6.1 Overview
6.2 System-wide Genetic Resources Programme
6.3 Genetic Resources Policy Research
6.4 Conclusions
In this Chapter, the Panel undertakes an appraisal of IPGRI's general and specific role in the CGIAR System with regard to its genetic resources agenda. The general considerations relate to IPGRI's role as the only specialized, subject matter-oriented CGIAR Centre dealing with genetic resources conservation and to IPGRI's relationship with the entire CGIAR system not only, but particularly, in genetic resources policy terms. The more specific considerations relate to IPGRI's role as convening Centre for SGRP. Two Panel members participated in the annual meeting in January 1997 of the Steering Committee of the Inter-Centre Working Group on Genetic Resources (ICWG-GR) which guides the SGRP. The Panel was, however, not asked to review SGRP; the comments on SGRP therefore primarily deal with IPGRI's role in the programme although some aspects of programme progress are used to discuss this role.
In addressing the general assessment mentioned above, the Panel took note of recent developments towards increased cooperation within the CGIAR on matters concerning genetic resources. It recognizes that IPGRI as the specialist and leading IARC in genetic resources conservation has a special and prominent role to play in the CGIAR system involving crops, forestry, livestock and aquatic genetic resources. When commenting on IPGRI, therefore, the Panel inevitably needed to consider System-wide implications of such comments.
Since the previous EPMR of IPGRI (then IBPGR) in 1991, a number of major changes have taken place in the global genetic resources context: whereas in 1991 genetic resources were still generally viewed as a 'common heritage of mankind' as expressed, e.g. by the 1983 FAO Undertaking on PGR and its philosophy of shared interests and responsibilities for the genetic resources as a basis for world food production, the UNCED in 1992 and its Convention on Biological Diversity, and the concomitant negotiation of GATT/TRIPS, resulted in a replacement of this 'agricultural' approach to these resources by an 'industrial' approach which views genetic diversity as an economic commodity subject to national sovereign ownership and intellectual property rights. These developments dramatically changed the international environment in which the CGIAR and IPGRI has to operate. From an isolated and low-profile situation, IPGRI found itself suddenly in the middle of a heated and highly politicised confrontation of economic interests involving PGR on a global scale.
IPGRI and its Management have vigorously and decisively adjusted to this situation. The previously occasionally conflictual relationship with FAO has been transformed into one of close cooperation recognising shared interests and objectives. Political sensitivity of the Management of IPGRI developed into a close partnership with FAO in preparing for the Leipzig Conference. IPGRI can share credit with FAO for the preparation of two landmark documents adopted at the Leipzig conference, the State of the World Report on PGR, and the Global Plan of Action. These documents, in concert with the CBD and Agenda 21, provide the context and the course of action for the future. Similarly, the IPGRI Management has established sound working relationships with the NGO community particularly active in this debate.
Both at UNCED and at the Leipzig conference, IPGRI has played a leading role representing the CGIAR. Now that the Global Plan of Action is accepted, the question needs to be addressed whether the right structures are in place to support its implementation. Similar considerations are required in the areas of forestry and livestock where global action has also been proposed. This analysis needs to be done with regard to IPGRI's and the CGIAR system's role in this effort to move forward the conservation and utilization of genetic resources, thereby capitalizing on increased awareness of the importance of genetic resources for present and future food production.
Globally, the CGIAR is the largest holder of international PGR collections with approximately 600,000 accessions of important food crops held in genebanks of its various institutes. TAC, in an attempt to analyse options for the entire system's genetic resources research agenda, commissioned a Stripe Study of Genetic Resources in the CGIAR in 1993/4. The study offered a number of options for restructuring this agenda, but argued for a System-wide independently funded programme on genetic resources conservation to respond to the new challenges. The option suggested by the Stripe Study was, in subsequent discussions in the CGIAR, rejected; the decision taken was to confirm the independent Centre-based genetic resources activities, on the one hand, but to link this confirmation with a commitment of the Centres to consider increased inter-Centre cooperation and to establish a System-wide Genetic Resources Programme. The Panel puts on record that, in its view, the CGIAR system missed the opportunity on that occasion for decisively and vigorously positioning itself to more effectively and pro-actively address its global responsibilities in genetic resources conservation and use. At the same time, however, the CGIAR took important decisions (Box 6.1) that established a programme-level status of Genetic Resources Units in all Centres and it established the Inter-Centre Working Group on Genetic Resources as the steering committee to guide policy and management of genetic resources.
|
Box 6.1: Genetic Resources in the CGIAR-1994 Decisions The "in trust" status of CGIAR collections is reaffirmed, with the understanding that the collections will be placed under the umbrella of an international agreement. The Genetic Resources Units at the centers will be elevated to Program status or equivalent and will take on a wider mandate than the servicing of the Center breeding programs at the centres. · Centers will receive separate funding for genetic resources work which will not be fungible across their other activities. · The Intercenter Working Group on Genetic Resources (ICWG-GR) will be the CGIAR steering committee to guide policy and management of genetic resources. · IPGRI will be the lead center on genetic resources programs and the IPGRI Director General will be director of the System-wide Program on Genetic Resources. IPGRI will provide a small secretariat for the ICWG-GR. Resource allocation will be TAC's responsibility. · A standardized information system and database will be developed for the genetic resources of the CGIAR. From: Summary of Proceedings and Decisions. CGIAR Mid-term Meeting 1994. New Delhi. |
The Panel recognizes, however, the opportunities and willingness of the CGIAR Centres to move forward in a gradual fashion to improved cooperation and coordination of their genetic resources programmes. The Management of IPGRI expressed its confidence in this process. It pointed to the External Review of the CGIAR Genebank Operations commissioned by the SGRP in 1995 as an important indication of such opportunities. It also referred to discussions in the SGRP on how to secure long-term funding for genetic resources conservation in the system. A major indicator of this willingness for enhanced integration is considered to be the System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) currently under development in the framework of the SGRP and with leadership from IPGRI. The Panel also recognizes that the CGIAR Centres endorse the representational role of IPGRI for the CGIAR system at various important fora (e.g. FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, COP).
The Panel, however, believes that there is much justification for revisiting the arrangements made for the CGIAR System's genetic resources commitments and in its view, this can only be achieved if the SGRP rapidly evolves into a truly System-wide Programme with coordinated and shared strategic responsibilities and secured funding. The Panel of course recognizes that crops, forestry, livestock, and aquatic resources each require different approaches. However, all work towards a similar goal: conservation and sustainable use in an essentially global context.
6.2.1 Evolution
6.2.2 Organization and Management
6.2.3 Achievements
The Panel is pleased that SGRP has developed its mission and objectives (Box 6.2) and made progress since its establishment in 1994. The Director-General of IPGRI is Programme Leader and IPGRI headquarters houses a small programme secretariat with the SGRP coordinator. The ICWG-GR, which includes members of the participating Centres (all except IIMI) and the FAO, acts as a steering committee for SGRP. The steering committee meets annually. The Panel notes that the SGRP's scope includes crop, forestry, livestock, and aquatic genetic resources. The CGIAR endorsed an allocation of US $1.6m (1996) for the coordination, meeting, publication, awareness, and information activities and for the collaborative research components in the framework of SGRP. Collaborative research is funded through grant allocation to proposals submitted to the steering committee. Funding of SGRP in 1996 fell short of the CGIAR allocation mentioned above by 50%, and IPGRI decided to allocate funds from its unrestricted core funding to meet the shortfall for already approved projects. Yet, due to the lack in funding support by donors, it was not possible to run the collaborative activities at the level originally planned.
A possible conclusion is that the SGRP initiative has not been recognized by donors as an attractive new development, in spite of overall increased funding available for biodiversity conservation. The extensive reference in SGRP documents to improved "coordination", "collaboration", "policies" and "strategies" may not have convinced donors that SGRP was more than just an effort to bring some order to an existing and ongoing activity and therefore did not require substantial additional funding. The Panel considers this slow start of the programme as most unfortunate; on the other hand, progress mentioned in the overview above is quite encouraging and merits substantially more support by CGIAR members who have advocated a 'pragmatic' approach in the discussion of the Stripe Study recommendations.
Two Panel members attended the ICWG-GR meeting in Puncak, Indonesia, en route to the EPMR deliberations in Rome and had an opportunity to observe the operations of the SGRP.
Acting in its capacity as Secretariat to the SGRP, IPGRI staff conducts meetings well, distributes documents on time and generally 'energizes' the meeting participants to achieve progress. Attendees at the meeting were uniformly pleased with the role that IPGRI's Director General, as the CGIAR-designated Programme Leader, has played in fostering SGRP goals and objectives within the CGIAR network and with donors generally. This response by the participants is particularly important since the Programme Leader's role in this is one of the classic "all responsibility but no authority" situations that can severely tax the very best leadership potential. They were also pleased that the SGRP Coordinator position had been filled and had produced a very good annual report and other documents during the past year.
If there is a weakness in the way that the SGRP currently operates, it is that the Programme has not yet addressed the substantive genetic resources policy and structural issues which it was assigned (Box 6.2), namely to represent authoritatively the System-wide agenda on genetic resources conservation and on effective linkages between conservation and use of these resources. This observation should not, however, be seen to be a criticism of the Secretariat or the Programme Leader: rather it has to be understood that the SGRP is, for example, one of no less than six groups that are tasked with the function of contributing or determining genetic resources policies for the CGIAR system. Furthermore, the SGRP is at the bottom of the hierarchical structure of these committees that begin with the CGIAR Genetic Resources Policy Committee, and works down through a plethora of Committees of Centre Board Chairs, Centre Directors-General, and Centre-Directors' Subcommittee (Box 6.3).
Since policy issues have already been considered in some fashion by these higher committees, the effect on the SGRP is that participants to its annual meeting, i.e., members of the ICWG-GR, the steering committee of the programme, mainly address technical and housekeeping issues rather than policy matters. The Steering Committee members, with two exceptions (DDG-P for IPGRI and the FAO member), are scientific staff from the participating centres. These members have programme-level managerial responsibilities, are genebank curators, or are genetic diversity and use specialists. Thus, the members have outstanding technical competence to handle issues of substance, but typically lack the authority (or seniority within the Centre) and sometimes the broad understanding to agree on a strategy to commit a Centre's budgetary resources to agreed plans for action. One effect is that the types and range of issues addressed at the annual meeting tend to be technical in nature (e.g. at Puncak, developing the technical and financial criteria that should be used to evaluate funding proposals) rather than strategic, such as tackling the substantive issues surrounding the standardization of genebank management quality across centres, linking pre-breeding and utilization to genetic resources conservation in in situ PGR management contexts, policy related to access and ownership of genetic resources, the inclusion of animal genetic resources conservation, and stabilized funding for genebanks, to name a few of the outstanding concerns for System-wide genetic resources management. At the same time, the Steering Committee reviews proposals submitted by its own members and then recommends funding levels for the accepted proposals.
|
Box 6.2: CGIAR System-wide Genetic Resources Programme (SGRP) Established in 1994, the SGRP encompasses the genetic resources activities of the Centres and aims to enhance the efficiency, effectiveness and transparency of the CGIAR's contribution to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Agenda 21 and the emerging global system for genetic resources. Mission Through coordination among Centres of the CGIAR and collaboration with partner organizations, the SGRP contributes to the global effort to conserve agricultural, forestry and aquatic genetic resources and promotes their use in ways that are consistent with the Convention on Biological Diversity. The SGRP seeks to advance research on policies, strategies and technologies for genetic resources, and to provide information, advice and training to its partners. Objectives To contribute to the global effort to conserve genetic resources and promote their use in agriculture, forestry and fisheries for the current and future benefit of humans by: · generating new knowledge, technologies, methods and products through research partnerships; · strengthening institutional capacity through training and information exchange, particularly in developing countries; · assisting in the development and implementation of policies and strategies; · promoting institutional linkages, complementarity and synergy. The SGRP encompasses the independently-managed genetic resources programmes of the Centres, together with additional elements for coordination and collaborative action. The latter are supported by a specific allocation of funds. Core elements of SGRP's strategy include coordination, consultation with partners, information sharing, policy formulation, public awareness, representation and impact assessment. In addition the programme promotes multi-Centre collaborative activities in areas of common concern in the ex situ and in situ management of crop, forage, livestock, agroforestry, forestry and aquatic genetic resources. Such activities include collaborative research, developing information systems and training. IPGRI has overall responsibility for the facilitation, coordination and representation of the programme and is accountable financially for the collaborative elements. The DG of IPGRI is the Programme Leader and IPGRI hosts a small Secretariat led by the Programme Coordinator. The Inter-Centre Working Group on Genetic Resources (ICWG-GR), as the programme's steering committee, oversees and advises on programme planning and implementation and tasks specific Centres to lead activities on its behalf. The ICWG-GR includes representatives from all participating Centres, together with a representative of FAO, the DG of IPGRI and the Programme Coordinator who also serves as the group's Secretary. |
The Panel believes that the current mixed responsibilities of the committee should be clarified, but that the ICWG-GR should, as originally decided, be the body which strategically drives the SGRP. This can be done if this Group includes members with the authority to suggest and effect strategic orientation and change. To do so, its members must be able to discuss issues and to take or propose actions while considering the System-wide programme as a whole. Further, the ICWG-GR should seek ways to accomplish decision-making about the acceptance and funding of proposals without direct participation in the process by those who may be benefactors of funding. For the Steering Committee to address substantive issues, it could establish ad hoc subcommittees for such matters of System-wide importance as stable genebank funding, policy analysis, and training.
The Panel would further suggest that to satisfy the requirement of impartiality, especially at a time of serious budget constraints, the ICWG-GR considers that independent experts or advisors in a personal capacity become part of the process. The Panel recommends that IPGRI engage with the ICWG-GR in exploring measures to ensure that Centre representatives have authority to speak for their institute on strategic decisions and joint plans of action and, further, to appoint one or more external advisers to assist it to focus on long-term System-wide programmes and strategies.
|
Box 6.3: IPGRI's Role in Genetic Resources Policy within the CGIAR 1. International Policy Fora (CBD, FAO Commission, UPOV, WTO etc) The CGIAR is represented by the Chairman. This role is generally delegated to the DG of IPGRI. 2. Policy at the CGIAR level The CGIAR cannot directly decide on policy for the Centres but formulates and/or endorses common policy positions. The CGIAR acts on the advice of the CGIAR Genetic Resources Policy Committee (GRPC). IPGRI provides secretariat services to the GRPC and the DG of IPGRI is a member. 3. Harmonizing Inter-Centre policies Three main bodies develop and harmonize policies among the Centres: · The Committee of the Centre Board Chairs (CBC), · The Committee of Centre Directors (CDC), and its subcommittee on IPR, of which the IPGRI DG is a member. The CDC has appointed IPGRI as the focal CGIAR Centre with respect to biodiversity and the CBD. · The Inter-Centre Working Group on Genetic Resources (ICWG-GR), which is the steering committee of the System-wide Genetic Resources Programme (SGRP). The DG of IPGRI is the SGRP Leader and IPGRI provides the Secretariat. The ICWG-GR advises the CDC, the GRPC and individual Centres on policy matters. IFPRI also plays a special policy role within the ICWG-GR. |
The Panel notes that among decisions taken at the CGIAR MTM 1994 (Box 6.1), the CGIAR has taken positive steps with respect to the genetic resources issues of its centres. Because these issues are substantially beyond the scope of genebank collections, the Panel is convinced that the CGIAR should confirm that all of the MTM 1994 decisions have resulted in the desired actions by Centres and should decisively agree on common action in the area of biological resources management, conservation and use. This is all the more relevant in view of the UNCED-CBD and post-ICPPGR events.
The Panel wishes to state categorically that failure of SGRP to address important strategic issues in the CGIAR does not, in its view, result from poor leadership on IPGRI's part. Rather it is, as mentioned above, a failure of the CGIAR system to recognize and deal with the assignment of strategic responsibilities within the system, as for example, evidenced in the case of the proliferation of genetic resources policy-making groups within the System or in the confinement of the ICWG-GR to technical matters in the framework of the SGRP. Finally, the Panel emphasizes the critical role IPGRI must play to bring the SGRP to the highest possible level of action within the CGIAR.
In the Panel's view, IPGRI staff assigned to the leadership role in the SGRP are carrying out their functions with a high degree of sensitivity and competence.
A major technical achievement for genetic resources in the CGIAR is the SINGER initiative which links the Centres' genetic resources documentation systems to a CGIAR documentation network accessible to outside users. SGRP also provides a platform that will allow Centre genebanks to exchange views, benefit from shared experiences and join in coordinated activities. This will promote visibility of the CGIAR genebanks as the backbone of PGR conservation worldwide. Essential to this development is a realisation by the participating Centres that they have responsibilities beyond their individual crop mandates to further the conservation of PGR. This includes institutional support on a regional basis to multicrop national genebanks and willingness to accept an overall coordinating role by IPGRI in such activities.
The Panel also notes that the External Review of the CGIAR's genebanks commissioned by the SGRP has considerably advanced the development of shared standards and objectives throughout the system.
The policy environment in which genetic resources conservation has to operate has dramatically changed over the past few years. From a situation in which genetic resources were viewed as a "common heritage of mankind" with shared responsibility for its conservation and open access, it now has become subject to national ownership as stated in the CBD and subject to patentable use as elaborated in the GATT/TRIPS negotiations.
Policy issues are most important in the fulfilment of the CGIAR's mission, and IPGRI as a lead Centre in the CGIAR's commitment to genetic resources research needs to have sufficient capacities and authority to deal adequately with these matters and relate itself with other actors in this field.
The Panel noted that IPGRI has been asked by CGIAR to consider the establishment of a genetic resources policy research unit to strengthen its scientific backup and advisory capacities in the System. Genetic resources sensu lato would have to be considered (crops, forestry, livestock, living aquatic resources). The Panel has been informed by IPGRI's Management of its recent decisions in this regard (see below), and will offer some comments on this development.
Policy matters related to genetic resources are dealt with at various levels in the CGIAR (Box 6.3). The Panel does not have the impression that this rather complicated network of policy defining bodies is likely to contribute effectively to the necessary clarity in both the decision process and system representation. IPGRI's role in this network appears to be facilitating and supporting rather than leading, although representational responsibilities assumed by IPGRI for the CGIAR, e.g., in the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, would suggest such a role.
The Panel took note of important developments in genetic resources policy and legal matters in the more recent past which are suggested to require IPGRI's scientific attention. These include, among others, access to genetic resources and sharing of benefits (implementation of CBD), status of ex situ collections, both pre- and post-CBD, treatment of biotechnology applications, biosafety, intellectual property rights and sui generis systems, safe movement of germplasm, material transfer agreements, definition and implementation of farmers' rights, benefit sharing, linkages between in situ and ex situ resources conservation and management, and ethical issues.
IPGRI's involvement in policy work during the review period has already spanned almost the entire range of issues listed above. The Institute has been active in monitoring ongoing discussions and in negotiations at the global level (e.g. agreement on placement of IARC germplasm collections under FAO auspices, guiding principles on intellectual property rights, material transfer agreements), and has made important contributions in various fora and thus advanced the development of policy approaches in the CGIAR. The Panel wishes to commend IPGRI for these most relevant and high-quality contributions. Of particular value is IPGRI's interdisciplinary approach to policy analysis. The Panel encourages the Institute to continue emphasising this approach.
The relationship with FAO regarding genetic resources policy issues is clearly identified in the IPGRI-FAO Memorandum of Understanding of 1990, where FAO assumes the leading responsibility in policy and legal matters regarding plant genetic resources and where IPGRI is asked to provide scientific and technical support to FAO in carrying out its responsibilities in these general policy and legal matters.
The Panel also noted that IPGRI is fully cognisant of the distinction between policy and legal issues, since not all policies require legalistic implementation, and the background knowledge necessary to work on policy research is not generally sufficient to deal adequately with legal issues, particularly in complex matters such as 'property' of genetic resources, intellectual property rights, and public international law; conversely, legal training alone is not sufficient for handling broader policy research issues. The Panel thus concurs with the views expressed by CGIAR (ICW95) that IPGRI should develop an in-house capacity for genetic resources policy research and advice. It notes that, in addition to filling a position of a legal genetic resources expert, IPGRI has contracted (part-time) the services of a senior Honorary Fellow with relevant experience as senior policy advisor to the Director General. The Panel also welcomes this decision and is confident that IPGRI Management will use its excellent relationships with FAO, IFPRI, ISNAR, CBD Secretariat and other relevant institutions involved in policy analysis and research to relate adequately and will hopefully integrate its own work with the general efforts in this area. The Panel also encourages IPGRI to make every attempt to balance the policy discussion, which is increasingly dominated by legal experts, by biological and ethical considerations.
The analysis above has clearly indicated to the Panel that the CGIAR's genetic resources commitment as a whole lacks coherence and direction and thus visibility and weight in the global scene. The Panel believes that this will be a matter of substantial concern to the upcoming review of the CGIAR system.
The Panel therefore puts forward a plea for this situation to be addressed more proactively by all those concerned. It believes that there are substantial efficiency gains to be made by positioning the CGIAR system for addressing more effectively the global challenges it is facing in the area of genetic resources conservation and use.
The CGIAR, as the world's largest holder of PGR collections, has a natural responsibility for contributing to the development of a global process by which genetic resources conservation is facilitated in an effective, efficient, sustainable, and equitable way. The Panel recognizes the efforts already invested by the CGIAR in this development; it also believes that IPGRI has advanced these efforts to a very remarkable degree. The Panel believes, however, that far better integration of efforts will be required.
Since the third EPMR of IBPGR (1991), a number of major developments have taken place which have drastically modified the international plant genetic resources scenario:
· culmination of the UNCED process in 1992 and the coming into force of the CBD,· an array of post-UNCED processes among which the COP series,
· adjustments in trade agreements,
· ICPPGR process with its GPA, with anticipated corresponding initiatives with respect to forestry and animal genetic resources,
· adjustment underway of the FAO Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources.
The Panel notes, on the one hand, that IPGRI has assumed an increasingly important System-wide leading function in the genetic resources conservation debate and a representative role for the entire CGIAR in international fora such as the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources and the COP of the CBD.
The Panel notes, on the other hand, that there is an embarrassing proliferation of loosely connected focal points for genetic resources policy in the CGIAR, indicating deficiency of coherence among the various committees that address genetic resource. The Panel also notes, that the SGRP set up by the CGIAR has not been able to design options required for the re-engineering of the System-wide interactions on the matter.
In the light of the drastically changed global scenario with reference to genetic resources, the Panel is therefore not convinced that the current interaction between the CGIAR Centres provides the arrangement required for the adequate representation of the World's largest collection of genetic resources of which the CGIAR System is the custodian and to discharge the increasing responsibilities faced by the System in conserving and using agrobiodiversity in general, including animal and fish genetic resources.
The Panel recommends that IPGRI initiate a consultation process among the Boards and Directors General of the CGIAR Centres with the objective of reassessing the System's genetic resources conservation responsibilities in the post-UNCED environment and to readdress structural options for better programmatic integration of the entire CGIAR efforts.
