 Mae'r ffordd yw'r oedd ar y cyfrifoedd ond ond bydd y gwbl yn gweithio'r llyfradol yma Ielry. Mae'r ffordd, wrth gwrs, mae'r rhai o'r aelod o'r rai o'r ysgrifennu ac mae'r gyfnod ymdod. Rwy'n mynd i bod ychydig i'w Carlos, wrth gwrs, o'r ffordd yma. Yr un ystafell, ac ar ymdelygau i'r coridol, ac yma yna mae'r ddweud o'r mynd i'n gweithio'r ddweud, Mae'n byw i'n dweud y bydd y tîm yn dechrau'r cywphei'r gweithio gynnwys ychydig o Llyfrgell. Ond ydych chi'n gweithio gyda'r awr o'r cyfrannu'r cyflawn, sy'n cyfrannu'r Gweithio Gwylol, ac mae'n gyfrannu, ac mae'n rhai dynamol. Ychydig mae'n cael ei wneud yn emwysg y gweithio ar y proses. But my question is, did they do a good job? Well, I think they did a good job and we did a good job in conveying the complexity of it. I think we have discussed in the last few days that the way we operate, et cetera, is very different from a summit or an area or so. And obviously it's not that simple to convey. Did they capture that, though? Are you happy that they captured all those complexities in the report? Or did you feel that some of the issues were dealt with rather simplistically? Well, I would imagine every report which looks at the institute across can't cover all items with the equal depth. But I think they picked up on the key issues, I think, and in general a good job. I think one also needs to keep in mind these EPMRs are different from what they were in the past. And in the past they were very much standalone exercises and sort of every scientist was expecting to be grilled by the panel. They have now moved into much more of almost audit type of approach where they are basically looking not at the specifics of each of our work, but do we have the right processes in place to manage the research? Are we having internally or center commission reviews? Are we having all these processes done? And that's why the nature is different from maybe what you had in mind about a typical EPMR from the past. Well, not meanest, right? Because you were the one that was worried at one stage. But okay, we're going to deal mainly with the recommendation about globalization. Now, as it's coming from an EPMR recommendation that Ilri needs to get out into Asia, out into Southern Africa and into West Africa, is that not rather a supply-led process? Do they want us? Are they sitting there waiting for us to come clamoring in on the aeroplanes? Carlos? I think that's a very valid question. I think the panel definitely has looked at our own research, which has shown where poverty and livestock intersect and has engaged with us in quite a bit of discussion. I think what we as an institute trying to work through partners, we have quite a challenge in listening to all these individual demands coming from different corners. Actually, I think it was in the room next door, we had the Mozambican ambassador talking to us and saying, well, you know, the Italians gave us 700 buffaloes in Mozambique. Can you help us manage those 700 buffaloes? And we say, well, no, we can't, you know, this is not a global priority. So really a challenge is in terms of understanding where all these different voices we hear aggregate. OK, well, let me go into that. So you say we showed where the poverty is and we're going to go there, basically. But let me, I should turn to John and say, John, is as a research institute, is it dealing with the basket cases, which is where our opportunity is, or should we be looking at a variety of different levels of development to really use our expertise most? Well, I think we should always keep our eye on the poverty ball and where we can help poor people, but that is not always directly working with poor people. For example, I think it's quite interesting in some of the work that's been done on dairy in Kenya, the huge employment benefits of somebody who's a little more able, as organizing milk collection and transfer, to employ lots of other people or somebody who owns a dairy cow who is not necessarily the poorest person, but who is employing other people as their incomes rise. So I think there are different opportunities and we should think strategically and critically about, in the value chain, how poor people are involved. I'm glad you say that. Our friend Ian Schoon from IDS hammered us for recommending that people might work on east coast fever, because those people were out of poverty and didn't have the problem. OK. The question is, do we have the right mix of people and disciplines and management, because we are managers, facilitators, brokers, do we have the right people to move into these other regions? Surely they're full of them. It's an interesting question. I don't think we're there yet, and I think there's a real challenge in how we do this. Now, as I tried to describe on Monday, we want to set the kind of global agenda for Illry, because that's really what we can help people with, I think. And then that could be quite a different nuanced approach in different regions and places where we're working, because the kind of active engagement of Illry with its partners is the thing that's going to have impact on our influence. So I see this looking very different in different places of the world. OK. Carlos, how will these changes impact our programs in eastern Africa? And what will our partners here think? Are we deserting them? I think that's a very valid question and a communications challenge. I think what we've been trying to do is to really look at global issues, but for a lot of practical reasons, the cases have tended to cluster in eastern Africa. And in a scenario with tough funding, this was one way in which we could get more mileage per dollar, given by taxpayers to us. I think what we probably haven't done enough is really creating those global public goods to use the famous word we heard. I'm coming back to some of those later on. I think we're very much trying to get the East African partners to help us address these broader global issues. So will we be closing down Nairobi or Addis moving to Delhi or Maputo or Lagos? Well, I don't think so. You don't think so? No. That's not a very direct answer, Carlos. Well, we have strong human resources, physical assets, a lot of things which are not that mobile. So I think we will certainly work from this base, but what we're trying to do is to get much more, if you want network approach with partners, particularly in Asia, where you've got a whole range of partners, some countries with quite strong partners, into a different type of relationship. I think the way we've been operating in East Africa can't be the same way we'll be operating in Asia. It will be much more building on strong partners there, getting strategic alliances to do things. OK. Now, you raised this international public goods, global public goods issue. John, how difficult are these to achieve, given our mandate of working through and with a variety of national partners? How difficult do these do? Particularly when you're moving into new areas of the world where they are going to have very much their own interests. OK. Come on then, and then we come on and say, we're interested in international public goods. We've got this problem with the buffalo that you just mentioned. How are we going to deal with that? I think you've characterized the problem very well. We could take a couple of examples, I think. We've been talking a little bit this week about the long shadow and the importance of increasing productivity. And how, what are the kinds of things in terms of feeding efficiency, et cetera, that might happen? And what would be the role of an Illry and what would be the role of partners? Well, if you look at Illry, I mean one of our comparative advantages is that we get to see the context in a number of different places. And we get to see what's happening across West Africa, the rest of Africa, Asia, and how that works. But we also have the opportunity to work with partners who have a large array of scientists who are working on feeding and could be working on feed efficiency. ICAR in India, for example, has a large group of scientists. So does Imbrappa in Brazil. So does ARC in South Africa. And how we tap into those to play our kind of appropriate role and then looking at, you know, how that may inform what they do and the kind of iterative relationship. But you're quite right. It's, it'll be kind of looking at people's different interests and how we can work together. When we come to some of the specifics of those, I mean, take, for example, natural, we're looking at poverty reduction in the context of natural resource management. Can we deliver IPGs in this area? Is it not more a site specific subject? And what about, we've just been hearing about innovation systems. Aren't they also very site specific? I think they are indeed very site specific. And so this is part of the dilemma. How do you actually learn some things in the specific sites where it's important and where there are lessons to be learned? And then what are the things that can be generalized? And maybe there's only a few kind of drivers of change that could be assessed or factors of change. But maybe the approaches are more generalizable in certain circumstances. So that, that may be one option. Okay. Well, Dick Harwood told me over breakfast that it all, that they are indeed, it all depends on the methodologies. We're developing the methodology to, to, to analyze these. Okay. Carlos, what about vaccines and diagnostics, which we've been talking about? For reasons of sustainability, we're trying to engage, we are engaging with commercial partners. How does their need for ownership compromise these IPGs? IPGs can sort of exist and have to be turned into actual products which farmers can use. So you always have a link with a private sector, be it seeds or so. The difference between what our crop institutes, sister institutes doing us, is that in the seed business, it is relatively easy. If you have produced, identified certain materials, they are built into breeding programs and a number of institutes can produce those companies, et cetera. In our business and the vaccines, there are economies of scale, which imply that you have to think very carefully about who you give frequently known. Basically exclusive rights on certain things. So how you craft these exclusive rights is very critical. And there are all sorts of fancy intellectual property agreements being done, humanitarian clauses, all those sort of things, which make sure that you do keep the private sector incentive to produce the good. And have we done that successfully? Well, for example, in the case of the work with ECF, we have very clear clauses, for example, that actually University of Edinburgh through DFID has the intellectual property if you come up with it. And they can negotiate with the companies, for example, that if they don't use this for a certain number of years, it can be allocated to somebody else. Now, the scientific credibility, John, is critical to our increased globalisation. And the external programme management review said, we have many publications relevant to regions of Africa, some even relevant to the whole of Africa, but not much relevant to outside. I mean, how do we change that in three years? They're going to reassess this in three years. How do we change that? That's what you've got. Exactly, two and a half years. Right. It relates a little bit to the question you asked me before about, in these global public goods, what do we do at a kind of broad and contextual scale, and then what do we really need to do on the ground? I think there's a lot of mileage and we kind of discussed this last night in our interaction between management committee and our scientific leadership in the operating projects about the importance of synthesis and pulling things together. And that requires some analysis as well, but also identifying some gaps. I think that would be major progress in the next few years. Okay, so what we need to get, as we said last night, we need to get moving with that. Exactly. Is there some scope for addressing this internally? I mean, apart from the one that you mentioned and Phil Toy spoke the other day about the rigorous reviews we used to go through in ILRAD, now we seem to struggle to even have a regular seminar series. Can we do something about that on the wider engagement, not just producing these synthesis papers? Yeah, I feel that concern as well, and I think Rick articulated part of it earlier this morning. And I think this is something that we need to get right. We have paid attention to that in terms of getting some external review on our research quality, in terms of biometrics data, and some of those basic building blocks that we need to do, right? And we need to move forward on that, and that's a big challenge for the research methods group this year. I think also I'm encouraged by things I'm seeing in the themes in terms of building up our research capacity for key issues like breeding, vaccines, markets. And so I think we just have to move forward with those, but I agree. I mean, our calling card is that we have the capacity to do research, and when we lose the trust of that, there's not much left. Carlos, with some nervousness, I ask you, Latin America. We've got many poor people associated with Latin America. Livestock is very important in the region. What is the future role of ILRAD because it's not mentioned in the future in terms of your responses to the EPMR on this? What is the role? I think this is a very useful question to have at this time. We have, as you know, a longstanding policy of the board that we were basically using project resources specifically in Latin America. The priority we have set is sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia and somewhat Southeast Asia, and that in Latin America we would work based on project resources which would be funded specifically for that, so that the scarce core would not be allocated to that region. On the arguments that yes, there are poor people, there are also strong regional institutions, national institutions. Embrapa is as big as a CGAR, for example, with very powerful research machinery. There are a lot of alternative suppliers, particularly if you think about the temperate parts of Latin America. There's a lot of synergy with New Zealand, Australia, other parts of the world. What we have agreed is clearly to focus initially in the Andean zone and Central America, which were the poorest pockets. That's where we have been, and I think this is consistent with what the EPMR is also telling us. We are clearly having to make trade-offs in terms of where we put the very limited core. What we are, I think, foreseeing is that that principle of providing specific project money in cases where we can make a specific research contribution is the way to go rather than aim to have a large programme of our own. Just this morning, if I may interrupt, we've been dealing in the markets theme with the Central America project, which is they've been trying to look at the candidate IPGs. When we were coming out, Jeff Mariner said to me, this is a tremendous substrate for certain of the big issues of Illry. How do we take advantage of these opportunities with the resource constraints that we have? How do we adequately use our little history there? How do we move that forward? I think we do have a certain track record and we do have good relations in the region with the regional organisations, and particularly with our sister institute, SEAT. So, for example, what we are now trying to encourage is that actually SEAT takes a lead role in managing activities there and that we provide specific technical inputs into those. I think that is a more sustainable symbiosis than us trying to drive programmes there where we don't have a critical mass. We don't have, if you want, an obvious comparative advantage in providing the institutional capacity which is there in SEAT, CATI and other places. You mentioned just now, Embrapa. Embrapa is now establishing, I was surprised to hear last night, an office in Ghana with two researchers there basically looking at technology transfer. Are there opportunities for us to strengthen these triangular links of partner with them there so that we can keep in touch with Latin America but also strengthen our programmes in West Africa? Yes, indeed. Actually, in my to-do list there is a letter replying to the Director for International Cooperation who actually wants Illry to Work in the Amazon. We have said, well, there is a lot of other players and we don't have a comparative advantage there but we believe there is a lot to do with Brazilian technology in Africa and Asia. Specifically, for example, in the area of animal breeding, Brazil has been very much at the cutting edge in terms of developing tropical breeds. So we think that is a more logical way to engage with Brazil. Very good. John, you've raised these six big issues and I understand from last night they were raised for funding, not for programmatic purposes. A few people entertained by that. What implications do each of these have for these new regions that we're going into? For avian flu it's possibly obvious but what implications do they have in terms of regional divisions? Let me start by talking about the three big issues that we've been approaching in this APM. I think in the kind of scenario I painted before about the global agenda for Illry and then how it gets nuanced for each region. For example, in southern Africa we see very much that markets are a big demand of our partners there. Both the South Africans and many of the other countries are saying, how do we get poor people into these markets that are developed already? So I see that as kind of something pushing forward on the market front but obviously to support the opportunities for poor people we'll need to get some of the intensification right and or the vulnerability and risk right as you're quite aware of in the region and I see those as kind of supportive tools to a larger market. I'm glad about the vulnerability because you didn't mention the vulnerability on the opening day. You just talked about markets in southern Africa but vulnerability and we've just finished this study for FAO which they actually invited us to do and I think it's critical with the droughts and etc. Do you see us, for example, in the pastoral big issue? Do you see us starting to operate in Mongolia and Tibet, for example? I think that's a very good question. I think in the pastoral systems our comparative advantage on the ground is in tropical pastoral systems. Now there are lots of other people and this relates a little bit to your question about Latin America as well to Carlos. I mean our approach in Central Asia, for example, has been to support ICARDA rather than trying to set up our own infrastructure to do that. And so I very much see that there's the kind of global contextual thing and the approaches as Dick Harwood said that might be transferable, linking up with the partners who have comparative advantage in temperate systems working on the ground. So I see in the pastoral areas in field work much more in Africa but also working in West Africa and Southern Africa, a little bit of work in South Asia in some of the tropical pastoral systems there. But then on the more synthetic side and the broader kind of meta-analysis of what's happening overall. OK. What about avian flu? Where does avian flu fit programmatically within our themes? Where does it fit? Because we've taken on all this response which we've heard so much about. Fascinating. But is it not a little pocket all on its own? You know it's quite interesting and we're having quite a discussion now about, for example, where our health activities fit and you've been in the kind of forefront of that debate over several years. I guess there's lots of different ways that you can cut these things up. Where the kind of critical mass of our work on avian influenza now is in the market's themes because for poor people in developing countries it's the real market shock that's an important component of this. But we also have heard all these huge mortalities. Is it not a vulnerability? Indeed. So we've also heard about it from that point of view and there's no reason why we can't work on those issues and part of the project that's proposed, the larger projects that are proposed on this are looking at what are the impacts of poor people on the ground as well. But I get nervous about if we are looking at the vulnerability issues, that it's sort of looking at health mortality in poultry in isolation. Should that not be in partnership with other people looking at other aspects of vulnerability of small holder systems that have poultry? How do we adequately integrate that with other responding to issues of vulnerability? Well, I think it relates to how we look at vulnerability in all kinds of systems, whether it's small holder or whether it's in pastoral systems. And the people who are really working on the ground are other partners, not us. And what we're trying to do, and I think which we need to do better, is to integrate with other partners who have those responsibilities and come to an agreement with them on the role of research in that. And one of the big pushes that we've got now for example in pastoral areas is how do we have a dialogue with the kind of development partners who are really challenged to come up with an answer quite quickly to do something and how our research can support them. Carlos, what will the resource allocation of Illyri look like in three to five years on these different regions? How much is it going to change? Well, I think it depends on how you account for it. Obviously, wherever you have your headquarters, there's a fixed cost of running. That I think shouldn't be allocated to that region in a global institute. But the operations are such. I would imagine that Africa and Asia can probably in three to five years be about equal shares. We think now we're two thirds, one third, it could move possibly to 50-50. I hope that we could grow the pie significantly and that basically this license to operate and the way we're trying to address issues will allow us to engage Asian resources actually in funding quite a bit of the Asian portfolio. We're actually with Ian visiting Tata Foundation which has just approached us because they have heard that we're going to do more in India, for example. We believe that Asia, particularly the rapidly growing part of Asia has new philanthropy, new sources. We don't think the traditional donors are the major players in the number of those areas. So growing more in Asia probably than we can in Africa right now over the coming years, putting more effort into that growth. Will we be moving some of our directors into Asia, West Africa and Southern Africa, or possibly bringing our current regional representatives more into institutional management or some combination thereof? All is possible. I think we had a director in Washington sometime. So why not? Have you any specific plans? Not yet. When will you have any? I will have to be sorted out. Four follows function. We first have to agree exactly what we're going to do. OK, my last question, and this was an issue raised big time by the EPMR. Internet connectivity, if you like, in loose terms. If we're going to be really wanting to have this global community, we're going to return in a global centre, what the heck? I notice that you make a very nice statement. The recommendation agreed, you'll reset. It's committed to expand the capacity with increased expenditures in 2007. Illry and eCraft are establishing a common icy, but this is going to be involved more than Illry and eCraft. We're going to have to involve centres in other parts of the world. How are you actually going to come to grips with this problem? I think I'll defer to Bruce and Ian. No, no, they're not up here. The fuck stops with you. Well, we have just had a study, an ICER, an internally commissioned Excel review, was actually looking at the infrastructure and responding to some of those questions. I think there's a number of things which we can do if we invest the resources, but there's also a lot of dependency on ETC and the case of here and the Kenya telecoms, etc. What that external review says is, and it had some, one of the staff members very knowledgeable about fibre optics developments in eastern Africa, that I think in one or two years we should have fibre optics connecting all these places and that that would dramatically change the scene. How is that going to, what about Delhi? Well, that's not a problem. They're much ahead of us. And Southeast Asia and West Africa? Erie has certainly got very good connections in the Philippines. Was that part of the mandate for this review that's just taken place? No, this review was specifically looking in general at Erie as it is present in one of the services we're requiring, particularly the whole area of bioinformatics which has very heavy requirements which we're not being able to provide around the clock right now. Okay, so there's still some thought to be put into how it will respond to this expansion within three years. But there's a whole CG wide initiative looking at the secondary centres, not the headquarters centres, but other centres and how that can be improved and Ian Moore has been a big part of that. Okay, John and Carlos, thank you very much indeed. Well done.