Welcome address and opening remarks by lonyoo






                             25-26 NOVEMBER 2005
                             MARRAKECH, MOROCCO

                                   GFAR SECRETARIAT
          c/o Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome Italy

GFAR Secretariat                                                                         1

09h00-18h00                             25th November                               Day One

Victor Villobos, the chair of the committee, welcomed and thanked the members of the
committee for attending this third meeting of the Stakeholder Committee (SHC). He then
thanked GFAR Secretariat for the organization of the meeting. He also thanked Hamid
Narjisee, the Director of Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) of Morocco
for the logistical support related to travel arrangements of the committee. The chair then
introduced Abraham Blum, a guest speaker, and Jean-Marcel Ribaut, the new GCP Director.

The agenda (See Annex 1) was approved without amendments and comprised the following:

       an overview report presented by the Director of GCP on achievements realized in
        2005 and planned activities for 2006.
       a report presented by the SP5 team leader on capacity building activities during the
        year, and the process of developing a product delivery strategy and its contents
        a report by the SP3 team leader on Trait capture for crop improvement
       a presentation by Dr Abraham Blum a well known breeder on Molecular and
        traditional approaches to breeding for incorporating useful traits such as drought,
        adaptation and pest resistance into food crops
       reports from SHC members on issues of interest, concern and importance from their
        constituencies with regards to the activities of the GCP

Following the adoption of the agenda, the chair presented the minutes of the previous meeting,
which were also adopted with no changes.

Ola Smith, GFAR Executive Secretary, suggested the GCP to give a feedback on the
Committee’s previous recommendations i.e to report on what has been achieved and what was
not and why. It was suggested that the Chair to formally request from the Program Steering
Committee (PSC) to provide the SHC with feedback.

Jean-Marcel Ribaut, thanked the Chair, GFAR Secretariat and the members of the committee
for the progress made since the first meeting of the committee. He then mentioned that the
PSC of the GCP highly appreciates the committee’s feedback, especially in the area of
Product Delivery in which the GCP has spent a substantial time during the year.

Jean-Marcel Ribaut, thereafter, requested clarifications on how the SHC interacts with the
PSC, since the former is not part of the later.

Ola Smith responding to the above query mentioned that he is a member of the PSC as SHC
representative. He also indicated that GFAR Secretariat recently requested Hamid Narjisee to
join the PSC also as SHC representive, who accepted the offer.

GFAR Secretariat                                                                               2

Jean-Marcel Ribaut after thanking Ola Smith for the clarification formally announced the 3rd
meeting of the SHC open.

Jean-Marcel Ribaut updated the committee members on new and on-going activities that have
taken place since the beginning of the year. He started his presentation by reminding the SHC
members the GCP mission, rational and the five sub-programs of the CP. He mentioned that,
during the year, which has been a time of rapid evolution for the CP, letters of award for the
17 competitive grants and roughly 50 commissioned projects were issued to the principal
investigating institutions, and the research projects were initiated. His report focused on the
below major points:

Research Management (2005)
The GCP resource allocation to its various research activities during the year:
    Competitive grants (5M / year)
    Commissioned projects (6M / year)
    Capacity building, training and delivery (1M)
    IP and policies (500k)
    RF projects (850k)

Total budget for research (13M)
    50% CGIAR
    25% ARI from the North
    25% National Programs and ARI from the South

New Consortium members
Jean-Marcel Ribaut reported that the CP is currently reviewing applications of three new
potential institutions: INRA of Morocco, Mexico, and Thailand, to join the consortium, while
IAO of Italy, and University of Hohenheim of Germany, have officially expressed their desire
to join the consortium.

Annual Research Meeting (ARM)
The GCP organizes Annual Research Meetings (ARM), during which it invites prominent
scientists in the field, as well as the representatives from the consortium members, to develop
the CP programs and projects.

Ola Smith suggested that some members of the SHC to be also invited to ARM so that they
could bring the stakeholders perspectives to the debate in designing and development of the
projects and the programs. The suggestion was commended by all present participants.

Quality Control
Jean-Marcel Ribaut reported that the CP is currently revisiting its governance and
administration structure which consist of: a Program Steering Committee; Program Advisory
Committee; Stakeholders Committee; GCP director; 5 Subprogram Leaders (SPLs); a
consortium agreement developed through extensive consultation with institutions inside and
outside the consortium; and annual agreements (i.e., Commissioned Research Contracts) with
consortium members which detail reporting requirements. However, he added, based on the
CP short experience the following are proposed in order to further ensure high quality in the
CP research projects and capacity for delivery:

GFAR Secretariat                                                                                  3

       Task force to review composition of GCP consortium and governance body and
        provide recommendations.
       Program Advisory Committee to be adjusted to function as a review body or Review
        Team, for the GCP Management Team (Director and the 5 SPLs). The review team
        identified the need for a consultative team of “external” reviewers to comment on the
        activities reported during the Annual Research Meeting (ARM) and help reinforce the
        Management Team’s strategic decisions about research. The review team will also
        overview the science (ARM), advice on commissioned grants and target review for
        specific projects if needed.
       Evolution of Subprogram Leaders from half-time to full-time
       Hiring a project manager to review, develop, and implement additional needed project
        management policies

GMO Statement
The GCP Secretariat has drafted a position statement on GMO. The statement will be
presented to the PSC for approval which will meet on 28-29 November 2005 in Marrakech.

Some of the reported achievements of the GCP communications include:
    Distribution of public awareness materials: 2004 Annual Report and Year 2 Work plan
      developed and distributed to all GCP consortium members and donors, along with
      GCP brochures, folders, SP stories, and GCP “goodies”
    Development and maintenance of GCP Contacts Database (over 1,200 contacts)
    Periodic e-newsletter announcing GCP events and achievements distributed to all GCP
    Brochures and posters developed for Subprograms (Capacity Building and
      Bioinformatics) and for GCP presentations at international events
    GCP website enhanced and improved to include Workshops/Meetings, Funding
      Opportunities, Bioinformatics Portal, Intellectual Property Helpdesk, and Capacity
      Building Corner, and Research Page. The site currently receives over 2,500 hits per
    Coordinated electronic forum for SP5 virtual discussion
    Developed project management and reporting policies, and compiled GCP Manual

Some of the key issues and questions raised after the GCP update presentation by the
committee members were:
    Is the GCP working with the NARS in Central Asia and Caucasus region?
    Committee asked feedback from the PSC on its previous recommendations
    Committee expressed a concern about the effectiveness of the competitive mechanism
      as the weaker candidates could simply be eliminated since many of them don’t possess
      strong capacities in developing proposals.
    In the previous meeting of the SHC, the committee recommended the GCP to
      prioritise the current crop portfolio (22 crops), since it can not simply work on all of
      them with its current limited funds. What has been done to address the issue?

GFAR Secretariat                                                                             4

       The committee requested an update on the outcomes of a recent Private Sector
        workshop organized by Winrock Intentional and cosponsored by Monsanto and

With regards to the GCP activities in CAC region, Jean-Marcel Ribaut, mentioned that the
GCP is focus will be on marginal environments, i.e. where water is a major limitation to
agriculture. Carmen de Vicente, the SP5 leader, also mentioned that the SP5, as part of its
capacity building program, granted a fellowship to a Georgian national in this year.

Jean-Marcel Riabut, responding to the above question related to the GCP crop portfolio,
mentioned that there is a political motive behind the selection of the 22 crops which were
identified during the Alexandria meeting. He, however, acknowledged that the GCP with its
currently budget of USD 13 million (allocated for research) is insufficient to carry the
research needed on all the 22 crops. Because of that, he added, the CP management in
selecting NARS which are well established so that quick impact is made.

Carmen de Vicente, who participated in the private sector workshop, reported that the reason
the GCP participated in the meeting was to network and learn from the experiences of the
others. Jonathan Crouch, SP3 Team Leader, mentioned that Pioneer was very generous in
providing the GCP with information without any cost, however, GCP should strengthen its
ties with the small and medium enterprises (S&MEs) in the south in achieving its product
delivery objects.

The committee, following further discussions endorsed the following recommendations to the

    a) The GCP consortium: In pursuance of its plan to examine the GCP consortium as it
       is currently constituted, and its place in the governance structure, the SHC prepared
       terms of reference for a consultancy which it hopes will be carried out in the near
       future. The SHC is nevertheless aware that the GCP might decide to set up a task force
       to examine similar issues concerning the consortium. After some deliberations the
       SHC decided to continue with the planned work on the consortium, but remains open
       to suggestions on how to harmonize these efforts in order to avoid a duplication of

    b) Feedback from the PSC: The SHC noted that it has religiously presented the
       outcomes of its meetings accompanied by a number of recommendations to the PSC in
       keeping with its advisory role, but that it has never formally received any feedback
       from the PSC on the fate of these recommendations. It therefore recommends that:

    Recommendation 1: The PSC should set up and implement a formal mechanism for
    providing feedback on such recommendations to the SHC

    c) Priority crops: The SHC noted that the current number of crops the GCP is working
       on or plans to work on and estimated at about 22 is rather too many, and that it is
       unlikely that the GCP would have sufficient resources both human and financial to
       deliver expected outputs and outcomes on such a large number of crops. It therefore
       recommends that:

GFAR Secretariat                                                                               5

    Recommendation 2: The GCP should substantially reduce the number of crops it will
    work on, and that these crops should be selected on the basis of its goal, i.e. crops of
    value, relevance and importance to communities living in marginalized water stressed
    environment. Meanwhile, using such concepts and approaches as flagship projects and
    proof of concepts, it should develop tools and techniques in the short term, for use on
    crops it would have prioritized in the longer term.

    d) Collaboration with the private sector: The SHC noted and discussed some of the
       recent efforts made by the GCP to unravel some of the complexities surrounding
       collaboration with the private sector. Given the heterogeneous nature of the private
       sector (small, large, multi-national conglomerates) it recognized the difficulty of
       dealing with it as one constituency. It concluded that given the issues usually at stake
       when working with the private sector (IP, freedom to operate, benefits sharing etc)
       perhaps, preference should be given to working with smaller private sector
       organization that might contribute to the utilization of products developed by the GCP,
       rather than the larger private sector conglomerates. It therefore recommends that:

    Recommendation 3: The PSC should tackle this issue sooner rather than later along the
    following lines
     Establish general principles and guidelines which allow collaboration with the private
        sector on a case by case basis within the developed guidelines, differentiating between
        those that may contribute to product utilization and those that may contribute to
        product development by the GCP.
     SHC should be kept informed of development in this regard

    e) Transgenics and genetically modified products: The SHC was informed that a
       statement on the direction the GCP would like to take with regards to this issue has
       been prepared and will be tabled during the PSC meeting for a discussion and
       approval, and that it contained such elements as:

      continued activity in this area of inquiry
      with a focus on research and hypothesis testing domains
      exclusion of deployment activities which should be of a national level concern and
      In other words the GCP would not deploy any GMOs.

The SHC felt comfortable with this approach and will look forward to the outcome of
deliberations on the issue by the PSC

Carmen de Vicente, the SP5 team leader, presentation comprised: ongoing activities, SP5
outlook and work plan for 2005.
On-going activities
      Commissioned activities:
           - production of training materials
           - training courses in genetic diversity analysis and molecular breeding; and
              project proposal writing in Africa, Asia and Latin America

GFAR Secretariat                                                                             6

            -      Joint SP5-SP1activities include: a workshop on Molecular markers for allele
                   mining and development of microsetellite kits to analyze diversity of
                   germplasm and allow comparability across institutions and germplasm
            -      Policy projects: production of “Genetic Resource Policies and the GCP”; a
                   policy seminar within the Symposium on Genomics-based Plant Germplasm
                   Research in Beijing, China

       A number of training and capacity building activities started within competitive
       First 8 GCP fellows granted: 2 India, 1 Indonesia, 1 Kenya, 1 Mexico, 1 Nigeria, 1
        Senegal and 1 Pakistan
       Pioneer-GCP fellowship granted to an Indian national and will be hosted at the
        University of Georgia
       29 travel grants
       A strategy for enabling delivery produced

Work plan for 2006
        Investment in the research competitive projects: 125 000 per year per project
        a call for socio-economic studies
        grant of new eight fellowship programs
        sixteen travel grants for southern scientists to attend GCP ARM and relevant
           conferences and/or workshops
        Commissioned activities: including the on-going ones as well as new ones

Carmen di Vincentes started her second presentation by acknowledging Philip Kiriro and
Raul Montemayor’s contribution to the Cali workshop on the GCP delivery strategy. She said
17 participants with mixture of expertise: social scientists with backgrounds in rural
innovation, agricultural economists with expertise in impact assessment, agricultural
anthropologists, IP attorney and farmer as well as representatives from GC centers, NARS,
ARIs, Harvest+ CP, and donors, participated in the workshop. Based on the outcomes of the
workshop a draft strategic document on Product Delivery was prepared. She said the over all
goal of the delivery plans is to encourage scientists to explicitly explain:
     how their results and products will be useful to intended users and
     how the use of these results/products will generate future products for farmers

She then mentioned that the GCP will provide USD 125 000 per year to make sure that not
only workshops are conducted but appropriate partners are engaged in the research activities
and users are prepared to take up the products produced. The role of the CP management is to:
    ensure that delivery pathways, plans and appropriate partners are in place
    identify actions needed to facilitate delivery
    establish mechanisms for easy tracking product delivery

In her conclusion she reported that the drafted strategy document will be presented to the PSC
for approval.

GFAR Secretariat                                                                            7

Some of the key issues and questions raised after Carmen di Vecente’s two presentations
    What steps the GCP has taken to enhance NARS participation in SP5?
    Was the bio-safety, an issue discussed during the second meeting of the committee,
      taken into consideration while drafting the delivery strategy?
    The impact assessment, as part of the evaluation process, should involve all the
      stakeholders and the GCP should also consider starting it sooner than later.

Carmne di Vincete, responding to the above queries, indicated that one of the criteria in the
competitive grants is the involvement of NARS. The GCP also has a capacity building
component in the competitive funding to ensure the NARS are strengthened and can
participate effectively.

    e) Capacity Building Activities: The SHC noted with satisfaction, the large number of
       capacity building activities undertaken during the year by the SP5, including: training
       workshops and courses, fellowships, travel grants, development of learning materials,
       hands on capacity building activities within projects, etc. It also noted the increasing
       involvement and participation of NARS scientists in these activities in line with its
       recommendation that NARS from developing countries should play and be seen to be
       playing an increasingly pivotal role in the implementation of the GCP. It therefore
       encouraged the GCP through the sub-programme 5 to continue and improve on these
       capacity building activities which specifically target NARS scientists.

Recommendation 4: In order to build on these positive outputs for future improvement, the
SHC recommended that:

       Explicit indication in competitive projects that, when appropriate, plant breeders
        should be included in teams in order to ensure utilization of outputs at field level
       SP5 should continue the process of involving plant breeders in training and other
        programmes along the lines of the planned molecular breeding communities of
       SP5 should develop methods and indicators for assessing effectiveness of these
        capacity building activities

    f) Product delivery: Effective delivery of products generated by the GCP to targeted
       beneficiaries was one of the issues the SHC identified at its first meeting as of crucial
       importance and on which it made recommendations in the past. The process of
       developing a product delivery strategy and its contents presented to the SHC were
       comprehensively discussed and the SHC noted with satisfaction that the GCP through
       the SP5 took the concerns and recommendations it made on this issue seriously. It also
       commended the efforts made to date to develop the strategy which included a multi-
       stakeholder consultation, and which appears to have covered essential elements. It is
       recommended that:

GFAR Secretariat                                                                                8

    Recommendation 5: SP5 in collaboration with the SHC develops a monitoring system,
    which should be used to monitor the implementation of the product delivery strategy. The
    SHC would like, in due course, to analyze the outputs and outcomes of the implementation.

GFAR Secretariat                                                                           9

09h00-18h00                              26th November                                 Day Two

The Chair after welcoming Raul Montemayor and Philip Kiriro who joined the meeting on the
second day, gave Ola Smith the floor to provide the participants with summary of day one
discussions. The Chair then welcomed Abraham Blum to make his presentation.


The presentation of Dr Blum, a guest speaker and the founder of www.plantress.com, was
intended to increase members knowledge and understanding of the complex issues
surrounding the use of genomics to unravel the rich genetic resources for the benefit of the
poor. Highlights of his presentation were:

       the 1960-70’s green revolution largely bypassed the developing countries.
       the next green revolution is “the gene revolution” has to address issues related to
        plants resistant to environmental stress such as climate changes, limited water
        resources as well as good land and resource poor farmers.
       Blum said that the next green revolution is neither for large scale farmers nor for those
        on the verge of survival but for small scale and subsistence farmers operating under
        harsh environmental conditions.
       In the classical breeding crop production is the business of using plant biology for
        generation of income or for sustaining livelihoods hence developing knowledge
        towards breeding (i.e. R&D) and using knowledge in breeding (i.e. production).
       the conventional breeding is slow and expensive because conventional breeders select
        genotype by looking at the phenotype. While, the high-tech (i.e. Molecular) methods
        use markers to allocate QTLs by integrating genotype and phenotype data
       new modern molecular techniques will improve the accuracy of selecting desirable
        traits much more rapidly and perhaps much cheaper
       the central role of traditional breeders to ensure that the right traits are selected and
        that the extra steps needed to make the outputs of genomics research of value to
       the sad reality that these essential links in the chain (breeders) constitute an
        endangered species, because market forces are driving new and valuable talents away
        from this discipline into the more lucrative and glamorous spin off disciplines of the
        gene revolution.
       the sad reality that no one seems able to reverse the trend.

In his conclusion Abraham Blum, being a conventional breeder, under scored the need for
new technology and tools that would allow breeders to identify the genotype without testing
the phenotype. According to him, this will be a break through in the molecular breeding

       What types of traits would conventional breeders recommend?
       In areas with limited water resources, like Morocco, can classical breeding boost yield?
       Is there a direct correlation between drought and disease tolerance?

GFAR Secretariat                                                                               10

In responding to the above questions, Blum mentioned that in the classical breeding one cant
expect more than 1% per year yield increase. He also mentioned that there is no direct
correlation between drought resistant and disease resistant because of what is known as
system reserve utilization that would still allow the plant to yield even though it has been
affected with disease.

Jonathan Crouch, SP 3 team leader, presented an update to the committee on recent
development and highlighted the following major points:

       highlighted the two main alliances of the program: the Private Sector, including
        Pioneer, and International institutions
       large scale MASS application project got funding through competitive grants
       based on available funds the SP3 can only fund 6 projects per year
       Competitive grants scheme, is the best mechanism to fund projects
       Projects funded under the SP3 should be cross cutting

He then presented a Proof-of-Concept on “Molecular Breeding Communities of Practice” for
feedback from the SHC. He reported that the proposal will be presented to the PSC for
approval. The goal of the project is to foster the widespread application of validated markets
in public and private sector national breeding programs to serve as a foundation for uptake
and impact of GCP-generated gene-based markers for drought tolerance. According to
Jonathan Crouch, the proposed project will strengthen breeding programs by building and
enabling environment for the application of modern best practices. In the first year of
operation, the project will focus on those stronger NARS that provide the best opportunity for
successful proof-of-concept. However, he added, from year two the model will be scale-out to
include representatives from all levels of NARS. The direct beneficiaries of the project will
be NARS breeding programs across the developing world. The indirect beneficiaries,
however, will include:

       public sector breeding programs that have on-going marker-aided activities
       small-to-medium-sized enterprises with breeding programs targeted at our mande
        crops and resource poor farming systems, and
       CGIAR breeding programs, many of whom still strife to achieve efficient large scale
        molecularization of their crop improvement activities

Some of the key issues and questions raised after Jonathan Crouch’s presentation were:
    What is the final product of the proposed project?
    The SP should target only receptive breeders
    what activities are planed to strengthen the capacities of the non-traditional ARD
      stakeholders i.e. farmers, NGOs, the Private Sector to ensure their active participation
      in the SP
    members complimented the achievements of SP3 and expressed support for the
      Project proposal
    committee members suggested that the SP use the concentrated approached rather than
      networking approach to have effective impact

GFAR Secretariat                                                                              11

In responding to the above Jonathan Crouch, mentioned that SP3 is trying to develop a
methodology that would enable plant breeders to use the products generated. He also noted
that the SP will provide incentives for the actors involved in the various stages.

Jean-Marcel Ribaut, also responding to the above queries indicated that the proposed project
is more like capacity building exercise which will target the linkages among various


    g) Improved understanding of critical issues: One of the objectives the SHC set itself
       so that it can fully address its mandate is to effectively increase its understanding and
       knowledge of the various programme components of the GCP. The presentation by the
       SP3 team leader on trait capture for crop improvement contributed to meeting that
       objective. The SHC discussed and deliberated on the networking and community of
       practice approach describe for implementing the programme, and contrasted this to an
       alternate approach of focusing on a few highly developed institutions with perhaps the
       chance of making required breakthroughs earlier. The balance of sympathy was on the
       side of the networking model because of the added value of capacity building.

Recommendation 6: The SHC recognized the inherent value adding nature of the networking
approach, and recommends that the SP3 should continue its implementation programme
using the molecular breeding communities of practice approach it described.

Farmers Organizations Representatives

Philip Kiriro:
He thanked the Committee for nominating him to participate in the Cali meeting held in 4-7
October 2005, as a preventative of the SHC. He then acknowledged the SP5 efforts in
developing the Delivery Strategy.

He mentioned that that within the limits of the Cali consultation on delivery strategy, farmers
would like to state the following:
        That in the process of its work, the GCP should put in place a mechanism that will
           map out the research needs for the resource poor.
        That the various sub-programs target an identified and specific need of the
           resource poor.
        That the GCP in partnership with farmer organizations facilitate consultations and
           dialogues between researchers, extension workers and farmers through their
        That the stakeholders committee be given an opportunity to provide inputs to
           relevant proposals, delivery of products and development of GCP programmes for
           the future.
        That GCP categorizes its programmes into short and long-term.
        On long term basis will be research work and therefore need for patience by the
           resource poor.

GFAR Secretariat                                                                             12

           That the short-term benefits would be capacity to NARS, training and facilities,
            and necessary tools for use out of sub-programmes 1,2 or3. Also, regular dialogue
            between farmers and researchers.
           That in the delivery of products to farmers, the right partnership is established
            between researchers, extension workers, farmers, consumers and the private sector.
           There is a need to control with indicators the prevalence of program objectives
            along all the processes of the program.
           We must favour solutions with the resource poor farmers, considering their
            political and economic environment.
           We need to create and maintain country-level committees at the national and local
            levels to follow-up, control and provide feedback, so that the relevant actors are
            engaged with the solutions with resources and medium term plans to solve the
            problems of resource poor farmers.

Raul Montemayor:
The presentation focused on the below major points:

       Limited concern/awareness of need and potential of stress-related technologies
       Drought/climate stress generally regarded as uncontrollable
       Stress resistance may not be cost-effective
       Avoidance and coping tools may be better
       Food safety, nutrition and value concerns becoming more prominent
       Need to enhance yield and stress tolerance with value and safety of products to
        improve producer incomes
       Concern over food-borne diseases, toxins and pandemics
       Negative public perception of genetically modified or treated food products
       Trade implications of food health and safety regulations
       Need to institutionalize R&D and the participation of private sector, specially farmer
       Need to clarify roles of government vis-à-vis private sector (farmer groups, private
        companies, etc) in technology development and dissemination

NGOs Representatives

Mamadou Goita, NGOs repetitive, reported the concerns of his constituents, including:
  a) Capacity building: NGOs would like to underscore the need to strengthen the southern
     partners, i.e. not only NARIs, but also universities, NGOs, etc. in order to ensure the
     sustainability of the program.
  b) Delivery strategy: The program needs to innovate concrete activities that respond to
     the needs of the resource poor, i.e. not produce technologies that can not be utilized by
     the end users.
  c) Food sovereignty: The newly developed GMO statement of the GCP is a positive step
     forward. However, capacity building in the areas bio-seffty issues is very important in
     the south, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa.
  d) Monitoring and Evaluation: it’s very important that all the programs are translated
     into action and the GCP should put measures in place to ensure that is achieved.

GFAR Secretariat                                                                                 13

NARS/Regional Forums Representatives

Guram Aleksidze reported that IPGRI has recently assisted the CAC region in developing
projects related to seed collection. He also reported that last year the region has launched a
NARS database, which he said the GCP could utilize in selecting NARS from the region.
Aleksidze, said that since the region was part of the former USSR the main language is
Russian which, in his opinion, is one of the major obstacles in liaising with the international
community. Hence, requested the SP5 to focus its capacity building activities in language
training for young scientists in the region.

Victor Villalobos, presentation highlighted the structure, mandate, vision and objectives of the
Regional Forum. He said that the RF has set up a mechanism at the sub-regional level where
programs are executed. For instance the Central America sub-region, there is a network
working on genetic resources. He also reported that the FORAGRO region has significant
experts that are actively in the field of genetic resources.

Highlights of Anne Chetaille presentation were:
    EFARD constituency supports the SHC recommendations, especially those related to
       the delivery strategy
    The RF also supports the involvement of the Private Sector in the activities of the
    There is a growing demand to review the current consortium agreement and the
       governing structures of the PSC.
    The PSC should include preventatives from the beneficiaries
    The consortium should be limited to key partners for implementation of the projects
    The consultant proposed by the SHC should not only review the GCP but also other
       on-going CPs such as the Sub-Saharan Africa CP, Harvest+ CP and water and food
    There is need to have an external review to avoid any conflict of interest

Anthony Hall, NAFAR representatives, acknowledged the overall progress made, especially
in SP5. He indicated the importance of the GCP products to North America breeders working
on drought resistant crops. He also noted the need to involve young scientists from the South.

Ola Smith informed the Committee that the Secretariat had prepared a Financial and
Technical Report to be presented to the European Commission for extension of support for
another two years.

Due to the lack of Private Sector participation in the Committee activities, he requested the
members of the committee to nominate private sector representatives. The Committee
requested Anthony Hall to lead the process and provide the committee with names of
potential candidates.

GFAR Secretariat                                                                                  14

The Chair volunteered to host the next meeting of the committee in Mexico City. He also
suggested that the Committee to visit of the research sites of Mexico NARS during its
meeting. As to the date of the meeting, the committee suggested that the Secretariat to suggest
a date and consult with the committee via e-mail. The committee decided to limit its current
two meetings per year to one.

The Chair thanked the committee members for the active participation. He, on behalf of the
committee, thanked GFAR Secretariat for the excellent logistical support and organization of
the meeting. He then concluded the meeting for wishing participants a safe journey back to
their respective countries.

The meeting was adjourned at 16h15

GFAR Secretariat                                                                             15

                                       ANNEX 1
   FRIDAY 25 NOVEMBER                                                  DAY ONE

HOUR                       AGENDA ITEM                            DOCUMENT

09h00    Welcome remarks: Victor Villalobos, Chairman

09h15    Adoption of minutes of first meeting             3rd GFAR-SCM-05-02
         and agenda of second meeting                     3rd GFAR-SCM-05-01

         Opening remarks: Jean-Marcel Ribaut, GCP
09h20    Director

09h40    Update from GCP Secretariat                      3rd GFAR-SCM-05-03

10h30    Coffee break
         Update on the GCP activities continued
11h00                                                     3rd GFAR-SCM-05-02
         Followed by discussion
12h30    Lunch break

14h30    Presentation on Capacity Building and Enabling   3rd GFAR-SCM-05-04
         Delivery: by Carmen De Vicente, GCP Sub-         3rd GFAR-SCM-05-05
                                                          3rd GFAR-SCM-05-06
         Program 5 Team Leader; and Philip Kiriro, lead   3rd GFAR-SCM-05-07
         committee member on Product Delivery

16h00    Coffee break

16h30    Discussion

17h30    Summary by Chairman

18h00    Cocktail party

SATURDAY 26 NOVEMBER                                                             DAY

HOUR                       AGENDA ITEM                            DOCUMENT

09h00    Recap of day one: Chairman

09h15    Presentation by Dr. Abraham Blum on: Molecular   To be provided at the meeting

GFAR Secretariat                                                                     16

         and Traditional Approaches to breeding for
         incorporating useful traits such as drought
         adaptation, pest disease resistance into food crops

         Followed by discussion
10h45    Coffee break

11h15    Presentation by Jonathan Crouch, GCP Sub-             3rd GFAR-SCM-05-08
         Program 3 Team Leader on Trait capture for crop

         Followed by discussion
12h45    Lunch break

14h15    Feedback from Stakeholder Committee (15 min per
         committee member)
             Farmers Organizations Representatives            To be provided at the meeting
                      1. Raul Montemayor
                      2. Philip Kiriro
             NGO Representatives
                      1. Mamadou Goita
15h00    Coffee break

15h30    Feedback from Stakeholder Committee...cont’ed
             NARS/Regional Forum Representatives
                      1. Guram Aleksidze                       To be provided at the meeting
                      2. Hamid Narjisse
                      3. Victor Villalobos
                      4. Anne Chetaille
                      5. Anthony Hall

16h45        • Final discussion and future plans
              Next meeting (venue and date)

17h30    Conclusion: Victor Villalobos, Chairman

GFAR Secretariat                                                                          17

                                     ANNEX 2
                          LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
      Name            Organization/ Stakeholder Group                       E-mail

Raul               Federation of Free Farmers, Philippine;
Montemayor         Farmers’ Organizations Representative      freefarm@mozcom.com
                   East African Farmers Federation (EAFF),
Philip Kiriro      Farmers’ Organizations Representative      info@eaffu.org
                   A.CO.R.D. - Agence de Coopération et de
                   Recherches pour le Développement, Mali
Mamadou Goita      NGO Representative                         acord.sahel1@afribone.net.ml
                   Groupe de recherché et d’échanges
                   technologiques (GRET), France,
Anne Chetaille     EFARD Representative                       chetaille@gret.org
                   Secretaría de Agricultura, Mexico;
Victor Villalob    FORAGRO Representative                     vvilla@sagarpa.gob.mx
                   University of California Riverside, USA;
Anthony Hall       NAFAR Representative                       anthony.hall@ucr.edu
                   Academy of Agricultural Sciences,
Guram Aleksidze    CACAARI Representative                     guram_aleksidze@yahoo.com
                   Institut National de Recherche
                   Agronomique (INRA), Morocco
Hamid Narjissee    AARINENA Representative                     hnarjisse@yahoo.com
Abraham Blum       Guest Speaker                              ablum@plantstress.com
Ribaut             Generation Challange Program               j.ribaut@cgiar.org
De Vicente,
Carmen             Generation Challenge Program               c.devicente@cgiar.org
Jonathan Crouch    Generation Challenge Program               j.crouch@cgiar.org
Nelson, Jennifer   Generation Challenge Program               j.nelson@cgiar.org
Ola Smith          GFAR Secretariat                           ola.smith@fao.org
Nur Abdi           GFAR Secretariat                           nur.abdi@fao.org

GFAR Secretariat                                                                      18

                                    ANNEX 3
                         COMMITTEE MEMBERS
      Name           Organization/ Stakeholder Group                      E-mail

Raul             Federation of Free Farmers, Philippine;
Montemayor       Farmers’ Organizations Representative      freefarm@mozcom.com
                 East African Farmers Federation (EAFF),
Philip Kiriro    Farmers’ Organizations Representative      info@eaffu.org
                 Central Union of Agricultural Producers
                 and Forest Owners, Finland
Suojanen, Markku Farmers’ Organizations Representative      markku.suojanen@mtk.fi
                 A.CO.R.D. - Agence de Coopération et de
                 Recherches pour le Développement, Mali
Mamadou Goita    NGO Representative                         acord.sahel1@afribone.net.ml
                 Agro-Chile; Chile
Omar J. Fuentes  NGO Representative                         agrochileag@123.cl
                 Groupe de recherché et d’échanges
                 technologiques (GRET), France,
Anne Chetaille   EFARD Representative                       chetaille@gret.org
                 Secretaría de Agricultura, Mexico;
Victor Villalob  FORAGRO Representative                     vvilla@sagarpa.gob.mx
                 University of California Riverside, USA;
Anthony Hall     NAFAR Representative                       anthony.hall@ucr.edu
                 Academy of Agricultural Sciences,
Guram Aleksidze CACAARI Representative                      guram_aleksidze@yahoo.com
                 Plant Genetic Resources Centre (SPGRC),
Charles Nkhoma   FARA Representative                        spgrc@pop3.zamnet.zm
Hamid Narjissee Institut National de Recherche
                 Agronomique (INRA), Morocco
                 AARINENA Representative                     hnarjisse@yahoo.com
Iwamoto Mutsuo JIRCAS - Japan International Research
                 Center for Agricultural Sciences, Japan
                 APAARI Representative                      iwamoto@jircas.affrc.go.jp
                 Nunhems Seeds PVT.LTD. India
Arvin Kapur      Private Sector Representative              nunhems.gurgaon@nunhems.com

GFAR Secretariat                                                                     19

To top