115. The TAC Chair introduced this agenda item by stating that the topic was on the agenda at the request of the Panel Chair, Dr. Jaap Hardon, who was unable to attend the meeting due to another commitment. TAC was informed about the progress of the review, and the future plans for the Panel's interaction with the various stakeholders at the MTM'98 in Brasilia.
116. At the request of the TAC Chair, Dr. Geoff Hawtin, Programme Leader of SGRP and Chair of the Centre Directors Committee, stated the following: The scope of the SGRP review, which involved all the Centres, was clear for crops but not clear for forestry and agroforestry or for management of genetic resources in situ and within production systems. The focus of the Review was correct in that it was addressing the two important questions: What is the global role of the CGIAR in genetic resources and how does it interact with other international groups with whom it overlaps? How can the desired funding for the core elements, which needed to be defined, be secured?
117. SGRP operated at several levels. At one level it was a coordination mechanism for information exchange. At another level, it had a representational role in international fora where policy issues of relevance to the CGIAR, e.g. intellectual property, were discussed. It was a mechanism for multi-Centre activities for high priority collaboration. However, SGRP never achieved full funding. Its budget had been US$ 1.6 million, but it succeeded in mobilizing only US$ 0.8 million. So one important issue was not only funding but what should be the level of funding. An associated issue was that of governance. While the ICWG-GR was the Steering Committee, IPGRI and IPGRI Board had a role to play, and so did others.
118. Dr. Hawtin concluded by stating that there were specific issues of relevance to the SGRP Review. These included questions such as: why were the CGIAR genebanks not doing well in terms of funding whereas IPGRI was doing well? Was this an issue of governance and resource allocation? The CGIAR Systemwide programme on participatory research and gender analysis for technology development and institutional innovation included in situ conservation. This raised a boundary question. It was also important to see how SGRP served the CGIAR to discharge its role as a trustee of international collections. There were other issues such as genomics which could be addressed at the System level.
119. TAC noted that the main phase of the Review was scheduled for late July/early August 1998 when the Panel will prepare its final Report. Dr. Hawtin informed the Committee that the ICWG-GR would draft a response to the Panel's report in September and share it with the Centre Directors prior to submission so that TAC would receive a collective response. In bringing this item to a close, the TAC Chair thanked Dr. Geoff Hawtin for his presentation.
