Agenda Item;

2.0 Approved minutes of 2/20-21/97 meeting as modified.

12.5 Approved the motion that ESCOP will take the leadership in including animals, insects, microbes and plants as part of the Genetic Resources Subcommittee.

15.0  Helms, MacKenzie, Kaltenbach, Payne and Hefferan will constitute a Committee to help Geasler with the facilities survey. 

22.0 Approved election of Darrell E. Nelson (NE) as Chair-Elect of ESCOP for 1998

23.0 Unanimously approved a resolution expressing appreciation to Dr. Pardini and Ms. Miller (University of Nevada) for their hospitality and efforts in the meeting arrangements.

 Monday, July 28

ESCOP Morning Session

8:00 1.0 Call to Order and Opening Remarks                 C. C. Kaltenbach

     2.0 Approval of Minutes of Last Meeting

8:15 3.0 ARS Report                                        R. Reginato

8:30 4.0 CSREES Report                                     B. H. Robinson

8:45 5.0 NAPFSC Report                                     J. P. Lassoie

8:55 6.0 Board on Human Resources                          V. Clark

9:05 7.0 1890 Research Directors Report                    W. Hill

9:15 8.0 Board on Vet. Medicine                            D. G. Thawley

9:25 9.0 ICOP Liaison                                      E. C. Price

9:35 10.0 NASULGC                                          M. Neufville

9:45 11.0 CARET Liaison                                    D. Latham

10:00 Break

     12.0 ESCOP Subcommittee Reports

10:15     12.1  Legislative                                G. L. Cunningham

10:30     12.2  Environmental Affairs                      G. F. Arkin

10:45     12.3  Strategic Planning                         D. R. MacKenzie

11:00     12.4  Pest Management Strategies                 E. E. Ortman

11:15     12.5  Genetic Resources                          R. L. Lower

11:30     12.6  Regional Research Coordination Committee   R. D. Heil

11:45     12.7  GPRA                                       D. Rossi

12:00 Lunch

ESCOP Afternoon Session

1:30      12.8  Grazing Lands Initiative                  G. E. Ham

1:45      12.9  Impact Assessment                         T. J. Helms

2:00      12.10 FY98 & FY99 Budget                        T. Payne/R. L. Lower

2:15 13.0 AESOP                                           T. Nipp

3:00 Break

3:20 14.0 ESCOP By-Laws                                   R. L. Lower

3:35 15.0 CSREES Research Facility Task Force Report      M. Geasler

4:00 16.0 Proposed EPA "Plant Pesticides" Policy          T. J. Helms

4:10 17.0 Open Forum                                      D. Rossi

4:40 18.0 Preview of Joint ESCOP/ECOP/ACOP Meeting        D. Rossi

5:00 Recess for the Day

Tuesday, July 29

ESCOP/ECOP/ACOP Morning Session

         TOPIC                CHAIR                      TOPIC LEADER

8:00     Welcome              C. C. Kaltenbach

Session 1                     C. C. Kaltenbach

8:15     Partnership Issues                              Bob Robinson/ Floyd Horn*

9:45     Discussion

10:15 Break

Session 2                     I. E. L. Maw

10:30     Distance Learning                              Jeff Livingston

11:15     Discussion

12:00 Lunch

ESCOP/ECOP/ACOP Afternoon Session

Session 3                     Z. R. Helsel

1:00     Implementing "From Issues to Action"            M. Johnsrud/M. Neufville

1:45     Discussion

3:00 Break

Session 4

3:30     COPs Executive Committee Meeting                Chairs

5:00 Close of Joint Meeting

Wednesday. July 30

ESCOP Morning Session

8:00  19.0 Follow-up Actions to Joint Meeting            C. C. Kaltenbach

8:30  20.0 Plans for Association Meetings                M. Neufville

8:45  21.0 Proposed AES Directors' Workshop              R. L. Lower

9:00  22.0 Nominations Committee                         H. P. Rasmussen

9:15  23.0 Resolutions Committee                         D. C. Coston

9:20  24.0 Future ESCOP Meetings                         R. D. Heil

9:30  25.0 Other Business                                C. C. Kaltenbach

10:00 Adjourn

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 1.0
Presenter:  Colin Kaltenbach
Agenda Item Title: Call to Order & Opening Remarks

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

The meeting was called to order by Chair Kaltenbach.

Action Requested:
Action Taken:
 
 
 

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 2.0
Presenter:
Agenda Item Title: Approval of Minutes of February 20-21, 1997 Meeting

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

R. L. Lower provided a change in the Genetic Resources Subcommittee report.  The
new text should read:

"The Corn Genome Mapping Initiative is a well-organized effort by industry to seek support (> $140,000,000) over a five-year period.

The American "type tissue" collection is being relocated and there is concern about the loss of some viral collections because of lack of funds.

Discussion: Kaltenbach asked what effort is needed. Dr. Lower stated that because the ATTC will be transferred to Manassas from Maryland, it will need additional resources to do the transfer and also to preserve the collection.
 

Action Requested: Approval of Minutes of February 20-21, 1997 Meeting
Action Taken: Approved Minutes of February 20-21, 1997 Meeting as modified.

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 3.0
Presenter: R. Reginato
Agenda Item Title: ARS Report

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

- ARS Leadership: Dr. Floyd Horn is still the official
Administrator, but continues to serve on temporary duty as Acting Deputy
Undersecretary, REE.  Dr. Ed Knipling is Acting ARS Administrator.  These
temporary appointments will continue until a Deputy Under Secretary is named.

- ARS Budget Outlook for FY 1998: More favorable than first anticipated. The House provided $725m; the Senate provided $738m. These numbers are about $8m and $21m, respectively, over the current FY 1997 level. The conference committee will reconcile the differences, probably in September.

- Budget action by the Congress includes restoration (about $20m) of the Administration proposed (23m) project terminations. These restorations include four ARS locations that had been proposed for closure (Prosser, Mandan, Orono, and Brawley).

- The proposed new budget includes support ($12m House / 24m Senate) for Agency-proposed program initiatives in emerging diseases of crops and livestock, food safety, genetic resources, grazing lands, human nutrition, IPM, and Everglades ecosystem. Also, the Congress has identified additional initiatives ($12m House / $7m Senate) for support.

- Although the FY 1998 budget outlook appears relatively favorable, we can still expect to be challenged in the outyears (FY 1999-2003) because of the President's/Congress' Balanced Budget Agreement. This will probably be reflected in the future as generally flat Administration budget proposals, with new research initiatives being financed at the expense of some ongoing base programs.

- In the Building and Facility portion of the FY 1998 Budget, the House and Senate have provided $59m and $69m, respectively. Most of those funds are for continuation of ongoing modernization projects, but there also is full construction funding for new ARS laboratories at Parlier, California (horticulture crops and water management), Montpelier, France (European Biological Control Laboratory), and Leetown, West Virginia (cold water aquaculture).

- Based on full construction funding made available in FY 1997, ARS had 0proceeded with contract awards for new facilities as follows:

U.S. Horticultural Research Station, Fort Pierce, Florida. Ground breaking ceremony was June 21, 1997.

U.S. Plant Stress Laboratory, Lubbock, Texas, Ground breaking ceremony will be August 20, 1997.

- The new National Swine Research Center (NSRC), Ames, Iowa; and the new ARS Rice Germplasm Center, Stuttgart, Arkansas, are in final stages of construction and expected to be complete in the fall, 1997. Occupancy, operational, and program funding plans for the NSRC are still pending.

- The National Program staff is going through a restructuring process. This includes the development of 25 national research programs and the assignment of program leaders to matrix teams to manage these programs.
 

Action Requested:
Action Taken:

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 4.0
Presenter: B. H. Robinson
Agenda Item Title: CSREES Report

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

National Research Initiative

- The National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRICGP) is concluding its FY 1997 funding cycle by processing remaining recommended awards. For FY 1997, over 3,000 applications for funding were received and it is anticipated that over 700 proposals will be awarded.

The NRI is participating in a planning process to map major plant commodities. NRI Chief Scientist, Dr. Ron Phillips, is serving as chair to a OSTP committee that is charged to make recommendations based on the state of science in plant genetics. These recommendations will be used by the USDA in collaboration with NSF, NIH and DOE, tor development of a coordinated Federal effort in genomics. The NRI currently funds $13 million in plant and animal genomic research through existing programs, highlighting the important role that the NRI and CSREES will have in providing leadership for the Federal genomic effort.

The NRI participated in the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers. This new award, conferred by the White House, recognizes the finest scientists and engineers who, while early in their research careers, show exceptional potential for leadership at the frontiers of scientific knowledge during the twenty-first century. The award provides for five years of funding for the recipient's NRI-supported project, Dr. Kenton Rodgers of NDSU, and Dr. Barbara Gartner, of Oregon State University were recipients of the 1996 award. One NRI new investigator will be nominated in 1997.

Visit the NRI home page at: http://www.reeusda.gov/new/nri/nricgp.htm. Contact Sally Rockey at srockey@reeusda.gov with comments or questions.

1997 Land-Grant Connectivity and Capability Assessment

- CSREES received nearly 2000 responses to the 1997 Land-Grant Connectivity and Capability Assessment, conducted in Februarv and March. Deans, Directors and Administrators will receive a report of state results, as well as some preliminary analysis of respondents profiles and their assessment of the status of information technology.

An important component of this effort is the focus on the need to make strategic decisions about technology systems that will ultimately provide rich information and learning opportunities for the System. Further analysis of these data is continuing and a tier two effort is currently planned which will address some ot the specific findings of this first assessment. The assessment was developed with input from a cross-section of the Land-Grant System.

Agricultural Telecommunications Program

- The 1997 Program Solicitation was announced in the Federal Register June 4, 1997. and proposals are due August 4, 1997. A recent assessment of lessons learned from previously funded projects is currently available, along with other information about the program, on the website: www.reeusda.gov/agtel. Contact: Cathy Bridwell, Program Manager,202-770-6084, cbridwell@reeusda.gov.

Fund for Rural America--Rural Information Infrastructure Program

- The 1997 Program Solicitation will be announced in the Federal Register shortly. Applicants will have 60 days to submit proposals. The program will make $2.2 million available for research, education, and extension grants to improve rural-area access to information for use in the day-to-day operation of farms, ranches, and other rural businesses and community development efforts. Additional information about this program will be posted on the Fund for Rural America website: www.reeusda.gov/fra. Contact: Cathy Bridwell, Program Manager 202-720-6084, cbridwell@reeusda.gov.

CSREES Directory of Professional Workers

- CSREES has re-designed the Directory of Professional Workers in Agriculture (also known as the 305 Directory) into a web-based resource. The development work is now completed and we are currently developing training for partners on the self-registration process for database updating. Training sessions are being scheduled through institutional contacts and will be held July 30 - August 31, 1997. Contact: Jerry McNamara, 202-401-0951; jmcnamara@reeusda.gov.

Research, Education, and Economics Information System (REEIS)

- USDA's Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission agencies and their university partners currently lack a central, integrated electronic information system capable of providing a knowledge base of the thousands of projects, data, and information for which they are responsible and which focus on food, agriculture, natural resources and rural development. Congress has addressed this need by authorizing and providing funds to CSREES to develop a state-of-the-art information technology system that will enable the measurement of the impact and effectiveness of research, extension, and education programs according to priorities, goals, and mandates established by law. It is envisioned that the Research, Education, and Economics Information System (REEIS) will operate as a platform to link/interrelate many different data bases serving extension, research, education, and other agency functions. A REEIS National Steering Committee with broad Federal and university participation is being formed under the chairship of Dr. Milo Schultz (AR) to guide and monitor the progress of the REEIS project. The Steering Committee's first meeting will be in Washington. D.C. on June 25 and 26, 1997. For more information see the REEIS Homepage at http://www.reeusda.gov/ree/reeis/reeis.htm or contact Philip Dopkowski at pdopkowski@reeusda.gov.

CRIS Enhancement

- CSREES' Science and Education Resources Development (SERD) has continued to work with the CRIS Enhancement National Task Force headed by Dr. Colin Kaltenbach (AZ) to improve CRIS's ability to provide up-to-date, relevant, and useful information on the research programs of the USDA and the State Agricultural Experiment Station research system. After careful review of the results of a broad-based survey of CRIS users, recommendations have been developed to streamline the CRIS classification scheme by ( 1 ) reducing the number of research problem areas, (2) eliminating activities and special classifications as separate categories, (3) merging commodities and subcommodities into a single subject list, and (4) modifying the field of science series to require only one code tor each science discipline. A workshop is being planned with State Experiment Station staff to test these recommendations prior to their implementation. In addition, CRIS technical data is now accessible worldwide through INTERNET. In the future, State and Federal Administrators will have full access to CRIS financial data through the INTERNET and will be able to process and transmit data to CRIS on the INTERNET. For more information see the CRIS Homepage at: http://cristel.nal.usda.gov:8080/ or contact Theodore Bauer at tbauer@cris.nal.usda.gov.

Globalizing Agricultural Science and Education Programs for America (GASEPA)

- A Globalizing Agricultural Science and Education Programs for America (GASEPA) Task Force was formed in the fall of 1996 as a result of discussions between CSREES managers and ICOP's Executive Committee on the need to develop a consensus, with broad support among U.S. agricultural universities, on a post-cold war agenda for their involvement in the international arena. The Task Force is chaired by Dr. Bobby Moser (OH) and includes representative from AH's, ESCOP, ECOP, ACOP, ICOP, the 1890's, AASCARR, CARET, veterinary medicine, forestry, human science' and CSREES. The Task Force has proposed an agenda that focuses heavily on enhancing the global competitiveness of U.S. agriculture by strengthening the international skills of students, faculty, and extension specialists; globalizing agricultural curricula; providing better information on market, trade, and business opportunities; increasing international research partnerships; promoting trade through global economics development and enhancing global environmental quality and stewardship of natural resources. The Task Force's proposed agenda has been endorsed in principal by all of NASULGC's Sections. At its May 8, 1997 meeting, the Board on Agriculture endorsed the GASEPA agenda and recommended that it become an Initiative. For additional information contact Earl Teeter at eteeter@reeusda.gov.

Higher Education Programs

- The Higher Education Programs (HEP) office promotes excellence in food and agricultural sciences higher education by means of five competitive and two formula grants programs. These programs focus on expertise development and/or institution enhancement. In FY 1997, these programs generated 398 proposals requiring review by some 160 scientists/educators, and resulting in approximately 230 awards. This year HEP also launched the new Hispanic-Serving Institutions Grants Program, conducted Tribal College and HSI Faculty Development Workshops, welcomed the addition of the Ag in the Classroom Program and will help host a Russian-American Curriculum Conference. For more information on these topics contact Gwen Lewis at glewis@reeusda.gov.

Risk Management Education

- CSREES program leaders and Land Grant System faculty are working with Risk Management Agency program staff to finalize the agenda for the Risk Management Summit to be held in Kansas City, MO on September 16-17. The agenda for Sept. 16 includes the keynote address by Secretary Glickman, addresses by members of Congress, and panel presentations involving Dr. Robinson, Kenneth Ackerman (Administrator, RMA), and Joseph Dial, Commissioner at the Commodity Futures Trading Association. The Sept. 17 agenda, led by Extension faculty from the University of Nebraska and Montana State University, consists of training in five areas of risk management: yield/production, price/marketing, financial, legal and human resources. Approximately 500 participants from the public and private sectors are expected to attend.

The Summit is designed to be one event in a broader risk management education program that is expected to significantly involve the Land Grant System' particularly State Extension Services. CSREES special project funding is being used to support a risk management meeting for wheat producers at Amarillo, Texas on August 19-20, 1997. With anticipated funding from the RMA, a nationwide effort on risk management education will be implemented through regional "centers" and related projects will be funded through a competitive process.

Sustainable Agriculture, Research, and Education Program

- SARE program now in RESD. SARE will complement Sustainable Development activities. At recent SARE Board meeting we decided to search out traditional commodity groups for increased dialogue about the possible linkages between sustainable agriculture issues and issue areas such as precision agriculture and large scale confined animal production units. This provides a natural linkage between the idea of sustainable agriculture and sustainable development as it creates a dialogue between those groups whose focus is economic viability and the SARE group which has a perception (perhaps inaccurately?) of focusing on environmental sustainability. Recruiting for a new Director of the program. Jerry DeWitt from Iowa State University is acting as interim director.

Food Quality Protection Act

- USDA is scheduled to issue a request for proposals to address pesticides considered by EPA to be of greatest concern due to passage of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. This RFP is funded at $700,000 and is jointly funded by USDA and EPA. The RFP is scheduled to be issued in the Federal Register June 11, 1997, and on the date of issue CSREES will send the RFP electronically to all Land Grant Universities. In general, the RFP will request proposals on use and usage patterns on specific pesticides and proposals to develop mitigation procedures or alternative controls for pests presently controlled by listed pesticides. Involvement of affected users in proposals is encouraged, it is hoped that the joint funding of this type of RFP will be continued in FY98. Barry J. Jacobsen, Professor of Plant Pathology, Montana State University-Bozeman. Phone: 406-994-5161 and Fax: 406-994-1848.

GPRA Update

- The GPRA Performance Framework that resulted form combined CSREES and partner efforts provides the system a strong initial response to the GPRA legislation and should serve us well during the coming three or four budget cycles. It is important, however, that we use that period to establish a program of evaluative research that supports the relationship between our program activities and the five goals, and that we also to develop a stronger set of indicators that will more fully capture the success of the Land Grant research and education system in meeting the needs of our citizens.

CSREES and its university partners are in the final stages of implementing the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act. An Agency GPRA Performance Plan for the five REE program goals has been developed and discussed fully with representatives of all segments of the CSREES- University Partnership during four regional orientation sessions attended by more than 300 individuals. An electronic computer template has been developed to provide a vehicle for the collection of state GPRA planning and reporting data and information beginning in FY1998. During the month of June 1997 the template was tested in California, Massachusetts, Texas and Wisconsin. Comments have been incorporated into the draft plan that is on the GPRA Home Page. Additional comments have been received from members of the Partnership Working Group (Membership appointed by ECOP, ESCOP, ICOP, Board on Human Sciences, 1890 Research and Extension, Schools and Departments of Forestry, ACOP, NASULGC and ACOP). Following completion of the template test a revised GPRA template will be distributed to the states for use in submitting initial GPRA plans and indicator targets in November of 1997. Guidance should be submitted to Directors and Administrators within the next 10-days.

Within CSREES, mechanisms tor reviewing GPRA plans and reports, and for developing program and budget support documents, are being established.

On June 1, 1997, we held our first consultation with Congressional staffers on GPRA. The REE Mission Agency was complemented on the way in which the plan was put together. The committee indicated that this was the "best" of the strategic plans submitted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. They also commended CSREES on the way in which it organized its plan. The agency cannot accept all of the credit for this achievement. CSREES is appreciative to the system and colleagues in research, extension and higher education for supporting this effort.

During the next year, an Internet Web-based system will be developed to take advantage of that technology to make the input of GPRA plans and reports, and its review at CSREES more dynamic. Under the leadership of Barbara White, Deputy Administrator of CTDE, and George Cooper, Deputy Administrator of Partnerships, a task group composed of CSREES staff and our agency Computer Consultant has been appointed to begin consultations on the design of this Web based system. System input will be sought as the consultation process continues. Individuals knowledgeable or interested in Web-based planning and reporting systems are being identified as consultants in this process: The Partnership Working Group will also be used to make input in this initiative. CSREES leadership is being provided by George Mayeske. (gmayeske@reeusda.gov).

Fund for Rural America

- The CSREES Fund for Rural America (FRA) provides competitive research grants directed at providing knowledge and technology needed for producers to remain competitive in a global economy, and adjust to the elimination of commodity support payments. The Fund supports research and applied research through education and extension to address the practical economic problems faced in rural America. It is designed to integrate research, education and extension across disciplines and expertise to comprehensively address agriculture, environmental and rural development issues with extensive customer input.

Proposals a reviewed by panels of peers on the basis of scientific merit, relevance, and other Fund goals. The highly ranked proposals tend to focus on practical problem solving, GPRA accountability, broad regional or national issues, and have considerable potential to have immediate impact. In keeping with the goals of the fund, these proposals are overwhelmingly multi-faceted and multi-disciplinary.

Three types of Grants will be made under this portion of the program. Planning Grants of up to $25,000 each will be made to fund a 6 month planning process for developing Center, with fully developed Center proposals due at the end of this period. Partnerships with private foundations may increase the number of grants submitted.

Types of Grants

- From 15-30 Planning Grants for Centers of $25,000 each will be made for 6 months, with fully developed Center proposals due in January 1998. Public partnerships with private foundations may increase the number of grants funded. Standard Grants of about $600,000 each will be awarded for the purpose of research, education and extension activities. These projects will fill gaps of knowledge or programs which constitute barriers to contextual problem solving in two or more issue areas.

Impact on the research, education, and extension system: The fund offers the opportunity and the challenge of merging research, education and extension, and rural development, agriculture and environmental issues while at the same time integrating activities of individuals, institutions, states, regions now working independently. Rural communities will be the beneficiaries. Multi-disciplinary, multi-functional and collaborative efforts will provide accessible resources of information, technology and education upon which the public can draw. Research, education and extension will be more closely serving the needs of their customers.

Additional items discussed:

The upcoming Environmental Trade Show and whether to get involved was discussed. Since it follows the NASULGC meeting, tours of the facility could be taken before NASULGC.

Reginato noted that ARS is going to make a presentation that will focus on four major labs.

The State Departments on Agriculture should have been contacted, but will probably depend on the land-grant institutions to put something together. It would not be good for the land-grant universities to have an empty hall.

Neufville commented that legislative types, industry people, and tourists would be people going to the show. A draft letter developed by USDA to invite participation, has not been mailed. We have an opportunity to show what we're trying to do to people we don't usually interact with. Everyone is encouraged to go home and drum up enthusiasm for the Trade Show.

Robinson commented that the USDA did not start the trade show. There is a broad opportunity that has to do with the National Food Summit. The idea behind the trade show is to allow government to show their activities and for universities to provide booths to show their developments. It is an opportunity at a reasonable cost to be tied in with the USDA supermarket approach. The Show might be attended by 5,000 or more people. The Agency is going to be putting some money into developing a display. Another opportunity is for universities to display products that can be purchased by other agencies or industries.

The Food and Ag Summit is a Board on Agriculture issue. The Board on Agriculture is still trying to find out who the audience is. It represents a segment of what we need to do.

Regarding REE Board Appointments, the system needs to communicate to the Board on Agriculture that the system expect the Board to represent our interests. It is useful to provide names, even though it is difficult to match names with categories. Names of CARET representatives could be submitted as possible candidates. Davidson is Chair-elect of the Board and should be contacted.

The Agency was able to restore funding for the Renewable Resources Extension Act but not able to get Rangeland Research funded again.

Action Requested:
Action Taken:
 

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 5.0
Presenter: J. P. Lassoie, NAPFSC National Research Chair
Agenda Item Title: NAPFSC Report

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

INTRODUCTION

The National Association of Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges (NAPFSC) represents the interests of 57 different academic units located in all 50 states. Starting in 1898, these colleges, schools, and departments have been dedicated to the protection, use, and management of the nation's natural resources, including its forests, fishes, and wildlife and the environmental resources supporting these populations. Hence, teaching, research, and extension/outreach programs at NAPFSC units have been focused on renewable, biological organisms as well as water, soil, and air resources. In that natural resource management is an applied, interdisciplinary science, NAPFSC member organizations also have integrated aspects of human dimensions (e.g., policy, economics, ethics, etc.) into their programs. Their current challenge is to expand integrated management past their traditional focus on increasing "productivity" and "consumptive use." Another challenge is the need to consider the importance of interacting and interdependent populations necessitating the adoption of new ecosystem and landscape perspectives t o natural resource management. A converging association with changes in agriculture and rural development is obvious, and NAPFSC welcomes closer working relations with ESCOP and ECOP.

The NAPFSC Executive Committee meets twice a year, most recently in Washington, DC in early February. This committee includes the chairs of its national subcommittees (Policy, Research, Education, International, and Legislative) and its four regional organizations (Northeast, North Central, Southern, and Western) plus the President (G. Brown, VPI), Past President (R. Fisher, Texas A&M), and President Elect (A. Vogt, Univ. of Missouri - Columbia). Executive Committee business includes reports from its various functional and regional chairs and invited guests from partner agencies and organizations, including NRCS, CSREES-USDA, USES, SAF, NASF, NAUFWP, and AF&PA, plus association business. A general meeting for all NAPFSC members is held each fall in conjunction with the national SAF convention. NAPFSC also publishes a newsletter twice a year. The Association focuses on issues important to all members, especially national legislative, authorization, and appropriation actions, and helps to coordinate education, research, and outreach activities within regions and across the country. Some of its key concerns and activities are highlighted below.

HIGHLIGHTS

1. McIntire-Stennis: These base funds promote a broad range of critical forestry and natural resources research in areas such as: (1) expanding domestic and foreign markets for forest products; (2) increasing timber productivity while maintaining the associated water, wildlife, recreation, and range resources; and (3) building the scientific understanding of natural and human-impacted forest ecosystems. These funds typically support graduate students which will become future researchers, educators, and practicing professional resource managers. McIntire-Stennis funds leverage more than five-times their amount from other funding sources, including contributions from both the public and private sectors. Despite needs to increase the appropriation level for McIntire-Stennis, NAPFSC was very pleased to see it level-funded along with other federal formula funds in the FY'98 Budget (House Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations).

2. National Research Initiative: This competitive source of research funds is essential to stimulate new and innovative research projects. Forest and natural resource scientists at NAPFSC institutions are especially interested in the Environmental and Natural Resources Program, but also compete within the Plant Systems Program. These funds often build on research initiated using base funds (both Hatch and McIntire-Stennis). NAPFSC was pleased to see the President's FY'98 Budget called for a major increase in the NRI, but supports NASULGC's position to maintain a "balanced" research portfolio. NAPFSC is not in favor of any general "ear-marking" of funds within this initiative.

3. Renewable Resources Extension Act: NAPFSC strongly believes that extension is the keystone to insuring that important information is communicated in a timely manner to those best able to apply and benefit from research expenditures. Nowhere is this more important than within the forest and natural resources community where pending land-use decisions need to reflect both economic reality and environmental integrity. Major problems are now arising on private nonindustrial forest lands where increased demands for fiber products are often compromising long-term sustainability. Unfortunately, Cooperative Extension has been unable to meet this increasing demand for information because of the allocation of its Smith-Lever funds to other priorities. It was especially disturbing that the Renewable Resources Extension Act was not funded in the President's FY'98 Budget, but NAPFSC was pleased that it was reinstated by the House Subcommittee on Agricultural Appropriations. All members of the NAPFSC Executive Committee spent a considerable amount of time pushing for this reinstatement during the Spring. A major letter campaign and support from the National Association of State Foresters (NASF) and the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) also helped to save this important program. NAPFSC continues to urge that this program be considered as part of the base support to Land Grant Universities and appreciates the support of RREA from NASULGC. Major efforts are now focused on seeing that RREA becomes part of both the USDA and President's FY'99 Budget recommendations.

4. Smith-Lever and Hatch: NAPFSC institutions often benefit greatly from federal base programs supporting agricultural extension and research. The emerging hybrid field of agroforestry offers new opportunities for collaboration and NAPFSC encourages the use of federal formula funds to help build this new land-use system for rural America. We continue to support the need to increase the appropriation levels for Smith-Lever and Hatch Programs, as well as McIntire-Stennis.

5. Fund for Rural America: NAPFSC institutions are very interested in this program and have encouraged its faculty to apply for both center and program grants. Members voiced their opposition to the loss of funds from this program to other needs. There remains concern that forestry and natural resource proposals to the Fund will be viewed as low priorities in comparison to those dealing with agriculture.

6. USFS: NAPFSC is working closely with reorganization efforts within the Forest Service. It is hoped that these new efforts will improve working relationships between Forest Service Research Laboratories and universities which have weakened over the past decade.

7. NRCS: NAPFSC is working to build a new working relationship with the National Resource Conservation Service. Their recent reorganization and current focus the stewardship of private lands offer particular opportunities for collaboration with NAPFSC institutions. Current NRCS activities where such opportunities are being pursued include: (1) Conservation Reserve Program, (2) Environmental Quality Improvement Program, (3) Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program, (4) Watershed Program, and (5) Wetland Reserve Program. Many of these can offer support to rural landowners interested in agroforestry.

8. Minority Recruitment: This area has been especially troublesome to NAPFSC institutions. For the past five years NAPFSC has helped to sponsor employment conferences for minority students interested in careers in natural resources (MINFORS). It has initiated an evaluation of the effectiveness of these past conferences before considering future efforts in this area.

9. Agriculture: NAPFSC has examined the possibility of establishing a CARET-like organization composed of private individuals benefiting from the research and extension programs from its member institutions. There has also been an attempt at some institutions to add such individuals to the current CARET organization in order to stimulate and support collaboration between the agriculture and natural resource communities. No significant progress has been made in either area. NAPFSC remains very interested in pursuing closer collaborations with agriculture, especially in relation to our shared concerns about economic and environmental sustainability of rural America. Suggestions are requested. One area, agroforestry, including intensive "fiber-farms," is becoming a good example of the growing collaboration between ARS, USFS, NRCS, and the Land Grant Universities.
 

Action Requested: 
Action Taken: 









ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 6.0
Presenter: V. Clark
Agenda Item Title: Board on Human Sciences Report

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

WELFARE REFORM:

-- A work group continues efforts to build relationships between universities and state agencies and legislators.

-- A successful conference was held in the Spring (with NASULGC and USDA). A summary of the conference and recommendations that resulted are posted on the AAHS/BOHS Web Page.

-- A Steering Committee composed of representatives from Extension, Research and the Academic Communities has been formed, with subcommittees in each area to assess the work that is being done in each state, and to coordinate efforts.

-- Communications continue with NASULGC on Welfare Reform. They have a staff group working on this issue and are providing leadership among a group of higher education organizations at One Dupont Circle to facilitate higher education's role in welfare reform.

FOOD SAFETY:

Dr. Janet Johnson, Chair of the BOHS Legislative Committee, has been involved with the President's initiative on food safety. Letters have been written to key leadership on the House of Representatives and the Senate Agriculture Committees relative to Congressional support of the ideas.

CARET:

Dr. Karen Craig, Chair of BOHS, met with the CARET Executive Committee (at their June meeting) to discuss the possibility of increased involvement of the human sciences community with CARET for purposes of mutual interest and to share poverty and welfare issues in rural America as they are likely to impact agriculture and natural resources.

TITLE VIII:

Written testimony is being developed for the House relative to Title VIII of the Farm Bill. Responses to the Senate (Senator Luger) 47 Questions about the Farm Bill are posted on the Web Page for AAHS/BOHS.
 

Action Requested:
Action Taken:

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 7.0
Presenter: Kenneth Bell
Agenda Item Title: 1890 Association of Research Directors Report

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

ARD Administrative and Leadership Development Workshop: The Association of Research Directors conducted an administrative and leadership development workshop on September 23~25, 1996 in Washington, DC. The topics discussed were: the National Land-Grant System; Overview of the Organizational Structure of the 1890 Research Programs; Strategic Plan for the 1890 Land-Grant System; Federal Collaboration; and the Federal Budget and Legislative Process. In addition, there was a visit to the Capital Hill for congressional staff briefings. There were approximately 40 persons in attendance including USDA Officials and invited speakers.

MOU Between ARD and the INIFAP, Mexico: A memorandum of understanding between the Association of Research Directors, and the National Research Institute of Forestry, Agriculture and Livestock (INIFAP), Mexico was signed for scientific cooperation. The cooperative research efforts through this agreement may assist in development of innovative technologies which may be of mutual benefit for both countries and result in enhanced productivity, better trade, and sustainable agriculture and natural resources.

1890 Institutions Research and Extension Facilities Grants Program: The FY 1997 funding for this program was $7,549,000. These funds are to be used for acquisition and improvement of agricultural and food sciences facilities and equipment including libraries so as to enable the 1890 Institutions to develop adequate resources to carry out their mission more effectively. This program is assisting in enhancing quality of research and attracting and retaining quality students and faculty at the 1890 Institutions.
 

Action Requested:
Action Taken: 








ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 8.0
Presenter: D. G. Thawley
Agenda Item Title: Board on Veterinary Medicine Report

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

The Board on Veterinary Medicine (BVM) recently held its annual meeting. Concern was expressed on continued threat to 1433 funds - with continual erosion of $250,000. Concern was also shown over animal involvement in the genetics initiative. The BVM continues support for food safety, animal products and global marketability. The BVM lobbyist, Lester Crawford, is no longer doing lobbying due to his acceptance of a faculty position at Georgetown University.

Action Requested:
Action Taken:
 

ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 9.0
Presenter: E. C. Price
Agenda Item Title: ICOP Liaison Report

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

BIFAD is being expanded to replace JCARD.

Other initiative is a revision of 1458 in the Research, Extension and Teaching part of the Farm Bill.

The 1975 Title XII act authorized the land-grant universities to do international operations and is out of date. It does not address sustainable agriculture. Information regarding the draft of Title XII is included in Attachment 1.

USAID published a draft strategic plan that did not address agriculture research and human resources development. Economic Growth and Agriculture should appear in USAID. Additionally USAID has requested that human resources become a new commission. Summit to be October 8 at the State Department from 9:00am to 5:00.

New initiative sponsored by World Bank is in conceptual stage. A system will be managed to set up a global virtual forum to give one stop information on the web (AGFOR). The globe is divided into various regions, like an electronic shopping mall, with a central information booth and a directory, showing how discussions are taking place. A second room, a conference room will allow discussions to take place. There will be a final room that is private. They plan a demonstration during National Centers Week, on October 29. Each agricultural experiment station and extension could be a shop.

MacKenzie to monitor this activity and keep ESCOP updated.

Kaltenbach and Helsel were contacted by Moser and Davidson and asked for AESOP to push international programs. AESOP could not take on the task without approval by ESCOP and ECOP of a written proposal with a budget that suggests what they want to do with resources. ICOP would like to develop a proposal to take some of revenue that has not been committed to AESOP to take on additional projects regarding international programs. The proposal is to invest for one year to concentrate on international agriculture.

The 150 account had earmarked funds in and for activities of land-grant universities. USAID developed programs that were earmarked for land-grant universities and most of the components have been zeroed out.

In order to use AESOP committed funds for International Programs, there will need to be support from all the universities that are supporting AESOP.

A letter regarding GASEPA from Dr. Harold R. Matteson, Associate Vice President, Center for International Programs, New Mexico State University to Dr. Bob H. Robinson is also included in Attachment 1.
 

Action Requested:
Action Taken:

ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 10.0
Presenter: M. Neufville
Agenda Item Title: NASULGC Report

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

 A. Senate Confirmation Hearings

Hearings were held for four nominees for Under Secretary positions in the USDA. The nominees are: Dr. I. Miley Gonzalez (Under Secretary-designate for Research, Education and Economics); Dr. Shirley R. Watkins (Under Secretary-designate for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services); Dr. Catherine E. O. Woteki (Under Secretary-designate for Food Safety); and Mr. August Schumacher, Jr. (Under Secretary-designate for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services). Each nominee was given a set of questions and 48 hours in which to respond, and Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-IN) indicated that he hoped the confirmation process would be completed by the time Congress adjourned for the August recess, which is August 1. The committee questions focused heavily on trade issues and stakeholder input into our decision making process. We perceive a smooth process.

B. Title VIII

The House of Representatives Subcommittee concluded its hearings on Tuesday, July 22, 1997. However, Chairman Combest indicated that the hearings will remain open until August 15, so that others wishing to provide written testimony can do so.

A list of witnesses for the hearing on the 22nd follows:

Dr. Rob Robinson, Administrator, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, United States Department of Agriculture - accompanied by Dr. Ron Phillips, Chief Scientist, National Research Initiative, United States Department of Agriculture;

Mr. David Erickson, President, American Soybean Association;

Mr. Kenneth A. Rose, Vice President for Research and Education, National Grain Sorghum Producers Association;

Mr. Tom Anderson, Chairman, Small Grains and Research and Communications Committee, Minnesota Wheat Growers Association;

Dr. Gary Weber, Executive Director of Regulatory Affairs, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, on behalf of the Animal Agriculture Coalition;

Dr. Perry L. Adkisson, Chancellor Emeritus, The Texas A&M University System, Texas A&M College of Agriculture, and Board Member of the National Science Foundation;

Dr. Paul Gilman, Executive Director, Board on Agriculture, National Research Council.

ECOP provided a list of some of the issues and points of divergence with the administration. Discussions are underway between AESOP Enterprises and the commodity groups to resolve points in their testimony which may appear inconsistent with current thinking of the land-grant community.

The Senate staff prepared a first draft of the Title VIII bill which was discussed by our Title VIII reauthorization committee. Stress points were identified, including:

1. Percentage of funds for multi state initiatives

2. Research, extension collaboration

3. Revisiting the formula

4. 1890 matching

5. Eligibility of non-land-grants for competitive grant funds

6. Merit review/stakeholder input

C. Annual Meeting Plans

Plans are being finalized for the 1997 annual meeting in Washington, DC. Please inform Mort Neufville or Eddie Gouge if meeting space is needed or of changes in time designated.

D. Eighteen-Month Rolling Calendar

The calendar is updated on the first working day of the month. Additions/deletions should be received before the last working day of the previous month. Wherever possible, please inform NASULGC of meeting times and location and assistance needed from NASULGC.

E. National Agriculture Summit and National Marketplace for the Environment Trade Show

The NASULGC Board on Agriculture, upon the recommendation of Joe Coffey (CARET chair) and Dean Kleckner (Farm Bureau President) decided to hold a National Food and Agriculture Summit and asked Colin Kaltenbach to provide leadership for the planning and implementation. During the planning process, we learned of a U.S. Government Trade Show scheduled for November 18-20, 1997. Our participation is requested. We have since learned of a United Voice Summit on American Food, Fiber and Agricultural Competitiveness. This has been in the planning process since 1995 and is scheduled for Natural Agriculture Week in March, 1998. An eleven-minute video has been prepared. It is important for the system to find a way to get involved. The current steering group for United Voice consists of: John Huston, National Cattlemen's Beef Association; John James, Pioneer Hi-Bred International; Allan Johnson, Farm Progress Company; Bill Kirk, Dupont Ag-Division; Ed McMillan, former CEO of Purina Mills, Inc; and Richard Urbanowski, ISK Biosciences.

Your recommendations on how to get involved as well as how to facilitate continuing linkage are requested.

F. CFERR White Papers

The 1996 CFERR White Papers were well received. One which is being developed into a national initiative is on water. A committee led by Ted Hullar is developing an action plan. Kerry Bolognese is providing staff support for this initiative. Each component of CFERR has representation on the initiative task force. The 1997 CFERR White Paper will focus on "New and Emerging Diseases." Primary leadership is being provided by the Board on Veterinary Medicine. All boards and sections are asked to suggest topics for future White Papers and to recommend follow-up action after each paper presentation.

Respectfully submitted,

Mortimer H. Neufville
 

Action Requested:
Action Taken:

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 11.0
Presenter: D. Latham
Agenda Item Title: CARET Liaison Report

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

CARET has had a working group involved in the Title VIII reauthorization.  The
outgrowth of that has been a number of contacts with commodity groups and general
farm organizations.  Also, CARET Chairman Joe Coffey presented testimony before
the Senate Ag Committee in support of Title VIII reauthorization.

The three key elements of his testimony were:
1.  Fully fund land-grant's FY98 budget request for Ag Research, Extension, and
Teaching of $891 million, an increase of 6.6%.
2.  Strengthen & reauthorize the Research Title of the Farm Bill.
3.  Establish a national policy for agricultural research and education as the
core component and driving force for our long-term agricultural policy.

At its June meeting, the CARET Executive Committee heard requests from two
organizations:

1.  Gregory Brown, Dean of the College of Forestry and Wildlife Resources at
Virginia Polytechnic and chair of the NASULGC Board on Natural Resources
requested that that Board be integrated or affiliated with CARET.  They currently
lack a national client group to support their activities.  He also pointed out
that the Forest Service is under a different Under-Secretary than csrees and the
two don't come together until the Secretary level.

2.  The other request was from Karen Craig, Chair of the NASULGC Board on Human
Sciences.  She similarly requested that that Board be integrated into CARET.

After considerable discussion, the Executive Committee requested that the AHS
representatives take the matter up at their regional meetings and bring direction
back to the CARET Executive Committee at its November meeting.
Although not part of the National CARET activities as of yet, the North Central CARET at its recent meeting developed some thoughts on how to make CARET even more effective. Specific effort should be made when CARET appointments are made to identify individuals from different congressional districts, different constituencies and backgrounds, and connections with members of Congress. As volunteers, CARET members want to be as effective as possible with their time and attention to these demographics would help. I urge ESCOP members to work with their respective AHS members to identify these people.
 

Action Requested:
Action Taken:

ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 12.1
Presenter: G. L. Cunningham
Agenda Item Title: ESCOP Legislative Subcommittee Report

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Action Requested:
Action Taken:

ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 12.2
Presenter: G. F. Arkin
Agenda Item Title: ESCOP Environmental Affairs Subcommittee Report

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

In its commitment to support the Subcommittee's activities, the USDA-Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) agreed to support an Environmental Liaison/Lead Scientist, who among other things will assist with the strategic planning for agricultural initiatives on environmental and natural resource issues. As of July I, 1997, Dr. Charles R. Krueger, the Agricultural Experiment Station Director at Penn State University from 1982-1997, was appointed to this position. Dr. Krueger will serve in a joint capacity as Professor of Agronomy at Penn State and as the CSREES Liaison to SUNEI until January 1999.

In fulfilling its directives, the Environmental Affairs Subcommittee works very closely with SUNEI and makes up a significant portion of SUNEl's Steering Committee. In March, the Steering Committee met for the first time to lay the ground work for some initial outreach activities. The Committee decided that it was important to continue a dialogue with EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) which the Environmental Affairs Subcommittee started 1996 with the Joint Opportunities Workshop on Agriculture and the Environment. Therefore, representatives from ORD were asked to address the Steering Committee at the March meeting to discuss future collaborations.

In a subsequent meeting between SUNEI and ORD, EPA suggested that another conference would be in order, but that this meeting might include representatives from the different agencies/divisions within EPA, not just ORD. Six conceptual ideas developed out of this May meeting and are under consideration by EPA. The SUNEI Steering Committee has expressed an interest in the concept of a summit between LGU Deans and Directors, EPA mid-level administrators, and local (county, municipal) managers to discuss ways to improve environmental, natural resource, and land-use management decision making with a focus on water quality issues. Ideas are also on the table to include other Federal agencies in this summit.

One such agency might be NASA's Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE), which SUNEI has been meeting with on an ongoing basis since March. Currently, MTPE is looking at ways in which remotely sensed data and geospatial technologies might be used by the broader research community, as well as directly by end users. Because of these discussions with MTPE and NASA's determination that agriculture is one of the largest end users of this information, SUNEI decided to apply for a NASA cooperative agreements dealing with theses issues (approximately $1 million over a five year period -- awards will be announced in October 1997). The research proposal, a NASA/LOU Partnership: Communicating Geospatial Technologies to Agricultural and Natural Resource Managers is based on three objectives:

1. Complete an inventory and assessment of the applications of MTPE technologies;

2. Design a set of pilot instructional modules and evaluation tools for extension personnel; and

3. Provide 24 instructional/training workshops and evaluate their success and utility.

The proposed outcome of the proposal will include LGU and NASA scientists working together to develop a list of the geospatial applications that can be a used in an agricultural/natural resource context, will allow end users of the information to have input on how this information will be packaged and distributed, and will create a database of approximately 500 on the ground users (extension personnel) trained in the geospatial applications to help solve agricultural and natural resource management questions.

In the meantime, during a recent meeting et the Goddard Space Flight Center MTPE and SUNEI felt it was important to get some key scientist together from LGUs and NASA to brainstorm on some of these applications of the geospatial data for agricultural and natural resource purposes. SUNEI is in the process of identifying a list of ten LGU scientists who will meet with NASA scientists next month (August 1997) for such a session. Additionally, at this meeting at Goddard, MTPE asked SUNEI if it could assist on the USDA side with the advancement of a formal agreement between the two agencies that was discussed at the June 26 meeting between Secretary Glickman and Administrator Goldin. In part the agreement might address collaboration on the development of agricultural and natural resource management applications of geospatial technologies, as well as precision agriculture.

As a follow up to this meeting between the NASA Administrator and the Secretary of the USDA, SUNEI met with Dr. Miley Gonzalez, the Deputy Assistant Secretary Designate for Research, Education & Economics at USDA. At the June 26 meeting, Secretary Glickman directed the acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Dr. Cathy Woteki to serve as a point person for this activity prior to her new appointment in the Food Safety Division. Potentially a Remote Sensing Geospatial Technologies) Coordinating Committee might be formed including representatives from the different USDA agencies and LGUs, with SUNEI acting in a Secretariat function to coordinate the activities and help draft the formal agreement between the two agencies.

SUNEI has also held outreach meetings with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) and efforts are under way to outreach to the Department of Energy (DOE) and possibly the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The SUNEI has also: developed a relationship with the Mid-Atlantic Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Demonstration Pilot by serving on the ad hoc steering committee; acted as a coordinating organization for the Water Environment Federation Watershed Management Conference; and worked with the Project Leaders for the Mid-Atianbc, New England, Southern and southwestern OSTP Regional Global Climate Change Workshops sponsored by EPA, NSF, NASA, and DOI The SUNEI Secretariat is currently developing a Web site for SUNEI and ESCAPE, plans to begin the production of a quarterly newsletter, and will continue acting as a distribution clearinghouse for environmental and natural resource funding opportunities and other information to the LGU System.

Discussion:

If Extension is brought into the program, are they going to provide their funding?

The CSREES Steering Committee for the ESCOP Environmental Affairs Subcommittee is: Ralph Otto, Ann Datko, E. M. (Ted) Wilson, Eldon Ortman.

Ortman commented that there is a need to engage an education process, Extension needs to be making a contribution.

Lassoie suggested that natural resource community should be represented on the subcommittee. Dartmouth has 5 students who are evaluating the structure of the committee (for a $250 fee).
 
Price suggested that International programs can be included.

Payne reported that RFP's or CAN's are going to be released for $12 million for research and education dealing with how to essentially bring the toys in the sky down to the fields and how to do the linkage for precision agriculture, etc.
 

Action Requested:
Action Taken: 








ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 12.3
Presenter: D. R. MacKenzie
Agenda Item Title: ESCOP Strategic Planning Subcommittee Report

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Robinson expressed concern about all the different plans floating around. There is also the Report of the Futuring Conference. He questions how much attention has been paid to the agency strategic plan. Since ECOP already has developed their strategic plan, is there a way that ESCOP can catch up with them?

Neufville indicated that since the "Issues to Action" report is nowhere ready to implement, maybe the ESCOP Strategic Plan can be incorporated. The Board on Agriculture via Dr. Irv Omtvedt could help to coordinate ESCOP and ECOP plans.

Helms commented that the ESCOP Strategic Plan is linked to CRIS reporting.

MacKenzie restated his request for input to the Strategic Plan. The plan is to be put on the Web in late August.
 

Action Requested:
Action Taken: 








ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 12.4
Presenter: E. E. Ortman
Agenda Item Title: ESCOP Pest Management Strategies Subcommittee Report

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

A joint funding initiative has been developed between USDA CSREES and EPA. The objective of the RFP is to investigate issues resulting from passage of the Food Quality Protection Act.

Conceptually the chairs and committee see the further merging of research and extension activities within IPM. One example of that merging is the combination of research and extension funding into a single regional grants program.

Recently a small team of research and extension scientists came together to assess the current status and the future potential for the CSREES Pest Management Information Decision Support System (PMIDSS). A report from that assessment team is due shortly.

Dr. Gerritt Cuperus (Oklahoma State) has completed his IPA activity as IPM Coordinator with USDA. Dr. Harold Coble, Weed Scientist, North Carolina State University will begin as IPA in September 1997.

Action Requested:
Action Taken:
 
 
 

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 12.5
Presenter: R. L. Lower
Agenda Item Title: ESCOP Genetic Resources Subcommittee Report

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

The ESCOP Genetic Resources Subcommittee has met by telephone twice since the
November meeting and will be meeting in late summer or early fall as a follow-up
to the National Academy of Sciences plan (outline) for genomic research. This
plan follows a one-day symposium in Washington, D.C. in April and a two-day
meeting on genomics in Irvine, California in June. The subcommittee will be
addressing the land grant community's research needs and planning necessary to
develop a research program for agricultural genomics.

The subcommittee will also be charged with developing initial information
regarding budget lines and resource support numbers for the first five years of a
genomics program.

The chair and other members of the committee have been involved in a development of two strategic plans to assist in supporting plant breeding and genetics programs at Land Grant Universities. These plans result from a two-day workshop held in St. Louis in September, 1996 and directed by Dr. Ken Frey, Emeritus Professor, Iowa State University. One plan deals with assurance that their will be a satisfactory number of scientists, primarily breeders and geneticists, in the LGU to develop state-of-the-art cultivars of minor crops. Minor crops are described as those lacking in sufficient sales to encourage/entice private research to continue to make available high quality cultivars for the general public's use. The second plan is to assure the enhancement and evaluation of existing germplasm collections so that they are of value to both public and private breeders who are involved in cultivar improvement. Both plans have relied heavily upon the direction and judgment of land grant scientists and administrators and will call upon ESCOP leadership to develop a suitable framework to put these plans in place and to monitor and administer them in the coming decades.

Lastly, the chair of the committee is working with USDA-ERS in the development of a questionnaire which will seek information from across the Land Grant System about mechanisms of protection for intellectual property and the distribution of any royalties developed as a result of sales of the intellectual property.

Discussion:

The Committee looks at all life forms. There are two task forces operating with rewriting - assuring the US that it will always have a cadre to serve in developing minor crop cultivars. Funded between $1-3 million. The 2^nd task force is to assure enhancement and evaluation of existing germplasm collections so that they are of value to both public and private breeders.

The Food genome issue - started by corn growers. Initiative is > $10M. The climate is right. CSREES is behind genome issue. OMB was very clear with BOA that OMB is looking for a large well-planned agricultural initiative. OSTP says that the timing is right - but there may be tradeoffs. Large initiatives are proposed. AES needs to be in the forefront of these activities. We must sell this without jeopardizing existing programs.

Kaltenbach questioned if the plant genetics subcommittee should be expanded to include agricultural/food species. Should ESCOP take over genomics activities? The group support has been the Biotechnology Subcommittee. Should ESCOP take over this area? It is a plant genome oriented committee.

Scanes stated that the focus of group has been on plants.

Lower commented that additional members can be added to cover additional areas since group has been expanded to cover all life forms.
 
 

Action Requested:
Action Taken: The motion was made, seconded and carried that ESCOP will take the
leadership in including animals, insects, microbes and plants as part of the
Genetic Resources Subcommittee.

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 12.6
Presenter: R. D. Heil
Agenda Item Title: ESCOP Regional Research Coordination Subcommittee

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

NAME OF SUBCOMMITTEE: CC-5 ESCOP Regional Research Coordinating Subcommittee - Joint with CSREES and ECOP.

Purpose:

In conjunction with the Federal partner will a) maintain current reference documents regarding procedures and policies for regional research; b) make recommendations to ESCOP concerning the regional research portfolio relative to priorities; c) coordinate the review and approval process for National Research Support Projects (NRSP's) and National Research Projects (NRP's); d) make recommendations to ESCOP relative to policies needed to enhance regional research; and e) pursue mechanisms and make recommendations relative to increasing the efficiency, visibility, and opportunities for regional research management.

Membership:

Western Region AES Association - R. D. Heil (ED-W) Chair

North Central Region AES Association - R. L. Lower (Executive Director-NC)

Northeastern Region AES Association - D. L. MacKenzie (Executive Director-NE)

Southern Region AES Association - T. J. Helms (ED-S)

1890 Research Directors Association - S. L. Donald (ED-1890 ARD)

ECOP (To be assigned)

Other Participating Members

CSREES/USDA - G. E. Cooper
 

Action Requested:
Action Taken:

ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 12.7
Presenter: D. Rossi
Agenda Item Title: GPRA Report

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Concerns expressed are: (1) there is a need to refine a better definition of terms; (2) a need to recognize cross-state collaborative efforts while single state reports can also reflect on individual institutions.

Continuing issues and comments:

How do you handle multiple institutions within a state (SAES, CES, and Education) within a state and across states?

Need a report that does not appear as a report from individual states.

Resources needed to develop the GPRA reports in individual states.

How are Smith-Lever 3-d lines reported?

Overall concern is linkage and Strategic planning.

A single report is needed with multiple inputs.

How are the reports merged with other agencies to avoid double counting.

Academic programs already have their information. The data has already been collected at the national level.

The sum of the total effort is greater than an individual effort. Duplication of reporting is a concern. The quality of the report may not meet the needs of Congress.

GPRA will continue to evolve.

Robinson is concerned that the drafts from ECOP and ESCOP be laid side by side. GPRA will measure output of the system, not the outcome. We don't have a good measure of the outcomes. Research quantitative measurements will need to be supplemented with narrative statements.

The quality of narrative statements is also a concern.

Lower commented that some of best regional research is inter-regional.

Robinson noted research is funded from multiple resources.

It has been reported that NSF indicates that it will take $12 million/year to report, and they are reporting against two performance goals.

Hefferan commented that we're talking about a system where decision making responsibility is decentralized. If you try to start separating out the source across agencies, there will not be outcomes to show.

Kaltenbach is concerned about how this is going to affect the scientists. Most AES will have to pull resources from scientists to complete GPRA reporting.

Hefferan indicated that it should not have a substantial impact on scientists if they are already reporting their accomplishments.

MacKenzie commented that the idea behind the strategic plan is to bring scientists together annually in a public forum to report on achievements.

Helms noted that the CRIS enhancement group has recommended that CRIS reporting be changed. They have recommended that impact statements be reported with annual reports.

The deadline is November 1, 1997 for first round of reporting.

Robinson commented that the concept of "Oregon Invests" is where we want to be.
 

Action Requested:
Action Taken: 








ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 12.8
Presenter: G. E. Ham
Agenda Item Title: Grazing Lands Initiative

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Action Requested:
Action Taken:

ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 12.9
Presenter: T. J. Helms
Agenda Item Title: Impact Assessment

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Several mechanisms to handle inputs have been discussed. Deans and directors from selected states that have key congressional members on agriculture committees have been used.

Last year, ESCOP and ECOP chose to work collectively on development of impact assessment statements. The next step is to determine whether to continue with collection of impact assessments. Terry Meisenbach of CSREES has been retained to help train the communicators and administrators. One alternative that was discussed has been to tie into the early October workshop in Minnesota on the "Oregon Invests" workshop. However, the training may have to be handled on a regional basis, rather than a national basis.

MacKenzie commented that NE region assessments are wrapped into the Strategic Plan. Some institutions have staff to help with writing, others don't.
 

Action Requested:
Action Taken: 








ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 12.10
Presenter: T. Payne & R. L. Lower
Agenda Item Title: ESCOP FY98 & FY99 Budget Subcommittee Reports

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

The ESCOP FY 99 Budget Committee has met by fax, telephone and e-mail. The chair and vice-chair of the ESCOP Committee met with the Board on Agriculture FY 99 Budget Committee in Washington, D.C. on April 23,1997. The vice-chair, along with the other Executive Directors, also met with CSREES leadership on May 15,1997 to discuss the CSREES budget and to enhance coordination and identification of high priority areas for the FY 99 budget.

ESCOP developed a pairwise comparison test for elements within each of the major categories of the USDA research budget - base fund, NRI, special grants, and other. The results of the pairwise comparison were used in the development of the ESCOP FY 99 budget. The budget was reviewed by the EDs, the membership of the ESCOP FY 99 Budget Committee and the ESCOP Executive Committee. The budget is a viable document that will be changed as the other members of the Board on Agriculture budget process come forward with their line item numbers and attempts will be made to develop a satisfactory system-wide document. A copy of the ESCOP draft budget will be distributed.

The committee vice-chair and Dr. Terry Nipp, AESOP Enterprises, met with congressional staffers, representatives of CSREES (NRI), OMB and OSTP on June 25-26,1997 to discuss the FY 98, FY 99 budgets and the research title reauthorization. Specifically, a common topic in all of the discussions was the status of genome initiatives and the mechanisms to identify prominent needs and the necessary support.

The draft FY 99 Proposed ESCOP Budget follows:
 

D R A F T    FY 99 ESCOP BUDGET PROPOSAL  ($000)
	FY 97  Appropriations  Act	FY 98  President's  Budget	FY 98  NASULGC	FY 99  ESCOP
Base Programs:
Hatch Act	168,734	168,734	178,015	188,434
McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry	20,497	20,497	21,625	22,890
Evans-Allen Program (1890)	27,735	27,735	29,261	30,973
Animal Health & Disease, Section 1433	4775	4775	5038	6,106
Subtotal	221,741	221,741	233,939	248,403
Special Research Grants:
Critical Issues	200	200	200	200
Expert IPM Decision Support System	177	300	300	300
Food Safety	--	2,000	3,000	4,000
Global Change	1,567	1,567	2,567	1,567
Integrated Pest Mgt. & Biological Control	2,731	8,000	11,000	11,500
Minor Crop Pest Management, IR-4	10,711	10,711	10,711	10,711
Minor Use Animal Drugs	550	550	550	550
National Biological Impact Assessment Program	254	254	0	Delete
Pesticide Impact Assessment	1,327	1,327	1,327	1,327
Pest Management Alternatives	1,623	4,200	4,200	6,000
Rural Development Centers	423	423	1,595	1,423
United States/Israel-Binational Age Research & Development (BARD)	2,000	2,500	0	Delete
Water Quality	2,757	2,757	4,500	5,000
Tropical Subtropical Agriculture	2,724	--	2,724	2,724
Rural Economic and Social Development (1890)	--	2,000	2,000
Other:	39,492
Soil Quality		--	2,500	2,500
Managing Change		--	2,000	2,000
Precision Agriculture		--	--	1,000
Hypoxia		--	--	1,000
Subtotal	61,536	34,789	49,174	53,802
National Research Initiative Competitive Grants*
Natural Resource and the Environment	17,194	27,000	22,000	27,000
Nutrition, Food Safety and Health	7,209	11,000	10,000	11,000
Plants	36,044	47,000	39,000	47,000
Animals	23,104	29,500	25,500	29,500
Markets, Trade and Rural Development	3,897	6,500	8,000	6,500
Processing for Adding Value or Developing New Products	6,755	9,000	9,000	9,000
Subtotal	94,203	130,000	113,500	130,000
Other Research:
Critical Agricultural Materials	500	--	--	-
Rangeland Research	475	--	1,475	1,475
Aquaculture Centers	4,000	4,000	4,000	4,500
Sustainable Agriculture Program	8,000	8,000	8,100	9,500
Supplemental and Alternative Crops	650	650	650	1,000
Federal Administration (Direct Appropriation)	10,249	2,662	2,662	2,662
Subtotal	23,874	15,312	16,887	19,137
Total Research	401,354	401,842	413,500	451,342
Buildings and Facilities	61,591	--	--	-
Total Research Activities	462,945	401,842	413,500	451,342
*25,000 for genomic activities for all life forms
Delete - Based on ESCOP priority
7/30/97

 

Action Requested:
Action Taken: 








ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 13.0
Presenter: T. Nipp
Agenda Item Title: AESOP Report

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

There is one other dimension at how we select numbers. We can garner support by looking at commodity support. The bottom line is that the special interest groups help the process along. We don't want the process driven by the power process in Washington, DC.

Regarding the Farm Bill, the Senate Republicans asked if all the funds should be given to research and extension. The answer was that it would ultimately be at the expense of FRA (Fund for Rural America).

The Genome project is an emerging issue. How to work with the science community is a question that has been posed. There are many working on genome research, both in the public and private sector. TIGR is a private firm working on sequencing genes.

AESOP has been requested to have an expanded set of activities with regard to international programs. During the assessment discussion for costs for AESOP to address, there was concern that everyone was not going to sign on to AESOP's proposed budget increase.

In order to undertake new emerging issues, AESOP would need to have caliber of people on board to be able to handle the increased load.

To get programs reinstituted, e.g., rangelands, it would take a champion to go to the budget committee to carry the ball. AESOP is focusing on formula funds, the NRI, etc.
 

Action Requested:
Action Taken: 









ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 14.0
Presenter: R. L. Lower
Agenda Item Title: ESCOP By-Laws

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

These guidelines were initially rewritten with the assistance of the Executive Directors. This third draft is hopefully an accurate state of the times. However, it is probably not yet state-of-the art. The goal is to have both sets of Rules of Operation voted on at the November NASULGC meetings. In the next 30 days, I request each of you to take some time and review these and forward suggestions to me no later than September 1, 1997.

There are two areas that deserve specific attention. One is the appendix that deals with ESCOP publications. I would suggest that we eliminate that appendix in most respects except for format and that we agree that ESCOP publications will be electronic. If someone wants to download and make a copy for whatever use, that is appropriate. Thus, we will not be sending hundreds of hard copies to people through the mail.

My second request is that you look very closely at Article XII of (ESS) rules which deals with assessments. Hopefully, it is an accurate summation of numerous discussions that have been held within ESCOP and with other NASULGC Board on Agriculture partners. It prescribes and administers an ESCOP philosophy about assessments and sets forth a timetable that is very rigid. In its present form it will not accommodate emergencies or emerging issues or anything of the kind.

It is our goal by October 1 to have these "Draft" Rules of Operation in the hands of all Experiment Station Section Directors and on the web so that they may be reviewed and approved at the November Section meetings. This procedure is in keeping with the present bylaws.
 

Action Requested: Review and comments sent regarding draft Rules of Operation.
Action Taken:

ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 15.0
Presenter: M. Geasler
Agenda Item Title: Research Facility Task Force Report

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

The Task Force was appointed in April 1996 based on nominations presented to the Secretary. Forty-five names were submitted and 15 were selected. It is a very diverse group geographically and in attitude. The legislation says that the report needs to assure a comprehensive research capacity. The Task Force will determine capacity by looking and developing a set of recommendations relative to current research facilities (ARS & FS). Task Force members have visited facilities in Ames, IA. Six more meetings are planned around the country with the final meeting in Washington, DC.

Task force has developed a survey to be completed by universities and federal agencies regarding facilities. The survey instrument was discussed and suggestions were made.

An intern in CSREES has developed a white paper on government research facilities.

Helms, MacKenzie, Kaltenbach, Payne and Hefferan will constitute a Committee to help Geasler with the facilities survey. Hefferan suggested that the committee meet when the AES Directors' Workshop convenes in Washington, DC in September.

Action Requested:
Action Taken: Helms, MacKenzie, Kaltenbach, Payne and Hefferan will constitute a
Committee to help Geasler with the facilities survey. Hefferan suggested that the
committee meet when the AES Directors' Workshop convenes in Washington, DC in
September.

ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 16.0
Presenter: T. J. Helms
Agenda Item Title: Proposed EPA "Plant Pesticides" Policy

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

The Southern AES and CES Directors approved a resolution that proposes that OMB and OSTP intervene with EPA regarding cultivars. ESCOP is requested to develop a similar resolution.

Ortman reported that a different nomenclature than plant pesticide needs to be used.

MacKenzie reported that early laws regulated pharmaceuticals. No one looked at agriculture, and now the phrasing is for product and not process. There will be problems until we get biotechnology regulations that include policy statements that allow for process.

Helms urged adoption of concepts proposed by 11 scientific scientists.

Ortman and Helms will draft a letter to EPA to take to the ESCOP Chair's Advisory Committee for approval.
 

Action Requested:
Action Taken: 








ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 17.0
Presenter: D. Rossi
Agenda Item Title: Open Forum

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Robinson would encourage one of the faculty members to work with him on the Riley Foundation.
 

Action Requested:
Action Taken:

ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 18.0
Presenter: D. Rossi
Agenda Item Title: Preview of Joint ESCOP/ECOP/ACOP Meeting

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Action Requested:
Action Taken:

ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 19.0
Presenter: C. C. Kaltenbach
Agenda Item Title: Follow-up Actions to Joint Meeting

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Price had a conference call regarding to the NIFRAP report. He is trying to get congressional support. McPherson had contacted several presidents in support of the 150 account. There are 13 universities on the list that have largest number of USAID contracts. They have hired local lobbyists that have been effective in foreign relations in the past.

Strategic Plan:

There are several concerns about the Strategic Plan: (1) too many programs (2) cost of the panels (3) loss of integration of extension & teaching.

A Strategic Plan is to be done, but the vehicle is unknown. The purpose of the need for grouping is that reporting either by states or individual projects creates a problem. There is a need to capture across state lines and functions and report as some sort of aggregation. The draft plan attempts to integrate with the CRIS system and allows use of the CRIS accounting system. One can't equate RPA's on handout in the Draft Strategic Plan with RPA's that will come with restructured CRIS.

Helm's preference is to maintain set of programs to cut across multiple topic areas. He is looking for a unit to report across the goals that will reflect what has been accomplished and the return on investments.

The draft Plan will give a setting to have reports done in a professional way similar to a professional society report. In the audience would be five panels who take the reports, make analysis, and come up with documents that can be used for CARET and many other uses. The question is how do you take 33,000 projects and sort them into an accurate assessment of what we are accomplishing? We may lose accuracy if the 18 programmatic groups are reduced to 5 program areas.

The SAES National Agricultural Research Programs have a more direct link to the REE plan. MacKenzie commented that the personnel are already in place (impact assessment groups) to help reflect impacts from base programs, regional research, etc. that will be packaged for Congress, CARET, AESOP, etc. Where will the 18 proposed panels get their information from? As it currently stands, each state is to report progress against GPRA goals, and how do the proposed panels reflect against GPRA?

MacKenzie commented that a national forum could be held each year where presentations can be made on impacts of research.

Lower stated that the international centers audience is pretty clear. How do we get people to be the audience for our story?

MacKenzie commented that CARET, NASULGC, scientists, CSREES, other federal agencies are part of the audience.

Rossi reported that in the NE Region, the directors were bought into basic approach but halted on the extra cost. GPRA costs will have to be covered first.

Helms stated that one proposal supplants the GPRA process, while the other supplants image enhancement because it is a different plan. state needs - not regional and national level - will get more support.

Heil commented that the regional impact assessment can provide for the states - the national impact assessment captures for region and nationally.

Kaltenbach suggested that MacKenzie coalesce the 18 programs to make them workable. Publication costs will have to be determined. MacKenzie will approach ACOP and ECOP to find a way to integrate reporting of achievements and receive suggestions on how to couple with GPRA.

Rasmussen suggested that GPRA allow each state to select the most productive projects to report on GPRA, rather than report all projects. GPRA should be coupled with the strategic plan.
 
Discussion of the current language of the draft of Title VIII of the Farm Bill
resulted in recommended changes to discuss with the staffers.

AESOP Contract:

Assessment to fund AESOP contract. How are we going to deal with funds left over
at end of year? Nipp reported that he would like to retain the staff he has
already recruited. Need to be very thoughtful about what AESOP is to do next.
This Farm Bill is going to be determined by the development of regulations and
implementation process. After legislation is passed, AESOP will need to do
followup. Other opportunities - genome research (which is totally research) -
international issues. Options for budget balance - bank money, reduce assessment,
spend money. Can AESOP pay staff additional from balance? Some duties were not
addressed due to shortage of funds in assessment pool - will have to be addressed
in the future. Contract can be amended to cover increases in salaries. MacKenzie
commented that the system should add international dimension. Are other items to
be concentrated on such as IPM, NRI, etc.
The AESOP contract was discussed. An added international lobbying dimension should not come from existing funds. The remaining funds are $160,000. Should we carry some over? The issue of maintaining staff may need to be addressed.

Helms noted that it would be helpful, on a continuation basis, to have a budget.

Kaltenbach asked Nipp what changes need to be made to contract. What direction do we need to take. The current individual contract spells out what AESOP needs to do. On special projects basis AESOP may need to hire someone on a temporary basis to use balance of funds. AESOP should keep the Farm Bill and budget as principal items. Precision agriculture could be added.

ICOP provides $10,000 to AESOP. An additional person for AESOP to deal with international projects would cost at least $80,000.

The assessment is not to be reduced.

Rossi commented that we need to look at the full operation, since this is startup year.

Kaltenbach stated that the contributed amounts were short about $70,000 of assessment.

Johnsrud commented that we should have one year of operating funds in reserve. If you want to change what the contractor is to do, you develop specifications and have the contractor rebid.

Neufville reported that AESOP needs to provide a time and effort report that is required by the IRS.
 

Action Requested:
Action Taken:

ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 20.0
Presenter: M. Neufville
Agenda Item Title: Plans for Association Meetings

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Action Requested:
Action Taken:

ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 21.0
Presenter: R. L. Lower
Agenda Item Title: Proposed AES Directors' Workshop

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

  BACKGROUND INFORMATION - Managing State Agricultural Experiment Stations (1862) and Agricultural Research Stations (1890) Workshop that addresses techniques which apply to all stations.

This workshop would involve the same kind of schedule as SAES I (May 1-3, 1996) and the dates are September 10-12, 1997. The Holiday Inn Capitol in Washington, D.C. has been chosen as the location. The audience will be a mix of both experienced and inexperienced directors.

Deans and Directors will serve as moderators for each of the four one-half day sessions and the evening session. ESCOP Chair Kaltenbach will welcome the attendees and discuss the future goals of ESCOP, etc. The Honorable Mr. Richard Rominger, Deputy Secretary of USDA, will discuss partnering within the USDA. We will invite chairs of all COPs, other NASULGC/BOA players and REE/CSREES staff members. We expect attendance of at least 100 people.

We will have 30-minute breaks (coffee, tea and soft drinks), continental breakfasts, and a lunch for the full-day session. The first evening we wil1 have a sit-down dinner with a 30-minute program (speaker - invited) followed by a one-hour social. Dinner on the second day will be "on your own ."

a = accepted; i = invited; tba = to be announced

Wednesday, September 10

Session 1 1:OOp.m. - 5:30p.m.

Moderator - Rosemary Haggett (a), Dean and Director, College of Agriculture and Forestry, West Virginia University

WELCOME AND CHARGE 1:OOp.m. - 1:15p.m.

Colin Kaltenbach (a), Chair of ESCOP, Dean and Director, Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Arizona

- Future expectations of and Agenda for ESCOP (15)

PARTNERING WITHIN THE USDA 1:15 p.m. - 1:45 p.m.

The Honorable Richard E. Rominger (a), Deputy Secretary of USDA

- Developing linkages and enhancing cooperation within USDA (Food Safety; Natural Resources and Environment; Rural Economic and Community Development; Food, Nutrition and Consumer Sciences; Farm and Foreign Agricultural Service) (30)

PARTNERING WITHIN THE USDA/REE 1:45 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.

- Agricultural Research Service - Floyd Horn (i), Administrator (20)

- Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension - Bob Robinson (i), Administrator (20)

- Economic Research Service - Katherine R. Smith (a), Director (20)

- National Agricultural Statistics Service - Donald Bay (a), Administrator (20)

25-minute discussion about merging research planning activities. (Karen Craig (a), Dean of Human Sciences, University of Nebraska, to lead discussion)

Break 3:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.

PARTNERING WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES 4:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.

- Agency for International Development - tba

- Department of Development - tba Will select three to

- Department of Energy - tba Four presentations

- Environmental Protection Agency - tba

- Department of Health and Human Services - tba

- National Aeronautics and Space Administration - tba

30-minute discussion - Strategic planning with the above players (David MacKenzie (a), Executive Director, Northeast Region, University of Maryland, to lead discussion)

Session 2 6:30 p.m. - 9.00 p.m.

Moderator - Dan Rossi (a), Chair-Elect of ESCOP, Director, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, Rutgers University

Dinner 6:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.

After Dinner Program 7.30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.

Futuristic presentation - tba

Social/Reception 8:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. (Cash bar)

Thursday, September 11

Session 3 8:00 am. - 12:00 p.m.

Moderator - Richard Jones (a), Dean, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida

DEVELOPMENT, COORDINATION AND STRENGTHENING OF SAKS LINKAGES - (20 minute introduction (plus 6 10-minute presentations))
 

- Partnering within the NASULGC framework - Mortimer Neufville (a), Director of Federal Relations, NASULGC (20)

- Schools of Forestry - Jim Lassoie (a), Chair, Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University (10)

- Schools of Veterinary Medicine - David Thawley (a), Dean, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota (10)

- Schools of Human Sciences - tba (10)

- 1890 Institutions - Carolyn Brooks (a), Director, University of Maryland-Eastern Shore (10)

- 1994 Institutions - tba (10)

- Offshore Territories - Jeff D. T. Barcinas (a), Dean/Director University of Guam (10)

RESPONSE PANEL - Tom Payne (a), Director, OARDC, Ohio State University/Sam Donald (a), Executive Director, 1890 Institutions University of Maryland-Eastern Shore/Barbara Stowe (a), Dean, Human Ecology, Kansas State University (30 minutes)

BREAK 10:00 a.m. - 10:30 a.m.

BUDGET WORKSHOP - 10:30 a.m - 12:00 p.m.

A broad and in-depth approach to understanding the process

- The NASULGC BOA Process - Players and Responsibilities - tba (30)

- The Administrative Process - CSREES - REE - USDA - OMB - White House -tba (30)

RESPONSE PANEL - Tom Helms (a), Executive Director, Southern Region, Mississippi State University/Helen McHugh (a), Director, Colorado State University/Walter Hill (i), Director, Tuskegee University (30)

LUNCH 12:00p.m. - l:OOp.m.

Thursday, September 11

Session 4 1:30p.m. - 5:00p.m.

Moderator - Patricia A. Jensen (a), Vice President and Dean for Agricultural Affairs, North Dakota State University

BUDGET WORKSHOP (contd.)

1:30p.m. - 2:30p.m.

- The Legislative Process - Budget, Authorization, Appropriation - Terry Nipp (a), President, AESOP Enterprises, Inc., Washington, D.C. (45)

Response - Q & A (15)

2:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.

- The Consulting and Lobbying Process, Stakeholder Role - Building Advocacy - Vic Lechtenberg (a), Dean, College of Agriculture, Purdue University (45)

Response - Q & A (15)

BREAK 3:30p.m. - 4. 00p.m.

4:00p.m - 5.00p.m.

- A Real World Perspective to Building Budget Support - 3-4 representatives from "The Hill" (tba) (45)

Response - Q & A (15)

DINNER On your own

Friday, September

Session 5 8:00a.m. - 12:00p.m.

Moderator - Thomas J. McCoy (a), Dean and Director, College of Agriculture, Montana State University

MANAGING THE GPRA PROCESS 8:00a.m. - 9:45a.m.

- Understanding the Goals, Linking Goals to Budget, Linking Budget to Reporting - Colien Hefferan(a), Associate Administrator, CSREES/George Cooper (a), Deputy Administrator, Partnerships (60)

- Implementation at the SAES Level - John Nye (i), Dean and Director, University of Delaware/James Walker (a), Research Director, South Carolina State University/Ronnie Coffman, Director, Cornell University (i) (15)

BREAK 9:45a.m. - 10:00a.m.

BUILDING AND SHARING KNOWLEDGE 10:00a.m. - ll:50a.m.

- ACOP/ESCOP Leadership Development Program - Vicki McCracken (a), Director, Washington State University/Robert Heil (a), Executive Director, Western Region, Colorado State University (40)

- The "New" CRIS Program - Colin Kaltenbach (a), Dean and Director, College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (35)

- The REEIS Program - Jane Coulter (a), Deputy Administrator, CSREES (35)

SYNTHESIS AND WRAP UP 11:50a.m. - 12:00p.m.

Richard Lower, Executive Director, North Central Region, University of Wisconsin

ADJOURN 12:00p.m.

Helzel reported that each of the COPs had training sessions and that they also had national meetings of independent groups. There are 15-20 new extension directors. He would like to have a training session for ECOP and ACOP in Spring 1998. The suggestion is to have a common training session with breakout for special interests. ECOP indicated that they wanted to provide training for only new directors - not existing directors.

ESCOP, ECOP and ACOP will have joint training session in Spring 1998.
 

Action Requested:
Action Taken:

ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 22.0
Presenter: H. P. Rasmussen
Agenda Item Title: Nominations Committee Report

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Action Requested: Approval of seconded motion of election of Chair-Elect.
Action Taken: Approved election of Darrell E. Nelson (NE) as Chair-Elect of ESCOP
for 1998.

ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 23.0
Presenter: D. C. Coston
Agenda Item Title: Resolutions Committee

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

Action Requested: Approval of resolution.
Action Taken: Resolution unanimously approved.

ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 24.0
Presenter: R. D. Heil
Agenda Item Title: Future ESCOP Meetings

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

ACOP will host in the Joint Meeting in 1999 and will begin working on site.
 

Action Requested:
Action Taken:

ESCOP AGENDA BRIEF

Meeting Date: July 28-30, 1997
Agenda Item: 25.0
Presenter: C. C. Kaltenbach
Agenda Item Title: Other Business

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

The CRIS Update system is developing a final report. Beta testing of taxonomy changes is underway. A great deal of the recommended changes are already in place. Each Executive Director was requested to provide a list of eight names to be selected from for an in-house workshop. The focus of the new taxonomy is on science. Comments are welcome. The proposed revised CRIS Update can be accessed at: http://www.msstate.edu/org/saaesd/.

The suggestion was made that the four Executive Directors draft a letter to the House Agriculture Committee relative to Title VIII from the regions. AESOP is in the position to respond. A common response should be appropriate.
 

Action Requested:
Action Taken: 

"Sec. 296. GENERAL PROVISIONS. - The Congress declares that, in order to achieve the mutual goals among nations of ensuring food security, human health, agricultural growth, trade expansion, and the wise use of natural resources, the United States should widely employ the capacities of the United States universities and their public and private partners for (a) global agricultural research, (b) improved human capacity and institutional resource development for the global application of agricultural and environmental sciences, (c) agricultural trade research and extension services to support the entry of rural industries into world markets, and (d) in general providing for the application of agricultural science to solving food, health, rural income, and environmental problems of the developing countries.

land-grant universities

"The Congress so declares because it finds -

"(1) that the establishment, endowment, and continuing support of land grant universities in the United States by federal, state, and county governments has led to agricultural progress in this country;

"(2) that land-grant and other universities in the United States have demonstrated over many years their ability to cooperate with international agencies, educational and research institutions in other countries, and private and non-governmental organizations worldwide, in expanding agricultural production, processing and trade, benefitting the US and other economies;

"(3) that, in a world of growing populations with rising expectations, increased food production and improved distribution, storage, and marketing in the developing countries is necessary not only to ensure human health and child survival, but to build the economic base for growth and trade, and the social security in which democracy and free enterprise can thrive; moreover, that the greatest potential for increasing world food supplies and incomes to purchase food are in the developing countries where the gap between food need and food supply is the greatest and current incomes are lowest;

"(4) that the engagement of land-grant universities in agricultural development in cooperating countries strengthens the competitiveness of U.S. agricultural and other industry by training future partners indeveloping countries and by introducing global perspectives into U.S. curriculum, research and public services, research and other programs of the land grant universities;

"(5) that increasing and making more secure the supply of safe and nutritious food is of greatest benefit to the poorest majority in the developing world;

"(6) that research, teaching and extension activities, and appropriate institutional and policy development therefore are prime factors in increasing agricultural production, processing and marketing abroad (as well as in the United States) and in provident management and utilization of natural resources;

"(7) moreover, that agricultural research abroad has in the past and will continue in the future to provide benefits for agriculture and the broader economy in the United States and that increasing the availability of food of higher nutritional quality is of benefit to all; and

"(8) that universities and their public and private partners need a dependable source of matching Federal funding, as well as other financing, in order to increase the impact of their own investments and those of their state governments and constituencies, in order to continue and expand their efforts to advance agricultural development in cooperating countries, to translate development into economic growth and trade for the US and cooperating countries, and to prepare future teachers, researchers, extension specialists, entrepreneurs, managers, and decision-makers for the world economy.

"Accordingly, the Congress declares that, in order to promote global partnerships for agricultural research, development and trade, the following various components must be brought together in a coordinated program to increase world food and fiber production, agricultural trade and responsible management of natural resources, including -

"(1) learning opportunities about global agriculture for U.S. students, teachers, community leaders, entrepreneurs and the general public through curriculum, international internships and exchanges, and other means of education and extension;

"(2) collaborative research support programs (among U.S. universities, national agricultural research systems, and others), international agricultural research centers, and global agricultural research and development broadly;

"(3) transformation of the benefits of global agricultural research and development into increased trade and trade benefits for US agriculturally-related industries through trade information and services, particularly for rural communities, through extension, cooperatively with and supportive of existing public and private trade related organizations;

"(4) competitive grants to U.S. agriculturalists and their partners from other countries for research, institution and policy development, extension, training and other programs for global agricultural development, trade and responsible management of natural resources;

"(5) facilitation of universities and their public and private partners participation in programs of multilateral banks and agencies which receive US funds;

"The United States should -

"(1) effectively involve the United States land-grant and other eligible universities, and their partners more extensively in each of the above five program components;

"(2) provide mechanisms for the universities and their partners to participate and advise in the planning, development, implementation, and administration of each component; and

"(3) assist such universities and their partners in cooperative joint efforts with -

"(A) agricultural institutions in developing nations, and

"(B) regional and international agricultural research centers, and

"(C) multilateral banks and agencies receiving US funds,

"(D) U.S. Government foreign assistance and economic cooperation efforts,

directed to strengthening their joint and respective capabilities and to engage them more effectively in research, teaching, and extension activities for solving problems in food production, processing, marketing, and consumption in agriculturally underdeveloped nations; for transforming gains in agricultural production into economic growth, trade and trade benefits for US industries; and for the provident use of natural resources.

"As used in this title, the term 'universities' means those colleges or universities in each State, territory or possession of the United States, or the District of Columbia, now receiving, or which may hereafter receive, benefits under the Act of July 2, 1862 (known as the First Morrill Act), or the Act of August 30, 1890 (known as the Second Morrill Act), which are commonly known as 'land-grant' universities; institutions now designated or which may hereafter be designated as sea-grant colleges under the Act of October 15, 1966 (known as the National Sea Grant College and Program Act), which are commonly known as sea-grant colleges; Native American Land Grant Colleges and Universities as authorized in 1994; and other United States colleges and universities which -

"(1) have demonstrable capacity in teaching, research, and extension activities in the agricultural sciences;

"(2) can contribute effectively to the attainment of the objectives of this title; and

"(3) agree to such principles of cost-sharing between the Federal government and universities and their partners as may be prescribed.

"As used in this title, the term "public and private partners of universities" includes other education institutions, U.S. Government and State agencies, private voluntary organizations, non-governmental organizations, firms operated for profit, non profit organizations, organizations and firms incorporated in the U.S. and those, except where designated otherwise, incorporated in other countries, and multinational banks, organizations and agencies, that have cooperative or contractual agreements with universities.

"As used in this title, the term 'Administrator' means the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, or successor.

"As used in this title, the term 'agriculture' shall be considered to include the science and practice of activity related to food, feed and fiber production, processing, marketing, distribution, utilization and trade, and extend to family and consumer sciences, food science and engineering, aquaculture, veterinary medicine, forestry, fisheries, and other environmental and natural resource sciences.

"As used in this title, the term 'agriculturists' shall be considered to include farmers, persons who fish and others employed in cultivating and harvesting food resources from salt and fresh waters, as well as the processors, managers, teachers, extension specialists, researchers, policy-makers, and others who are engaged in the food, feed and fiber system and its relationship to natural resources.

"Sec. 297. GENERAL AUTHORITY - To carry out the purposes of this title, the President is authorized to provide assistance on such terms and conditions as he shall determine -

"(1) to implement program components authorized by paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of this subsection;

"(2) to build and strengthen the institutional capacity and human resource skills of agriculturally developing countries so that these countries may participate more fully in the international agricultural and environmental problem-solving effort and to introduce and adapt new solutions to local circumstances;

"(3) to provide program support for U.S. university global agricultural and related environmental learning opportunities for students, teachers, extension specialists, researchers and the general public;

"(4) to involve U.S. universities more fully in the international network of agricultural science, including the international agricultural research centers, the activities of international organizations such as the United Nations Development Program and the Food and Agriculture Organization, the multilateral banks and the institutions of agriculturally developing nations; and

"(5) to provide program support for international agricultural research centers, to provide support for research projects identified for specific problem-solving needs, and to develop and strengthen national research systems in the developing countries. "Programs under this title shall be carried out so as to -

"(1) utilize and strengthen the capabilities of U.S. universities and their government and non-government partners in -

"(A) developing capacity in the cooperating nations for classroom teaching in agriculture, plant and animal sciences, environmental sciences, human nutrition, family and consumer sciences and vocational and domestic arts and other relevant fields appropriate to local needs;

"(B) agricultural research to be conducted in the cooperating nations, at international agricultural research centers, or in the United States;

"(C) the planning, initiation, and development of extension services through which information concerning agriculture, environment and related subjects will be made available directly to agriculturalists in the agriculturally developing nations by means of education and demonstration; or

"(D) the exchange of educators, scientists, and students for the purpose of assisting in successful development in the cooperating nations;

"(2) take into account the value to United States agriculture of such programs, integrating to the extent practicable the programs and financing authorized under this title with those supported by other Federal, State or private resources so as to maximize the contribution to the development of agriculture in the United States and in agriculturally developing nations; and

"(3) whenever practicable, build on existing programs and institutions including those of the universities, state governments, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Department of Interior, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and others.

"To the maximum extent practicable, activities under this section shall (1) be designed to achieve the most effective interrelationship among the teaching of agricultural and environmental sciences, research, and extension work, (2) focus on the needs of agricultural producers, rural families, processors, traders, consumers and conservators of natural resources, (3) be adapted to local circumstances, and (4) be carried out within the developing countries.

"The President shall exercise his authority under this section through the Administrator.

Establishment 22 USC 2220c

"Sec. 298. BOARD FOR GLOBAL COOPERATION IN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND TRADE

- To assist in the administration of the programs authorized by this title,

the President shall establish a permanent Board for Global Cooperation in

Agricultural Research, Development and Trade hereafter in this title referred to as the 'Board') consisting of seven members, not less than four to be selected from U.S. universities. Terms of members shall be set by the President at the time of appointment. Members of the Board shall be entitled to such reimbursement for expenses incurred in the performance of their duties (including per diem in lieu of subsistence while away from their homes or regular place of business) as the President deems appropriate.

"The Board's general areas of responsibility shall include, but not be limited to

"(1) participating in the planning, development, and implementation of,

"(2) initiating recommendations for, and

"(3) monitoring of, the activities described in section 297 of this title.

"The Board's duties shall include, but not necessarily be limited to-

"(1 ) participating in the formulation of basic policy, procedures, and criteria for project proposal review, selection, and monitoring;

"(2) developing and keeping current a roster of universities-

"(A) interested in exploring their potential for collaborative relationships with agricultural institutions, and with scientists working on significant programs designed to improve agricultural production, trade, and natural resource management in developing countries,

"(B) having capacity in the agricultural and environmental sciences,

"(C) able to maintain an appropriate balance of teaching, research, and extension functions,

"(D) having capacity, experience, and commitment with respect to international agricultural efforts, and

"(E) able to contribute to solving the problems addressed by this title;

"(3) recommending which developing nations could benefit from programs carried out under this title, and identifying those nations which have an interest in establishing or developing agricultural institutions which engage in teaching, research, or extension activities;

"(4) reviewing and evaluating memorandums of understanding or other documents that detail the terms and conditions between the Administrator and universities and their partners participating in programs under this title;

"(5) reviewing and evaluating agreements and activities authorized by this title and undertaken by universities and their partners to assure compliance with the purposes of this title;

"(6) recommending to the Administrator the apportionment of funds under section 297 of this title;

"(7) assessing the impact of programs carried out under this title in solving agricultural problems and natural resource issues in the developing nations, assuring efficiency in use of federal resources especially as required by the Governmental Performance Reform Act of 19; and,

"(8)Advising the Administrator on any and all issues as requested.

"The President may authorize the Board to create such subordinate units as may be necessary for the performance of its duties, including but not limited to the following:

"(1) a Joint Programs Committee to participate in the development of the collaborative activities described in section 297 of this title; and

"(2) a Joint Operations Committee which shall assist and advise on the mechanisms and processes for implementation activities described in section 297 of this title.

"In addition to any other functions assigned to and agreed to by the Board, the Board shall be consulted in the preparation of the annual report required by section 300 of this title and on other agricultural development activities related to programs under this title.

"Sec. 299. AUTHORIZATION. - The President is authorized to use any of the funds hereafter made available under section 103 of this Act to carry out the purposes of this title. Funds made available for such purposes may be used without regard to the provisions of sections l 1 0(b), 21 1 (a) 21 1 (d) of this Act.

"Foreign currencies owned by the United States and determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to be excess to the needs of the United States shall be used to the maximum extent possible in lieu of dollars in carrying out the provisions of this title.

"Assistance authorized under this title shall be in addition to any allotments or grants that may be made under other authorizations.

"Universities may pursue, accept and expend funds from other sources, public and private, in order to carry out the purposes of this title. All such funds, both prospective and inhand, shall be periodically disclosed to the Administrator as he shall by regulation require, but no less often than in an annual report.

Presidential report to Congress, 22 USC 2220s

"Sec. 300. ANNUAL REPORT. - The President shall transmit to the Congress, not later than April 1 of each year, a report detailing the activities carried out pursuant to this title during the preceding fiscal year and containing a projection of programs and activities to be conducted during the subsequent five fiscal years. Each report shall contain a summary of the activities of the Board established pursuant to section 298 of this title and may include the separate views of the Board with respect to any aspect of the programs conducted or proposed to be conducted under this title.".

"Sec. 103. FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR TITLE XII. The Administrator shall ensure that Title XII program components in paragraphs (1) through (5) are employed widely throughout the Agency for International Development as instruments for development cooperation, including special programs for Africa, Russia and newly independent states and on-going programs for child survival, democratization, development of free enterprise, environmental and natural resource management and other programs. A fund of $500 million is established within Account 150, the International Affairs Account, for expenditure in FY 1998, for the purposes of Title XII, to be maintained in real dollars this level or higher in each year FY 1999 through 2003. The International Affairs Account, Account 150 of the U.S. federal budget, is increased to the level of $20 billion in FY 1998, and shall be increased 3 per cent annually in FY 1999 through FY 2003.

Letter from Dr. Harold Matteson to B. H. Robinson regarding GASEPA:

July 25, 1997
 

Dr. B. H. Robinson

Administrator

Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service

U. S. Department of Agriculture

1400 Independence Avenue, SW

Room 305-A, Whitten Building

Washington, D.C. 20250-2200
 

Dear Bob,

This is a follow-up to our recent telephone conversation during which you suggested I prepare some notes on what I have verbally shared with you regarding how various programs and activities in which IAS/ICOP members are involved relate to the implementation of the GASEPA Agenda.

Let me begin by sharing our current implementation plan for the GASEPA Agenda which will evolve to some extent as we attempt to carry out our implementation strategy. Our current strategy is comprised of two major interrelated sets of actions.

First, we plan to identify and collaborate with entities that have existing and potential programs, activities, and initiatives which can contribute to the accomplishment of the GASEPA goals and objectives.

Specific actions identified and being implemented are:

1. The IAS/ICOP through a cooperative agreement between the Ohio State University and the International Programs Office in CSREES is in the process of creating a web page which will include the GASEPA Agenda and an inventory of agencies and entities that have existing and potential programs, activities, and initiatives which can assist our universities to accomplish the goals and objectives of GASEPA. This inventory will be concise and brief but will indicate who to contact for more information on each program, activity, or initiative.

2. IAS/ICOP members are working with other groups regarding the funding level of the 150 Account particularly the international agriculture portion of this account. Our major concern is to ensure adequate funding levels of AID, USIA) and the U.S. contribution to Regional and World Banks. We are collaborating with the Association for International Agricultural and Rural Development (AIARD) and the Commission on International Trade, Development and Cooperation of the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy (NCFAP) in this effort. Peter McPherson, President of Michigan State University, has been asked to facilitate university involvement in the implementation of recommendations found in the previously mentioned Commission's report.

3. We are participating in follow-up actions to the World Food Summit. Two current activities are:

1) We are providing inputs into the inter-agency working paper on research, extension and education. This will be accomplished by:

- reviewing and providing informal feedback on draft copies of this interagency working group's papers

- nominating IAS/ICOP members to the newly formed BIFAD subcommittee on food security which will be asked to review the inter-agency working group's papers

2) With the encouragement and facilitation of Dr. Neville Clarke, we are organizing a national conference on the role of U.S. universities in the U.S. commitment to actions resulting from the World Food Summit. The purpose of the conference would be to:

- provide a forum for defining the role of U.S. universities in implementing the U.S. Government's Action Plan on Pood Security, which follows from the commitments made at the recent World Food Summit

- identify key issues and opportunities to form the basis for the university role in the U.S. Action Plan

- develop the framework for an implementation plan involving university, government, and industry partnerships to meet the objectives of the U.S. Action Plan

- establish the basis for continued engagement in planning, conducting, and evaluating the efforts needed to implement the U.S. Action Plan.

This Conference will be developed in conjunction with the State Department and with other agencies responsible for the Development of the World Food Summit follow-up action plans. It will provide a forum for discussing and identifying areas of collaboration related to implementation of the GASEPA Agenda, recommendations of the Commission on International Trade Cooperation and Development, the Inter-agency plan of action, and other programs and activities of mutual interest.

A major outcome of the Conference will be identification of needed collaborative and individual legislative and funding actions to accomplish goals and objectives found in the GASEPA Agenda.

Second, we plan to identify needed legislative and funding actions to accomplish GASEPA goals and objectives either collaboratively with others or through our own initiative.

Specific actions identified and being implemented are:

1. Revision of Section 1458 of the research, extension and teaching portion of the Farm Bill. This revision will authorize CSREES to conduct a competitive grants program similar to the GAP Initiative. This program would be used to facilitate implementation of the GASEPA Agenda at our respective universities.

2. Integration of the GAP Initiative/GASEPA Agenda into the 1999 NASULGC Budget Recommendations.

3. Exploration of alternative appropriated funding for the previously stated competitive grants program. Realistically, we can only expect a limited amount of funding through the USDA budget. Thus, we are seeking to identify other possible sources such as the Department of Defense, and possibly the Department of Commerce and EPA. We are anxious that funds not be diverted from other programs within CSREES for our international initiatives.

4. Preparation and circulation to congressional staff of an updated draft of the Title XII provisions that were part of the amendment of the Foreign Assistance Act in 1975. Hopefully, this will be considered and used if the Foreign Assistance authorization legislation is revised.

Bob, I trust that this information will clarify and show linkages between what might seem to be a wide variety of disconnected activities. It is our intention to become involved in activities which will, in some way, contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the GASEPA goals and objectives.

Your interest and support is greatly appreciated. As always, we welcome your thoughts and comments.

Sincerely,

Harold R. Matteson

Associate Vice President
 
 

DRAFT 7/8/97

(Version3.0) Medium Term Strategic Plan

 Table of Contents

Summary . . .

Vision Statement . . .

Mission Statement . . .

Purpose of This Plan . . .

The Purposes of Agricultural Research . . .

Strategic Issues . . .

Assumptions . . .

Guiding Principles . . .

Environmental Assessments . . .

External Assessment . . .

Internal Assessment . . .

Comparative Advantages . . .

Strategies and Priorities . . .

Management Strategies . . .

Management Priorities . . .

Research Strategies . . .

Program Organization . . .

Program Structure ......

National Agricultural Research Program Committees . . .

National Performance Panels . . .

The Place of Initiatives . . .

Advantages of This Plan . . .

Time Table . . .

Implementing Strategies . . .

Budgeting Strategies . . .

Measures of Success . . .

Appendix I . . .

Appendix II . . .

Appendix III . . .
 
 

DRAFT 7/8/97
 A Medium Term (1998-2002) Strategic Plan for the

 Summary

 This strategic plan⁽²⁾ is intended to represent a comprehensive roadmap of national strategies for the agricultural⁽³⁾ research activities that will be conducted directly by the State Agricultural Experiment Station (SAES) System, and in partnership with others. This document is also intended to communicate critical milestones on the way towards intended accomplishments for the System's users (i.e., customers, consumers, stakeholders, agricultural leaders, and decision makers), as we look to new ways to enhance the performance of the System and report on the benefits of research results. Our plan should be considered to be a dynamic, working document. Periodic updates will be issued as needed.

Through this plan the SAES System renews its commitments to the Land-Grant University's fundamental paradigm that integrates teaching, research and extension for maximum public benefit. This renewal will allow the System to provide more concerted efforts when responding to publicly relevant issues, which have been voiced in successive citizen engagement sessions.

These citizen-identified issues have been transformed through a process of strategic planning into a set of national agricultural research programs and initiatives. Linking these Systemwide programs and initiatives to the extension System's base programs and initiatives, and to the national strategic plan in higher education, will better assure delivery of customer relevant research results for immediate and future public needs. 1

 DRAFT 7/8/97

The SAES System has comparative advantages that allow it to provide public-relevant knowledge and information. Paramount among these is our long-term collaborations within and among Land-Grant institutions, and our partnership with the federal government through the USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). This strategic plan builds on these relationships, and extends the partnership strategy in new ways, to serve the public better.

The System also plans to more broadly define its mission to address better publicly relevant issues, and to provide better research support for the extension and teaching missions of our paradigm partners. Additionally, the SAES System will use the five goals⁽⁴⁾ jointly derived with our federal partners as a framework for planning our national research activities, and for reporting our research results through mechanisms such as those required by the Government Performance and Results Act.

The SAES System views itself as an entity greater than the sum of its parts, primarily as a virtue of participating in coordinated project planning and research collaborations within the SAES network. The SAES System is seeking even greater enhanced performance as a "System." This outcome will be realized primarily as:

- Improved scientific quality of our research;

- Enhanced responsiveness to our customers;

- More stakeholder relevance in our research activities;

- Better integration with our institutional functions;

- Better transfer of new technologies to our intended U.S. users;

- A stronger partnership with the federal government;

- More accountability; and

- Greater public confidence in the SAES System.

To assure the quality of the System's research, its responsiveness to customers, and its relevance to stakeholder needs, several significant changes are being implemented. We are:

- Expanding our capacity to engage our customers, to better respond to what they need;

- Reorganizing our national research portfolio, to better address our customers' needs;

- Expanding the use of peer review, to enhance evaluations of scientific merit;

- Introducing the use of surveys, to evaluate customer satisfaction;

- Maintaining an inventory of national research capacity, to better manage our strengths;

- Refocusing our research, to better obtain societal, economic, and environmental benefits;

- Building new coalitions, to more fully accomplish our research objectives; and

- More vigorously communicating the System's accomplishments and successes; 2

 DRAFT 7/8/97
 

This plan offers the opportunity to pass to our children, and to their children:

- A more environmentally friendly and sustainable U.S. agriculture;

- Increased satisfaction with the harvested and processed products of U.S. agriculture;

- More nutritious and safer foods for healthier Americans;

- Improved quality of life for all American citizens; and

- Stronger U.S. families and communities.

At the same time:

- U.S. farmers and ranchers will benefit from increased productivity and profitability;

- The commerce of U.S. agriculture will become more diversified;

- Consumers will have a safer and more nutritious food supply;

- The management of our nation's natural resources will be more informed;

- Global marketing of U.S. agricultural products will expand; and

- American jobs will be created.

The SAES System recognizes that the future holds many unknowns, and significant resource constraints may limit our achievements. Given the public's expectations for solving the important agricultural, environmental and social issues identified through our listening sessions, the System's agenda is clear. And, given past rates of return for agricultural research expenditures, these proposed research investments are well justified. 3

 DRAFT 7/8/97 A Medium Term (1998-2002) Strategic Plan for the

Vision Statement

The SAES System will be viewed by its primary stakeholders, and by the general public, as the premier providers of science-based agricultural research knowledge that is relevant, useful, and timely for addressing current and future problems, and for creating opportunities.

Mission Statement

The SAES System provides the relevant and appropriate scientific knowledge and the research capacity needed for: an economically viable and environmentally sustainable food, forest, ornamental, and fiber production system; a safe, dependable, nutritious, diverse, and affordable food supply; the preservation and protection of natural resources; and a satisfactory quality of life for all citizens and their communities.

Purpose of This Plan

Strategic planning within the State Agricultural Experiment Station⁽⁵⁾ (SAES) System has, for nearly two decades, been primarily focused on describing a national "strategic agenda" of ranked agricultural research priorities. This process has recently given way to a more integrated approach that has brought together the Land-Grant University functions (i.e., teaching, extension and research) to identify common issues leading to action. This "Issues to Action"⁽⁶⁾ process involved a series of regional listening sessions followed by a synthesis of issues leading to a plan of action. The entire activity was premised on determined efforts to streamline collaborations among the Land-Grant Universities, and across functions. This most recent cross functional planning effort has set the stage for a new approach to strategic planning for the SAES System.

The SAES System is interested in receiving comments, endorsements, recommendations, criticisms, and points-of-concern in response to this plan as the SAES Directors organize the System's programs and allocate their resources for the next five years. 4

 DRAFT 7/8/97 The Purposes of Agricultural Research

The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (a.k.a. the Farm Bill) lists the following purposes for agricultural research.

"The purposes of federally supported agricultural research, extension and education are to-

"(1) enhance the competitiveness of the United States agriculture and food industry in an increasingly competitive world environment;

"(2) increase the long-term productivity of the United States agriculture and industry while maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base on which rural America and the United States agricultural economy depend;

"(3) develop new uses and new products for agricultural commodities, such as alternative fuels, and develop new crops;

"(4) support agricultural research and extension to promote economic opportunity in rural communities and to meet the increasing demand for information and technology transfer throughout the United States agriculture industry;

"(5) improve risk management in the United States agriculture industry;

"(6) improve the safe production and processing of, and adding value to, United States food and fiber resources using methods that maintain the balance between yield and environmental soundness;

"(7) support higher education in agriculture to give the next generation of Americans the knowledge, technology, and applications necessary to enhance the competitiveness of United States agriculture; and

"(8) maintain an adequate, nutritious, and safe supply offood to meet human nutritional needs and requirements."

The SAES System has adopted these purposes as a foundation for this strategic plan.

In partnership with the SAES System, the USDA's Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area and its Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) have identified five strategic goals⁽⁷⁾. These five goals provide an accurate and well-defined framework for the SAES System's strategic planning efforts, and thus the five Federal-State Partnership's goals have been adopted for this planning process as well. 5

 DRAFT 7/8/97 Strategic Issues

 In several recent national and regional listening sessions, and through continuing customer engagements, the SAES System has identified a number of customer-important needs and priorities. These have been assembled into a list of customer-identified issues, stated as the need to:

- Assure access to technologies to provide reasonable farm and ranch productivity and profitability;

- Deliver technologies that are integrated, and proven on a realistic scale;

- Develop production methods that are sustainable, and environmentally friendly;

- Resolve public and scientific concerns for agriculture's over-reliance on pesticides and fertilizers;

- Address broad-based public desire for a pollution-free environment;

- Support informed management of our natural resources; including soils, water, air, and biota;

- Assure a supply of nutritious and safe foods for all Americans;

- Answer growing consumer demands for an assured, secure, accessible and affordable food and fiber supply;

- Give research emphasis to technologies that create jobs, and distribute benefits equitably;

- Assure that U.S. agriculture will remain internationally competitive in emerging global market place;

- Apply technologies for more precise agricultural production methods;

- Develop technologies that add value to harvested products;

- Find ways to improve the quality of life for all citizens, urban and rural; and

- Meet citizen expectations for help in individual, family, and community development. 6

 DRAFT 7/8/97

The SAES System accepts the challenge to address these customer-identified issues, and it redirects itself to focus its resources on accomplishing significant impacts on the above issues. Assumptions

This strategic plan rests on a set of fundamental external and internal assumptions. The external assumptions are:

- Consumer demand for safe, high quality, accessible, and low cost foods and other biological products with a diversity of selections will continue to expand.

- Pressure for the uses of land other than agriculture will continue to increase.

- Citizen concerns for environmental protection will intensify.

- Some environmental problems will continue to have links to agricultural practices.

- Science, including agricultural research, will operationally continue to become evermore global.

The internal assumptions are:

- Federal base funding (a.k.a Hatch Act funding) will continue to be provided to the SAES System to support activities, and to define the System's membership.

- The leveraging of federal base funds from other sources will continue to amplify our research funding base.

- The Federal-State Partnership can be expanded to additional federal agencies.

- New types of partnerships can be organized with the private sector.

- Even stronger collaborations can be formed with the LGU extension and teaching functions in ways to take advantage of the LGUS's paradigm.

- New and better methods can be created for listening to our customers, stakeholders, agricultural leaders, decision makers, and supporters. 7

 DRAFT 7/8/97
 Guiding Principles

Considerable experience has been derived from developing the world-renowned Land-Grant Universities, including the SAES System. This experience has led to a number of guiding principles that were helpful to us when forming our choices for a national agricultural research strategic plan for the SAES System. These lessons are:

- A distributed, pluralistic system is essential for successful agricultural research. Centralizing facilities for agricultural research is less effective than is a distributed system because agricultural constraints and research opportunities are frequently site specific.

- A decentralized system for the management of scientific research is essential for intellectual creativity, and in the United States our decentralized system of State Agricultural Experiment Stations has enormous value.

- The Federal-State Partnership in agricultural research has evolved as a special and valuable working relationship. This partnership is attributed to federal base funding provided to the SAES System. It allows the federal partner to participate in decision making at the regional, state, and local levels, while leveraging their investments with non-federal funds.

- The SAES System works in a collaborative mode because of a shared research agenda and because of the incentives of federal base funding, which is allocated to each SAES by formula. The member institutions of the SAES System work together on a common mission. Although each Station is autonomous and an independent entity, each willingly participates in this national System.

- A half-century of conducting highly successful Regional Research Projects on a broad agricultural research agenda provides the SAES System with the experience, and the mechanism, for tackling some of agriculture's most difficult social, economic and environmental problems. This is because these tougher problems are frequently not limited by a state's political boundaries. Regional Research affords the SAES System a great strategic advantage for solving some of these real world problems.

- The Land-Grant University's paradigm, which brings together the functions of teaching, research, and extension, is globally unique, well respected, and recognized worldwide as an institutional paradigm worthy of emulation. Complementaries among research, extension and teaching provides for greater institutional, scientific, public, societal, environmental, and economic benefits. 8

 DRAFT 7/8/97

- The SAES System is proud of its heritage of providing relevant agricultural research for meeting customer needs, and solving real world problems. It is also proud of its responsiveness to agricultural production crises and human emergencies. These characteristics are the hallmarks of the LGUs, and can be traced to their institutional paradigm that integrates teaching, research, and extension. And, it is their public service philosophy that provides the characteristic distinguishing LGUs from other types of research institutions.

- Analysis of rates of return on agricultural research investments typically exceed 30 to 50% APR. Comparisons with other forms of scientific research are not available, as similar studies have apparently not been conducted. It is proposed that few, if any, areas of research pay dividends that approach those of agriculture. It is believed that the unique coupling of basic and applied research activities at the SAESs accounts for these very high rates of return.

- Research project planning within the System has typically been decentralized, but based on a customer-driven process for issues identification. Resource commitments are made at the institutional level to preserve institutional autonomy, to develop research infrastructure, and to support an institutionally-based approach to decision making within the System.

- Many criteria must guide the planning, the allocation of resources, and the conduct of agricultural research programs. These factors include:

- An obligation to respond to public needs, and to provide valued public goods and services;

- A commitment to work at the highest level of scientific quality;

- A responsibility to seize scientific opportunities that offer the best prospects for success;

- An obligation to maintain a strong research capacity to respond to unforeseen problems; and,

- A need to maintain a diverse portfolio of research activities⁽⁸⁾.

- Central to the SAES System's success is the recognized need to allow some individual investigator-initiated, inquiry-driven, risk-taking research. This investment allows a measure of scientific innovation and creativity known to be important to sustained research success. The System also needs to direct a portion of its research activities into 9

 DRAFT 7/8/97

more immediate, customer-identified areas of need. This balance is supported through a mix of funding made available to the System from multiple federal, state, and other sources. By carefully configuring national and regional competitive grants, commodity support, industry grants, and special research grants, along with federal base and state funding, SAES Directors are able to provide for the immediate needs of customers while investing in research for agriculture's future⁽⁹⁾.

- The enduring impact of past SAES allocation decisions, and the need to provide stable support for research projects restrict the speed and extent to which funds can be redirected.

- There are legitimate limits to the ability of individual Experiment Stations to plan scientific research for broad national goals. Individually, Stations cannot and should not be expected to provide precise plans because experimentation is inherently unpredictable, and the scope of the work frequently exceeds the capacity of individual institutions. It is the collective actions of the SAES System that need to be planned, and then evaluated for its accomplishments and benefits.

Systemwide strategic planning must consider these guiding principles when proposing new arrangements for organizing agricultural research Decision-makers today expect more responses from public programs, and better measures of impacts and benefits from public research investments. This requires more informed management decisions on future outlays by SAES Directors. Directors will, in turn, need to give greater attention to planning and accountability, while at the same time preserving the characteristics of the System that have contributed to its success. Environmental Assessments

External Assessment - Significant external changes to science are underway that are affecting all sectors of research, and the agricultural research establishment is not exempted. Some of the critically important factors that are occurring external to our agricultural research community are:

- The emergence of The Global Marketplace. In the post-Cold War era new incentives for science investments have emerged, with considerable emphasis on global market competitiveness. Today, many nations are acknowledging the need to invest in science in order to remain (or become) competitive in the global marketplace. 10

 DRAFT 7/8/97

- Evolving stakeholder expectations. Commodity representatives, consumer advocacy associations, environmental interest groups, non-governmental organizations, industry leaders, and elected representatives are today more directly expressing their needs and priorities to SAES directors and scientists. In the aggregate, expectations vastly exceed the System's available research capacity, and thus informed management decisions are needed to obtain the best allocation of available resources

- Extension's agenda shift. The SAES's national agricultural research agenda may need to be evaluated, and perhaps in the future include some research topics that have been previously excluded from consideration. This dynamic is most evident in the SAES relationship with extension, wherein several major extension activities are not now well supported by research activities (e.g., youth at risk, managing change in agriculture).

- Expansion of the Clientele-base for LGUs. Changing expectations of public institutions and the United States' demographic transformation from the predominant rural farming economy of six decades ago to today's mixed economy has caused a shift in the responsibilities of the Land Grant Universities. Much of this change has been expressed as a constant tension between providing research for the needs of traditional production agriculture, and the added research responsibilities to address natural resource management and environmental topics, and consumer and family issues.

- Calls for Accountability. Closer scrutiny of public sector investments in agricultural research are leading to calls from elected representatives for greater program accountability and more documented justification for budget requests. Federally, this is manifested in the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) which requires federal agencies to use strategic planning-based impact assessments as a process for deciding future resource allocations. This requirement is directly impacting the management decisions of the Federal-State Partnership in agricultural research.

- Concerns for the food and fiber supply. There is a standing concern for the long term sustainability of the nation's food and fiber supply. These concerns are linked as well to concerns for global population issues, and the need to respond responsibly to the growing worldwide demands for agricultural products. These demands are projected to worsen in the coming decades.

- A multi-modal agriculture. Simplistic depictions of the structure of U.S. agriculture fail to show the complex nature of the various types of U.S. farming and ranching. Moreover, the diversity of types of agricultural enterprises are expanding, and this further complicates SAES System's strategies for meeting public expectations.

- The focus on sustainability. A major paradigm shift in the concepts of agriculture to one of sustainability has occurred in the past two decades. This shift in emphasis toward 11

 DRAFT 7/8/97

sustainability is noteworthy, and represents a significant challenge for the agricultural research community that cannot be ignored.

- Private sector research. There has been an emergence of a strong U.S. private sector agricultural research enterprise, which by some estimates now accounts for 60% of the annual national investment in agricultural research. This is causing a shift in the demarcation of research responsibilities between the public and the private sectors. Much of this change is being driven by reinterpretations of intellectual property rights laws that were intended to encourage private sector investments in areas formerly the responsibility of the public sector.

- Public-Private Sector Partnerships. Partnerships between the public and private sectors are evolving to higher levels of collaboration, especially in the "pre-technology sciences" (sensu Huffman and Evenson). Universities partnering with industry can also effectively transmit new technologies to the marketplace, and are complimentary to extension when properly organized.

- Declining farm representation. Agricultural's technological successes in the past half century have contributed to a decline in the number of people directly engaged in farming. Related to this trend is the consequent reduction in the proportion of elected representatives who are farmers, or even know about farming. This outcome complicates the process of communicating agricultural research needs, opportunities, and achievements to our elected representatives.

Internal Assessment - Significant internal factors are also affecting the management of the System. Some of the more important factors are:

- Financial constraints. SAES's financial constraints, mostly as a result of budget cuts in many states and static federal funding, have forced some tough management decisions at many Stations. This has often meant that:

- New research opportunities may not be pursued;

- Some necessary maintenance is deferred;

- Research operating budgets are reduced; and

- Open positions are left vacant.

As a consequence, the System has demonstrated a reluctance to engage in new initiatives, or to begin significant investments in emerging technologies, as the necessary redirection of resources would be, institutionally, very painful. 12

 DRAFT 7/8/97

- Multiple claimants. One consequence of having multiple institutional claimants, each with an agenda, is the pressure to preserve past patterns of expenditures. Often, such groups have the political clout to enforce their demands. Redirection of programs into new initiatives or emerging technologies, in the face of ever constrained resources, has led to a state of semi-crisis in research management at some Stations.

- Multi-disciplinary research. Increased demand and expanded opportunity for multi-disciplinary research teams have caused a shift in the expectations for collaboration and research management support. This represents a major challenge to the SAES System, given the contradictory move toward individual investigator initiated research projects supported through competitive grants programs at the Federal level.

- Systems Science approach to research problems. There is an increasing expectation from research faculty for management's support of Systems Science research. Systems Science is a more holistic approach to the inter-relationships of component parts, and differs significantly from the more traditional reductionist approaches to research questions.

- Emerging technologies. New technologies are emerging to offer exciting opportunities for agricultural research. Among these topics are: plant and animal genomic mapping; genetic engineering; precision agriculture; value-added technologies for harvested products; and applications of computing and electronic communications in agriculture. These selected topics are suggestive of the high cost of many types of contemporary agricultural research activities. Currently, the SAES System is grossly under invested in these and many other topic areas, vis-a-vis needed initiatives and emerging technologies.

- Paradigm stress. There is well founded concern that the current funding stress faced by LGUs is threatening the fundamental paradigm of the institution, and thus the SAES System is threatened⁽¹⁰⁾. Institutional downsizing has created programmatic gaps on many campuses that cannot be easily filled by reassignments or reorganization. The capacity of the System is threatened by these changes as well. Survival of many LGU Colleges of Agriculture and their SAESs is a serious concern. To many decision-makers, this is surprising inasmuch as these are the essential components of a network of institutions that has historically contributed so much to national prosperity, for such a relatively small public investment. 13

 DRAFT 7/8/97

- Intellectual property rights management. The management of intellectual property rights and the associated earned royalties has, on many campuses, become a serious concern. How these resources will be managed to better contribute to the mission of the institution and the collective SAES System is in need of attention.

- Institutional changes. The Land Grant Universities are evolving institutions and a consequence of this dynamic are significant changes to the structure, organization and focus of the programs offered. This shifting pattern of institutional make-ups needs to be recognized in any national strategic planning effort. Comparative Advantages

The SAES System has a number of comparative advantages that contribute to its strength and its uniqueness.

The SAES System is:

- Nationally distributed with multiple sites within each state. This distributed System offers a network of research stations which provide diverse environments and conditions for research. Having a System of research stations also permits the early detection and monitoring of agricultural problems and environmental conditions in ways that support the collective agricultural research network.

- A participant in the tripartite mission of the Land-Grant Universitv. The synergism derived from the institutional integration of teaching, research, and extension has substantial and well recognized social, environmental, and economic benefits.

- A component of the Federal-State Partnership in agricultural research.

- A convener for regionally organized research projects. One fourth of the System's federal funding is set aside for Regional Research Projects, and significant effort is additionally devoted to regional coordination projects, many of which are jointly sponsored with extension.

- Comprehensive in its coverage of the scientific disciplines related to agriculture, when broadly defined. In addition to the biological and physical sciences, agriculture research on virtually all campuses has the capacity to conduct social and behavioral science research, and farm and business research. This is a significant comparative advantage for the System, when partnering with federal research agencies, where discipline divisions are often separated as agency boundaries, if indeed their research capacity exists at all. 14

 DRAFT 7/8/97

- Tied to the international scientific community through many points-of-contact, including graduate education. Former students and post doctoral scientists now working in the international community represent a network of collaborators of considerable comparative advantage.

- Engaged in fundamental scientific research. This engagement supports our future knowledge needs, and the development of graduate students ( a direct by-product of investing in the agricultural research enterprise). The blending of applied and fundamental research in the System's portfolio helps to maintain the System's capacity to respond to current and future needs.

- Able to respond to issues at the national level. By virtue of System membership, and as a result of a willingness to work in collaboration with other institutions, the research outputs and derived public benefits from the System's activities are significantly leveraged.

- Capable of listening to its customers. Through direct engagement and through extension feedback mechanisms the SAES System remains in touch with the broad constituency it serves.

- Well supported politically. The SAES System receives strong support from both the U.S. agricultural community, and from the general public. This decades-long support reflects the tremendous social, economic and environmental benefits that are derived from investing public funds in agricultural research. Strategies and Priorities

Management Strategies

To address the Federal-State Partnership's five strategic goals some research management strategies will be pursued by the SAES System.

The SAES System will:

- Expand our capacity to engage our customers by studying existing state programs that are recognized as successful, and then developing customer engagement guidelines.

- Reorient research management and resource allocations to focus more on research outcomes and impacts, and on social, economic, and environmental benefits.

- Redefine and reinvigorate the Federal-State Partnership to include other federal agencies both within and beyond the USDA. 15

 DRAFT 7/8/97

- Reestablish and strengthen the teaching, research, and extension paradigm of the LGU to provide enhanced cross-functional collaborative programs.

- Organize our national agricultural research portfolio into a set of National Agricultural Research Programs (see later section) to better address the Federal-State Partnership's strategic goals. This strategy will provide:

- Enhanced national planning for our priority research activities;

- Better measurement of our research progress;

- More precise assessment of our research achievements; and,

- Better documentation of our contributions, measured as social, economic and environmental benefits.

The System's national programs will be integrated with higher education's programs and the extension's Base Programs⁽¹¹⁾, whenever feasible and beneficial.

- Inventory the System's research capacity, as a defined by the National Agricultural Research Programs.

- Identify and implement a series of evolving National Agricultural Research Initiatives to complement better the National Agricultural Research Programs, and to strengthen our commitments to our customers. National Agricultural Research Initiatives may be linked to extension initiatives and/or to academic programs when mutually beneficial⁽¹²⁾.

- Build on the advantages of the Regional Research authority to create new collaborations in line with the Federal-States Partnership's goals. 16

 DRAFT 7/8/97

- Continue with our historical funding strategies that depend on multiple sources of funding to support a diverse portfolio of research activities.

- Obtain a recommitment to the traditional federal funding authorities (i.e., Hatch Act, competitive grants. special research grants), all of which are needed to support the rich and diverse portfolio of research activities that are represented in this strategic plan.

- Seek new federal authorities to provide the System with a greater diversity of types of funding for more effectively accomplishing this research agenda. We are specifically seeking statutory authority for contract research, and several different types of targeted research grants.

- Supplement federal and state resources with commodity, private, foundation, and international sponsors interested in aspects or components of this strategic plan.

- Seek to expand our funding base beyond traditional sources by exploring new and novel mechanisms, such as: new national and international commodity check-offs; entitlement program set-asides; new partnerships and coalitions with the private sector; and strategic alliances with non-governmental agencies and non-Land-Grant institutions, when those linkages will help us achieve our objectives.

- Recommit to using peer review for judging scientific merit, and committing to using customer reviews of research program relevance, for all investigations sponsored and conducted by the System. This includes both a priori and a posterior) evaluations.

- More vigorously communicate the System's successes through an expanded regional and national effort in impact assessment.

- Apply our global scientific leadership toward the creation of international partnerships to help us accomplish our research agenda and to maximize the efficiency of returns on investments in agricultural research.

- Share successful research management approaches and programmatic successes through leadership development programs and nationally organized workshops for research managers.

Management Priorities

In order to better assure successful research outcomes, we are committed to the following management priorities. We will give:

- Greater emphasis to the needs of stakeholders and customers, through expanded consultations, participatory planning, and implementation; 17

 DRAFT 7/8/97

- More commitment to effective agricultural research management through performance and accountability measures assuring science quality and research relevance;

- More emphasis to the efficient use of resources through enhanced regional and national planing, and the orderly execution of our research activities;

- A redefinition to the SAES's boundaries, to extend our research coverage beyond colleges of agriculture;

- Attention to the new agenda represented by the Federal-State Partnership's strategic goals; and,

- More attention to the integration of teaching, research and extension through expanded, cross-functional collaborations.

To strengthen the System, and build on our past successes, there will be a need to:

- Maintain an inventory of the SAES System's capacity to solve relevant problems, to be sure the System can fulfill current and future expectations, and to establish thresholds against which progress can be measured.

- Match the research capacity of the System to the goals of the Federal-State Partnership.

- Assure adequate Federal incentives to institutions, to ensure their participation in the national SAES System.

- Be congruent with the Federal partner for GPRA planning and reporting.

- Provide science-based information and knowledge from a diverse portfolio of research activities.

- Verify, a priori and a posterior), the quality of scientific research undertaken to assure that research investments will be, or have been, efficiently and appropriately allocated.

- Provide knowledge and services equitably, if broad citizen appreciation and support for the System is to be expected.

Research Strategies

Strategies for organizing national agricultural research programs will give priority attention to:

- Obtaining knowledge that is sustainable and environmentally friendly, and that allows for the reduction or avoidance of risk; 18

 DRAFT 7/8/97

- Information-intensive systems that place American farmers and ranchers in a more globally competitive position;

- A Systems Science approach to problem resolution, when appropriate, and using multidisciplinary research teams, when beneficial;

- Developing technologies that lower input costs, add value, and/or improve profitability;

- Approaches that align with the nutritional and health needs of the consumer;

- Developing knowledge that increases access to, and acceptance of, U.S. agricultural products; and

- Research that maximizes the alternatives available to producers, processors and consumers. Program Organization

The national agricultural research portfolio has been organized into a set of 18 programs representing natural divisions of agricultural research that is conducted by the public sector. The 18 National Agricultural Research Programs are:

Program 1: Technologically Integrated and Sustainable Production Systems

Program 2: Farm Business Management, Economics and Marketing

Program 3: Crop Improvement

Program 4: Plant Protection Strategies

Program 5: Animal Improvement

Program 6: Animal Health

Program 7: Forest, Wildlife and Fish Resource Conservation and Management

Program 8: Soil Conservation, and Land and Range Management

Program 9: Water, Soil and Air Quality Improvement and Preservation

Program 10: Commercial Forest Production and Wood Utilization

Program 11: Product Development

Program 12: Human Nutrition

Program 13: Food Safety

Program 14: Food and Fiber Processing

Program 15: Economic Enhancement

Program 16: Improved Quality of Life (includes child, adult, family, and community)

Program 17: Community Infrastructure Development

Program 18: Management Information Systems 19

 DRAFT 7/8/97

In Appendix III of this strategic plan, the allocation of present SAES System resources, and the System's planned allocations, are presented in a matrix of the Federal-State Partnership goals against these 18 National Agricultural Research Programs. Program Structure

The structure of the 18 National Agricultural Research Programs was intentionally designed to permit partnering with extension and academic programs at the institutional, regional and national level, especially with extension's Base Programs. There is a broad recognition that exact replication of either the extension agenda or the teaching agenda is not necessary. In fact most national leaders view this expectation as unreasonable.

The set of National Agricultural Research Programs was also crafted to allow convenient analysis of research outlays using the Federal-State Partnership's Current Research Information System (CRIS). CRISP Research Problem Areas (RPAs) have been assigned to the 18 National Agricultural Research Programs. This accounting system allows for all CRIS-reported expenditures to be attributed to the various Programs. Appendix III sets out the current and anticipated outlays for the 18 National Agricultural Research Programs versus the five goals of the Federal-State Partnership.

National Agricultural Research Program Committees. Each National Agricultural Research Program will have a National Committee made up of an Administrative Advisor, a CSREES technical representative, several to many SAES research scientists and their collaborators (e.g., ARS, FS, ERS, private sector) and, when appropriate some extension specialists and teachers. Program committees will be given specific terms of reference (see Appendix I for details). The National Committees are expected to meet annually to plan activities and to report on their accomplishments (e.g., outputs, impacts, and benefits). The meetings are specifically intended to facilitate and support federal reporting requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act.

The annual reporting conference will provide the SAES System a public forum for transmitting programmatic accomplishments from agricultural research directly to decision makers, policy makers, and to the interested public through the mass media The reporting conference will additionally give research managers an opportunity to evaluate research progress. And, the creative tension of the forum's environment may help contribute to improved reporting of research performances and results Systemwide.

In the mid-term (i.e., during the third year of the program's existence) an evaluation of each of the 18 Programs will need to be commissioned. Knowledgeable peer reviewers (absent conflicts 20

 DRAFT 7/8/97

of interest) and customers/stakeholders will be assigned responsibilities for conducting the review. The purpose of the review is to provide assurances of the scientific quality and the research relevance of each of the 18 Programs.

National Performance Panels. Five National Performance Panels would be charged with responsibility for evaluating and integrating the contributions of National Agricultural Research Programs. Each of the five Panels will be assigned to one of the five Federal-State Partnership's strategic goals. Then, in turn, each region will be assigned national responsibilities for hosting that Panel. Information for annual reporting by the individual Panels will be principally drawn from the annual reports of the 18 National Agricultural Research Program Committees. The proposed regional assignments to the Panels are:

- Panel 1. An agricultural system that is highly competitive in the global economy - North Central Region

- Panel 2. A safe and secure food and fiber system - Northeastern Region

- Panel 3. A healthy well-nourished population- Southern Region

- Panel 4. An agricultural system which enhances natural resources and the environment- Western Region

- Panel 5. Enhanced economic opportunity and quality of life for Americans- 1890 Institutions

The make-up of the five Panels will be purposefully small, and will be comprised of one or two agricultural communicators, one or two impact assessment specialists, and a few (3 to 5) eminent scientists knowledgeable in broad areas of agricultural research. Additionally, an Administrative Advisor and a CSREES technical representative will be appointed to each Panel. The Executive Director of the assigned region will provide appropriate staff support to the Panel's reporting activities.

The products of the Panels activities will be, by intention, suitable for reporting the outcomes and impacts expected under the federal requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). Each Panel's collective Annual Accomplishments Report will thus assist our Federal partner with complying with the GPRA requirements. The Annual Accomplishments Reports will also provide each SAES Director with current information on the benefits of his or her research investments. 21

 DRAFT 7/8/97

The perceived advantages of this strategy are:

- The synergy of the SAES System is captured, which may otherwise be lost by requesting separate state reports.

- By this process each state is relieved of the direct burdens of annually reporting GPRA information to CSREES. State participation becomes a contributing process to the collective efforts in areas of core competencies, rather than institutionally attempting to be "all thing to all people".

- One integrated report covering all of the Federal-State Partnership's five strategic goals will be produced, with the benefits of direct university participation and oversight.

- Opportunities will, as a result, become available to link the reporting of teaching and extension to research through creation of their own national agricultural performance committees, and through an invitation for them to co-sponsor these five National Performance Panels. By design this intentionally preserves the necessary independence of planning their functional strategies, and reporting their functional accomplishments, while allowing for the integration of performance and results across all three functions in the final reports.

The terms of reference for the National Performance Panels are set out in Appendix II.

The Place of Initiatives

In addition to organized National Agricultural Research Programs, the creation of a few research initiatives will allow a focusing of research activities and resources on some customer-identified priority issues.

Extension has for the past decade successfully used the concept of national initiatives to focus on customer-identified issues, and has redirected aspects of its base program as a consequence. The purpose of forming extension initiatives was not primarily in seeking budget increases, but more for program redirection and refreshment.

In addition to forming National Agricultural Research Program areas, the SAES System will coordinate a number of research initiatives; some with our functional partners, when beneficial and practical. Thus, opportunities to link with extension, and to some degree with higher education, may occur as well through the development of some common initiatives.

Some possible joint initiatives with extension might be:

- Food safety and quality; 22

 DRAFT 7/8/97

- Managing change in agriculture (risk reduction); and

- Children, youth and families at risk.

Collaborative initiatives with higher education might include:

- Integrated pest management;

- Biotechnology; and

- Land management issues (GIS and MIS).

Some separate research initiatives might be:

- Precision agriculture;

- Adding value to harvested products, and

- Genomic studies. Advantages of This Plan

The SAES System's national approach to strategically organizing research as a set of 18 National Programs has several advantages, seen as:

- Cross functional collaborations will become more feasible than is presently possible;

- Working with other research agencies will be facilitated;

- The formal inclusion of analytical specialists and agricultural communicators in five National Performance Panels greatly strengthens the national GPRA reporting of LGU accomplishments;

- New linkages to partners and coalitions will foster a degree of national collaboration heretofore not possible;

- Inventories of research capacity will be maintained by the individual Research Programs;

- Program-specific strategic plans will be formulated within natural areas of agricultural research; and, 23

 DRAFT 7/8/97

- Units of measure for reporting GPRA-type research accomplishments will be scientifically rational. It is now apparent to many research managers that the counting of publications and patents is not sufficient, and only represents the lowest-common-denominator-measurement of scientific accomplishment. Valued impact assessments need rational units of measure, carefully matched to the expected research outcomes. This will be possible through the organization of the Natural Agricultural Research Programs, each having natural associations with common measures of success. Time Table

Formation of the National Agricultural Research Program framework and the attendant National Agricultural Research Program Committees will take up to one year to complete. During this period it is expected that the individual Committees will have completed under their terms of reference an inventory of research capacity, and a strategic plan. Thereafter program reports will be issued annually, consistent with the requirements of GPRA reporting. Annual reports of accomplishments (outputs, outcomes, impacts, returns on investments, and benefits) will subsequently be made publicly available through both technical and popular media.

The formation of the five National Performance Panels will take place simultaneously with the formation on the National Agricultural Research Program Committees. Reports from the Panels will be timed to the GPRA calendar. Implementing Strategies

Following consensus-building activities for this strategic plan, the ESCOP Strategic Planning Subcommittee will be directly engaged in several supporting activities to better ensure this plan's success. These activities will include, but will not be limited to:

- Placing the System's Strategic Plan, as a final consensus document, on the World Wide Web to obtain comments and criticism from a wide representation of our community.

- Developing a marketing plan for the System's Strategic Plan. This should include recruiting the direct participation of teaching and extension leadership in relevant aspects of this plan. Particular attention will be given to attracting their participation as members of the National Performance Panels. The marketing plan will also suggest ways for engaging our research partners in dialogues on the merits of the plan, and for soliciting the support of our federal agency partners in the strategies proposed herein. Finally, the marketing plan will need to address the necessity of "selling" the plan to stakeholders, policy makers and our customers and in that process, identify their concerns and fears in ways that will allow us to either allay those reservations, or to adjust the plan accordingly. 24

 DRAFT 7/8/97

- Preparing a "pocket" version of the plan for supporters of the System.

- Initiating a study of the most successful SAES/LGU state customer listening programs. The purpose of this study will be to share the characteristics of successful programs with other members of the SAES System.

- Analyzing annually patterns of research outlays and accomplishments, as an information service for the SAES Directors and decision makers.

- Commissioning external program and management review(s) in the mid-term to assess satisfaction with strategic planning, and the strategies and protocols used to comply with the requirements of GPRA.

- Facilitating an annual conference of National Agricultural Research Program Committees (to precede the timing of annual GPRA reporting, perhaps in late September). In attendance to herald the System's accomplishments will be SAES scientists and Directors, the five National Performance Panels, our extension and teaching collaborators, the federal partners, stakeholders, policy makers, and national leaders from our clientele groups. Technical and popular media representatives will be invited to attend as well.

- Supporting the National Performance Panels (NPPs). Funding for the NPPs will need to be provided through the creation of a National Research Support Project, under the Regional Research Fund's authority. Estimated annual budgets range between $180,000 and $250,000. A portion of this expense may be obtained from CSREES. Some of the anticipated budget may need to come as an off-the-top allocation from Hatch funding. All other expenses for implementing this plan will be the responsibility of the participants.

- Briefings to members of Congress and their staff in the interim (between annual conferences) may occur. This has been proposed to take the form of a Congressional seminar series. Speakers would be drawn from the SAES community.

- Providing annual recommendations to the SAES System through ESCOP on needed actions and adjustments to the System's agricultural research portfolio to more successfully complete the purposes of this strategic plan. Budgeting Strategies

This five year strategic plan's targeted resource outlays are presented in Appendix III. It is understood that these proposed targets represent aggregated national expenditures, and do not 25

 DRAFT 7/8/97

commit individual SAES Directors to any set pattern of resource allocations. This point is vitally important to the principles governing participation in the SAES System. However, it is the intention of ESCOP to monitor future programmatic directions and propose future budgets in ways for implementing the intent of the Federal-State Partnership's five goals.

The notion of having national research initiatives is relevant to the budgeting strategies for this plan. Given the forces that slow the rate of programmatic change in public research institutions, our research initiatives will be an important management tool for organizing concerted activities in priority research areas, and in working collaboratively with our strategic partners (i.e., teaching, extension, federal research labs, private sector research entities, etc.). We envision that through our research initiatives, significant shifts in research emphasis will occur as a result of a willingness of individual Stations to participate. This will in turn create budget shifts to address more fully the Partnership's goals.

The ESCOP budget advocacy process will also be facilitated through this strategic plan. We see opportunities to organize collective interests around customer interests and to present these issues as relevant research topics to decision makers. National Agricultural Research Program Committees and our commitment to customer listening sessions will play important roles in the identification of these topics.

We also envision a great deal more innovation in the organization of interstate and multi-state collaborations. Already, some SAES Directors have made significant progress in sharing resources and responsibilities across state lines. And more of these types of collaboration are expected. Jointly planned programs and budgets, we believe, will become the sine qua non of future budget strategies. From this will flow enhanced efficiency, and the effort will need to be facilitated and financially supported throughout the SAES System. Measures of Success

Progress on the completion of the Federal-State Partnership's five strategic goals will be documented annually through the System's annual conference, and through the CSREES GPRA reporting process.

Another measure of the plan's success will be the National Performance Panels' customer satisfaction surveys. Information from these surveys will help dynamically drive the SAES System's priority setting process that will, in turn, steer this national strategic plan.

Finally, programmatic success will be indicated by monitoring increases in the resources made available to the SAES System, in response to delivering these anticipated accomplishments. 26

 DRAFT 7/8/97 APPENDIX I

Each National Agricultural Research Program (NARP) Committee will be requested to:

- Compile an inventory of research capacity for the Program area. A report on research capacities should be completed in a way to facilitate the identification of capacity gaps and overlaps that contribute to inefficiencies and waste. Research managers will be thus better able to allocate and deploy constrained resources⁽¹³⁾.

- Create a strategic plan for the Program area. The recommended outline (perhaps limited to 5 to 7 pages) that should be used for documenting an NARP's strategies is:

Program Title:

Program Priorities:

Program Description:

Program Strategies:

Federal-State Partnership Goals to be Addressed:

Action Objectives to be Addressed:

Research Milestones:

Program's Duration:

Projected Annual Costs: (both $ and SYs)

Expected Results (Outputs):

Expected Gains (Impacts):

Projected Benefits (economic, environmental, &/or social):

Intended Beneficiaries:

SAES Contributors:

Planned Partnerships

Planned Collaborations:

- Reporting annually the accomplishments of the National Program by the five Federal-State Partnership goals, as appropriate. 27

 DRAFT 7/8/97 APPENDIX II

National Performance Panels are charged with the responsibility of:

- Writing a 5 year Communication and Marketing Plan for their assigned Federal-State Partnership goal. The plan should set out the intended strategies to be used for publicly communicating annually GPRA-based accomplishments.

- Conducting an Annual Customer Survey to measure the degree of satisfaction with publicly funded agricultural research in their goal area.

- Preparing Annual Performance Report on the results (outputs), gains (impacts), and benefits when viewed across the 18 National Programs. These assessments may be multi-year, and they should analytically review the benefits of the various Programs from the perspectives of societal, environmental and economic benefits.

For each of the Federal-State Partnership goals the collective Annual Performance Reports should provide:

- Quantitative measures of successfully achieving the targeted goals,

- The resources that have been used to obtain the results (to allow cost/benefit analyses with the above information),

- Narrative summaries of accomplishments reported for the assigned goals,

- A discussion of successes, or lack of success, in meeting intended objectives,

- A discussion of program-focused, but goal-oriented customer satisfaction surveys, and

- Descriptions of some success stories.

In addition the annual report the Panel may wish to include:

- System participants (names and institutions) who were significant contributors to the programs achievements.

- Scientific achievements and other outcomes of the program (as research "nuggets"), including narrative descriptions of the perceived significance of the 28

 DRAFT 7/8/97

outcomes to the research community, agricultural stakeholders, and what it all means for the consuming public.

- Partnerships and collaborations that were involved in the reported accomplishments.

- Other individuals involved in the program, including graduate and undergraduate students, as available information allows. This would permit future career tracking. 29

 DRAFT 7/8/97 APPENDIX III

A series of six tables will be placed here giving the current and future financial outlays and SYs, displayed as a matrix formed by the federal-state partnership's five strategic goals, against the 18 National Agricultural Research Programs.

This will require a set of projected 5-Year targeted patterns of resource outlays to answer the question: Where do we expect to end up in 5 years? 30

 DRAFT 7/8/97

Questions for Reviewers of the Penultimate DRAFT of the Plan

1. Does this plan sufficiently address the opportunities to foster regional and national collaborations in research, as well as our ability to work cross-functionally? Does it build on our comparative advantages as a SAES System, and as members of the Land Grant University community?

2. Does the plan build on the advantages of being in partnership with the Federal government through the CSREES? What are some of the possible hazards of attempting to expand the Federal-State Partnership beyond the traditional CSREES link, if there are any?

3. Does the plan work sufficiently to build partnerships with our traditional and non-traditional partners? What steps could be taken to strengthen the SAES System's planning and research collaborations with, for instance, ARS, FS, and ERS?

4. What institutional policy or legal changes are needed to successfully implement this plan? For instance, are there new or additional authorizations that should be considered for inclusion in the Farm Bill?

5. The SAES System has long given high value to focusing on research for production agriculture and commercial forestry. More recently, calls have been heard to shift resources to provide more research for coverage of the extension agenda (e.g., youth and family development). This may require some Stations to fund research projects outside the domain of a traditional college of agriculture. What are the factors that should be considered before implementing such a response?

6. Do the proposed linkages of this plan to GPRA reporting seem feasible and desirable?

7. Does the creation of 18 National Agricultural Research Programs help solve the problems of organization and reporting research accomplishments?

8. Does the plan adequately protect institutional prerogatives with regard to the SAES System's traditions of independence and autonomy?
 31

Endnotes:

2. The process used for developing the consensus positions represented in this document started with a series of national and regional listening sessions supplemented by other information resources. From these sources the ESCOP Subcommittee on Strategic Planning, which has representation from SAESs, extension, teaching, and USDA/CSREES (i.e., the federal partner-agency), identified a set of issues which were coalesced into a draft strategic plan. Subsequent cycles of review and revision have contributed to a national consensus on these proposed research strategies (which, at this point is yet to be done).

3. Agriculture, as used herein, is defined broadly to include all aspects of food, fiber and forest production, processing and consumption. The term agriculture is also used herein to relate to broad public responsibilities for preserving natural resources and protecting the environment, and serving the needs of all of the customers of agriculture; as individuals, families, and communities.

4. The five goals are: An agricultural system that is highly competitive in the global economy; A safe and secure food and fiber system; A healthy, well nourished population; An agricultural system which enhances natural resources and the environment; and Enhanced economic opportunity and quality of life for Americans.

5. The membership of the SAES System includes the State Agricultural Experiment Stations affiliated with the 1862 Land-grant Universities and the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station at New Haven; and the agricultural research programs at the 1890 Land-Grant Universities and Tuskegee University.

6. See Issues to Action: A Plan for Action on Agricultural and Natural Resources for the Land-Grant Universities. The Board on Agriculture, National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, 1996.

7. Actually, the REE plan calls for a sixth outcome that relates entirely to human capacity development within the REE mission area, and thus it is not directly relevant to this research planning exercise.

8. Maintaining a diversified portfolio of agricultural research activities is essential for optimum scientific and public benefits. This is best done by blending science disciplines, institutional functions, and basic and applied investigations, as is commonly practiced at SAES.

9. For an analysis of these relationships see W. E. Huffman and R.E. Just, "Funding, Structure, and Management of Public Agricultural Research in the United States," Journal of Agricultural Economics, November 1994.

10. Selling off a dairy research herd has far reaching consequences for teaching and extension. Likewise, closing a county extension office impacts on the delivery of research results. Canceling a college curriculum diminishes the future supply of "human capital" for both research and extension. None of these interrelationships are today well understood, or comprehensively managed from a systems perspective.

11. The current extension Base Programs are: Agriculture; Community and Resource Development; Family Development and Resource Management; 4-H and Youth; Leadership and Volunteer Development; Natural Resources and Environmental Management; and Nutrition, Diet, and Health.

12. The 1997-1998 extension National Initiatives are: Managing Change in Agriculture; Children, Youth, and Families at Risk; Food Safety and Quality; Workforce Preparation; and Healthy People...Healthy Communities.

13. A model inventory of national research capacity in plant breeding was recently completed by Dr. Ken Frey of the Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station. Copies of the report are available from the author, upon request.