5.1 Origin and Evolution
5.2 Programme Areas
5.3 Integration of INIBAP within IPGRI
5.4 INIBAP's Organization and Management
5.5 Relationships with Partners
5.6 Future Plans
5.7 Overall Assessment and Recommendations
Bananas and plantains are reported to be the fourth most important economic agricultural commodity in global terms, following rice, wheat, and milk. These plants are grown on about 10 million hectares as a major dietary component in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, largely by smallholders. Bananas are exported from some countries from large plantation production systems and by smallholders through marketing cooperatives. Export banana production is limited to one variety type, Cavendish, and is only about 10% of the global production. The export market of plantains is very small. Thus, bananas and plantains are extremely important crops in developing countries, both from the standpoint of local food uses, but also as income sources for those countries that have export markets, albeit much of the export bananas are produced and marketed via multinational organizations.
Even with the great importance of banana and plantain, both in the genus Musa, the research and development activities lag far behind other staple food crops, such as rice, wheat, maize, and sorghum. This is generally the case for the perishable fruit and vegetable crops. Research programmes are small and fragmented and limited to a few countries. The research and development gap was recognized by the CGIAR and since the Musa crops fit all of the criteria established for crop commodities addressed in the CGIAR, a Musa agronomy research programme was initiated by IITA in 1973. The IITA Musa breeding programme established in 1987 evolved from its cropping systems research programme and has emphasised plantain and cooking banana research.
In its 1985 revision of CGIAR priorities and strategies, TAC had identified banana and plantain as meeting the main criteria for CGIAR support, and IITA was assigned the global mandate for banana and plantain improvement in 1987. TAC recommended the main priorities requiring international strategic research to be: the exploitation of genetic resources, a better understanding of indigenous banana and plantain production systems to keep genetic improvement programmes aligned with producers' needs, and research on major diseases of banana and plantain to ensure development of disease-resistant cultivars.
A major impetus for Musa research was provided by the rapid expansion of the devastating disease black Sigatoka caused by the fungus Mycosphaerella fijiensis. The centre of origin of Musa is in Asia where many wild diploid forms occur. Many of these types have resistance to the important Musa diseases. At IITA an innovative breeding programme was initiated with plantain. Rapid success was achieved in breeding for black Sigatoka resistance, recognized by the presentation of the King Baudouin Award to IITA in 1994.
Black Sigatoka and other pests and diseases called wide attention to the plight of the Musa crops and an independent network for research and development, the International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain (INIBAP), was established outside of the CGIAR system in 1985 (Box 5.1). As described below, INIBAP became an entity of the CGIAR in 1991 for a five-year trial period as a novel mode of international agricultural research and, since there was already a Musa research programme within the CGIAR at IITA, these two centres should coordinate and complement each other's work to advance the productivity and production of banana and plantain on a global scale. This review, being a CGIAR review, must necessarily focus on the relative roles of IITA and INIBAP in Musa research and development.
|
Box 5.1: The INIBAP programme History: INIBAP was created in 1985 in response to the rapid spread of black Sigatoka disease and the need to increase Musa improvement efforts. In view of the distinct regional needs and the fragmented nature of ongoing research, the most appropriate strategy was considered to be the creation of an international network. INIBAP was thus established as an independent research institute with a Board of Trustees and a Support Group to provide programme oversight. In 1991, on the recommendation of TAC, INIBAP became a CGIAR Centre. In 1993, in the context of the financial crisis facing the CGIAR, and considering the similarities in the mode of operation between INIBAP and IPGRI, a decision was taken to merge INIBAP with IPGRI. Since 1994, INIBAP has operated as a programme of IPGRI. Mission and Objectives: INIBAP's mission is to increase the productivity and yield stability of banana and plantain grown on smallholdings for domestic consumption and for local and export markets. It has four specific objectives: · to organize and coordinate a global research effort on banana and plantain, aimed at the development, evaluation and dissemination of improved cultivars and at the conservation and use of Musa diversity; · to promote and strengthen regional efforts to address region-specific problems and to assist national programmes within the regions to contribute towards, and benefit from, the global research effort; · to strengthen the ability of NARS to conduct research on bananas and plantains, and · to coordinate, facilitate and support the production, collecting and exchange of information and documentation related to banana and plantain. Mode of Operation: INIBAP operates as a research and information service with networking as its main modus operandi. INIBAP's key partners include the national programmes which collaborate in the framework of four regional networks, and the advanced research laboratories which carry out INIBAP-supported research. In Africa, INIBAP's activities complement those of IITA, with whom INIBAP works in close collaboration. Through its networking approach, INIBAP stimulates interactions between its partners and supports the formation of thematic networks at the global level. These presently include a Musa breeders' network and a nematologists' consortium. INIBAP provides the link between national programmes in the Musa-producing regions and advanced research labs through initiatives such as the International Musa Testing programme. These linkages provide an effective mechanism for the two-way flow of information and germplasm between producers and researchers. In addition, INIBAP assumes a special service role in conserving and distributing germplasm and in compiling and distributing Musa research methods and information. INIBAP supports strategic research undertaken by its partners in advanced research laboratories and breeding programmes in the areas of germplasm conservation (cryopreservation), the safe movement of germplasm (virus indexing and eradication) and germplasm improvement (breeding and genetic transformation). INIBAP's regional networks have also been instrumental in increasing the number of national Musa research networks which in many cases include, as well as NARIs, Universities, Growers' associations and NGOs. |
INIBAP was created in 1985 as an executing agency for work being done on banana and plantains by Canada's IDRC. Shortly thereafter, it became an independent research institute with its own Board of Trustees and a supervisory Support Group comprising the major Donors and founders of the Centre. By 1989, INIBAP had a budget of approximately US$1 million and had adopted the 'networking' concept as its primary mode of operation.
Given the IITA experience in banana and plantain research, the TAC 1990 study on the expansion of the CGIAR considered several institutional options that would take maximum advantage of IITA's experience. The TAC 1990 final recommendation was "that IITA assume primary responsibility for banana and plantain within the CGIAR and include INIBAP under a wider mandate. The identity of INIBAP should be maintained and the network component of the programme should be run from the Montpellier site for reasons of superior communications and continued fruitful contacts with CIRAD/INRA."
During International Centres Week (ICW) 1990, the TAC recommendation was considered by the CGIAR. After much discussion the Group decided to invite INIBAP to join the CGIAR as a separate institution for a five-year trial period. This decision was based on recognition of the importance of international research on banana and plantain, and that INIBAP, operating through its networking structure, presented a highly innovative model for the CGIAR.
The invitation to join the CGIAR included a request that INIBAP and IITA work with TAC to agree upon a division of labour and mode of collaboration between the two institutions that would best further the CGIAR's objectives in banana and plantain research. A proposed process and timetable called for presentation of the INIBAP strategy to TAC in 1991, and a CGIAR EPMR of INIBAP in 1992. This review was conducted in September 1992.
The 1992 EPMR Panel recommended that the CGIAR clarify its expectations from INIBAP for removal of the "sunset clause" attached to INIBAP's membership in the CGIAR. In response to this recommendation, a CGIAR Task Force was set up to review the future of INIBAP.
In 1994, following discussion of the recommendations of the Task Force report by the CGIAR members, INIBAP was placed under the governance of IPGRI and has operated from that time onwards under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the INIBAP Support Group, the INIBAP Board of Trustees, and IPGRI. The MOU and the CGIAR requested evaluation and recommendations of the integration of INIBAP into IPGRI by an EPMR of IPGRI, which was to be done in 1996. This Panel is therefore addressing this charge later in this chapter (Section 5.3).
5.2.1 Musa Germplasm Management
5.2.2 Musa Germplasm Improvement
5.2.3 INIBAP Regional Networks
5.2.4 Information and Communication
INIBAP has organized its programme according to four objectives which are represented by four corresponding programme areas, briefly described and evaluated below.
INIBAP has taken an active role in the collecting of genetic resources of Musa and has assisted countries with conservation of their collected materials. It also operates through its own finances, a Musa genebank at the Laboratory for Tropical Crop Improvement (LTCI) at KUL. The genebank was established to support the distribution of genetic resources to plant breeders and other researchers. Thus the genebank is an integral component of the INIBAP Transit Centre (ITC) which was established for the safe movement of plant materials throughout the world. The ITC already includes a total of 1089 accessions of Musa, including 59 hybrid derivatives. The collection will soon receive some recently collected materials from Vietnam. ITC has a programme for back-up of all of its collections at other Musa genebanks at TBRI and CATIE where 48% of the collection has already been sent. INIBAP is collaborating with field genebanks in the Philippines, Honduras, Costa Rica, Thailand, and elsewhere. The assembled genetic resources at ITC are viewed as being held by INIBAP and therefore are included in the agreement between the FAO and the CGIAR by which the banana and plantain collections are held in trust for the world community by INIBAP. This requires that all accessions be freely available for distribution. This is a matter for future attention by INIBAP, since some national programmes even now do not wish to have their genetic resources freely distributed and also because there may in the future be restrictions on distribution because of intellectual property rights (IPR) that may be applied to transgenic and conventional cultivars. In both instances it is incumbent on INIBAP to provide for the conservation of critical genetic resources, even if there are restrictions on the distribution of such materials. The Genebank review commissioned by the SGRP noted that the banana and plantain genebank at KUL was efficiently operated and providing exceptional service.
The Panel views the banana and plantain genetic resources conserved by INIBAP as an integral component of the global banana genetic resource conservation efforts and finds this activity to be fully consistent with the mission of IPGRI (Box 5.2). The Panel commends the very competent management of the genebank at KUL and strongly encourages that this activity be expanded to include additional genetic resources as they become available. The Panel was also briefed on emerging technology for cryopreservation of suspension cell cultures at the Laboratory of Tropical Crop Improvement (LTCI). While this technology is not ready for uniform adoption internationally, it is worthy of further development with the support of INIBAP. A Musa central database is under development and the Panel regards this as a very high priority activity for INIBAP, a component of the Musa Germplasm Information System (MGIS).
In spite of the achievements, several constraints, identified below, were recognized by INIBAP staff and the review panel which will require attention by INIBAP and its partners.
· Capacity of in vitro genebank will be limiting in a few years at the present rate of acquisitions.· Capacity for distribution of materials could be enhanced if regional centres were developed.
· Viruses occur in the genebank collection; 17% of the tested collection was found infected. Banana streak mosaic virus is most troublesome because its genetic material is apparently integrated in the plant DNA.
· Somaclonal variation occurs in the propagated plants; the rate is not known and detection methods are needed. Cooperators need to return information to ITC promptly when variants are discovered.
· Genetic resources from some countries are not available to the genebank.
· Capacity and support for field genebanks are needed.
· Policy for access and distribution needs to be worked out for each participating country.
· Harmonization of databases with cooperators is not complete.
|
Box 5.2: Case Study on Musa Germplasm Conservation and Distribution The aim of this project is to collect and conserve wild and cultivated material representative of the diversity existing in the Musa genepool and to make this material available to research programmes, breeders and national programmes worldwide for use in Musa research and development projects. Germplasm collecting is carried out in collaboration with national programmes. In addition, strategic research to support germplasm conservation and distribution is carried out in partnership with advanced research institutes. | |||
|
Activity |
Partners |
Output |
Benefit/impact |
|
Germplasm collecting |
NARS; KUL, Belgium |
Largest in vitro germplasm collection in world. 1089 accessions representative of Musa diversity Genebank is part of the International Network of Ex Situ Collections under the auspices of FAO |
Material held "in trust" and freely available to all bona fide users. Researchers and producers benefit from the ready availability of a wide range of Musa diversity. |
|
Germplasm conservation research |
KUL, Belgium |
Cryopreservation techniques suitable for a wide range of Musa genotypes recently developed. To date, 17 accessions have been placed in liquid nitrogen for long-term storage. |
A safe, reliable and cost-effective method for the long-term conservation of Musa germplasm. The conservation of Musa diversity is assured for future generations. Research is relevant to other vegetatively propagated crops. |
|
Virus indexing |
VICs (QDPI, TBRI, CIRAD), KUL, FAO |
Three Virus Indexing Centres established. Musa germplasm indexed for the presence of viruses. Development of Guidelines for the Safe Movement of Musa germplasm by FAO, IPGRI and INIBAP. |
Germplasm movement carried out in safe manner. Risk avoidance (a 30% loss of banana yield, such as could be caused by a virus disease, would be equivalent to an annual loss of $135,000,000 in Zaire). |
|
Research related to virus diagnosis and virus therapy |
QDPI, Univ. Minnesota, Univ. Gembloux, KUL |
Development of more efficient and reliable virus indexing systems. Development of diagnostic kits for detecting Banana Bract Mosaic Virus and Banana Streak Virus. |
Guidelines for the Safe Movement of Musa germplasm have been revised. Research is relevant to other crops as well as Musa. Virus therapy will allow distribution of previously infected new hybrids. |
|
Safe distribution of germplasm |
KUL, NARS |
More than 4000 virus-indexed germplasm samples have been distributed by ITC since 1985. |
The safe distribution of germplasm underpins many important research and development activities, as for example the International Musa Testing programme. National programmes in more than 50 countries worldwide have received germplasm for national evaluation and research programmes. |
This programme is responsible for facilitating the identification of disease-resistant Musa genotypes, strategic research, and the development of improved genotypes through support to breeding programmes. The International Musa Testing programme (IMTP), whose first phase started in 1989 when the first improved germplasm was made available, is certainly the backbone of this effort. While only seven hybrids from FHIA were tested under IMTP I, there are 26 candidate hybrids coming from five different breeding programmes for IMTP III, which is expected to start in 1997.
There are only a small number (less than 10) of Musa breeding programmes in the world and these programmes are typically underfunded and understaffed. The philosophy and approach to breeding varies among the programmes. While this is to be encouraged, INIBAP found that communication among breeders was practically non-existent so that successful methods and germplasm were not shared. A breeders' network was proposed by INIBAP and the first meeting held in 1994. This meeting was successful in facilitating communications and the effort to increase collaboration will be continued through the Musa Improvement Programme (see below). The Nematology Consortium directly resulted from discussions at the breeders' forum.
The LTCI at KUL receives financial support from INIBAP and the World Bank/CFC/FAO Banana Improvement Project, among other sources. It has developed a long-standing and comprehensive research programme in banana improvement. This laboratory, headed by an Honorary Fellow of INIBAP/IPGRI, has developed a method for producing regeneratable suspension cell cultures and genetic transformation using DNA-coated particles introduced into cells by bombardment. This method shows great promise for genetic improvement of banana and plantain, first through rapid and large-scale multiplication of improved clones and also for producing large numbers of transgenic plants. The first genetically transformed Musa plants will be field-tested at IITA beginning in March 1997. Molecular-based genetic improvement of Musa is certainly on the horizon and INIBAP is in a good position to facilitate the advancement of the research in this arena. Molecular mapping of banana is well underway at CIRAD/Montpellier and CIRAD researchers at CATIE/CIRAD are also active in the "molecular plant breeding" technology development.
Several constraints are identified in Musa improvement programmes that merit proper and urgent attention by INIBAP in its facilitation role. Some of these include:
· Reduction in plant breeding staff in some programmes.· Improved cooperation among breeding centres.
· Limited investment in Musa biotechnology.
· Limited feedback by some partners in IMTP.
· Improvements in experimental design in IMTP.
· Unknown variation in pathogenicity in fungal-caused diseases.
· Virus clean-up methods are slow or non-existent (Banana Streak Virus).
· Possible emerging difficulties due to application of intellectual property rights and restriction of germplasm exchange.
· Greater farmer participation needed in evaluation of new cultivars.
The proposed global Musa Improvement Programme will involve partners in the CGIAR centres and many national programmes, and possibly private sector organizations. This programme will address issues beyond plant breeding, but it is expected that it will give high priority to the constraints identified above.
The Panel compliments INIBAP and its partners for their high quality programmes and wishes to call particular attention to the following areas where attention is urgently needed. It is confirmed that INIBAP continue to give high priority to developing research support (1) to breeding programmes, which have been extremely successful in the past, namely at IITA and FHIA where increased staffing is needed, (2) for research on rapid methods for detection and elimination of viruses in breeding lines and genetic resources, (3) for development of methods for assessing nematode resistance in plants in breeding programmes and for discovery of resistance from the various Musa genetic resources, and (4) for collection of Musa genetic resources from centres of diversity, conservation in field and in vitro genebanks, and for elaboration of policy by countries to assure sharing and exchange of genetic resources.
This programme area is essential to INIBAP's role of promoting productivity increase of banana and plantain grown on smallholdings. It constitutes the necessary link and feedback mechanism to communicate production problems and challenges to the decision-making level at INIBAP headquarters and to the specialized institutions dedicated to basic and fundamental research in the more developed countries. Through its regional coordinators and Regional Advisory Committees (RAC) it should keep track of the state of banana and plantain research within the regions, and of the weaknesses and strengths of national programmes. It should also detect the needs and problems faced by farmers, and should constantly search for new ideas to be discussed and/or developed as well.
INIBAP Regional Networks have been very effective in the areas of institution building through courses, seminars, workshops and technical assistance, development of information and communication systems, publications, and training, particularly in Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Asia and Pacific regions. Although the mode of operation varies between regions, the Networks have contributed to strengthening banana and plantain research in NARS, and to develop more effective networking schemes. A good indicator of the effectiveness of a network action is the fact that many NARS are providing the funding for many regional activities in Asia, whereas in Latin America, through a regional information/documentation network, databases were installed in several cooperating countries, thereby increasing substantially the number of users, which accounted for 42% of the total global context of INIBAP in 1995. In Latin America as well, the efforts towards strengthening of NARS have produced remarkable results.
African networks have not been so successful and the Panel notes that a Regional coordinator for West and Central Africa (to be located at CRBP, Njombe, Cameroon) and another for East and Southern Africa (to be located at NARO, Kampala, Uganda) are under recruitment. Both of these positions can further strengthen INIBAP/IITA cooperation since IITA's research programmes should generate critical data for use by the Coordinators, it is clear that each Institute depends on the other for diffusion of improved germplasm and practices to farmers.
In spite of the unquestionable achievements of LACNET and APSNET, some weak areas have been identified. From a regional standpoint, it is the impression of the Panel that in two of the institutions of the LAC region (CATIE and FHIA), very little is known about the performance and findings of programmes in Europe, Asia, and Africa. This was particularly evident in relation to breeding activities. From another angle, it seems that some fundamental research activities have not permeated or influenced the discussion of new strategic research areas within INIBAP. For example, this is apparently the case for integrated pest management (IPM) research in banana and plantain in progress at CATIE and for little recognition of the importance of genomic mapping in Musa for gene tagging and diagnostic applications. The importance of research in farming systems and its relationship to breeding programmes has not received sufficient consideration by INIBAP, although this is within the programme of IITA. Farming systems research represents an opportunity for INIBAP's regional programmes to learn how the current systems could be improved, but also to provide an opportunity to go beyond farm limits and use ecoregional approaches in the search for increasing productivity while respecting the environment.
With respect to INIBAP regional programmes, the Panel suggests that INIBAP give particular attention in its strategic planning process to increase inter-regional exchange of information and to assess the comparative advantage it has in promoting research on IPM in relation to cropping systems.
This programme area is judged by the Panel to be highly effective in its production of high-quality periodicals, including MUSARAMA, a bibliographic abstracts publication, and INFOMUSA, an informative magazine. It is also responsible for the publication of directories, proceedings, technical documents, annual reports, brochures, posters and public awareness materials. New products in preparation include a trilingual thesaurus on Musa and databases in CD-ROM and Internet. This programme has made significant contribution to the emergence of INIBAP as a primary source of information about banana and plantain research. The Panel was pleased to see the prompt publication of proceedings of numerous regional meetings. Staff reported that IPGRI DIT publications staff were very cooperative and helpful in meeting special needs of the INIBAP group.
Constraints to this activity are primarily related to insufficient number of staff, especially for publication of materials in three languages, because the clientele has great expectations for access to all information about banana and plantain through the INIBAP information and documentation services, and because the increase in Regional staff in Africa will increase the demand on the INIBAP staff for services. With respect to global information on banana and plantain, the Panel Consultant noted that there was a successful close partnership between INIBAP and UPEB, an intergovernmental organization with headquarters in Panama, which, with holdings of some 20,000 documents on bananas and plantains, served as a model for the LAC regionalization process of the INIBAP Information and Documentation system. The number of users increased from 450 in 1990 to 816 in 1996, but this regional info/doc network has ceased most of its activities due to the dissolution of UPEB. It is suggested that INIBAP join with the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture (IICA) in reinstating the Latin America documentation services formerly provided by UPEB in Panama.
The Panel finds that the INIBAP Information and Communication programme is very effective and encourages INIBAP to (1) consider further integration of services with IPGRI HQ staff and (2) continue to move aggressively toward electronic means for information storage and distribution.
As mentioned earlier, the incorporation of INIBAP under the governance of IPGRI was announced in 1994 under the aegis of an MOU with the INIBAP Board of Trustees, the INIBAP Support Group, and IPGRI. The clear intent of the parties to the MOU (as explained in the Preamble) was to proceed towards the full integration of INIBAP with IPGRI. Nevertheless, to give protection to INIBAP, the MOU contained certain provisions as conditions precedent to the integration of INIBAP within IPGRI that included:
· the recognition that the IPGRI/INIBAP arrangement was both innovative and temporary, with a nominal end-date in 1996 depending, inter alia, on the recommendations of the next scheduled EPMR that would be conducted at about that time;· the requirement that the Director of INIBAP be a member of IPGRI's Management Executive Committee;
· IPGRI's Board of Trustees (BOT) would act, ad interim, as INIBAP's BOT for the term of the MOU;
· maintaining INIBAP's 'major operational base' in or near Montpellier, France; and
· the requirement (Article VI of the MOU) that the INIBAP Support Group will decide on the future of INIBAP 'in the period following the 1996 External Review of IPGRI and before the termination of this MOU' - i.e. prior to May 22, 1997, or such later date as the Support Group may decide (Article VII, Section 2, et seq).
Since its Support Group retains the absolute authority to determine the future of INIBAP, and since it is to exercise that authority in the near future, this Panel specifically reviewed the INIBAP situation to provide guidance to the Support Group. The Panel found that:
· the work of INIBAP is broadly consistent with IPGRI's four objectives;· the managements of both institutions have invested enormous amounts of time and energy in integrating the two institutions: the efforts have paid off providing synergy and furthering INIBAP's objectives as desired by its Support Group;
· the staffs of both institutes are satisfied with the arrangements and with the degree of cooperation between them;
· IPGRI is sufficiently well established with appropriate management personnel, systems and procedures, and a good track record with both the donor community and other CGIAR Centres to assure the Support Group that its objectives in respect of banana and plantain crops will be well served by full integration into IPGRI;
· the cause of INIBAP, and therefore banana and plantain research and development, would be put back some years if, after all of the efforts just expended to integrate INIBAP into IPGRI, this initiative were reversed.
The Panel recommends that:
1. INIBAP be fully integrated into IPGRI as an identifiable programme;2. the INIBAP Support Group endorse this recommendation and exercise its right to terminate the MOU between the Support Group, INIBAP, and IPGRI [dated 22 May 1994 under the provisions of Article VII (Final Provisions), Section 2] forthwith;
3. The Support Group remain as an advisory Group to the INIBAP programme within IPGRI, and
4. IPGRI should seek to conclude any necessary agreements with the Government of France to protect the privileges and immunities of the institution and its staff.
5.4.1 INIBAP's Location
5.4.2 Staffing and Structure
5.4.3 Managerial Issues
From its inception, INIBAP's operations have been based in Montpellier, France. This location made sense: it was close to CIRAD's research facilities and more than 1200 scientific staff and CIRAD provided (and still provides) 'in-kind' support to INIBAP. The French Government has provided some US$ 630,000 of the US$ 1 million required to build INIBAP's new office building that opened in October 1996. While it could be argued that relocating INIBAP's base from Montpellier to Rome might make better sense from the point of view of seamless integration of the two units, there are compelling countervailing arguments of cost and political nature that render any further discussion of location moot.
The Panel confirms that the current location of INIBAP's operations in Montpellier is appropriate and enables it to take advantage of many in-kind contributions that substantially add to the leverage that INIBAP obtains from its relatively small budget. The alternative of locating in a regional site was considered, but such a move, even if politically acceptable, would potentially introduce added costs and 'region-specific' issues that may complicate the networking concept, and would, in any event, incur significantly higher costs than at the Montpellier site.
INIBAP's Director and 13 other staff are located in Montpellier. A further seven staff are located in regional offices in the Philippines, Costa Rica, Honduras, and Cameroon, and five staff are located in the INIBAP Transit Centre at KUL, Belgium.
The INIBAP Director reports to the Director-General of IPGRI. In discussions with the senior staff it is clear that the current arrangement works well. IPGRI has revised its management and programme structure so that, as of January 1, 1997, INIBAP is one of the three programmes of IPGRI. There is adequate peer review of the scientific content of the four INIBAP projects through the office of the Deputy Director General - programmes. programme oversight is the responsibility of the INIBAP Director in consultation with and review by the Director General and appropriate staff. This is reflected in the MTP (1998-2000) and clearly shows that INIBAP is an integral component of IPGRI. The Panel recognizes that the Director of INIBAP should maintain stature and standing in the important donor community; the present reporting relationship to the Director General, together with INIBAP's programme level status in IPGRI, maintains this advantage.
INIBAP operates under a Headquarters Agreement with the French Government (GOF) that spells out the specific privileges and immunities of the Centre and its staff. Before INIBAP could be legally dissolved it will be necessary for IPGRI to conclude a similar agreement with GOF. This may take some time, although GOF has indicated that there would be no difficulties in concluding such an agreement. The net effect, however, is that, although full working integration of the two institutions could take effect as soon as the Donor Support Group so decides, nevertheless to ensure continuity of staff and their immunities, INIBAP would continue as a legal entity for some indeterminate time, pending completion of an IPGRI agreement with GOF. There would be no impediment to the practical integration of the two institutions, however.
The degree of integration already achieved between the two Centres has resulted in the common use by both institutions of IPGRI's human resource management systems and policies, financial controls, management information systems (MIS), and planning processes. As such, therefore, the strengths and weaknesses of IPGRI's systems, as reviewed and discussed in Chapter 9 of this report, apply mutatus mutandis to INIBAP. However, with respect to financial controls and MIS, while INIBAP fully utilizes IPGRI's financial systems, because there is a legally mandated requirement that INIBAP's financial records also be kept separate from IPGRI's own accounts at this time, there are some added costs involved in external audits, in maintaining separate accounts, and in reconciling these accounts at month- and year-end. These requirements add to the workload of IPGRI's administrative department staff.
Because of its historical beginnings as a separate Centre, INIBAP developed - and still maintains - a separate set of accounts using a computerised system (the BedfordTM system) that is incompatible with IPGRI's (PlatinumTM) system used in Rome. This incompatibility carries with it the need to re-enter manually financial data between the two systems with the attendant risks of error and obvious costs. Once the decision is made to fully integrate INIBAP, this difficulty can be quickly resolved.
5.5.1 Host Country Relationships
5.5.2 Relationship with IITA
5.5.3 Relationships with Other Partners
INIBAP's relationships with its host country, France, are excellent. France is not only a major INIBAP donor, but also, through CIRAD, a significant scientific contributor to INIBAP's programme. At the end of 1996 INIBAP moved into the newly built and predominantly French-funded premises at Montpellier. A favourable Headquarters Agreement was signed in September 1992 and published as law in November 1994.
From the CGIAR perspective, the relationship between INIBAP and IITA is of primary interest in that their combined Musa research programmes represent the System's overall commitment to this commodity. IITA and INIBAP agreed on their cooperation through an MOU signed in July 1991. This MOU sets out areas of collaboration for research on plantain and banana in SSA.
Towards the end of the review period, prolonged (1992-1995) and disruptive misunderstandings between the two institutions were finally overcome, and collaborative links were renewed as envisaged in the MOU. Division of labour and areas of collaboration between the two Institutes should respect comparative institutional strengths: IITA's strengths are in breeding, crop protection and agronomy as well as in close links with national programmes in its mandate area, while INIBAP's focus is on germplasm distribution and management, germplasm evaluation, information, and documentation as well as on the liaison function among the Musa improvement community worldwide.
The Panel notes that the provisions of the MOU for consultation, collaboration and cooperation have only been partially respected, which has left the impression to observers of little coordinated and thus potentially competitive action. The Panel was therefore pleased to note that IITA offered its services and was invited to participate in the recent selection process of the two African INIBAP network coordinators and it interpreted this as an indication of INIBAP's determination to help integrate CGIAR-funded Musa research in Africa. It also noted that the decision on the location of the two network coordination offices in Uganda and Cameroon was the result of wide consultation among national, regional and international network partners and that IITA is supporting this decision.
The Panel notes that there is an intention to revise the MOU between INIBAP and IITA, the intention being to reflect INIBAP's integration into IPGRI since the MOU was first signed and to situate the interaction between the two institutions in the framework of the emerging global Musa Improvement programme comprising both CGIAR and non-CGIAR institutions.
The Panel recommends that INIBAP/IPGRI and IITA carry out a joint strategic planning activity at the earliest possible date for defining the IITA-INIBAP input into the Musa Improvement programme and to agree upon a revised MOU. Mechanisms by which full complementarity is achieved between the two CGIAR institutes in support of the global Musa improvement effort should thereby be agreed upon and implemented. The Panel does not question the leading institutional role for INIBAP in championing the proposed global Musa Improvement programme; its success, however, again from the CGIAR perspective, must be critically gauged by the quality and relevance of the INIBAP-IITA activities and interactions.
INIBAP has developed good links with many international, regional and agricultural organizations. In its role as network convenor, the quality and diversity of such links are obviously of paramount importance. The activity of INIBAP's regional coordinators, particularly those of LACNET and APSNET, have played a key role in establishing good institutional linkages in their respective regions. Worth noting here, have been the especially close relationships established with the Laboratory of Tropical Crop Improvement at KLU, with CIRAD in Montpellier, with PCARRD in the Philippines, with CATIE in Cost Rica, with FHIA in Honduras, and with IAEA in Austria. The KUL-based International Transit Centre for Musa germplasm appears to be one of the strongest foundations for strategic research in the INIBAP scheme. CIRAD hosts a virus-indexing centre as does TBRI and QPDI. CATIE is having strong training and biotechnology inputs into the INIBAP programme and has developed IPM expertise which may be used in an expanded Musa Improvement programme. CATIE also hosts the Latin American and Caribbean Regional Coordination Office of INIBAP. FHIA is a contributor of improved germplasm tested under the IMTP and the first one to contribute hybrids. Both ASARECA and CORAF have supported the placement of the regional African Coordination offices in their respective areas: NARO in Uganda and CRBP in Cameroon will be host and active network partner institutions.
While the number of institutions participating in INIBAP's activities is very substantial, the level of interaction among these institutions is surprisingly low; e.g. there is very little interaction between the major breeding programmes of IITA and FHIA. INIBAP has, in order to enhance 'horizontal' institutional interaction, set up the Banana Breeders Network in 1994; similarly, a Musa Nematology Consortium was initiated in 1995. The four Regional Advisory Committees (RACs) serve similar purposes as mechanisms for communicating needs and opportunities within and among regions. Such initiatives are precursors of the proposed global Musa Improvement programme, a broad-based genetic improvement consortium aimed at creating new partnerships to increase efficiency and cost-effectiveness of Musa improvement. This programme, which INIBAP undertakes to facilitate, constitutes an opportunity to go beyond an exchange of information network into agreements on a global research alliance with a multitude of partners.
In addition to the interaction with institutions involved in Musa improvement, INIBAP will need to make major efforts to forge a closer association with farmers. More systematic relationships with farmers and farmer groups are required to safeguard participatory modes of research orientation, also and particularly in the breeding programmes.
INIBAP is encouraged to continue exploring possibilities of establishing linkages with the private sector, such as commercial companies as well as NGOs. The role of banana exporting companies as donors to INIBAP's programmes should be explored, particularly in relation to the design of options for the reduction of chemical misuse in the banana industry.
The Panel is pleased to note that INIBAP, during the period of this review, has (1) enhanced its partner institution commitments to the network, (2) sustained and expanded donor support, and (3) decisively strengthened its profile and international reputation as a vigorous network. The Panel congratulates management and staff for this considerable achievement.
The vision for INIBAP was presented in a position paper The Future of the INIBAP programme adopted by the Board of Trustees in September 1996. The corresponding implementation plans are found in the draft MTP (1998-2000). Its mission is "to increase the productivity and yield stability of banana and plantain grown on smallholdings for domestic consumption and for local and export markets." This mission is addressed through four objectives that are consistent within the IPGRI mission. INIBAP expects to continue along the lines of the programme described in previous sections of this review, but expects to:
· Provide leadership in the development of the consortium-based Musa Improvement programme, which will go beyond the better communications achieved through the Breeders Network;· Increase its participation in the Banana Improvement Project presently managed by the World Bank;
· Increase its work on IPM;
· Support the Nematology Consortium;
· Increase substantially the strength of banana and plantain work in Africa and to maintain the already high quality of its efforts in Asia and LAC.
INIBAP therefore appears, on the basis of its internal planning, to grow in the services it provides to the global banana and plantain research community. To support this Programmatic growth, it presumably requires increased numbers of staff and budget, and, as a network organization, increased numbers and activities of its partners. Staffing were 26 in 1996, projected at 29 in 1997, and 34 in 1999. The budget of INIBAP has increased rapidly in the past two years and growth is anticipated (from US$ 3.6 million in 1997 to US$ 4.4 million in 1998, and US$ 4.8 million in 1999). With the appointment of two coordinators in Africa, the number of partners can be expected to increase there, but the Panel believes that the NARS research base in banana and plantain work is very limited and foresees a major challenge to INIBAP in that regard. The Panel is enthusiastic about the future ability of INIBAP to become an even more effective organization, but, of course, realizes that this will continue to require excellent leadership and scientific staff to deliver its programme. The Panel is optimistic about the prospects, based on its observations of the present staff and expectations for the three critical positions in recruitment which must be filled with creative, energetic professionals.
Many significant achievements have been obtained during the 12 years since INIBAP was formed. The networking concept had not been attempted on the scale of INIBAP and, as such, was an experiment for the Support Group and certainly for the CGIAR which gave INIBAP provisional membership as one of its international centres. INIBAP's role as a catalyst and facilitator of research and information transfer has been complementary to NARS and to research centres, such as IITA, CIRAD, CATIE, and FHIA. These good relations have been earned by INIBAP through its work. This is not to say that there have not been problems, as we know there were some difficult times with IITA with respect to plant health and germplasm transfer. These times are apparently past and the Panel has addressed elsewhere the importance of emphasising its collaboration with IITA.
The Panel is pleased that the integration of INIBAP within IPGRI has gone smoothly and we would like to stress that there have been, and will continue to be, mutual benefits of this relationship. The Panel strongly urges that INIBAP retain its identity as a programme within IPGRI and not be identified as a subprogramme or any other designation that would relegate lesser importance to INIBAP. The Panel has endorsed the CGIAR "experiment" as a success and concurs that INIBAP's mission is fully consistent with the aims of the CGIAR System and fully integrated into IPGRI. The Panel extends it congratulations to the Support Group for their vision in creating this innovative network programme. If the Support Group accepts our recommendation, and we hope it will, we strongly hope that this group would continue to function in support of the INIBAP programme of IPGRI.
We recommended earlier that legal steps should be taken to ensure that this integration proceeds expeditiously, and preserves all benefits to the institute and its staff. The Panel urges scientific staff and management to continue to merge functions that would improve efficiency in use of time and resources. This has already been evident in the publications sections, but we urge that the various IPGRI/INIBAP regional offices, presently more than one in three of the five IPGRI regions, work toward sharing resources and services, including co-location, when possible. Another area where the Panel believes IPGRI/INIBAP needs strengthening is in genetic resource database management; it would be prudent to address that topic on an Institute-wide basis, especially through SGRP and the SINGER project. We are confident that such further integration of functions can occur, although recognising that the physical separation of facilities between Rome and Montpellier can result in isolationism.
As INIBAP sees its primary objective reaching fruition, that being the availability of disease-resistant, farmer-acceptable cultivars, it is clear that INIBAP's role will expand into crop production issues. The Panel agrees with inclusion/facilitation of IPM into its portfolio. The entree to IPM appears to be limited in vision and may not fully account for advances in this field already made by other partners. As IPM programmes are developed with the NARS and other research institutes, the role of on-farm evaluations becomes essential and thereby involving participation by farmers. Some NGOs are highly qualified and motivated to become partners at this point. Bananas and plantains are largely grown by smallholders, but product marketing will increasingly target urban populations. This is a changing dynamic with respect to post-harvest handling, transportation, and consumer preferences. Therefore the Panel suggests that INIBAP develop in consultation with IITA the criteria for a broader-based programme which would facilitate research and technology transfer in IPM, with farmer participation.
The Panel further wishes to commend INIBAP for its outstanding efforts in genetic resource management and emphasises the continuing need for conservation of the global banana and plantain genetic resources. Here we endorse INIBAP's hands-on management of the in vitro genebank at ITC, but stress INIBAP's role as a facilitator for back-up conservation sites and for field genebanks. We believe this activity is fully consistent with the SGRP and in fact provides a model for consideration by genetic resource management units in other CGIAR centres.
With respect to technical programmes, the Panel endorses the concept of a global Musa Improvement Programme, with the proviso that the CGIAR centres fully participate in its development; this includes, of course, IITA with its current research programmes, but also with IFPRI, ISNAR, and crop production-based centres that would include banana and plantain in their cropping systems and natural resource management programmes. The proposed consortium rightly includes all of the other research entities having bananas and plantains in their mandates. At this point, the Panel would like to acknowledge the important contributions of the Banana Improvement Project managed by the World Bank in addressing fundamental and applied research on Musa. We urge the continuance of the effort and that consideration be given for INIBAP to assume a facilitation role for that programme. This would be consistent with the proposed global programme.
The Panel further strongly urges that efforts be taken to seek private sector funding and other support for public sector global banana and plantain research and development efforts. This is in the best interests of all concerned, including the improvement of environmental quality, as for example, the need for alternatives to more than 50 annual pesticide applications to plantation banana production fields.
This review has called attention to many of the technical constraints to improvement of productivity of bananas and plantains. These included the formidable problems of plant health in production fields and in propagules, especially viruses; the unknown role of variation in pathogenicity in the various disease-causing organisms; the increasing role for in vitro propagation methods and the problem of somaclonal variation; and, above all, access to and efficient breeding technologies for rapid production of high-quality, disease- and pest-resistant cultivars. Research can produce solutions for these problems, but increasingly it is evident that multidisciplinary approaches are required. This means that meaningful partnerships must be forged and facilitated, as is the goal of INIBAP.
As a network organization, the Panel recognizes that INIBAP facilitates research performed by other organizations, but that it also has direct control for its genetic resources management functions in conservation and distribution and is the primary information base for Musa research and genetic resource information. This arrangement for genetic resources management provides the protection in-trust curatorship for banana and plantain as for other crop genetic resources held by CGIAR centres. The Panel agrees that this is an appropriate modus operandi for IPGRI/INIBAP and does not encourage expansion into other areas of hands-on-on research that can be better done by partners.
The "INIBAP experiment" is judged by this Panel as a success and the Panel commends the INIBAP as modus operandi to the CGIAR System for other Centres needing access to specialized scientists during a period of tight research financing.
