Minor Use News October 2004

Minutes
Minor Use Communication Working Group
Teleconference 3rd September 2004, 2-4pm

Participants:
Kevin Bodnaruk, AKC Consulting (KB)
Janine Clark, Growcom chair (JC)
Peter Dal Santo, Ag Aware (PDS)
Peter Holdsworth, Avcare (PH)
Nick Kennedy, Growcom (NK)
Alan Norden, APVMA (AN)

Apologies: Anne Story, Story Farms (AS); Alison Brinson, Brinson Family Farms (BS); and Wayne Thompson, QDPI&F (WT).

Agenda:
1 Review ‘Draft MU Comms Survey Results Report’
2 Review of issues in last minutes
3 Activities to undertake
4 Success criteria / measurements
5 Other items
6 Next teleconference date

Item 1. Review of ‘Draft MU Communications Survey Results Report’
· In the list of literature, publications and information tools it was requested that greater contact information be provided for newsletters along with the publication’s name.
· Discussion was had over the initial point of contact findings and it was decided that the APVMA did not wish to discourage individuals from coming to them as their first point of contact. The APVMA would direct them on to industry representatives depending on the nature of the inquiry. For industry representatives, the APVMA is happy to handle permit progress updates.
· Comment was made regarding the need for the HAL Minor Use Coordinator to be in place before any potential flow charts on service and information guides can be circulated.
· Discussion was had on the privacy legislation requirements for any publicised lists of contact. Some definite contacts will bet there, such as: the HAL MU Coordinator; APVMA Minor Use Project Officer (Alan Norden); Jay4 contact and Growcom (Janine Clark). Stakeholders to appear on the flow chart should be contacted to ensure that they are willing to have their details published in this format.
· The focus of any flow chart of this sort should be to direct people to e-mail, thus avoiding phone contact if possible. This contact arrangement needs to assure inquirers that the key contact will take ownership of the query and guarantee a response by a certain timeframe.
· It was noted that the Industry Development Officers were not contacted in the telephone survey and there was a request that this be rectified.

Item 2. Review of issues in last minutes
Eleven (11) issues were listed in the last minutes. Numbering them in the order that they appeared, discussion started with issue 7.
· (#7) Notification of stakeholders of avenues to find MU information:
The group agreed that this should be resolved by the appropriate use of the lists developed for the survey. This will take the form of an ‘information tree’ or flow chart that will be put on the APVMA’s website and distributed to the other web sites listed in the developed flow chart.
· (#8) Industry representatives need to be the first point of contact for stakeholders rather than the APVMA:
Depending on the type of query, APVMA are still happy to be the first point of contact for stakeholders. They will direct them to industry reps where appropriate for permit application assistance.
· (#9) List of minor use contacts needs to be generated:
This has happened as part of the preparation for the telephone survey. Growcom will manage the list and it will be updated annually and circulated in the flow chart format to stakeholders.
· (#10) Making the most of APVMA staff time with respect to permit progress updates:
AN to discuss internally. Suggestion of group teleconferences at set times to jointly discuss permit progress or policy issues relating to permits. This needs to go back to the operational working group for discussion on the mechanics of this ides and funding for teleconferences etc.
· (#11) Development of a web-based system with account managers to field questions and give updates:
This fits with the previous suggestion to have e-mail groups as denoted by the information flow chart.
· (#1) Consolidation of permit applications:
Agreed that this would be solved with the HAL Minor Use Coordinator once in place.
· (#2) Communication with industries that lack a representative body:
Broad distribution of the flow chart and information tools list will assist in a solution.
· (#3) Promotion of stakeholders taking responsibility for seeking information:
The previous action will also promote a solution to this issue.
· (#4) Improving search engine capacity to find information on minor use:
Each web manager needs to be individually responsible for using the appropriate key words in their web design. JC to seek clarification from AS as to whether the working group is responsible for providing assistance to stakeholders with key words and other technical areas.
· (#5) Elimination of R&D Double ups for data generation:
Agreed that having the HAL MU Coordinator in place will assist in solving this issue.
· (#6) Development of a permit progress register:
AN to discuss internally with APVMA. Potential long term solution. Further issues of access and database management.

Item 3. Activities to undertake
Action: JC to revisit the survey and gain responses from the IDOs.
Action: JC to draft a flow chart for the group to discuss / approve at the next meeting and to contact those involved regarding their willingness to have their details published.
Action: JC to discuss clarity of working group scope with AS regarding responsibility to give key word assistance to web managers.
Action: AN to feed back issues to the operational working group on arrangements for teleconferences to hold group discussions on general permit policy issues ie who has the responsibility of managing that. AN to draft notes on his ideas for this.
Action: JC to contact key stakeholders to ensure they give permission to include their contact details in the information flow chart.
Action: Dissemination of MU information flow chart via known stakeholder web sites.

Item 4. Success criteria / measurements
All agreed that a follow up survey of key stakeholders was a necessity to determine the changes in response to the questions on communication. This is scheduled to take place in 12 months time, October 2005.

To gauge the level of uptake of the supplied minor use contacts and list of publications, a web survey of stakeholder sites would be conducted in March 2005. Growcom would undertake to log on to the listed sites and check that they include the outputs from this communication strategy and report back to the working group.

Item 5. Other items
It was suggested that there needs to be follow up on the Minor Use Forum and plans made to hold another one in 2005. Operational level discussions need to be held on the timing and content of the next forum. This should take place around November 2004 It should also include feed back from the IR-4 symposium in the United States, thus making March 2005 the earliest date for the next forum to be held.

AN requested that the working group members visit the APVMA website and make general comments and feedback on it for the purposes of improving the site with respect to its usefulness and the “user’s area” before the next meeting.

Item 6. Next teleconference date
The draft communication strategy should be prepared for the group’s comment by the 15th October 2004. Next teleconference to be held on the 20th October, with feedback on the strategy to be submitted to Growcom by the 22nd October.