Box 13. Guidelines for the Stakeholder Group Meetings

The GFAR stakeholder group consultation sessions provide a unique opportunity for the stakeholder constituencies to discuss and prepare for the full range of topics that have been or are to be addressed during the conference, and to evaluate the outcomes of the conference from a specific stakeholder perspective.

The three specific objectives of these sessions are to:

• allow each constituency group to express its evaluation of the conference organization and outputs
• formulate its stakeholder statement which will be delivered by a person designated by them at the closing session
• discuss a range of issues that the constituency group deems critical for the development of the next GFAR business plan in which the constituency proposes to be actively involved in the coming three years.

Practical arrangements

• Grouping in this session will be strictly by stakeholder group and participants are only allowed to join the stakeholder group to which they belong
• Each group will be assigned to meet in a given room which will be announced during the conference.

Roundtable mechanics

With the exception of the NARS, management of the groups is left to the groups themselves as no pre-assigned facilitators will be provided. However, to aid in the preparation of a synthesis, the groups must nominate a facilitator and rapporteur. The Chair of GFAR will lead the NARS stakeholder consultation, and no facilitators will be provided. However, the group must select a rapporteur.

• The facilitator will animate the discussions and ensure that the objectives are met and that most participants have the opportunity to express their views and opinions on the subject. It is important that the facilitator is able to elicit concrete recommendations on the subject.
• The rapporteur will be responsible for capturing the salient points in the discussion. He/she will have to make sure that issues raised and agreements reached are documented. All rapporteurs will meet in the evening with the GFAR Management Team to synthesize discussion outputs which will then be presented the following day in Plenary Session III. Facilitators are welcome to join.

A set of issues for discussion will be provided by the GFAR Secretariat for the consideration of the groups. Background documents, if any, will also be made available.

It will be difficult for the synthesis group to analyze and capture the richness and diversity of discussion in the groups. In order to capture the main contributions of the participants, it is critical that the rapporteurs follow the attached guidelines and report the results in the same format.

Expected output and plenary session reports

The expected outputs of these sessions include:

• Stakeholder assessments of the conference as a constituency
• Stakeholder statements to be presented at the end of the conference, with mention of the specific points of importance to their constituency and identification of some GFAR activities that they suggest be in the GFAR business plan for the coming three years. These are activities in which they want to be actively involved, and possibly take a leading responsibility in their implementation.

Box 17. Issues for Discussion: Advanced Research Institutions (ARIs)

Both the participation and involvement of ARIs in GFAR were expected to contribute to three specific sets of activities: information and knowledge-sharing, capacity-building facilities, and scientific partnerships. It has been to conduct a review on what has been achieved in each of these activities since the inception of GFAR and how these functions can be improved upon in the future.

Points for discussion

GFAR invites ARIs involved in ARD to deliberate their future contribution to the GFAR initiative, and would like to solicit specific feedback on the following issues:

• emerging issues of relevance to ARD, which should be given priority in the GFAR business plan as outlined by the keynote speakers, and where ARIs can best contribute to the advancement of these issues
• specific questions and challenges raised by the GFAR Executive Secretary in his analysis of achievements, gaps and the way forward
• the perception of ARIs of their current contribution to GFAR and its priorities
• concrete suggestions to improve the contribution of ARIs to GFAR
• comments on the conference in general, and suggestions for workshops or follow-up activities that are considered priorities for the next business plan
• suggestions on how to improve the representation of ARIs at SRF, RF and GFAR levels, and how this may be best fostered
• any other issue of relevance to GFAR.

Naturally these are suggestions of issues that could be discussed, therefore please add any other issues you feel are of relevance to GFAR as you deliberate and consult amongst yourselves. Your conclusions and recommendations should be such that we can use them as components of a framework for the next GFAR business plan.

Box 18. Overview on ARIs

Christian Hoste

Background

The term ARIs - Advanced Research Institutions - was used by the original GFAR design team to define research institutions from industrialized countries as one stakeholder group. Presently, in the GFAR Charter, three seats are allocated to the ARIs in the GFAR Steering Committee: one for North America, one for Europe and one for Asia-Pacific.

There are many topics which could be discussed to improve the contribution of ARIs in the GFAR process, however it is suggested to focus discussions on three crucial topics:

• past experience and future representation of ARIs in GFAR
• roles of ARIs in GFAR
• modes of cooperation between ARIs and southern regional fora.

Past Experience and Future Representation of ARIs in GFAR

Before reviewing the current situation and making suggestions for the future, it is important to clarify the terminology used and its implications.

Terminology

The acronym ARIs, referring to research institutions from the north, could falsely suggest that there are no advanced research institutions in the south. Furthermore, it specifically targeted research institutions of the north and not the whole community of advanced research institutions involved in ARD. This could also be interpreted as promoting a different model for the north than the one used for the south, i.e. the Regional Fora approach. Based on the lessons learned since the launching of GFAR, it would be a valuable exercise to re-examine the possible misinterpretations.

Review of the current situation

Representatives of the three ARI zones could elaborate on what is briefly described here but, in short, the current situation is as follows:

• Asia-Pacific: APAARI is rather unique in the sense that it includes members from developed and developing countries. Currently however, not all countries of the region are members of APAARI. The main justification for GFAR to allocate a seat to the ARIs of this region was mainly to include Japan and New Zealand (Australia is an active member of APAARI) and to keeping the door open to China. Initially, Japan had a representative in the GFAR Steering Committee but this is no longer the case and New Zealand has never shown clear interest in the GFAR concept. Consequently, at present no mechanism is in place for industrialized or emerging countries (non-APAARI) to be represented in GFAR and there is an available seat for the ARIs in the GFAR Steering Committee.
• Europe: European countries were already organized at the donor level to promote a coordinated approach towards the CGIAR which was then extended to cover all ARD issues, called the European Initiative for Agricultural Research for Development (EIARD). In addition, European countries decided to adopt the regional forum model and to mobilize all categories of stakeholders, both at the national level via national fora and at the regional level via a newly established European Forum on Agricultural Research for Development (EFARD). An EFARD Charter is currently under finalization. Additionally, some research organizations were already organized the European Consortium on Agricultural Research in the Tropics (ECART). Similarly, universities involved in ARD were also members of an association called NATURA (Network of European Agricultural and Tropically and Sub-tropically Oriented Universities and Scientific Complexes Related with Agricultural Development). Currently, under the 6th Research and Technology Development (RTD) Framework Program of the European Commission, these different coordination mechanisms are working together to develop and promote the ARD component of the European Research Area (ERA). The European ARI seat is occupied by the chairperson of EFARD.
• North America: since the launching of GFAR, the North American ARI seat is occupied by the same representative from an American university with an alternate from Canada. Over the last few years, a significant effort has been made to mobilize the American scientific community to dialogue with GFAR and the North American Forum on Agricultural Research (NAFAR ) is under construction. However, no true consultative mechanisms of ARD stakeholders in the US and Canada are yet in place.

Possible future representation of ARIs in GFAR

Considering that APAARI members belong to developed, emerging and developing countries and that different categories of stakeholders are beginning to be mobilized behind the GFAR concept, the ARI distinction is no longer relevant for this region. Priority should be given to developing the Sub-Regional Fora for the Asia-Pacific region (e.g. SEAFAR was recently established) and involving more countries as well as improving the representation of the different stakeholders at all levels. It may also be worth considering an exception status for China by giving it a seat in the GFAR Steering Committee (possibly as a temporary measure), if its scientific community is willing to join GFAR.

Clearly, Europe has decided to follow the regional model proposed by GFAR and has put in place a EFARD, similar in terms of composition and objectives to the other Regional Fora. Consequently, all ARD stakeholders are represented in the GFAR Steering Committee via the Chairperson of EFARD, and not via an ARI representative.

It would also seem logical to adopt a regional approach in North America involving different ARD stakeholders, even if there is still a long way to go to reach this goal. The establishment of NAFAR is moving in this direction and such an ambition could well mobilize new forces in the region, accelerate the process, and increase significantly the inputs of North America in GFAR.

A recommendation of the ARIs could be to abandon the terminology of ARIs and to officially establish two new Regional Fora, one for Europe and one for North America. Additionally, dialogue should be established with China to seek their interest in joining GFAR.

If adopted, this recommendation will be a significant step forward in the building-up of GFAR, through a true bottom-up approach from national to Sub-Regional, and Regional Fora involving all categories of stakeholders at each level.

Roles of ARIs in GFAR

The participation and involvement of ARIs in GFAR were expected to contribute to three specific sets of activities: (1) information and knowledge-sharing; (2) capacity-building facilities; and (3) scientific partnerships. It is suggested to review what has been achieved in each of them since the inception of GFAR and how these functions can be improved in the future.

Information and sharing

Within GFAR, this function was mainly foreseen and organized at the sub-regional and regional levels. Priority was given to the establishment of EGFAR and the planning and launching of the RAIS. European countries, through EIARD, have established an information system called EARD-Infosys+ based on information provided by national nodes. More recently, the North American ARIs have started to design the NAFAR website as a gateway to the information and knowledge on ARD in the different universities. Some specific regional information systems such as APARIS in the Asia-Pacific region and INFOTEC in the LAC region exist, however more work has to be done to network them.

It is still too early in the GFAR establishment process to have evidence of significant exchange of information and knowledge through these computer-based tools. So far, the most significant exchange of information and knowledge has been through the different face-to-face meetings organized by GFAR.

Capacity-building facilities

This is one of the main advantages that ARIs can offer to the Regional Fora from developing countries. Within GFAR, ARIs can and should contribute to build the capacities of the NARS and of their RF/SRF. As of today, there is not yet enough training events and/or exchange of staff which could better target the real needs of developing countries. A possible exception is in the field of ICM. This is probably because the GFAR Secretariat has no specific funds or programs earmarked for capacity-building activities.

Scientific partnerships

So far, this is the most significant contribution of ARIs to GFAR. ARIs are increasingly participating at the regional and sub-regional meetings and priority-setting exercises. The best evidence is the level of participation of ARIs at the FARA general assembly. Some ARIs are also playing an increasing role in the formulation of GPPs and in hosting/supporting their facilitating units.

Modes of collaboration between ARIs and southern Regional Fora

Clearly, the partnerships between ARIs and southern Regional Fora should be of mutual benefit. A few suggestions are made in this paper but should be enriched by the discussion.

Priority-setting exercises

One of the main achievements of GFAR was to assist the RF/SRF to revisit and better define their research priorities. The ARIs and the CGIAR centres were closely associated with these exercises and currently the CGIAR centres are using the results of these consultations to build their new research programs.

Similarly, the ARIs would benefit highly from this type of exercise and should enter a dialogue with the RF/SRF when setting their own research priorities. A request of this type has been proposed to GFAR by CIRAD. Modalities for such a dialogue are under discussion.

Establishment of Centres of Excellence in the south

The scientific community considers the sub-regional level as probably the most efficient and effective level for scientific collaboration. ARIs should therefore assist the NARS in strengthening or building sub-regional and regional Centres of Excellence to address their own priorities. This will allow for reaching critical mass of scientists addressing key and complex multidisciplinary issues. Such centres will obviously favor knowledge exchanges but should also play a critical role in capacity-building. Accordingly, universities and higher education institutions, from both the south and the north, should be closely associated with the establishment of these centres. CIRAD, along with some of its partners (Cameroon, Congo, Madagascar, Mali, Senegal and Vietnam) is currently testing this approach of what they call Pôles de Compétence en Partenariat. Some European ARIs have already indicated their interest in participating in such pôles and could be joined by others as well as by universities.

Establishment of virtual laboratories in the north

LABEX, initiated in Brazil, was first implemented in the USA and more recently in France, to facilitate its access to other scientific communities. A few other countries like Mexico and India are considering projects along the same lines. The basic principle of the virtual laboratories is to establish a few senior scientists in an agricultural research institute of an industrialized country (Agropolis, in the case of France). This approach is cost effective as it clearly accelerates the exchange of information, knowledge and staff, and facilitates the formulation and implementation of joint research programs or projects.

Partnerships to contribute to large and ambitious research programs

Since its inception, GFAR has promoted the concept of GPPs and has facilitated the implementation of four programs by different stakeholder groups. As part of its reform process, the CGIAR is currently launching some CPs based on the principle of competitive funds open to mixed research teams. Clearly, ARIs and NARS should closely collaborate and build research teams which may compete on these calls for proposals.

Similarly, the ARIs should be proactive and involve more NARS scientists in the formulation and implementation of research programs funded by their own countries or regions. The best example is the recently launched 6th RTD Framework Program of the European Commission which, for the first time allows the participation of the scientific community from all over the world in most of its programs.