IPM Coordinator Survey: First cut

1. IPM Coordinator Survey: First cut 2013 National IPM Coordination Meeting Washington, DC

2. Sections • National Coordinating Committee functions • Make up of Coordinating Committee • EIPM Program Expectations

3. CC-Priority setting • Set priorities for research, education and extension • Create objective process for priority setting • Update the roadmap and update more frequently.

4. CC-Stakeholder interactions • Stakeholder needs analysis • Accomplishments reporting • Advocacy by stakeholders

5. CC-Funding • Advocate for increased funding • Make up for lost ground • Ensure strong competitive grants program • Investigate funds distribution to states and regions. Tie to objective measures such as value of agriculture. • Consider returning EIPM funding to a formula basis. Favor classical extension activities. Avoid research carried out by scientists identified as extension specialists • Encourage investment by state and local entities into IPM programming (how to translate national priorities to local interests; Provide database of programs that have successfully leveraged state and local support)

6. CC-Coordination • Provide national perspective • Link Regional Programs • Link Regional Centers • Interact with Federal agencies • Provide IPM input into other agency policies (EPA, NIFA, USAID, NRCS) as well as legislative processes • Link with NGOs • Link with industry • Meet frequently enough to manage system • Encourage research and teaching faculty to participate • Better coordination with related programs (eg SARE) • Make sure that regional representatives provide regional perspectives and report back to region. • Promote intra and interregional activities and collaborations.

7. CC-Support state programs • Ensure EIPM funding to maintain state programs • Ensure support for community IPM • Work toward fair representation of individiuall states within a region • Balance needs of small states • Inventory state programs and categorize into types based on structure, decision support, priority setting, stakeholder relations, etc. Commission detaiiled IPM coordinator survey for this. • Showcase model EIPM programs • Assist with development of EIPM RFAs

8. CC-Research • Ensure healthy applied research agenda

9. CC-IPM education • Support education programs to produce next generation of IPM professionals

10. CC-Evaluation • Require high quality program evaluations • Package impact analyses into reports appropriate for Congress, stakeholders, general public, etc. • Accumulate a record or database of IPM impacts that can be drawn from to support arguments in the political process and to the public • Assistance with program evaluation

11. CC-Regional Centers • Regional centers need to be support of local needs rather than top down. • Review and revitalize RIPMCs • Involve state ipm coordinators in important decsions such as leardership changes and RIPMC activities

12. CC-EIPM • Review and revitalize EIPM program

13. Who should serve on committee? • Same as present Nat IPM committee 20 • Expand membership 18 • IPM Voice, Environ. working group • Others besides chair and chair elect • National stakeholder groups • State regulatory agencies • Industry • Get some ‘new blood’ into system • International representatives • Use webinar technology to expand attendance and build the IPM community • Other govt (EPA, HUD, Armed Services, etc.) • Congressional staff, OMB • Community IPM representative • Grower and consultant representation • Don’t lose small state input • Reduce membership • Need only one admin advisor from each region; they can decide who • Committee is too big. Have one representative of each faction. Distribute detailed minutes

14. Meeting frequency • More than once per year-27 • Same-8 • Remainder no opinion/no answer • Meeting type • Quarterly teleconferences-4 • Combination of 1 meeting and teleconferences-30 • Twice in person-2 • Whatever the type, report back!

15. EIPM Program Core Expectations- Funding • Funding for IPM coordinator salary • Provide funding for IPM programming that would otherwise remain unfunded. • Funds to meet the needs of state’s stakeholders • Make sure small states are dealt with fairly; protect underserved state programs • More input by IPM coordinators in RFA • Support programs as opposed to projects • NIFA should have discretionary funds for emergencies • Fair funding from a fair review team • Proposal reviewers have more influence on programming that coordinators • Need annual flexibiliity to shift budgets • Require that coordinators manage eipm funds • Ability to provide minigrants to county personnel • More time to write proposal

16. EIPM Program Core Expectations-Evaluation/ success stories • Assessment of milestones and accomplishments • Leadership should keep IPM in front of Congress • Each state program should provide extensive report every 3 years.

17. EIPM Program Core Expectations- organization • Focus on encouraging, stimulating, and facilitating broadly focused comprehensive Extension Education Programming • Support staff and diagnostics • Support innovative communications paradigms • Programs that address local needs • Coordinate with other states in region and RIPMC • Support for local IPM agents • IPM promotion within state • Represent state at regional and national level • Year to year continuity • Mentoring system to help bring lagging states up to par