4.1 Overview
4.2 The Americas
4.3 Asia, Pacific and Oceania
4.4 Europe
4.5 Sub-Saharan Africa
4.6 West Asia and North Africa
4.7 COGENT
4.8 Overall Assessment of IPGRI's Regional Programmes
In this chapter, the Panel deals with IPGRI's activities in the regions. The Institute has five regional groups: in the Americas, Asia/Pacific/Oceania (APO), Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), and West Asia and North Africa (WANA). The Institute's headquarters-based groups dealing with generic PGR research and development issues have a multitude of activities which link them intimately with IPGRI's regional activities, and, conversely, regional groups and their collaborating institutions in the regions contribute output of generic relevance in addition to region-specific work. There is thus an inherent problem in reporting and assessing separately the progress in the regions and at headquarters. The Panel views the close working and strategic relationships between headquarters and outreach with efficient and effective feedforward and feedback mechanisms as a key for the Institute to be able to make a difference and it comments on this in the overall assessment in various Sections of this report.
The Panel has also assessed the multitude of networks in which the Institute is involved (except INIBAP which is dealt with separately in Chapter 5); it singled out the Coconut Genetic Resources Network (COGENT) in a separate Section (4.7), while the other networks with regional relevance are dealt with in the individual regional sub-Sections. The Panel is aware that additional networks are operating mainly with IPGRI's Thematic Groups involvement. They are referred to in the discussion of the Thematic Activities in Chapter 3. A typology of networks in which IPGRI is involved is given in Box 4.1, and a short profile of all networks with IPGRI involvement is given in Appendix VIII. The Panel notes that IPGRI is involved in a very high number of networks; it also recognizes that networking is a primary feature of the Institute's mode of operation. The Panel, however, suggests that the Institute aggressively seek methods to rationalize its involvement in networks in view of keeping the transaction cost for all parties involved at a minimum.
IPGRI has carried out Centre-Commissioned External Reviews (CCER) of four of its regional programmes (except APO), and the Steering Committee of COGENT commissioned an external review of this network during the review period. The Panel has based its comments largely on these reports and the reporting material prepared by the Institute for these reviews. The Panel has, in addition, consulted selected reporting materials for verification purposes; in the case of Sub-Saharan Africa, the Panel benefited from a partial overlap of the CCER with its own visit to the region. The short sub-Sections on the regional programmes below highlight some of the specific features of each Regional Group as per the information made available to the Panel; they include a summary of regional activities during 1992-96 (Table 4.1), and a tabular synopsis prepared for each region giving objectives, activities under each objective and a few examples of actions undertaken (Boxes 4.2 to 4.6). In these sub-Sections the Panel offers advice only specifically relevant to these regional programmes. More general suggestions and recommendations are part of the overall assessment of regional activities and networks in Section 4.8.
The Panel noted that IPGRI has made a substantial effort to assess the impact of its programme; this four-year study not only refers to the Institute's regional activities but also to the Thematic Group work. The study is, in the Panel's view, however, of particular importance for the regional activities of the Institute in that it designs an assessment approach suitable for the analysis of regional subject matter research impact. In that sense the study is a valuable complement to the conventional impact assessment which is strongly oriented towards economic quantification. Case studies are presented for each of IPGRI's business areas, including the five regional programmes. The Panel believes that this activity is very useful in at least two ways: it combines quantitative and qualitative measures of impact assessment into a suitable product for consumption by IPGRI's external audience (donors, policy-makers, etc.) and it serves internally as input in programme direction. The Panel strongly encourages IPGRI to continue using this instrument.
|
Box 4.1: Networks and IPGRI IPGRI's role in networking illustrates well the Institute's catalytic role. Networks vary according to their mandate and objectives and can be classified into three broad categories: regional, species and thematic. Regional networks link members on a geographic or ecoregional basis. They provide a platform for regional collaboration, often through specific crop or thematic working groups. Species networks bring together different institutions and disciplines based on a common interest in a specific genepool. They aim to link conservers and users of genetic resources. Thematic networks stimulate scientific collaboration through bringing together scientists from different countries and disciplines. Some illustrative examples are described below, while a full listing of all networks is provided in Appendix VIII. Regional networks: · Regional Committee for South East Asia (RECSEA). Established in 1977, RECSEA includes five countries. IPGRI's original role of providing technical, secretariat and financial support has evolved to one of mainly providing technical back-stopping. · European Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic Resources Networks (ECP/GR). Established in 1980, this network is fully funded by its members, with IPGRI providing a full time coordinator. · West Asia and North Africa Plant Genetic Resources Network (WANANET). IPGRI provides a secretariat service, modest financial support and technical back-stopping. · In addition, IPGRI contributes to many other regional networks, including: South Asia PGR Coordinators Network (SAC); East-Asia PGR Network (EA-NET); European Forest Genetic Resources Programme (EUFORGEN); Banana Research Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (BARNESA); Meso-American Network on Plant Genetic Resources (REMERFI); The Andean Network on Plant Genetic resources (REDARFIT); The Amazonian Network on Plant Genetic Resources (TROPIGEN). Species Networks: · The International Network for Bamboo and Rattan (INBAR). In 1993, IPGRI supported the creation of an INBAR Working Group on Biodiversity and Genetic Resources and continues to play a leading role in its operation. · World Beta Network. Established in 1988, as a network of ECP/GR, the World Beta Network is coordinated by a German institution and links scientists from Europe and other regions. IPGRI provides technical back-stopping and modest financial support. · IPGRI also contributes to other crop networks, including the: Coconut Genetic Resources Network (COGENT), International Bailey Genetic Resources Network; International Rice Genetic Resources Network; Asian Network for Sweet Potato Genetic Resources (ANSWER). Theme Networks: · Forest Seed Research Network on Handling and Storage of Recalcitrant and Intermediate Tropical Tree Seed. Funded by DANIDA, IPGRI facilitates this network which brings together scientists from many countries to address common research issues. · Global experiment on in vitro slow growth of sweet potatoes. IPGRI coordinates research among a network of 15 in vitro conservation research groups. |
Table 4.1: Regional Activities - Crop Genetic Resources (1992-19%)
|
Institution Building |
APO |
WANA |
SSA |
Americas |
Europe |
|||||
|
No. |
Total C/tries |
No. |
Total C/tries |
No. |
Total C/tries |
No. |
Total C/tries |
No. |
Total C/tries |
|
|
Number of national programmes operational* |
18 |
45 |
16 |
27 |
28 |
48 |
7 |
36 |
43 |
52 |
|
Number of regional programmes operational* with recurrent budget allocation |
None |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
|||||
|
Number of national workshops organized |
5 |
11 |
28 |
14 |
0 (1) |
|||||
|
Number of crop working groups operational |
11 |
6 |
17 |
9 |
17 |
|||||
|
Number of formal consultation missions |
9 |
15 |
23 |
5 |
39 |
|||||
|
Human resources development (number of trainees) |
261 |
87 |
186 |
186 |
119 |
|||||
|
Physical facilities development
|
||||||||||
|
$ inputs |
US$7,000 |
US$35,000 |
US$30,000 |
US$23,207 |
750,000 (2) |
|||||
|
Number of countries served |
4 |
4 |
5 |
9 |
5 |
|||||
|
PGR conservation and use |
||||||||||
|
Number of collecting missions with IPGRI participation |
28 |
22 |
13 |
34 |
16 |
|||||
|
Number of safety-duplications materialized and country |
5 |
3 |
3 |
15 |
5 |
|||||
|
Number of in situ conservation projects set up |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|||||
|
Public Awareness |
||||||||||
|
Number of regional newsletter issues (3) |
15 |
12 |
8 |
4 |
9 |
|||||
|
Number of region-specific publications produced |
16 |
5 |
4 |
10 |
22 |
|||||
|
Personnel |
20 |
5 |
13 |
12 |
8 |
|||||
· Please note that the concept of the word "operational" might differ in each region
(1) No national, but 11 subregional and regional workshops organized
(2) Of this amount, US$ 660,230 was for Russia from the U.S. special contribution
(3) This relates to numbers of issues printed in English. Please note however, that some issues are also printed in other languages
4.2.1 Evolution
4.2.2 Strategy
4.2.3 Achievements and Impact
4.2.4 Assessment
Latin America and the Caribbean encompass important centres of diversity of several crops of global, regional and/or local importance. Most genepools of native American crops and wild species of potential economic value are threatened by accelerated rates of genetic erosion. IPGRI and its predecessor IBPGR have long-standing associations with national and regional institutions in the Americas to stem this dramatic loss of genetic resources.
IPGRI's Americas Group has been hosted since its establishment in 1982 by CIAT at its headquarters in Cali, Colombia; this close association between the two CGIAR centres undoubtedly offers a number of important opportunities for collaborative initiatives and mutual support. IBPGR established a Regional Office for North and Central America at CIMMYT in Mexico in 1988 and a seed handling unit at CATIE in 1990; they were both discontinued in 1992 and activities were consolidated in the Institute's programme at Cali.
The Americas Group conducts its research and development programme primarily through collaborative arrangements with its national, regional and subregional partner institutions and to some degree also in collaboration with CIAT and other IARCs in the region; it also relies on inputs from the Headquarters-based Thematic Groups.
At the time of the EPMR, the regional office had 12 staff positions of which four were international professionals, two local professionals, and one associate expert positions. In 1992 there were four professional staff (one international, three local professionals). At the time of the Review, the recruitment of a new Regional Director was ongoing.
IPGRI has prepared a strategy paper for its involvement in the Americas in the short, medium and long term. Emphasis is on the continued support of the subregional activities with the objective being the full implementation and sustainability of networks in all five subregions. At the same time the further strengthening and/or development of national PGR programmes is envisaged. The strategy statement is comparatively unspecific with regard to the contents of the research and development envisaged by the Group, and substantial effort for the focusing of this strategy is required. Of particular importance thereby is the full use of the excellent opportunities in the region for strategic institutional alliances both in the formal and informal sectors, and of much enhanced integration with the Latin America/Caribbean (LAC) - based CGIAR Centres. Complementarity with regional initiatives needs to be more specifically worked out, and the collaboration with some of the larger national PGR programmes in the region needs to be more explicitly addressed.
In the review period, the Americas Group emphasized support to the three subregional networks established during this period [REMERFI (Meso-American Network of Plant Genetic Resources), REDARFIT (Andean Network of Plant Genetic Resources) and TROPIGEN (Amazonian Network of Plant Genetic Resources)]. This support was in part through coordination assistance and assistance in the procurement of funding for activities agreed at the regional level. The Group has secured US$ 2 million from three donor agencies for the support of research projects in three subregional networks since 1993.
|
Box 4.2: Activities of IPGRI's Regional Office for the Americas | ||
|
Objective |
Activities |
Examples of actions undertaken |
|
Facilitate the establishment and strengthening of national PGR systems |
· organize national workshops to design national programmes · provide technical assistance to NPs on PGR issues |
· technical and financial support to Bolivian National PGR Encounters, 1996, 1997 |
|
Facilitate and strengthen regional collaboration |
· promote the creation of subregional PGR networks · work together with IICA and CATIE to promote network activities · provide technical coordination assistance to networks · obtain funding and implement technical assistance for network activities · provide support to scientific meetings of regional importance |
· instrumental in creation of REMERFI, REDARFIT, TROPIGEN and CMPGR · co-sponsorship of annual network meetings with IICA and its PROCIs · REMERFI Coordination Project written with IICA and CATIE · technical or assistant coordinators provided for REMERFI, REDARFIT and TROPIGEN · funding obtained from BMS for REMERFI Coordination Project, 1996 · regional scientific meetings supported in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Venezuela |
|
Enhance national capacities to conserve, manage, use, and document their PGR and related information |
· conduct and sponsor training activities · disseminate information · develop appropriate conservation and documentation strategies and technologies · raise awareness through visits to decision-makers |
· training workshops for collectors of native fruits · support participation of Prof. Richard Ellis in PGR training course in Chile · comprehensive set of IPGRI technical publications provided to INIA, Peru and to various other NPs · literature searches conducted for regional partners upon request · conduct training course on germplasm documentation in Uruguay, 1995 · visit with representatives of INIFAP (Mexico), USDA and USAID (USA), to discuss PGR support, 1995, 1996 |
|
Facilitate increased cooperation between developed and developing countries |
· facilitate collaborative germplasm collecting and characterization between US and Latin American NARS · promote preparation of joint research proposals · conduct and sponsor training activities involving specialists from developed countries |
· INIAP-USDA project to collect, increase and characterize the native peanut landraces of Ecuador, 1995-1997 · Spain-Latin America Follow-Up Task Force call for proposals, 1996 · Spain-Latin America Workshop to Train Trainers and Develop Training Materials, Bolivia 1996 |
|
Represent the Institute at the regional level |
· participate in regional meetings · respond to information requests and make information available to national programmes |
· participate in Regional Genebank Management Workshop, 1996 · publication of Regional Newsletter · distribution of IPGRI publications |
|
Monitor regional needs and priorities and thus contribute to the development of IPGRI's overall strategy |
· participation in ICPPGR preparatory process for the Leipzig Conference (June 1996) · preparation of strategy documents for the Institute |
· drafting of Regional Synthesis reports · IPGRI's Strategy for the Americas developed in response to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Regional Synthesis Reports, and the Global Plan of Action |
Seven national PGR programmes are reported as functional at the end of 1996 in the Group's mandate area. Fourteen national PGR workshops were carried out, nine crop working groups were supported in their operations and five formal consultation missions to national PGR programmes were carried out. Fifteen safety-duplications of collected materials are reported to have been implemented in the review period and a total of 34 PGR collection missions were carried out with IPGRI and partially also CIAT participation. The total number of individual and group trainees served was 183. The Panel has every reason to believe that through these activities the Group has had significant impact on the conservation of PGR in the region, either directly or indirectly. There are a few more activities worth mentioning such as the collaboration with CIAT in the molecular characterisation and geo-referencing of Passiflora germplasm, the IDB-funded activities in diversity assessment, conservation and use of the Sapotacea and Passiflora genera carried out with a variety of national, regional and international institutions and substantially complemented by a scientist seconded by CIRAD. Training, documentation and information activities in a variety of arrangements with both Thematic Groups and CIAT inputs are further reported.
The Americas Group was involved, as the other Regional IPGRI Groups, in the preparation process for the International Technical Conference in 1995/6 leading to the two subregional meetings for Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean, and for South America. The knowledge base on the PGR situation in the region and on the corresponding research and development requirements has been considerably enhanced in this process. For reasons perhaps beyond the easy control of IPGRI management, the interaction between IPGRI and national PGR programmes in South America was partially disrupted in this process so that a repair job is awaiting the incoming Regional Director. The Panel is confident that the IPGRI management will use its high prestige in the region to assist the Americas Group and its new Director to re-establish its credibility.
IPGRI's activities in the Americas region during the review period were assessed in August 1996 by a CCER. The presentation of this CCER and the Board deliberations on its recommendations coincided with the first phase of the EPMR. The responses of both IPGRI's Board and Management were made available to the Panel. The Panel also had received a supporting status and progress report prepared by the Americas Group staff for the in-depth review. The Panel met some Regional Group staff during the review.
The Panel is somewhat astonished at the highly critical comments made by the CCER on the Group's programme during the review period throughout its report. Taking into account the supporting documentation and generally available information on IPGRI's regional activities in the area and being aware of the difficulties that occurred in the regional Group direction at a very critical time of its evolution (prolonged illness of the Group Director during the Conference process), the EPMR Panel has some hesitations in endorsing the CCER report as an entirely fair assessment of the Group's performance.
The Panel recognizes on the other hand that there have been quite long-standing Group leadership weaknesses in terms of the adjustment of the Group culture to the new post-UNCED environment which, had they been addressed in time, would have avoided the problems observed by the CCER in terms of Group profile and direction.
The Panel, however, fully agrees with the CCER recommendations to restart rapidly the regional IPGRI programme with the appointment of a new Regional Director and to prepare and make the strategic choices commensurate with the opportunities identified in consultation with the Group's partners. The much stronger integration of the CIAT and IPGRI genetic resources programmes recommended by the CCER is also strongly endorsed. The Panel is convinced that most of the other recommendations of the CCER will become normal business items of a reinstated regional team's agenda; the Panel agrees with the tone of the Board's response to the CCER related to these issues.
The Panel was not in a position to assess systematically research output quality by Group staff during the review period given that the CCER did not provide a basis for that to be facilitated. It consulted, however, a number of the admittedly rather few publications produced by Group staff as well as some workshop and conference proceedings and found them both accessible and of acceptable quality and general relevance to the programme. The Panel has therefore some difficulties to understand why the CCER Panel found it unfeasible to undertake a similar effort.
4.3.1 Evolution
4.3.2 Strategy
4.3.3 Achievements and Impact
4.3.4 Assessment
The APO Region encompasses 45 countries and half of the world's population. The region's great genetic diversity in crop plants is presumably more seriously threatened than in other regions due to rapid population growth and consequent land-use changes. Many countries in the region are becoming increasingly aware of and concerned about this loss of diversity and are willing to invest in its defence.
Since its establishment in 1974 IBPGR was active in the APO region and collaborated with countries through its regional office for South East Asia in Bangkok until 1985. In 1988 the office was moved to Delhi, India (located in NBPGR) and made responsible for South and South East Asia. China agreed to host an IPGRI field office in Beijing for East Asia in 1988. The regional head office was moved to Singapore in 1992 with two subregional offices in New Delhi and Beijing. In early 1994/a full time coordinator for COGENT joined the Singapore office. In January 1997 the APO Regional Office was moved from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
At the time of the review, the APO Group had three internationally recruited staff, five locally recruited professionals, one honorary fellow and two associate experts.
The regional strategy paper for APO outlines the regional objectives of IPGRI-APO in order to meet IPGRI's overall objectives. The Group's activities are intended to be an integrated regional and thematic programme in order to adequately address the challenges identified for the region. As per the Draft MTP (1998-2000) the ongoing projects and activities of the APO Group have been merged into one project with the title 'Support to Plant Genetic Resources Programmes and Regional Networks in APO'. The thematic activities addressed in the region include forest genetic resources, in situ conservation, locating and monitoring genetic diversity, ex situ conservation technologies and strategies. The strategy statement is, in the view of the Panel, too much confined to the objectives discussion rather than emphasising long-term vision and the pathway to get there.
|
Box 4.3: Activities of IPGRI's Regional Office for Asia, the Pacific and Oceania | ||
|
Objectives |
Activities |
Examples of actions undertaken |
|
Strengthen National PGR programmes in the region |
· Provide advice and assist in formulating proposals for funding. · Organize national workshops with all relevant PGR organizations. · Support emergency collecting/evaluation when warranted. · Convey national programme priorities and needs to IPGRI's thematic groups and management. |
· Assisted in developing project proposals on PGR programmes in Nepal and Bhutan in 1996. · National PGR workshop in Lao PDR (1993), Vietnam (1994) and Mongolia (1995) and Papua New Guinea (1996). · Supported germplasm collecting missions in Vietnam. · Drafting of Regional Synthesis reports and organization of Regional Preparatory meetings. |
|
Promote regional and international collaboration and enhance human resources in PGR |
· Organize regional PGR meetings. · Establish and strengthen regional collaboration on PGR through networking. · Promote collaboration with IARCs (e.g. AVRDC, CIP, IRRI, etc.). · Promote collaboration with NGOs. · Organize regional training through short courses and postgraduate training. · Identify opportunities for collaboration with IPGRI's thematic groups and partners. |
· Organized regional PGR meetings (SAC-1992, RECSEA (1993 and 1995), EA-PGR (1995) and Pan Asia (1996) · Promoted collaboration in safflower GRs through translation of Chinese literature on medical uses of safflower; established a database of passport and characterisation data of >2000 accessions; Supported Advisory Committee (ISGAC) in gathering information for compiling a safflower germplasm directory. · Collaborated with UTFANET/ICUC through participation in the UTFANET meetings and planning for joint regional training course. · Organized, jointly with CIP in Bogor Indonesia, a workshop on sweet potato biodiversity in Asia which resulted in the formation of Asian Network on Sweet Potato Genetic Resources (ANSWER). · Increased collaboration with NGOs, MSSRF on mangrove diversity and community genebank. |
|
Strengthen PGR documentation and information management and public awareness |
· Organize documentation training courses. · Support NPs through software integration and information networking. · APO Newsletter. · Public awareness activities. |
· Held regional documentation training course in Malaysia (1994) & at national level in Indonesia (1994-95) & Bangladesh (1996). · Developed data interchange protocol (DIP) for ease of transferring data among genebanks that use different software, hardware and language. |
|
Support research related to PGR issues |
· Link ongoing work on priority species in the region to thematic research activities. |
· Supported studies of the adaptation of sesame genetic to environmental factors in South and East Asia (1994-1996) at two locations each in India and South Korea. · Supported work on developing optimum methods of regeneration of germplasm of both allogamous and autogamous species at ICGR, Beijing, China (1993-96). |
The APO Group interacts with a large number of different national, regional and international organizations in implementing IPGRI's programme in the region. The activities of the APO Group are carried out in six areas: strengthening national programmes, International Coconut Genetic Resources Network, improvement of underutilised crops of regional or local importance, promoting conservation and use of tropical fruit species in Asia, facilitating development of networks on plant genetic resources, strategies for maintenance of genetic diversity and genetic integrity in collections of plant genetic resources.
The APO Group is also participating in the Thematic Group activities of particular importance within the region, including forestry projects or activities on bamboo and rattan and on in situ conservation of tropical forest species, on core collections, genetic erosion, and on the maintenance and documentation of local PGR knowledge.
The Group has contributed in various ways to the countries in the region, e.g. in promoting and supporting national programme capabilities, in funding facilities for conservation and use of plant genetic resources, in supporting the operation of national committees and crop working groups, in enhancing the public awareness of PGR, etc.
The APO Group has played a major role in assisting many national programmes in preparing the PGR status reports for the ICPPGR preparatory process and in synthesising the information in regional reports. This process has given opportunity to both sides, IPGRI and national programmes, for the more precise identification of major constraints, structures and needs in PGR conservation and use. It has also stimulated interaction among national programmes and enhanced IPGRI's profile in the region. The Panel commends the APO Group staff for successfully carrying out this process.
The region's national programmes have initiated four subregional networks thus far. These, however, are not fully operational in terms of adequate funding and coordination mechanisms. The establishment of a single Asia-Pacific Network was recommended by national programmes in 1996 as an umbrella structure for subregional networks, to be set up under the guidance of and hopefully funded by APAARI. The Panel welcomes the fact that this recommendation was taken up in IPGRI's draft MTP (1998-2000). Various commodity networks are also operational, many in collaboration with CGIAR centres in the region, as part of APO Group activities.
Results of generic relevance have been achieved in various research activities, e.g. on strategies for the maintenance of genetic diversity and genetic integrity in collections of plant genetic resources. Although forest genetic resources are a relatively new area for the CGIAR, notable progress was made through a joint project with CIFOR and partners from India, Malaysia and Thailand on in situ conservation and impact of disturbance of genetic diversity of tropical forests.
The Panel noted that the APO and WANA regional Groups have undertaken collaborative efforts on the establishment of a Lathyrus Network and other collaborative activities between both regions. This inter-regional collaboration can be highly productive and should be encouraged.
Some members of the Panel had the opportunity for interaction with APO Group staff in the region and to look at the Group office in Kuala Lumpur. The Panel is, in general, favourably impressed by the progress reported in this regional programme. It would have, however, welcomed an updated regional synthesis report for the EPMR, given that the internal review report handed out to the Panel dates back to 1993.
IPGRI's overall impact appears to have been significant on PGR conservation and use in the APO Region. Eighteen national PGR programmes are reported to be operational, 11 crop working groups are supported, 28 PGR collecting missions with IPGRI involvement have been carried out in the review period, the number of personnel trained in individual and group arrangements is 261, with a corresponding strengthening of institutions concerned with PGR conservation and use. The Panel also notes a particularly high level of public awareness activity in the region (15 newsletter issues, 16 region-specific publications). However, several countries still need much support in developing their national PGR systems, and human resources training at all levels of expertise in PGR activities appears to be a particular priority.
The Panel is pleased to note that the APO Group places especial emphasis on dissemination of information, documentation and public awareness activities.
Regional plant genetic resources networks have been described as platforms for the implementation of GPA. The Panel strongly supports the APO Group's determination to maintain its active role in the regional and subregional networks in view of these opportunities.
NGOs are strong in the APO region. The Panel was pleased to note that the APO Group has established linkages with NGOs involved in PGR, with farmers' groups and other units of the non-formal sector. Such collaboration is important in aspects of technology transfer and feedback, impact assessment and especially for the attention to traditional knowledge of PGR. The APO Group is encouraged to strengthen its collaboration with such partners in its future activities, particularly on in situ conservation activities.
4.4.1 Evolution
4.4.2 Strategy
4.4.3 Achievements and Impact
4.4.4 Assessment
The Europe group was initiated as part of IPGRI's new structure in 1992, primarily to address the global community's concern for the long-term conservation of crop genetic resources in countries of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Beyond this first objective, the Europe Group was to facilitate international collaboration in the area of plant genetic resources between European countries and between these and national programmes elsewhere. The Panel notes that IPGRI took on this responsibility at the CGIAR's request and it has every reason to believe that this was a correct decision which has added valuable new dimensions to IPGRI's research and development portfolio. The Panel also notes that IPGRI is allocating limited amounts of unrestricted core funding to this programme only, thus avoiding undesirable competition with its core programmes in the developing countries.
Following the CGIAR decision that the CGIAR System and inter alia IPGRI should become active in promoting the conservation and sustainable use of forest genetic resources, the Europe Group rapidly expanded its activities in this area. The Europe Group deals with national crop and forest genetic resources programmes in more than 40 countries, as well as with regional PGR programmes. The Group, based at IPGRI headquarters, has grown from one internationally and one locally recruited professional staff in 1992-1993 to four professional staff members in each category at the time of this Review. The group's operations rely very heavily (approximately 75%) on restricted project funding.
A number of countries in the region have now established adequate institutional structures and satisfactory levels of government commitment to provide relatively secure long-term conservation of plant genetic resources. However, difficulties with funding are being experienced by many countries, particularly in eastern and southern Europe, and deficiencies in facilities, personnel and funds confront the emerging programmes of the newly independent states. Support by IPGRI for the development and strengthening of sustainable and interdisciplinary national programmes is therefore envisaged to remain an important activity in the future. While the emphasis during the past five years has been on collaboration with crop genetic resources programmes, the Europe Group intends to give more priority to developing cooperation with the forest genetic resources sector.
The economic constraints and the need for rationalisation with which national programmes have to deal with throughout the region suggest enhanced importance be given to regional networking. The facilitation of long-term support for these initiatives is given high priority by the Europe Group.
All national programmes of the region are facing a challenge in broadening scope, from a relatively narrow focus on conservation of plant germplasm for use in plant breeding, to include the new directions required in Agenda 21 and the CBD. This requires a shift to encompass strategies to conserve plant genetic resources in situ, both in the wild in natural habitats and through cultivation on-farm and in gardens and orchards, which the Europe Group intends to enhance.
The major activities undertaken by the Group are listed in Box 4.4. Some examples of major contributions of the group are highlighted below:
A number of technical assistance projects addressing emergency needs in eastern European genebanks were undertaken. The largest of these is a USAID-funded project with the N.I. Vavilov Institute in St. Petersburg which IPGRI implements as part of its CGIAR mandate to coordinate assistance to eastern European PGR collections.
Through its Europe Group, IPGRI provides the technical coordination for the European Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic Resources Networks (ECP/GR) and for the European Forest Genetic Resources Programme (EUFORGEN) which is a collaborative operation aimed at ensuring the effective conservation and the sustainable use of forest genetic resources in Europe. A special Italian-funded project addresses the issues of Underutilized Mediterranean Species through four crop-specific networks.
|
Box 4.4: Activities of IPGRI's Regional Office for Europe | ||
|
Objective |
Activities |
Examples of actions undertaken |
|
Facilitate the establishment and strengthening of coordinated national programmes for crop and for forest genetic resources |
· Obtain funding and implement technical assistance to threatened PGR collections · Organize and implement training courses · Raise awareness through visits to decision makers, publications or PA-events · Organize or participate in regional workshops · Make technical (advisory) visits to national programmes |
· USAID-funded project for the N.I. Vavilov Institute (VIR) · Project with RIPP, Slovakia for the safety-duplication of collections in Institutes undergoing privatization · 1996 Darwin Initiative training course in Bulgaria (28 trainees) · Visits to Ministries of Agriculture · Briefing session for NIS before Leipzig Conference · Workshop on sustainable forest genetic resources programmes in the NIS of former USSR (Belarus, 1996) · Consultation missions to the Baltic states (1994) |
|
Facilitate and strengthen regional collaboration |
· Provide technical coordination to the European Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic Resources Networks (ECP/GR) · Provide technical coordination to the European Forest Genetic Resources Programme (EUFORGEN) in collaboration with FAO · Provide technical coordination to the Underutilized Mediterranean Species Project (UMS) |
· Organize meetings of technical working groups or networks · Maintain close contact with network members regarding the implementation of workplans · Collaborate with network members to identify potential donors for projects and prepare proposals · Manage these networking programmes financially · Compile and edit reports of meetings or technical documents (e.g. Identification Sheets for Populus nigra, Monograph on Hulled Wheat, Directory of European institutions holding crop germplasm, various descriptor lists, etc.) |
|
Facilitate increased cooperation with developing countries |
· Collaborate with other IPGRI Regional Offices to help obtain funding from European donors for national programmes in developing countries · Facilitate collaboration between scientific institutions in Europe and developing countries |
* Preparation of an ODA-holdback proposal for cooperation on grassland genetic resources conservation, characterization and evaluation (India/UK/IPGRI) · Collaborative project between National Univ. of Costa Rica and Univ. of Gembloux, Belgium on Phaseolus lunatus |
|
Represent the Institute at the Regional level |
· Participate in regional meetings · Respond to information requests from the region and make information available to national programmes |
· Presentation of IPGRI's Multilateral System Study at a Private Sector Symposium (Basel, 1996) · Regional Office WWW Homepages · IPGRI Regional Newsletter for Europe |
|
Monitor regional needs and priorities and thus contribute to the development of IPGRI's overall strategy |
· Participation in the ICPPGR preparatory process for the Leipzig Conference (June 1996) · preparation of strategy documents for the Institute |
· Drafting of Regional Synthesis reports and organization of Regional Preparatory meeting (Nitra, 1995) · IPGRI Strategy for eastern Europe · Participation in the CGIAR Eastern Europe Task Force |
In the review period, Europe Group staff have undertaken 39 formal consultation missions to national programmes, published nine issues of regional newsletters and 22 region-specific PGR publications, and trained 119 individual and group trainees.
The Group was also heavily involved in the ICPPGR process, among others in the organization of the subregional conference for Europe and in the compilation of the synthesis report.
In the short period of its existence, the Group has managed to establish itself as the natural authority and reference point in the European PGR establishment and its agreements on the implementation of the GPA. Clear evidence for the high profile and confidence gained by IPGRI in the European PGR community is the decision by ECP/GR in 1993 to reconfirm IPGRI as its coordinator and to significantly increase member contributions to the fifth phase of this network's operations, involving 30 countries.
Another highlight is EUFORGEN. EUFORGEN became operational in 1994, financed by its 25 member countries and is coordinated by IPGRI, in collaboration with the Forestry Department of FAO. EUFORGEN operates through networks currently addressing Picea abies, Quercus suber, Populus nigra, and noble hardwoods. A new network on 'social broadleaves' (European oaks and beech) is being developed.
Finally, it is noted that since 1992, IPGRI has become the focal point for CGIAR technical cooperation with eastern European PGR programmes. Based on information assembled during a number of technical missions and provided by existing contacts within ECP/GR, the Europe Group has facilitated technical assistance to eastern European genebanks equivalent to approximately US$ 1 million. These activities have allowed upgrading of storage facilities, safety-duplication of five threatened collections and the training of national programme staff. IPGRI Europe is also involved in the CGIAR task force for eastern Europe and other initiatives for the rescue and strengthening of PGR programmes in this region.
The Panel is highly impressed by the strength and achievements of the Europe group. It also believes that IPGRI has adequately addressed the recommendations of the CCER of the Group activities in 1994. The Panel is particularly impressed by the responsiveness of the Group to the changing needs of the region in the rapidly evolving PGR environment, by its strategic integration in IPGRI's overall programme, thus facilitating important backward and forward linkages between industrialized and developing countries and Eastern Europe, research and development, between regions and between the regional and thematic work of the Institute.
4.5.1 Evolution
4.5.2 Strategy
4.5.3 Achievements and Impact
4.5.4 Assessment
Erosion of plant genetic resources in Africa is very substantial and due to well-documented environmental, economic, political and social factors. Historically, IBPGR therefore emphasized rescue operations in facilitating and carrying out PGR collecting missions throughout the region, and has provided contributions to national ex situ conservation facilities. In addition, IPGRI has emphasized support for the establishment of national PGR programmes and of regional collaboration in PGR conservation and use.
An IBPGR office for West Africa was first established in 1981 in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, followed in 1982 by an office in Nairobi, responsible for Eastern and Southern Africa. In 1987, the West Africa office was moved to Niamey, Niger, and made responsible for the West and Central African activities. IPGRI has, in 1991, consolidated the Institute's African activities into the Sub-Saharan Africa Group with its main office in Nairobi (with ILRAD/ILRI, from 1995 with ICRAF) and an office for West and Central Africa in Cotonou, Benin (with IITA), to where the previously Niamey-based West and Central Africa office was transferred in 1996.
At the end of 1996, the SSA Group had three internationally recruited staff, three locally recruited professionals, a senior honorary fellow and two associate experts.
The Panel received a paper on IPGRI's strategy in SSA which maps out the way by which the Institute decides on its strategic choices for this region. In addition, the Board-approved paper on Priority Setting in IPGRI's Programme contains a section on the priority-setting process in the SSA region.
The strategy outlines longer-term and medium-term objectives (and corresponding expected outputs) which comprehensively respect the template of IPGRI's overall institutional objective statements. Programme activities envisaged to be continued are therefore in the areas of institution-building (with emphasis on national programme development and function), training and subregional collaboration in the entire range of genetic conservation and use (collecting and inventories, diversity assessment, regeneration, multiplication, duplication, characterisation and evaluation, in situ conservation, forestry genetic resources conservation, utilization, and documentation), and information services and policy support and advice.
In the priority-setting process, IPGRI/SSA follows the Institute's bottom-up, country-driven approach which is determined by the abundance of PGR prevailing in a particular country, by the assessment of erosion threats to these PGRs, by the national capacities to deal with the conservation task, and by the level of PGR work deployed by the country in question. The national and regional requirements for IPGRI's interventions are established using a set of consultation mechanisms such as national PGR workshops, focal points for PGR activity, contacts with key policy-makers, crop working groups, and regional workshops. It is also evident that the ICPPGR preparation process has decisively advanced the basis for the definition of priority action in the region.
The Panel would have wished to receive a more specific strategy statement which would reflect the special features of the subregions the SSA Group is dealing with. Given the experience with the ICPPGR process and the information generated there, a considerably more focused strategy should emerge.
|
Box 4.5: Activities of IPGRI's Regional Office for Sub-Saharan Africa | ||
|
Objectives |
Activities |
Examples of action undertaken |
|
Initiation and strengthening of coordinated national programmes for PGR conservation and use |
· Organization of national w/shops · Assessment of PGR status · Provision of conservation equipment · Technical visits to national programmes · Support for PGR activities · Re-introduction and repatriation of germplasm · Germplasm safety-duplication · Provision of technical support in PGR activities and genebank management · Strengthen research capacities |
· National workshops organized in 8 countries in 1995-96 · Status assessed in 40 countries since 1993 · Limited conservation equipment provided to Sudan and Eritrea · Germplasm inventories in Malawi, Samba and Tanzania · Duplication and multiplication of sesame world base duplicate collection · Multiplication and re-introduction of Somalia germplasm · Initiation of seed technology research in Kenya and Niger · Workshop on regeneration · Research on Sahelian forages |
|
Training and human resources development |
· Provision of training to national programme staff · Organization and implementation of national and subregional PGR training courses · Training capacity building in Universities in the region · Limited support to Diploma, M.Sc. and Ph.D. students' research theses |
· 30 scientists trained in PGR in 1995 · 3 Darwin Initiative training courses organized · One in-country training course organized · One subregional PGR training course organized at Kenyan Genebank · One subregional PGR course organized in West Africa · 4 scientists supported and supervised in their thesis research · Training capacity strengthened at the University of Samba |
|
To support subregional, regional and international collaboration and networking |
· Initiation and strengthening of regional PGR networks · Promotion of collaboration between national programmes · Initiation and strengthening of crop networks · Participation in inter-Centre and ecoregional initiatives · Collaborative activities with CG Centres and other organizations |
· Scientific backstopping to SPGRC · Organized a meeting between Kenyan and Ethiopian NPs · Development of a PGR subregional project for West/Central Africa · Report on Lusophone initiative · Initiated a network on indigenous vegetables · Active participation in African Coffee Research Network · Organization of COGENT meeting in Africa · Participation in SOH and AHI · Collaboration with ICRAF in training and collection of forestry species · Collaboration with FAO on ICPPGR · Collaboration with IRRI on wild rice collecting in E. and S. Africa |
|
To provide documentation and information services and create awareness |
· Provision of scientific publications to PGR community · Creation of awareness at all levels · Information dissemination · Provide assistance in documentation of PGR |
· Presentation of seminar at JKUAT · Production of newsletter · Visit to Nigeria Minister of Science and Technology for policy awareness · Dissemination of scientific publications to national programmes · Organization of 3 press conferences during the ICPPGR process · Provision of documentation manual and software |
IPGRI has mediated the establishment of several national programmes in SSA (nine in the SADC region, five in Eastern Africa, four in Central and Western Africa). This has been achieved through the organization of 28 national PGR workshops during the review period, through the establishment of national PGR committees and the identification of national focal centres for plant genetic resources work. It also included activities on the definition of PGR-related constraints and priorities in the countries, the development of specific action plans, and the assembling of 17 crop working groups. These activities were backstopped with a broad variety of training, information and documentation input, often in collaboration with thematic Groups, as well as with material, logistical, financial and infrastructural support and 23 consultation missions to national programmes.
A significant achievement to which IPGRI has critically contributed along with the Nordic Gene-Bank programme, was the formation in 1989 and the confirmation in 1993 of the SPGRC (SADC Plant Genetic Resources Centre) as an independent institution with recurrent public budget allocation by SADC. The SADC regional PGR network thus has a sound long-term basis and is successfully performing its agreed duties, among others in PGR staff development.
IPGRI/SSA was heavily and systematically involved in assisting countries and sub-Saharan subregions in the ICPPGR process. In performing this role, IPGRI has strengthened general awareness of PGR and public commitment to the conservation and sustainable use of agrobiodiversity as well as the Institute's own position and visibility throughout the region. The ICPPGR process has considerably advanced the PGR knowledge base and the opportunities for relevant action in the region. IPGRI/SSA is given unanimous credit for a superb performance in this process.
IPGRI/SSA has, in addition to its main efforts in institution building and regional cooperation, initiated a range of specific PGR activities, e.g., the Coffea network, forage and fodder species diversity research with special attention to spatial and temporal distribution. In collaboration with other IPGRI Groups and national partners, research activities were carried out on coconut genetic resources, genetic erosion indication, conservation and use of neglected crops, indigenous African vegetables, in situ and on-farm PGR conservation, seed technology, and forest genetic resources.
IPGRI's activities in SSA in the review period were assessed in September 1996 by a Centre-Commissioned External Review (CCER). The final stage of this CCER was made to coincide with parts of the first phase of the EPMR. The EPMR Panel therefore had the opportunity to interact with the CCER panel as well as with ten representatives of national programmes invited to contribute to this Review. The responses of IPGRI's Board and Management to the recommendations of the CCER were made available to the EPMR Panel. The IPGRI/SSA Group staff prepared a report on its development and programme during the review period in support of the in-depth review process.
The EPMR Panel shares the CCER's positive assessment of IPGRI's achievements and impact in the region. The activities of the SSA Group have decisively contributed to much enhanced awareness of and commitment to PGR conservation and use. IPGRI has rightly emphasized the support of the build-up of national programmes on PGR, the enhancement of regional cooperation and the necessary back-up in training, documentation and information. The EPMR Panel also concurs with the CCER recommendations with reference to enhanced training and documentation, to increased attention to indigenous knowledge and policy issues, and to the emphasis to be put on West and Central Africa.
On the other hand, the EPMR Panel is somewhat surprised at the low level of detail, discrimination and depth in the analysis of IPGRI's Africa programme in this CCER. The assessment of the wide array of research activities particularly in the area of germplasm conservation and use is therefore not feasible on the basis of this CCER. The EPMR therefore undertook to look at the detailed study reports in five selected cases of research project activities alluded to in the supporting document for the in-depth review. The Panel is generally impressed by these study reports and the conclusions drawn from them although their quality in scientific rigour and formal presentation is highly variable. The Panel also does not have any doubts about the relevance of the research topics addressed. The process by which these studies have been designed and selected for implementation with IPGRI involvement appears to be, however, driven more by opportunity than by strategic direction. The Panel is aware that the systematic involvement of research partners as per IPGRI's mode of operation tends to require substantial flexibility in priority setting and portfolio composition; on the other hand, not only the Institute as a whole, but also its regional programme in Africa needs to carefully protect its strategic institutional choices. The Panel therefore concurs with the CCER recommendations for the IPGRI/SSA Group to better define and protect its priorities when deciding on its activities.
4.6.1 Evolution
4.6.2 Strategies
4.6.3 Achievements and Impact
4.6.4 Assessment
The WANA region covers three of the Vavilov Centres of Origin of cultivated crops; many important crops were domesticated in this region. Rapid growth of the human population, overgrazing, soil degradation and urbanisation are factors which threaten the genetic diversity of these resources.
Although IPGRI's WANA office was moved from headquarters to the region in 1993 only (hosted by ICARDA), IPGRI's collaboration with some countries in the region dates back to the Institute's establishment in 1974. The WANA Group is closely linked with ICARDA's Genetic Resources Unit.
At the end of the review period, the WANA Group had five staff, of which two were internationally and one regionally recruited professionals. The recruitment of a new Regional Director was ongoing at the time of the review.
Activities planned for the future as per the IPGRI WANA Regional Strategy document include emphasis on the regional network (WANA Network on Plant Genetic Resources - WANANET), particularly related to its crop working groups, on the promotion of the use of cryopreservation and in vitro methods, on in situ conservation, on documenting indigenous PGR knowledge, on detailed inventories of field genebanks in the region, and on training (especially on in situ conservation). More specific strategic orientation will have to be developed by the Group.
The WANA Group has assisted countries throughout the region to establish and upgrade genebank facilities. At the end of the review period, 14 countries had genebanks with variable facilities for short-term and long-term seed storage. There are 16 national and two regional PGR programmes operational in the area who have had IPGRI's inputs in a variety of ways. A total of 87 collaborators of national PGR programmes have received individual or group training in ex situ conservation and documentation of plant genetic resources. Eleven national PGR workshops were carried out in the review period, and six crop working groups supported; 15 consultation missions to national programmes were carried out as well as 17 collection missions in collaboration with national programmes. Three safety-duplications were performed, 12 newsletter issues and five region-specific publications produced.
The WANA Group has assisted the region in the preparation of country reports for the ICPPGR process; two subregional meetings were organized in support of the regional synthesis of this information. This process has much enhanced know ledge of PGR requirements and the interaction among regional staff as well as IPGRI's profile in the region.
IPGRI supports WANANET; this network emphasises country collaboration in compiling databases, in identifying gaps in collections and in information on PGR, in characterising and locating PGR, and in promoting in situ conservation. There has been remarkable progress made since the WANANET establishment in 1992. Eleven countries have established plant genetic resources committees and agreed on the implementation of eleven crop-specific working groups. Noteworthy is the progress related to the activities on fruit trees and nut species in the region and the collecting and in vitro conservation of almond species.
The WANA Group had an active role in the formulation of the Fertile Crescent project on conservation and sustainable use of dryland biodiversity of the Near East, in cooperation with ICARDA and ACSAD. The Panel noted that the Group, in collaboration with ICARDA, has made an effort to establish a PGR network for Central Asian countries.
The IPGRI WANA Group activities were assessed by a CCER in September 1995. The Panel received the CCER report and the supporting material prepared by staff for this review; IPGRI's Board and Management response to the recommendation of the CCER were also made available.
The Panel believes that the Centre has adequately dealt with the numerous, rather technical and housekeeping recommendations of the CCER; the EPMR Panel would have liked to received some more guidance on the longer-term IPGRI involvement in the region from this CCER.
|
Box 4.6: Activities of IPGRI's Regional Office for West Asia and North Africa | ||
|
Objectives |
Activities |
Actions (examples) |
|
Strengthen existing national plant genetic programmes and to assist in the development of national programmes in countries currently lacking them |
· Current status of economic plants in WANA · Assist NP establish genebanks/programmes (lacking) · Equipment (existing genebanks) · Training |
· Consultancy visits · Country reports on PGR · ICPPGR report · Development of project proposal to establish storage facilities (Jordan, Morocco) · Upgrade storage facilities (Morocco, Jordan and Iraq in collaboration with UNDP) · Individual non-degree training (12 trainees) · Individual degree training (10 trainees) · Short training courses (6 courses, 86 participants) · In country courses (2 courses, 85 participants) |
|
To collect and conserve genepools of non-CGIAR crops of arid and semi-arid parts of the region |
· Bibliographical search/database establishment · Survey/collecting · Establish field genebanks · Characterization/genetic diversity study · Documentation · Publication |
· Collection of vegetables (Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Iran, Morocco, Syria) · Collection of fruit trees (Cyprus, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Morocco and Turkey) · In vitro unit for the conservation of almond in Jordan to conserve the almond germplasm · Characterization carried out for vegetables and almonds · Establishment of databases on fruits and vegetables · Preliminary data analysis of vegetables (genetic diversity studies) · In situ conservation initiated · Applications development (Tunisian Inventory) (Flora) |
|
To strengthen links to users by networking |
· Organize national, regional and international workshops, seminars and symposium · Information network · Publication |
· Workshops on PGR (national) (Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen) · WANANET WG Steering Committee, WANA-PGRC meetings · Establishment of PGR network in Central Asia (CAN-PGR) · Publication of WANA Newsletter (English, Arabic) in print and electronic form · Publication of proceedings (4) · Establishment of the Regional Rangeland Seed Information Network (RRSIN) · Preparation of the International Triticeae Symposium · Preparation of the International symposium "Origin of Agriculture" |
|
To establish a postgraduate plant genetic resources course at regional universities and provide an information service |
· Curriculum development for the training course (M.Sc.) · Develop an effective information system · Assist NPs to develop their own information system |
· Workshop to develop the Curriculum, Lebanon · Consultation with NPs in the region · Information to NP scientists and trainees (literature search, distribution of IPGRI publications) · Acquire and develop computing facilities/services · Training on documentation · Assistance to NP scientists to publish in/contribute to the Newsletter |
The IPGRI WANA Group appears to have so far emphasized rather traditional approaches to PGR activities in the region. The Panel has no difficulties in concurring with the CCER's positive assessment of IPGRI's achievements and impacts in the WANA region. It would, however, suggest a programme orientation which more explicitly and strategically takes into account the more recent developments in the global PGR scenario.
IPGRI's involvement with the countries of Central Asia is based on its long-term strategy and by the CGIAR decisions relative to Eastern Europe. The Panel is pleased to note that the WANA Group is taking responsibility under the WANA regional project to lead the interaction with the Central Asian Countries through the Central Asian Network for Plant Genetic Resources (CAN-PGR) in collaboration with ICARDA. The Panel suggests that IPGRI support forcefully the development and funding of this initiative.
The ICPPGR preparatory process was a good indicator for IPGRI's close collaboration with regional NARS. The Panel believes that this cooperation provides a viable basis for the implementation of the GPA and the resolution of other issues related to conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources in the region.
4.7.1 Evolution and Context
4.7.2 Achievements
4.7.3 Assessment
COGENT was established at a workshop in 1990 in Indonesia with the participation of 15 countries. A donor group was identified. Initial support from IPGRI was substantial and now includes a full-time coordinator and an annual budget of $400,000. Thirty-two coconut producing countries are members of the network. IPGRI houses the Secretariat of COGENT - the Steering Committee is independent of IPGRI.
The history of COGENT dates back 10 years (1986) when TAC identified coconut as 'the oil crop most in need of international research support' and requested ACIAR to undertake a comprehensive study. After assessing various alternatives, TAC recommended that COGENT be placed in IPGRI. The Institute houses the Secretariat of COGENT - the Steering Committee is independent of IPGRI. The Panel accepts that decision. However, it wishes to point out that coconut and a number of other important perennial tropical crops addressed by IPGRI (cacao, coffee, oil palm and others) require approaches and facilities that are totally different from annual crops dealt with by plant breeding in the CGIAR. The comparative advantage of the CGIAR to take on responsibilities for such crops is therefore not immediately obvious. A historical summary of activities and an account of the process of COGENT's allocation to IPGRI are given in the March 1996 review of COGENT, commissioned by the chairperson of the Coconut Support Group at the request of the COGENT Steering Committee.
The EPMR Panel wants to stress that it fully underscores the importance of coconut as a smallholder crop in many regions of the world and the lack of research and development on this crop, both at the national and international level. It has, on the other hand, some hesitation in the assessment of the approach taken by COGENT in designing its priorities and strategies. A complicated structure of institutional relationships seems to have evolved among the various actors involved (steering committee, IPGRI, coordinator, BUROTROP, funding and research institutions). The coconut growers, notably the millions of small farmers, are hardly mentioned in the project documentation, which conveys a somewhat top-down institutional orientation of the programme, with seemingly a traditional bias towards plantation production.
The 1996 Review of COGENT did not result in the expected strategic recommendations that one might have expected. The TAC accepted a CGIAR involvement in coconut on the condition that it addressed problems of resource-poor farmers. This issue was, however, not addressed. Rather, the report focused on issues of institutional relations, which this Panel acknowledges have had some difficulties for IPGRI and other partners. The Panel was pleased to note a joint response by the concerned agencies for potential agreement on how to resolve critical issues.
The EPMR Panel can claim less coconut expertise than the above review team and the Steering Committee. It recognized however the importance of coconuts and the commitment of the CGIAR through IPGRI to make a contribution. The following is intended to be a constructive contribution to arrive at necessary decisions.
The Panel has looked at COGENT at two levels: (a) technical programme outputs required and (b) or the role of IPGRI in facilitating these outputs most effectively.
The Asian Development Bank has provided a 3-year grant to enable eight countries in the Asia-Pacific region to collect germplasm and five countries to undertake evaluation. Four countries have been identified to set up field genebanks. An international database has been developed and distributed to national programmes. National coconut breeders were trained in documenting and providing passport and characterization data to the database. A workshop with the participation of 36 breeders from 17 countries has been held to standardize breeding research techniques.
COGENT has been set up to support research relevant to improvement of coconut production worldwide. The Panel considers the five research areas selected as requiring international support to be adequate and realistic: (1) germplasm collecting, conservation, evaluation and enhancement; (2) control of diseases and pests; (3) productivity and sustainability of coconut-based agroforestry systems; (4) efficiency and value added in post-harvest processing and utilization; (5) socioeconomic issues influencing farmers' participation in rehabilitation and replanting.
The Panel concurs, albeit with some reservations detailed below, with the judgement that in view of disappointing funding support from donors (and from coconut-producing countries), concentrating on objective 1 has merits. Considering the emphasis of the CGIAR on support to small farmers, research area 5 should possibly have been included as well.
The Panel has some difficulty with the automatic assumption of the Steering Committee that genetic erosion is a major problem in coconuts. It is aware that some populations in different places are being lost, but considering the wide distribution of coconuts and how little of that diversity has been used in breeding, it questions whether genetic erosion is really a serious problem, but acknowledges the value in assembling field genebanks to provide access by breeders and others to coconut genetic resources.
Whereas specific conservation activities may not be as urgent as suggested, there is indeed an urgent need to develop, through selection and breeding, new improved planting materials. While new cultivars may be produced in breeding programmes, it is logistically complex to diffuse these materials widely to small farmers, especially in the case of the numerous islands in the Pacific region. These considerations have far-reaching consequences for the programme design if it is to yield any benefit to small farmers and not just to large plantation owners. The Panel has not come across any reference to these problems in any of the deliberations of the Steering Committee.
The Panel wishes to point to the limited success achieved in past conventional institutional and centralized coconut breeding programmes. The limited capacity of producing seed nuts of improved materials in this approach is an issue of concern. The experience with the so-called 'MAWA' hybrids, produced in the Côte d'Ivoire and widely distributed to Latin America and Indonesia, is indicative of risks involved in this conventional approach: lack of adaptation led to disappointing yields and susceptibility to a disease (Phytophtora) up to then hardly known in especially high rainfall environments, such as Indonesia.
Given the nature and role of the crop (smallholder crop, wide geographical distribution, very long breeding cycle, logistical problems of seed nut production and transfer), given the mixed experience with the conventional breeding approach, and given IPGRI's objective to more closely link PGR conservation and use, the Panel believes that a 'Farmer Participatory Breeding' approach, which links farmers to breeding programmes, should be considered. This approach, which is also taken up in IPGRI's work on in situ conservation, is likely to provide the alternative required to direct coconut breeding towards small-farmer requirements. This orientation would, in addition, more logically integrate COGENT's goals into IPGRI's objectives, emphasizing the use of local diversity in crop improvement. The Panel recommends that IPGRI, and hence the CGIAR, should reconsider its facilitation role for COGENT unless greater emphasis is placed upon improvement of coconut productivity for smallholders. The Panel believes that there is no need for another study to arrive at the identification of the necessary strategic choice; IPGRI is encouraged to table this fundamental strategic choice to the donor support group and the COGENT steering committee for their serious consideration.
To clarify its viewpoint, the Panel wishes to share with COGENT what it sees as possible approaches to be considered:
· Broad surveys throughout the distribution areas of coconuts involving farmers in identifying individual palms and populations characterized by high yields and other favourable characteristics.· Establishment of local seed gardens with progenies of selected palms, possibly complemented by other materials in centres of coconut production, for evaluation by farmers and breeders.
· Consider and study the socioeconomic factors that contribute to why farmers do not replant coconuts (the Philippines may be a case in point) and what is needed to increase the market appeal of coconuts and its products.
The Panel thus urges COGENT to maximize the use of local genetic diversity, supplemented by introductions, and the access to a meaningful number of small farmers and local post-harvest industries. This suggests a more decentralized approach in breeding, relying primarily, but not exclusively, on local materials and on decentralized production of seednuts in quantities and at a price attractive to small farmers.
The Panel takes note that, even though the Steering Committee in 1992 rejected proposals by IPGRI to consider increased focus on in situ conservation and participatory breeding involving farmers, shifts toward that strategy have taken place in the programme. The Panel refers to a project funded by Common Fund for Commodities (CFC) and a second project under consideration for funding by IFAD. Both of these projects widen the geographic coverage of coconut breeding.
The Panel, on the other hand, fully agrees with the coordination by COGENT of research on some major disease problems such as Lethal Yellowing Disease and viroid-like RNAs, on the transfer of coconuts through excised embryos using tissue culture techniques, and on quarantine measures in the material transfer. These are multinational needs that are highly relevant in the general interest of coconut producers and appropriately supported by international funding. The application of advanced molecular methods to identify genetic diversity within and between populations is likely to be useful, particularly considering the many geographically isolated populations characteristic for the coconut.
There remains, in this Panel's view, a considerable uncertainty on the appropriate organizational form of COGENT, given the above discussion of the network's mission (diversity conservation vs. commodity improvement). Opportunistic solutions to this problem are presumably indicated, given the continuous funding constraints. The working relationships and governance procedures between IPGRI, BUROTROP, and the COGENT Steering Committees need attention from IPGRI's Management and BOT.
The Panel wishes to put on record that it recognizes progress made in networking coconut research globally as an important achievement of COGENT.
Finally, and in summary, the Panel urges IPGRI to take seriously the reservations of the Panel. COGENT represents a new and first involvement by the CGIAR in addressing an important perennial crop. Progress achieved in rendering demonstrable benefits to small farmers is probably going to determine the continuous commitment of the CGIAR in this area. IPGRI's involvement in COGENT must remain focused on issues of coconut genetic resource conservation and access of these resources to the global coconut breeding community. The CGIAR, on the other hand, can address issues of broader concern to COGENT and assess its role in coconut research.
The Panel has no doubt that the regional programmes of the Institute are essential instruments for serving IPGRI's mission. Thematic research and oversight, and methods development are done in support of the outreach function performed by the Regional Groups.
The Panel therefore strongly supports Management's determination to strengthen the Regional Groups. The Panel also notes that IPGRI is undertaking a range of measures to improve the support given to the Regional Groups, e.g. through providing more vigorous administrative support, strengthening monitoring, oversight and senior management presence in the region, and enhancing staff transfers and exchanges. The Panel was made aware that the interaction between Rome and Regions is suboptimal in both administrative and programme terms, despite such efforts. The Panel recommends that IPGRI define more precisely the role and responsibilities of the Regional Groups in their interaction with the headquarters-based Thematic Groups in order to contribute to more efficient and effective operation of the Regional Groups and to more closely integrate Rome-based and regional activities.
The performance of the five Regional Programmes is remarkably variable; this is to be expected given the variability of the circumstances in which these Programmes operate. However, in the Panel's judgement, a considerable part of the performance variability originates in-house and is related to Group leadership. In the present post-ICPPGR conjuncture, the IPGRI Regional Groups are faced with very high visibility, but also with high expectations and demands from national and international institutions and pressure groups. It is therefore justified that IPGRI Management not only strongly support the Regional Groups but also closely monitor progress and be prepared to intervene timely in case of need.
The Panel noted (Draft MTP 1998-2000) that IPGRI is taking the Global Plan of Action as the Institute's guideline for the design of the way ahead. This is particularly indicated for the orientation of the Institute's outreach programme. Given that the implementation of the GPA will rely on regional structures and given that a regional perspective to PGR conservation, access and use is likely to overcome undesirable implications of the CBD for PGR conservation, the Panel recommends that IPGRI shifts its strategic priorities and support for PGR conservation and use towards Objective 2 (regional collaboration) while its Objective 1 (national programme support) would also be achieved through this regional dimension. By implication, this would emphasise the role of regional and subregional genebanks, streamline research in strategic support of PGR conservation and use, and require enhanced PGR policy input at both national and regional levels.
In many parts of IPGRI's regional programme, regional agricultural research fora are emerging. These fora will increasingly set the research and development agenda of their member countries. Given the opportunities for economies of scale in these regional structures, the Panel suggests that IPGRI systematically link its regional programmes to these regional fora. This would imply IPGRI's consent to a much-enhanced consultation of its own research agenda with regional partners.
The Panel, in its discussions with NARS representatives, noted that national and regional PGR programmes have so far not been systematically and formally consulted by IPGRI in the process of its own institutional research programme definition. The Panel noted that IPGRI has prepared strategy statements for all Regional Groups. With the exception of the Europe Group, however, there is insufficient clarity and focus in these statements: it is generally unclear which precise strategic choices are suggested and on what grounds. The impression conveyed is therefore often the one of opportunism or, alternatively, trying to attempt everything! The Panel recommends that the draft regional strategies be further clarified so that IPGRI's priorities are clearly articulated such that, when faced with an opportunity to work in a region, the proposal can be measured against the agreed strategy, and ranked in order of importance and its claim on resources. The Panel recognizes that the mode of operation of the Institute, which suggests the systematic involvement of the partner institutions in setting priorities, implies a sizeable level of flexibility; this flexibility should, however, not be synonymous with opportunism. IPGRI needs to carefully determine and protect its strategic choices. The systematic utilization of impact assessment information and the use of best practices models in strategy development will be required.
