ݺߣ

ݺߣShare a Scribd company logo

Eiard secretariat

•Download as PPTX, PDF•
•
Maa- ja metsätalousministeriö
Maa- ja metsätalousministeriö

This document discusses options for the future hosting of the EIARD Secretariat. The current situation has the Secretariat hosted by the European Commission DG RTD, but there are disadvantages like low interest from DG RTD and restrictive rules. Scenario options discussed are: 1) Continuing the status quo but improving recruitment. 2) Merging EIARD with SCAR to gain higher profile and address more strategic areas. 3) Rotating the Secretariat hosting among EIARD members. 4) Hosting the Secretariat in Bonn back-to-back with GDPRD for better rural development links.

1 of 11
Download to read offline
EIARD SECRETARIAT How to continue?
Present situation – status quo Secretariat hosted by DG RTD  Ex.Sec. is a 'Seconded National Expert' (SNE) to the EC  DG RTD provides an office including equipment and covers EIARD related missions  In exchange the Commission is the permanent EIARD Vice-Chair
Present situation – status quo Advantages  The Commission as the neutral broker is hosting the Secretariat and providing the Vice Chairman  COM(97)126 on EIARD – recognized by the Council and the European Parliament  Established setup (since more than 20 years)
Present situation – status quo Disadvantages  Low interest and ownership of DG RTD in the work of EIARD  EIARD is outside the regular EC structure  CGIAR funding comes from DEVCO not from RTD (except in the framework of H2020)  Conflicting expectations to the position holder  RTD sees it as a normal SNE position  EIARD work is compromised  Restrictive rules for SNEs since 2008 (especially regarding missions, participation in meetings)  Recruitment done by Commission only without influence of EIARD
Scenario Analysis  Option 1 – continuation of status quo  Option 2 – merger of EIARD with SCAR  Option 3 – Secretariat to be hosted by one EIARD member on a rotational basis  Option 4 – Secretariat hosted in Bonn back to back with the GDPRD
Option 1– status quo  Search for another person from November 2016  Request that the EIARD chair will be involved in the recruitment process
Option 2– Merger with SCAR  SCAR has an official mandate (Established through a Regulation of the Council of the EU on the coordination of agricultural research the Committee adopted its own rules of procedure in line with those adopted by the Commission on 31 January 2001 and in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC. The Committee was given a revised mandate in 2005 by the Council);  SCAR is increasingly addressing global issues  The EIARD strategy as a whole could be pursued (not only CGIAR topics);
Option 2– Merger with SCAR Advantages  Overcoming the separation between AR and ARD - lifting ARCH to the next level  SCAR:  SCAR discussions would increasingly take on board international dimensions  EIARD:  Higher political mandate, profile and recognition  All EIARD strategic areas could be addressed (on top of CGIAR topics)  A dedicated WG on CGIAR issues with an own coordinator could be formed which would report back to the SCAR Plenary
Option 2– Merger with SCAR Implementation  No EIARD Executive Secretary needed  Closing of ARCH  SCAR members would be formed by delegates from national representatives of Ministries of (1) Research+Education, (2) Agriculture AND (3) Foreign Affairs/Development Cooperation  EIARD issues discussed at SCAR WG and SCAR Plenary levels  Additional SCAR WGs launched to address former EIARD topics  CGIAR WG (a coordinator of the group can report every half year to the SCAR Plenary)  Others …
Option 3 – Secretariat hosted by one EIARD member on a rotational basis Advantages  Lower financial burden for EIARD member providing the Ex.Sec. – no "lost" position  Smaller EIARD members could also host the Ex.Sec.  No travel restrictions Disadvantages  Outside the Commission – no political mandate
Option 4 – Secretariat hosted in Bonn back to back to the GDPRD Advantages  Vicinity to the GDPRD – better link to rural development  Smaller EIARD members could also host the Ex.Sec.  No travel restrictions Disadvantages  Outside the Commission – no political mandate.

More Related Content

Eiard secretariat

  • 2. Present situation – status quo Secretariat hosted by DG RTD  Ex.Sec. is a 'Seconded National Expert' (SNE) to the EC  DG RTD provides an office including equipment and covers EIARD related missions  In exchange the Commission is the permanent EIARD Vice-Chair
  • 3. Present situation – status quo Advantages  The Commission as the neutral broker is hosting the Secretariat and providing the Vice Chairman  COM(97)126 on EIARD – recognized by the Council and the European Parliament  Established setup (since more than 20 years)
  • 4. Present situation – status quo Disadvantages  Low interest and ownership of DG RTD in the work of EIARD  EIARD is outside the regular EC structure  CGIAR funding comes from DEVCO not from RTD (except in the framework of H2020)  Conflicting expectations to the position holder  RTD sees it as a normal SNE position  EIARD work is compromised  Restrictive rules for SNEs since 2008 (especially regarding missions, participation in meetings)  Recruitment done by Commission only without influence of EIARD
  • 5. Scenario Analysis  Option 1 – continuation of status quo  Option 2 – merger of EIARD with SCAR  Option 3 – Secretariat to be hosted by one EIARD member on a rotational basis  Option 4 – Secretariat hosted in Bonn back to back with the GDPRD
  • 6. Option 1– status quo  Search for another person from November 2016  Request that the EIARD chair will be involved in the recruitment process
  • 7. Option 2– Merger with SCAR  SCAR has an official mandate (Established through a Regulation of the Council of the EU on the coordination of agricultural research the Committee adopted its own rules of procedure in line with those adopted by the Commission on 31 January 2001 and in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC. The Committee was given a revised mandate in 2005 by the Council);  SCAR is increasingly addressing global issues  The EIARD strategy as a whole could be pursued (not only CGIAR topics);
  • 8. Option 2– Merger with SCAR Advantages  Overcoming the separation between AR and ARD - lifting ARCH to the next level  SCAR:  SCAR discussions would increasingly take on board international dimensions  EIARD:  Higher political mandate, profile and recognition  All EIARD strategic areas could be addressed (on top of CGIAR topics)  A dedicated WG on CGIAR issues with an own coordinator could be formed which would report back to the SCAR Plenary
  • 9. Option 2– Merger with SCAR Implementation  No EIARD Executive Secretary needed  Closing of ARCH  SCAR members would be formed by delegates from national representatives of Ministries of (1) Research+Education, (2) Agriculture AND (3) Foreign Affairs/Development Cooperation  EIARD issues discussed at SCAR WG and SCAR Plenary levels  Additional SCAR WGs launched to address former EIARD topics  CGIAR WG (a coordinator of the group can report every half year to the SCAR Plenary)  Others …
  • 10. Option 3 – Secretariat hosted by one EIARD member on a rotational basis Advantages  Lower financial burden for EIARD member providing the Ex.Sec. – no "lost" position  Smaller EIARD members could also host the Ex.Sec.  No travel restrictions Disadvantages  Outside the Commission – no political mandate
  • 11. Option 4 – Secretariat hosted in Bonn back to back to the GDPRD Advantages  Vicinity to the GDPRD – better link to rural development  Smaller EIARD members could also host the Ex.Sec.  No travel restrictions Disadvantages  Outside the Commission – no political mandate.