Annual Report of the European Regional Focal Point.
Dominique PLANCHENAULT BRG - 16, rue Claude Bernard 75231 Paris cedex 05, France August 2004
1.
Introduction.
The 9th workshop for the European National Co-ordinators (NCs) for the management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources (FAnGR) in Rome, Italy (2003), gave a new dimension to the Regional Focal Point for Europe (ERFP). The ERFP became not only fully operational but, for the first time, it presented concrete action in the field of the FAnGR databases and the cryopreservation. The concept and structure of the ERFP has been established in August 2000 and France became the host country for the ERFP secretariat for four years.. In August 2001, with 10 funding countries, the ERFP was operational and could start its activities. Now, the ERFP is better known and it can be used as example for other regions, members of the FAO Global Strategy. After four years, the EFP showed that the actual structures can be sustainable. They were already modified and they will be certainly again. The ERFP must be a light, flexible and evolutionary structure that must meet the needs for these members. Since Rome, the Steering Committee has a good rolling system for the reelection of its members. The adopted funding system gives a great freedom to the various European countries. It minimizes the overheads and devotes the maximum of the collected funds to the carried out actions in the field of AnGR. But, this system must be reinforced to succeed, in the long term, with a sustainability of the actions, which could be undertaken. The system must be able to profit from a true financial pledge of the countries. In 2000, the secretariat was elected for four years. Obviously, with the countries agreement, France can continue this work. But, it could be interesting and more dynamic to change the hosting country. It would not be suitable that a country remains a too long time in charge of the ERFP secretariat. This point is important, we will have to find an answer or a solution during this 10th workshop. In addition, we have to face a very important challenge. Since the beginning, we have worked with a small part of Europe – we are 37 NCs in this group - Europe is much larger. Can we work with the other East European countries? How can we manage? At the beginning of this year, we started a specific collaboration with the Central and East European Countries (CEEC). In the frame of the FAO Global Strategy, the ERFP is an example. How can we help the CEEC countries to organize their own RFP? In conclusion, for the first time for 4 years, the secretariat has more information to receive from its programs than to give. It is also the part of our success.
10th NCs Workshop – Bled on September 4th, 2004 – page 1
2.
ERFP activities since Rome.
2.1. About the annual report of our workshop.
Since 1997, the report of workshop for the European National Coordinators for the management of farm animal genetic resources is edited and sent to all NCs and some organisations (EAA, FAO, EU, SAVE, etc..). This report has three main parts: the minutes of the workshop, all the communications made during this workshop and the annual countries report. It is sent to all NCs at the beginning of November following the workshop. Now, the ERFP has its own web site and this final annual report will be on line after all the comments and modifications coming from the workshop participants. All the NCs and others will be able to download this report at the same date. But, for organisational reasons of ERFP web-site, the presentation will be different. The minutes of the workshop will be in one side and the annual countries reports in the specific pages for each countries. That is why, it seems important to maintain the sending of the hard copy to all NCs. This document is a strong link between the participants and the others NCs and encloses all the past and future actions of the ERFP. This document is also a useful tool for the NCs. They can make copies (by web site way or not) and distribute them to interested persons in their country to explain the ERFP role and its activities. The main objective remains to convince the stakeholders of each country upon a stronger engagement with the ERFP. By this way, the number of ERFP funding countries could be increased. Concerning the Rome workshop report, 50 copies were sent to all involved persons. No remark was received by the secretariat. At the beginning of December 2003, a specific paper was sent to Livestock Production Science and published in n° 87 (2004) page 76 – 77. This information is important for the non-European countries. 2.2. FAO State of the World's Animal Genetic Resources (SoW).
The main objective of ERFP is to play a co-ordinating role in Europe. ERFP should give high priority to facilitating regional/international cooperation. This means that the ERFP-secretary or representatives of the ERFP-SC need to be present at different regional and global FAO meetings. A global presentation of this SoW program and the follow up will be made later on. During the 3rd International Technical Working Group on AnGR (ITWG-AnGR) meeting (Rome, 29/03/04 – 3/04/04), the secretariat made a official presentation of the ERFP. This document can be find on the ERFP web site: "A regional Focal Point for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources: The European Experience." Since the beginning of 2002, the ERFP-secretariat brings a technical assistance to the organisation of SoW in Africa. A full-time person works on this subject with the ERFP-secretariat (Mr Paul Souvenir) and stimulates the reports preparation by all the countries of Africa. This support enters within the framework of the collaborative actions which the regional focal points must give between them. Such an action is made possible through a personal help given by Dominique Planchenault having
10th NCs Workshop – Bled on September 4th, 2004 – page 2
worked in Africa during 17 years. Nevertheless, close and permanent links must be established between the national and regional focal points. The results achieved by this collaboration and presented during the ITWG-AnGr meeting in 2004, confirm the need for helping the countries of Africa to create first their national focal point and, as soon as possible, their Regional Focal Point. A similar collaboration is given by Arunas Svitojus to the Central and East European Countries and receives the financial support of ERFP. A presentation of this action will be made later on. At the end of February 2004, a letter (ref.: AN 41/27) from Mr Samuel Jutzi, FAO, Director of Animal Production and Health Division, was been received by Mike Roper, ERFP president. One bullet is reproduced here: "The Animal Production and Health Division of FAO, as designed focal point for the development of the Global Strategy, wishes to express the Organization's recognition for the work that the ERFP has done in the region. FAO congratulates all countries in Europe for taking this initiative and for the very good results achieved. This Regional Focal Point may serve as example to other regions of the world that would like to develop a similar structure." 2.3. European Commission – DG Agriculture – EU regulation N°870/2004. (EC)
The European Commission has been requested by Council to propose a new EU regulation, replacing the old regulation (GENRES, 1994-1999). In 2002 and 2003, views of countries have been exchanged at various meeting: Commission meetings and Council Working Group meetings. Taking account of the interesting conclusions of the evaluation of the former regulation 1467/94 and the comments following the meetings, the new regulation "on the conservation, characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture" was published on 24 April 2004 – N° 870/2004. Two points are very important to consider in this document: Introduction – point 3: "Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee, whereas…..the wide range of activities carried out in the Member States and by various international organisations and programmes such as FAO, …..the European Regional Focal Point (ERFP) of National Coordinators for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources….". Article 4 – Eligible actions – Point 2b: All actions carried out under the programme shall be in conformity with Community legislation on the phytosanitary and animal health and zootechnical rules ……, and shall take into account: b) relevant international processes, developments and agreements, in particular as regards: the Convention on Biological Diversity,
10th NCs Workshop – Bled on September 4th, 2004 – page 3
the Global Strategy for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources, programmes implemented under international framework such as ……the European Regional Focal Point (ERFP) of National Coordinators for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources. As asked since the beginning of the discussions, this new regulation 870/2004 is clearly based on the existing networks (ECP/GR, ERFP, EUFORGEN). It was emphasized that the Regulation should be seen within the context of socioeconomics aspects of rural development and sustainable agriculture. This means that emphasis in the future implementation programme will be on species with current or potential value for Europe's agriculture, horticulture or forestry. In annex 1, the preferences are indicated: a) diversification of production in agriculture; b) improved product quality; c) sustainable management and use of natural and agricultural resources; d) improved quality of the environment and the country side; e) identification of products for next uses and markets. To date, the work programme must be yet finalized. At the beginning of this year, it was expected that the first call for proposals could be published in July 2004 and a message was sent to all NCs to prepare some common proposals. It seems that this first call will be published in the last month of 2004 (or early in 2005). The ERFP has played, plays and must continue to play an important role in this context. Taking into account the financial amount announced, the role that the new regulation gives to ERFP and the small priority which is given to the animal projects, it is important that the ERFP and the NCs continue to coordinate the projects which could be presented. This work already began. Presentation will be give later on. It must also continue its action close to the DG agriculture and, may be, play a more significant role in the expertise and the follow-up on the projects. 2.4. European commission – DG Research – FP7.
European Union research strategy and funding are fundamental in advancing the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources in Europe. The EU fourth and fifth Framework Programmes (FP4 and FP5) for research and technological development financed a number of projects directly or indirectly associated with genetic resources. EFABIS is one of them. Unfortunately, the new calls of the FP6 do not include genetic and genetic resources research among eligible subject areas for funding, at least in what concerns terrestrial ecosystems. ERFP and NCs must use various occasions to communicate with the relevant Commission services about our concerns and suggestions regarding the role of research into genetic resources for the next FP7.
10th NCs Workshop – Bled on September 4th, 2004 – page 4
Some information seems to indicate that the aspects "resources and collections" could be taken into account in the next FP7. The ERFP must be vigilant and be held informed about future developments. Any thoughts, feedback or comments you might have on the place and potential role of genetic research in the European Union (mainly in the FP7) would be very much appreciated.
3.
ERFP situation.
According to the terms of reference, the annual workshop of NCs is the main ERFP authority. Herewith, some actions proposals are made for the next year 2004 – 2005 and from there, a new budget is be established The NCs workshop has to decide on organisation and actions. 3.1. Preparation for Bled workshop.
The ERFP secretariat, with the full support of FAO and EAAP, organises the NCs workshop since 1998. At the beginning, we received a EAAP financial support and the final amount for ERFP was very low. Since 2000, the ERFP workshop budget increases every year - Budapest: 900 Euros – Cairo: 1750 Euros – Rome (with the EAAP and NFP financial support): total 2 000 Euros but free for ERFP. In 2004, the cost of the Bled workshop is 2 500 Euros for on Saturday, September 4, a room accommodating 50 persons, is reserved with video audio facilities. In the frame of ERFP activities, others rooms are placed at ERFP organisation disposal without extra costs. The ERFP organises 3 meeting around its workshop. The organisation includes the lunches and coffee breaks for the 2 days. The organisation includes excursion on Friday, September 3 and participation to the Saturday dinner with cultural programme. The ERFP activities developed since its creation. It is seem normal that the costs increase. Do we have to organise several days' meetings and to increase the budget? Can we encourage the host country to deal with these expenses? Do we have to include excursions in the host country during these meetings? A budget of 8 000 Euros was allocated to cover the travel costs of invited European countries. To date, the main criteria for invitations by ERFP were maintained: only countries’ officially appointed NC’s, only European member countries (37 countries), which are not member of European Union (25 countries), applicant must have a major input into the workshop (presentation, report on or proposal for project-development), rotation between counties must exist.
Every year, the ERFP gives a financial support to 5 countries. With the new European Union, the ERFP can bring this support to only 12 counties if asked. Can
10th NCs Workshop – Bled on September 4th, 2004 – page 5
we open this support to others persons having a major input into the workshop? Obviously, the final decision will be made by the Steering Committee. Concerning the Central and East of Europe Countries, a specific budget was allocated (5 000 Euros) to Arunas Svitojus to develop specific links and specific RFP which could be integrated with our group. A presentation will be done later on. A decision to increase this specific financial support will have to discuss. Two decisions: Decision 1 . New organisation of our annual NCs workshop? Decision 2 . New criteria for financial support attributions to participate of the annual workshop? 3.2. ERFP actions.
Following Rome workshop decisions, the ERFP secretariat had to launch the second Call for actions which included the same themes as last year (1.Breed Development and Conservation – in situ; 2.Breed Development and Conservation – ex situ; 3.Monitoring AnGR – practices and approaches; 4.Monitoring AnGR – overview of data; 5.Direct Assistance; 6. Other). However, it was agreed that priority should be given to projects under themes that weren’t supported in the first Call for Action. It was proposed that the ERFP might support multinational breed conservation projects and consultancy visits. At the beginning of November 2003, the second Call for actions between the European countries having nominated their national coordinator (NC) in the framework of FAO global strategy was launched. Seven demands were received at the beginning of December. After discussions within the selection panel (ERFP-SC, FAO, Nordic Gene Bank), the results were given at the beginning of January 2003. Two projects were funded: European Cryoconservation of Heritage Sheep Breeds – Scoping Study (10 agreed, plus 8 potential participating countries; project cost Euro 15,000; project co-ordinator – Mr. Sam Jones, The Sheep Trust, through Mr. Mike Roper, NC UK). Veterinary provisions for the maintenance of genetic resources in case of infectious diseases. (Number of participating countries to be confirmed; project cost Euro 7,500; project co-ordinator – Dr Detlef Rath, Institute of Animal Breeding, Mariensee, through Dr SchulteCoerne, NC Germany)
In addition, the Selection Panel strongly recommended that two projects should be combined into one to save administrative costs and encourage co-ordination across Central and Eastern Europe. Both projects involved the in situ conservation of similar native sheep breeds, there are 3 collaborators common to both projects
10th NCs Workshop – Bled on September 4th, 2004 – page 6
(Bulgaria, Romania and Serbia & Montenegro) and it was felt that the breed specific Tsigai project could possibly be used as a pilot within the more general study. Possible way of conservation the multipurpose Tsigai sheep and other indigenous sheep breeds in the Central and Eastern European and Balkan countries. (10 participating countries; project cost Euro 20,000; project co-ordinator – Dr Sandor Kukovics through Dr Mihaly Pasztor, NC Hungary.)
The Selection Panel were impressed by the project submitted by Lithuania: Development of AnGR strategies, monitoring and network information system in Central – East Europe and Central Asia (CEE) countries.
However it was considered that this work would fit better into ongoing Consultancy Visits as agreed at the Cairo workshop under a separate ERFP budget allocation. Dr Arunas Svitojus put a revised proposal to the Steering Committee approval. A maximum budget of 6 000 Euros was maintained from the past Call for actions to a consultancy visits in Albania. This action was organised in June 2004 (18/06/04 – 20/06/04) by Kristaq Kume (NC Albania) with Andreas Georgoudis, Dominique Planchenault and Hans Grunenfelder (SAVE foundation) participations. A presentation of these 2 actions will be made later on. Three decisions are to be taken after these presentations: Decision 3 . Can the ERFP organise the 3rd Call for Actions? Decision 4 . Must the term of references change? Decision 5 . Does the ERFP maintain its financial support to CEEC? 3.3. ERFP web-site.
Following Rome workshop decisions, the ERFP secretariat had to organise the ERFP web site. A budget of 20 000 Euros was allocated for this work. Various contacts were established with organizations being able to complete this work. This work required several meetings and travels to the ERFP secretariat. Finally, the realization of the ERFP web site was entrusted to ZADI (German Center for Documentation and Information in Agriculture) under the responsibility of Franc Begemann. A presentation of this work will be made later on. Two decisions are to be taken after this presentation: Decision 6 . Do you agree with your web site? Decision 7 . How can we develop the second phase of this web site with ZADI?
10th NCs Workshop – Bled on September 4th, 2004 – page 7
3.4.
EFABIS programme.
The participants of this programme entitled "A European Farm Animal Biodiversity Information System" (EFABIS) are: EAAP Working Group on AnGR (Gustavo Gandini), School of Veterinary Medicine Hanover (O.Distl), Institute for Animal Science and Animal Behaviour (Neustadt - Eildert Groeneveld), Central Animal Breeding Office (Warsaw - Maria Jasczynska), BRG (Paris – Dominique Planchenault) and FAO (Rome – Ricardo Cardellino). The main objective of this project is to help the countries to have their own national database on AnGR. Three meeting were organised in 2003 - 2004: Rome (Italy - 14/11/2003) – Rome (Italy - 3/04/04) - Mariensee (Germany –23-25/11/04). A presentation of the work done will be made later on. Two decisions are to be taken after this presentation: Decision 8 . Do you agree with the decisions taken? Decision 9 . How can you manage this EFABIS programme in your local level? What do you want exactly? 3.5. Budget
Following last workshop decisions, the financial contributions, collected from August (year n) to August (year n+1) and called contribution (year n+1), can be used from August (year n+1) to August (year n+2) from the estimated budget voted during the NCs workshop (year n+1). At the end of 2003, for the funding countries and at the beginning of all the others countries, a new call to renew funding for continuation of the ERFP was sent to all NCs. With this demand, a draft letter was attached to send to their Government Department responsible for AnGR, an annex given a summary of ERFP activities during 2003 – 2004 and the ad-hoc budget. A new letter was sent at the end of April 2004. Some countries asked for a more formal funding system. A discussion must establish if the ERFP needs a new funding system. The ERFP cannot receive funding advances from EAAP. In others words, the budget, which will be established and voted during this meeting, can take into account only the funds collected by August 31, 2004. The funds, which would be later on collected, could be entered only in the budget 2005. To date, the collected amount is 80 000 Euros (table 1). To take into account these constraints, we must present a sliding scheme for all the incomes and the expenses, since the beginning of ERFP. For this new period (2004 – 2005), the ERFP budget can be established around 112 000 Euros. Table 2 gives the sharing out of the expenses. The ERFP organisational cost is very low, between 6 and 8 000 Euros for the workshop and invitations and approximately 3 000 Euros for the Steering Committee. These costs represent
10th NCs Workshop – Bled on September 4th, 2004 – page 8
between 15 and 20 % of the ERFP budget. The ERFP devotes more than 80 % of its budget to the actions. This aspect must be preserved. ERFP had not financial fees. EAAP did not perceive any overheads. From this year (2004), EAAP asks 5% of annual incomes for its work. This work is very important and each NC could appreciate, at a given time, the EAAP assistance. The ERFP thanks EAAP for its support and mainly, Mrs Elena Couto, for her permanent and essential work. The hosting country (France) covers the overheads costs of office accommodation, administrative and clerical staff and communications equipment. Table 3 gives an estimation of ERFP cost for France. Generally, the Steering Committee members do not ask the ERFP refunds their travelling expenses. The ERFP secretariat has 2 or 3 specific travels par year (Brussels, Bonn, Rome, etc..). The annual cost of the ERFP secretariat is around 20 000 Euros. The present budget 2004 - 2005 is given in table 1. The proposal repartition must be discussed and the modifications and decisions must be approved. Two decisions: Decision 10 . Do you approve the new budget? Decision 11 . How can secure the incomes? Is it necessary to have a more formal funding system? 3.6. About Steering Committee and ERFP secretariat.
During our last workshop, we decided to opt for the rotational system whereby in 2004 the NC representing the East (E.Martyniuk) would resign. The NC representing the West (S. Hiemstra) would resign in 2005. The NC representing the South (A. Georgoudis) would resign in 2006. The President (M. Roper) would resign in 2007 and the NC representing the North (A. Svitojus) would resign in 2008. The workshop has to elect the new ERFP-SC member for the East. He will be elected until 2009. Since The Hague workshop (August 2000), France is in charge of ERFP secretariat. Its mandate was for 4 years. It will finish at the end of this workshop. During Rome workshop, the ERFP-Sc requested that France and BRG continues hosting the secretariat until 2006. BRG accepts this proposal to give the ERFP time to get another country to accept the Secretariat. Two decisions: Decision 12 . New ERFP-SC member for East countries? Decision 13 . Do you accept France as ERFP-secretariat for 2 years more?
10th NCs Workshop – Bled on September 4th, 2004 – page 9
4.
Conclusion.
During this year 2003 - 2004, the ERFP showed that it was able to work and have some concrete results. It also obtained an international credibility and acknowledgement (FAO, EU). Nevertheless, it remains fragile and the countries' engagement could be stronger. During the next period, with the new developments in Europe and the new DG Research and Agriculture programmes, the ERFP must be present. The ERFP must continue to play an important role in the FAO Global Strategy and more generally with the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Before finishing, the ERFP secretariat thanks all the National coordinators for their help and their confidence. It was a great pleasure to work with a group of friends.
10th NCs Workshop – Bled on September 4th, 2004 – page 10
Table 1 – ERFP budget 2004 - 2005.
Incomes
Contributions (€) Czech Republic Cyprus France Germany Greece Ireland Italy Netherlands Spain Switzerland United Kingdom Total TOTAL 10 000.00 10 000.00 10 000.00 91 000.00 10 000.00 10 000.00 10 000.00 80 000.00 251 000.00 2002 4 000.00 1 000.00 20 000.00 10 000.00 6 000.00 10 000.00 10 000.00 10 000.00 10 000.00 10 000.00 10 000.00 10 000.00 10 000.00 10 000.00 10 000.00 80 000.00 10 000.00 10 000.00 10 000.00 10 000.00 2003 10 000.00 2004
Expenses
Expenses 2001 -2002 Expenses 2002 - 2003 Expenses 2003 - 2004 Expenses 2004 - 2005 10th NCs Workshop Invitations to the 10th workshop Website Hosting + Updating New development 2 500 8 000 5 000 15 000 5 000 5 000 15 000 45 000 7 653.86 4 000.00 112 153.86 6 023.88 51 724.43 81 097.83 Fixed Fixed Fixed Available (112 153.86 €) Engaged – fixed Engaged -estimated Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Fixed
Contacts with EU National consultancy visits CEEC programme Regional Project/Programmes Working funds EAAP overheads Total
10th NCs Workshop – Bled on September 4th, 2004 – page 11
Table 2 – ERFP expenses from 2001 - 2004 Expenses (€) NCs Workshop Invitations to Workshop Website Contacts with EU National consultancy visits CEEC programme ERFP Programmes Steering Committee EAAP overheads Total 2001- 2002 908.42 0.00 0.00 2 807.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 307.87 0.00 6 023.88 2002 - 2003 1 750.00 6 390.84 0.00 0.00 1 139.49 0.00 40 000.00 2 444.10 0.00 51 724.43 2003 - 2004 0.00 6 018.79 20 000.00 0.00 4 715.00 5 000.00 42 500.00 2 864.04 0.00 81 097.83
Table 3 – ERFP secretariat expenses from 2001 - 2004 Expenses (€) Personal cost Travel cost Annual report ERFP(a) Secretariat(b) Brussels Rome Bonn/Hanover Editing Sending Meetings Phone /fax Others Total
a. 2 days/month and 3 days/month since 2003. b. 3 days/month
2001- 2002 9 000.00 4 608.00 224.30 307.20 0.00 115.60 25.00 1 150.00 0.00 100.00 1 000.00 16 530.10
2002 - 2003 9 264.00 4 740.00 130.00 325.40 390.49 85.00 34.50 853.00 356.50 110.00 1 000.00 17 288.89
2003 - 2004 9 540.00 4 884.00 145.60 0.00 581.60 124.35 34.00 1 640.00 2 642.00 120.00 1000.00 20 711.55
ERFP-SC Others
(estimation)
10th NCs Workshop – Bled on September 4th, 2004 – page 12