Minutes of the 5th Program Planning and Management Committee Meeting held on 13-14 December 2012 at ILRI Nairobi www.livestockfish.cgiar.org December 2012 CGIAR is a global partnership that unites organizations engaged in research for a food secure future. The CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish aims to increase the productivity of small-scale livestock and fish systems in sustainable ways, making meat, milk and fish more available and affordable across the developing world. The Program brings together four CGIAR Centers: the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) with a mandate on livestock; WorldFish with a mandate on aquaculture; the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), which works on forages; and the International Center for Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), which works on small ruminants. http://livestockfish.cgiar.org © 2013 This publication is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported Licence. To view this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/. Unless otherwise noted, you are free to copy, duplicate, or reproduce and distribute, display, or transmit any part of this publication or portions thereof without permission, and to make translations, adaptations, or other derivative works under the following conditions: ATTRIBUTION. The work must be attributed, but not in any way that suggests endorsement by the publisher or the author(s). NON-COMMERCIAL. This work may not be used for commercial purposes. SHARE ALIKE. If this work is altered, transformed, or built upon, the resulting work must be distributed only under the same or similar license to this one. PPMC: Barbara Rischkowsky, ICARDA Iain Wright, ILRI Malcolm Beveridge, WorldFish Steve Kemp, ILRI Michael Peters, CIAT Stuart Worsley, Livestock and Fish program Steve Staal, ILRI (afternoon of 13th only) Tom Randolph, Livestock and Fish program Gatigwa Kimani, ILRI (absent) Katie Hamilton, L&F (morning of 13th only) Jens Peter Dalsgaard, WorldFish (observing) Evelyn Katingi, L&F (taking minutes) Science & Partnership Advisory Committee: Jemimah Njuki, CARE Max Rothschild, Iowa State University Simon Oosting, WUR Andy Peters, GALVmed James Muir, University of Stirling (by skype) Component Leaders: Phil Toye, ILRI Acho Okike, ILRI Mwai Okeyo, ILRI An Notenbaert, ILRI Michael Blummel, ILRI (absent) Kathy Colverson, ILRI 1. Agenda  Welcome  Adoption of minutes from September meeting (for decision)  Update (for information)  Preparing discussions with SPAC about role and expectations (for discussion)  Prioritization (for discussion)  IDOs and M&E  Re-selection of fish value chains (for decision)  Budget update: 2012 status and 2013 allocation simulation (for decision)  Defining the management budget (for decision)  Annual report preparation (for information)  Joint session with SPAC and component leaders on the role of SPAC  Joint session with component leaders (for information) o Work plan and budget template o Component research updates  Review and Planning Meeting (for decision)  Strategic partnerships: WUR and SLU (for decision)  Ensminger School concept (for decision)  Review of PPMC Terms of Reference (for discussion)  Value chain update (for information)  Development partnership strategy development (for information)  Calendar (for decision)  Resource mobilization (for discussion)  Communication strategy development update (for information)  Leadership team strategy development (for information)  AOB 2 PPMC5 agenda final.docx 2. Welcome Iain Wright welcomed the committee on ILRI’s behalf. 3. Adoption of minutes from September 2012 PPMC4 meeting (for decision) Corrections were noted and the minutes adopted. 4. Update (for information) The update report prepared for the ILRI Board of Trustees had been circulated to the PPMC in late October, as well as summaries related to Livestock and Fish program participation at GCARD2 and the ILRI Board meeting. TR therefore limited his update to: o Planning progress: a recent series of planning meetings for components and value chains has demonstrated good progress in increasing ownership of the various teams of their respective agendas. Work plans and budgets for 2012 have yet to be finalized, however o Funding news: The final 2012 allocation of Window 1/2 funding was recently announced by the Consortium Office. Because of the Livestock and Fish program’s success in attracting W2 funds, it will no longer receive any W1 funds in 2012. It was decided, however, that it could receive the full amount of W2 funding of $15.23 million committed by donors in 2012, even though this exceeds the original total CG Fund budget of $10.33 million. The program is allowed to carry over unspent funds to 2013. The program has an additional $7-8 million in W2 funding already committed for 2013 and $4 million for 2014. Detailed accounting of the W2 funding has yet to be provided by the Consortium Office. ERRATUM: It was subsequently learned that the Consortium Office was incorrectly reporting that the Livestock and Fish CRP had not received any W1 funds in 2012, when in fact it did receive a disbursement of $0.707m from W1, which means the W2 amount disbursed totalled a lower amount of $14.52m rather than the $15.23m reported in the bullet above. 5. The role of SPAC (for discussion) Points to raise during the first joint session with the Science & Partnership Advisory Committee (SPAC) were discussed. Proposed objectives for the joint meeting included:  Review of the SPAC terms of reference, including the tension between its external review function and its role in guiding the program’s design going forward  Agreeing expected level of effort (# of days)  Timing and modalities of interaction with the PPMC, program management team and researchers  Dates and venues for SPAC meetings th Agenda of 4 PPMC meeting of 19-20 September 2012 SPAC v1.docx 6. Prioritization (for discussion) A critical challenge for the Livestock and Fish program in 2013 will be to define a process for prioritization of its collective research agenda that will replace and rationalize the current system of center-assigned budgets. JPTD described a prioritization exercise for 2013 undertaken by WorldFish and lessons for the program. Comments: o Two critical elements of such a process is (i) formulating the ranking criteria and (ii) identifying candidate activities to rank. The criteria used in the WorldFish process are relevant; identification of candidate activities would need a more transparent process o Prioritization as an internal process would need to be complemented by external review o Also needed are qualitative measures to guide the criteria and the supporting background documentation upon which the decisions are made o The Consortium working group may provide some guidance; it will be important to compare with other CGIAR programs o The process should be maintained for high-level resource allocation. Prioritization v1.docx  Action: TR, SW, JPTD to develop proposal for next PPMC 7. IDOs and program M&E (for discussion) In response to a Consortium Office request, the program drafted and circulated Intermediate Development Outcomes (IDOs) in September. These were formulated to strongly link to the program’s Theory of Change. There is considerable variation in how the various CGIAR programs have framed their IDOs and a Consortium Working Group is reviewing them and will be recommending how to harmonize them. So far, we have interpreted ‘Intermediate’ as the development outcomes we are seeking at scale in each of our geographically-bound value chains, which should facilitate their measurement. The Committee reviewed and endorsed the current version as the basis for engaging with the Consortium’s IDO Design Group. IDOs v1.docx  Action: TR to request specific review of the IDOs by the SPAC The limited progress achieved in 2012 in developing an M&E framework and better articulated Theory of Change for the Livestock and Fish program was highlighted as an area requiring urgent attention. ILRI is seeking to strengthen its social science capacity to lead the ‘learning’ dimensions of the program’s research agenda, but in the meantime, there doesn’t appear to be anyone willing to take lead of this area, while more urgent action is needed. A meeting is being organized between ILRI and WorldFish in mid-January (possibly in Penang) to address the Theory of Change, but is not planning to address the M&E framework as such. It was suggested that additional external help may need to be mobilized to move this 1 th Agenda of 4 PPMC meeting of 19-20 September 2012 forward, plus drawing more on WorldFish and CIAT (Ricardo Labert, with Mark Lundy coming in through CRP2). It was agreed to form a working group internally to define the scope and actions needed under the learning and M&E component. SPAC member Andreas Springer- Heinze might be well-placed to advise.  Action: TR to form a working group with the specific task of moving forward the M&E framework and Theory of Change, drawing from ILRI, WorldFish and CIAT and external consultants as needed. 8. Reselection of fish value chains (for decision) WorldFish proposes to replace the Uganda aquaculture value chain by an aquaculture value chain in Bangladesh. Reasons for dropping the Uganda value chain were presented, together with a business case for Bangladesh. WorldFish is also proposing to explore establishing a third aquaculture value chain in sub-Saharan Africa, either in Ghana or Nigeria. WF value chains v1.docx The Committee agreed with the general principle of considering the re-assignment of the value chain to another country, but asked WorldFish to clarify the selection criteria being used given that this will establish a precedent for future changes. Additional detail on the targeting information will be needed, and WorldFish will need to advise on how to handle the Uganda exit strategy. WorldFish should continue to explore the third aquaculture value chain in Africa if it can ensure an adequate level of resources to support the investment.  Action: MaB, JPTD to provide for the next PPMC a proposal for selection criteria to apply to re-assigning value chains, and to provide a more comprehensive business case for Bangladesh. 9. Budget update: 2012 status and 2013 allocation simulation (for decision) 2012 status: According to the 3rd Quarter financial statements, the program is still largely underspent compared to budget due to ILRI and WorldFish, though there are questions about the reliability of the ILRI figures; CIAT has spent to the adjusted budget figure. Additional uncertainty for the ILRI figures has been created, however, by the need to absorb the CRP1.2 funding that has become available. 2013 allocation simulation: The rationale for basing the 2013 allocation on the Consortium Office’s 2012 harmonization exercise was explained, and the application of the allocation principles presented. The Committee was generally comfortable with the recommendation for the reward scenario (a) and agreed to forward it to their respective Finance offices for approval. A suggestion was made to clarify the share of the increase for ILRI accounted for by the reinstatement of the management budget. 2013 CG Fund allocation v4.docx   Action: TR to send recommended allocation to partner center focal points for forwarding to their Finance offices for approval. 2 th Agenda of 4 PPMC meeting of 19-20 September 2012 10. Defining the management budget (for decision) It is recognized that each CGIAR program comes with a new set of costs for its management and governance that were not previously incurred by the centers. The 2012 management budget covered the costs of the program management office (salaries, travel, services), PPMC, SPAC and planning meetings for each component and value chain. Other costs that could potentially be covered in the management budget were discussed, including those associated with component leader and value chain coordinator responsibilities. The Committee discussed the principles to apply – with the test to be that only costs for services provided to all centers be included -- and agreed to TR’s recommendation to include component leader-related costs (20% salary, other?). The Committee noted that clarification is needed on ensuring the role of value chain coordinators is supported appropriately. Defining mgmt budget v4.docx A summary breakdown of the 2013 management budget proposal will be made available to the Committee for comment in the coming weeks. At a later point in the meeting, TR noted that the 2013 management budget is proposing to include 20% of the time of JPTD so that he can contribute directly as part of the program management team. This will help share the burden of work expected in having to lead program-wide initiatives and respond to Consortium Office requests, as well as promote shared leadership. The Committee supports the arrangement, but note that it will be important to clearly distinguish his program versus WorldFish tasks. It may be of interest to explore a similar arrangement with CIAT. Action: TR to request component leaders identify budget needs, and to circulate management budget breakdown. Action: TR to report at the PPMC meetings on how the time arrangement for JPTD is being managed. 11. Annual report preparation (for information) The general format of the annual report has been circulated, and a template will be circulated by mid-January. The Committee agreed to the proposed schedule by which each center team will prepare a detailed report by component by the 1st week of February, copied to TR and the component leaders. Component leaders will then be responsible for preparing a component-level synthesis report, and the program management team will prepare the overall synthesis report by the time of the Review and Planning Meeting in mid-April. The Committee also agreed to maintaining a central repository of project proposals and reports. Annual report preparation v2.docx  Action: JPTD, TR to review previous annual reports and prepare template by mid-January. 12. Joint meeting with SPAC and component leaders 3 th Agenda of 4 PPMC meeting of 19-20 September 2012 The Science & Partnership Advisory Committee (SPAC), headed by the interim chair, Max Rothschild, reported that their inaugural meeting was going well and that a fair amount of information had been received from the leadership team. An inception report with preliminary recommendations was being prepared. It was agreed that the report should be sent to the ILRI DG with copy to the program director. The principle of 1-2 SPAC meetings a year was agreed. The next meeting is tentatively proposed to be held in conjunction with the Review and Planning Meeting in Addis Ababa in April, though questions raised whether there would be sufficient progress by then to justify a second meeting. The draft annual report might help to decide. Meeting in Addis Ababa has the advantage of allowing a visit to the small ruminant value chain there. Holding future meetings in other value chains will continue to be considered. It was agreed to maintain the expected SPAC level of effort at 15 days a year, to be reviewed as more experience is gained. SPAC will provide ongoing overall review of the program, and can respond to requests for specific advice or review if articulated by ILRI or the program management and leadership team. SPAC is expected to interact with program management and staff, and will discuss its recommendations with the PPMC for feedback before submitting its report to the ILRI DG with copy to the program director, to which the PPMC will be expected to respond. It will therefore be important to schedule joint meetings. A clear review and feedback process and timetable will need to be agreed. The expectation is that SPAC will balance its role as an external review function with a role in supporting the ongoing implementation of program activities, particularly those related to each member’s specific area of expertise. SPAC should be ambassadors as well as advisors and examiners. For communication to ensure transparency, it was agreed that messages to individual SPAC members should be copied to the full SPAC. Similarly, communication between SPAC and individual program staff or partners is encouraged, with copy to the program director. In the specific case of Imke de Boer and Simon Oosting, it was agreed to try having them fill the single position jointly. Immediate priorities identified for SPAC include reviewing: o Component strategies (logframes) o Monitoring and evaluation framework, as it comes available o Evaluation of the IDOs SPAC would like to receive program and component progress reports and supporting documents together with any specific information requiring review about 2 weeks before its meeting. The program director will also share with SPAC the regular updates made to the ILRI Board of Trustees and the PPMC, as well as the annual report. It was recommended that SPAC and PPMC continue review the SPAC terms of reference as experience is gained. At a later point during the PPMC meeting, it was noted that the ILRI DG will be responsible for reviewing the performance of the SPAC; it was recommended that the program director facilitate the members of SPAC in regularly conducting a self-evaluation as well. 4 th Agenda of 4 PPMC meeting of 19-20 September 2012 13. Joint meeting with component leaders SPAC: The meeting with SPAC was briefly reviewed. It was felt critical that SPAC meets with PPMC and program staff at least twice a year. Annual program of work and budget (POWB): JPTD presented the recent instructions from the Consortium Office (CO), their alignment with the structure being used in OCS and implications for the nomenclature and templates currently being developed for the program. Components will be renamed Themes, and the templates will be adjusted to reflect the CO/OCS terminology; component leaders will need to adapt their existing logframes accordingly. TR will seek clarification from the CO on the reference to limiting milestones to one per output per year. PPMC 5_IsueBrief_POWB_templatenomenclature (draft1).docx The urgency was stressed for the component leaders to finalize the 2012 work plans and budget by the end of the year, and the 2013 work plans and budget by end of January. These should include activity-level resource information (staff time, budget). Component updates: Each component leader provided an update of progress; the powerpoints are available at: http://livestock-fish.wikispaces.com/spac1. Points to note: Animal health o WorldFish interests will need to be reflected o Clarification will be needed on the interaction between the animal health and value chain development components with respect to assessment and technology delivery activities o Major vaccine proposals are being developed with BMGF on ECF and CBPP; their alignment with Livestock and Fish will need to be documented Genetics o ADA-funded project for ILRI and CIAT in Nicaragua successful o Proposals include an extension of the DGEA project, a major ($40m) Swedish-funded program for ILRI, SLU and UNA in Nicaragua o OM asked to circulate the updated version of the logframe Targeting o Agreed to change name to ‘Targeting sustainable interventions’ o Agreed to consider shifting the learning subcomponent of the Gender and Learning component to the Targeting component to integrate the M&E, impact assessment and targeting activities better. Implications for responsibilities and resources will need to understood o A pilot BMGF project for value chain environmental impact assessment methodologies led by ILRI looks certain to be funded o A rapid assessment related to targeting should be reflected in the situational analyses Gender and learning o Recent planning workshop revised the gender outputs o Learning plans to be addressed at meeting being planned in January 5 th Agenda of 4 PPMC meeting of 19-20 September 2012 Value chain development o Recent planning workshop revised the outputs, which the Committee agreed were an improvement o Working groups had self-identified around the revised outputs o The capacity gap is beginning to be addressed with a dedicated component leader and the recruitment of an ILRI value chain economist, which is helping to move forward the tools development o Still need to clarify who is taking responsibility for key outputs Feeds: a powerpoint presentation was circulated. 14. Annual Program Review and Planning Meeting (for decision) The purpose, timing, selection of participants, and format for the annual meeting as described in the issue brief were discussed. It was agreed to consider the meeting dates as April 15-18 to allow sufficient time for team planning meetings in addition to plenary activities. Two options are to be considered: o Having the plenary activities concentrated within a 2-day period to optimize the participation of partners, and planning meetings on the other 2 days o Having the plenary activities mixed with planning meetings over 3 or the full 4 days 2013 CRP annual review and planning meeting v2.docx A field visit related to the small ruminant value chain should be considered. A preliminary participant list will be drawn up following the selection criteria to assess the numbers and cost involved. There could be particular interest in encouraging communications specialists from the 4 partner centers to participate and meet as a team. Also consider representatives from the systems CGIAR programs in addition to CRP2 and CRP4. SPAC should be encouraged to participate. The planning committee is proposed as: Stuart, Peter B, Barbara, Evelyn, Jens Peter, Iain.  Action: SW to form planning committee, which will immediately develop a preliminary participant list, budget and planning timetable. Program staff to be informed. 15. Strategic Partnerships (for decision) There may be opportunities to develop strategic partnerships with Wageningen UR (Netherlands) and SLU (Sweden). TR described the areas of interest and potential modalities. The Committee endorsed continued efforts to explore the partnerships. Strategic partners v3.docx Other potential targets for strategic partnerships were discussed, including: CIRAD, EMBRAPA, and a number of development NGOs. More background information will be 6 th Agenda of 4 PPMC meeting of 19-20 September 2012 needed first. It was suggested that the committee should do a background research on which strategic partners to approach and define the focus of the programs partnerships.  Action: TR to gather intelligence among Livestock and Fish staff on existing or planned collaborations with Wageningen and the areas where it could particularly strengthen the program. 16. Ensminger School (for decision) The concept and proposed modalities for the Ensminger School event were presented. It offers an opportunity to create visibility for the Livestock and Fish program and to provide a forum for strategic issues. Ensminger School v2.docx While the Committee sees the value for such an event, the consensus was that caution was needed to ensure it is aligned with the program’s interests. The Committee considered supporting the field trip of the speakers and their spouses unacceptable for use of public funds and recommended that other support be found for this. Names were suggested as possible speakers: Peter Edwards, Bill Hill (but possibly too Asia- oriented). Emphasis should be given to speakers who will entertain and challenge conventions. Action: TR to solicit input on organization of the individual sessions, including speaker suggestions. 17. Review of the PPMC terms of reference TR led the Committee through a review of its terms of reference to assess their alignment to the way in which the Committee has operated during its first year. Comments are summarized in the following table: Term of Reference (v.6) Has the PPMC been performing this function? The Program Planning & Management YES Committee (PPMC) oversees the The director has taken responsibility for day-to- planning, management and day management, in some ways reporting to implementation of the CRP and ensures PPMC to get their input, endorsement and help in that the Program Implementation implementation. PPMC members consider they Agreement for the CRP between ILRI are effectively representing their center interests and the Consortium Board is being in the PPMC while at the same time protecting the effectively delivered. program’s interests in their own centers. Towards this end, the PPMC will be YES and NO responsible for and make The various ToRs agreed by the PPMC were recommendations to the ILRI DG with formally communicated to the ILRI DG for respect to: approval, but other decisions and discussions have not been subsequently. This will be reviewed with the ILRI DG. Agreeing the strategic directions for the YES 7 th Agenda of 4 PPMC meeting of 19-20 September 2012 program, including priorities and The PPMC continues to pursue development of strategic linkages environment and animal-source food/nutrition agendas, as well as opportunities for global messaging to promote the program Reviewing and agreeing program YES outcomes, outputs, milestones, work Important role, but much still being defined by plans and budgets, including CG fund component leaders. Will be important for allocation. connecting across components. Systems not yet in place to allow for budget review Monitoring and evaluating program NO performance, as well as program Important role but the team is not yet there. This processes to support these. These may will become more relevant in the medium term include outputs, outcomes and impact, once the component leaders have had a chance to as well as program organizational develop their programs and the roles of the value effectiveness and cost efficiency. chain coordinators are better defined Drafting and agreeing policies and YES procedures that govern the This was done, for example, for the various ToRs implementation and administration of and the proposal alignment principles. The issue the program brief format being used for this meeting will help document policies under development. Areas that will need attention include research ethics/practice and resource allocation. Assignment of staff to program YES and NO component leadership and VC The Committee developed and agreed the ToRs coordination roles, as well as for the leadership assignments. ILRI has largely developing and agreeing TORs for nominated staff to the positions to date in those roles consultation with and approval by the Committee. PPMC will need to review their performance going forward. Propose and approve new funding YES and NO initiatives PPMC has not actively or systematically identified priorities or reviewed proposals. It does not yet have a system established to support this function. It has, however, agreed the principles for judging alignment of proposals and program co- funding. PPMC may want to lead a discussion on this at the Annual Review and Planning meeting Develop TORs for and propose YES members of the Science & Partnership Done. Advisory Committee (SPAC) Engage with the SPAC and incorporate YES guidance from that Committee into PPMC will be establishing a process for this going strategic development and forward. implementation decision of the program Help develop and support strategic YES linkages with other CRPs, to be So far, focused on linkages to CPR2 and CRP4. MP managed by the CRP Director noted need to monitor situation in central America and elsewhere where several CRPs have overlapping sites. The PPMC will advise on the other YES 8 th Agenda of 4 PPMC meeting of 19-20 September 2012 aspects related to development and Meeting agendas have been wide ranging. implementation of the program as needed. The PPMC is composed of: IS THE PPMC COMPOSITION STILL APPROPRIATE?  CRP Director YES  CRP Head Development TR noted that the restructuring of the CRP Themes Partnership and components, and the new DDG appointments  Representatives of the 4 CGIAR and restructuring in ILRI will likely lead to changes partners in the ILRI representation within the PPMC. This  Leaders of each of the 3 main CRP may create an opportunity for more shared Themes governance that could address the awkward  ILRI Director of Corporate Services observer status of JPTD. The CRP Program Support Coordinator serves as Secretary to the Committee. The PPMC will periodically review SHOULD THIS WAIT FOR A PROCESS OF opportunities to broaden the IDENTIFYING STRATEGIC PARTNERS? membership to include representation YES from non-CGIAR members who emerge as strategic partners of the CRP. The PPMC will meet face-to-face three IS THIS SATISFACTORY? times a year, with teleconferences YES organized as needed. A quorum of 5 members is required for STILL SATISFACTORY? meetings and for decisions. YES At least once a year, PPMC meetings STILL SATISFACTORY? will be scheduled to coincide with SPAC YES meetings to ensure regular close interaction. The meetings may also be scheduled to WE DECIDED THIS DIDN’T MAKE SENSE; STILL align with the semi-annual ILRI Board of AGREE? Trustees meetings to provide inputs to YES the BoT and offer opportunities for interaction. Note about Research Coordination THE CRP LEADERSHIP TEAM (CRP MANAGEMENT The PPMC is responsible only for + COMPONENT LEADERS) HAS NOW TAKEN A higher-level research coordination; ROLE IN RESEARCH COORDINATION. IS THIS research coordination requires much SATISFACTORY? wider participation of component YES and NO leaders and value chain coordinators, The role of the value chain coordinators, their which is a much larger group and responsibilities and authority, and their mode of unwieldy as a PPMC. The CRP Director working together vis-a-vis the component leaders will therefore convene research needs urgently to be clarified coordination meetings for developing implementation strategies, supporting resource mobilization efforts, and making day-to-day operational decisions, which will be monitored by the PPMC. No formal research coordination body, however, is foreseen. 9 th Agenda of 4 PPMC meeting of 19-20 September 2012 18. Update on value chains (for information) SW presented an update on progress in engaging and implementing activities in the selected value chains. The powerpoint presentation is available. 19. Update on communications strategy development (for information) Peter Ballantyne presented an update on communications activities and strategy development. The powerpoint is available on the wiki site and the narrative report is attached. Component Planning Comms narrative Dec 2012.docx Questions arising from the presentation addressed the status/role of the repository, progress regarding data management, the working out loud concept, the need for a disclaimer on the wiki, and if and where 'communication for development' approaches fit in the program's approach. Brief responses were: The repository uses Dspace and is on a platform hosted by ILRI but shared by several centers and research programs (WorldFish indicated they might also join but this needs to be followed up). On data, ILRI is recruiting someone to take this work forward, including for the Livestock and Fish program; we will explicitly draw on CCAFS principles and guidelines work in this area which is very relevant to us. 'Working out loud' is about interactive, collaborative work in which project staff report or ‘narrate’ what they do openly (on blogs, wikis for instance) so others can follow. A more engaging ‘observable’ approach has us creating and storing work in ways and platforms where others can see and comment/modify it, long before it is final - See http://blog.podio.com/2011/08/01/working-out-loud-make-work-open-to-make-it-better . A disclaimer will be added to the wiki pointing out that it contains much draft, unedited and preliminary material. A communication for development approach is envisioned, particularly in and around the value chain development activities; this is likely to be embedded in planned and ongoing partnership/engagement efforts and will take off alongside the larger VCD efforts. 20. 2013 Calendar (for decision) Dates and venues for the PPMC meetings in 2013 were agreed: o April 14, Addis Ababa o September 11-12 (3-day window for 11-13 kept open), Nairobi o December 10-11 (3-day window for 10-12 kept open), Penang to be considered 21. Development partnership strategy (for information) SW presented his initial thoughts for a program development partnership strategy. Partnering effectively with development actors emerged as a ‘critical success factor’ for the program leadership strategy (see next agenda item), and SW has been tasked with formulating a strategy to address this challenge, building on the partnership workshop organized by the program at GCARD2. The powerpoint presentation is available at the wiki site. 10 th Agenda of 4 PPMC meeting of 19-20 September 2012 CSF Development Partnerships v1.docx In the subsequent discussion, it was noted that the approach proposed for partner engagement in the value chains overlaps significantly with what is envisioned under the innovation systems research within the value chain component and will also inevitably need to integrate with the capacity development strategy as it evolves. The strategy will be further developed in the first quarter 2013 as SW engages with the coordinators and partners in the value chains. 22. Leadership team strategy development (for information) SW reported on the program leadership retreat held in mid-November in Nairobi. The output was the outline for a strategy brief for how the leadership team will implement the program. This involved articulating the purpose and strategic objectives of the program, and identifying its critical success factors. The leadership team are developing strategies for each critical success factor and will actively monitor their implementation. Leadership strategy v1.docx The critical success factors identified are: o Addressing the right issues o Building effective delivery teams o Championing animal-source foods and the program concept o Building effective partnerships o Governance and leadership The strategy brief will be circulated before the Annual Review and Planning Meeting. 23. AOB 23.1 Proposal tracking: There is no systematic communication and sharing of proposals under development. The Program Support Coordinator will be asked to establish a proposal inventory with short abstracts and key parameters so proposal development can be better coordinated. 23.2 Update on Program Support Coordinator recruitment: The application period closed on November 30th. There are just under 100 applications to be evaluated by TR and SW. Katie Hamilton will continue in the interim. 24. Close JPTD noted 3 important changes agreed during this PPMC meeting: o Targeting and Environment will now be called to Targeting Sustainable Interventions o Components change to Themes, so component leaders become theme leaders 11 th Agenda of 4 PPMC meeting of 19-20 September 2012 o One of the target aquaculture value chains will be considered for relocation from Uganda to Bangladesh once the supporting analysis is completed In addition, the Learning subcomponent of the Gender and Learning component is proposed to shift to the Targeting component. The meeting closed at 16:00 on December 14th. 12