Appendix I - Composition of the Panel and Biographical Information
Appendix II - Terms of Reference for Panels Conducting External Reviews of CGIAR Centres
Appendix III - Chronology of the External Review Panel
Appendix IV - Documents Provided to the Review Panel
Appendix V - Assessment of IBPGR/IPGRI's and IPGRI/INIBAP's Progress in Implementing the Recommendations of the 1991 IBPGR and 1992 INIBAP External Reviews
Appendix VI - The Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
Appendix VII - Contract Activities
Appendix VIII - IPGRI's Role in Networks
Appendix IX - Glossary of Acronyms
Panel Chair:
Calvin Qualset
Director, Genetic Resources Conservation Program
Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR Bldg.)
University of California
Davis, California 95616
USA.
Tel: (1-916) 7548502
Fax: (1-916) 7548505
E-Mail: [email protected]
Panel Members:
John Griffith
9210 Friars Road
Bethesda
MD 20817-2321
USA.
Tel: (1-301) 8975046
Fax: (1-301) 5309347
E-Mail: [email protected]
Jaap Hardon
Director
Centre for Genetic Resources
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
Postbus 224
6700 AE Wageningen
THE NETHERLANDS.
Tel: (31-317) 477045/075
Fax: (31-317) 418094
E-Mail: [email protected]
Samuel Jutzi
Faculty of Agriculture
International Rural Development and Environmental Protection
Institute for the Production and Nutrition of World Crops
University of Kassel
Steinstrasse 19 (P.O. Box 1252)
D-37213 Witzenhausen 1
GERMANY.
Tel: (49-5542) 981228
Fax: (49-5542) 981230
E-Mail: [email protected]
Ayfer Tan
Head, Plant Genetic Resources Department
Aegean Agricultural Research Institute (AARI)
P.O. Box 9
Menemen
Izmir 35661
TURKEY.
Tel: (90-232) 8461331
Fax: (90-232) 8461107
Panel Consultants:
William Carlson
4620 Butterworth Place,
NW Washington D.C. 20016
USA.
Tel: (1-202) 9667689
Carlos Correa
Monasterio 1138 VTE
Lopez 1638
ARGENTINA.
Tel: (54-1) 7916047
Fax: (54-1) 7916047
E-Mail: [email protected]
Rodrigo Tarte
Fundación para la Conservación de los Recursos Naturales
Apartado 2190 Panama 1,
REPUBLICA DE PANAMA.
Tel: (507) 2281935/2281936
Fax: (507) 2281934
E-Mail: [email protected]
Resource Persons:
CGIAR Secretariat
Paramjit Sachdeva
Senior Management Specialist
CGIAR Secretariat
1818 H Street, NW
Washington DC 20433
USA.
Tel: (1-202) 4738941
Fax: (1-202) 4738110
E-Mail: [email protected]
TAC Secretariat
Amir Kassam (Panel Secretary)
Senior Agricultural Research Officer
TAC Secretariat
Room D-428
FAO
Via delle Terme di Caracalla
00100 Rome
ITALY.
Tel: (39-6) 52256226
Fax: (39-6) 52253298/5731
E-Mail: [email protected]
Name: QUALSET, Calvin O. (USA)
Position: Director, Genetic Resources Conservation Program, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Davis.
Expertise: Genetics, plant breeding and agronomy.
Education: B.Sc. in Agronomy, University of Nebraska (1958); M.Sc. in Agronomy (1960), Ph.D. in Genetics (1964), University of California, Davis.
Experience: 1964-67: Assistant Professor of Agronomy, University of Tennessee. 1967-94: Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Professor of Agronomy, University of California, Davis. 1994-present: Professor Emeritus, University of California, Davis. 1975-81, 1991-94: Chairman, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis. 1981-86: Associate Dean, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of California, Davis. 1992-94: Acting Director Foundation Seed and Plant Materials Service, University of California, Davis. Since 1985: Present position. Past or Current Professional activities include: Coordinator, International Triticeae Mapping Initiative; President, Crop Science Society of America; President, American Society of Agronomy; Chairman, Section on Agriculture, Food, and Renewable Natural Resources, American Association for Advancement of Science; Member Board of Trustees, American Type Culture Collection; Member Board of Directors, Genetic Resources Communications Systems; Editor-in Chief, Crop Science; Editor board member, Field Crops Research, Plant Breeding, California Agriculture; Member of USAID Research Advisory Committee; Member of the U.S. National Plant Genetic Resources Board; Scientific Liaison Officer for USAID to CIMMYT; Chairman, Review of U.S. National Plant Germplasm System, Committee Member for review Alternative Agriculture and Field Testing of Genetic Modified Plants: Framework for Decision Making, National Research Council, U.S. National Academy of Sciences; Conducted numerous reviews of centers, institutes, and academic departments in U.S., and several other countries; Program reviews for CIMMYT, ICARDA, and IPGRI; Fulbright Fellow to Australia and Yugoslavia; Author and coauthor of more that 250 publications, major professor to 60 M.S. and Ph.D. students, and developer of 12 varieties of wheat, oat, and triticale.
Name: GRIFFITH, W. John (Australia)
Position: Retired, based in Washington DC, USA.
Expertise: Finance, organizational change, and general management.
Education: B.E. (Civil Eng. 1965); MBA (1970); UNSW, Sydney, Australia; Program for Management Development, Harvard Business School, 1986, Corporate Board Effectiveness, Harvard Business School, 1996.
Experience: 1966-74: Structural Design Engineer: Lend Lease Corporation, Sydney, Australia. Refinery Logistics Manager: Esso Standard Oil (Aust) P/L, Sydney. Management Consultant: McKinsey & Company, New York and Melbourne, Australia.; Chief Manager, Strategic Planning: ANZ Banking Group Melbourne, Australia. 1974-1997: The World Bank: Positions of increasing responsibility within the Bank Group, culminating, in 1986, in appointment as Chief Financial Officer for the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). 1997: Chairman of the Board, Holy Cross Health System, Silver Spring, MD, and member of other boards. During World Bank career also undertook many short-term assignments as a financial advisor to the CGIAR Secretariat. Examined the budget requests for all IARCs and visited each centre to discuss financial matters: undertook a six-week study of the managerial tasks and processes at IRRI; and reviewed management processes at CIP. Consultant to the First Quinquennial Review Panel of WARDA (1978). Member of the First Triennial Review Panel of ICIPE (1983). Member of the 1993 Interim External Review of CIMMYT; Consultant to the 1996 EPMR of ICRISAT.
Name: JUTZI, Samuel Christopher (Switzerland)
Position: Professor for Tropical and Subtropical Field Crop Production, Faculty of Agriculture, International Rural Development and Environment Protection, University of Kassel, Germany.
Expertise: Plant sciences, crop physiology
Education: M.Sc., Dr.Sc. Plant Science and Agricultural Economics, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland.
Experience: 1974-77: Agricultural Economics, Swiss Farmers' Union. 1977-80: Agronomist, Forage and Herbage Seed Production, University of Cochabamba, Bolivia. 1980-82: CIAT Research Associate in Bolivia and Brazil. 1983-90: Agronomist, ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 1987-89: Leader of ILCA Research Programme for African Highlands and Coordinator of ILCA's Animal Traction Research Thrust. 1990: Coordinator of ILCA's Research Thrust on Animal Feed Resources. Since 1990: Present position. Participant of review missions to Bolivia, Ghana, Ethiopia, Rwanda. Member of CIAT Board of Trustees (1992-98).
Name: HARDON, Jaap (The Netherlands)
Position: Director, Centre for Genetic Resources, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Expertise: Plant breeding and genetics.
Education: M.Sc. Plant Breeding, Agricultural University, Wageningen (1959); Ph.D Genetics, University of California, Davis, USA (1963).
Experience: 1963-69: Research Geneticist and Head of Oil Palm Genetics Laboratory, Malaysia. 1969-73: Director, Chemara Research Station (Oil Palm), Malaysia. 1973-75: Plant Breeder, Van der Have B.V., The Netherlands (sugar beet, grasses). 1975-85: Senior Research Officer (Development Cooperation), Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, The Netherlands. Since 1985: Present position. Research in Perennial Crop Breeding and Genetic Resources. Member of 2nd (1985) and 3rd (1991) EPR of IBPGR. Past BoT member of ISNAR and IRRI, Advisor on agrobiodiversity to Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Name: TAN, Ayfer (Turkey)
Position: Head, Plant Genetic Resources Dept., Aegean Agricultural Research Institute, Menemen, Izmir, Turkey.
Expertise: Plant genetic resources, plant genetics.
Education: B.Sc. in Agriculture, Aegean University, Izmir (1973); M.Sc. in Conservation and Utilisation of Plant Genetic Resources, School of Biological Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK; Ph.D on Plant Genetics and diversity of wild plant species, Science Institute, Aegean University, Bornova, Izmir, Turkey.
Experience: 1974-Present: Held various positions of increasing responsibility at the Department of Plant Genetic Resources, Aegean Agricultural Research Institute, Izmir, Turkey. 1988-Present: National Co-ordinator of National Plant Genetic Resources Research Programme of Turkey. 1979-Present: Member of National PGR Working Group. 1987-Present: Member of World Beta Network (WBN) 1987-89: Member of Beta Co-ordinating Committee of WBN. 1991-93: Member of Steering Committee of West Asian-North African Genetic Resources Network (WANANET-IPGRI). Research interests: ex situ and in situ conservation; genetic biodiversity of plant species.
Background
The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) aims, through its support to international agricultural research, to contribute to promoting sustainable agriculture for food security in developing countries. The CGIAR has charged its Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) with the responsibility of ensuring that the programmes supported by the Group are of high quality and relevance. TAC discharges this responsibility, in part, by organizing External Programme Reviews of the Centres. The CGIAR has assigned a responsibility to its Secretariat for conducting External Management Reviews of the Centres to complement the External Programme Reviews. TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat normally discharge these responsibilities by commissioning a joint panel to conduct an External Program and Management Review (EPMR). Such reviews are conducted for each Centre approximately every five years.
EPMRs are a cornerstone of mechanisms of accountability within the CGIAR System. As each Centre is autonomous, reviews provide a measure of central oversight. They inform the donors that their investment is sound, or recommend means to make it so. EPMRs are both retrospective and prospective, and thus serve as an essential component in the CGIAR's integrated planning and review system. They help ensure the Centres' excellence, relevance and continued viability, and the System's coherence.
Purpose
The broad objectives of an EPMR are to:
· provide members of the CGIAR, in particular the donors, with an independent and rigorous assessment of the health and contribution of a Centre that they are supporting; CGIAR members need to know whether the Centre is doing the right work, and doing it efficiently;· provide the Centre and its collaborators with assessment information that complements their own evaluation efforts;
· provide principal clients, beneficiaries, and other stakeholders of the CGIAR with information about the health and contribution of the Centre.
With these general objectives in mind, the panel is specifically charged to:
1. assess the continuing appropriateness of the Centre's mission and evaluate its strategy and priorities in the context of CGIAR strategies and priorities, and comment on needs for change;2. assess the recent accomplishments and impact of the Centre, and comment on the effectiveness and potential impact of the Centre's work-in-progress;
3. assess whether the Centre is managed efficiently and suggest ways of enhancing the Centre's overall performance; in particular, comment on the systems in place for ensuring quality.
While the panel is free to address any topic relevant to the purposes of the review, it may wish to use the list of broad topics (Attachment I) as a guide in organizing its effort. The panel is expected to make a thorough and independent appraisal of the Centre and its activities, in accordance with the Guidelines to Panels Conducting External Reviews of CGIAR Centres.
The Report and Recommendations
The panel is required to prepare a succinct report in plain language, in which descriptive material is the minimum necessary to set the analysis and the conclusions in context. The report should focus on noteworthy features, including recognition of the Centre's accomplishments where appropriate, and issues of major concern, with recommendations and suggestions for change. Recommendations should be justified by analysis and reflect the consensus view of the panel; any recommendations for increases in staff or activities should include a discussion of resource implications.
The report should be as brief as possible. It should include a summary. Upon completion, the Panel Chair should formally transmit the document to the TAC Chair and CGIAR Executive Secretary.
The Response and Follow-up
The Board and management of the Centre under review should submit a response to the review, addressed to TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat. TAC then will discuss the report in the presence of the Panel Chair and representatives from the Centre, and prepare a commentary, in collaboration with the CGIAR Secretariat, including recommendations for follow-up action. The CGIAR will discuss the report in light of the Centre's response and the commentary or commentaries from TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat, and agree on follow-up action.
Attachment I
TOPICS TO BE COVERED IN EXTERNAL REVIEWS OF CGIAR CENTRES
A. Recent Evolution of the Centre
Important changes in the Centre since the previous external review, including developments in the external environment and the Centre's response.
B. Mission, Strategy and Priorities
The continuing appropriateness of the Centre's mandate.
The policies, strategies, and priorities of the Centre, their coherence with those of the CGIAR, relevance to beneficiaries, and the mechanisms used for planning, monitoring and revising them.
The appropriateness of the roles of relevant partners in establishing and collaborating in the implementation of the Centre's strategy and priorities.
C. Programme Accomplishments and Impact
Recent achievements of the Centre in research and other activities.
The quality of current programmes and activities; the rationale for any proposed changes by the Centre and the implications of these.
The Centre's impact, its contribution to the achievement of the mission and goals of the CGIAR, and the methods used for making such assessments.
The potential of the Centre's current and planned activities for future impact.
D. Organization and Management
The performance of the Centre's Board of Trustees in governing the Centre, the effectiveness of leadership throughout the Centre, and the suitability of the organization's culture to its mission.
The adequacy of the Centre's organizational structure and the mechanisms in place to manage, coordinate and ensure the excellence of the research programmes and related activities.
The sufficiency of resources (financial, human, physical, information) available and the effectiveness and efficiency of their management.
The Centre's relationships with relevant research partners, clients and stakeholders in national, regional, international, non-governmental and other relevant entities.
The Panel Chair and the Panel Secretary attended the IPGRI Board meeting at FAO in Rome in March 1996. At that time opportunity was taken to interact with several FAO senior staff in the area of plant and animal genetic resources, as well the staff at the Secretariat of the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, and the Secretariat of the International Conference on Plant Genetic Resources.
The Panel Chair together with the Chairs of ISNAR and ICRISAT External Review Panels attended a two-day briefing and discussion meeting in Washington on 10 and 11 May 1996 organized by TAC and the CGIAR Secretariat. The meeting was attended by the TAC Chair, the CGIAR Executive Secretary, one Panel member and a Panel consultant, and the staff from the TAC and CGIAR Secretariats. The purpose of the meeting was to brief the Panel Chairs on the review process and to initiate discussion of key issues to be considered by the Panel.
On 20 May 1996, the Panel Chair attended a plant genetic resources symposium in Beltsville, Maryland and consulted with a number of CGIAR Centre staff members, a member of the IPGRI Board, and a member of TAC.
The whole Panel and the Panel consultant on Board and governance aspects attended the IPGRI Board of Trustees meeting from 13 to 17 September 1996 in Cotonou, Benin. The Panel members and the consultant interacted with the Board members, management and staff. On 17 September, the Panel met with the representatives of sub-Saharan Africa NARS from 12 countries. The whole Panel and the Panel consultant on policy and legal aspects visited IPGRI Headquarters in Rome from 18 to 20 September 1996 where they met with the scientific and administrative staff. The Panel consultant interacted with the staff from FAO's legal office. A Panel member also visited INIBAP in Montpellier from 21 to 23 September 1996.
From 12 to 15 October 1996, the Panel Chair attended with IPGRI Headquarters and LAC regional staff the Mexico-California McKnight project meeting at the Botanical Garden of the University of Mexico on in situ conservation and on-farm improvement of crops. From 15 to 18 October 1996, the Panel Chair and the Panel Consultant on banana and plantain visited Costa Rica and Honduras to assess the work of INIBAP and other institutions on banana and plantain. They also visited other programme work of the Americas Region in Honduras. In Costa Rica they visited CATIE in Turrialba, and IICA and CORBANA in San Jose. In Honduras they visited FHIA and local businesses in San Pedro Sula and La Lima. At the ICW'96, a Panel member met with the Chairman of the CGIAR NGO Committee.
From 17 to 28 November 1996, the Panel Chair and a Panel member visited India at the time of the International Crop Science Congress in New Delhi. They were able to meet a large number of scientists and technical specialists in the field of plant genetic resources to meet with IPGRI APO regional staff, and attended the Asia/Pacific Regional Consultation on Plant Genetic Resources at New Delhi where they also interacted with a number of NGOs from Asia. They also visited the University of Agricultural Sciences at Bangalore and field research on forest genetic resource in the BR Hills. From 27 to 28 November 1996, a Panel member visited Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia for discussions with MARDI, PORIM and the University of Pertanian.
On 4 December 1996, the Panel Chair visited the SINGER Project Leader of SGRP at Davis, California. From 9 to 13 December 1996, the Panel Chair and the Panel consultant on banana and plantain visited the INIBAP International Transit Centre at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, and the INIBAP and the CIRAD Headquarters at Montpellier, France. A Panel member also visited the Philippines for discussions with PCARRD, SEARCA, UPWARD and UPLB.
On 27 January 1997, the Panel Chair attended the "Discussion on Agrobiodiversity: Enhancing Conservation and User Partnerships" in Bogor, Indonesia, organized by the Biodiversity Conservation Centre; and consulted with a number of NGOs and conservation managers in Indonesia. From 28 January 1997 to 1 February 1997, the Panel Chair and a Panel member attended the SGRP Steering Committee (ICWG-GR) at Puncak, Indonesia.
The whole Panel returned to IPGRI Headquarters on 2 February 1997 for the main phase of the Review. The senior management updated the Panel on developments since the initial phase. The Panel members interacted with management and staff, individually and in groups, and also met with the representatives of the staff association. On 24 February, the Report of the Panel was presented by the Panel Chair to the IPGRI Board and management, and on 25 February to the staff.
A. Documents Provided by the TAC and CGIAR Secretariats
1. Review Processes in the CGIAR, 1988.
2. Report of the Third (1991) EPMR of IBPGR.
3. Report of the Fourth (1995) EPMR of IITA.
4. Stripe Study of Genetic Resources in the CGIAR, 1994.
5. Extracts from the Reports of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meetings: TAC 58; TAC 59; TAC 60; TAC 61; TAC 62; TAC 66: TAC 67.
6. CGIAR Medium-Term Resource Allocation 1994-98.
7. Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies, 1992.
8. Review of CGIAR Priorities and Strategies, 1996.
9. CGIAR Policy on Plant Genetic Resources, 1989.
10. Support by the CGIAR for Work on Plant Genetic Resources: Operations and Technical Issues and their Policy Implications, 1988.
11. The Role of Biotechnology in the CGIAR, 1989.
12. Strengthening Research and Service in the CGIAR, 1996 (SDR/TAC:IAR/96/4.1).
13. Lucerne Declaration and Action Programme (February 9-10, 1995 - 2 Vols.).
14. CGIAR Annual Report 1995-96 (October 1995).
15. CGIAR Brochure and Directory (October 1996).
16. Financial Requirements of the 1996 CGIAR Research Agenda (Doc. No: MTM/95/05, April 24, 1995).
17. The 1996 CGIAR Research Agenda (Doc. No: SDR/TAC:IAR/95/10, April 24, 1995).
18. The 1997 CGIAR Research Agenda (Doc. No: SDR/TAC:IAR/96/8, November 22, 1995).
19. Organisation and Management of the CGIAR System: A Review, 1993. (S. Ozgediz, Public Administration and Development, Vol. 13, 217-231).
20. Guidelines on the Role, Responsibilities, and Accountability of Centre Boards of Trustees in the CGIAR (Doc. No: MTM/96/06, April 3, 1996).
21. Improving the Quality and Consistency of the CGIAR's External Centre Reviews (Doc No: ICW/95/11, October 24 1995).
22. Governance and Management of the CGIAR Centres, 1991 (S. Ozgediz, Study Paper No. 27).
23. Most recent volume of the CGIAR Board of Trustees Directory (October 1996).
24. Some Thoughts Toward Ensuring the Successful Performance of Boards in the CGIAR System, 1987 (John L. Dillon, August 1987).
25. CGIAR 1995 Financial Report (August 1996).
26. Committees and Units of the CGIAR: Roles, Responsibilities and Procedures (April, 1996).
27. Most recent CGIAR financial guidelines and manuals relating to:
(a) Financial Management Guidelines, Series No. 1 (January 1988);
(b) Accounting Policies and Reporting Practices Manual (October 1993);
(c) Financial Guidelines - Audit Manual (July 7, 1995).
B. Documents Provided by IPGRI
28. IPGRI Annual Report, 1994 and 1995.
29. INIBAP Annual Report, 1994 and 1995.
30. SGRP Annual Report, 1995.
31. IPGRI's Strategy: Diversity for Development, 1993.
32. IPGRI's Medium-Term Plan, 1994-98.
33. INIBAP's Medium-Term Plan, 1994-98.
34. The most recent version of the draft Medium-Term Plan (1998-2000).
35. IPGRI's 1997 Funding Request.
36. IPGRI's Directory, September 1996.
37. CCER of the Asia, the Pacific and Oceania Group, review by the PC in September 1993.
38. CCER of the Documentation, Information and Training Group, review by the PC/Board in March 1994.
39. CCER of the Europe Group, review by the PC/Board in September 1994.
40. CCER of the Germplasm Maintenance and Use Group, review by the PC/Board in March 1995.
41. CCER of the West Asia and North Africa Group, review by the Board in September 1995.
42. CCER of the Genetic Diversity Group, review by the Board in March 1996.
43. CCER of the America Group, review by the Board in August 1996.
44. CCER of the Sub-Saharan Africa Group, review by the Board in September 1996.
45. The CGIAR Paper on the Task Force on banana and plantain.
46. An abstract from the proceedings of the MTM'93 at Puerto Rico (24-28 May 1993), where the decision was taken to bring INIBAP under the governance and administration of IBPGR (now IPGRI).
47. A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding regarding the operation of INIBAP with the administration of IPGRI.
48. A copy of the recent review of the INIBAP Transit Centre in Leuven.
49. Overheads of presentations made by Senior Management on 14.09.96.
50. IPGRI's Mode of Operation.
51. Priority Setting in IPGRI's Programme.
52. An IPGRI Strategy for in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity.
53. The Future of the INIBAP Programme.
54. IPGRI's Information Strategy.
55. IPGRI's Role in SGRP.
56. Report of the Fifth Meeting of the ICWG-GR.
57. Report of the Sixth Meeting of the ICWG-GR.
58. SGRP folder containing the SGRP Annual Report 1995, SGRP Pamphlet, Factsheets.
59. Strategy and Action Plan for Eastern Europe.
60. The State of the World of PGR.
61. The Global Plan of Action on PGR.
62. The Minutes of the various meetings of the CGIAR Genetic Resources Policy Committee.
63. The Board Policies and Procedures Manual (BPPM).
64. The Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual (PPPM).
65. The Financial Policies and Procedures Manual (FPPM).
66. The General Policies and Procedures Manual (GPPM).
67. The Draft Project Management Framework.
68. The 1995 audited financial statements and management letter.
69. Various Board Papers (EC4, BOT5, BOT7) on IRS salaries.
70. Board paper (BOT8) on LRS salary survey.
71. Administrative MOU with FAO.
72. Separation Agreement with FAO.
73. 1997 draft Working Budget.
74. Board paper (BOT8) on internal audit.
75. Staff statistics, including levels/grade, nationalities and gender.
76. Full set of Performance Appraisal Scheme documents.
77. Geneflow, 1995 and 1996.
78. The SGRP Commissioned External Review of the CGIAR Genebank Operations, 1996.
79. The Minutes of the INIBAP Support Group Meeting, Jakarta, 24 May 1996.
80. IPGRI's Role and Strategy in Genetic Resources Policy.
81. The Draft Minutes of the Board Meeting in Benin.
82. The IPGRI Training Strategy.
83. Impact Assessment - A Review of the IPGRI Programme.
84. Improving the Use of Plant Genetic Resources for Agriculture.
85. IPGRI Co-ordinating Mechanisms.
86. Summary of Action taken since the last IBPGR EPMR.
87. Summary of Action taken since the last INIBAP EPMR.
88. Listing of MOUs/Agreements.
89. List of internationally recruited senior staff with essential data such as post title, gender, nationality, etc.
90. The same list of senior staff as in no. 88, but with brief description of qualifications.
91. Overall staffing summary table as of 31 December 1996.
92. Staff turnover during period March 1991 through 1996 (excluding INIBAP).
93. International staff vacancies, 1994 through present.
94. The Proceedings of the 1991 Cipanas Meeting.
95. 1996 Report of the COGENT Co-ordinator.
96. The report of the External Review of COGENT, including the agreed response of IPGRI Management, the Steering Committee and Burotrop.
97. A list of staff publications from 1991 through 1996.
98. A list of contracted projects/activities from 1994 through 1996.
99. A folder with papers for BOT9.
The 1991 EPMR of IBPGR made 20 recommendations and the 1992 EPMR of INIBAP made 12 recommendations:
IBPGR/IPGRI's and IPGRI/INIBAP's responses to the external reviews have been taken into account in appropriate sections of this Report, and are tabulated in this Appendix together with this Panel's comments and implementation scores.
Of the 32 recommendations, IPGRI has implemented 22 recommendations in full and 7 partially. Three recommendations have not been implemented, two of which are no longer relevant following the merger of IPGRI and INIBAP.
1. IPGRI EPMR RECOMMENDATIONS
|
1991 Panel Recommendations |
IPGRI's Response and 1997 Panel's Comments |
Score |
|
1. IBPGR should carefully consider modifying its mandate to take into account any further revisions in strategy, consequent upon its response to this report. |
Response 1993: The modified mandate, which is included in the Strategy, is now worded as follows: To advance the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for the benefit of present and future generations. Panel's comments: IPGRI's mandate and mission are clearly stated in the Strategy document of 1993. |
2 |
|
2. The Board should increase its role in strategic planning, give it higher priority in the conduct of its business, and include it in the functions of the Programme Committee. |
Response 1993: The Board continued to be involved in the development of the IPGRI Strategy, which was published in February 1993. The Strategy entitled "Diversity for Development", will provide major directions for the institute in the next decade. It is, however, recognised that the Strategy must be kept under continuing review, and that particular strategies need to be refined for the different parts of the world. This will continue to be a function of Management with a review mechanism built into the Terms of Reference of the Programme Committee. Panel's comments: The strategic and programme oversight function of the Board needs to be strengthened further. |
1 |
|
3. The Board should strengthen its oversight of IBPGR's management and finance and adjust the expertise represented among its members accordingly. |
Response 1993: The Board has strengthened its expertise in the financial area by the appointment of Ms. Julie Virgo and the establishment in 1991 of the Audit and Operations Review Committee. Management, with the assistance of expert consultants, developed IPGRI's Financial and Personnel Policies, and these were approved by the Board in January 1992. Panel's comments: The Board has devoted considerable time and effort on detailed oversight of management functions. |
2- |
|
4. While retaining an appropriate cross-section of expertise, the Board should seriously consider reducing its size, as well as that of its Executive Committee. |
Response 1993: With so many changes affecting the Institute in 1991 and 1992, the Board did not feel it appropriate to reduce its size. However, it is recognised that the time has come to seriously address this issue which received due attention in the Board Workshop of 29 March 1993. Subsequently a Board Task Force was established to examine the governance of IBPGR and the question, among others, of the size of the Board. Response 1996: There has been a re-evaluation by the Board which now considers 15 Trustees (in accordance with the Constitution) to be the appropriate size of the Board, particularly with the increased responsibility of IPGRI for the INIBAP programme, for the SGRP and with the expansion of IPGRI into new areas such as forest genetic resources. The Board has also devoted considerable time and efforts in developing a preferred Board Profile and details are contained in Appendix II of the Minutes of the 7th IPGRI Board Meeting. Panel's comments: The Board size seems appropriate, but the Executive Committee size and composition still need further review (an expansion to include the Audit & Operations, and Programme oversight leaders), is suggested. There is apparently a low affinity of members with thematic activities. |
2- |
|
5. In the further development of its strategy, IBPGR should place increased emphasis on making genetic resources more easily accessible to plant breeders, and on ensuring that activities associated with the conservation of plant genetic resources are more closely integrated into national and international breeding programmes. |
Response 1993: The increased emphasis which IBPGR is giving to improving the use of plant genetic resources is clearly reflected in the Strategy. Use of plant genetic resources is included in the Terms of Reference of the Germplasm, Maintenance and Use Group based at Headquarters, and is an integral part of the crops and subregional networks managed by IBPGR's Regional Offices. Response 1996: IPGRI's role in genetic resources policy has expanded. For details reference is made to the issues paper on this subject. Further details on IPGRI's strategy on the use of plant genetic resources are contained in the relevant issues paper. Panel's comments: IPGRI's programme now recognizes the limits between conservation and use of genetic resources more explicitly. Use is correctly interpreted to include such areas as access through research on core collections, evaluation, farmers management, and improved documentation systems for PGR. |
1 |
|
6. IBPGR should establish effective organisational mechanisms for co-ordinating its headquarters activities and for integrating them with its field programmes. |
Response 1993: IBPGR has established a single integrated programme managed by eight programme groups, of which four are based at Headquarters. IBPGR has developed a 1993 project set, which cuts across all programme groups. Every project is managed by a project co-ordinator and usually involves a number of project members from different IBPGR programme groups. The groups are headed by Group Leaders, who report directly to the Deputy Director - Programme. The entire project set is reviewed on a regular basis by the internal Programme Planning and Review Committee (PPRC) which meets 3 to 4 times a year. The mechanism described above will ensure full integration of all programme activities in IBPGR. Response 1996: Activities at Headquarters and in the regions are part of one coherent programme, operated through, as of 1 January 1997, a Project Portfolio of 20 Projects. A summary description of each of the 20 projects is contained in the Medium-Term Plan (1998-2000). Panel's comments: The PPRC is a useful mechanism for programme planning, but the Headquarters-Regional co-ordination is not yet fully effective, and more needs to be done to make it fully operational. |
1+ |
|
7. IBPGR should establish an effective institute-wide project management system with specific project goals, teams, milestones and measures of performance. |
Response 1993: A computerised project management system with specific project goals, teams, milestones, and measures of performance has been established towards the end of 1992 and is currently in the testing stage. The annual IBPGR budgets for 1992 and 1993 were based on a transitional plan but the new Medium Term Proposals for the period 1994 through 1998 were developed on the basis of IPGRI's Strategy and on the assumption that IPGRI will be able to start operation before the end of 1993. The Medium Term Proposals were approved by the Board and were finalised on 17 February 1993. Response 1996: IBPGR/IPGRI has been operating a Project Management Framework (PMF) since 1993. In 1996, the PMF was greatly revised and, as of 1 January 1997, the revised PMF came into operation. Panel's comments: The revised Project Management Framework provides a good basis for planning and monitoring project activities. Implementation of the revised Framework is in progress. |
2- |
|
8. IBPGR should institute annual internal programme reviews, that members of the Programme Committee of the Board should participate in them, and that they should cover the totality of the programmes. |
Response 1993: An internal mechanism for programme review is already contained in the terms of reference of the Programme Planning and Review Committee, which meets 3-4 times a year. In addition, the Programme Committee of the Board had adopted a policy to conduct its August/September meeting in one of the IBPGR regions. The Programme Committee met in Beijing, China in 1990, in Nairobi, Kenya in September 1991, and in CIMMYT, Mexico in August 1992. The next meeting will be in September 1993 in New Delhi, India. In addition to the above two mechanisms, the Board at its 22nd meeting approved a paper on the Programme Management and Review Process which takes account of the recommendation of the 3rd EPR/EMR. Response 1996: The PPRC annually reviews the entire IPGRI programme. During the past 5 years, the Board's review of the programme has been through commissioning external reviews of the various IPGRI programme groups. The latter is likely to be continued, possibly in a modified form and the Board will discuss this further at BOT 9 (February 1997). Panel's comments: The PPRC undertakes a detailed annual assessment of the project portfolio, but the Programme Committee no longer exists and the Board needs to improve its oversight function. The CCERs, which examine particular programmes every 4-5 years, are very useful, but do not adequately substitute for regular oversight by the Programme Committee. |
1 |
|
9. IBPGR should initiate a process of conducting periodic impact assessments. |
Response 1993: On an ad hoc basis, IBPGR has prepared particular impact statements for specific donors at their request. However, recognising the need for a more structured approach, IBPGR appointed a consultant for 6 months as of March 1993, to initiate a systematic review of IBPGR's impact. Additional complementary funding has been mobilised to ensure that impact assessment is carried out on a regular basis. Response 1996: Impact assessment is now a part of the Project Management Framework, and of the review of each project. In addition, impact assessment is an important component of project C15. A number of case studies have been undertaken. Panel's comments: Impact assessment of a Centre such as IPGRI is inherently difficult, but the recent results of a four-year impact study was prepared. This was a useful product for testing a method of impact assessment and because of it showed good impact by several activities. |
2- |
|
10. IBPGR should include issues relating to policy and to social aspects of the conservation of plant genetic resources in its research agenda, and analyse ways in which this might be accomplished. |
Response 1993: Policy advice to national programmes is an integral part of the activities of all of IBPGR's Regional Offices as well as of the Germplasm, Maintenance and Use Group. The social aspects of plant genetic resources are also receiving increased attention, especially by the Genetic Diversity Group. Two Ethnobotany consultants have been appointed to investigate the possible future role of IBPGR and to develop a coherent programme in this area. These consultants started work at the beginning of March 1993. IBPGR also organised in September 1992, with assistance from CTA, KARI and UNEP, an African-wide symposium on the conservation of landraces and is developing special projects concerning on farm conservation, in collaboration with NGOs. With regard to the gender issue, IBPGR issued in 1991 a special edition of Geneflow devoted to "Women in Plant Genetic Resources" and the entire 1993 project set has been examined by a gender consultant in March 1993. Response 1996: For further details on policy, reference is made to the issues paper on Policy. Following a series of consultancies and workshops, IPGRI has now incorporated the social and cultural aspects of PGR into its programme, and has, among others, appointed a senior scientist in this area. Panel's comments: IPGRI's contributions to global policy discussions are well recognized; and a policy activity has been recently formalized. The work programme also includes the social and cultural aspects of genetic resources co-ordination and use. |
2- |
|
11. Taking note of the changing role of the Commodity Centres, their close linkages with national programmes, and the potential to use their capabilities in a concerted attack on key problems related to the conservation of plant genetic resources: (i) the CGIAR should widen the scope of its scientific and technical support for the conservation of genetic resources by using the research capability of all its institutions with relevant mandates to assist in solving problems and that are "common denominators" to a range of species; and that (ii) such research should be planned and undertaken within the framework of a programme agreed across the whole CGIAR System |
Response 1993: Although this recommendation was primarily directed to the CGIAR in general, IBPGR has continued the interaction with other CGIAR Centres in developing a common research agenda. This is clearly reflected in the Minutes of the recent meeting of the Inter-Centre Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources which met from 1 to 4 February 1992 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Response 1996: The co-ordination of genetic resources research across the CGIAR System is now clearly embedded in the CGIAR System-wide Genetic Resources Programme (SGRP), for which IPGRI provides the co-ordination. Panel's comments: The SGRP provides a very useful forum for strengthening inter-Centre collaboration; and IPGRI's contributions to the SGRP are substantial. The Panel has made suggestions for further improving the effectiveness of SGRP. |
2- |
|
12. IBPGR assesses the cost-effectiveness of the three Seed Handling Units, and the need to employ in-house Plant Collectors. |
Response 1993: Although IBPGR will continue a germplasm collecting activity, the emphasis will be on training the national staff to undertake the work. For this reason, the collecting expertise has been strengthened in the regional offices, largely in the form of locally recruited professionals. By the end of 1992, IBPGR abolished all the posts of international plant collectors. IBPGR ceased to operate the Seed Handling Unit in Kew in 1992, and also closed the IBPGR Seed Handling Unit at CATIE, Costa Rica as of 31 December 1992. The Seed Handling Unit in the University of Singapore will be closed as of 31 December 1993. Investigations have started on contracting out some of the still necessary seed processing work to other international centres of the CGIAR. Panel's comments: The Panel commends IPGRI's decision to subcontract the seed handling function to other institutions, and to close down seed handling units. Collecting is now a national responsibility. |
2 |
|
13. IBPGR should invite its Regional Co-ordinators to amplify the plans they gave to the Panel for the future structure and distribution of regional offices, and should take their opinions fully into account in developing its strategy for more effective field operations. |
Response 1993: IPGRI's Strategy was developed in full consultation with all IBPGR staff including those outposted from Rome. The views of the Regional Group Leaders and their staff are also fully reflected in the Medium Term Proposals (1994-1998). Panel's comments: Regional Directors and staff are fully involved in developing regional strategies, and also in planning institution-wide programmes. Additional delegation of authority to Regional Directors could further improve the effectiveness of field operations. Establishing and strengthening regional programmes is central to IPGRI strategy. |
1+ |
|
14. The programme on information technology related to the conservation of plant genetic resources be strengthened as soon as possible and that greater emphasis be given to this approach as IBPGR refines its strategy. |
Response 1993: One of IPGRI's four major objectives is to provide an information service on plant genetic resources. Although all IBPGR programme groups are involved in this activity, central co-ordination is provided by the Documentation, Information and Training Group based at Headquarters. In early 1992 IBPGR appointed a consultant to assist in IBPGR Documentation activities and this became a formal staff position as of 1 January 1993. In the area of documentation IBPGR now has two scientists as of 1 January 1993 dealing respectively with Documentation Methodology and Application, and Documentation Technology. Panel's comments: IPGRI's documentation and information units are now well established, and are producing large volumes of high quality work. New emphasis on genetic database as an outgrowth of the SINGER project is proposed as a important service to the PGR global community. |
2- |
|
15. IBPGR should plan its future training programme as an integral part of its overall mission taking fully into account the changes implied by its evolving strategy. |
Response 1993: Training is an integral part of all four major objectives of IBPGR, but especially Objective 1 - to assist national programmes. Some central co-ordination will continue to be provided by the Documentation, Information and Training Group, but staff with part-time responsibilities for training have been appointed in all regions. Panel's comments: The training function has improved, but could benefit from a clearer sense of direction and strategy, as well as from professional support of a training specialist who is yet to be appointed. |
1- |
|
16. IBPGR Board and Management should attach high priority to developing clear policies and procedures for the future management of human resources and give urgent attention to the problems currently faced. |
Response 1993: Despite the fact that IBPGR has little flexibility to make changes in the terms and conditions of service for its staff under its current administration, it should be recognised that in 1992 and early 1993 a number of very important appointments have been made. This is in large part due to the flexibility shown by FAO in the appointment of new staff. However, there continues to be serious impediments to the further development of a human resources policy as long as IBPGR operates under the administrative umbrella of FAO and very little can be done to overcome this until IPGRI starts operating. The latter includes for instance, the continued problem of short term contracts which can be offered to staff. Nevertheless, management has undertaken action and developed personnel policies for IPGRI which were approved by the Board in January 1992. In addition, Management has a programme of training of its staff. The latter includes individual training, on the job training and the management courses. With the appointment of the Deputy Director for Finance and Administration at the end of 1992, increased attention is being given to the development of policies and procedures for the future management of human resources, including the development of an IPGRI performance appraisal and rewards system. Panel's comments: The Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual, which was approved after the separation from FAO, is a very useful document. Further refinements are needed, and are expected to be made by the DF&A and (to be soon hired) head of Human Resources. |
1+ |
|
17. IBPGR, in view of its impending independence and the increasing needs in financial management, should strengthen its expertise in the financial area expeditiously. |
Response 1993: In 1991 and 1992 IBPGR hired a senior consultant in the financial area, with great expertise on CGIAR policies. This consultant developed IPGRI's Financial Policies which were adopted by the Board in January 1992 and the consultant also assisted in the development of the 1992 and 1993 IBPGR Funding Requests. IBPGR, at the end of 1992, appointed Mr. Chris Thurlow as the Deputy Director for Finance and Administration. In addition, IBPGR in the middle of 1992 recruited a consultant to set up a computerised financial management system and later in the year recruited an accountant on a consultancy basis to start the implementation of the new computerised financial management system from 1 January 1993. Response 1996: Further strengthening of finance/accounting staff has occurred during the past few years, and a few more positions will be filled at Headquarters in early 1997. Although a start has been made with appointing administrative/finance staff in the regions, this is an area which requires further attention. Panel's comments: The DF&A and other finance staff, supplemented by consultants when needed, have helped establish the financial management systems needed by a growing institute. |
2- |
|
18. The Board of Trustees should pay special attention to the institute's short-term and long-term financial needs, its fund-raising activities, and its programme and administrative expenditures. |
Response 1993: IBPGR has continued to aggressively present its case for increased core contributions from the CGIAR for the IBPGR programme. However, due to the overall funding constraints, the IBPGR core budget proposals were not approved and basically IBPGR has been facing a situation of zero growth over the past two years. IBPGR has also made a major effort to attract additional complementary funding and this effort has provided to be fairly successful. In 1991 IBPGR attracted approximately US$ 600,000 in complementary funding and this increased to US$ 1.7 million in 1992. Expectations are that IBPGR will be able to raise at least US$ 3 million in complementary funding in 1993. Response 1996: There have been some improvements in the level of unrestricted funding to IPGRI during the past few years, particularly through the expansion (recognised by TAC and the CGIAR) into areas such as forest genetic resources, ethnobotany and in situ conservation. However, the bulk of the more than doubling of IPGRI's budget since the 3 EPMR, has come about through a successful fund-raising strategy for restricted funding. Panel's comments: The BOT as well as senior management, have given special attention to long-term financial needs, and this has resulted in significant growth in donor support for IPGRI's programmes. |
2 |
|
19. TAC should consider including the conservation of genetic resources in its analysis of strategies for conducting research on problems of wide importance across the CGIAR System. |
Response 1993: This recommendation is addressed to TAC. Nevertheless, IBPGR has taken the initiative to launch discussions with other CGIAR Centres on strengthening research on conservation of genetic resources across the CGIAR system and this is reflected in the Minutes of the Inter-Centre Working Group on Plant Genetic Resources, which met in February 1993. Panel's comments: Genetic Resource issues are now firmly on the agenda of TAC and other CGIAR Centre. SGRP was formed after 1994 decisions by CGIAR and has steadily increased its relevance to Systemwide genetic resources issues. There is a danger of an increase in restricted core funding that could affect the balance of IPGRI's overall programme. |
2 |
|
20. IBPGR should strengthen its mechanism for analysing the strengths and weaknesses of national programmes, as well as the available sources of support, in order to develop its strategy for building national capabilities in the conservation of plant genetic resources. |
Response 1993: IBPGR is playing its role as a Scientific - Technical Adviser to countries in the development of their national programmes and this is a major function of all IBPGR's Regional Offices. The support to national plant genetic resources programmes is clearly reflected in IPGRI's Strategy and in IPGRI's Medium Term Proposals. Response 1996: This recommendation deals with analysing the strengths and weaknesses of national programmes. In addition to IPGRI's regular role in supporting national programmes, we wish to highlight here the extremely important role which IPGRI has played in the ICPPGR process and to stress that the resulting Global Plan of Action is an extremely important guide for IPGRI's future programme. Panel's comments: The Global Plan of Action is a very valuable framework for further action; and IPGRI's role in helping formulate the GPA is highly appreciated by external partners. Further strengthening of NARS capabilities is underway, and is a long term effort. |
1+ |
Score 0 - not implemented, 1 - partially implemented, 2 - fully implemented
2. INIBAP EPMR RECOMMENDATIONS
|
1992 Panel Recommendations |
INIBAP's Response and 1997 Panel's Comments |
Score |
|
1. INIBAP should conduct a thorough, formal study of its procedures for handling germplasm requests with a view to expediting the process. |
Response 1996: In June 1995 a meeting was jointly held by FAO and IPGRI to update the Technical Guidelines for the Safe Movement of Musa Germplasm. In view of the increased confidence in the reliability of virus indexing tests, the indexing period was reduced. This has allowed more rapid indexing of accessions held at ITC. In addition, the procedures for requesting germplasm were reviewed and a new, more streamlined procedure has been in place since November 1995. Panel's comments: Satisfied with response |
2 |
|
2. The Crop Protection Research Co-ordination Programme should adopt a more holistic view of approaches to crop protection. |
Response 1996: Lack of funding in the years following the first EPMR meant that INIBAP's activities were necessarily limited. As a result, the post of Crop Protection Research Co-ordinator was discontinued. More recently, INIBAP has adopted an approach to crop protection strongly focused on Integrated Pest Management, and more specifically, on those areas of IPM where INIBAP, working at the global level, has a comparative advantage. Panel's comments: Little progress was made, plans for IPM work are more restricted than indicated in the response above. |
2 |
|
3. INIBAP should examine its training-related policies, priorities and activities with the intent of establishing a Training Co-ordination Programme. |
Response 1996: Lack of funding has meant that INIBAP has not been able to establish a Training Co-ordination Programme at headquarters. Limited training activities remain region specific and are a main responsibility of the Regional Co-ordinators. Panel's comments: Some support to INIBAP training should come from DIT, where panel recommends that a training officer position be filled. |
0 |
|
4. As part of its strategic orientation, INIBAP should clarify the role, identity and mission of regional networks. It further recommends that each regional network be encouraged to develop its own strategic plan, within the broad parameters provided by the updated INIBAP strategy. |
Response 1996: This recommendation has been partially addressed by INIBAP's networks in Asia and the Pacific (ASPNET) and Latin America and the Caribbean (LACNET). Lack of funding however meant that the African networks were disbanded following the first EPMR and it is only recently that INIBAP has been able to secure sufficient resources to re-establish a formal presence in Africa. The new initiative in Africa will follow a different approach. INIBAP, rather than establishing its own networks, will instead provide support to the banana networks which are presently being established by the countries themselves, under the auspices of CORAF and ASARECA. INIBAP will support these networks through the provision of a secretariat and INIBAP's Regional Co-ordinators will work closely with the networks. Panel's comments: Good progress being made in regional programme. Panel suggests that INIBAP avail itself of support from IPGRIs other regional programmes. |
2 |
|
5. The Board should establish a Finance and Administrative Committee, with an Audit Sub-committee, to oversee the management of INIBAP. |
Response 1996: With the merger of INIBAP with IPGRI, this recommendation is no longer relevant. Panel's comments: Agree |
0 |
|
6. The Board should commission an external audit of INIBAP's financial controls and of Thornton International, with immediate effect. |
Response 1996: This has been completed and an external audit is now regularly carried out. Panel's comments: Agree, and if the recommendations are approved, there will no longer be the need to conduct an external audit. |
2 |
|
7. The Board should explore both formal and informal ways of monitoring INIBAP's human resource management practices, so that its staff work as a team, are motivated and feel that they are valued by the organisation. |
Response 1996: As a result of INIBAP's merger with IPGRI, the Personnel Policies and Procedures of IPGRI are now in place for INIBAP staff. The changes that have taken place in the management practices at INIBAP have resulted in a much improved level of morale and motivation amongst the staff. Panel's comments: Agree, but with proposed merger, a number of functions are already an integral part of IPGRI's procedures. |
2 |
|
8. The Board should review recent staff salary and benefits to verify if they are consistent with INIBAP policies and procedures and the guidelines issued by the Board. |
Response 1996: Since the merger with IPGRI, the Personnel Policies and Procedures of IPGRI apply in relation to salaries. INIBAP salaries have been reviewed and are consistent with IPGRI's Personnel Policies and Procedures. Panel's comments: Satisfied with progress in implementation in merit review and salary structure. |
2 |
|
9. The Board should develop a formal policy to address various conflict-of-interest situations. |
Response 1996: This recommendation is no longer relevant as such a policy exists for the IPGRI Board. Panel's comments: Agree |
0 |
|
10. The Board should place greater focus on strategic concerns facing the institution. |
Response 1996: With the changes that took place in the Board of Trustees in 1994, this recommendation has been addressed. Panel's comments: Agree |
2 |
|
11. INIBAP should initiate a rigorous analysis of its strategic directions, taking into account institutional expectations consistent with its membership of the CGIAR system, donor perspectives and client needs. |
Response 1996: As a result of the recommendations of the Task Force in 1993, and following the decision to merge with IPGRI, a more strongly focused strategy has emerged. This has resulted in a reformulation of INIBAP's mission statement and specific programme objectives. Panel's comments: INIBAP planning and strategy documents are reflective of reasonable programme directions. |
2 |
|
12. INIBAP should consider employing a participatory approach for identifying its strategic directions. |
Response 1996: INIBAP uses networking as its modus operandi, and has established close links with its many partners worldwide. Through its regional networks and the organisation of thematic meetings, INIBAP has encouraged discussion and exchange of information. In this way, the needs and expectations of the Musa community are identified in a participatory manner and these are used by INIBAP in determining its strategic direction. Panel's comments: More emphasis on farmer participation was urged, especially for introduction and adaptation of new cultivars of banana and plantain. |
2 |
Score 0 - not implemented, 1 - partially implemented, 2 - fully implemented
In June 1996, 150 countries reached an agreement on the 20 most urgent actions needed to protect the world's rapidly shrinking supply of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. The agreement, enshrined in the first Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources was approved at the International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources, in Leipzig, Germany.
In Situ Conservation and Development
(1) Surveying and Inventorying Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
The development of appropriate complementary conservation strategies requires detailed knowledge of the extent and location of genetic diversity and adequate assessment of any threats to that diversity. This activity calls for systematic survey and inventory of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Traditional knowledge about species and landraces, local varieties and their uses should be recognized as an important part of survey and inventory activities.
(2) Supporting On-farm Management and Improvement of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
Stemming the loss of genetic diversity entails an appreciation of the conservation role played by the low-input farming systems that produce and maintain that diversity. This activity aims to gain greater knowledge of the dynamics and implications of on-farm conservation and plant improvement. It seeks to increase productivity and to improve the management of genetic resources on-farm, particularly in marginal and other areas where modem cultivars are not widely used. The activity requires that governments and genetic resources programmes work with farmers as partners in the development and management of improved and locally adapted germplasm.
(3) Assisting Farmers in Disaster Situations to Restore Agricultural Systems
The immediate nutritional needs of countries wracked by natural disasters, war and civil strife can be met by the introduction of food aid. However, this is a short-term solution at best if it is not accompanied by the supply of locally-adapted genetic resources. The activity seeks to establish a standing capacity to identify sources of indigenous varieties and locally adapted seed - often held in genebanks outside the country - and to return them to farmers' fields as a means to help re-establish agricultural systems in areas affected by disaster.
(4) Promoting In Situ Conservation of Wild Crop Relatives and Wild Plants for Food Production
Natural ecosystems hold important genetic diversity of wild crop relatives and wild food plants. Owing to its constant interaction with the changing environment, this diversity is a critical component of such ecosystems. Yet many are not managed sustainably. This activity promotes the conservation of genetic resources of wild crop relatives and wild plants for food production in protected areas and on other lands not explicitly listed as protected areas. It requires co-ordination among organizations involved with in situ conservation, improved planning, scientifically based management techniques, and broader participation of local communities in these activities.
Ex Situ Conservation
(5) Sustaining Existing Ex Situ Collections
While many countries still lack long-term storage facilities, there is sufficient storage space available globally and this could be expanded - and maintenance costs reduced - by eliminating unnecessary duplication in collections. The objective of this activity is to develop a more rational and cost-effective system for ex situ conservation based on better planning and co-ordination and greater collaboration among countries and with international institutions.
(6) Regenerating Threatened Ex Situ Accessions
The regeneration of germplasm is critical for the safe and effective management of ex situ collections. But inadequate facilities and a lack of financial and human resources have limited the rational regeneration of stored material. The objective of this activity is to establish the infrastructure needed for periodic regeneration of accessions under conditions designed to preserve the genetic integrity of the material.
(7) Supporting Planned and Targeted Collecting of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
The genetic resources currently conserved do not represent the total variation in plants, particularly with regard to some regional, minor and subsistence crops. Inadequate conditions in genebanks may also have led to the loss of collected materials. This activity seeks to collect genetic resources and associated information that are under threat or that are of potential use. In the short term, well-targeted and prioritized collecting missions should be undertaken as a means to fill gaps in the genetic diversity of existing collections.
(8) Expanding Ex Situ Conservation Activities
Given economic and practical realities, the selection of material to conserve and the most appropriate conservation methods require great care. This activity seeks to develop conservation strategies using an appropriate combination of methods, based on the biological characteristics of the genepool, the technical infrastructure and human resources available, the number of accessions in a given collection, its geographic location, and other factors. Botanic gardens, field genebanks and the use of new technologies, including in vitro conservation, are specifically noted for their potential to complement and expand ex situ conservation of orthodox seed.
Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources
(9) Expanding the Characterization. Evaluation and Number of Core Collections to Facilitate Use
The identification of useful traits through characterization and the establishment of core collections can encourage greater and more efficient use of genebank collections. Evaluation can aid in the identification of germplasm with potential for breeding or direct use by farmers. Yet typically, most genebank accessions have not been well characterized and evaluated and the use of core collections is still fairly limited. This activity aims to facilitate the use of conserved material by rationalizing genetic resources collections and by speeding the identification of useful accessions.
(10) Increasing Genetic Enhancement and Base-Broadening Efforts
Broadening the genetic base of crop varieties is a key element in achieving sustainable agricultural production and food security worldwide. Genetic enhancement is considered to be the most reliable means of increasing crop stability and improving productivity. This activity seeks to increase genetic enhancement by the introgression of useful agronomic traits into locally adapted or elite material for further use in breeding programmes and by broadening the base of breeders' material through incorporation of greater genetic diversity.
(11) Promoting Sustainable Agriculture through Diversification of Crop Production and Broader Diversity in Crops
Sustainable agriculture is dependent on genetic diversity. Yet this diversity is often underused and, furthermore, is threatened by genetic erosion. This activity seeks to promote and facilitate the use of greater diversity in breeding programmes and in the varieties and species grown on farms, as a means to reduce their vulnerability and to increase the stability of agricultural systems.
(12) Promoting Development and Commercialisation of Underutilized Crops and Species Underutilized crops have regional or local importance but are potentially much more widely useful. However, most research and conservation programmes tend to neglect these species. This activity seeks to promote the conservation and use of underutilized crops as a way of contributing to food security and rural development, particularly in marginal areas, and to agricultural diversification.
(13) Supporting Seed Production and Distribution
Various factors constrain the ability of farmers to access a wide range of seed of both local and commercially bred varieties. This activity seeks to increase the availability of good-quality seed of a wide range of crop varieties. It calls for a stronger local capacity to produce and distribute seed, including landraces and farmers' varieties that are useful for diverse and evolving farming systems. It involves improving the complementarity between governmental, commercial and small-scale seed enterprises.
(14) Developing New Markets for Local Varieties and "Diversity-Rich" Products
Increasingly, farmers in both developed and developing countries are losing economic and social incentives to produce a wide array of crop varieties. This activity aims to encourage farmers to grow distinct, local varieties and "diversity-rich" agricultural products by stimulating stronger demand and more reliable market mechanisms for biodiverse food products. It includes the removal of institutional and other disincentives to the development and marketing of such products and involves farm suppliers, food processors, food distributors, and retail outlets as partners in creating niche markets for diverse foods and varieties.
Institutions and Capacity Building
(15) Building Strong National Programmes
National programmes are the primary means for realizing national, regional and global goals in the conservation and use of genetic resources. In addition, they are the critical link between international efforts and a country's constituency of rural people, farmers, researchers, and plant breeders. This activity aims to analyse and meet national programme needs. It identifies a number of essential elements that are necessary to meet these needs and to ensure adequate capacity to participate in global efforts to conserve and use genetic resources and to share in the benefits arising from their use. These include a formally recognized status, appropriate policy and institutional frameworks and a realistic programme strategy.
(16) Promoting Networks for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
Networks link the plant genetic resources activities of national programmes, research institutes and others with common interests. They are an effective means to help countries share the responsibilities and costs of training, conservation and technology development, and to promote the establishment of joint conservation strategies based on shared objectives. This activity seeks to strengthen existing regional, crop and thematic networks, to establish additional networks as appropriate, and to facilitate the participation of all countries in genetic resources networks.
(17) Constructing Comprehensive Information Systems for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
As genetic resources activities have grown in size and strength, so too has grown the need for better access to the information that makes genetic resources useful. The documentation of genebank accessions is a crucial aspect of conservation because it allows efficient management, increases the value of collected materials and enhances access by potential users. This activity promotes the establishment of a reliable and accurate plant genetic resources data exchange network through the development of expertise and infrastructure at the global, regional, and national levels. This will help countries to assemble and better manage their information and will facilitate their access to regionally and internationally held information.
(18) Developing Monitoring and Early Warning Systems for Loss of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
Various factors, both natural phenomena and the results of human behaviour, can put plant genetic resources for food and agriculture at risk. Yet no formal mechanisms currently exist to monitor such factors, assemble information and respond appropriately. This activity aims to minimize genetic erosion and its impact on sustainable agriculture by monitoring key elements of conservation and the various factors causing the loss of genetic resources. It requires the establishment of mechanisms to transfer such information to relevant authorities for analysis, coordination and action.
(19) Expanding and Improving Education and Training
Countries need trained genetic resources professionals, not only to meet their obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity, but also to ensure that they benefit from conservation activities. This activity aims to make training available to all countries in the relevant aspects of conservation and use. It promotes the development of regional training capacities and the establishment of effective collaborative arrangements between developing and developed countries.
(20) Promoting Public Awareness of the Value of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Conservation and Use
The capacity to communicate the impact of genetic resources activities to key audiences is critical to the success of any conservation programme. A targeted public awareness programme can also promote the development of international collaboration and can facilitate efforts to involve communities and local and non-governmental organizations in national genetic resources activities. This activity seeks to integrate public awareness into all local, national, regional and international genetic resources programme activities. It requires the development of mechanisms for co-ordinated public awareness activities at all levels.
Table 1: Outsourcing by year and by programme
|
Year |
Total Expenditures |
Contracted Research, Training conferences etc. |
Contracts as part of Total Expenditure |
Number of Contracts |
|
1991 PGR |
8,064,000 |
1,131,460 |
14.0% |
46 |
|
1991 INIBAP |
2,601,000 |
350,537 |
13.5% |
10 |
|
1991 GRSP * |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
1991 IPGRI Total |
10,665,000 |
1,481,997 |
13.9% |
56 |
|
1992 PGR |
9,927,000 |
1,466,295 |
14.8% |
47 |
|
1992 INIBAP |
2,666,000 |
166,540 |
6.2% |
6 |
|
1992 GRSP * |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
1992 IPGRI Total |
12,593,000 |
1,632,835 |
13.0% |
53 |
|
1993 PGR |
10,924,000 |
1,990,044 |
18.2% |
88 |
|
1993 INIBAP |
2,731,000 |
568,168 |
20.8% |
15 |
|
1993 GRSP * |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
1993 IPGRI Total |
13,655,000 |
2,558,212 |
18.7% |
103 |
|
1994 PGR |
12,332,000 |
2,382,124 |
19.3% |
103 |
|
1994 INIBAP |
2,878,000 |
842,542 |
29.3% |
13 |
|
1994 GRSP * |
117,000 |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
1994 IPGRI Total |
15,327,000 |
3,224,666 |
21.0% |
116 |
|
1995 PGR |
14,665,000 |
2,231,691 |
15.2% |
164 |
|
1995 INIBAP |
3,115,000 |
1,158,746 |
37.2% |
12 |
|
1995 GRSP * |
1,793,000 |
1,041,011 |
58.1% |
18 |
|
1995 IPGRI Total |
19,573,000 |
4,431,448 |
22.6% |
194 |
|
1996 PGR |
16,023,000 |
3,270,510 |
20.4% |
180 |
|
1996 INIBAP |
2,888,000 |
914,830 |
31.7% |
19 |
|
1996 GRSP * |
1,284,000 |
407,497 |
31.7% |
8 |
|
1996 IPGRI Total |
20,195,000 |
4,592,837 |
22.7% |
207 |
* CGIAR Genetic Resources Support Programme (GRSP), which comprises SGRP and CGIAR policy support
Table 2: Outsourcing by year and by IPGRI Objectives
|
|
Objective 1 |
Objective 2 |
Objective 3 |
Objective 4 |
Total US$ |
||||
|
US$ |
% |
US$ |
% |
US$ |
% |
US$ |
% |
|
|
|
1991 PGR |
139,873 |
12.4% |
186,559 |
16.5% |
706,218 |
62.4% |
98,810 |
8.7% |
1,131,460 |
|
1991 INIBAP |
7,540 |
2.5% |
43,534 |
12.4% |
299,463 |
85.4% |
N/A |
N/A |
350,537 |
|
1991 GRSP * |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
Objective Total |
147,413 |
9.9% |
230,093 |
15.5% |
1,005,681 |
67.9% |
98,810 |
6.7% |
1,481,997 |
|
1992 PGR |
128,014 |
8.7% |
372,663 |
25.4% |
865,493 |
59.0% |
100,124 |
6.8% |
1,466,295 |
|
1992 INIBAP |
N/A |
N/A |
2,260 |
1.4% |
164,280 |
98.6% |
N/A |
N/A |
166,540 |
|
1992 GRSP * |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
Objective Total |
128,014 |
7.8% |
374,923 |
23.0% |
1,029,773 |
63.1% |
100,124 |
6.1% |
1,632,835 |
|
1993 PGR |
376,402 |
18.9% |
287,067 |
14.4% |
1,240,162 |
62.3% |
86,414 |
4.3% |
1,990,044 |
|
1993 INIBAP |
32,582 |
5.7% |
N/A |
N/A |
535,586 |
94.3% |
N/A |
N/A |
568,168 |
|
1993 GRSP * |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
Objective Total |
408,984 |
16.0% |
287,067 |
11.2% |
1,775,748 |
69.4% |
86,414 |
3.4% |
2,558,212 |
|
1994 PGR |
181,618 |
7.6% |
132,035 |
5.5% |
1,935,050 |
81.2% |
133,422 |
5.6% |
2,382,124 |
|
1994 INIBAP |
52,000 |
6.2% |
62,000 |
7.4% |
728.542 |
86.5% |
N/A |
N/A |
842,542 |
|
1994 GRSP * |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
N/A |
|
Objective Total |
233,618 |
7.2% |
194,035 |
6.0% |
2,663,592 |
82.6% |
133,422 |
4.1% |
3,224,666 |
|
1995 PGR |
264,832 |
11.9% |
381,171 |
17.1% |
1,538,968 |
69.0% |
46,719 |
2.1% |
2,231,691 |
|
1995 INIBAP |
25,700 |
2.2% |
57,710 |
5.0% |
1,075,336 |
92.8% |
N/A |
N/A |
1,158,746 |
|
1995 GRSP * |
N/A |
N/A |
78,548 |
7.5% |
85,000 |
8.2% |
877,463 |
84 3% |
1,041,011 |
|
Objective Total |
290,532 |
6.6% |
517,429 |
11.7% |
2,699,304 |
60.9% |
924,182 |
20.9% |
4,431,448 |
|
1996 PGR |
240,863 |
6.6% |
648,087 |
17.8% |
2,274,927 |
62.5% |
106,632 |
2.9% |
3,270,510 |
|
1996 INIBAP |
261,200 |
28.6% |
47,619 |
5.2% |
559,752 |
61.2% |
46,259 |
5.1% |
914,830 |
|
1996 GRSP * |
N/A |
N/A |
85,000 |
20.9% |
60,000 |
14.7% |
262,497 |
64.4% |
407,497 |
|
Objective Total |
502,063 |
10.9% |
780,706 |
17.0% |
2,894,679 |
63.0% |
415,388 |
9.0% |
4,592,837 |
* CGIAR Genetic Resources Support Programme (GRSP), which comprises SGRP and CGIAR policy support
Regional Networks
|
Network name |
Description |
IPGRI's role in the network |
|
Regional Collaboration in South East Asia (RECSEA) |
South East Asia regional network established in 1977 with 6 member countries, some of which host sub-networks. The network features working groups on major crop commodities and its major focus is on strengthening PGR National Committees in the region. It is governed by a Steering Committee of National Coordinators. |
There has been moderate IPGRI involvement through provision of a part-time secretariat and modest financial support to facilitate meetings. Prior to 1987, IPGRI's funding to this network was very high. |
|
South Asia Coordinators on PGR (SAC) |
A South Asia regional network, established in 1989, which includes 6 member countries (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka). |
IPGRI provides financial support for meetings of the National Co-ordinators every 2 years. IPGRI also participates in the meetings and provides information and advice on latest technologies. |
|
East-Asia Network on PGR (EA-PGR) |
An East Asian regional network with 5 member countries (China, South Korea, North Korea, Japan, Mongolia). Established in 1994, the network is governed by a Steering Committee of National Co-ordinators. |
IPGRI was instrumental in the establishment of the network and participates in regular network meetings and regional PGR activities. |
|
PGR Networks in the Pacific |
Regional organizations such as the South Pacific Commission (SPC), Pacific Regional Agricultural Programme (PRAP) and the Institute of Research Extension and Training on Agriculture (IRETA) are engaged in activities such as tissue culture of root crops and support for minor crops such as Aibika (Abelmoschus manihot). |
IPGRI is interacting with these organizations to promote a regional approach to PGR conservation and use. |
|
Pan-Asia Network |
In 1996, national programmes and NGOs from across the APO region recommended the formation of a single regional network under the auspices of APAARI. This would serve as an umbrella structure for linking both crop and regional networks in Asia and would aim for co-operation on policy and PGR activities. |
IPGRI is active in promoting this network and organized a regional consultation meeting in New Delhi in November 1996. |
|
European Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic Resources Networks (ECP/GR) |
A regional network for Europe, established in 1981. Consisting of 30 member countries, some of which support national sub-networks, ECP/GR operates through a framework of crop specific sub-networks. It is governed by a Steering Committee of National Coordinators and since 1986 is fully funded by its members. |
Full-time coordination by IPGRI through funding by the member countries. |
|
Underutilized Mediterranean Species (UMS) |
Established in 1993 to strengthen regional co-operation in safeguarding the germplasm of underutilized species and preserving associated knowledge, UMS is funded by the Italian government. Institutions from 13 countries in the region and 7 outside the region participate. Very high willingness for inputs in kind by members is noted. |
This is an IPGRI initiative with full-time coordination by IPGRI. |
|
European Forest Genetic Resources Programme (EUFORGEN) |
Established in 1994 to implement Resolution 2 of the Strasbourg Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, the network has 25 member countries which co-operate in species-specific sub-networks. It is governed by a Steering Committee of National Coordinators and is fully funded by members. |
Full-time coordination through funding by the member countries. |
|
Southern African Development Community (SADC) - Plant Genetic Resources Centre (SPGRC) |
SPGRC was established in 1989 as a Southern Africa regional genebanks-based network seeking to stimulate PGR activities on specific genepools at the national level. It has 12 member countries who co-operate in crop-specific sub-networks and contribute 18% of the funding, while the remainder is supplied by Nordic countries. The Nordic Gene Bank (NGB) is the Executive Agency and SACCAR is the Implementing Agency. Each country is represented on the SPGRC Governing Board together with the Nordic Genebank and IPGRI. |
IPGRI was instrumental in the establishment of this network and has provided technical advice. It participates in meetings of the Governing Board of the regional project and collaborates on training courses. IPGRI participates in regional meetings and IPGRI scientists sit on the crop working groups. |
|
Sub-regional PGR Network for West and Central Africa |
The establishment of this sub-regional PGR network was endorsed by national programmes in 1996 under the aegis of CORAF. A funding proposal is being submitted to AfDB. |
IPGRI has been involved in the preliminary discussions for setting up the network and has contributed a paper on networking models. It has assisted in the preparation of the AfDB proposal. |
|
Sub-regional Network on PGR for East Africa |
This network resulted from a consultative meeting between the National Genebank of Kenya and the Biodiversity Institute of Ethiopia in 1996. The 2 countries will focus on collaborative activities such as germplasm duplication, research on seed technology, germplasm collecting and training. |
IPGRI has facilitated agreements between the countries and is contributing technical advice and assistance through a PGR journal and newsletter. |
|
Mesoamerican Network on Plant Genetic Resources (REMERFI) |
A regional network for Central America and Mexico, REMERFI was established in 1992 with 7 member countries. It assists national programmes to draft research proposals for specific crops and is developing crop-specific sub-networks. Governed by a Steering Committee of National Co-ordinators, the network is externally funded by IDB (US$ 250,000/2 years), BMZ (US$ 900/000/3 years) and IPGRI (US$ 25,000/year). |
IPGRI provides technical consultation in the preparation of proposals, interacts with national programmes and provides the equivalent of US$ 25,000 annually in the form of staff time (part-time assistant coordinator). IPGRI helped establish the network and identify complementary donors and now serves as Executive Agency for the IDB project. |
|
The Andean Network on Plant Genetic Resources (REDARFIT) |
Established in 1992, REDARFIT is an Andean regional network with 7 member countries. Its principle activities are drafting of research project proposals and developing crop-specific sub-networks. It is governed by a Steering Committee of National Co-ordinators and is funded by IDB (US$ 250,000/2 years). IICA shares the annual meeting costs. |
IPGRI supplies technical consultation, a part-time assistant coordinator and US$ 35,000 annually. It serves as the Executive Agency for the IDB project. |
|
The Amazonian Network on Plant Genetic Resources (TROPIGEN). |
Established in 1993 as an Amazonian low-land regional network, TROPIGEN assists national programmes in drafting research project proposals. The 7 member countries participate in developing crop-specific sub-networks. It is governed by a Steering Committee of National Co-ordinators and its work on pineapple is funded by the EU (US$ 600,000/3 years beginning in 1997). |
IPGRI provides technical consultation in the preparation of proposals and interaction with national programmes. It is instrumental in obtaining EU support and provides coordination support. |
|
Programa Cooperativa para el Desarrollo Tecnológico Agropecuario del Cono Sur (PROCISUR) Genetic Resources Sub-Programme (Southern Cone Programme) |
Recently established by the 7 member countries of the Southern Cone of South America, this regional network assists national programmes in the region. It is fully funded by member countries. |
IPGRI is involved in Steering Committees and gives modest financial support for specific activities. Minimal staff time is allocated to the promotion of activities. |
|
Caribbean Committee for the Management of Plant Genetic Resources (CMPGR) |
Nine founding member countries recently established this network to assist national programmes in the Caribbean area. |
IPGRI is involved in Steering Committees and is one of nine founding members. It provides modest financial support for specific activities and minimal staff time is allocated to the promotion of activities. |
|
West Asia and North Africa Plant Genetic Resources Network (WANANET) |
WANANET was established in 1993 with a structure of 6 crop-specific working groups. It now has 13 member countries and is governed by a Steering Committee of National Co-ordinators. WANANET is financially supported by IPGRI, FAO and ICARDA and contributions in kind by member countries. |
Heavy IPGRI involvement with part-time secretariat, technical inputs and the provision of US$ 30,000 annually. |
|
Central Asian Network for Plant Genetic Resources (CAN/PGR) |
A new network established in 1996, CAN/PGR brings together the five Central Asian republics of the CIS. It is overseen by a Steering Committee where each country is represented. Its financial basis is not yet established. |
IPGRI provides technical coordination. IPGRI established this network in collaboration with the five National Programmes of the CIS and ICARDA in response to the recommendation of the GPA. |
INIBAP Networks - Regional
|
Network name |
Description |
IPGRI's role in the network |
|
Asia and Pacific Regional Network of INIBAP (INIBAP-ASPNET) |
This Asia and Pacific regional research network on bananas and plantains, established in 1990, consists of 9 NARS members and 2 institutional members (TBRI and SPC) and operates under the guidance of a Regional Advisory Committee. Network activities cover identification of regional Musa research priorities; collaborative projects; training; germplasm conservation, characterization and evaluation activities; research on pests and diseases; a regional information system, and biotechnology and Musa improvement research. The network also includes the Regional Information System for Banana and Plantains in Asia and the Pacific (RISBAP). |
INIBAP provides full-time co-ordination through a Regional Co-ordinator and has trained the Regional Information Manager in INIBAP's information systems. It provided the network with a subset of the global database. INIBAP's Information Coordinating Unit at Headquarters provides technical support and linkage to the other regional information networks. Support of US$ 50,000 is provided annually for meetings and small-scale activities within the framework of the network. IPGRI is currently recruiting a full-time co-ordinator for RISBAP. |
|
Latin America and the Caribbean Network of INIBAP (INIBAP-LACNET) |
Established in 1987, this Musa research network operates under the guidance of a Regional Advisory Committee. Activities include priority setting at regional and national levels, promotion of regional co-operation, establishment of regional information system, training, technology transfer and encouragement of north-south collaboration. Participants include NARS, universities, private sector, research associations and growers organizations. |
This is an INIBAP initiative. INIBAP has been instrumental in securing funding for research and training activities. It provides full-time coordination through the Regional Co-ordinator. Support of US$ 50,000 is provided annually for meetings and small-scale activities within the framework of the network. |
|
Banana Research Network for East and Southern Africa (BARNESA) |
BARNESA was recently established under the auspices of ASARECA as a NARS-born network. It is governed by a Steering Committee composed of heads of national, regional and international banana programmes in the region |
The INIBAP Regional Co-ordinator will be in place early in 1997 and will provide secretariat services to BARNESA. The network's Regional Information Manager is trained by INIBAP and provided with subset of global databases. Support of $ 75,000 is budgeted for 1997. This is a new undertaking. |
|
West and Central Africa Banana Network (WACABAN) |
CORAF has initiated the process of establishing a banana research network for the region of West and Central Africa. 10 countries have been contacted and to date, 7 have responded positively. |
INIBAP was requested by CORAF to lead the initiative towards the establishment of a regional banana network. A Regional Coordinator will be available early in 1997 to provide secretariat support to the network. US$ 75/000 is budgeted for 1997. This is a new undertaking. |
INIBAP Thematic networks
|
Network name |
Description |
IPGRI's role in the network |
|
International Musa Testing Programme |
This programme was established in 1990 by 19 NARS in collaboration with 4 breeding programmes to allow the evaluation of improved hybrids under a range of environmental and disease pressures. |
INIBAP provides global co-ordination and has developed evaluation methodologies. INIBAP also organizes global meetings and publishes evaluation results. Support of US$ 50,000 was provided in 1996. This will increase to US$ 175,000 in 1997 when a global conference will be held. |
|
Banana Breeders' Network |
This network was established in 1994 to stimulate cooperation in breeding efforts. Meetings were held in 1994 and 1995. |
This is an INIBAP initiative. Support is provided for meetings/workshops and specific research within the framework of the network. |
|
Banana Nematologists Consortium |
The network was established in 1995 with 6 partners. Its initial aims are to develop early screening methods for nematode resistance and to identify sources of resistance for use in breeding programmes. |
INIBAP provides links with major Musa improvement programmes. Support is provided for specific research within the framework of the network. |
Commodity Networks
|
Network name |
Description |
IPGRI's role in the network |
|
World Beta Network |
This network existed previously as a ECP/GR Working Group and became independent in 1989. It meets biannually, is coordinated by BAZ, Braunschweig and governed by a scientific committee. Substantial support is received from the private sector for meetings. High willingness for inputs in kind by members is noted. |
Small financial support is provided for meetings (US$ 5,000), but IPGRI played a key role while activities were under ECP/GR. |
|
International Musa Genetic Resources Network |
Launched in 1989, this network has a focus on conservation, documentation, characterization and evaluation. Previously it operated under INIBAP's global activities in Musa germplasm management. |
IPGRI was involved in the organization of the meeting in 1989 where the establishment of a network was first advocated. |
|
International Rice Genetic Resources Network |
The main objective of this network, which was established in 1990, is to collect the remaining genepool of rice, strengthen national rice genetic resources activities and investigate on-farm conservation in 3 Asian countries. It is co-ordinated by IRRI, which receives support from the Swiss Development Co-operation (SDC). |
IPGRI stimulated the establishment of the network and is represented on the Steering Committee of the network. |
|
International Barley Genetic Resources Network |
The first meeting of this network was in 1990. Its barley core collection was developed through the ECP/GR Barley Working Group. It is governed by a scientific committee and is characterized by a willingness for inputs in kind by members. |
IPGRI provides a small amount of financial support but played a key role while activities were under ECP/GR. |
|
Coconut Genetic Resources Network (COGENT) |
Established in 1992, COGENT has 32 coconut-producing member countries. It is supported by grants from the Asian Development Bank and the GTZ. |
This is an IPGRI project. Full time coordination and a high level of technical input are provided. |
|
International Cassava Network |
Launched in 1992, this network has 14 member countries. |
IPGRI participates in the organization of meetings. It provides no significant financial support. |
|
International Network for Bamboo and Rattan (INBAR) |
INBAR was established in 1992 with more than 20 national institutions. Since 1994, it includes a Biodiversity and Genetic Conservation Working Group. |
IPGRI provides part-time co-ordination for the Biodiversity and Conservation Working Group. IPGRI has been successful in raising considerable financial support (US$ 200,000/year). |
|
Asian Network on Sweet Potatoes Genetic Resources (ANSWER) |
Sixteen scientists from 11 countries participate in this network which was established in 1996. It is concerned with the development and sharing of a database of collections held in the region and the elimination of duplicates. |
IPGRI and CIP sponsored the initial workshop. IPGRI contributes technical input. |
|
Underutilized Tropical Fruits in Asia Network (UFTANET) |
Established in 1992, UFTANET has 13 member countries. It promotes the conservation and use of tropical fruit species in Asia. Species chosen for priority attention include citrus, mango, durian, jackfruit, litchi, carambola and mangosteen. |
IPGRI is an active collaborator to this network. |
|
Asian Network on Sesame |
A low-level network was established in 1993 by 13 sesame-producing countries in Asia. A result of the network is the exchange of sesame germplasm and information between the member countries. Activities include the development of collaborative studies and a core collection. |
IPGRI is active in collaborative studies on sesame, in promoting core collections and supporting the regeneration of the global sesame collection. |
|
Taro Network |
Efforts are underway to develop a network on taro genetic resources with the involvement of ACIAR, SPC and the Pacific countries. |
IPGRI was engaged in 1995-96 in promoting the development of this network through its research activities on underutilized species of local and regional importance in Asia. |
|
International Safflower Germplasm Advisory Committee |
This informal network of safflower workers was established in 1992. A study of safflower ecotype adaptation is planned in India and China. The Fourth Safflower Symposium will be held this year in Italy. The establishment of a network on Lathyrus was agreed on by 23 scientists from countries in East, South and West Asia in 1995. The network is in the process of being formalized. |
IPGRI supported the establishment of the network and is an active member of the Committee. |
|
International Lathyrus Network |
The establishment of a network on Lathyrus was agreed on by 23 scientists from countries in East, South and West Asia in 1995. The network is in the process of being formalized. |
IPGRI was one of the organizers of the initial workshop on Lathyrus. Discussions are underway at IPGRI's New Delhi office with respect to providing the first co-ordinator for the new network. |
|
International Network on Genetic Resources of Tropical Forages |
An initiative of SGRP, this network was proposed in 1996 under the leadership of CIAT. A half-day meeting of potential partners is planned during the International Grasslands Congress in Canada in June 1997. |
IPGRI is collaborating with CIAT and ILRI regarding plans for the network. |
|
International Coffee Network |
A network of researchers concerned with coffee genetic resources was endorsed by ACRN in 1995. A funding proposal has been submitted to the Common Fund for Commodities and the Kenya Coffee Research Foundation is developing a project proposal for in vitro conservation of Coffea germplasm. Members of the network include CATIE, ORSTOM, CIRAD and national programmes of coffee-producing countries in Africa |
IPGRI has worked closely with ACRN on network plans and has produced a descriptor list for coffee. The institute is supporting work on conservation of the genetic diversity of wild Coffea species in Mauritius and on seed storage behaviour of Mascarocoffea spp. |
|
Yam Network for West Africa |
Negotiations are underway for the creation of a yarn network in West Africa which will involve IITA and national programmes in the sub-region. Funds are being sought. |
IPGRI is preparing a strategy for developing the network and is in contact with key yam researchers in the area. |
|
Network of African Traditional Vegetables |
To counter the low priority accorded indigenous vegetables at the national level in Africa, a network of researchers concerned with traditional vegetables has been developed based on agreements at a 1995 meeting. Members include researchers from Nigeria, Uganda, the UK and ICIPE. |
IPGRI has been closely involved in the development of the network, producing a bibliography and supporting work on monographs of Cleome and Solanum nigrum. IPGRI's project proposal on the biodiversity of neglected leafy vegetable crops in Africa was funded by the Netherlands. |
|
International Allium Network |
The network, proposed in 1992, is still in the development stage, pending increased support from AVRDC. Joint activities have been agreed to by Allium researchers in Asia and duplication of 300 accessions in the Philippines is being planned. |
IPGRI is promoting the network and is bringing together AVRDC and the European Allium Genetic Resources Working Group to explore opportunities for collaboration. |
|
International Bambara Groundnut Network (IBGN) |
This network was established during a 1996 workshop on the conservation and improvement of Vigna subterranea which brought together researchers on groundnut from national programmes. |
IPGRI is collaborating with ICRISAT for further development of the network. |
Other Networks
|
Network name |
Description |
IPGRI's role in the network |
|
Forest Seed Research Network on Handling and Storage of Recalcitrant and Intermediate Tropical Tree Seed |
Groups of scientists and institutions from more than 20 countries participate in this network which was established in 1995. It employs a unique method of capacity building through the pairing together of developed and developing countries. It is funded by DANIDA. |
This is an IPGRI initiative. It facilitates the network, bringing together scientists and national programmes, creating a framework, identifying research issues and mobilizing funds. |
|
Global experiment on in vitro/slow growth of sweet potatoes |
This global activity brings together 15 in vitro laboratories from the Caribbean and APO regions. |
This is an IPGRI initiative. IPGRI co-ordinates the experiment and provided approximately US$ 30,000 for an expected three years of research agreements. |
|
Global Network of Base Collections and FAO International Network of Ex situ Collections |
Established in the late 1970's and developed throughout the 1980's, the base collections network aims to ensure long-term conservation under international standards with the condition of providing unrestricted access to germplasm. |
IBPGR was very active in making arrangements for the existing genebanks to hold base collections of particular crops or groups of crops and played a key role in facilitating negotiations with FAO, leading to the signing of agreements. |
|
System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) |
SINGER is a component of the SGRP which is concerned with the development of an integrated information system bringing together in a standardized format the genetic resources databases maintained by individual Centres. All SGRP Centres participate. |
IPGRI, as convening Centre of the SGRP, has been instrumental in the development and implementation of SINGER. |
|
Community Biodiversity Network in India |
A community-based conservation network was established in 1993 with the support of the Italian Government and has resulted in Community Genebank, which is a repository of accessions from tribal communities in southern and south-eastern India. These include landraces of cereals, millets, pulses, vegetables, medicinal crops and endangered species. Exhaustive ethnobotanical information has been collected on 233 species and 5 trainers' training courses have been held for NGOs involved in biodiversity conservation. A major partner in the network is MSSRF. |
IPGRI has been involved in the planning operations, training programmes and ethnobotanical research from the outset of the network. |
|
ACIAR |
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research |
|
ACSAD |
Arab Centre for Studies in Arid Zones and Dry Lands |
|
AHI |
African Highland Initiative |
|
ANSWER |
Asian Network for Sweet Potato Genetic Resources |
|
APAARI |
Asia-Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions |
|
APO |
Asia, the Pacific and Oceania |
|
ARARI |
Aegean Regional Agricultural Research Institute |
|
ARI |
Agricultural Research Institute |
|
ASARECA |
Association for the Strengthening of Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa |
|
ASEAN |
Association of South East Asian Nations |
|
AVRDC |
Asian Vegetable Research and Development Centre |
|
BARNESA |
Banana Research Network for Eastern and Southern Africa |
|
BUROTROP |
Bureau pour le Développement de la Recherche sur les oléagineux Tropicaux Pérennes |
|
CAAS |
Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences |
|
CABI |
CAB International (Centre for Agriculture and Biosciences) |
|
CAN-PGR |
Central Asian Network for Plant Genetic Resources |
|
CATIE |
Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza |
|
CBD |
Convention on Biological Diversity |
|
CCER |
Centre Commissioned External Reviews |
|
CENARGEN |
Centro Nacional de Pesquisa de Recursos Genéticos y Biotecnologia |
|
CFC |
Common Fund for Commodities |
|
CGRFA |
FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture |
|
CIAT |
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical |
|
CIFOR |
Centre for International Forestry Research |
|
CILSS |
Comité Permanent Inter-Etats de Lutte contre la Sécheresse dans le Sahel |
|
CIMMYT |
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre |
|
CIP |
Centro Internacional de la Papa |
|
CIRAD |
Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique |
|
CNIC |
Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas |
|
CNSF |
Centre Nacional de Sentences Forestieres |
|
COGENT |
Coconut Genetic Resources Network |
|
COP |
Conference of the Parties (to Convention on Biological Diversity) |
|
CORAF |
Southern African Centre for Cooperation in Agricultural Research |
|
CPRO |
Centre for Plant Breeding and Reproduction Research |
|
CRBP |
Centre Regional Bananiers et Plantains |
|
CSIRO |
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization |
|
DANIDA |
Danish International Development Assistance |
|
DFSC |
DANIDA Forest Seed Centre |
|
DIT |
Documentation, Information and Training |
|
EA-NET |
East-Asia PGR Network |
|
ECP/GR |
European Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic Resources Networks |
|
EPMR |
External Programme and Management Review |
|
EUFORGEN |
European Forest Genetic Resources Programme |
|
FAO |
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations |
|
FHIA |
Fundación Hondureña de Investigación Agrícola |
|
FORM |
Forest Resources Development Service/FAO |
|
FRI |
Forest Research Institute, Myanmar |
|
FRIM |
Forest Research Institute Malaysia |
|
GATT/TRIPS |
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade/Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Issues |
|
GBK |
National Genebank of Kenya |
|
GEF |
Global Environment Facility |
|
GIS |
Geographic Information System |
|
GPA |
Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture |
|
GRAIN |
Genetic Resources Action International |
|
GRST |
Genetic Resources Science and Technology |
|
GRU |
Genetic Resources Unit |
|
HRI |
Horticulture Research Institute |
|
HRM |
Human Resources Management |
|
IAEA |
International Atomic Energy Agency |
|
IARC |
International Agricultural Research Centre |
|
IBPGR |
International Board for Plant Genetic Resources |
|
ICARDA |
International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas |
|
ICIMOD |
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development |
|
ICLARM |
International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management |
|
ICPPGR |
International Conference and Programme on Plant Genetic Resources |
|
ICRAF |
International Centre for Research in Agroforestry |
|
ICRISAT |
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics |
|
ICUC |
International Centre for Underutilized Crops |
|
ICWG-GR |
Inter-Centre Working Group on Genetic Resources |
|
IDB |
Interamerican Development Bank |
|
IDRC |
International Development Research Centre |
|
IFAD |
International Fund for Agricultural Development |
|
IFPRI |
International Food Policy Research Institute |
|
IIC |
International Institute for Cotton |
|
IICA |
Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura |
|
IITA |
International Institute for Tropical Agriculture |
|
ILRI |
International Livestock Research Institute |
|
IMTP |
International Musa Testing Programme |
|
INBAR |
International Network for Bamboo and Rattan |
|
INIA |
Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria |
|
INIBAP |
International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain |
|
INRA |
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique |
|
IPGRI |
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute |
|
IPK |
Institut fur Pflanzengenetik und Kulturpflanzengenetik |
|
IPM |
Integrated Pest Management |
|
IPR |
Intellectual Property Rights |
|
IRA |
Institut de Recherche Agronomique, Cameroon |
|
IRRI |
International Rice Research Institute |
|
IRS |
Internationally Recruited Staff |
|
ISACA |
Instituto Superior Agrícola Ciegode Avila |
|
ISNAR |
International Service for National Agricultural Research |
|
ITC |
INIBAP Transit Centre |
|
IUCN |
World Conservation Union |
|
IVDN |
Integrated Voice Data Network |
|
KARI |
Kenya Agricultural Research Institute |
|
KEFRI |
Kenya Forestry Research Institute |
|
KGB |
Kenyan Gene Bank |
|
KUL |
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven |
|
LAC |
Latin American/Caribbean |
|
LARS |
Long Ashton Research Station |
|
LOA |
Letter of Agreement |
|
LRP |
Locally Recruited Professional |
|
LRS |
Locally Recruited Staff |
|
LTCI |
Laboratory for Tropical Crop Improvement |
|
MEC |
Management Executive Committee |
|
MGIS |
Musa Germplasm Information System |
|
MIS |
Management Information System |
|
MOU |
Memorandum of Understanding |
|
MSSRF |
M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation |
|
MTP |
Medium Term Plan |
|
MUSE |
Multilateral System for Exchange |
|
NARI |
National Agricultural Research Institute |
|
NARO |
National Agricultural Research Organization |
|
NARS |
National Agricultural Research Systems |
|
NBPGR |
National Bureau for Plant Genetic Resources |
|
NCARTT |
National Center for Agricultural Research and Technology Transfer |
|
NGO |
Non-Governmental Organization |
|
NIS |
Newly Independent States |
|
NP |
National Programme |
|
NSSL |
National Seed Storage Laboratory |
|
ODA |
Overseas Development Administration, UK |
|
OFI |
Oxford Forestry Institute, UK |
|
PCA |
Philippines Coconut Authority |
|
PCARRD |
Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Resources Research and Development |
|
PGR |
Plant Genetic Resources |
|
PGRC/E |
Plant Genetic Resources Center/Ethiopia |
|
PPRC |
Programme Planning and Resources Committee |
|
QDPI |
Queensland Department of Primary Industries |
|
RAFI |
Rural Advancement Foundation International |
|
RAPD |
Randomly Amplified Polymorphic DNA |
|
RBG |
Royal Botanic Garden (Kew, UK) |
|
RECSEA |
Regional Committee for Southeast Asia |
|
REDARFIT |
Andean Plant Genetic Resources Network |
|
REMERFI |
Mesoamerican Plant Genetic Resources Network |
|
RICP |
Research Institute of Crop Production |
|
RRSIN |
Regional Rangeland Seed Information Network |
|
SAC |
South Asia PGR Coordinators Network |
|
SADC |
Southern African Development Community |
|
SBSTTA |
Subsidiary Body on Scientific Technical and Technological Advice |
|
SEARICE |
Southeast Asia Regional Institute for Community Education |
|
SGRP |
System-wide Genetic Resources Programme |
|
SINGER |
System-wide Information Network on Genetic Resources |
|
SOH |
Seeds of Hope |
|
SPGRC |
SADC Plant Genetic Resources Centre |
|
SPII |
Seed and Plant Improvement Institute |
|
SRO |
Specialized Research Organization |
|
SSA |
Sub-Saharan Africa |
|
TARDA |
Tana and Athi River Development Authority |
|
TBRI |
Taiwan Banana Research Institute |
|
TROPIGEN |
Amazonian Plant Genetic Resources Network |
|
TVE |
Television Trust for the Environment |
|
UBC |
University of British Columbia |
|
UMS |
Underutilized Mediterranean Species |
|
UNAM |
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |
|
UNCED |
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development |
|
UNDP |
United Nations Development Programme |
|
UNEP |
United Nations Environment Programme |
|
UNESCO |
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization |
|
USAID |
United States Agency for International Development |
|
USDA-FS |
US Department of Agriculture - Forest Service |
|
VIR |
N.I. Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry |
|
WANA |
West Asia and North Africa |
|
WANANET |
WANA Plant Genetic Resources Network |
|
WAU |
Wageningen Agricultural University, the Netherlands |
|
WRI |
World Resources International |
