AVRDC – THE WORLDVEGETABLECENTER
41ST BOARD MEETING, 14-17April 2008
AVRDC – The WorldVegetableCenter, Shanhua, Taiwan
MINUTES
Meeting of the Program Committee (PROCOM)
15April 2008
1. Present:
PROCOM Members:Sally Smith (PROCOM Chair)
Nicole Senécal
Il-Gin Mok
Eugene Terry
Guy Riba
Wen-Deh Chen
Molly Jahn
Paul M.H.Sun (Board Chair)
Dyno Keatinge (ex-officio member)
Tom Lumpkin (outgoing ex-officio member)
Member unable to attend:Vudtechai Kapilakanchana
Secretary to the Board:Dyno Keatinge
AVRDC staff:Jackie Hughes (DDG-Research)
Yin-Fu Chang (DDG-Administration & Services)
For presentations only:
Liwayway Engle (Theme 1 Coordinator)
Peter Hanson (Theme 2 Coordinator)
Jaw-Fen Wang (Theme 3 Coordinator)
Katinka Weinberger(Theme 4 Coordinator)
Ray-Yu Yang (Theme 5 Coordinator)
Peter Ooi (AVRDC-ARC Director)
Abdou Tenkouano (AVRDC-RCA Director)
M.L. Chadha (AVRDC-RCSA Director)
Meeting minutes:Maureen Mecozzi (Editor)
Observers: Joel Rudinas, Mark Holderness
2. General Business:
Opened at 08:02 in the 3rd floor Conference Room, Chandler Hall
2.1 Approval of 2007 minutes (Document No. 19) and agenda.
The minutes were reviewed and accepted.
It was noted that item 2.4 on the agenda would be discussed by the Deputy Director General – Research.
AUDCOM 2007/2008 proposed that the discussion of staff incentive accounts and licensing issues be transferred to the PROCOM agenda. However, PROCOM was not informed and there will not be enough timeto add these two items to April 15th’s agenda.
Resolution 1:PROCOM resolved to accept the 2007 minutes.
Action:Ensure CommitteeChairsare informed of any agenda-swapping details. COMMITTEE CHAIRS, BOARD SECRETARY
2.2 Inclusion of “action” statements in the Minutes of this and future meetings
To ensure there is prompt follow-up to any items requiring action by staff or Board members, action statements and the name of the appropriate person or unit responsible will be added to the minutes.
Resolution 2:PROCOM resolved to include “action” statements in 2008 minutes and for minutes of future meetings. Action statements will also be used in AUDCOM, NOMCOM and EXECOM minutes. Senior management should ensure staff members are informed of any actions they are required to address.
2.3Theme presentations
The five Theme coordinators gave brief presentations about the history, objectives, current status and future prospects of their Themeareas. For a complete copy of the presentations, please see Appendix 1.
Discussion and questions
Theme 1: Germplasm conservation, evaluation and gene discovery
Regional trials will now be done by the InternationalVegetable Variety Development Network (IVVDN). AVRDC staff members have built up considerable knowledge and experience in germplasm handling; they have trained NARS staff and other scientists visiting campus.
Concerns were raised about the ownership of germplasm in the Svalbard Seed Vault. The Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO) announced that the Svalbard germplasm was“theirs”;some interpreted the statement to mean that the germplasm is CGIAR property. The Center should keep a close watch on this issue, as germplasm ownership is a sensitive matter.
Does AVRDC have one collection -- or one collection per center?Germplasm is maintained in Africa as an active collection,and it is also stored in the HQ base collection. The scope of Theme 1 is largeand ambitious, but all activities are based on project proposals. NARS characterize germplasm collected fromtheir own countries.
How do breeders select the germplasm they work with?
Some Theme 1 staff also work under Theme 2. TheThemes work closely together.
How do you catalog your achievements? Is there a process? Can it be quantified?
The log frame shows this. But does this show what you actually achieve?Our achievements appear in the MTP.
It’s important to prioritize, strengthen and promote AVRDC’s core collection.If the Center is known for strong core species, people will have to collaborate with the Center to get the germplasm they want. The Center then becomes recognized as the international “source.” The Center already has this kind of reputation for peppers. It can be valuable to attract donor funds and private-sector partnerships.
Theme 2: Breeding
AVRDC’s strength is in trait development, but development-oriented projects want elite varieties.
Along the research-to-development continuum, the Center needs competency in value-chain management – getting the product to market.
There is a strong private seed sector in Asia.Africa is different. That is what the Vegetable Breeding and Seed Systems for Africa (vBSS) is all about…helping African companies produce seed and distribute it, helping themdevelop their research capacities.
Edwin Javier is building a network for international variety development.It’s difficult for breeders to do this kind of networking and do breeding work as well.
At the moment there is no strong mechanism for companies to acknowledge the work AVRDC breeders do or how they use AVRDC germplasm. AVRDC often does not receive recognition for its contribution to commercial hybrids; this recognition would be useful to demonstrate the Center’s impact to donors. The Material Transfer Program (MTA)the Center has with the Asia Pacific Seed Association(APSA) indicates the Center should receive public recognition by companies for the AVRDC germplasm they use, but very few companies do this. It was written into the vBSS that companies must providethis information to the Center.
Do farmers and other stakeholders participate in the selection of varieties for breeding?Most breeding objectives are market-oriented. However, there can be more stakeholder participation with indigenous vegetables.
Theme 3:Seed and safe vegetable production systems
There is a need to document research, experiments and practices, whether they are successful or not. This will help the organization learn.
The poor are organic by default. Organic research should be re-focusedon low-input production programs to help poor farmers increase productivity and reach markets. However, current market opportunities for organic crops are still very low, even in developed countries.
The Center should focus on the areas of greatest need, on the poorest people. It must think about who will use its products. This is a good strategy, but it could become too scattered as the Center grows geographically.
Crop physiology seems to be missing from this Theme. We know we need this kind of basic scientific expertise, but it’s difficult to get this type of position funded.Many universities no longer teach crop physiology; it may be difficult to find people with this background.
Theme 4:Postharvest management, market opportunities and income generation
All activities of this small, evolving Theme are project-funded. There is little core support. Research in AVRDC is focused on breeding. Postharvest needs to move from describing supply chains to identifying viable mechanisms to allow poor people to participate in markets.
Good documentation of results is important for wider recognition of the Center. Reports prepared by Theme 4 caught the attention of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; as a result, the Themecoordinator was invited to help shape the foundation’s approach to agriculture in Africa.
Honduras wants AVRDC to set up a regional center at a local university. The university has a vegetable processing lab that would be completely turned over to AVRDC. It would be a way to get into postharvest without a major investment (except in human resources).
It’s important to build a network with other organizations doing similar work. Postharvest efforts could also include highlighting awareness to create consumer “pull” for food safety, as well as the top-down“push.”
Scientists need to understand more about social sciences to fully embrace the work of Theme 4. To foster this understanding, have a “model” project on which all the Themes work together, sharing expertise and learning more about how the other Themes fit into their work.
Theme 5:Nutritional security, diet diversification, human health
This is a new Theme, so it isn’t easy to show its impact just now. The Theme coordinator is striving to develop stronger networks and partnerships.
The Themecoordinator is developinga second proposal for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to build capacity for nutrition research in HQ and in Africa. Theme 5 also submitted aTaiwan International Cooperation and Development Fund (ICDF) proposalto further its efforts.
Does the Center have the capacity to deliver on these grants? Should we develop partnerships now so we have the capacity to fulfill the grants if they are awarded? Gates has faith in AVRDC. The Gates Foundation will help the Center develop the required strength…we are helping them get their thinking straight on vegetables in Africa.
The Center needs to build better links with existing nutrition institutions, not to do basic research on human nutrition. A great deal of this work has already been done. There is a lot of it going on right now.
Overall comments on Themes
It’s encouraging to see coherence developing in theThemes. There has been a seismic shift in AVRDC; much more attention is being given to the development context. The “D” part of AVRDC is getting stronger. The “R” part should not be disassociated from development. There is so muchout there to do…try to do a few things well, and not spread the Center too thin.
Theme coordinators & deputies meet once a month to assess proposals and concept notes.Projects have become moremultidisciplinary, and weaknesses have become more apparent. There are many ways the Themes can help each other.
Themes are like a Chinese dragon, covering everything from head to tail. Theme 3 should include integrated soil management in addition to IPM. It’s important to stem the decline in soil quality in many places, and increase organic matter in the soil. Have someone on staff who understands soil/plant interactions.
Theme 3 could take more of a system approach to cropping: rice, corn and soybean. There is heavy pressure on US corn and soybean stocks. Asia must develop corn and soybean not only as food, but also as animal feed, to build an Asian animal industry.
Serious consideration must be given to the systems approach.
AVRDC can quickly strengthen the work of Theme 5 in the nutrition lab by recruiting Taiwanese scientists.There are many well-trained nutritional scientists in Taiwan.
It’s important to emphasize that the Center works for poor people. It may be easier to work with larger farmers, etc. But the Center should focus on the world’s most deprived, most malnourished people.
The Themecoordinators were thanked for their presentations.
2.4 Report on 2007 Internal Review and Planning Workshop (Document No. 20)
The 2006 and 2007 Internal Review and Planning Workshopswere evaluated by participants.
In 2006,presentations were ranked as“good” and “average.” Participants liked having regional staff present. The overall quality of the discussions was good, but participants didn’t care for long, detailed presentations. There wasn’t enough time for substantive discussionor strategic planning.
In 2007, timekeeping improved and presentations were briefer, which participants greatly appreciated. There still was not enough time for discussion. Many participants noted the lack of involvement of NRS from Taiwan, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Overall, the comments were positive.
The IR workshop canhelp improve contact between HQ and regions.It’s where evidence that Themes are working can be shared. It’s a good way to find out what the regions need.
The EPMR suggested more of the Center’s activities should go on in the regional centers. Management should consider this.
The IR in 2007 was combined with the EPMR, so it had a different feel;that was the reason it was held specifically in HQ.
Suggestions for future IRs
- There was a suggestion that Theme meetings should go first, followed by presentations later.
- The DG shared his IR experience at ICRISAT: It’s useful to have Theme and regional retreats before the IR, and away from the HQ campus to help staff focus. The IR should allow a lot of free time for informal interactions. Too many formal activities (dinners, etc.) can be stifling to the free exchange of ideas and good communication. Have one fun evening. The venue of the IR alternated – if it was held at HQ one year, the next year it was held in the regions. Scheduling the event was complex. But it also can be a time to take care of a lot of other business, such as safety courses and other staff education.
- What does the Board take away from the IR? PROCOM should consider what issues the Board should be tackling. Better planning, more dialogue will make a more effective IR program.
- How can the Center meld the opinions, thoughts and ideas from participants in the EPMR and the IR into a strategy and a way forward?
- It was suggested that progress in the implementation of the EPMRbe aTheme for the next Internal Review in November.
- Next IR should not be Theme summaries. Instead, it should be more critical about how goals and objectives are being achieved.
- The IR should always look forward: Where should we be in five years? What is our vision?
- Theme coordinators and directors may want to re-shape the IR, depending on the CGIAR Challenge Grant Program and “Gates 2.”
- The Center can make greater use of teleconferences, videoconferencing to communicate with regions. It’scheaper than travel, doesn’t require as much staff time to organize and host. If there is a problem with connectivity in Africa, remember every World Bank office has videoconferencing facilities that could be used.
- So far, Themes have been a good way to coordinate IR activities; they help to create loyalty to the institution, not to the discipline. Is there a downside? Staff may be pulled between different Themes. Little tension in this matter has been seen so far. HQ staff members meet informally in groups that cut across Themes. The situation is not as good in the regions. Communication between administration and scientists in the regions needs to be improved.
Resolution 3:PROCOM resolved to recommend to management that it address the structure and location of future Internal Review and Planning meetings.
Action:Management will review the IR format. DG, DDG-R, DDG-A&S. Note:Cross-reference to Document 14 (Principles and Guidelines for Budgeting and Full-Cost Recovery) and consider including it as presentation at 2008 IR. MANAGEMENT
2.5 Update on vBSS activities (Document No. 21)
The DDG-R reported the vBSSis on a more stable footing now, and the donor agrees. Recruitment was a problem early on; now it has caught up and ison track. The first annual review was held in Bamako earlier this year, bringingscientists and management together. Observers from outside agencies were invited to give comments and views on the program, but several did not attend due to scheduling conflicts and medical problems.
Some budgeting and salary issues remain to be worked out: There is a need to transfer $3.1 million from the first year to the second year; the DDG-R is waiting for approval to do this. Salaries have been kept low, to encourage vBSS staff to be recruited into the private sector. With the fall in the US dollar, the Center tries to compensate staff in other ways – for instance, with housing and education stipends.
vBSS is the first part of the chain. The second part – “Gates 2” – will handle postharvest and nutrition. Initially the Gates Foundation asked for an $80 million proposal for fruit and vegetables combined; now they have separated the two. The proposal they have asked for from the Center is now just for vegetables, for $20 million.
Questions and discussion:
The Center must address staff salary and benefit needs to prevent too-rapid turnover. How are other institutions handling the compensation issue? With the fluctuation of the dollar, how can salaries remain competitive?
A question was raised regarding the Gates funds: Can they be used outside Africa?Yes, the interest from the funds can be, but only in very specific ways.
The DDG-R was thanked for her presentation.
2.6 Update on the Challenge Program for High Value Crops (Document No. 22)
The DDG-R reported that after overcoming a number of obstacles the Challenge Program proposal is moving forward, with AVRDC as the coordinating body.
The proposal sets out a value-chain approach,encompassing consumption, markets, postharvest, production, value chains, capacity building, funding, management & governance. An editor has been hired to ensure the proposal is prepared and submitted by 24 June, in advance of the 31 July deadline as requested by the Science Council.
The second meeting of program managers will be held Taiwan in April. A Global Hort website is up, with internal and external pages.
Discussion and questions:
Is this challenge grant worth all the trouble? It is political, but it is important that AVRDC be represented to build its international profile. The Center is taking a risk by sticking to a pro-poor market focus, which the council previously rejected.