1.1 Evolution of IPGRI
IPGRI evolved from the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources and became an independent CGIAR Centre in 1991. In 1994 IPGRI took on the responsibility for banana and plantain improvement, when it became home to the International Network for Banana and Plantain (INIBAP). Since then it has also been the convening Centre for the Systemwide Genetic Resources Programme. In 2001 IPGRI’s headquarters moved to a new site at Maccarese outside of Rome.
IPGRI’s mandate and mission for the advancement of conservation and use of genetic resources have remained largely unchanged, except to accommodate an explicit commitment to commodities, such as banana.
IPGRI today has some 260 staff, almost two thirds of whom are stationed at 14 locations in developing countries. In addition to serving developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, IPGRI, uniquely among CGIAR Centres, has a regional group dedicated to Europe. Today IPGRI has a revenue base of some US$30 million a year, relative to only US$19 million in 1997.
The world in which IPGRI operates has changed remarkably over the review period. The politics surrounding genetic resources has advanced from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Global Plan of Action (GPA) and the TRIPS agreement of the WTO to the upcoming ratification of the International Treaty. Genome research, biotechnology and geographic information systems, all central to IPGRI’s research, have advanced tremendously. IPGRI has to stay abreast of this progress. Genetic modification and intellectual property rights have become issues. Altogether, a number of factors have converged to put genetic resources firmly under the spotlight.
1.2 IPGRI’s Strategy
IPGRI has no research facilities of its own, but works as a catalyst and facilitator with partners, including national research programmes and NGOs in developing countries, advanced research institutes and other CGIAR Centres and FAO, to carry out its goals. IPGRI operates through and often helps maintain, crop and regional networks. It generally conducts its research and capacity strengthening initiatives through bi or multi-lateral agreements, many initiated and maintained through the regional offices. A major change over the review period is that IPGRI’s research agenda has moved from "conservation for use" to emphasis on "conservation through use".
Over the review period IPGRI has reformulated its strategy as eight Strategic Choices that map very closely onto the 20 Activities in the GPA (with the exception of forest genetic resources, not included in the GPA). The strategy today includes some commodity work on coconuts, cacao, tropical fruits and other neglected and underutilised species, as well as banana and plantain. The overall research programme is organized into 20 Projects within which priorities are debated in the Programme Planning and Review Committee. IPGRI has a further scheme, the Innovation Fund, which encourages and funds "thinking out of the box" proposals from IPGRI staff.
For monitoring the performance of its research Projects, IPGRI has during the review period used 13 Centre Commissioned External Reviews, which have also aided the Panel in this review.
1.3 IPGRI’s Accomplishments
Traditionally IPGRI has focused on the ex situ PGR conservation. These studies, including the development of cryopreservation and in vitro protocols and the use of microsatellite DNA markers for studying diversity, have continued. IPGRI has also continued its involvement in collecting, albeit at a diminished level. However, particularly through the 1997 US$6 million "Global in situ" project, IPGRI has expanded a substantial share of its PGR research portfolio into on-farm conservation, together with attendant socio-economic research. It has also secured considerable funding for "In situ conservation of crop wild relatives", which will enter its main phase this year.
The FGR programme has consolidated established networks and initiated new networks in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Asia, Pacific and Oceania regions, as well as developing optimal forest tree seed storage methods with partners worldwide.
In the commodity area, the INIBAP Musa Programme has doubled in size to US$6.2 million in 2002 and now includes offices in Cameroon and Uganda in addition to those already located in Costa Rica and the Philippines. The Global Programme for Musa Improvement was launched in 1997 to maximise the output from breeding programmes. The Musa Genomics Consortium, a network to develop knowledge and tools to benefit crop improvement by conventional means and by genetic transformation, was launched in 2001. The INIBAP programme also holds the world’s leading Musa ex situ collection at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Belgium. The coconut network, COGENT, has established international field genebanks in four countries.
In policy, IPGRI has played a significant role in the inter-governmental negotiations that led to the adoption of the International Treaty on PGRFA. A new programme, the Genetic Resources Policy Initiative (GRPI), has been launched specifically to strengthen capacity for policy and legal framework formulation in developing countries, including implementation of the ITPGRFA.
Training remains a key IPGRI activity. At the national programme level some 3500 trainees have worked as interns or attended short courses. The Centre has also established a competitive longer term Abdou-Salam Ouédraogo Fellowship to join the Vavilov-Frankel and Italian-funded Research Fellowships. IPGRI staff has published more than 200 refereed research papers and has significantly addressed public awareness of PGR issues.
1.4 The 5th EPMR Assessment
The Panel found that IPGRI is taking appropriate steps to implement efficient strategic planning and directed priority setting, which is so important for a Centre with such a broad global mandate. However, still more can be achieved. The Panel is convinced that building more clarity into senior management decision making fora will hasten maturity of the process.
The Panel found the research programme to be expanding and still relevant. The research and the researchers are of a quality commensurate with an international research organization and IPGRI has adequate measures in place for monitoring its relevance and quality. A stakeholder survey undertaken by the Panel suggested, however, that while IPGRI was generally well regarded, there may be scope to improve the opportunities for stakeholders to influence IPGRI’s research, training and outreach agenda.
IPGRI’s convening role in the SGRP to promote common methods and policies throughout the CGIAR’s ex situ crop germplasm collections, together with the development and support for SINGER was judged very effective. Likewise IPGRI’s role in the formulation of the ITPGRFA and, with FAO, the initiation of the Global Conservation Trust, were seen as very valuable services to all involved with genetic resources.
Elsewhere the Panel’s comments and recommendations mostly addressed the question of appropriate structures for retaining efficiency and focus in an organization of increased and still increasing, size. These included: the implementation of mechanisms to ensure that IPGRI’s research remains focused in areas of its comparative advantage; mechanisms to ensure that workloads are kept in check and maintain the right balance between research and technical assistance; simpler and clearer reporting structures; improved communications, particularly between the regions; and development of a more structured relationship between the Board of Trustees and the Centre’s management and senior staff. The increased need for research, knowledge and advice on the economics of PGR conservation and use prompted a recommendation to recruit a staff member in that area.
The Panel judged IPGRI’s links with other CGIAR Centres to be generally good, but also suggested that IPGRI continue to build productive links to exploit synergies between its genetic resources work in banana with IITA and in FGR with CIFOR and ICRAF. The Challenge Programmes offered further opportunity for inter-institutional collaboration and the Panel noted that IPGRI is one of the Centres leading the development of the CP, ‘Unlocking crop genetic diversity for the resource poor’.
Finally, the Panel was impressed with the contribution of INIBAP to IPGRI’s research. However, it felt that there were scientific opportunities and synergies yet to be exploited. It recommended that the Musa Programme, including the INIBAP regional offices, be fully integrated within the IPGRI research programme.
1.5 IPGRI’s Future
The Panel was optimistic for IPGRI’s future. It felt that there was room for cautious expansion beyond plant genetic resources, providing the appropriate experts elsewhere in the CGIAR and in FAO were prepared to lead the partnerships. Research with appropriate partners into animal, fish and even microbial genetic resources and their interactions with plants could bring a new dimension to IPGRI’s work. The Panel was less positive about IPGRI taking on activities with primarily a development focus.
One of IPGRI’s key assets, which must not be compromised, is its position as an "honest broker". That goodwill should now be firmly focused on re-establishing genetic resources as a public good from which the benefits be fairly shared by all.
LIST OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER 2 - GENETIC RESOURCES RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
Recommendation 1
The Panel recommends that IPGRI position itself clearly by focussing on a number of topical research areas in which progress is lagging, where few others at the international and national level are active and in which IPGRI has a comparative advantage. The Panel recommends that IPGRI take a holistic approach to decide in which topics it will invest further in order to excel. Potential topics that IPGRI may further concentrate on include: new roles of genebanks and new collection concepts in the area of genomics; bioinformatics and association genetics; the possible impact of GMOs on the conservation and development of genetic resources; complementary germplasm management strategies; economics of genetic resources management (ex situ and in situ); coping strategies to combat genetic erosion; cultural practices associated with genetic diversity; nutrition and health; and the role of non-domesticated and semi-domesticated biodiversity in rural communities, including forest products. The Panel believes that IPGRI should not spread itself too thinly.
Recommendation 2
The Panel recommends that IPGRI explore opportunities for optimising use of forest genetic resources network databases through meta-analyses across regions and other methods that would contribute to understanding of general global forest genetic resources patterns and dynamics.
Recommendation 3
The Panel recommends that IPGRI proactively engage with CIFOR and ICRAF to review and update the 1993 agreement on their shared agenda, redefine roles as appropriate and implement mechanisms to facilitate regular interactions necessary for effective collaboration and information sharing.
Recommendation 4
The Panel recommends that IPGRI review the position of the Musa Programme with a view to completing full integration of INIBAP into the Centre. Options considered should include:
(a) removing use of the INIBAP acronym (this might accompany a "rebranding" of the entire Centre);
(b) establishing the Musa work, possibly together with other IPGRI commodity work, as a new grouping. The head of the group could be at Group Director level, with appropriate reporting lines;
(c) rationalizing use of the Montpellier facility to optimise scientific synergies and administrative function with IPGRI headquarters; and
(d) rationalizing use of the regional facilities to achieve maximum scientific synergy and efficiency, again with an appropriate reporting structure.
Recommendation 5
The Panel recommends that IPGRI’s Management develop and obtain Board approval for, the Institute’s policy and guidelines on research and breeding, including field trials, of genetically modified bananas and other crop products. The policy should articulate a clear strategy for obtaining public support for any introduction and field testing of genetically modified crops in the environment.
CHAPTER 3 - POLICY AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
Recommendation 6
The Panel recommends that IPGRI recruit a full time staff member with the necessary academic qualifications and experience in environmental and agricultural economics, preferably with a focus on PGR.
Recommendation 7
Given the increasing number of international fora in which PGR policy and legal issues are being negotiated and the growing demand on IPGRI’s limited core policy and legal expertise, the Panel recommends that over the next 5 years the Institute focus most of its resources for international policy work on supporting the national institutions with the implementation of the ITPGRFA and related provisions of the CBD.
CHAPTER 4 - REGIONAL ACTIVITIES
Recommendation 8
The Panel recommends that IPGRI establish specific mechanisms to promote collaboration between the Regions at the Regional Director level.
Recommendation 9
The Panel recommends that Management review staff time allocation between research work and technical assistance, particularly in the Regions.
CHAPTER 7 - GOVERNANCE AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Recommendation 10
The Panel recommends that a more formal relationship between the Board and the Institute’s management is required to ensure that the Board’s governance role as overseer is effectively exercised. To this end there should be:
(a) a regular monthly interaction between the Chair and the DG;
(b) the agenda and minutes of the MEC made available to the Chair on a timely basis;
(c) Board approval of a schedule of issues and expenditure levels on which management has to inform and seek approval from the Board;
(d) a discretionary annual imprest account of, say, US$50 000 for the Chair;
(e) an Executive Committee-MEC conference call at least once between scheduled Board meetings;
(f) an invitation to the Leader of POTG to the November project review meeting;
(g) more regular interaction between the Leader of the FITG and the DFA;
(h) a strengthening of the financial and economic oversight by the Board through appropriate selection of the next three Board members; and
(i) a review of the Board procedures, particularly as they relate to the composition of Board quorums and the voting rights of the DG.
CHAPTER 8 - PROGRAMME ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
Recommendation 11
The Panel recommends that a more formal and transparent planning and decision making process is required with respect to the Institute’s scientific programme, whereby:
(a) an appropriate ToR for MEC should be agreed with the Board, which would include the requirement that all new projects and activities are approved by the full MEC before they are submitted to donors;
(b) MEC meet regularly once a month and the agenda and minutes are available on the intranet to all staff in a timely manner;
(c) Regional Directors report directly to the DDGP; and
(d) all activities with an annual budget of over US$500 000 and activities where IPGRI is assuming non-traditional risks, are brought to the attention of the Executive Committee of the Board.
Recommendation 12
The Panel recommends that, to serve the requirements of an organization of IPGRI’s complexity, a key senior individual be exclusively dedicated to fund raising, working to the Board approved fund raising strategy incorporating an appropriate PR function.
