider a similar event at AVRDC, bearing in mind that this would extend the duration of the Board meetings.

ACTION: Canvas Theme leaders as to whether they and their members would value more interaction with Board Members. DDG-R

The Paris declaration was raised at the GSP meeting as a possible issue affecting the availability of funding, because agencies may be more likely to channel funds through governments rather than third parties, at the mega level but not the special project level. Marlene Diekmann did not see any likely effect of the Paris declaration on funding. The key is “donor harmonization”—this will happen on the donor side, not recipient side.

Consideration of our position in relation to CG consortium is a strategic issue to keep an eye on.

RECOMMENDATION 3: That Management and Board become vigilant to changes currently happening with CG consortium with reference to AVRDC’s position.

2.3 Report from joint ICRISAT/AVRDC PROCOM meeting

The meeting helped the Board to understand that good interactions are already occurring with ICRISAT. Relationships with seed companies in Africa and lack of seed regulatory systems were discussed. Some of these issues will be worked through with vBSS and there is opportunity to work with ICRISAT to give these issues the attention they deserve, because even the private sector finds it difficult to deal with the issues and processes.

At the research level big opportunities were seen with using an intercropping approach and outreach to farmers. Partnership with ICRISAT offers extended facilities, shared positions, common outreach to farmers. The Board supported joint meetings with ICRISAT from time to time. With a focus on Africa, an expansion in Mali might be a logical beginning with a meeting of interested parties. It was noted that ICRISAT is becoming increasingly interested in nutrition and a joint application for nutrition equipment might be a successful approach to donors.

42nd BOARD MEETING - PROCOM Meeting Page 3 RECOMMENDATION 4: That AVRDC-The World Vegetable Center continue interactions with ICRISAT at Board level.

ACTION: Management to explore a meeting with ICRISAT in Africa to look at specific opportunities. DDG-R. PROCOM also recommend that negotiations be opened with respect to a joint Board meeting in the not-too-distant future. DIRECTOR GENERAL

Dr Mok expressed some resistance to merge with ICRISAT in developing projects because of major differences in the conditions for growing the different crops. “Semi-arid projects” may be discussed more between scientists to see what they think is feasible. Learn lessons from the collaboration in semi-arid areas. AVRDC may want to be able to piggyback into the CGIAR consortium by linking with ICRISAT.

Advantages to ICRISAT of linking with AVRDC could be seen as gaining access to APSA and countries such as Myanmar and Pakistan, which are currently difficult because of geographical location. The Board encouraged Management to think about other ways to entice ICRISAT into useful partnerships.

Sustainable access to seed for farmers was raised again by Eugene Terry. Abdou Tenkouano stated that the bulk of seeds are imported from abroad and are therefore not adapted to local conditions and countries are not following the seed standards that they have put in place. The public sector tends to put more resources into staple food crops rather than vegetables. Abdou Tenkouano stated the key to success is to have a strong private sector that is not in the hands of government. It was noted that Kenya has a huge seed bulking enterprise, but no money. So institutions are in place but are not functioning.

Marlene Diekmann asked if lack of seed certification was a problem. Abdou Tenkouano stated that it was easier to get seed from Kenya and bring it into Tanzania, than to produce seed domestically and get it certified locally for production. It is not known how many private companies are using AVRDC material. The private sector is essential to disseminate vBSS seed. There is a seed quality reference lab certified by ISTA (International Seed Testing Association) at Sokoine University in Tanzania. It was also noted that the role of AVRDC’s International Variety Testing Coordinator was to act as a neutral, unbiased tester in Africa and Asia.

2.4 “AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center: A unique institution” (Document 21)

42nd BOARD MEETING - PROCOM Meeting Page 4 The DDG-R presented a new document. The rationale came out of GSP meeting with the aim of understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the Center.

The document was considered to have sufficient information for the Board and for internal use by themes and to provide guidance to staff when writing proposals. A shorter, succinct version with fewer headings was recommended to sell the organization to the outside world. The five most important selling points should be highlighted showing what makes AVRDC distinct. It was commented that precise examples in the document make it interesting. The shorter version however, is needed for external audiences who may not have detailed scientific knowledge.

RECOMMENDATION 5: That Board accept document with appreciation and that management consider refining it for internal use and producing a more precise document for external use that encapsulates main points.

2.5 Climate change and the role of AVRDC (Document 22)

A position paper on climate change was presented by DDG-R. The rationale for the paper was that the topic is talked about by donors and so AVRDC is expected to have a position paper covering the different issues.

A question was raised as to why we refer to “climate change” and not “global change.” Although perhaps not the most accurate term, climate change is the term used by funding agencies, so the pragmatic approach is to use that terminology.

It was mentioned that entomology and plant pathology are building module networks that could be linked to climate change to predict changes in the distribution of pests and diseases. A network is forming, with involvement from DFID and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to determine, survey, and document where human and plant diseases will be distributed as a result of climate change. Information that is being developed for animals may be able to be used for plants.

RECOMMENDATION 6: PROCOM recommended that AVRDC determine which crops could be valuably mapped and encouraged management to keep an open mind on the value of mapping and recognize its impact for future inclusion in MTPs as appropriate.

2.6 Medium-Term Plan

42nd BOARD MEETING - PROCOM Meeting Page 5 An overview was provided by DDG-R. The last MTP was produced two years ago. The structure of the new plan is similar to previous ones, highlighting biggest projects and detailed presentation of the Themes, including output targets. DDG-R requested editorial issues and comments be given to her within three weeks.

ACTION: Board to read MTP as soon as possible. To defer discussion to Full Board meeting.

2.7 vBSS/ Kingombo! Update

DDG-R outlined the current position. In early January AVRDC received information from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation regarding problems with financial fluidity. vBSS was set up as a $39 million project over nine years. The information on financing suggested that vBSS might be in jeopardy, so DG and DDG-R flew to Seattle to meet with the foundation. The meeting was very useful, and a working solution to the problem was mutually negotiated. Management requested a one-year “no cost” extension. This was seen as viable mostly as result of underspending in year 1. As a result AVRDC will get the third tranche of funding at the end of 2009. The foundation is still due to provide $4 million, but as AVRDC still holds $3 million. they requested transfer of funds be delayed until October 2009. This transfer will support the project to the end of Phase 1 (end 2010). The Phase 2 work plan will start to develop at the end of 2009 and continue into 2010.

Kingombo! is on hold. This project is more market-driven, and AVRDC may be required to dovetail it with Phase 2 of vBSS. AVRDC possibly will receive CIM German Integrated Experts Service position in Mali to support this project. Also newly recruited molecular marker staff for vBSS will be shifted to HQ to accommodate these changes because required facilities will not be able to be provided in Africa. Abdou Tenkouano and Jan Helsen were thanked for their work on handling this issue.

The Board thanked and congratulated the management for their quick response to this issue and in finding a solution to ensure the funding received by the Center is not interrupted.

RECOMMENDATION 7: That Board appreciated this successful outcome.

3. Close of business 16:58

42nd BOARD MEETING - PROCOM Meeting Page 6

Recommended publications