|
Fourth APN Scientific Planning Group Meeting
2-4
February 1999, Jakarta, Indonesia
Summary Report from Co-Chairpersons
Prof. Aprilani Soegiarto, Prof. Keiji Higuchi
The
Meeting was attended by representatives from Australia, Cambodia, China,
Indonesia, Japan, Korea,
Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia, Philippines, Russia, Sri
Lanka, START Oceania, SARCS, SASCOM,
TEACOM, and the International START Secretariat
and by observers from Indonesia and the WCRP. A
list of participants is given in Attachment I.
AttachmentⅡ: Meeting AGENDA
AttachmentⅢ: Procedures and Criteria for Selection
of Funded Activities
1. Opening
Welcoming remarks were given by Dr. Ir. Agus
Nuryanto, Chairman of the Local Organising
Committee. Mr. Hideyuki Mori made a greeting as
Director of the APN Secretariat. Prof. Dr. Harsono
Wiryosumarto, Chairman of National Institute of
Aeronautics and Space (LAPAN) officially opened the
meeting.
2.Adoption of Agenda
The agenda was adopted as proposed and is attached
as Attachment II.
3.Secretariat Review - Funded Activities
for 1998/99
The APN Secretariat gave a review of the 13 projects
funded during the current fiscal year (12 from the
APN project fund, and one from the contingency
fund). A publication written by project leaders, "Reports of 1998 - 1999 Projects", was also
distributed. The meeting expressed the need for a
review system for APN funded projects including an
evaluation of results and use of money spent.
4.Project Presentations
The project
leaders of three of the activities funded by the APN during the current fiscal
year made
presentations of the highlights and outcomes of their
work. Prof. Congbin Fu reported on the "Continuation of Regional Climate Modeling (RCM)
Development and Applications for Asia". Dr.
Kanayathu Koshy reported on the "Planning
Workshop - Marine and Coastal Zone Studies in the
Asia-Pacific Region". Dr. Michael Manton reported on
the "Asia-Pacific Workshop on Indicators and Indices
for Monitoring Trends in Climate Extremes". The
meeting was grateful for the reports given and some
discussion of the projects followed, during which it
was mentioned that APN funded projects should
generally be encouraged to produce a publication on
their findings.
5.Project Proposal Criteria and
Evaluation Process
The Secretariat presented the findings from an
informal survey of SPG members and led a discussion
of recommendations to improve the proposal review
process. The results of the discussion are summarized
in Attachment III. If adopted at the APN
Inter-Governmental Meeting (IGM) the 'Procedures
and Criteria for Selection of Funded Activities' will be
revised accordingly.
The SPG expressed a strong desire for the APN
Secretariat to find ways to streamline the selection
process and to explore other ways to respond more
quickly, when necessary, to urgent global change
issues.
6.Review of Secretariat Activities
The
Secretariat reported its work during the past year and the major issues that
had arisen. Particular
attention was given to the administration of APN
funded activities, the project proposals process and
the Inter-Governmental and Scientific Planning Group
meetings. The failure to appoint SPG members in
some APN member countries was highlighted, and the
Secretariat indicated that they will try to ensure that
all member countries appoint a representative in the
near future. Written reports from Liaison Officers
from TEACOM and SASCOM were introduced,
including a description of key global change research
activities of the past year in their regions. It was
reported that the APN is seeking Liaison Officers
from START Oceania and SARCS. The APN
newsletter and Internet Homepage have been the
subject of much attention and will continue to be
improved. Recently the Secretariat advertised to APN
contacts the opportunity to pursue global change
research in Japan as part of the Eco Frontier
Fellowship scheme. The Secretariat announced some
success in attracting additional private funds last year
from Japanese foundations, and indicated the pursuit
of other sources of funding will continue to be a high
priority in the future. The convenience of electronic
mail as a means of communication with SPG members
was stressed, and the Secretariat suggested that it
may be able to provide assistance if an SPG member
lacked access to electronic mail.
The Director outlined the desire of the APN
to increase funding for its activities and to strengthen
the capacity of the Secretariat. In this context, he
reported on plans to move the Secretariat to the city
of Kobe in Hyogo Prefecture, Japan. This move would
mean an increase in Secretariat personnel particularly
through the appointment of a full time Director, and
also increased administrative and financial resources
thanks to the support of Hyogo Prefecture. In
response to comments, he assured participants that
the APN would retain its strong international
character. Indeed, one of the first actions to be taken
following the relocation would be the organisation of a
workshop on an area of importance to the region, the
content of which will be discussed in a special session
of the IGM. SPG members voiced their strong support
for the strengthening of the APN Secretariat that the
move to Kobe would bring and their interest in the
proposed workshop.
7. 1999/2000 APN Project Proposals
The Director announced that with increases in
support from Japan and the United States the total
budget available for APN funded activities would be
about US$1 million in the next fiscal year. This
development was warmly welcomed by SPG members,
although there was clear agreement that such an
amount was still insufficient for the needs of the
region. The Director confirmed that according to APN
guidelines about 10 to 15% of the project budget
would be reserved for the contingency/programme
development fund.
The Director explained the process used to evaluate
the 69 proposals received by the 30 September
deadline. After initial ratings by SPG members the
Secretariat had narrowed the selection to those
projects with an average score of 3 or higher. These
projects were then sent questions and comments by
reviewers, and in some cases the responses provided
by proponents had led SPG members to change their
rating. The Small Group had used the ranking as the
basis of their funding recommendations, but had made
much effort to consider important factors such as
selecting the most relevant projects where proposals
were received on similar topics, requesting more
collaboration between certain projects, and offering
smaller funds than requested in some cases. The SPG
supported the recommendations of the Small Group.
The outcome of the discussion, including funding
amounts for the projects will be presented as a
recommendation to the Inter-Governmental Meeting.
There was general agreement
that the APN should be selective in considering requests for funds to send
participants to meetings and conferences, since in
many cases the benefits of sending participants are
not always clear. SPG members agreed that the APN
should ensure it has the right to influence the
selection of participants and to require that
appropriate recognition is given for the APN support.
A number of specific recommendations were made, for
instance that APN-supported participants should be
clearly identified as such in the participants list and
on their name badges, etc. There was agreement that
good geographical coverage in the Asia-Pacific region
is desirable in APN-funded activities. The concern
was expressed that each member country should be
involved in at least one project wherever possible.
The Director explained that
after the SPG meeting, proponents of the 12 projects recommended for
funding will be contacted about possible changes in
budgets and project content suggested by the Small
Group, in preparation for a final decision on funding by
the IGM.
8. APN Strategic Plan
The Secretariat made a presentation on the main
elements of the draft Strategic Plan, and thanked SPG
members for their positive contributions to the
planning process. There had been a great deal of
agreement on the strategic direction that the APN
should take during the next 5 years. It was suggested
that the main issues for discussion at the SPG should
be those relevant to the scientific concerns of the
APN, namely the proposals concerning Key Scientific
Priorities, the APN Project Funding Model, the
concept of APN Facilitated Projects and the re-draft
of the Scientific Agenda.
At that point the floor was opened for a general
discussion of the Strategic Plan. Comments were
made about the need to ensure that the plan be
carried forward into concrete objectives, and the
Secretariat outlined their intention to undertake
annual operating plans. It was also agreed that as part
of the emphasis on science/policy links the plan
should state more explicitly that the APN needs to
give an input to the UNFCCC process and the IPCC
Assessment Reports. There was also agreement of
the need to reach out into the regions and to make
greater use of the APN Liaison Officers.
The issue of Key Scientific Priorities
(KSPs) and their interaction with the proposed APN Project Funding
Model was then discussed. After some consideration
and debate, general agreement was reached that in
the annual proposals cycle the allocation of KSPs
should not exclude proposals in other areas from
being eligible for funding. Instead, funds should be set
aside each year to ensure that projects relating to the
KSPs be funded, the actual amount of funds to be
decided on an annual basis. If an insufficient number of
scientifically sound proposals are submitted in relation
to a KSP, the APN should instead use the allocated
funds to develop proposals and initiate work in
relation to that KSP.
The question of communication and coordination with
START and the international global change
programmes was discussed in relation to both the
selection of KSPs and the model for APN Facilitated
Projects. It was agreed that the latter will need to be
carefully designed so they do not duplicate other
research efforts and so the initial stage should be to
identify the knowledge gaps which exist. START
Oceania's experience in this area was that with
thorough coordination and the identification of all
relevant participants such a model could be extremely
effective. It was suggested that governments,
scientists, funding agencies and NGOs should be
involved in such exercises.
With regard to the proposed model for Facilitated
Projects it was suggested that the APN should be
careful not to take a linear approach, but instead
should take the time to ensure that the results of
work undertaken would be fed back for consideration
at each stage. The first workshop should also concern
an issue of great importance for the region as a whole,
so as to draw attention to the impacts of global
change.
The re-draft of the Scientific Agenda was presented
and Dr. Fuchs gave an explanation of the underlying
rationale. Clarification was made that the Scientific
Agenda is intended as a statement of the full range of
research topics with which the APN is concerned, and
agreement was reached that it should be re-titled to
reflect this fact. The suggestion was made that the
appropriate place for this diagram to appear was
alongside the mission statement. Some particular
suggestions for change were agreed, namely that
inland waters would be a more suitable term than
international waters. Also, the central section of the
diagram should express more clearly the community,
economic and political concerns of the region and the
way they interact with the scientific aspects of global
change processes, with the ultimate intention that
there be a feed in to the policy process.
The discussion closed with the Director
indicating that the Secretariat would now re-draft the plan and
issue a revised version within 2 weeks so that an
improved version could then be presented to the IGM.
During the discussions on
the plan, the Director introduced a draft Memorandum of Understanding for
the APN. He clarified that the most important thing
was to move quickly toward the establishment of a
more formal status for the APN. SPG members agreed
to discuss the draft MOU with their Focal Point after
returning to their country.
The Director introduced the draft MOU and explained
that this was an integral part of the Strategic Plan,
intended to strengthen the basis of the APN. It was
agreed that in order to progress, the APN needs
official recognition from member countries and the
Director clarified that the intention is to achieve that
without, at this stage, introducing any legal or
financial obligations. The draft MOU was being
introduced via the SPG so that members could take
this draft back for discussion with their national Focal
Points and following that consult with the relevant
government authority for a full consideration of the
policy and legal aspects. The APN would like an early
indication of how long each member country considers
it would take to agree such an MOU and whether it
would be appropriate for it to be signed at Ministerial
or Official level. The intention was that it should be
the former where possible.
It was agreed that the lack of an official agreement
was a weakness in the development of the APN. SPG
members acknowledged that an MOU was necessary
and expressed their appreciation that a draft had been
produced. A number of specific points were raised
about the nature of the draft MOU. In particular it
was felt that the preamble should be expanded to
explicitly identify the benefits of membership of the
APN. Furthermore, an accompanying brief on the
history of the APN and what it has achieved to date,
together with an explanation of the legal status of the
IAI and ENRICH would be very helpful in presenting
the draft MOU. The Secretariat agreed to produce
this as soon as possible.
There was also discussion about whether a
multilateral or bilateral agreement would be most
appropriate. It was acknowledged that a series of
bilateral agreements would be quicker to achieve, but
that there may be difficulties in framing the MOU in
this way. Again, the Director expressed that he would
be very eager to receive advice from member
countries on their assessment of the best way
forward.
9. APN Priorities for Scientific
Programme for 2000/2001
The Director reminded the SPG that climate change
and human dimensions were priorities in last year's
proposal funding process and after making some
suggestions invited comments on priorities for the
next funding cycle. As discussed during the session
on the Strategic Plan, a portion of the proposals
budget for next year could be set aside for the
priorities decided by the IGM though funds would of
course remain for other areas. It was also hoped that
demonstrating clear priorities might attract funds from
other sources.
SPG members commented that the APN should be
careful not to change priorities too often and would
need to be aware of the different priorities of the
scientific and policy making communities. This point
had been clearly illustrated by the responses to the
APN questionnaire issued during the Strategic
Planning process.
There was general agreement that the SPG should
recommend to the IGM that "the question of how
Asia-Pacific countries can respond to the Kyoto
Protocol" and "global change and environmental
security" be priorities in the next cycle. Other topics
proposed included "coastal zones and inland waters",
"global change impact on desertification and land
degradation"; "human dimensions", and responses to
the "COP4 resolution on support for maintenance for
meteorological observations for monitoring climate
change and variability". SPG members were
encouraged to discuss APN scientific priorities for the
next project funding cycle with focal points in their
countries and prepare their opinions for discussion at
the next IGM.
10. Other Business
Many suggestions and comments were made for the
future development of the APN during a free
discussion. It was pointed out that non-governmental
organizations already play important roles in
discussions relating to global change, and the APN as
an inter-governmental network should consider the
best ways to involve them. There was a suggestion
that Focal Points be more involved and informed
about APN-funded activities throughout the year.
Some participants shared the view that APN should
maintain a decentralized nature, which may include
more active roles for APN Liaison Officers and SPG
members throughout the year. The Secretariat should
provide support to SPG members to be more broadly
active on global change issues within their countries.
Although ultimately the
selection is up to each member country, a comment was made that the APN
should consider how best to identify suitable Focal
Points and SPG members in order to maximize the
effectiveness of their roles. For example, it may be
better if both are from different departments or
ministries.
There was considerable discussion about
communications, networking and information
dissemination. The usefulness of an APN electronic
directory of persons and organizations relating to
global change was indicated. Suggestions were
strongly supported that the APN use the Internet
more, and that the Secretariat provide assistance to
access the Internet for SPG members who need it. A
suggestion was made that the APN publish a journal
in the future to report on global change issues in the
Asia-Pacific region. Another suggestion was to use a
numbering system for publications about APN-funded
projects, to show continuity even if the publications
come from different countries. Other ideas were for
SPG members to arrange publication in their countries
of reports about APN-funded activities in scientific
journals and to arrange for reprints of APN newsletter
articles, for the APN to commission special reports on
timely issues such as Southeast Asian fires. More
opportunities are needed for SPG members to share information with the APN network
during the year.
It
was generally agreed that best way to raise the profile and effectiveness of
APN was for the APN to
support excellent, relevant and influential projects
that would be recognized by the scientific community
and governments in the region. An example was an
international conference on El Nino Southern
Oscillation or Asia-Pacific regional responses to
global warming involving leading scientists from inside
and outside the Asia-Pacific region, with the results
published. The Director said that these may be good
topics for an inaugural symposium of the Secretariat
office in Kobe, and welcomed other suggestions for
topics.
There was support for the suggestion that APN
increase time for briefings from and opportunities for
linkages with global change programmes (IGBP, IHDP,
WCRP and START), in recognition of their expertise
and specialties. APN should get input from them on
the latest progress on global change issues, in
particular about the frontiers of global change science.
This input is important as a knowledge base to guide
selection of high quality, timely and relevant projects
for APN support.
11. Election of One Co-Chair and
Location of Next SPG Meeting
The Director explained that one new Co-Chair must
be selected since according to APN rules decided at
the last Inter-Governmental Meeting one of the
current Co-Chairs' terms terminates at the next
Inter-Governmental Meeting. Dr. Aprilani said that
after many years of involvement, in order to pass on
the position to a new person, that he would step
down as Co-Chair, and nominated Professor Zhao
Zong-ci of China as his successor for consideration by
the SPGDr. Lim of Malaysia seconded the nomination.
. The term will be for two years starting after the
fourth Inter-Governmental Meeting and ending after
the sixth. Dr. Zhao graciously accepted the
nomination and was accepted as a new SPG Co-Chair
by acclamation.
On behalf of the SPG, Prof. Higuchi thanked Prof.
Aprilani for his many years of contribution to the
APN. The SPG applauded his many years of
involvement, guidance and dedication to the APN in
an expression of deep appreciation.
The Director announced that the next
Inter-Governmental Meeting would decide on a
proposal to jointly hold the SPG meeting and
Inter-Governmental Meeting in the following year.
Therefore, no discussion on location would be needed
today.
Participants expressed their heartfelt appreciation to
the Government of Indonesia and LAPAN for hosting
this meeting and to the Secretariat for its work in
organizing the meeting.
Attachment I Fourth APN Scientific Planning Group Meeting
2-4 February 1999, Jakarta, Indonesia
List of Participants
AUSTRALIA
Dr. Stewart NEEDHAM
Assistant Secretary
Office of the Chief Science Adviser
Environment Australia
PO Box 787, Camberra, ACT 2601 AUSTRALIA
Tel: +61-2-6217-2031
Fax: +61-2-6217-2028
Email: stewart.needham@ea.gov.au
CAMBODIA
Mr. CHOU Sophark
Vice-Chief of Natural Resources Assessment Office
Ministry of Environment
#48, Samdech Preah Sihanouk
Tonle Bassac, Chamkarmon Phnom Penh, CAMBODIA
Tel: +855-23-427-844
Fax: +885-23-427-844
Email: neap@forum.org.kh
CHINA
Prof. ZHAO Zong-ci
Professor
National Climate Center Baishiqiaolu, No. 46
Beijing 100081 P.R. CHINA
Tel: + 86-10-6840-8576
Fax : + 86-10-6217-6804
Email:zhaozc@sun.ihep.ac.cn
INDONESIA
Prof.Dr. Aprilani SOEGIARTO
Co-chair, APN Scientific Planning Group
Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI)
JL Jenderal Gatot Subroto 10, Jakarta 12710
INDONESIA
Tel: +62-21-522-5711 ext. 360
FAX: +62-21-520-7226
Email: prosea@indo.net.id
JAPAN
Prof. Keiji HIGUCHI
Co-chair, APN Scientific Planning Group
Director, Nagoya City Science Museum
17-1 Sakae 2-chome, Naka-ku Nagoya 460 JAPAN
Tel: +81-552-201-4486 (ext. 201)
Fax: +81-552-203-0788
KOREA
Dr. Il-Soo Park
Senior Enviornmental Scientist
National Institute of Environmental Research
Air Quality Research Department
613-2 Bulkwang-Dong, Eunpyung-ku
Seoul 122-040 KOREA
Tel: +82-2-389-6711 ext, 611
Fax: +82-2-389-8712
Email: airphysi@unitel.co.kr
LAOS
Mr. Khamphanh THANPHITAK
Director, Institute for Scientific and Technological
Research Science, Technology and Environment
Organisation
B.P. Box 2279, Vientiane, LAOS P.D.R
Tel: +856-21-21-3470
Fax: + 856-21-21-3472
Email: (via somphone@steno.gov.la)
MALAYSIA
Dr. LIM Joo Tick
Director-General
Malaysian Meteorological Service
Jalan Sultan, 46667 Petaling Jaya Selangor, MALAYSIA
Tel: +60-3-758-7422
Fax: +60-3-755-0964
Email: jtlim@kjc.gov.my
MONGOLIA
Dr.Tsohio ADIYASUREN
Scientific Advisor to Minister
Ministry of Envrionment
P.O Box 954 Government Bildg.3 Baga Toiruu-44
Ulanbaatar-13, MONGOLIA
Tel:976-1-322830, 976-1-99192160
Fax:976-1-321401
Email:baigyam@magicnet.mn
PHILIPPINES
Mr. Celso DIAZ
Director, Ecosystems Research and Development
Bureau (ERDB)
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Forestry Campus, College, Los Banos, Laguna 4031
PHILIPPINES
Tel: +63-49-536-3628
Fax: +63-49-536-2850
Email: erdb@laguna.net
RUSSIA
Dr. Alexander STERIN
Head, Aerology Department
Russian Research Institute for Hydro-meteorological
Information World Data Center (RIHMI-WDC)6,
Korolyov Str., Ubninsk, Kaluga Region RUSSIA,
249020
Tel: +7-095-255-2012
Fax: +7-095-255-2225
Email: STERIN@METEO.RU
SRI LANKA
Dr. A.W. MOHOTTALA
Director, Department of Meteorology
Bauddhaloka Mawatha Colombo 07 SRI LANKA
Tel: +94-1-694-104
Fax: +94-1-691-443 or -698-311
Email: meteo@slt.lk
START Oceania
Dr. Kanayathu KOSHY
Chair, START Oceania Regional Committee
University of the South Pacific, Suva, FIJI
Tel: +679-212-446
Fax: +679-302-548
Email: koshy_k@usp.ac.fj
South Asia Regional Committee for
START (SARCS)
Dr. Graeme PEARMAN
Chairman, SARCS CSIRO Atmospheric ResearchPMB
1, Aspendale Victoria, 3195, AUSTRALIA
Tel: +61-3-9239-4650
Fax: +61-3-9239-4460
Email: graeme.pearman@dar.csiro.au
South Asia START Regional Committee
(SASCOM)
Dr. A. P. MITRA
Chairman, SASCOM
National Physical Laboratory
Dr. K.S. Krishnan Road
New Delhi 110012 INDIA
Tel: +91-11-574 5298, 573-1792
Fax: +91-11-575 2678
Email: apmitra@doe.ernet.in, ap_mitra@yahoo.com
START
Prof. Roland FUCHS
Director, International START Secretariat
2000 Florida Avenue, NW, Suite 200 Washington
D.C. 20009 U.S.A.
Tel: +1-202-462 2213
Fax: +1-202-457 5859
Email: rfuchs@kosmos.agu.org
START Regional Committee for
Temperate East Asia (TEACOM)
Prof. Congbin FU
Director, TEACOM
c/o Institute of Atmospheric Physics
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Qi Ja Huo Zi, Da Sheng Men Wai Street,
Beijing, 100029, CHINA
Tel: +86-10-6204-1317
Fax: 86-10-6204-5230
Email: fcb@ast590.tea.ac.cn
OBSERVERS
WCRP
Dr. Michael MANTON
Chief of Division
Bureau of Meteorology Research Center GPO Box
1289K, Melbourne VIC 3001 AUSTRALIA
Tel: +61-3-9669-4444
Fax: +61-3-9669-4660
Email: m.manton@bom.gov.au
INDONESIA
Mr. Aca SUGANDHY
Assistant Minister for Environment
Ministry of Environment Indonesia
Jalan D.I. Panjaitan, KAV. 24, Kebon Nanas
Jakarta 13410, INDONESIA
Tel: +62-21-851-8138
Fax: +62-21-858-0111
Email: SUGANDHY@cbn.net.id
Prof.Dr. Harsono WIRYSUMARTO
Chairman, National Institute of Aeronautics and Space
(LAPAN)Jl. Pemuda Persil, No. 1 Jakarta, Timur 13220
INDONESIA
Tel: +62-21-489-2802
Fax: +62-21-489-4815
Dr.Ing. Agus NURYANTO
Deputy Chairman for Atmospheric and Ionosphere
Research National Institute of Aeronautics and Space
(LAPAN)
Jl. Pemuda Persil, No. 1 Jakarta, Timur 13220
INDONESIA
Tel: +62-21-489-2802
Fax: +62-21-489-4815
Dr. Dadang K. MIHARDJA
Bandung Institute of Technology
Head of Dept of Geophysics and Meteorology ITB
Jl Ganesha 10, Bandung 40132 INDONESIA
Tel: +62-22-250-0494 or 250-5253
Fax: +62-22-250-0494
Email: safwan@geoph.itb.ac.id
Dr. Tukirin PARTOMIHARDJO
Research and Development Centre for Biology
The Indonesian Institute of Sciences
Jln. Ir H. Juanda 18, Bogor, 16122 INDONESIA
Tel: +62-251-322035
Fax: +62-251-525854
Email: herbogor@indo.net.id
Ir. Sri Woro B. HARIJONO MSc
Head of Weather Modification Technical Unit
The Agency for the Assessment and Application of
the Technology
Jl. M.H. Thamrin No. 8 Main Building 19th floor,
Jakarta INDONESIA
Tel: +62-21-316-8816 / 32
Fax: +62-21-390-6225
Email: sriworo@bppt.go.id
APN SECRETARIAT
Mr. Hideyuki MORI
Director APN Secretariat
3-1-13 Shibakoen, Minato-ku Tokyo 105, JAPAN
Tel: +81-3-3432-1844
Fax: +81-3-3432-1975
Email: info@apn.gr.jp
Mr. Osamu MIZUNO
Research and Information Office
Japan Environment Agency
1-2-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 100-8975
JAPAN
Tel: +81-3-3581-3422
Fax: +81-3-3581-3423
Email: OSAMU_MIZUNO@
eanet.go.jp
Ms. Kazuko WATANABE
Deputy Director, APN Secretariat
(See Address for Mr. Mori)
Email: kwatanabe@airies.or.jp
Mr. Randal HELTEN
Mr. James ROBERTSON
Project Manager, APN Secretariat
(See Address for Mr. Mori)
Email: jrobertson@apn.gr.jp
Mr. Brent MAIER
(See Address for Mr. Mori)
Email: info@apn.gr.jp
Attachment Ⅱ
AGENDA (as adopted by the SPG)
Tuesday, February 2
9:00
1. OPENING
Welcoming remarks will be presented by Dr. Ir. Agus
Nuryanto. Remarks will be made by Mr. Hideyuki
Mori, Director of the APN. Opening remarks will be
made by Prof. Dr. Harsono Wiryosumarto, Chairman
of National Institute of Aeronautics and Space
(LAPAN).
9:15
2. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Draft agenda to be considered, and final agenda
adopted Document 1
9:30
3. SECRETARIAT REVIEW - FUNDED
ACTIVITIES FOR 98/99
Secretariat Review Document 2A
Reports of 1998-1999 Projects Document
2B
The Secretariat will provide an overview of the past
year's APN funded project activities and will raise
issues regarding the implementation of project
activities.
9:45
4. PROJECT PRESENTATIONS BY DRS.
FU, KOSHY, AND MANTON
Project Representatives for three projects will be
invited to provide highlights from 1998/1999 APN
funded projects.
10:30 Floor will be open for discussion of all funded
activities
10:40 Break
11:00
5. PROJECT PROPOSAL CRITERIA AND
EVALUATION PROCESS
Document 3
Secretariat will present findings from an informal
survey and lead a discussion recommendations to
improve criteria and evaluation process for project
proposal reviews. Floor will be open for discussion
following Secretariat presentation.
12:30 Lunch
14:00
6. REVIEW OF SECRETARIAT
ACTIVITIES
Liaison Officer Report (TEACOM) Document 4
Liaison Officer Report (SASCOM)
Document 5
APN Secretariat update
14:30
7. 1999/2000 APN PROJECT PROPOSALS
(1) Initial Discussion
Table: Original Proposal Ranking Document 6A
Table: Report from Small
Group Document 6B
Small Group Recommendations Document 6C
A Representative of the Small Group will
provide an overview of the proposals and the outcomes of the
work of the Small Group to prepare assessments made
by SPG members, and discussion on which projects to
fund in 1999/2000 and at what levels. Floor will be
open for discussion following Small Group
presentation.
15:10 Break
15:30 1999/2000 APN PROJECT PROPOSALS Initial
Discussion (Continued)
16:30
8. DRAFT APN STRATEGIC PLAN (1)
Initial Discussion
Draft Strategic Plan Document 7
Handout of presentation Document
7A
Secretariat will give a brief overview of draft APN
Strategic Plan prepared by the APN Secretariat and
Strategic Plan Advisory Committee (SPAC) with input
from stakeholders, and which will result in a final draft
to be submitted to the Inter-Governmental Meeting
(IGM) in March. Floor will be open for discussion
following Secretariat presentation.
17:30 Adjourn
18:30 Bus departs from hotel for Reception Dinner
(Hosted by Indonesian Government)
21:00 Approximate return time to hotel
Note: In the evening the Small Group will revise the
recommendation for projects to fund.
Wednesday, February 3
09:00
9. 1999/2000 APN PROJECT PROPOSALS
(2) Continued Discussion
Revised Small Group listing of recommendations of
1999/2000 Project Proposals based on the previous
day's comments and discussion sessions. SPG
members will reach consensus and finalize
recommendations on projects to support for
Inter-Governmental Meeting (IGM) in March.
10:30 Break
10:00
10. DRAFT APN STRATEGIC PLAN (2)
Continued Discussion
Floor will be open for review and discussion on Draft
APN Strategic Plan.
12:00 Lunch
13:30
11. DRAFT APN STRATEGIC PLAN (3)
Continued Discussion
15:00 Break
15:30
12. APN PRIORITIES FOR SCIENTIFIC
PROGRAM FOR 2000/2001
Brief Presentation by Co-chairs of the SPG Document
8
Discussion will provide input for a decision at the IGM
about the overall scientific program, in the context of
the Strategic Plan, and about priority funding for
projects in the 2000/2001 round of proposals.
17:30 Adjourn
Evening: Drafting Session for Chairperson's Meeting
Report Summary
Thursday, February 4
9:00
13. OTHER BUSINESS
Members and observers can report on any issues
relevant to APN activities, and raise any issues of
concern that have not already been discussed.
9:30
14. CHAIRPERSONS' MEETING REPORT
SUMMARY
11.40
15. ELECTION OF ONE CO-CHAIR AND
LOCATION OF NEXT
SPG MEETING
It will be necessary to elect one co-chair for a term of
two years and discuss a location for the next SPG
meeting.
12:00 Close of SPG Meeting
18:30 Farewell reception dinner (Hosted by APN)
Attachment III
Procedures and Criteria for Selection of Funded
Activities
Results of Discussion by the SPG
1. Issue: Define clearly who is eligible to
submit proposals to APN.
Recommendation: Proposals may be submitted by an
individual, organization, or government agency from
an APN member country, or from a country in the
Asia-Pacific Region which has expressed an interest
in becoming an APN member.
2. Issue: Proposals submitted for funding
which do not involve at least 3
Asia-Pacific countries.
Recommendation: Proposals may be submitted by one
country but must include the involvement of at least 3
countries in project activities. SPG recommended that
in the case of a single country proposal of sound
science, policy relevance and regional importance, the
APN Secretariat will make reasonable efforts to
contact the proponent to revise the proposal and
make it more appropriate for APN consideration.
3.Issue: Eliminate very large funding
requests by proponents.
Recommendation: The APN will institute a $150K
ceiling for funding requests for an individual project in
any one year. There was an understanding among the
SPG members that APN should limit the amount of
funds spent to support attendance at meetings and
conferences, and that a ceiling should also be
considered on an annual basis in the region of $60K.
Note: The ceiling level will be decided, taking into
account the budget availability for APN projects each
year.
4.Issue: Project proposals, which request
multi-year funding.
Recommendation: SPG be allowed to recommend
multi-year funding to IGM in specific cases for
projects which identify total number of project years
and clearly identify project stages and anticipated
accomplishments for each year of activities. There
would be no guarantees and funding would be
conditional on a proponent successfully completing
previously funded project activities before a
recommendation for continued funding would be made.
5.Issue: Address potential conflict of
interest for SPG members in review
process.
Recommendation: SPG members may not review
proposals involving themselves and should declare a
conflict of interest where they consider one exists.
Note: The mere fact that a proposal involves, or has
originated from, the country of an SPG member is not
considered to be a conflict of interest. In the event
that a conflict of interest is declared, the Secretariat
will decide whether or not the reviewer concerned
should be allowed to rank the relevant project.
6.Issue: Elimination of proposals
submitted to APN that clearly do not
meet criteria eligibility requirements.
Recommendation: The APN Secretariat should be
allowed to eliminate for consideration those proposals
that are clearly ineligible. Proponents whose
proposals are determined to be ineligible for
consideration will be notified by the Secretariat with
an indication of why the project proposal is not
acceptable. Copies of proposals determined by the
Secretariat to be ineligible for consideration will be
sent to SPG members for information purposes along
with the Secretariat's reason for such determination.
7.Issue: Maintaining a manageable number
of project proposals in review process.
Recommendation: Following an initial review and
scoring by SPG members of all eligible project
proposals, those projects whose combined average
score is above 3.0 shall remain under consideration in
the selection process. In the event that there are not
enough good proposals, the SPG members agreed that
the Small Group could recommend alternative ways to
spend these project funds or place them in a
contingency fund for future APN activities during that
budget year.
8. Issue: Improve quality and consistency
of proposal submissions.
Recommendation: Secretariat will develop a new
standardized format that all proponents will be
required to follow and that will ensure the consistent
presentation of information.
9. Issue: Improve the processing of SPG
member questions and comments to
proponents.
Note: SPG members noted that the answers to
questions from proponents should be made available
to all SPG members, so that they could have the
opportunity to revise their scoring. It was noted that
the responses from proponents should be carefully
considered by the Small Group during their
evaluation. There was a consensus among SPG
members that reviewing responses to questions from
proponents added a large workload for them in the
evaluation process. The use of a standardized form for
proposal submissions might help to reduce the number
of questions needing answers by proponents.
10. Issue: Current deadline for proposals
does not allow adequate time for
processing, review, evaluation, and
selection process.
Note: SPG members noted that a shorter process
time from proposal submission to decision would be
better, and should be as short as possible.
|
