42nd Board Meeting
9 - 13 March 2009
AVRDC – THE WORLD VEGETABLE CENTER
ICRISAT Campus, Hyderabad INDIA
MINUTES
Meeting of the Executive Committee (EXECOM)
10 March 2009, Tuesday
1. Present:
EXECOM Members: Mark Holderness (EXECOM Chair)
Marlene Diekmann
Nicole Senécal
Sally Smith
Paul Sun (Board Chair)
Dyno Keatinge (ex-officio member)
Secretary of EXECOM Kathryn Hamilton
AVRDC staff attending: Jackie Hughes
Yin-Fu Chang
Kola Olatifede
Observers: Wen-Deh Chen
Samakkee Boonyawat
Tanu Pinyopummintr
Adnan Shyue-Min Hwang
Meeting minutes: Kathryn Hamilton
2. General Business:
Opened at 17:05 in the C. Fred Bentley Conference Center Hall
It was noted that the financial budget for 2009 was missing from the agenda. A request was made for AUDCOM to make recommendations verifying the working budget for EXECOM to then consider the strategy in relation to the budget and program. EXECOM will then make a recommendation to the full Board.
2.1 Approval of agenda and minutes of the EXECOM, November 30 2008 (Document 24)
The minutes were reviewed and thanks given to Board Secretary for compiling. Minutes endorsed as true record by Marlene Diekmann, seconded by Dyno Keatinge.
Regarding CIMBAA action point from the minutes, DG confirmed AVRDC formally withdrew from consortium (three months notice given, effective date April 6, 2009). GBP 200,000 of pass-through funds will no longer be contributed to AVRDC from DFID. All resolutions noted as completed, or being implemented.
2.2 Update on GlobalHort (GHI)
DG noted the situation with GHI was very sensitive and discussions regarding funding from Taiwan government have been in progress for several months. DG attended two steering committee meetings of GHI and it was evident to him that GHI was determined to become independent. GHI was completely separated from AVRDC’s direct management from January 1, 2009. Its only source of funding at present is from ICDF, Taiwan; 2009/2010 funding for the secretariat is guaranteed. However, there is potential for loss of funding through a recent review that would impact GHI’s project funding activities and staffing. AVRDC had responded to GHI’s call for more project proposals and AVRDC will be the beneficiary of both projects to be funded, but AVRDC is delaying signing the contracts until the funding situation is resolved. In AVRDC Management’s view, the ICDF funds allocated for research to GHI originally were to enable AVRDC to partner other agencies in horticulture, not for an open call; this was impacting on AVRDC’s budget line. DG felt this view was not shared by the GHI Secretariat.
Mark Holderness, who sits on both Boards, was disappointed that it has got to this stage as GHI should provide a valuable platform for horticulture as a whole. Paul Sun was more optimistic than the DG and would like to see the Secretariat maintained at AVRDC. He reminded Board of Taiwan’s commitment to the initial five-year funding phase for GHI (US$ 0.5 million annually, to support secretariat for 5 years). Two weeks ago Taiwan government conducted a review of GHI and conclusions have been submitted for approval. Paul Sun commented that after five years there is still some chance to continue support to GHI from Taiwan government. First five years will be up in 2010.
Marlene Diekmann commented that GHI is a platform and not a mini-funding agency, and recommended that GHI stick to its role of as an advocacy platform and not act as a competitor for AVRDC. The Board agreed that GHI has a useful role to perform in advocacy for horticulture at the global level, sharing knowledge from horticultural research and stimulating young professionals to take up horticultural research careers through promotion of university horticulture programs. Also, GHI could complement AVRDC’s own outreach activities.
It was noted that GHI was not using funding as was proposed in its original vision. GHI was encouraged to realign to its core functions. Mark Holderness raised concerns that the project budget was already approved for GHI. DG noted that the budget was for 3-year projects with AVRDC, but that AVRDC had not signed contracts as it was awaiting the decision from Taiwan government. He recommended the process with Taiwan government be allowed to proceed to resolution. If AVRDC did receive funds from GHI, the Center needs to understand the commitments it has to the partners and AVRDC should attempt to minimize the damage.
As the GHI Board is independent, the AVRDC Board is unable to make any decision. However, it was noted that while the AVRDC Board does not have a formal role, there is AVRDC’s reputation to consider in having catalyzed the Initiative—both in the initiative succeeding, and in AVRDC being seen as a good partner to others. GHI also has accountability to the government of Taiwan for the way the investment is being used, and the AVRDC link was seen as part of the original justification for this investment.
EXECOM viewed the developments with GHI with concern and encouraged AVRDC to ensure relations with GHI are effective and useful in the long term, with particular focus on advocacy for horticulture across all institutions, and recognizing and working through AVRDC’s important role in the global horticultural research community.
DG thanked EXECOM members for their understanding of this sensitive issue and agreed to support GHI in AVRDC’s interest.
RECOMMENDATION 1: That the outcome of the ICDF review be awaited; that AVRDC continue to support the role of GHI in advocacy, outreach, and knowledge sharing on behalf of all those in horticultural research for development; that AVRDC envisages future GHI activities (beyond the Secretariat) to be based, where possible, on linkage to AVRDC’s actions and the establishment of effective new international partnerships in horticultural research for development.
3. Close of Business 18:05.
Wednesday 11 March 2009
1. Present:
EXECOM Members: Mark Holderness (EXECOM Chair)
Marlene Diekmann
Nicole Senécal
Sally Smith
Molly Jahn
Paul Sun (Board Chair)
Dyno Keatinge (ex-officio member)
Secretary of EXECOM Kathryn Hamilton
AVRDC staff attending: Jackie Hughes
Yin-Fu Chang
Kola Olatifede
Observers: Wen-Deh Chen
Samakkee Boonyawat
Tanu Pinyopummintr
Adnan Shyue-Min Hwang
Meeting minutes: Kathryn Hamilton
2. General Business:
Opened at 08:10 in the C. Fred Bentley Conference Center Hall
2.1 Status of Financial Management System search (Document 26)
Progress report on the search for Financial Management System (FMS) was presented by Kola Olatifede. The consultant who has been working with CG One Common System (OCS) and also working with CIMMYT facilitated the web demonstrations of six possible systems to a small working group at AVRDC. He recommended the Center not to wait for the OCS group to make a decision, as the Change Management process will likely severely affect the timeline. The top two choices recommended for further exploration are Agresso and Maconomy, which both have good project and grants management capabilities. Implementation will take 12-18 months and the Board was asked for their support in continuing this process to find suitable FMS.
Sally Smith asked if there were any hardware implications, particularly for the Regional Centers, and whether training was included in the quote. Kola Olatifede responded that these details are not known at this time but will become apparent once we select a system and work more closely with the vendor. The plan is to stay within the limits of the amount budgeted. Kola Olatifede noted that as a CG questionnaire was used to do the testing of the systems’ capabilities, the systems are already aligned with the CG system. A question was raised as to whether Chinese language needs to be incorporated. Response from Jackie Hughes was that the intention is that the system will be in English but as some of the Center’s reporting requirements should be in Chinese (such as COA, Taiwan government financial statements) then Chinese language capabilities would be an asset.
RECOMMENDATION 2: EXECOM indicated they were comfortable with the approach that was being taken and they endorsed the continuation of this approach to identify a FMS. Management indicated they would keep EXECOM informed of developments.
2.2 vBSS and Kingombo! Update
Jackie Hughes indicated that this item originally was put on the agenda as there were potential financial implications following information from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation that their cash flow was severely depleted. This would impact the vBSS program in progress as well as the Kingombo! proposal. The situation has been resolved as previously indicated in PROCOM. AVRDC will retain funds from years 1 2 and get a third tranche to complete funding as promised. AVRDC will likely be given a one-year “no cost” extension. Kingombo! is on hold. This will allow AVRDC more time to prepare to implement the $22 million project if funded. More indigenous vegetables will likely become available through vBSS in the interim. Certain planned activities relating to Kingombo! will have to be modified (CIM nutritionist already requested). Fortunately, the situation was resolved by management’s decisive, quick action.
RECOMMENDATION 3: Executive Committee congratulated management for averting potential major financial impact from key donor and recommended that these important programs continue to be pursued.
2.3 Annual review of the Director General (closed session) (Document 25)
This agenda item was deferred to the full Board.
2.4 2009 Working Budget
AUDCOM reviewed the 2009 working budget presented by the management and proposed the EXECOM recommend to the full Board for approval the 2009 working budget of total revenue of $16,049,775 and expenditures of $16,026,611 as indicated in Document 16.
EXECOM Chair stated that part of the role of the EXECOM was to see how investments relate to the direction in which the Center is heading and requested PROCOM Chair to comment on Center’s activities. Sally Smith indicated that income appears to have been spent as best it can to support the activities of the Center but there did not appear to be a great deal of flexibility. Director of Finance emphasized the estimate on receivables in the working budget was very conservative. Management was urged to continue to go for relatively large grants, and as a priority to look for more unrestricted funding. DG commented that in his role to solicit additional sources of funding he would not overlook smaller contributions if it seemed likely that a foot in the door could lead to larger contributions down the road. DG also indicated there was a need to balance predominance in Africa and a tour of Oceania region is planned. This coincides with the funding desires of ACIAR and NZAID. DG indicated that little funding is available for continued activity in Central Asia and that the opening of an office in Latin America is less likely to happen unless substantive investment ($5 million) can be procured.
While it was good to see a balanced budget, Marlene Diekmann wondered whether this could be accompanied with a plan of work. Perhaps a condensed version of the MTP.
It was noted that AVRDC needs to continue to demonstrate commitment to Taiwan, such as through varietal releases or assisting large pool of graduates by training.
ACTION: Plan of work was requested by EXECOM to accompany budget. MANAGEMENT
RECOMMENDATION 4: EXECOM recommends 2009 working budget to full Board. Motioned by Molly Jahn and seconded by Nicole Senécal.
AOB
EXECOM Chair mentioned the CG Change Management process, which will primarily form a new consortium and bring greater coherence and efficiency to the Centers. There will be a process of consultation instead of an AGM, and more accountability of the system to the recipient agencies and beneficiaries of technology. There is likely to be an opportunity for AVRDC to become involved.
Marlene Diekmann recommended a “wait and see” attitude at present. Once there is a clearer understanding of the global framework then AVRDC should be involved. Sally Smith requested if the Board could get a list of affiliated centers to get an idea of what other Centers are doing. The following Centers were mentioned; CABI, INBAR, CARI, ICBA, and ICIPE. DG noted that AVRDC is seen as the closest to CG and management are actively pursuing CG Center linkages such as vitamin A in potato with CIP, dirty water research and good agricultural practices with IWMI, and programs with ICRISAT and ICARDA.
It was noted that the process up until now had been a closed one and that there were advantages to remaining independent.
RECOMMENDATION 5: EXECOM recommended management to continue to watch for opportunities to engage with the Change Management process in the CGIAR.
3 Close of business 10:14
42nd BOARD MEETING - EXECOM Meeting Page 6