 Mae'n bosb amser, mae'n ddaeth o'i drwsig â'r rŵl iawn. Rydyn ni'n gwybod hanc. Wrth gwrdd yn ei bod yn ei bod yn assumptions. Rydyn ni'n deall ymlaen i chi, Charles. Yn ychydig i chi, Gwylliannau ein gymneud yma, ac mae'n gwaith er fyddyn ni gondol i chi! Dwi'n gweithio ymlaen i chi. Roedd yn Bryn Peri, yn y profesor o'r unibwr o Oxford i gyfer ydiadol yn gyfrifoedd yn gyllidol mewn ysgol yma, ac yn i chi'n mewn i Kenya! ac rwyf y gallwch i'n gweithio ar y syniadau, oherwydd sy'n 20 pas yn ysgol ym 7 yn ymolod. Rwy'n dechrau'n gweithio'n gweithio a bod hynny'n ddwy'n ddwy'n ddwy'n mewn. Mythaidd, mae'r llyfr am hyn o'i ddwy'n llyfr... Fy angen! Rwy'n credu o'r cyffredig? Mae'n ysgrifennu o'r ysgrifennu o'r cyffredig. ..wys pro-hard talk. Hard talk started under Carlos' regime, and Crystal has always given me a hard time about hammering him. Jimmy has been let off very lightly, but we're going to see what we can do about that. Jimmy, let's start with you. I mean, I looked you up on, I mean, know you of course for years, but I thought that. So my first question is, what did you build on from your predecessor, regardless of your absence of Wikipedia? What did you build on from Carlos? What was the key thing that Carlos left you? First thing, Brian, is that I like your socks very much. Okay, there's no time wasted. Serious penalties. What have I built on from Carlos? I still have most of his stuff. Almost every member of my management team except one or two. Is that a good thing? I've been Carlos' people, so I'm building on what he left. Also, we have to show what the institution has done over time, and many of the things we have to show started on Hank and Carlos, and I'm building on this. Okay, so you're not being specific, you're being very general? I'm not being like the World Bank and FAO. We destroy everything in order to show that you're a good DG. My goodness, my goodness. Off record, huh? Okay, off record. Absolutely, World Bank is still my friend, huh? And so is FAO, right then and with you. Sit down. As a former World Bank person, I hope that they're very upset with you. Now, yesterday, I mean, all I heard was describing problems, but not showing the solutions, let alone not showing what Ilyri's contributions are going to be. You know, what are they, and where are they laid out? They've laid out in many impact statements. You didn't do your homework very well, Brian. You should have gone wrong and seen all the impact statements, the books that were being put out, all the film clips, all that. Ilyri has had the impact. Did you listen to the minister's speech? He elaborated. Are you just being facetious or you really want to look for facts? You probably wrote his speech, I imagine. That's what happens with ministers. Didn't you? Did you write his speech? We didn't write his speech. I didn't write his speech. I don't know if Ilyri wrote his speech, but if our communication people did not have a hand in that speech, then they should be sucked. Okay. You've answered my question, Jimmy. So this brings me to the question, are you really in control? The CRPs, these wonderful new creations are running the show. Tom Randolph is the man in charge. He's the man with the money and the direction, isn't he? So what is your job? I hire Tom. You want me to do everything myself? Is that how you run your show, Brian? I heard that from your staff. Yesterday, at the end, you presented a dream. I actually quite liked the dream. It was a little bit of a standing on the Mall in Washington. I have a dream type of stuff, which was great. I'm a loaded dream. That's right. That's why I brought the power. That's why I brought the power. What the problem is, Jimmy, is that we can all dream, but I still don't see, apart from your few impact statements and writing the speech for the minister, I don't see really what the substance is. Are you familiar with this? This is something that, this is a white paper, strategic review of livestock in the CGIR. Have you seen this? January 2014, ISPC, white paper, yes I have. Is there anything in there that... I guess you sat on it. Are you doing all those things? We progressed since then. January 2014 is a long time ago in terms of the CGIR. Two weeks ago, we released a draft of a strategic results paper. If you haven't read that, you should before you speak with me. I'm going to move over to... Sorry, I'm going to come back. I'm coming back. Hank, I want to... I've got something in here. Does this ring a bell to you? Does it? Can you make a comment? Can you be with a microphone? I'm trying to remember whether it was you or Trevor who put that on. Well, actually, it was neither, but what... When you came in, if you remember in the various talks that I used to give, and you arrived from Ilker, and you took over as director general of Ilry, I used to have this figure of Hank Fitzhugh coming out at the screen with a Superman shirt on and calling it Ilker Man. You don't remember that? Personally, I was spared from that, but I did know that there was stuff going on down in Nairobi. I wasn't the most welcome person there. Well, I'll come back to that. I just wanted to share this with you. I don't know whether you recognize the handwriting of this, but this is Brian. Since Hank won't be needing his shirt in the future, I thought it should be left to you. Don't forget the cape and the lights. This is today's best wishes Nancy. How kind she was. Hank, are you a Twitter man? Are you a Twitter person? Do you go on to Twitter? Well, Twitter allows 140 characters. Now, you were never famed for being able to compress anything into 140 characters, but in something like that, what did you leave behind? What is the key thing that you would like to be remembered for as director general? Hiring me. Your term will come again. An institution that was amalgamating two cultures to be better prepared to serve international livestock research. I believe that's what I left behind. Those were two diverse cultures. Do you feel you succeeded in uniting them? The first three years were the most difficult years of my life. When I left in 2001, and Carlos and I actually had a conversation about this, I said there are a couple of really weak points, and I won't name them. You could name them if you wanted. No, because they have to do with people. They're still here. No, they're not here. What I said was that most of the difficult people, with maybe one or two exceptions, were now gone. What is it? President company exemptives. As I think of it, there were two individuals that were still there, both about the same height, neither of which liked each other at all. Anyway, it was an institution that was ready to move ahead. There was a strategy that, I believe, was accepted within the CDIR for funding. Part of the challenge of Illry has always been in capacity building. Is that correct? In building capacity. Has Illry got it right? The problem I see is, yesterday we heard in the speech that you wrote, how many PhD students, how many master students, how many people are there. The problem is, it's not students, it's institutions that need to be built. Is it not? What is your view about that, and how has Illry done in building institutions? I don't believe that the individual center's responsibility is building institutions. I take the lesson from what Wendy said yesterday about her experience. One of the principles underlying BECA, in that it was going to be a place in which scientists from many different areas, many different areas would come in and they would have a place where they could actually build on their knowledge. That's a very good example of where you could argue that Illry's done exactly the opposite. Instead of, there are so many national institutes in East Africa, if you wanted to be built in East Africa, why didn't the money go into there? As a result, you built the capacity on the Illry campus and poor old Magugar and Cabetti and Down in Tanzania are still struggling. I take that point, but Brian, I would also have you look back at what the history of the national institutions developed in the National Agriculture Research Institutes and so on have been. Particularly here in Africa where there has been a problem of poor governance and poor support for them. Build up the capacity, I think at the risk of bringing things up. Zimbabwe is a good example. The capacity in Zimbabwe in 1990 went down because it didn't get the support. We needed to have an institution like what the CG centers could provide, sort of almost like the Middle Ages in which the monks preserved it while the chaos went on. OK, I'm going to have to move on. Carlos, is that right that we were... Hank took us into the Middle Ages in terms of... First of all, if you could just respond to that and then I'll come on to something else. No, I think clearly the concept of a beca was that precisely you didn't want to scatter a few resources across the whole continent, but that you wanted to create a capacity at one place to do science with top notch infrastructure. And I've always argued most of the developments are going to happen through the private sector in terms of new breeds, etc. But these countries need a capacity to understand the science so that the public sector can regulate, engage, and set the rules of the game. And I think that's very much what a place like Beca can do. And that was a better place there, Edilary. I agree that you can't spread the resources, the limited resources which were available. You had to concentrate in one place and being an international place allowed us to move and share and operate in a way which international programmes can't. When I talked to you three years ago, I characterised you as the politically correct DG. You were always looking at making sure that things were politically correct. And as part of this, you were the guardian of the smallholder farmer. You heard all this yesterday about how the smallholder is central to Illry. But we also heard these trends. And I asked you yesterday whether you'd seen Mario Herrero, your friend, his Africa futures, in which he shows that if you rely on the smallholder that Africa is going to be importing enormous amounts and it's going to be breaking its economies from that. Mario even said, well, maybe we need larger, medium and large scale farms. That would be heresy in your context, wouldn't it? What is your comment on that? Brian, you helped us write the strategy in 2002. And keep in mind, we had just approved the Millennium Development Goals. And I think so, we agreed that focusing on poverty was exactly what the world wanted from international organisations such as Illry. But that's changed, has it now? I think it has changed, indeed. Yes. I think we focused clearly on poverty. We still came with our CJR baggage assuming that productivity gains were the way to address poverty. I think over these 15 years we have learned that there is a whole array of instruments and that productivity is one, but it's really a much broader perspective. So these instruments, maybe you should tell Jimmy, because this emptiness that I've just described, what are the instruments that Jimmy should be building on now then? Well, I think clearly when we're talking about poverty, we're not just talking about individual smallholders out there. We're talking a lot more about addressing poverty through employment, poverty through livelihoods for some people by helping, as Jimmy said last night, helping other people move out of the sector and really working with the rural transformation. I think what we've been trying to do is to work against the rural transformation and that's such a powerful force, you will never do that. So I think we've become more realistic in terms of understanding that the interplay between social policies and agricultural technology addresses a whole array of livelihood pathways. Well, three years ago again, in the presence of both of you, I interviewed you and when I mentioned this thing about poverty through livestock, Jimmy, you said, oh, you've been reading too much Paul Collier with your comment. Paul Collier thinks about poverty and thinks about all sorts of tools. Carlos brought up this business about the Millennium Development Goals. We've now got the Strategic Development Goals or they are emerging. Sustainable Development Goals, I beg your pardon. Thank you. I've got so many bits of writing there. There are now 17 of these, Jimmy. You've got these four areas that you had everybody go through yesterday. FAO's got its three or four areas. I mean, isn't it bizarre that you're trying to create your own little... Why don't you stick to the Sustainable Development Goals? Why don't you use them as the framework? Because livestock is relevant to all of them. I see you've even given a talk on that. Yes. To address them, it doesn't mean you need to fold yourself into them completely. You map yourself to those goals and we have mapped ourselves and we map to most of them. You just said, I spoke about them. I must have done so. I usually think about what I say. That was a PowerPoint presentation that somebody prepared for you. Yes. I get a lot of help, Brian. I have to admit that and I have good health. Just look around the people I have around me. Yesterday we heard, for example, a comment saying, well, this should be addressed through the climate change gender group. This should be addressed through some other group, a livestock group. Surely everyone coming in and focusing on what their contributions are to SDGs, which is on human well-being, is going to be much more useful, bringing people together. You can't have everybody as far as you're concerned. All of Ilri should be one unit. You can't manage that way. You put things in relation to how they function. You manage in these functional groups. That doesn't mean they don't relate to each other. They relate to each other. The CGIR has picked three things, not four things anymore. Poverty, food security and nutritional security, and natural resource management. Those are the three things. If you look at those three things, they map to many of the sustainable development goals. One thing is that Ilri has got its strategy. We were a bit critical about it in this white paper. We also said that should Ilri's strategy be the CG-wide livestock research strategy? What is your comment about that? Ilri's strategy is informing the CGIR strategy as well as driving the agenda. But there isn't a CGIR livestock strategy? Well, there's not a livestock strategy, but a CGIR strategy that sets things at a very high level. Livestock is a part of that. Livestock is a part of the poverty agenda. It's part of the food and nutritional security agenda. And it's part of the environment. You don't need to extract it uniquely from that. What we need is things to work together and relate to each other and not separate them. I'll come back to that, Hank. Listening to this elegant prose here. Hank, what would you have done differently if you were in Jimmy's shoes today? And very nice shoes they are too, Jimmy. All I'm missing is a sock. Hank, what would you want? Because the environment has changed. The CG has changed its mode of operation. Have you any thoughts on what you could have brought to those type of pressures? Well, my thoughts really spin off of what Jimmy said. The livestock strategy for the CGIR is that the development of livestock fits within the overall agriculture. If you try and pull livestock out as a separate commodity, a separate entity, and just deal with it, you're not going to be successful. In fact, one of the problems of the 70s and 80s with both Ilca and Ilrad is that they did that. They said, we are the livestock centers. It's sort of like saying, cement, we are the wheat center. Instead of focusing on the fact that Acarta and others were dealing with wheat as well. So what's important, and I would build on the question that you said, the ill-re strategy, and I think it does by looking at the CRPs, should also be thinking, should be built into that, is what are the CRPs going to do? And not only the one that John's leading and Tom's leading, but also what's going on in Acarta and what's going on in the other centers. Well, we were quite critical in this white paper because we felt that there wasn't enough integration. And for example, many of the feed centers are not looking at the feed for livestock types of issues. How do you make that happen within the CG? Well, Brian, they're doing more of that now. The whole purpose of the system-wide livestock program, which I would say is informed the development of the CRPs, is that success was going to come from looking at food feed. And that meant you brought in cement, you brought in all of the crop centers and got them built in. And an awful lot of effort, Salvador, Jimmy, all of these put a lot of effort in making sure that the resources, human capabilities, institutional resources of those centers, with their partners in the national programs, fit into the SLP. And I actually think that the SLP was very successful. It was terribly underfunded. So it's one of the things that you look back on in your era very positively. Hank, you are now with biodiversity. Carlos, sorry. Carlos, you're with biodiversity now. All sorts of interesting questions come in the livestock, animal genetic resources issues in livestock. I don't know whether you're directly involved. So here we've got, not Paul Collier, we've got others in the sustainable intensification program, calling for these various activities, including getting the right genotype. And there's been this dramatic narrowing of genetic resources as a result of the intensification process. What is your view about that? How do one get this balance between retaining indigenous genetic resources in livestock, but at the same time moving this sustainable intensification process forward? Well, I think the key to it is the fact that the diversity of the environments in which you will have to produce food. This is the big difference with the Green Revolution of the 60s, where you had a very homogeneous environment, you had one package, IR8, 100 kilos of nitrogen, et cetera, and that was broadly applied and was quite successful. That was the easy game. The reality now is you've got to produce in a lot more marginal locations, more diverse environments under rain-fed conditions, and that absolutely requires a lot more diversity in what you're going to do. So I think the sustainable intensification principles are going to help us think through that, but you will have to tap into those genetic resources to adapt it. And the whole argument I guess Steve Camp and others make is with these powerful instruments we have now in genomics, et cetera, we're going to be able to customize those materials a lot more. So we will have a range across large spaces, but obviously we will specialize in individual niches. OK, and that one that was yesterday was extremely interesting, but Jimmy, in the Illry strategy we wrote when we did this white paper, we said that the genetics component was more of a shopping list than a plan and a program. What do you say about that? You jumped the conclusions. You didn't understand what we were trying to do. We were thinking through consulting with partners, looking at where the science is going, and evolving or thinking about what we should do. We presented to you yesterday our plan. You shouldn't make the same, I don't think you can make the same judgment about this plan as you were when you were writing your white paper. But Brian, I know a characteristic of you, why you're a good scientist and all that. You like to find the critical things. You like the juicy parts. Well, that's the reason why you're director general, Jimmy. You've got that great ability to give those wonderful smooth answers that don't answer the question. In the way you would like me to. I've just been given a sign about time. Communication with others. There is this very interesting initiative that the global agenda for sustainable livestock, I think Henning is around here, has been very much part of that. That has been very successful in bringing a wide group of stakeholders together. Is this something that you think is useful or is it just a detraction and a waste of time, Jimmy? Henning can tell you that I chaired the process of starting that agenda until I became DG, where I felt that I couldn't one afford the time, and two I couldn't prejudice the agenda. I was only interested in research, but I was the chair of that group. With FEO as the Secretary for the 4, 6 or 8 meetings when I was in the World Bank. So it's something I believe in. I'm a supporter, and Shirley has continued to participate, and other staff members have continued to participate. It's had a great success in terms of raising awareness within the commercial sectors, the JBS, the Nestleys, the McDonald's, et cetera, who have really taken on this issue of greenhouse gases and livestock production. How on earth are you going to bring that type of capacity to respond to Africa and Asia? I don't know. Nestle and others will respond. That's their interest. We are in the tent. It's a big tent. We created a big tent for these relational aspects that we talked to. We cannot isolate the solutions of livestock from everything else. So we created this big tent where we can try to look at what are the issues, what are the priorities and so on. For us, the issues are what are the researchable issues that we can reasonably contribute to. I don't know how Nestle and McDonald's and all the rest of them will do that. We are only interested in that from the standpoint of what sort of products they will be sourcing and how can we provide the products that they want to source? My last question to all of you. Is Ilri too DG centric? Has this harwch? Should you have a junta? Should you have a pollet bureau or somewhere where you've got a diversity of opinions? Are we putting too much into the hands of one individual in running this livestock program? I just told you I had a lot of help. They're right, PowerPoints and so on. So we get a lot of help. No, I don't know if it is DG centric. I thought so when I first came to Ilri. People like to hear the DG speak. I remember going to a fire alarm one day, soon after I arrived, and everybody had gathered in this zone where you're supposed to gather in the case of a fire alarm. And at the end of the drill, it was a drill, at the end of the drill they asked me to say something. I don't know what I did to say about a fire alarm. It was Martin who was supposed to... Carlos and Hank, do you have a last comment on that? I think you need a capacity to engage more widely. I think one of the challenges we've had is that we've been very self-referential. And I think we tried in Ilri to be much more open. And I think the management team, the way we were operating when I was here, was very much engaging everybody around the table. And I think we need even a lot more external inputs into the system. Hank, you have the last word. Well, you've heard how Ilri has evolved. Brian, what you're thinking about are the DGs of the 80s. The Empress and the King. That changed. Am I not? I would like to think that some of those changes became apparent during the 90s. And I'm really impressed, positively impressed by the changes that came on. One example that I've noted, and I think some of you would have verified it, I was always referred to by my first name. A lot of people kept trying to push it was going to be doctor this, doctor that. Carlos, you came in and you really got that done. Everything now is on a first name. You don't identify the DG up on a podium or whatever. Okay, very good. With that, thank you all very much indeed in the land of former Emperor Haile Selassie. Thank you very much to Emperor Jimmy Smith, to Carlos. Thank you very much indeed.