POST 00654E : FROM HFC/CFC TO HC-BASED REFRIGERATION

POST 00654E : FROM HFC/CFC TO HC-BASED REFRIGERATION Follow-up on Posts 00487E, 00493E, 00500E, 00513E, 00634E, 00638E, 00644E and 00648E 18 March 2004 ________________________________ Some of you may find the subject misleading, but its origin is there. Below is an exchange between Alasdair Wylie (mailto:[log in to unmask]) and Michel Zaffran (mailto:[log in to unmask]). Alasdair brings back the issue of the meeting agenda and Michel answers rather candidly in fact. Plain text imposed to us so far deprives us of color to help follow but Michel's contribution is in upper case. Names have been added to help further. The TechNet meeting opens within a few days so obviously the agenda will not be modified. But this exchange is posted with both parties agreement for the records, as it throws much light on the debate. ________________________________ Dear Michel and Umit I was interested to read this (POST 00638E : FROM HFC/CFC TO HC-BASED REFRIGERATION) - which I agree should be given time at TechNet - and write to remind you of my most recent suggestion for the agenda (to you 11 Dec and Post 00622, 23 Dec.) "....I was struck on my recent trip to Vietnam about the major need there for planning for organised replacement of ageing cold chain equipment, much dating from the late 80s UCI effort and expansion. I suspect many other countries may be in the same position and certainly think it would be worth having a refresher "planning principles" session and working group on this at the meeting.." MICHEL : THANKS FOR YOUR DETAILED EMAIL. LET ME TRY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE POINTS YOU ARE RAISING. I HAVE INSERTED TEXT IN CAPS BLUE IN THE BODY OF YOUR MESSAGE (IF YOUR EMAIL SYSTEM IS COLOUR BLIND, AT LEAST YOU WILL SEE THE CAPS) AS YOU RIGHTLY POINT OUT BELOW THE AGENDA IS QUITE FULL. I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE HAVE A SATELLITE WORKING GROUP EVENING SESSION ON THIS FOR THOSE INTERESTED (SIMILAR TO THE ONE ON CFCs AND ANOTHER ONE WE HAVE TENTATIVELY PLANNED TO HAVE ON MENTORING). IF CLEAR ACTION POINTS ARE GENERATED THEY COULD BE SHARED WITH THE PARTICIPANTS DURING THE WRAP UP SESSION. WE WILL NEED A LEADER FOR THIS SESSION. WILL YOU TAKE THIS ON? Alasdair : Happy too if I'm there but at present don't foresee it as a) I have a consultancy commitment and b) anyway don't have funding. ------------------------------- I did not receive a reaction to this, or to my then repeated suggestion that there is a definite case for a 5-day meeting. First made and I think well argued last August, Post00595, but not responded to then). MICHEL : AS YOU WELL KNOW, OUR FUNDING IS UNFORTUNATELY VERY LIMITED. WE ALL WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SPEND MORE TIME DISCUSSING ALL THESE ISSUES BUT CLEARLY THE WORKLOAD IS SUCH AND THE FUNDING SO LIMITED THAT WE HAVE TO PRORITIZE. THE TECHNET FORUM AND THE TECHNET WEBSITE ARE ALSO HERE TO SERVE AS FORUMS FOR ADDITIONS DISCUSSIONS. Alasdair : It is indeed a poor reflection on the relative priority given by WHO and its partners to vaccine logistics and field operations management that this unique and relatively infrequent meeting cannot be adequately funded. Bear in kind also that for most participants from other regions the travel costs, the biggest part of the costs of attending, will not be any lower; they will however get less benefit from the investment. I had thought to make some comments on the meeting agenda as posted on the TechNet website on 27 December but decided to wait to see if any others did. As there have been none (at least, none Posted), and as there have been no changes to the agenda on the website since then, here are my main ones now: - For the three days, Tues to Thurs, you have all plenary sessions and no group or breakout work at all; - Half of the 8 proposed sessions have no discussion time provided for even in plenary (Injection Safety, New Vaccine Introduction, Vaccine Management, Vacc. Supply and Procurement); MICHEL : I AM PERSONALLY CONVINCED THAT WE MUST HAVE PLENTY OF TIME FOR DISCUSSION. YOU MAY HAVE BEEN MISLED BY THE FACT THAT THE DISCUSSION TIMES ARE NOT SHOWN AS SUCH BUT ALL PRESENTATIONS INCLUDE 1/3 PRESENTATION AND 2/3 DISCUSSION TIME. PRESENTERS HAVE BEEN CLEARLY TOLD TO FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS AND WE WILL INSTRUCT THE CHAIRS TO MAKE SURE THAT SUFFICIENT TIME IS DEDICATED TO DISCUSSION. Alasdair : Good, but I do not feel that relying on plenary alone is the best way of getting and benefiting from the discussion inputs of many participants. - Only one out of eight sessions with provision for regional reports; MICHEL : ALL SESSIONS WILL INCLUDE SOME PRESENTATIONS MADE BY REGIONAL OR COUNTRY COLLEAGUES OR REPRESENTATIVES- THIS AGAIN DOES NOT SHOW ON THE AGENDA BECAUSE IN THE VERSION YOU HAVE THE NAMES OF THE PRESENTERS ARE NOT SHOWN Alasdair : Good although for some sessions the time constraint would appear to be a major issue; names do not have to be available to show that there is provision for regional presentation(s). - Some major subjects are given minimal time. For example New Vaccine Introduction has one hour (the Vaccine Arrival Report part of that should probably go in Vaccine Management); this is pitifully little considering that this has been a dominant activity for very many countries since 2001; - A major subject such as SIA/campaign logistics experience and issues, recommended by more than one Technet contributor, and again a major activity in many countries since 2001 for MNT/TT and Measles in addition to Polio, has no time at all; MICHEL : WE HAVE DECIDED THAT THESE TOPICS ARE ACTUALLY GIVEN AMPLE TIMES IN OTHER SETTINGS IN WHICH MASS CAMPAIGNS ARE DISCUSSED SUCH AS THE TCG OR THE MEASLES PARTNERSHIPS MEETINGS OF THE REGIONAL TCGS AND REGIONAL EPI MANAGERS MEETINGS. PERHAPS YOU ARE NOT ATTENDING THESE? ANYHOW, WE HAVE DECIDED TO FOCUS ON THOSE ISSUES WHERE WE FELT YOUR CONTRIBUTION WOULD NOT REPEAT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN OTHER SETTINGS. Alasdair : No, I and other independent consultants don't attend these (unless commissioned to make a specific presentation); but more importantly, participation at regional meetings is by definition regional excepting a handful of global partner agency staff. The opportunity for country and regional staff to share, discuss and learn with a peer group in a global forum is the issue here, I believe. - No time provided for discussion regarding either Technet Working Groups or mechanisms to work with GAVI (two of the four "major working modalities" agreed in Delhi/2001), and the GAVI RWGs; (Robert S also reminded about the latter). MICHEL : I AM ACTUALLY NOT CLEAR ABOUT THESE WORKING GROUPS, WHICH IN THE PAST HAVE NOT WORKED SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE WERE NO RESOURCES (HUMAN AND FINANCIAL) TO MAKE THEM WORK AND I WOULD BE TEMPTED TO DROP THE CONCEPT AND REPLACE IT WITH A MORE PRAGMATIC WAY OF WORKING ON AREAS FOR WHICH FUNDING IS AVAILABLE. IN ADDITION, WE WILL BE SETTING UP WORKING GROUPS FOR THE PQS WHICH MAY GENERATE IDEAS OF OPERATIONS RESEARCH. Alasdair : Certainly these are important points for discussion, but there needs to be time to discuss! The injection safety/sharps management working group - which among other things helped lay the ground for the emergence of SIGN - was perhaps the one example of one which did work; self-evidently, resources are needed (time as well as money), but since Delhi there appears not to have been the will or ability to mobilize these. - No time provided for discussion of Technet's relationship with the Technology Operations Panel and in particular the ambitions which the TOP has to use field staff (with, presumed, appropriate involvement of regional offices) for operations research and studies.(a major issue in the thoughts that John L, Gordon L and I put together last August.) MICHEL : I ACTUALLY DO NOT THINK THAT THIS REQUIRES A DISCUSSION AT TECHNET. SURELY IT WOULD REQUIRE A DISCUSSION DURING THE TOP AND THEN, WHATEVER WORK IS DONE IN THE FIELD AS A RESULT OF THE TOP DISCUSSION, USING FIELD STAFF, COULD BE THE TOPICS OF REPORTS MADE TO TECHNET Alasdair : I don't agree, but if this approach is to be taken then there at least needs to be time at this meeting to report to Technet what the TOP has discussed so far and what if any fieldwork is planned. By the way, no report of the last TOP meeting has yet been made available to Technet (and only one agenda item from the first TOP meeting was Posted). This last is a bit ironic considering that it is the scheduling of a TOP meeting on the Friday which has contributed to severely limiting time for the main meeting (or is it the main meeting any more?) As I presume that TOP is for relatively limited numbers of WHO, UNICEF and PATH staff compared with those expected at TechNet, could consideration not have been given to having it on the Saturday? MICHEL : I HAVE COMMENTED ON THE DURATION ALREADY AND OUR LIMITED FUNDS. THIS APPLIES ALSO TO TOP. FURTHERMORE, WE USED TO HAVE A 5 DAYS TECHNET CONSULTATION WITH LARGE AMOUNTS OF TIME DEDICATED TO INJECTION SAFETY. THE SIGN MEETING (DO YOU PARTICIPATE IN IT?) HAS TAKEN OVER (AS WE HAD EXPECTED) MOST OF THE INJECTION SAFETY DISCUSSION, TO PLACE IT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE OVERALL INJECTION FIELD. SO CLEARLY WE NEED LESS TIME. WE COULD ALWAYS SPEND TWO WEEKS FOR THE REMAINING TECHNET TOPICS BUT WE NEED TO BALANCE PRIORITIES AND AVAILABLE RESOURCES WITH A MOST EFFICIENT USE OF OUR TIME Alasdair : Although IS indeed needs less time at Technet there are sufficient relatively new areas of activity prominent in the last couple of years - as noted above - to justify the time so, sorry, not convinced. (and, obviously, no-one is suggesting two weeks; we are talking about one or two days!) Obviously there is little time to play with, but it seems to be a self-inflicted problem. I worry that all this will damage Technet credibility, but I may be in a minority. Best regards Alasdair THANKS FOR ALL YOUR COMMENTS. I HOPE THAT, IN SPITE OF YOUR FRUSTRATION YOU WILL BE ABLE TO ATTEND AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONSULTATION. REGARDS MICHEL ______________________________________________________________________________ Visit the TECHNET21 Website at http://www.technet21.org You will find instructions to subscribe, a direct access to archives, links to reference documents and other features. ______________________________________________________________________________ To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message to : mailto:[log in to unmask] Leave the subject area BLANK In the message body, write unsubscribe TECHNET21E ______________________________________________________________________________ The World Health Organization and UNICEF support TechNet21. The TechNet21 e-Forum is a communication/information tool for generation of ideas on how to improve immunization services. It is moderated by Claude Letarte and is hosted in cooperation with the Centre de coopération internationale en santé et développement, Québec, Canada (http://www.ccisd.org) ______________________________________________________________________________