10.1 Host Country
10.2 National and Other Institutions
10.3 Relationship with CGIAR Centres and Other International Organizations
10.4 Relationships with Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and the Private Sector
In the review period, IPGRI was established as a legal entity under international law (October 1991) and recognized as such by the host country, Italy, through the parliamentary ratification of IPGRI's Headquarters Agreement (January 1994). This process also involved the administrative separation from FAO which had hosted IBPGR since its establishment in 1974. The terms of the Headquarters Agreement are perfectly suitable for facilitating the operation of the IPGRI as per its mission. The government of Italy continues to be very supportive of the Institute. It has, for example, earmarked a sizeable amount of funds to facilitate the equipping of and the transfer to the new premises at Maccarese near the Fiumicino International Airport, where IPGRI's headquarters office might move towards the end of 1998. Italy is also one of IPGRI's core donors.
National plant genetic resources programmes and their component institutions are the primary partners of IPGRI in its programme delivery. Both headquarters and region-based IPGRI groups access a wide array of such national institutions in a range of collaborative arrangements and networks. The involvement of IPGRI, by contract with FAO and otherwise, in the preparatory process of the ICPPGR has been crucial and probably decisive for the achievements of this Conference in terms of the compilation of the State of the World's Plant Genetic Resources report, the PGR Status Report and the Global Plan of Action. This involvement in the compilation of the national PGR status reports and in the subregional, regional, and global synthesis of this information has strongly enhanced IPGRI's reputation as a lead institution in the area of agrobiodiversity conservation and research support. The Panel has no doubt that the synergistic manner in which this process was facilitated by FAO and IPGRI has contributed to the further enhancement of IPGRI's links with national partners and the Institute is to be highly commended for this excellent performance.
The high level of interaction with national and regional partner institutions is, for example, evident from the statistics in Table 4.1 for the Plant Genetic Resources subprogramme. More such interactions are ongoing in the INIBAP and CGIAR Genetic Resources Support subprogrammes. More than 100 collecting missions were carried out in the review period with IPGRI participation, all in agreement with national partner institutions conserving the materials collected; and more than 800 individual and group trainees from national programmes were provided the opportunity to enhance their professional skills for the benefit of their institutions. Increasingly, regional genetic resources programmes are gaining momentum in various areas. These programmes provide the opportunity to promote regional interaction and cooperation and thus effectiveness and efficiency in PGR conservation and use. The Panel believes that decisive emphasis on the regional dimension of PGR work is indicated, particularly in the context of the implementation of the Global Plan of Action; and that the regional agricultural research organizations and fora will be essential focal points for the orientation and funding of regional PGR activities in the future.
IPGRI is maintaining close working relationships with a large number of specialist research organizations (SRO) worldwide (in CGIAR language, advanced research organizations - AROs), both in collaborative research agreements and through contract research arrangements to which about one-quarter of IPGRI's total budget is allocated (Appendix VII). Because these arrangements are valuable in terms of their synergistic benefits, especially when the contracts are with SROs, the Panel strongly supports IPGRI's decision to substantially invest core resources in outsourcing research through contracts. It recognizes that this is a consequence of the determination of the Institute not to invest in in-house research infrastructure (Section 2.3, IPGRI's mode of operation). The figures in Appendix VII show that outsourcing is predominantly research in support of IPGRI's Objective 3, but some outsourcing is also done in other areas (e.g. training).
The Panel has the impression that the selection of the contract partner institutions is generally done in a more opportunistic than systematic way: the contract partner is approached because the IPGRI staff member taking the initiative knows the partner he or she considers up to the task. The Panel by no means questions the validity of the staff member's judgement, and realizes that the Institute may be restricted by donor requirements to award contracts to specified research organizations. However, a more open process in the identification of contract partners would provide opportunities for systematically sourcing the highest possible quality; and the introduction of competitive elements in this process would enhance the cost-effectiveness of the research undertaken. It would also strengthen the catalytic role of the Institute in the global PGR research system. The Panel recommends that IPGRI develop a mode of subcontracting a part of its research programme through the issuance of calls for proposals for designated research topics, and after peer review, select the most suitable proposals for funding.
IPGRI entertains a wide range of collaborative arrangements with its sister CGIAR Centres. Reference to IPGRI's convening role in the context of the SGRP has been made in Chapter 6; and the special relationship between IPGRI/INIBAP and IITA has been commented on in Chapter 5.
IPGRI has placed three of its five regional programmes at sister institutes. The head office of the sub-Saharan Group will move in mid-1997 to ICRAF headquarters, with which the Group has several collaborative research arrangements (e.g. in the ICRAF-led African highlands initiative, and in Southern and West Africa in the context of seed collection for agroforestry multipurpose trees and indigenous fruit trees). The SSA Group office for West and Central Africa is hosted at the IITA Biological Control Centre in Cotonou, Benin. These arrangements have been made not only for organizational and operational convenience, but also with the intention of enhancing inter-Centre collaborative research on PGR. In this context, the Panel notes that the interaction of the WANA Regional Group with the ICARDA Genetic Resources Unit is reportedly (and also in ICARDA's view) successful, but there is room for improvement in the case of the Americas Group interaction with CIAT's GRU. The Panel also notes that the interaction between the Regional Groups and their host Centres substantially extends beyond the respective GRUs.
In 1990, FAO and IPGRI signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Programme Cooperation. In the Panel's view, the terms of this MOU are still valid after the institutional separation of IPGRI from FAO, and are based on agreements on the complementarity between the two institutions. The excellent collaboration between FAO and IPGRI on genetic resources policy issues has already been commented on in Chapter 6. The collaboration between IPGRI and FAO has expanded considerably beyond FAO's Agriculture Department, and includes working relationships with FAO's Forestry Department, the Women's and People's Participation Division of the Sustainable Development Department, the Legal Department, and the Commodity Division. IPGRI is also an observer on the FAO Commission on Plant Genetic Resources. A good example of constructive linkages with FAO was the successful joint orchestration of the ICCPGR process. The Panel thus notes with considerable satisfaction that the programmatic collaboration between IPGRI and FAO is substantial and mutually beneficial in various aspects of genetic resources conservation and development.
IPGRI has also developed strong links with the CBD secretariat. Links are also strong with GEF at UNEP, UNDP and the World Bank, including advisory functions for IPGRI in various GEF projects. IPGRI is also, together with UNESCO, FAO and UNEP, a member of the Ecosystem Conservation Group, an intergovernmental initiative for the follow-up of UNCED. The Panel commends IPGRI management for successfully linking the Centre with the global community engaged in various aspects of genetic resources work.
During its early years, IPGRI (as IBPGR) operated primarily through international crop research centres and national plant breeding institutes in developing countries, mostly in the public sector. From the early 1990s, in the context of UNCED and as new players got into the PGR debate, IPGRI has expanded its partnerships to include private and nongovernmental organizations that share its concerns for biodiversity conservation and use.
The Panel commends IPGRI management for quickly adapting to the new political context with considerable sensitivity. Good relationships have been established with a broad range of public interest groups, including well-known organizations (such as IUCN, WFF, WRI, TVE) and an increasing number of cause-oriented groups (GRAIN, RAFI, SEARICE). As part of its activities on in situ conservation, forest genetic resources and participatory farmer breeding, contacts have also been established with farmer organizations and local NGOs working with farmers.
The Panel notes that IPGRI has gained widespread respect and acceptance, even with NGOs highly critical of the CGIAR in general (in the context of the "Green Revolution technology" that they believe is harmful to large numbers of small farmers); and commends IPGRI for steering through this minefield with skill and conviction. This has been especially evident in IPGRI's involvement in the Keystone International Dialogue series on PGR, and in the joint sponsorship of the "Crucible Group". Both dialogues brought together in a personal capacity representatives of NGOs, national and international organizations and private industry to discuss issues related to PGR, including the explosive questions surrounding ownership and access to PGR and Intellectual Property Rights.
However, relationships between IPGRI and private corporations engaged in plant breeding have been limited. The interest and concern of IPGRI is in long-term conservation of total genepools, while private industry is mainly concerned with working collections of immediate relevance to their breeding programmes. Since IPGRI does not hold actual collections (except through INIBAP in banana and plantain), private industry has no direct interest in IPGRI. However, the question as to why private industry should continue to have free access to PGR as the basic raw material for their industry needs to be entertained. In the Panel's view, IPGRI and the CGIAR should continue to project PGR as a public good; and governments should accept responsibility for the conservation of PGR, while the private industry also contributes to this conservation effort in a suitable manner.
Overall, it is clear that the economic and political environment in which IPGRI has to operate has become very complicated. However, the Panel is confident that the present management of IPGRI is well aware of all this, and will continue to appropriately address the key issues relating to PGR conservation and use with skill and sensitivity.
