

4th CURE SC Meeting
2005 May 24-27, Lombok Island, Indonesia
Highlights of the Meeting
Working Group Leaders, Key Site Coordinators, and satellite site designations
| v |
Indonesia will be included in WG 1, drought-prone lowlands; Rambiga, Lombok, of West Nusa Tenggara Province will be the satellite site. |
| v |
Nepal will be included in WG 1, drought-prone lowlands; Dhanusha will be the satellite site and Dr. NP Adhikari is the site coordinator. |
| v |
Nepal will be included as a satellite site in WG 4, sloping upland systems. |
| v |
The proposal from IRRI for appointment of Dr. Stephan Haefele as WG 1 Leader in place of Dr. Gary Atlin was approved. |
| v |
The proposal from Vietnam to have Tra Vinh as the satellite site of WG 3, in place of Soc Trang, was approved. Dr. Nguyen Thi Lang was designated as the Coordinator for the site. |
| v |
Action on Bangladesh’s expression of interest to be included as a WG4 satellite site is pending a formal proposal submitted to the Steering Committee. |
Report of the CORRA discussion on germplasm exchange
-- Dr. Edwin Javier
| v |
The two procedures for international exchange of traditional germplasm are bilateral agreements between countries and multilateral treaties. |
| v |
Bilateral agreements are administered by ministries or departments in the national governments, i.e. foreign affairs, agriculture and/or environment. |
| v |
The multilateral convention is the Food and Agriculture Organization’s International Treaty on Plant and Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, which conforms to the Convention on Biological Biodiversity. |
| v |
The Philippines and Indonesia are inexperienced with bilateral germplasm exchange, which creates difficulties in transferring materials. These countries are considering participation in the International Treaty, which would make it easier and simpler to move materials between countries, as well as with their exchange with IRRI. |
| v |
Hybridized and improved materials are only covered through the International Network for the Genetic Evaluation of Rice. |
Modality of the NARES-IRRI partnership research
-- Dr. John Bennett
| v |
The complementing roles of IRRI and NARES in research adds value to their activities. |
| v |
The site-based approach can generate national and international public goods by providing a critical mass of scientists in a multidisciplinary approach on an internationally relevant ecosystem, and allows NARES scientists to work on research interests that complement IRRI’s. |
| v |
The research continuum involves IRRI and NARES partners at all steps of the process, including problem definition, methodology development, conducting experiments, data analysis, technology validation and extension. The distinction in roles is that IRRI develops enabling technologies, while NARES works toward their impact. |
| v |
Collaboration comes to bear in the fund raising process and in the research outputs in various ways. It provides evidence to donors of the joint working relationship. There has to be clear allocation of responsibilities, clear plans for scaling up the results and developing publications, and willingness for data sharing among partners. |
| v |
As adopted from Dr. K.L. Heong, there is need to use project work sheets to identify the institutes and donors, and to determine financial resources needed to carry out the project. |
| v |
Writing grant proposals together is beneficial in improving the understanding among participants, their goals and available methods, to coordinate incentives and publications, to calculate feasible timetables, benefits, costs and risks of the project. |
| v |
It is important to dedicate staff to the project at hand by assigning a “go-to” person devoted almost entirely to project goals, and around whom the team is built. It might require additional funding, but it helps to fill in gaps and expertise. |
| v |
Collaborative research is the best way for training opportunities to arise, either from IRRI, at key sites, at advanced research institutes, or from other projects. |
| v |
Another lesson as adopted from Dr. Heong is the emphasis to re-engineer the project as the ongoing experience determines the information gaps that need to be worked out and what will be the real outputs. |
| v |
CURE has done a good job of building in the above lessons, but should work toward these aspects: simplify project work sheets to allow people to easily grasp project concepts, dedicate staff to consortium management and research needs, identify training opportunities, and think about re-engineering projects. |
Prioritization of training needs of CURE partner institutions: NARES priorities and human capacity development
--Dr. Mahabub Hossain
The CURE budget contains a line item for training. The amount can support two training programs, and possibly a third program if additional support is provided. The following are possibilities for utilizing these funds:
| v |
Translating research reports into communicative materials for upscaling results, for those involved in such work as extension; |
| v |
Effective project preparation/monitoring using the logframe approach, for site coordinators and whoever is interested; and |
| v |
Basic principles of methodology for social scientists for doing socioeconomic characterization and impact assessment |
Concluding comments: How is CURE doing? A four-year assessment
-- Dr. S.N. Shukla
| v |
Working together is important for solving the complex nature of rainfed ecologies (upland and lowland). CURE provides the structure for IRRI and NARES partners who are in the process of evolving in terms of setting rules and agendas for this kind of research. |
| v |
Good progress has been made in almost all spheres, particularly in identifying technologies and varieties. The results are being consolidated, and recommendations will emerge for replicating results at higher level. |
| v |
This progress is the result of collective leadership and very good backstopping of core scientists at IRRI, who come forward with their own projects and own funding. |
| v |
CURE will continue to function on its own because of its strength in working together - IRRI and NARES - and due to the mutual trust and will to solve these problems. |
Concluding remarks from the Donor Representative
--Dr. T. Bayarsaihan, Asian Development Bank
| v |
ADB sees IRRI as a strategic and long-term partner, given its proven track record of collaboration. ADB has the highest expectation that IRRI will deliver and perform better than other CGIAR centers; |
| v |
A need for increased focus on adoption and upscaling aspects of the project for the remaining project period; |
| v |
Capacity building aspects of NARES should be of high priority; |
| v |
Project progress and final reports should be better summarized and synthesized both at country level and project levels. Much closer collaboration between project team and country team should be done before the meeting to prepare a good report; and |
| v |
The site-specific and project-wide research plan should be further improved to show the final expected output, results, detailed research budgets (showing NARES, IRRI and ADB contributions). |
Next SC meeting, host
| v |
Dr. Djoko Damardjati, Director, Indonesian Center for Food Crops Research and Development, is appointed 2005-06 Chair of the CURE Steering Committee |
| v |
Bangladesh is chosen as the site for the Fifth Annual Meeting of the CURE Steering Committee in 2006; the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI) will host the meeting; Dr. Mahiul Haque, Director General of BRRI, will coordinate the meeting. |
|