PP from EIARD meeting in Helsinki 26-28.10.2015.

1. EIARD
SECRETARIAT
How to continue?

2. Present situation – status quo
Secretariat hosted by DG RTD
 Ex.Sec. is a 'Seconded National Expert' (SNE) to the EC
 DG RTD provides an office including equipment and
covers EIARD related missions
 In exchange the Commission is the permanent EIARD
Vice-Chair

3. Present situation – status quo
Advantages
 The Commission as the neutral broker is hosting the
Secretariat and providing the Vice Chairman
 COM(97)126 on EIARD – recognized by the Council and
the European Parliament
 Established setup (since more than 20 years)

4. Present situation – status quo
Disadvantages
 Low interest and ownership of DG RTD in the work of EIARD
 EIARD is outside the regular EC structure
 CGIAR funding comes from DEVCO not from RTD (except in the
framework of H2020)
 Conflicting expectations to the position holder
 RTD sees it as a normal SNE position
 EIARD work is compromised
 Restrictive rules for SNEs since 2008 (especially regarding
missions, participation in meetings)
 Recruitment done by Commission only without
influence of EIARD

5. Scenario Analysis
 Option 1 – continuation of status quo
 Option 2 – merger of EIARD with SCAR
 Option 3 – Secretariat to be hosted by one EIARD
member on a rotational basis
 Option 4 – Secretariat hosted in Bonn back to back with
the GDPRD

6. Option 1– status quo
 Search for another person from November 2016
 Request that the EIARD chair will be involved in the
recruitment process

7. Option 2– Merger with SCAR
 SCAR has an official mandate (Established through a Regulation
of the Council of the EU on the coordination of agricultural research the
Committee adopted its own rules of procedure in line with those adopted by
the Commission on 31 January 2001 and in accordance with Council
Decision 1999/468/EC. The Committee was given a revised mandate in
2005 by the Council);
 SCAR is increasingly addressing global issues
 The EIARD strategy as a whole could be pursued (not only
CGIAR topics);

8. Option 2– Merger with SCAR
Advantages
 Overcoming the separation between AR and ARD -
lifting ARCH to the next level
 SCAR:
 SCAR discussions would increasingly take on board international
dimensions
 EIARD:
 Higher political mandate, profile and recognition
 All EIARD strategic areas could be addressed
(on top of CGIAR topics)
 A dedicated WG on CGIAR issues with an own coordinator could
be formed which would report back to the SCAR Plenary

9. Option 2– Merger with SCAR
Implementation
 No EIARD Executive Secretary needed
 Closing of ARCH
 SCAR members would be formed by delegates from national
representatives of Ministries of (1) Research+Education, (2)
Agriculture AND (3) Foreign Affairs/Development Cooperation
 EIARD issues discussed at SCAR WG and SCAR Plenary
levels
 Additional SCAR WGs launched to address former EIARD
topics
 CGIAR WG (a coordinator of the group can report every half year to
the SCAR Plenary)
 Others …

10. Option 3 – Secretariat hosted by one
EIARD member on a rotational basis
Advantages
 Lower financial burden for EIARD member providing the
Ex.Sec. – no "lost" position
 Smaller EIARD members could also host the Ex.Sec.
 No travel restrictions
Disadvantages
 Outside the Commission – no political mandate

11. Option 4 – Secretariat hosted in Bonn
back to back to the GDPRD
Advantages
 Vicinity to the GDPRD – better link to rural development
 Smaller EIARD members could also host the Ex.Sec.
 No travel restrictions
Disadvantages
 Outside the Commission – no political mandate.