summary of 19 replies to questionnaire on ecpgr operational structures exco task force meeting,...

Summary of 19 replies to questionnaire on ECPGR operational structures

ExCo Task Force meeting, Maccarese, 7-9 May 2012

The three most important values of the ECPGR WG you are Chairing

• Forum for exchanging specialized knowledge and experiences 15• Forum to develop successful projects 11• Forum to coordinate and undertake activities (research, publications,

training, policy development) on a regional basis and to agree on standards (Networking) 9

• Awareness raising and motivating role 3• Reference point that can be approached to provide information, capacity

building, rescue initiatives 2• Reinforcing European feeling, sense of community 2• Creation of Central DB 2• Window to know about countries’ activities 1 • Entity that can establish connections with other groups 1• Improvement of the overall conservation quality of germplasm 1• Improved access to material 1• Interaction between maintainers and users of germplasm 1


Single most important output of your WG over 5 years’ Phase VIII

• Success and implementation of PGR project proposals 4• Developing / Maintaining ECPGR Databases 4• Participation in AEGIS development and implementation 3• Setting up of descriptors or molecular standards 2• Scientific conference organized 2 • Awareness raising discussion on genetic stocks 1 • Supervision of EURISCO 1• Agreement on coordination of in situ/on-farm conservation

work 1• Decision to move from Crop database to EURISCO 1• Description of distribution and conservation status of Beta

patula 1


The role of physical meetings

• Exchange of information, experiences, advice 12• Value of direct interaction to establish cooperation 10• Brainstorming to generate project ideas and develop

projects 9• Building cohesion, motivation and trust among

different cultures 7• Opportunity for plenary discussion to establish

workplans /review progress / reach agreement 6• Working together to solve problems (DB analysis) 2• Capacity building 2


4. How to optimize membership of WGs

• By ensuring that WG members have technical expertise– Mix of genebank curators, breeders/crop scientists and other stakeholders 10– Only good English speakers 3– Chairs should have more say on who to invite based on expertise (not country quota) 3– Make sure members have passion and time to dedicate (application letter) 3– Only genebank curators 2– Do not rely on WG meetings for “capacity building” (do that ad hoc)– Not to be prescriptive (country decision)

• Ensuring members represent the country 2• Ensuring members receive support from their country 2• Smaller meetings for specific tasks (w/o eliminating the entire group meeting) • Ensuring limited funding for members activity• Giving higher visibility to ECPGR activities within the country • Offering opportunities to publish results of member’s activities


5. How to economize with WG activities

• Less reimbursements for meetings – No: 9 Yes: 2 (for wealthier or on a voluntary basis)

• Smaller meetings– No: 2 Yes (keeping 15-20 or for specific tasks or based on active

preparatory work): 7• Choose most economical location (same location?) for

meetings and/or organize jointly with other meetings 8• Achieve specific goals by video-conference 4• Eliminating any touristic excursion 2• Combine meetings with the same delegates • Activating “sleeping” members• Merge WGs


6. Which alternative operational structure?

• Keep Working Groups 9• Keep flexibility (both Network and WGs) 7• Reduce number of WGs based on biology

(vegetative, allogamous, autogamous) 1• Replace networks with one committee of

Chairs, Vice-Chairs and DB managers 1


7. Which change of operational structure is most needed

• Current is fine 2• Secretariat to devote to lobbying and fund-raising 2• Improve connection between SC and networks/WGs 2 (small network

meetings attended by SC and AEGIS reps.)• Reduce Network committees• Review country quota system (inadequate participation)• Secure sound basis for Secretariat• Tight focus of resources and delivery (AEGIS?)• Empower WGs to do their work with clear objectives and framework• Involve more the countries which have less capacity• Less talking - Leave Bioversity • ECPGR as focal point to bring PGR stakeholders together, providing legal

advice and facilitating policy development• More support from EU - Integration with EC bodies • Appreciate the ExCo as clear and effective decision making structure


8. Which change in O.S. should be avoided by all means

• Do not dissolve WGs 5• Do not change current structure 3 • Secretariat is essential 3• Do not become a centralized entity implementing

top down decisions 2• Do not limit to “discussion body of National

Coordinators” • No further fund reduction, especially not for

activities


9. Wiews on EUFORGEN and ERFP structures

• Not suitable to ECPGR (different diversity and complexity) 8

• No idea 7• If simplification adopted, Ex situ should maintain

all WGs and In situ should be expanded to cover wild plants, landraces and interface between ABD and BD

• Could simplify to 3 themes: Documentation; Conservation (with sub-groups) and Use (but risk of losing crop expertise


summary of 19 replies to questionnaire on ecpgr operational structures exco task force meeting,...

Documents