IPGRI was established because the future of world food production and sustainable agriculture depends on continued conservation and use of genetic diversity. The urgency and need for conservation of plant genetic resources has been highlighted by several international initiatives during the last decade. UNCED at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 led to the ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1993 and the International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources in Leipzig led to the adoption of the Global Plan of Action on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (GPA) in 1996. In 2001 an FAO Conference adopted the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) to promote the conservation, exchange and sustainable use of the PGR relevant for agriculture and food security. It will come into force as a legally binding agreement after ratification by 40 countries, probably in 2004.
The GPA seeks to: (1) ensure the conservation of PGR for food and agriculture as a basis for food security and sustainable agriculture; (2) promote improved utilization of PGR, in order to foster development and reduce hunger and poverty, particularly in developing countries; (3) promote among and within countries and with farmers and communities, the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of PGR for food and agriculture and from the knowledge, practices, or innovations associated with such resources; and, (4) assist countries and institutions responsible for conserving and using PGR to identify priorities for action.
IPGRI is the most important international organization concerned with PGR and has a major responsibility to help the world achieve the goals of the GPA. Furthermore, IPGRI holds "in trust" a major collection of Musa genetic resources and in addition, as a CGIAR Centre it supports other CGIAR Centres which are the curators of a strategic part of the world’s PGR for food and agriculture under the auspices of FAO. These activities underpin those of the CGIAR itself in the areas of poverty alleviation, food security and protection of the environment.
IPGRI was established as a legal entity under international law in October 1991 and recognized as such by the host country, Italy, through the parliamentary ratification of IPGRI’s establishment and Headquarters Agreements in January 1994. Its operations started in 1994, evolving from the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR) hosted by FAO, which was itself set up in 1974. IPGRI took on responsibility for the Systemwide Genetic Resources Programme (SGRP) and responsibility for banana and plantain improvement when it became "home" to the International Network for Banana and Plantain (INIBAP). IPGRI’s original mandate was and remains:
The advancement of the conservation and use of genetic diversity for the well-being of present and future generations.
IPGRI’s original Mission was marginally modified in 1993 to accommodate work on commodities, which was represented initially by the Musa work only. The modified Mission underpins that of the CGIAR and reflects IPGRI’s responsibility to the CGIAR Centres to support their programmes to maintain collections with 600,000 accessions of 2400 plant species, a highly strategic part of the world’s collected diversity. The present Mission is:
To encourage, support and undertake activities to improve the management of genetic resources worldwide so as to help eradicate poverty, increase food security and protect the environment. IPGRI focuses on the conservation and use of genetic resources important to developing countries and has explicit commitment to specific crops.
IPGRI’s Objectives, restated in 1999[2], have shifted to reflect an increased emphasis on conservation through use and on sustainability. These are:
(1) To assist countries, particularly developing countries, to better assess and meet their own PGR needs; (2) to stimulate strengthened international collaboration in the conservation and use of genetic resources; and (3) to develop and disseminate knowledge and technologies relevant to the improved conservation and use of PGR.
The Panel has considered IPGRI’s mandate, strategy and future in the context of the rapidly changing environment in which the Centre operates. The changes include continuous evolution at the Centre itself, an evolving CGIAR System and a changing and more challenging external world.
Evolution at IPGRI - At IPGRI the key drivers for change at the Centre are the new holistic approaches to the management of genetic resources, which are themselves now recognized as assets for improving the livelihoods of small farmers; the need for increased stakeholder accountability; and the rapidly advancing frontiers of a highly complex science.
IPGRI’s total budget has continued to grow considerably over the years. However, in common with most grant-aided organizations and other CGIAR Centres, IPGRI has diminishing unrestricted core funds at its disposal. These funds are needed to maintain IPGRI’s infrastructure and cover a large part of operational overhead and essential components of its work that are not attracting specific donor funding. A larger institute with increasing staff numbers and continuing decentralization will need to evolve more adaptable and flexible management structures. Failing to do so would result in excessive complexity, rigidity and loss of transparency. Increased donor accountability will require improved monitoring and reporting systems. There is growing pressure for an extended remit, both to genetic resources beyond plants and science beyond genetic resources. IPGRI must be fully cognisant of the ramifications of accepting either challenge. There is also pressure to get involved in development activities and IPGRI must continually assess donors’ objectives against its own strategic choices, carefully considering where its comparative advantages lie.
The shifts in IPGRI’s own research include an increased commodity outlook and a new orientation stemming from the concept of "conservation through use". There are new technologies, particularly those arising from genomics which both provide new applications for genetic resources management and draw from genetic resources for development of new breeding tools. In addition, developments in bioinformatics will drastically change the storage, retrieval and analysis of large, incongruent and dispersed datasets. The application of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) will further strengthen options to understand the distribution of genetic diversity and enhance its conservation. These new technologies have significant implications for genetic resources research. There are also new approaches in the areas of participatory on-farm management of genetic resources that require new expertise. Success and continued activity at the cutting edge in all of these areas will require an adaptable and high quality cadre of scientific staff, as well as resourceful and innovative use of scientific partnerships.
An evolving CGIAR system - The CGIAR itself is evolving rapidly. In 2000 the CGIAR adopted a new vision and strategy, which reaffirms the main CGIAR goal of reducing poverty, hunger and malnutrition on a sustainable basis. Its other main elements include: mobilising modern science for assessing complex causes of poverty and food insecurity; developing a concerted approach to address the needs of the poor, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia; adopting a regional approach to research planning and implementation to address the heterogeneous nature of poverty and food insecurity and to integrate regional priorities with global priorities; seeking new types and new forms of partnerships for problem identification, research and dissemination of research outputs; addressing major problems through a task force approach; and strengthening CGIAR’s role as a catalyst, integrator and disseminator of knowledge. IPGRI’s mandate and modus operandi encompass all these strategic principles.
The CGIAR at large is faced with declining funds while at the same time there is increased donor requirement for accountability and performance. In this context there are strong moves towards a more unified System. There are new conceptual and financial tools, such as the Challenge Programmes and tendencies towards consolidation of activities and structural adjustments within the CGIAR. IPGRI must be appropriately engaged as this scenario unfolds. The System must be stronger than the sum of the Centres for it to retain its relevance and standing, so IPGRI must remain an integral part of the System. With its present growing funding base IPGRI looks relatively well placed; however it must also be astute if it is to continue to remain relevant.
Evolution of the world around IPGRI - Significant developments are taking place in the external world that have implications for IPGRI’s work. The political arena occupied by the CBD, WTO, TRIPS, WSSD and, in particular, the upcoming ratification of the ITPGRFA provide focus on genetic resources. IPGRI faces new challenges in operating in the middle of a range of conflicting stakeholder agendas. A significant consequence of this is that the international exchange of genetic resources has dwindled, which is a challenge for IPGRI and of considerable concern to the other Centres. The Global Conservation Trust (GCT), an effort led by FAO and IPGRI, on behalf of the CGIAR, is in the final stages of being established. Wherever its final location and whatever its final mission, the Trust Fund will surely impact IPGRI’s work in many ways.
The emergence of genetic modification has stirred a considerable debate and resulted in hardened and often opposing positions being taken by various stakeholder groups on the benefits and risks of the new technology. To make matters worse, genetic modification has become an icon for those who take issue with complex international science, the globalization of industry and capitalism in general. This is at a time when there is considerable potential for the CGIAR and IPGRI to harness biotechnology for their own programmes.
Elsewhere genetic resources have become an explicit part of international research. Industry has an increasing interest in genetic resources because of technical and IP developments. A range of NGOs has entered the arena of genetic resources and agrobiodiversity, with focus on conservation per se, the use of genetic resources and the role of agrobiodiversity in community development. New associations and modes of partnership and methodologies need to be developed. IPGRI is not the only supplier of research information and technical assistance in GR. It needs to position itself among both old and new partners which include universities, the NGO community, industry and the like and exploit its comparative advantages.
In addition it must be recalled that the Earth’s natural resource base is facing severe challenges. The population, which will demand adequate food and improved quality of life, is expected to continue to rise from 6 to 9 billion by 2050, with a concomitant increase in the pressure on land and water resources and therefore on the stock of diverse genetic resources.
In the face of all this the importance of IPGRI remains as great as ever. Its mission and goals are as relevant as ever. However it is clear that IPGRI’s future will not be the same as its past. The future will bring new and complex challenges. IPGRI will have to evolve to continue to retain its relevance and continue to be effective.
IPGRI has an unusual modus operandi among CGIAR Centres. Without any research facilities of its own, IPGRI operates as a catalyst and facilitator for research activities in counterpart organizations. This independence is particularly important as IPGRI is seen as an "honest broker" by potential donors, partners and critics. Partnerships are critical for IPGRI’s functioning. A successful IPGRI activity is one where the partners’ activities continue and grow after IPGRI has ended its input. The decentralization of IPGRI is a key factor in its modus operandi. It allows IPGRI to more readily assess regional needs.
This way of working allows IPGRI to adopt principles in priority setting that are not always available to other Centres. IPGRI’s priority setting process itself is both "bottom up", particularly from the regions and "top down" from senior management, with a senior staff group, the Project Planning and Review Committee, acting as the debating forum.
Networks are key to IPGRI’s operation. Both crop and regionally orientated networks are supported. They should provide means of communication; allow stronger countries to assist the more needy; and they provide a means by which NARS and other partners can influence IPGRI’s strategy and priorities. Networks need to be sustainable in the long run. In regions with more developed economies funding should come from the network itself, elsewhere funding will have to come from external sources for a considerable period.
The 4th EPMR in 1997 made 16 Recommendations. The Panel considers that IPGRI has implemented nine of these in full (Recommendations 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15) and another five are being implemented as an ongoing process (1, 2, 6, 8 and 16). The remaining two Recommendations (3 and 12) are no longer so relevant, having been superseded by events. IPGRI has followed up the 4th EPMR Review through three iterations of comments (initial, mid-term and current) and responded very diligently.
The 4th EPMR’s Recommendations, IPGRI’s comments and the Panel’s assessment are given in Appendix VI.
The 5th EPMR is charged to review: (1) IPGRI’s mission, strategy and priorities, (2) the quality and relevance of IPGRI’s planning processes and science, (3) the effectiveness and efficiency of IPGRI’s management and (4) IPGRI’s accomplishments and impact. In undertaking this review the Panel has given special attention to five broad issues.
Mandate and scope - For the past quarter century IPGRI and its previous incarnation focused exclusively on crop PGR. The past decade has seen it engage in a number of vertically integrated commodity research programmes, of which the first was banana and plantain. These have been followed by coconut, cacao and some underutilised crops. At the same time a number of new areas of potential interest have surfaced. These include forest genetic resources, in situ methods of conservation, social, economic and cultural aspects relating to the management of PGR and a number of related policy questions. There are opportunities and in some cases external pressures, for IPGRI to expand still further beyond PGR for food and agriculture. There is the whole field of activity related to sustainable development and livelihoods which draws an essentially research and network orientated institution directly into the interface with farmers and rural communities. There are suggestions to include medicinal and ornamental plants in the Institute’s mandate and to move beyond the plant genetic resources into livestock and fish genetic resources. A move into the conservation of agriculturally significant microbes has also been suggested. Examination of and comment on all of these possibilities fall within the EPMR’s ToR.
Strategy development and priority setting - IPGRI’s purview is global. Effective use of limited funds and resources, particularly precious staff time, requires an effective strategy development and priority setting process. During the review the Panel took special account of the Institute’s planning and priority setting process as it affects activities, especially in the regional and thematic projects. Particular attention was paid to limits set for IPGRI’s direct involvement in research and the identification of the supporting and collaborative role to be played by IPGRI’s partners, particularly NARS, in the work programme.
Balance in research - IPGRI’s research portfolio has changed dramatically over the past decade, both because of scientific advances and because of donor demand and funding opportunities. A balance needs to be struck between the commitment of resources to adaptive research and technical assistance. Maintaining this balance has become an issue for IPGRI in carrying out its mandate. The Panel paid attention to the in situ - ex situ balance, the opportunity cost of flagship science particularly in the Regions, which while raising the intellectual standing of the Institute can be at the expense of providing technical assistance. There are also implications for IPGRI’s ability to attract and retain scientific staff at the forefront of their field. This is a particular issue in a Centre that does not have its own laboratories.
Modus operandi - IPGRI has a unique modus operandi among CGIAR Centres. It is harder to define and measure its output in terms of public goods. Nevertheless it is important to evaluate the fulfilment of its mandate by paying due attention to the degree to which projects and initiatives it has helped start continue after its involvement. Successful interventions by IPGRI as a catalyst, networking, or research organization will be judged by the degree to which the interventions are picked up by partners and continued once IPGRI has moved on. For example, successful in situ and participatory field projects will be those that assume a life of their own and spread, unaided by IPGRI, beyond the initial contact group.
Governance - Governance issues as they relate to Board oversight of the Institute and the manner in which the Institute is managed and operates have been addressed by the Panel in its review. This is particularly important in an institution whose staff and budget has grown so fast and in an environment that is in a state of flux.
Integration at IPGRI - Finally the Panel has also looked closely at the internal cohesion of the Institute and particularly the success of the integration of INIBAP into IPGRI. This has been a novel institutional experiment for the CGIAR and has some bearing on the issues that follow the recent EPMR of ISNAR.
|
[2] Diversity for Development,
IPGRI, 1999 (ISBN 92-9043400-7) |
