|
6:0
|
Budget and Legislative Committee – David Boethel/Mike Harrington
Background Information:
Implementing the Farm Bill:
The BAA has appointed a Farm Bill implementation committee who will be assisting Undersecretary Gale Buchanan.
- Various provisions in the Bill, e.g. AFRI, increase in indirect (F&A) costs, splits between basic, applied and integrated work, etc.
- The requirement that the Administration submit a single line budget for REE. Even though there will be a single request line there will be supporting documentation indicating how the funds will be allocated among the different agencies.
- There is considerable new money mandated in the Farm Bill, e.g. Specialty Crops Research Initiative, Bioenergy, etc. There is also specific language in the managers’ statement indicating that new resources are to be added to AFRI in recognition of the commitment to IFAFS.
- Potential impact on advocacy. Since there will be supporting documentation to the budget request, the BAA advocacy effort will not change.
Research Priority Setting: The Science and Technology Committee is charged with developing research priorities for the NRI. There needs to be a mechanism to harmonize the efforts of B&L with those of S&T.
Planning for 2011 Budget Priorities: ESCOP needs to sharpen its focus such that there are only one or two priorities. This is consistent with the message from Congress and Cornerstone.
The Committee discussed the idea of developing programmatic foci. Are the programs that all directors could support? One example might be the National Plant Germplasm System. At present this program operates primarily on ARS funding; however, each region has plant introduction projects which are supported by off the top funding from each region. It might be possible to seek and authorization and appropriation for the “system” leading to more stable funding. Currently approximately $45 million/yr is spent on the system, but estimates of what is needed approach $100 million/yr.
The Committee will conduct an electronic survey prior to the ESS Annual meeting with results serving as background for break-outs. There would also be a follow-up survey after the section meeting. Suggestions for programmatic efforts will be included as part of the preliminary survey.
Committee Participation: There is a need to have active participation by all members of the committee. It was decided to send a memo to the chairs of the regional associations where there has been little or no participation.
FY 09 House Mark:
BAC's CSREES Priorities for FY2009 [PDF]
|
|
8.0
|
Science and Technology Committee – Greg
Bohach/Dan Rossi
Background Information:
- Committee Membership:
- Chair
- CSREES Liaisons
- Bob MacDonald (CSREES)
- Meryl Broussard (CSREES)
- Delegate
- Steve Meredith (ARD)
- Ambrose Anuro (ARD)
- Richard Rhodes (NERA)
- Gloria Wyche-Moore (NERA)
- Clarence Watson (SAAESD)
- Nancy Cox (SAAESD)
- Larry Curtis (WAAESD)
- Executive Vice-Chair
- Dan Rossi (NERA, Executive Director)
- Past-chair
- Representative
Terry Nelsen (ARS)
- Cornelia Flora (Social Science Subcommittee)
- Cliff Gabriel (Office of Science and Technology Policy)
- Adrianna Hewings (ARS)
- Frank Zalom (Pest Management Strategies Subcommittee)
Edwin Price (ICOP)
- Meeting:
The Committee met on March 27, 2008 in Baltimore, Maryland.
- Committee Charge and Membership:
The Committee recommends the following new charge:
"The ESCOP Science and Technology Committee is charged with promoting and enhancing science and technology in the Land-grant university system. The Committee will assist ESCOP to identify future directions and anticipate and respond to research needs and opportunities for funding. It will assist in linking science and technology programs to multistate and national research initiatives. It will recommend how ESCOP will respond to reports, recommendations and planning documents from the national science community. It will provide guidance to ESCOP strategic planning and priority setting.”
Changes to the Committee membership were also discussed and have been submitted as recommended changes to the ESS Rules of Operation."
- AFRI 2010 Priorities:
A task force has been formed to develop and implement a process for identifying priorities for the 2010 Agriculture and Food Research Initiative. The task force includes Greg Bohach, Cornelia Flora, Debby Sheely, James Wade, and Dan Rossi. The ESCOP S&T Committee will conduct a survey of SAES, CES and APS directors and AHS to identify high priority issues/problem areas that will be transmitted to CSREES to feed into the development of the AFRI’s 2010 RFA. Given the probable changes resulting from the 2008 Farm Bill, recommendations will likely address basic research, applied research and integrated activities. It will also identify priorities for the mandated research programs authorized in the Farm Bill. The Committee will use the results to design a one hour workshop for the ESS/SAES/ARD meeting during the week of September 22 in Traverse City, MI. The workshop will be used to confirm, refine and prioritize the issues. The results of the workshop will be compiled and Greg Bohach will present draft recommendations at the November ESCOP Executive Committee meeting for approval. Final recommendations will be transmitted to CSREES by the end of December.
- Funding for Integrated Projects:
The Committee passed the following motion at the March 27, 2008 meeting. However, the final Farm Bill language addresses this issue.
"Motion to recommend that if 406 is folded into NRI that a minimum of 35% of NRI funding will be allocated for integrated projects. If 406 does not go into NRI, a minimum of 25% of NRI funding will be allocated for integrated projects."
- Multistate Research Award:
The Committee was assigned the task of evaluating the regional nominations for the ESS Excellence in Multistate Research Award and selecting a winner. Four nominations from the regional associations were received in April. The Committee members individually scored the four nominations and then discussed the scoring on a teleconference call on May 9. NC-229 “Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Disease: Methods for Integrated Control, Prevention and Elimination of PRRS in United States Swine Herds” was forwarded to the ESCOP Executive Committee as the S & T Committee’s recommendation for the 2008 award. The Executive Committee approved this recommendation and the documentation for the award and winning project has been forwarded to NASULGC for inclusion in the 2008 NASULGC Awards Brochure. The Committee has also documented the process and a schedule for handling the awards in the future.
- Grants.gov:
The Committee also discussed the potential unintended complications that may arise as a result of the requirement to use Grants.gov for submitting formula grants. For most land grant universities, the responsibility for using Grants.gov resides in the Office of Sponsored Programs or an equivalent entity. Concerns included: (1) the possible shift of funds management and fiscal responsibility from the experiment stations to central administration; (2) imposition of internal university indirect costs on “formula” grants; and (3) state matching implications. Bob MacDonald agreed to bring these concerns to the attention of the CSREES leadership. CSREES subsequently sent out letters of clarification concerning the policy change to deans and directors and to university officials.
- Future Meetings:
The Committee will meet by teleconference in October or early November. The next face-to-face meeting will be scheduled in conjunction with the AHS/CARET and ESCOP meetings in Washington, DC, in the first week of March 2009. The committee will attempt to meet jointly at that time with the Social Sciences Subcommittee.
Actions Requested:
- Approval of the new charge and membership of the Committee.
- Discussion and feedback on the process to identify priorities for the 2010 AFRI RFA
|
|
9.0
|
NRSP Review Committee – Craig Nessler/Eric
Young
Background Information:
The NRSP Review Committee met in Memphis on June 3-4 to discuss the NRSPs’ budget requests and proposals. The Review Committee developed the following recommendations for the FY ‘09 NRSP portfolio. These have been communicated to the 1862 regional research associations for discussion at their summer meetings. The NRSP-RC will have a conference call in August to consider any comments received from the regional associations and develop final recommendations which will be considerated at the September ESS meeting.
The NRSP-RC also discussed how it could better manage and oversee the development of NRSP renewal proposals, including the external and peer reviews and the writing committee’s responses to those reviews. Specific procedures were developed to guide the initial review and proposal development phases to help accomplish this goal. These procedures are outlined in the letter below from Craig Nessler to the NRSP-7 Administrative Advisors, whose project is terminating in September 2009.
NRSP Review Committee Recommendations for FY2009:
NRSP-1
$346,829 FY’09 budget recommended for approval.
Comments –
- Important for One Solution Stakeholder Committee to stay engaged with REE policy makers and IT folks to make sure the databases are useful for universities as well as USDA and Congress.
- Current project terminates Sep 30, 2010.
NRSP-3
It is recommended that the NRSP-3 renewal proposal not be approved and that this activity be established as a multistate project that can be funded through MRF by participant AES’s and other sources. The NRSP-3 group is commended for exemplifying the ideal of becoming self supporting.
Note: Disapproval of the NRSP-3 renewal proposal will automatically grant a one year extension for this project to Sep 30, 2009 with a budget of $50,000.
Comments –
- Off-the-top funding is now less than 2%, an excellent example of decreasing dependency on this funding source.
- NE region suggested this project become a multistate project with participating stations supporting the $50,000.
- No compelling argument to keep this project as an NRSP and maintain a low level of funding.
- Current project terminates Sep 30, 2008.
NRSP-4
$481,182 FY’09 budget is recommended for approval.
Project extension to Sep 30, 2010 is recommended for approval.
Comments –
- Specialty Crops Research Initiative is not designed to support this type of activity, so this funding still needs to come from off-the-top Hatch.
- Project group should consider how they could reduce dependence on off-the-top funding when the renewal proposal and next 5-year budget are developed.
- Current project terminates Sep 30, 2009.
NRSP-5
Project extension to Sep 30, 2009 is recommended for approval.
$145,678 FY’09 budget is recommended for approval, if funds do not become available from the National Clean Plant Network.
Comments –
- 2008 Farm Bill includes mandatory funding for NRSP-5 activities through the National Clean Plant Network.
- It appears these funds will be administered through APHIS, but it is not sure the funds will be available for FY’09, so off-the-top funding approval is needed to ensure continuation.
- If it is learned that APHIS will provide funding for FY’09 prior to the ESS meeting, the off-the-top funding request will be withdrawn.
- If APHIS provides funding during FY’09, the difference between that funding and the approved off-the-top will be returned to CSREES for redistribution to the SAES.
- One year project extension is needed to allow off-the-top funding in ’09, if necessary.
- Current project terminates Sep 30, 2008.
NRSP-6
$110,000 FY’09 budget is recommended for approval and the National Plant Germplasm Coordinating Committee is requested to consider new ways to fund this by end of the current project.
Comments –
- Request that the National Plant Germplasm Coordinating Committee take another look at whether or not this project should be funded in some other way through the National Plant Germplasm system.
- As project is rewritten there needs to be a serious justification for off-the-top funding.
- Current project terminates Sep 30, 2010.
NRSP-7
$325,000 FY’09 budget is recommended for approval, minus any funds made available to this project in the FY’09 federal budget.
Comments –
- Proposal for renewal of this project in 2009 will have to show substaintial funding from other sources, including industry, and a plan to transition away from off-the-top funding.
- Current project terminates on Sep 30, 2009.
NRSP-8
The renewal project from Oct 1, 2009 to Sep 30, 2013 is recommended for approval.
$500,000 FY’09 budget is recommended for approval with the understanding that subsequent years’ funding be contingent on more details regarding other funding sources supporting the NRSP-8 activites and information on efforts to obtain funding from industry and other non-public sources.
Comments –
- Need to include grants and other funding sources that support activities of this project in the FY’10 budget request to justify recommendation of this level of funding again.
- Current project terminates Sep 30, 2008.
NRSP_temp101
It is recommended that this new NRSP project proposal not be approved. Any subsequent submission of this proposal should include a better justification of the activity as a NRSP, explaination of the priority need for this information and its use, and how this activity could support research on global climate change.
Comments –
- Discussion at the spring regional meetings resulted in the following general opinions on this project proposal:
- West favored approval and funding
- Northeast was not favorable because the proposal did not justify the project as a NRSP and the deliverables from the activity are not a high priority need.
- North Central was not in favor of approving this proposal and thought it was more suited to being established as a multistate project.
- South did not favor approval because most stations not using this data and generally thought that the data collection should be supported by other agencies.
Letter to NRSP-7 Administrative Advisors
Date: June 25, 2008
To: NRSP Administrative Advisors of Projects Terminating September 30, 2009
NRSP-7 A National Agricultural Program for Minor Use Animal Drugs
L. Garry Adams (S)
John Baker (NC)
Kirklyn M. Kerr (NE)
David Thawley (W)
From: Craig Nessler, NRSP Review Committee Chair
Re: NRSP Renewal Proposal Review Process
During our recent meeting, the NRSP Review Committee discussed how it could better manage and oversee the development of NRSP renewal proposals, including the external and peer reviews and the writing committee’s responses to those reviews. The following procedures during the initial review and proposal development phases were approved to accomplish this.
- External review of the NRSP project should be done in early fall one year prior to the termination date. The review needs to include both a review of current project’s accomplishments and a merit and scientific (peer) review of a preliminary draft of the proposed future project.
- The draft proposal should be entered into NIMSS prior to the review so that it is available on line for the external review team.
- The external review team will be established by CSREES in consultation with the project’s AAs and the NRSP-RC. Tom Bewick, the CSREES representative on the NRSP-RC (tbewick@csrees.usda.gov or 202-401-3356), will be primary contact for this.
- Initial review should be done in August or September and cover past accomplishments and proposed future activity. Reviewer comments are sent to the NRSP AAs and the NRSP-RC.
- The NRSP writing committee will revise and complete the proposal in NIMSS and notify the NRSP-RC when the final draft is ready for final review by the external review team.
- The NRSP writing committee completes any final revisions necessary and submits the proposal as final in NIMSS no later than January 15. The NRSP writing committee and/or the Administrative Advisor will also submit by email to the NRSP-RC Chair a brief explanation of how the proposal was revised to address any significant review comments or concerns.
- During proposal development the NRSP writing committee should pay particular attention to addressing the following two sections of the NRSP Guidelines relative to off-the-top funding.
- Paragraph V.E. Management and Business Plan
“In general, NRSPs should expect a finite period of off-the-top funding. This is not a reflection of the quality of work being conducted or the research being supported by the project. Rather, this allows the SAES system to continually assess needs and develop new projects as necessary. For this reason, the business plan of project renewals must include a transition plan and provisions for developing alternative funding or reducing off-the-top funding to a minimal level. Included would be an assessment of transition options, and alternative funding sources.
However, not all projects may be shifted to other funding sources. Projects seeking to continue with significant amount of off the top funding should fully justify the request.
The renewal application should include a critical assessment of the original plan and address any shortcomings to ensure that the project will function more smoothly or effectively in the future. The proposal must indicate what additional resources have been generated or leveraged and indicate how those and any additional resources will be continued or sought.
Note. Not all projects can be transitioned to other funding sources and, if the project meets an ESCOP priority, the project may continue with off-the-top funding.”
- Paragraph V. H. Budget
“The NRSP team must present an annual budget for each of the five years (See Appendix F). The budget must take into account all sources of funds (Multistate Research Funds, industry, federal agencies, grants and contracts, and SAESs). There are two tables in Appendix F, one for MRF and one for Other Sources. For the SAESs, the project should estimate the in-cash and in-kind contributions. The budget narrative should provide an estimate of the per cent contribution from each funding source.”
If you have any questions about any aspect of this process, please contact me or Eric Young (Exec. Vice Chair) at eric_young@ncsu.edu or 919-513-1746. Please see the attached NRSP Guidelines for more details on the entire process for renewal of a current NRSP.
Thank you,
Craig Nessler
Cc: NRSP-7 CSREES Representatives:
Gary Sherman
Gary Jensen
Colien Hefferan
NRSP Review Committee Members
|
|
10.0
|
National Germplasm Coordinating Committee – Lee Sommers/Eric Young
Background Information:
The National Plant Germplasm Coordinating Committee (NPGCC) met in Ft. Collins, CO on June 5, 2008 at the ARS-USDA National Center for Genetic Resource Preservation. The meeting attendees were Peter Bretting, Lee Sommers, P.S. Benepal, Dan Upchurch, Ann Marie Thro, Eric Young, Candice Gardner, Jerry Arkin, and Mike Harrington. A summary of issues facing the National Plant Germplasm System was presented by Peter Bretting including the following:
- Static or shinking budgets
- Collection increasing, now >1/2 Million acessions
- Increase in distribution demand, average per year increased from 120,000 - >150,000 over last 4 year average, ¾ of these are domestic distributions
- APHIS now has responsibility for moving germplasm through quarantine, which is one the ARS ’08 budget for NPGS decreased slightly
- APHIS also does phytosanitary certificates, but currently charges for services. ARS is discussing the possibility of eliminating these charges
- Cost of new technology is increasing rapidly, hard to balance that with increased quantity or quality of output, have to make sure the investment is worth it
- Increase in distribution is greatest in specialty crops
- Farm Bill funding for specialty crops will probably increase demand even more
- Genomic research is generating a large number of transgenic crop lines. National Plant Germplasm System is considering criteria to decide which of these to maintain long term
- Priority order of National Plant Germplasm System activities:
- Maintenance
- Regeneration, documentation, and data management
- Acquisition
- Distribution
- Characterization and evaluation
- Enhancement
- If budget differentials get too large between stations, may need to move a collection, which could be politically and operationally difficult and would have to be carefully justified
- If the National Plant Germplasm System collections were established and sited strictly on technical merit, the geographical distribution of NPGS sites would be different than at present. But, relocating sites now would be complicated because of the political and historical factors that contributed to the current NPGS organization and to the substantial, durable support for the NPGS.
- The location of collections is dependent on many factors, but there may be a few collections that should be moved
- National Plant Germplasm Coordinating Committee could oversee this decision process with technical experts and industry consultation
- There is approximately an 18 month window now to make same changes due to new Farm Bill, changes in administration, and current economic condition
- Major factors in locating a collection
- Technical expertise of curators
- Adaptation of crop to local environment
- Future curators have to now be trained “on the job” because there is no academic program in genetic resources curation
- There might be an opportunity to develop a curriculum in this area under Ag Idea Consortium, with classes being offered from many locations to students located near a collection so they can have hands-on experience
- GrinGlobal – Global Crop Diversity Trust awared 3-year $1 Million grant to USDA/ARS and Bioversity to transform Grin to GrinGlobal. ARS is putting $900 K into this also.
Funding Mechanisms for NPGS
- NRSP-5 will be funded through National Clean Plant Network after FY ‘09
- NRSP-6 – National Plant Germplasm Coordinating Committee opinion is still the same on funding, ie. national off-the-top funding for NRSP-6 and regional off-the-top for other four stations
- A one-page summary will developed on history of how the 5 introduction stations were established and how funding has changed over time
- One-pager will be sent to regions with recommendation to put funding back to $150 K for consideration at summer meetings
- There may be some potential for funding National Plant Germplasm System activities from funding in the new consolidated competitive program (AFRI) created in the Farm Bill
National Plant Germplasm System Video
- New marketing initiative could choose National Plant Germplasm System activity or station for marketing piece
- CSREES Partner’s Video might consider doing a segment on National Plant Germplasm System.
- National Plant Germplasm System stations and activities have been featured on news and public interest spots due to the attention given to Svalbard opening
- Purpose for video is to gain support of general public and decision makers
- Jerry Arkin will take this idea to Marketing Initiative and the ESCOP Communications and Marketing Committee
Industry Contacts and Liaisons
- AOSCA, ASTA, Organic Seed Producers
- ASTA is willing to assign either a staffer or a member company representative as a liaison, depending on role of that person in NPGCC
- Role of industry reprensentative should be:
- Represent interests of industry in National Plant Germplasm System
- Assist in supporting funding for National Plant Germplasm System
- Raise awareness of industry issues and concerns related to National Plant Germplasm System
- Communicate back to industy the NPGS issues, concerns, and needs
- Provide perspective of industry on topics and actions being considered by NPGCC, like the video
- ASTA will be invited to appoint a liaison
ASA/CSSA ’09 Plant Germplasm Symposium Ideas – The NPGCC discussed potential programs related to plant germplasm and they will be considered in program planning by Ann Marie Thro.
Action Requested: None, information only.
|