Salient Points from Responses to the Panel's Ten Questions
List of Those Who Responded
1. Introduction
Before meeting to discuss its recommendations, the Panel (through its Chairman) invited responses to ten questions. The questions were distributed to a wide range of CGIAR stakeholders and others. The Panel is conscious that the replies do not necessarily constitute a fully representative sample of all stakeholders. Nonetheless, reasonably wide coverage was achieved using names suggested by the Chairman of TAC, Panel members and others. In addition. Panel members consulted widely by telephone on the same questions.
This Annex summarises the responses. They have not been analysed quantitatively, but an attempt has been made to reflect the diversity of opinions expressed, as well as to indicate the main areas of common ground.
2. General Impressions
Perceptions of the appropriate level of future CGIAR investment in biotechnology differ widely. Many are strongly supportive of biotechnology; others remain unconvinced that there should be increased investment in this area. A few are strongly opposed to any additional investment in biotechnology, while several make the point that the CGIAR should stick to its problem-solving, bottom-up philosophy and should not apply a top-down (technology-push) approach. Some emphasize the importance of agro-ecological approaches backed by participatory research at the farmer level. Mention is also made of the practical difficulties of rapid expansion in biotechnology, such as staffing, training, infrastructure, supplies and services.
Many, unfamiliar with the details of the technology, tended to relate "biotechnology" to the generation of transgenic organisms and the control of their ownership by patents. Those more familiar with the details emphasized the opportunities for applying the new analytical techniques to germplasm improvement and other ventures.
Against this background, the word "caution" featured in various different contexts but especially in those related to biosafety and other risks. At the same time there was general agreement that the CGIAR should position itself so as not to miss emerging opportunities in biotechnology, which are seen as extending well beyond genetic improvement. Some see increased emphasis on biotechnology as essential for the survival of the Centres as credible research institutes. Some donors support increased investment by the CGIAR in biotechnology; others await guidance from the two Panels.
3. The Ten Questions
1. What developments are likely to emerge in biotechnology from the advanced public institutions and major companies, over the next 10 years, that should be exploited to fulfil the CGIAR mission?
Developments identified in the responses to this question are many and varied. Genomic characterisation, and its application to identifying desirable genes, is generally regarded as a key area, whether stated explicitly or by implication. Marker-aided selection and transformation feature strongly as providing new ways of enhancing desirable characteristics or of inserting special traits into well adapted genotypes. Among lists of desirable traits, the most commonly cited are resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses, as well as the quality of harvested products. Gene promoters allowing their expression in particular tissues also receive attention. Several responses mention the potential value of apomixis and induced male sterility in the final production of improved crop varieties, while both apomixis and clonal production feature for trees. Diagnostic techniques are mentioned in a wide range of contexts.
CIFOR and IIMI do not see a compelling need to become heavily involved in biotechnology as they both have natural resources mandates. ICRAF explains the potential for domestication in tree species and the wide differences in the nature of the problems encountered compared with those of arable crops. IPGRI has special aims related to germplasm banks; ICLARM sets out its vision of the use of biotechnology in relation to aquatic organisms; and ILRI covers applications to livestock improvement and disease control (see Annex III for amplification of these aspects).
2. What biotechnological developments are client countries seeking and expecting?
Developing countries wish to take advantage of any developments in biotechnology that they perceive as beneficial, such as cheap and reliable selection techniques based on molecular markers. Some are already active in the main areas of research involved and others are moving in that direction.
The role of Centres in forming bridges for the transfer of biotechnology and assisting with capacity building, is a recurring theme. There is general recognition that developing countries vary in the extent to which they are currently geared up to incorporate biotechnology into their research programmes. The need for training, information services and advice (especially on biosafety and proprietary rights) is commonly cited.
3. Who should decide what biotechnology products are produced by CGIAR initiatives?
Some considered existing processes of strategic planning and priority setting to be adequate for integrating biotechnology into current programmes. Some argue that all CGIAR stakeholders, including donors, should be involved in decision-making or that decisions should be made by an independent panel. There seems to be a majority view, however, that decisions should be de-centralised. Centres should operate within a broad policy framework determined by the CGIAR and then be free to make their own decisions based on a bottom-up approach in which the developing countries have full participation. There is also a view that market forces will influence what the Centres do. Central (CGIAR) scrutiny would be through the processes already in place (budgets, medium-term plans, external reviews, etc.). There is a view that TAC should find ways of remaining in closer touch with biotechnology.
4. What are the implications for client countries, NGOs and consumers of the recommended adoption of biotechnology by the CGIAR, and -what part should IARCs play in facilitating the acceptance of agreed biotechnology products?
Implications for client countries are broadly seen as positive. However, several responses emphasize the importance of establishing recognized biosafety mechanisms in developing countries and the need for appropriate delivery systems for the products of biotechnology. There is a view that this may not be possible without full participation of the private sector. Client countries will need to invest in laboratory facilities and personnel if they are to make full use of biotechnology in their own research programmes and to enable them to collaborate actively with Centres and others.
An important role of the CGIAR is seen as catalytic, as a provider of information and advisory services to create greater awareness of both the benefits and the risks. CGIAR Centres could help client countries and NGOs to keep fully in touch with the scientific, legal and biosafety aspects.
5. What biotechnology partnership models should be developed between IARCs, NARSs, NGOs and industries to deliver the mission of the CGIAR more effectively and efficiently?
There is strong support for partnerships and involvement of the private sector both in research collaboration and in delivery systems. The replies tend to be in terms of broad generalizations, with recognition that models cannot be determined in advance and are better developed on a case-by-case basis. There is strong support for networking approaches. One reply suggests central co-ordination with, perhaps, a new Centre.
6. What kinds of partnerships, networks and business agreements need to be developed and adopted to ensure the best technology can be exploited by IARCs?
Many different arrangements are described in the responses. There is general recognition of the need for Centres to have access to the latest developments in biotechnology and hence the need to form alliances (preferably of mutual benefit) with other organizations in both the public and private sectors. Attention is drawn to the opportunities for contracting some of the work to outside organisations, rather than the Centres attempting to do all of it themselves. Several respondents mention the need for some form of central capacity within the CGIAR to give advice on the various types of alliance.
One specific idea (CIMMYT) is for a CGIAR-sponsored information network that could establish a database for molecular data relating to accessions in the various germplasm banks. Greater and more frequent interchange of ideas and experience among Centres also features in some responses.
7. What investments and management changes would be required in the IARCs to enable them to implement the desired changes as new opportunities emerge from biotechnology?
Responses vary. Some see no need for a "big bang" but regard the Centres as being on an evolutionary pathway that will gradually incorporate more biotechnology as appropriate. Others see the need for major new investments in personnel and equipment. Special-project funding is regarded by many as inappropriate for much of the work. The importance, at senior staff and board level, of skills in business management, proprietary rights and related matters is mentioned by many.
8. What are the implications for the IARCs for senior appointments, staff cohorts, training and turnover if the recommended levels of biotechnology are adopted by the CGIAR
There is general recognition of the need (where not already met) for a member of the senior management staff to hold responsibility for monitoring developments in biotechnology and guiding Centre strategies and priorities. Most see changes being made through evolutionary processes, rather than by a dramatic change.
IPGRI describes the value of its Honorary Fellows embedded in advanced research institutions, an idea that has much in common with other suggestions for ways of drawing upon the expertise and facilities of other organisations to help with Centre programmes. There was a suggestion, for example, that there might be technology units within universities, funded to work explicitly on CGIAR problems.
9. What will be the best structure, funding mechanisms and management systems for the IARCs in the future in order to make best use of biotechnology?
Current de-centralised structures are, in general, regarded as suitable. Additional skills will be required, such as in business management, IPR etc. especially for collaboration with the private sector. Some argue that this capacity should be centralised as a CGIAR special unit to negotiate with the private sector on behalf of all Centres. Greater inter-Centre collaboration is mentioned (including sharing facilities where appropriate) but there is little support for a central laboratory serving all Centres.
There is widespread support for networks in advanced science, involving the best laboratories in the world being linked to the Centres. Increased and long-term funding is regarded as essential and might be provided through special arrangements involving the World Bank, Foundations and other donors.
10. What are the risks for the IARCs and the CGIAR in developing germplasm using the systems, tools and information of biotechnology and, conversely, in not exploiting biotechnology adequately?
(a) Greater use of biotechnology: Possible distortion of CGIAR priorities. Might be perceived as a "technology push". Exposure to criticism if products are released in countries with inadequate biosafety monitoring mechanisms. The consequences of mistakes could be severe. Possible loss of public goodwill. Some products might prove difficult to deliver to resource-poor farmers.(b) No expansion in biotechnology: Loss of valuable opportunities to assist research programmes in developing countries and further the CGIAR mission. Loss of scientific and funding opportunities. Loss of credibility of the CGIAR as a leading research organisation. Private sector ownership of biotechnology and its products would predominate.
Arntzen Professor Charles, Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research Inc. (USA)
Aveldano Dr Rodrigo, INIFAP-SARH (Mexico)
Bedbrook, Dr. J., DNA Plant Technology Corporation (USA)
Bennett Dr. John, IRRI
Bennett Mr Andrew J, Department for International Development (DFID) UK
Bie Dr. Stein, ISNAR
Brader Dr. Lukas, IITA
Briggs, Dr. Steve, Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. (USA)
Buchanan Dr Alex, Crawford Fund for International Agriculture Research (Australia)
Büchting Dr A, KWS Kleinwanzlebener Saatzucht AG (Germany)
Carsalade Mr Henri, Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN
Coffman Professor W. Ronnie, Director, Cornell Agri. Exp. (USA)
Dalodom Dr Ananta, Department of Agriculture, (Thailand)
Davis Dr. Jeremy, International Development Manager, PBIC (UK)
El-Beltagy Dr. Adel, ICARDA
Evans Dr. David, Zeneca Agrochemicals (UK)
Fisher Dr. Ken, International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)
Fitzhugh Dr. Hank, ILRI
Friedrichsen Dr J, GTZ (Germany)
Gowda Dr. C, ICRISAT
Hall, Prof. T, Texas A & M (USA)
Hardy, Dr. Ralph, Ex DuPont and Ex Boyce Thompson Institute (Canada)
Hawtin Dr. Geoffrey, IPGRI
Hoisington Dr. Dave, CIMMYT
Hopper, Mr. David, Ex World Bank and Ex Chair, CGIAR (Canada)
Izard Mr Maurice, Sous-direction du dev. economique et de l'environment (France)
Jacobsen Prof H-J, Universität Hannover (Germany)
James Dr. Clive, ISAAA (Cayman Islands)
Kürschner Dr. E., GTZ (Germany)
Lampe Dr K, ex DG IRRI (Germany)
Lewis Mr John V, US Agency for International Development (USA)
MacGillivray Mr lain C, CIDA (Canada)
Maeno Dr Nobuyoshi, Japan Int. Research for Agri. Sciences (Japan)
Mazur Dr. Barbara, DuPont Agricultural Products (USA)
McCalla, Dr. Alex, Agriculture and Natural Resources, World Bank
McConnell R., Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. (USA)
McCouch Prof. Susan, Plant Breeding Department, Cornell University (USA)
Mellon, Dr. Margaret, Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington (USA)
Miflin Professor Ben, Institute of Arable Crops Research (UK)
Ndiritu Dr. Cyrus, Kenya Agriculture Research Institute (Kenya)
Noome Dr C., Advanta (USA)
Nwanze Dr. Kanayo, WARDA
Padolina Dr. W., Dept. of Science & Technology, (Philippines)
Peacock, Prof. J., CSIRO (Australia)
Petit Mr Michael J, The World Bank
Reeves Professor Timothy, CIMMYT
Röbbelen Prof G, Universität Göttingen (Germany)
Roca Dr. Willy, CIAT
Salamini Professor Francesco, Max-Planck-Institut für Zuchtungsforschung (Germany)
Sanchez Dr. Pedro, ICRAF
Sayer Dr. Jeffrey, CIFOR
Schilde Prof L, Universität Tübingen (Germany)
Scobie Dr. Grant, (with Roca response) CIAT
Seckler Dr. David, IIMI
Seratos-Hernandez Dr. Jose Antonio, INIFA (Mexico)
Shegal Dr. Suri, AgrEvo USA - PGS America (USA)
Strong, Mr. Maurice, Advisor to the President, World Bank
Thornstron Mr Carl-Gustaf, Director, SIDA, (Sweden)
Thrupp Dr. Lori Ann, World Resources Institute (USA)
Toenniessen Dr. Gary, The Rockefeller Foundation (USA)
Trigo Dr. Eduardo, President, Fundación ArgenINTA (Argentina)
Vasil Dr. Indra, University of Florida (USA)
Virgin Dr. Ivar, Stockholm Environment Institute (Sweden)
von Montagu Professor Marc, Laboratorium Genetika (Belgium)
Waffula Dr. James, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (Kenya)
Weimin Mr Yang, Asian Development Bank (Philippines)
Wenzel Prof. Dr. G., Universität Weihenstephan (Germany)
Wettstein Professor Diter von, Washington State University (USA)
Williams Dr. Meryl, ICLARM
Winkel Mr Klaus, Danish Int. Dev. Assistance, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Denmark)
Wolpers Dr K-H, GTZ (Germany)
Zandstra Dr. Hubert, CIP
