Genetics_Flagship_planning2018

Genetics Flagship review 2017 and planning 2018 meeting JVC auditorium, ILRI campus, Nairobi, Kenya 5-6 September 2017 toc

=Table of Contents=

**Topics and expected outcomes**
 * Activities 2017: Everyone knows what the flagship has delivered, will deliver or will not deliver and why. Everyone knows who prepares what for the annual report.
 * Activities 2018: Everyone knows what planned activities look like for the major clusters of activities against either full funding or reduced funding scenarios. Potential issues are flagged for further conversation and attention.
 * Funding opportunities 2018: Everyone knows what are the main updates from the major programs in the flagship and knows what other funding opportunities lie out there.


 * Background information **
 * Livestock Genetic narrative: [[file:Narrative proposal.docx]]
 * List of deliverables 2017: [[file:AnimalGeneticsflagship2017deliverable1212.xlsx]]
 * 2017 POWB : http://cgiar-livestock.wikispaces.com/2017_FLAGSHIP+POWB
 * Activity sheet : http://cgiar-livestock.wikispaces.com/2017_FLAGSHIP+POWB
 * T he projects in our inventory: http://cgiar-livestock.wikispaces.com/Bilateral+Masterlist
 * 2017/2018 Budget allocation:  http://cgiar-livestock.wikispaces.com/Budget+Allocation

Agenda
For each session, the expected outcome(s) is introduced in italic.


 * Day 1 - Tuesday 5 September 2017 **
 * 08.00 Registration
 * 08.30 Introduction of the meeting agenda, outcomes and participants
 * 09.00 Preamble on the CRP (current status and prospect)
 * 10.00 Preamble on the Livestock Genetics flagship (set up, current status and prospect): ILRI perspective (Olivier Hanotte) - See presentation
 * 10.30 Break
 * 11.00 Preamble on the Livestock Genetics flagship: ICARDA perspective (Ayalem Haile) - See presentation
 * 11.30 Review of 2017 activities (detailed)
 * 12.30 Lunch
 * 13.30 Review of 2017 activities (detailed, continued) and key insights and issues
 * 15.00 Break
 * 15.30 Reflecting on 2017 activities and ironing issues out
 * 16.30 Review of reporting format 2017
 * 17.00 Close
 * 17.30 Cocktail reception


 * Day 2 - Wednesday 6 September 2017 **
 * 08.30 Recap previous day + presentation Phil Toye
 * 08.45 A 2017 success story: Okeyo and Steve's story - See presentation
 * 09.05 Planning 2018 activities - cluster by cluster
 * 10.45 Break
 * 11.05 A 2017 success story: ICARDA's story - See presentation
 * 11.25 Planning 2018 activities (continued)
 * 12.30 Lunch
 * 13.45 Planning 2018 activities with budget cuts
 * 14.45 Funding opportunities: existing updates
 * 15.05 Break
 * 15.25 A 2017 success story: Gender team story - See presentation
 * 15.45 Funding opportunities: pulling our brains together for 2019 and beyond
 * 16.15 Open slot: any pending issue to discuss/organise
 * 16.30 Next steps
 * 17.00 Close

=Discussion notes=

=Introduction by Tom=

Review results September 20

2 flagships waiting for approval – creating uncertainty for the CRP. If these are not funded we go with the same envelope. Does that put the CRP in question if we get only 3 out of 5 flagships? Can we continue funding the livestock CRP? If the flagships are funded we can’t expect to get more. We won’t know until November about the allocation of window 1/2 funding. We proposed a budget of 43M of which 20M Windows 1&2 and 23M bilateral in the first year. We submitted a budget of 14M of W1&2 and another 15M of bilateral. The overall CRP went to 52M.

Bilaterals don’t allow us to shape things in a way that help us directly achieve outcomes/outputs for this flagship. That’s been the challenge for the whole CG. Centers are not sure they can commit fully. In 2018 centers are being more conservative and budget for 80% of W1&2. So we have to adjust to reduced funding for the flagship. In these multiple scenarios you need to be able to define the priority of priorities, and the next level that would kick in without convening again, and then another set of priorities for the case in which new funding kicks in.

Independent steering committee: It will evaluate whether what you’re presenting/reporting is showing good progress and is compelling to convince donors and system management office that we’re on track. They will help us tighten up our logic and our science and the CRP as a protocol of good research.

Five main challenges we’re facing this year:
 * 1) **Budget** – getting clarity on the budget (how do we manage such uncertainty). Everyone is fighting against it. We have to continue to deal with that.
 * 2) Maintaining the **coherence and integrity** of the CRP. Now flagships are the focus of research and that’s good and the flagship leaders have much more responsibility to show the compelling logic of the work you’re doing and selling that to donors and reporting on it in terms of how our science outputs are contributing to our outcomes etc. It’s a different way of reporting. It’s no longer about just the science achievements but also about changes etc. How is the CRP having impact? If you have 2 unfunded flagships, it’s a challenge.
 * 3) We have to shift from being a collection of work packages into an **integrated, overall program**. How do we define the priorities and readjust across the centers and partners what needs to be done. You have to work as a team to redefine what we want to achieve. We have to look at the overall flagship logic. It has to be results-based management, not supply-based. A lot of that depends on the theory of change and how it gets translated into a framework for your priorities. Helen will be focusing on developing a process to improve that. That will also translate into M&E.
 * 4) **Priority countries** – ensuring we have critical mass. We have to face reality and with funding issues it’s especially challenging to keep the same countries to work on. We’re having a discussion tomorrow about how we want to address this. We will likely have demonstration/pilot countries where we need to show how all flagships interact with each other. The other part of your mandate is to use bilateral funding for work in other countries. These 4 countries don’t mean that we only work in those. We have to demonstrate we contribute to these 4 but you can work in any other country too.
 * 5) **Why do we continue as a CRP?** We aren’t doing our research. A lot of people are wondering about this. Let me argue that it might be worth it: 1) you get 3.7 M$ for this flagship and that money comes with responsibilities. We have to keep feeding that monster in order to get the reward 2) you get to test whether you research, when mixed with other research, has impact. 3) What other platforms do you have for this kind of collaboration? There are bilaterals but the CRP is the only platform that allows a continuous partnership. A critical part of that is to explain how we are using W1&2 funding strategically. It’s not fuzzy gap-filling money but we have to show how to strategically use that money to produce outputs.


 * Comments:**
 * Be ready for scenario that includes 80% and reduce budget for the flagship and identify priorities in different levels so that we do not go a repeated exercise on the budget revision.
 * There might be funding flexibility platform; for instance, EU might earmark for specific objective and request only output for reporting. Also, priority on public goods/bilateral to decide and buy flagship might be the future funding way forward.


 * Q & A:**
 * Q: which criteria helps to identify prioritize countries?
 * A: It will be based on regional potential funding and partnership opportunity. This might be discussed on Day 2.
 * By updating business cases that has been done in the first phase of selected countries, whether that system is growing and represents the regional system that has potential,
 * Whether there is enabling policy and partnership environment in that country making progress from scratch
 * Q: What is actual problem on working and reporting periods?
 * A: CG is dependent upon funding cycle of the fiscal year of the donor and donor calendar to define a carryover.
 * Q: Where does the reduction money going?
 * A: The reduction is due to uncertainty of USIAD and EU on their focus area or allocating money to their critical crisis (e.g. EU focus for refugee crisis than agriculture research). However, there might be a funding flexibility platform; for instance, EU might earmark for specific objective and request only output for reporting.
 * W1 ans W2 has a problem of donors being uncomfortable with them, in W1 the donors don’t see the capabilities, what are they producing to fill gaps and pay for management, the donor try to come up with type W2 and W3 mix management; looks like flexible bilateral I.e if EU suggest to fund on animal health/support their work, saying they will give the money to the project without project proposal earmarking the money for projects flagship to support this project, were the project only need to report on the output.

=Introduction by Olivier to the ILRI work in this flagship= See presentation by Olivier Hanotte


 * Q & A**
 * Q: What extend do animal genetics flagship have in private sector involvement?
 * A: ACGG and ADGG are implementing with private sectors. However, this issue should be addressed in W1/2, because we do not involve these sectors in proposal development phase. Also need to know how to work around institutional support.
 * Q: What is 2018 budget?
 * A: The idea is bilateral to help us survive. However, 2017 budget is $2.9M.
 * Q: Why funding is based on flagship? There should be a way forward.
 * A: Funding opportunities with absence of flagship needs to be addressed in Day 2 meeting.


 * Comments:**
 * Better delivery with other flagships i.e. synergies
 * CoA3 needs to work with private sectors
 * How do we claim ownership of policy should be decided
 * Need support of contribution and integration
 * CoA4 focus on policy and this cluster should determine how it will work with other clusters
 * Document process should be clear

=Introduction by Aynalem to the ICARDA work in this flagship=

See presentation by Aynalem Haile


 * Q&A**
 * Q: Is there a private sectors to work with ICARDA in scaling up?
 * A: Yes, there is. Example, IMV is a biggest supplier in artificial dissemination and it involves in activities in Debre Berhan, Bonga, etc. In the meantime, there will be cooperative model to strength.
 * Q: Who is a focal person in ILRI to work with ICARDA on small ruminant?
 * A: During Livestock & Fish phase, there was a single person assigned with value chain component. However, in the current phase, ILRI should consider assigning someone.


 * Comments:**
 * Need synergies to compare approaches of each team/project, duplicate, adapt, cross site publication
 * Investigation in gender cooperation
 * Separate budget of each center for same activities should be revised in 2018. We should have common budget with integration.
 * Need more people, assign someone formally to give a support from ILRI side to other centers/Units with clear responsibilities

=2017 review exercise= Objective of this exercise is to find out what has been well, not well and not at all. This exercise requires two steps: The traffic lights: green (deliverables activities completed), yellow (to be completed in 2017), red (deliverables that will not be completed in 2017 and no carryover in 2018)
 * Summarize what will be done in 2017
 * Map the activities to deliverables (show how it map to overall flagship)

Key insight on 2017 activities exercise

 * 20% activities will be finished in 2017; 80% will be carried over in 2018. This will add more activities in 2018 with less funding. How this will be a realistic for carryover activities in compliance with available budget.
 * Though the POWB need more resource, we should show continuity of the work
 * Bilateral programs are constrain by flagship deliverables (every year need to update deliverables based on ).
 * POWB platform oversight Theory of Change/outcome rather focus on goals,
 * Need to ensure kill points and celebrate the successes.
 * Activities and deliverables are not clear and concert. In the future, we need to come up with SMART.
 * We need to make sure to use existing capacity.
 * Need big picture of genetics flagship in relation with other flagship.

=Annual reporting= It will be similar to 2016 reporting format and it consists the following topics/sections: 2017 progress might be due in first quarter of 2018.
 * Two success stories
 * Narrative on key achievements / progress towards outcomes
 * Progress of Flagship by milestones
 * Comments:**
 * There are IP and due diligence sheets requirement in different agreements, hence Livestock Management should investigate this requirements.
 * Book of Genome and video

=Communication session= (//Participants were asked to brainstorm on four different areas that can inform planning comms activities and outputs for the flagship: audiences and preferred communication channels, challenges, messages and insights, opportunities//)

a. WCGALP –Global presentation ; AACA- All African Conference on Animal Agriculture b. EAAP –Europe i.e. presentation c. Private sector actors i.e. technology developers, industrial fairs, fliers/reports/ information dissemination, radio/TV d. Policy makers e. Donors/investors: reports, catchy stories, technical bulletins f. Farmers via guidelines, video clips, radios, exhibitions, shows, etc
 * 1. Audiences and Channels**

a. no CRP dedicated communication officer b. communication across disciplines/flagships (interaction) c. lack of time/resource to communicate all flagship achievements in meaningful way i.e. audience specific d. difficult to publish across discipline studies e. who is the flagship audience i.e. internal or external? f. Lack of communication processes with respect to major calls and involvement g. Coordination of communication (overload) h. Not enough ‘pull based’/ ‘demand driven’ communication i. Communication of process –soliciting input, etc j. Communication bottlenecks
 * 2. Challenges**

a. What is going on in the arid land for potential benefits b. How mobile platform has revolutionized ivestock recordings smallholder system c. The importance of policies around livestock breeding d. We do not need to justify gender analysis any longer e. More success stories from the farmers and partners f. Would like to co-work across disciplines but processes are not ideal yet; we need better approaches/institutional support
 * 3. Message and insights**

a. World congress on AMGR, 2018 b. Gender and breeding initiative (CGIAR) – i. we need livestock breeders ii. workshop in October 2017 might help c. Contribution to large country level initiatives e.g. Ethiopia, World Bank d. Tropentag – Flagship will contribute e. Chiken genome book- launch will be the opportunity to invite investors i.e. early 2018 f. Kettle of fish (gender) book, with gene chapters g. ESADA conference h. Youth forum i. Identify other evets bringing technical people, like ESADA
 * 4. Opportunities**

__**Day 2**__ =Tolerance to T.Parva - a presentation by Phil Toye= (Please ask Phil for a copy of his presentation - not yet ready for public consumption).

The things that actually prevent us today to design the breeding improvement is based on genomic selection program on granddaughter design, the information we found at this stage is important, so we need to think actually to develop a concept note on breeding selection program and look for partners and private sector to design a large scale breeding program.
 * Comments**

= =

Reflecting on big issues to think about on day 2

 * Scaling up partnerships, how do we bring partnership?
 * Funding
 * Branding: how do we brand the livestock’s genetics flagship in a way that shows what these group is really about?
 * How the strategy of the CRP is functioning efficiently?
 * How much is the reflection of the way CRP is setup, there are numerous number of transactions costs, so how do you track and manage all those
 * How is the CRP doing comparing to the Phase 1 in terms of success?
 * How the flagship operates with in that CRP context?
 * How are the W1/W2 proportionate as they get reduced, the co-funding required from bilateral program such us ACGG, ADGG.. And W1/W2 really creates challenges to make sure that there is no cofounding opportunity?
 * Despite the challenge of CRP, one thing had brought to our direction to the work we are doing, we never have before a theory of change or that thought of how we are going to get out stream work or some sort of delivery
 * Q: what is the difference between CRP 1 and CRP2? The CRP1 talks about genetics but are there things we are doing differently?
 * A: the difference is in the cluster activity, in cluster 4 which was novel technologies and there was no novel technology by the end of CRP1 that we are not using and we move that cluster out and we put policy of institution instead, it’s mostly continuation from previous CRP’s

A 2017 success story: Reproductive interventions for more efficient sheep and goats breeding programs
See success story presentation by Mourad Rekik: See presentation


 * Q & A**
 * Q: How long the semen last in 35 degree?
 * A: 45-60 minutes, we have to be very quick in collection and deposition, and that why we have the animals seated very closely to ship.
 * Q: How to manage moving the genetics from here to there in the future?
 * A: Our labs are very flexible to support and move the logistics, if we want to spread a little bit further we have to look for option of cooling the semen to 50 degrees and that will give us 6-8 hours between collection and dissemination.
 * Q: Farmers interest on ultrasound service technology on gender dimension?
 * A: there is an interest on ultrasound service provision but then we decided to focus on artificial insemination, we have noticed in many areas women in households no much better than men about the reproductive of sheep and goat when we do the pregnancy diagnosis.
 * Q: Collaboration with the animal flagship, is the money come from your programme or from the collaboration?
 * A: Its coming from ICARDA-ILRI “it’s basically all bilateral”, there is no W1/W2 allocator

We need to think, discuss and justify to put W1/W2 money in the future in to animal flagship, the support doesn’t have to be only genetics or animal health. As soon as we have the collaboration there could be W1/W2 money coming for animal health or genetics to make enough resource for you to deliver that component. ICARDA vision is in these platforms could be providing services for the community, from the money comes from W1/W2 from the health and genetics, this is where we can have a number of interventions from this platform in terms of feed and forage, genetics and health, so to engage all other flagships in that aspect and discuss that with them in the context of 2018
 * Comments**:

=2018 planning= (//The team was split in two groups to successively address cluster of activities 1 & 3, 2 and 4, and gender//). Here are the results of the planning. This is a group exercise to plan 2018 cluster by cluster; see the presentation for guidelines. See planning notes of each cluster for details.

**Cluster 1**
New activities: Activities:
 * Genome analysis sheep & goats
 * Genetic markers for adaptive and productivity traits chicken
 * Development of SNPs CHIPs dairy
 * Yield gap publication
 * 1. Stop
 * 2A Continuation / 2B Continuation next steps
 * 3 New


 * 2B: Development of policy briefs. Suitability map different breeds (SR)
 * 2A: 'DAGRIS'
 * 2A: Heat tolerance SS ==> Manuscript
 * 1: Ethiopian goat div
 * 2A: Chicken domestication paper
 * 2B: Hans komen PhD student
 * 2A: Chicken genome analysis (to stop in 2018)
 * ??: B3Africa
 * 1: Tool biorepository
 * 2A: Sequence information cattle
 * 2A: Genome sequence information cattle
 * 2B: Dairy system characterisation ==> Longitudinal


 * Q & A : Cluster 1**
 * Q: What stage we do impact assessment (e.g. chicken stage) or sync impact assessment in all flagship?
 * A: There are things happening in ADGG/ACGG project.
 * Q: How we are going integrate ‘tolerance’ component//?//
 * A: Need consultation process and prepare a proposal to add/consider in POWB
 * Comments/suggestions**
 * Official publication on yield gap analysis (need to update existing source)
 * Integrate gender deliverables
 * Need to know the info required for CTLGH meeting in Sept/Oct
 * How do we aggregated all tools used by ICARDA, ADGG, etc?
 * Deliverables are identification of genome region of in different agroecology for adaptive training
 * The problem we have are produced a lot of data, people don’t want to put them on public community media, the idea is to establish a genome consortium were people have access to genome data to be putted on public interface, making publicity available
 * People do not want to be in public domain so there is a plan to establish geno-consortium so that people will ask specific data and receive information

**Cluster 2**
Develop gender strategy and integration between partners
 * Comments:**

**Cluster 3 & 4**



 * Q: Should we restrict on the guideline for pastoral area because, it is difficult to come up with evidence based deliverables?
 * A: The guideline is not restricted to pastoral area
 * Q: Can we have a case study to look/test the guideline, framework, etc?
 * A: Document as a concept note will help to get fund and consider as a guideline in consideration of different countries need/support/option.


 * Comments**
 * Make sure resource engagement with others i.e. not missing anyone else to enable the work
 * Data is scattered in different bilateral project, this need top level involvement of technologies integration.

Gender team cluster
1 longitudinal survey tool on G.D. in pig in Uganda C1 1 publication on G.D. in AVCD C2 || Comments
 * **Activities** || **2018 deliverables** ||
 * Study how gender dynamics affect relevance of livestock genetics interventions || 1 publication on gender dynamics and genetics in chickens (ACGG) C2/3
 * Study how livestock genetics interventions affect gender dynamics || 1 publication on women's empowerment through chickens C2 ||
 * Study what institutional arrangements help ensure gender equitable outcomes of genetics interventions || 1 publication on integration of gender in genetics interventions C4 ||
 * Q: What is going on women involvement/empowerment or impact on chicken, pig, etc?
 * A: This needs a discussion with flagship/cluster leaders to know the priorities and identify from the projects (need to work step by steps).
 * Q: Where do we feature all publications i.e. TI and KIT?
 * A: strategy consider as publications as tools
 * A lot of data in different projects are need to come up on how gender characterization impacting the provision.
 * We would like to know constraints and attitude come up with respect to gender.

=A 2017 success story: ADGG= See success story presentation by Okeyo Mwai: See presentation


 * Q & A**
 * Q: Who are the genomic technology companies?
 * A: Got a quote from a company in New Zealand and discussing on deployment.
 * Q: What is going to be in 2017 and 2018 with respect to genotype?
 * A: in 2017 we will estimate admixture level and in 2018 we do both admixture estimation and selection relation with production.
 * Q: Is the database on web public accessible?
 * A: No, it requires a password.
 * Comments**
 * Since the web based database is not accessible, it will be good to have a snapshot of the database (so that non-ADGG members use for reports and presentations).

=A 2017 success story: Gender team= See success story presentation by Alessandra Gallie & Juliet Kariuki: See presentation


 * Q & A**
 * Q: Children are playing a major role and how it will be integrated?
 * A: Livestock is management of entire family. For example, a family component will be asked in next year householder survey; in gender analysis, the team will consider across age, income status, etc.
 * Q: Do gender team has people with capacity to address issue on norms and customs?
 * A: Through training and build capacity. On the other hand, short term project have less impact on changing behavior. Hence, need to find out how to sustain changes in short time frames.


 * Comments**
 * Any intervention will change behavior by default.
 * Community breeding program how u set up. Dimension of preferences of men and women in market should be consider including species.
 * Need a discussion on Women empowerment in nutrition under ACGG project.

=Budget and funding updates=

1.6Million from TAT +0.5M to hire project manager and on ACGG we’ll be having our PMT meeting and we’ll know how much money we’ll be getting for our phase II.
 * Tadelle**:

CTLGH is bringing a large part of its funding to the flagship. Because we do have a hub in the UK, DfID has decided to channel its research through the GCRF and through the BMGF. New projects are being proposed etc. They’re not included in our budget but we’ll know soon if we get it or not. If we do get it, in poultry genomics we’re talking about 1Mio over 3 years. For dairy etc. I don’t know. It ought to cover some of the salaries of our staff and that will reduce the burden on W1&2.

There is a proposal sent to Cameroon on small ruminants (**AfDB**) and we’ve been waiting since Feb. but we haven’t heard anything. That might bring in some money to support and upscale some of the small ruminant work based on past ILRI/ICARDA work. With respect to **dairy**, the discussions we have on the table are related to whether we can frontload activities and resources for year 3. If there are things that are scalable, can we begin to demo that we can reach more people so that we can have a no-cost extension to combine with the phase 2. That will depend on a big ask: a) that we are committed to agreements we make, b) about delivering additional staff we’re struggling etc. We need to agree on the need to recruit additional folks. This means that we’re going to spend some money from year 3 for operations in year 1 and still we have some savings. We had a PPP arrangement but in Ethiopia they haven’t spent it. That saving means we’ll have resources in 2018 but we’ll have to deliver on the same outputs. We’re leveraging activities from CTLGH to deliver some activities in 2018 and the chemistry looks good. We need team work so we don’t speak different languages to our partners. OH: I suggest that new recruitments are post-docs.
 * Okeyo**: What are we likely to get through the big data platform? If ever what we are putting together in terms of data etc. we need to package that and sell it to capture that. What we report here could enable us to be in a position to attract additional resources. Brisbane conversations are also about data.

This agenda is to answer two questions:
 * Additional funding updates**
 * Where you will get money after 2018?
 * If you drop something/activity what you will be dropping?
 * Comments on the way forward**
 * Whatever not contributing to genetic flagship should be removed
 * Focusing on big projects instead of stretching in small projects
 * Manage expectation and be strategic on small projects to leverage the resource than get rid of
 * Conclusion:**
 * Drop activities we do not work/want
 * Explore large program/project and keep small projects with strategic advantage
 * Assumption will drive research questions

=Burning issues or questions to tackle in the coming period=
 * Need cluster leaders
 * Let’s try one year more whether to decide cluster leader or not
 * Brand new research
 * Retreat might help
 * Institutional mechanism to support collaboration across flagship
 * Each flagship should take initiative and responsibilities
 * L&F used to bring all flagships together for meeting
 * Need ILRI Focal point/Person
 * We might not need a focal point if there is an integration
 * Project Management Committee (PMC) meeting
 * Olivier will report genetics flagship progress and this meeting discussions. It will be on Sept 8, 2017 at 9am (all are invited).
 * Way forward on next annual or mid-term review meeting
 * Next meeting in December 2017 i.e. virtual meeting
 * Physical meeting in March 2018 in Addis

=Next steps=
 * 1) Talk at PMC about the flagship – everyone is invited at 9am.
 * 2) OH will produce a set of activities and deliverables based on the discussions today and yesterday, in the coming weeks – and will share that with you.
 * 3) Normally we are supposed to interact once a month (that’s in the document) to have a virtual call etc. this didn’t happen this year. Setting that up, perhaps we should be doing it. But that puts a lot of constraint based on our travel etc. We could also decide to meet twice a year. We need to decide if we do this and if both are physical meetings or one physical / one virtual meeting. I need quick feedback.
 * We have the livestock genetics meetings for CTLGH etc.
 * Interactions are not always at ILRI and we need to have a couple of virtual meetings to make this work.
 * Virtual meetings can work if we use the support we have. With good support we can summarize the issues that people travelling put on the table. A skype meeting can be done to convey these issues because we can’t guarantee that everyone attends these virtual meetings. We can then present these issues.
 * OH: I suggest our next meeting is in January, our next annual f2f meeting is in September in Addis.
 * But there are lots of donor reports to write in Jan.
 * Have a virtual meeting before the end of this year with confirmation of the budget. We left it open on so many scenarios so we need to have a virtual meeting.
 * **OH: We can have a virtual meeting in December and then our next F2F meeting could take place in March. We need to circulate that as quickly as possible.**

=Closing and thank you= Thank you for these 2 days it was a very nice refresher of all that you’ve been doing and it shows you are very dynamic and active group. It’s very coherent, there are things happening and we want to move forward.

Without your participation it wouldn’t have been possible, and it would have been very difficult without your physical presence.

Thank you very much Wubie and Aida. Thank you very much Ewen.

Applaud everyone.


 * Day 1 - Tuesday 5 September 2017 **
 * 08.00 Registration
 * 08.30 Introduction of the meeting agenda, outcomes and participants
 * //Outcome: Olivier welcomes. Everyone knows each other and feels at ease, they know what to expect from this meeting.//
 * //Process: Either social networking with critical question, or team building activity to reveal some interesting aspects about each other.//
 * 09.00 Preamble on the CRP (current status and prospect)
 * //Outcome: Everyone is aware of the big picture considerations for the CRP at large, in particular for the funding//
 * //Process: Tom Randolph introduces the big picture and possible changes (30') + (15' Q&A)//
 * 10.00 Preamble on the Livestock Genetics flagship (current status and prospect + ToC etc.)
 * //Outcome: Everyone is aware of the big picture considerations for the flagship//
 * //Process: Olivier Hanotte gives an overall presentation on the flagship and (brief reminder) and 15' Q&A//
 * 10.30 Break
 * 11.00 Review of 2017 activities
 * //Outcome: Everyone is aware of ICARDA/ILRI activities in 2017 and whether they were achieved, will be achieved or won't be and why. Solutions are identified to remedy the activities that will not be achieved.//
 * //Process://
 * //10' Presentation of the reporting format if available//
 * //30' Overall presentation of ICARDA activities + 15' Q&A//
 * //Starting the review of activities (yellow / red)as far as we can - hopefully covering up to __reproductive technology platform__ activities.//
 * 12.30 Lunch
 * 13.30 Review of 2017 activities (continued) and key insights and issues
 * //Outcome:// //See above + more emphasis on important insights and issues that need resolving.//
 * //Process: Continued review of activities (yellow / red).//
 * //This will also include a session with a short conversation about comms in the flagship//
 * 15.00 Break
 * 15.30 Reflecting on 2017 activities and solving them
 * //Outcome: All activities that are indicated in red are starting to get addressed, and key insights about the whole set of activities are shared//
 * //Process:// //1-2-4-all to tease out key insights (15') - Work in groups on activities to sort out (30') - presenting back (15')//
 * 16.30 REVIEW OF REPORTING FORMAT 2017 - Agree on timetable + responsibilities
 * //Outcome: Reporting format for activities 2017 is clarified and a timetable and responsibilities are jointly agreed to finalise this.//
 * //Process: Introduction of the reporting format by OH/TR (10'), Agreement on timetable and responsibilities open discussion (15')//
 * 17.00 Close
 * 17.30 Cocktail reception

 ** Comments ** : § Be ready for scenario that includes 80% and reduce budget for the flagship and identify priorities in different levels so that we do not go a repeated exercise on the budget revision. § There might be funding flexibility platform; for instance, EU might earmark for specific objective and request only output for reporting. Also, priority on public goods/bilateral to decide and buy flagship might be the future funding way forward.
 * Day 2 - Wednesday 6 September 2017 **
 * 08.30 Phil Toye's presentation
 * 08.50 Recap previous day
 * //Outcome: Everyone comes back to the topic at hand and is getting prepared for the second day//
 * //Process: Buzz in groups of 3 about what struck them and what is the elephant in the room not to miss today. OH also chips in with his insights from the previous day//
 * 09.05 A 2017 success story: ICARDA (Aynalem)
 * 09.25 PLANNING 2018:
 * //Outcome:// //Everyone hears about the plans for 2018 activities in the same clusters (ICARDA, major ILRI projects and others)...// //Tight plans for 2018 under two different budget scenarios: unrestricted and restricted are developed//
 * //Process://
 * //(25') OH comes back to the ToC and the logic behind and checks if anything needs to change//
 * //(10') Groups are being formed around the 4 clusters of activities//
 * //(30') Each group reviews the cluster ToC to check if any change needs to happen//
 * 10.30 Break
 * 11.00 A 2017 success story: Okeyo/Steve on mapping (to be confirmed)
 * 11.25 Planning 2018 activities (continued)
 * //Outcome: See above//
 * //Process: 1h20' Groups review deliverables (to reach the new logic of the cluster's contribution to the ToC) and activities based on their updated assessment of the ToC, the existing activities that carry on in 2018 and possibly new activities. In the process they also review: a) How they will ensure integration/connection with other clusters and (centers) b) with other flagships? Finally they prioritise activities that would go first in case of budget cuts (or how the logic would change in a more conservative scenario).//
 * 12.45 Lunch
 * 13.45 Planning 2018 continued and presenting back
 * //Process: 2 rounds of 2 presentations of 5' + 10' interaction. At the end, 10' of teasing out interesting insights.//
 * 15.00 15' Open discussion on how the LG flagship team aims at dealing with possible budget cuts as a whole
 * 15.15 Break
 * 15.35 A 2017 success story: gender
 * 15.55 Funding opportunities: update
 * //Outcome: Everyone is aware of funding options for the two major projects in this program +// //Concrete or potential funding opportunities are shared by everyone to give a total picture of possible funding//
 * //Process: Quick update from ACGG (Tadelle) and ADGG (Okeyo) about possible additional funding (2' each + 5' Q&A) + 10' of checking other options by doing 2' of buzzing in groups of 3 and sharing funding opportunities (topics, donors, calls etc.)//
 * 16.15 Open slot: any pending issue to discuss/organise
 * //Outcome: Any pending/untackled issue is addressed by the people that want to discuss them//
 * //Process: Mini OST to work further on funding opportunities and more issues - anyone to mention the topics they're interested in and we knock them down freely with the principles of the two feet//
 * 16.30 Next steps
 * //Outcome: Everyone is clear on the concrete next steps on the work coming up in this flagship - and ready to work on these plans//
 * //Process: OH closes the workshop with some comments on next steps etc. Group picture.//
 * 17.00 Close

** Q & A **

§ Q: which criteria helps to identify prioritize countries? § A: It will be based on regional potential funding and partnership opportunity. This might be discussed on Day 2. o By updating business cases that has been done in the first phase of selected countries, whether that system is growing and represents the regional system that has potential, o Whether there is enabling policy and partnership environment in that country making progress from scratch

§ Q: What is actual problem on working and reporting periods? § A: CG is dependent upon funding cycle of the fiscal year of the donor and donor calendar to define a carryover.

§ Q: Where does the reduction money going? § A: The reduction is due to uncertainty of USIAD and EU on their focus area or allocating money to their critical crisis (e.g. EU focus for refugee crisis than agriculture research). However, there might be a funding flexibility platform; for instance, EU might earmark for specific objective and request only output for reporting. § W1 ans W2 has a problem of donors being uncomfortable with them, in W1 the donors don’t see the capabilities, what are they producing to fill gaps and pay for management, the donor try to come up with type W2 and W3 mix management; looks like flexible bilateral I.e if EU suggest to fund on animal health/support their work, saying they will give the money to the project without project proposal earmarking the money for projects flagship to support this project, were the project only need to report on the output.  Objective of this exercise is to find out what has been well, not well and not at all. This exercise requires two steps: § Summarize what will be done in 2017 § Map the activities to deliverables (show how it map to overall flagship) The traffic lights: green (deliverables activities completed), yellow (to be completed in 2017), red (deliverables that will not be completed in 2017 and no carryover in 2018)