In its assessment of IPGRI’s PGR research activities, the Panel has drawn from the analysis and recommendations of three CCERs; namely Forest Genetic Resources Programme 1998, INIBAP Programme 2000 and Methodologies and Strategies 2001.
The 20 priority activities identified in the FAO GPA for PGRFA were used as a reference to evaluate IPGRI’s research activities and achievements. These actions are clustered in four main groups, i.e. "In situ conservation and development", "Ex situ conservation", "Utilization of PGR" and "Institutions and capacity building". An analysis of IPGRI’s activities as described under its 20 Projects shows that all of the GPA priorities are covered. Furthermore, the analysis also shows a strong focus on the priorities in ‘Institutions and capacity building’ (more than 50% of the IPGRI C-series project activities), whereas the priorities under "Utilization of PGR" are relatively strongly represented only in the four Musa projects. The distribution of the IPGRI project activities over the GPA priorities can be regarded as generally in line with IPGRI’s modus operandi. The number of project activities under "In situ conservation and development", relative to under "Ex situ conservation" indicate that the two approaches receive approximately equal attention and investment. This seems the result more of a stepwise process of project development than of an explicit strategy decision.
While socio-economic and policy research activities are reported separately in Chapter 4 their omission from Chapter 2 could give the impression that the work of Project C13 is not fully integrated into the work on genetic resources, or similarly that GRST does not use holistic and multidisciplinary approaches. To the contrary, it should be noted that socio-economic and policy research is well integrated within the GRST research programme and that since 1995 significant progress has been made because of this, in particular regarding on-farm management of genetic resources, i.e. how farmers characterise, use and deploy PGR, a major focus of the socio-economics and policy work.
The multi-donor funded "Global in situ" project was fully implemented in nine countries across the world and received more than US$6 million over the period 1997 - 2002. The US$12 million GEF co-funded project, "In situ conservation of wild relatives", was initiated in 2000 and will enter its main five year phase in 2003. This is being implemented in five countries and complements the "Global in situ" project. The inclusion of these projects has shifted the balance from research on mainly ex situ conservation to a combination of ex situ and in situ approaches. Substantial restricted funding has also been obtained to support work on NUS as well as for the establishment of a global programme on cocoa germplasm conservation and utilization. A large share of IPGRI’s total activities in this priority area is now funded from restricted sources. Research methods have also evolved and molecular markers and GIS are now used in many PGR project activities.
Another major development was the continuation in 1999 of CFC funding for the Coconut Genetic Resources Network (COGENT) for five years. The partners currently include 38 coconut producing countries in addition to other stakeholders, such as ADB, DFID, the Government of France, CIRAD, the IGG/OOF and the APCC, all of which are interested in the development of coconuts as an economic and sustainable resource for smallholder farmers in developing countries.
Explicit strategies have been formulated on a number of cross-cutting issues, including NUS, nutrition and molecular genetics, over the review period (for a full list see Appendix V). Strategic elements are also included in other documents[3]. Furthermore, priority setting at the Project level is done in formulating Project frameworks, particularly in defining objectives, expected results and milestones.
Prioritised research topics include: distribution patterns of genetic diversity; seed supply systems analysis; genetic erosion patterns; germplasm management strategies; economies of conservation approaches; NUS; conservation of wild relatives of crop species; management of PGR in protected areas; use of molecular markers for genetic analysis; methodology for in situ data analysis; and integration of agrobiodiversity components into agricultural development.
The CCER on ‘Locating and monitoring genetic diversity’ observed that priority setting was clearly reflected in the Project activities. The Panel concurs with this observation. The Panel also notes that, likewise, the two major externally funded projects on in situ conservation and development, the ‘Global in situ’ project which started in 1995 and the ‘In situ conservation of wild relatives’ project which started to be developed in 2000, provide a clear set of priorities imbedded in their objectives which reflect IPGRI’s overall strategy.
It is obvious to the Panel that, at first sight, agreed priorities are less clear in the case of ex situ conservation approaches than they are in IPGRI’s in situ work. The Panel also observes that in this large set of activities the relative weights of in situ and ex situ work may have been shifting without strategic justification.
IPGRI’s Project activities include a mixture of elements: in-house desk research; research projects in collaboration with single or multiple partner institutions; collaborative actions involving research, conservation or use; preparation of publications; and participation in policy development and strategic planning. The products of these activities are invariably the result of close collaboration with partners in developing and developed countries.
2.2.3.1 Genetic diversity and in situ conservation and development
IPGRI’s activities in "Locating and monitoring genetic diversity" stem from the recognition that PGRFA are not evenly spread in space and time and that in order to arrive at well based conservation strategies, basic knowledge on the distribution of genetic diversity in a crop complex is needed. Activities include the development of methods to locate and measure diversity and its dynamics, studies on factors affecting distribution of diversity and methods to effectively collect genetic diversity. The modus operandi has been to identify the needs of national programmes and, with the involvement of large numbers of IPGRI staff and national partners, implement case studies that have resulted in publications and tools for distribution in the PGR community. The case studies have received mostly restricted funding.
Measuring genetic diversity and its dynamics has increasingly focused on the use of molecular markers and comparison of the results of such analysis with agromorphological measurements and farmers’ classifications. Genetic diversity assessments, which rely to a considerable extent on desk based information retrieval, have been conducted on NUS in the APO, SSA and CWANA regions. Subsequent on-farm in situ and ex situ conservation activities have sprung from these assessments.
A series on ‘Ecogeographic studies of crop genepools’ has been published and revised collecting forms incorporating indigenous knowledge have been widely distributed. There is no record, however, of the extent to which they have been used.
As mentioned before, two major multi-partner activities have been initiated during the reporting period, i.e. the "Global in sit" and the "In situ conservation of crop wild relatives" projects, both of which aim at creating a portfolio of options based on experiences from case studies.
In all these activities, emphasis has been given to developing methodology to strengthen the capacity of communities and national systems, to conserve and use landraces and their wild relatives and to develop a knowledge base for crop management decision making. The Panel finds this focus commendable.
2.2.3.2 Ex situ conservation
Most of the Project efforts over this reporting period were devoted to developing and improving ex situ storage techniques, which have traditionally received major attention and to disseminating the new methodologies through publications and training. Focus has been on developing slow growth in vitro protocols, cryopreservation and ultra-dry seed storage methods. Fifteen counterpart institutions have been involved in the project’s technical activities.
Germplasm health and germplasm management strategies have also been addressed, mainly through collecting and disseminating information. However, due to limited funding, work on germplasm management strategies has been restricted to the optimization of strategies, methods and techniques. Work on germplasm documentation has focussed on protocols for descriptor lists, data modelling (see also Section 5.1) and development and promotion of genebank documentation software, including several internally developed genebank management systems and USDA’s pcGRIN. Outputs have included training, scientific conferences, technical bulletins featuring technologies on seed drying, seed moisture content determination, cryopreservation, core collection development and genebank germplasm health.
In its collecting activities IPGRI has shifted focus from direct involvement to strengthening methodologies needed for efficient collecting and facilitating collecting missions. IPGRI has facilitated only a few collecting missions of fruit trees and vegetables and one of wild relatives of rice, as part of a PhD study in SSA. IPGRI co-funded and IPGRI staff participated in collecting more than 10,000 new accessions over the period.
2.2.3.3 Use of plant genetic resources
IPGRI focuses its current strategy on improving the use of genetic diversity. Its agenda has involved six areas of work: the development of complementary conservation strategies; an analysis of current obstacles to use of PGRFA; improving accessibility to ex situ conserved germplasm; increasing the use of diversity within production systems; addressing NUS; and work on commodity crops. A substantial part of the work in promoting use is also carried out by IPGRI’s regional groups and is discussed in Chapter 4.
IPGRI has produced guidelines for improving complementary conservation strategies. A wide range of activities has been undertaken to strengthen the conservation and use of fruit trees, aromatic plants and NUS, particularly in the Mediterranean, CWANA and the Americas regions. Technical bulletins were produced on the use of core collections, molecular markers and on evaluation.
2.2.3.4 COGENT
IPGRI’s involvement in COGENT, established in 1990, is part of its focus on the use of PGR. IPGRI has provided the secretariat since 1992, following a recommendation from TAC, since there was no internationally coordinated research effort in place for this important commodity and given IPGRI´s expertise in networking. IPGRI also contributes to COGENT’s operations with critical technical expertise, financial and administrative resources and by providing the network a profile attractive to the international community.
International coconut genebanks have been established in Indonesia, India, Papua New Guinea and Côte d´Ivoire, to conserve and evaluate 200 accessions from all over the world. Negotiations with Brazil are continuing. Field genebanks require large areas; one hectare per accession with 3 to 5 replications. In addition to international field genebanks, there are also important national ones. Passport and characterization data for a large number of accessions have been stored in an international database. Trials have been established to evaluate 30 hybrids under farmer conditions, in six countries. COGENT partners have conducted research on biotechnology, germplasm conservation and IPM. COGENT has also provided training, graduate scholarships, technical assistance, feasibility studies and other support. There is evidence of benefits to communities, including increased income and employment opportunities as a result of better marketing practices and the introduction of higher yielding varieties, high value coconut products and better system based agricultural practices.
2.2.3.5 Cocoa
The project on cocoa germplasm conservation and use is being implemented in 12 countries. It aims to link cocoa breeding programmes with genebanks and quarantine centres to improve planting materials for resistance to pests and diseases. The activities include international clone trials, germplasm enhancement and population breeding, conservation, characterization and evaluation and distribution and exchange of information. The project has focused on resistance to pests and diseases. Since 1998 approximately 80 hectares of new field trials have been established and 5000 accessions have been evaluated for resistance against major pathogens. Hundreds of potential new sources of resistance have been identified and participating countries have exchanged accessions.
Results from in situ conservation and development research outputs include 103 publications (not all co-authored by IPGRI staff), five dissertations and a considerable input to group and individual training. The Project on ‘Locating and monitoring genetic diversity’ produced 55 scientific papers (again not all IPGRI co-authored) as well as a set of training materials. The Panel suggests that IPGRI strengthen efforts to further transfer the acquired experience and insights through training materials to a constituency not traditionally reached by IPGRI, in particular NGOs and CBOs.
The CCER on methodologies and strategies did not provide an overall assessment of IPGRI’s work on crop oriented PGR research. However, the Panel considers the overall quality of the output to be high. The Panel also notes IPGRI’s major contribution to the development of a knowledge base in the area of on-farm management of PGR. There are no studies on the impacts of these activities.
The Panel commends the quality of the newly initiated project on in situ conservation of wild relatives and is confident that lessons learnt from the in situ conservation on-farm will be helpful to make further progress in this new area. A major question that needs to be addressed is how many activities and protected sites at the minimum and at which locations, are essential for safeguarding wild crop relatives.
Ex situ conservation research has the highest publishing record among IPGRI activities and staff for the period under review, including 60 peer reviewed articles. The publications have a bias towards cryopreservation and ultra-dry seeds, the traditional strongholds of IPGRI. Less has been produced on germplasm management strategies and germplasm documentation methodologies as far as publications and other outputs are concerned. Publications on ex situ research were of generally high quality. IPGRI organized six training courses and participated in 13 more on ex situ conservation themes. It also organized three scientific meetings on ultra-dry seed storage, cryopreservation and germplasm management.
The Panel is convinced that IPGRI has advanced well in the relatively unexplored area of complementary conservation and use strategies. According to the CCER on conservation and use, substantial results have been achieved on analysing patterns of PGR use in different countries. Distribution per se often does not appear to be a limiting factor, but rather the ability of the recipient to use the germplasm. Other main achievements in the area of promotion of PGR use include identifying specific descriptors for highly desirable traits, developing tools for safe international exchange of samples and through SGRP with other Centres, establishing SINGER as means of accessing data on desirable traits in the in trust collections of the CGIAR.
2.2.5.1 Modus operandi and institutional linkages
Regarding COGENT, the Panel feels that its sustainability and resource needs may be issues that require attention. COGENT has now 38 country members and an independent Steering Committee, with more interest in development than research. Due to dispersion of partners, meetings and coordination are expensive. There appears to be no obvious alternative to IPGRI in its coordinating role. The conservation and safe movement of coconut germplasm is very expensive and the COGENT Steering Committee would like to explore the possibility of GCT support.
2.2.5.2 Strategy and priority setting
The Panel suggests that IPGRI identify a number of topical research areas in which progress is lagging, where few others are active at the international and national level and in which IPGRI has a comparative advantage. The Panel suggests that IPGRI take a holistic approach in deciding which topics it will invest in, in order to excel.
Potential topics that IPGRI has identified and should further explore include: new roles of genebanks and new collection concepts in the area of genomics; the possible impact of GMOs on the conservation and development of genetic resources; complementary germplasm management strategies; economics of ex situ and in situ genetic resources management; 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 new questions being asked in the area of in situ conservation and on-farm management "What is the impact of PPB, of new seed networks and of new policies on on-farm management?" are highly relevant and IPGRI is commended for carefully formulating such research questions.
Upscaling project activities and enhancing the effect of project interventions is identified as a major bottleneck and the Panel agrees that this issue requires substantial attention by IPGRI. The Panel is of the opinion that IPGRI should play a leading role in this area, realising that this challenge exceeds the research questions mentioned above and calls for the development of on-farm management practices that are really implemented at the community level. One contribution to the development of a strategy to realise such implementation would be to convene (physically or virtually) the various initiatives in on-farm management of diversity globally and to play a coordinating and facilitating role in strategy development aimed at enlarging the outreach and impact of such projects across the globe.
The CCER on ex situ conservation mentioned the lack of a critical mass of scientists devoted to ex situ conservation technologies as a constraint and recommended a shift in the research on in vitro technologies to the regions. The capacity at HQ has been reoriented. Priority will be given to germplasm collection management and documentation methodologies and research into in vitro technology will only be pursued through commodity linked project activities in the Regions. This will also be the case for research on germplasm health. The CCER section on Future Directions states that unless external funding can be obtained or regional priorities result in the selection of in vitro conservation activities or germplasm health research, IPGRI should discontinue investments in these areas and concentrate on the documentation and dissemination of progress reported by others. This would allow IPGRI to invest adequately in germplasm management strategies and germplasm documentation methodologies. The Panel supports this shift and would encourage IPGRI to proceed in this direction.
Three proposals for ex situ conservation research were submitted to donors but not accepted in the period 1998 - 2000. This demonstrates that it has become increasingly difficult to obtain restricted funding for ex situ conservation research, to the extent that most of the funding for IPGRI activities in this area now comes from unrestricted funding. As a result, this activity has considerably decreased in scale. The CCER indicated that an increasing amount of staff time should be dedicated to developing research proposals.
The Panel supports the need to allocate staff time not only to writing proposals in this area but also to soliciting the interest of donors for these less politically popular research areas and recommends adequate action, in order to make optimal use of staff time.
It is recognized that IPGRI gives specific attention to the need for additional targeted collecting activities, in particular concerning NUS and takes into account the complementarity of in situ and ex situ conservation strategies. As a first step, an inventory of the willingness and capacity of countries to undertake such collecting activities, in the light of their obligations to give priority to the maintenance of existing collections, should be undertaken.
Whereas the CCER poses the question whether IPGRI and/or genebanks should engage in evaluation activities, it does not answer this question. The Panel is of the belief that users, whether researchers, breeders or farmers, are in a better position to undertake evaluation and that IPGRI itself should not undertake or fund evaluation, except in its commodity chain research.
The Panel strongly supports the notion that IPGRI should attempt to strengthen the broadening of the genetic base of populations that can be used in crop improvement and other genetic enhancement initiatives including prebreeding. However, the Panel agrees that IPGRI should only undertake genetic enhancement and prebreeding activities in collaboration with other partners, since this activity requires a long term and sustained effort as well as substantial crop specific expertise.
The CCER also makes a plea for IPGRI’s involvement in the exploration of new roles for genebanks as a result of emerging biotechnologies. The Panel highly commends this position and suggests that it should be adopted as one of the major issues of IPGRI’s work on germplasm management strategies. IPGRI could really play a pioneering role in organizing and continuing a discussion in this area since national genebank capacities to deal with this far reaching issue are generally very limited.
In the framework of the cocoa project IPGRI has started to address the development of complementary conservation strategies, of a core collection and of the use of molecular markers and GIS. IPGRI is commended for this approach and encouraged to continue along this road to cover commodity crops on IPGRI’s agenda.
2.2.5.3 Technical aspects
The CCER on ‘Locating and monitoring genetic diversity’ mentions as a priority the development of survey instruments that allow for rapid prediction of the risk of genetic erosion. The Panel concurs with this suggestion that has remained outstanding since 1999 and suggests that it should be implemented with priority.
This CCER also rightly concludes that an analysis of passport, characterization and evaluation data to inform the conservation process has not been tackled. The Panel suggests that this area in the core of IPGRI’s mandate takes precedence over investments in further development of GIS technology that can be undertaken in collaboration with a range of external partners.
Furthermore, the document argues that The Registry of Base Collections may need to be revisited in the framework of creating a rational global system. The Panel is of the opinion that IPGRI should trace germplasm that was collected with IPGRI support and endeavour to have the collection holder place this germplasm under the FAO/CGIAR in trust agreement. However, establishing long term storage responsibilities for specific germplasm by identified collection holders that was not obtained through IPGRI support, as attempted by IPGRI in the early nineties, should no longer be IPGRI’s objective. The situation is politically complex and, in any event, any such agreement is probably not enforceable. In fact, this area of activities may soon be taken over by the GCT (see Section 5.2). The Panel strongly suggests that an agreement on the status of acquired germplasm is part of all contracts on collecting activities involving IPGRI. Such agreement would preferably result in placing the acquired germplasm under the FAO/CGIAR in trust agreement.
The Panel notes IPGRI’s leadership role in the ‘Unlocking genetic diversity in crops for the resource poor’ Challenge Programme and its involvement in several other CP proposals. The former proposal uses IPGRI’s coordinating role in SGRP, its capacity in bioinformatics, including SINGER, its molecular marker technology and its involvement with networks. The Panel is sure that IPGRI will take the initiative with all appropriate future CPs.
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.
IPGRI started working on Forest Genetic Resources (FGR) in 1993. The scope and activities of the FGR Project (FGRP) were defined following a joint exploration and agreement on an international forestry and agroforestry genetic resources agenda with ACIAR, CIFOR, ICRAF and FAO. A strategic action plan was developed for 1993-1995 in consultation with national and international partners and was used as a basis for later activities. By the time of the 4th EPMR, the FGRP was still at its early stages of implementation. Nevertheless, the EPMR panel recognized IPGRI's achievement in securing credibility in the extremely complex field of conservation linked to sustainable FGR utilization in a relatively short time. The EPMR also noted the relevance and the logic of the FGRP approach.
The FGRP strategy was revised in 1998 to focus on advancing scientific knowledge and generating broadly applicable methods from practical experiences gained through collaborative work. Areas of IPGRI comparative advantage were identified. These included: 1) intra-specific genetic diversity to complement efforts on ecosystem level forest management; and 2) development of a holistic approach and global perspective which recognizes the importance of maintaining biodiversity at genetic, species and ecosystem levels and of integrating considerations of genetic diversity in forest management. Within this agenda, FGRP sought to achieve two broad objectives: (1) to develop a strategic and coordinated framework for research on conservation, sustainable use and management of forest species; and (2) to contribute to capacity building of scientists worldwide through national forest programmes and networks. Activities were clustered as follows: facilitating the development of national and regional programmes for PGR; development of methods and criteria for ranking ecosystems, species and populations for conservation priority setting; tropical forest diversity assessment and integration of genetic and socio-economic information to develop criteria and indicators for actual and potential threats of genetic erosion; screening key forest species to define their storage capacity for ex situ conservation; and leading the development of a global information system on FGR.
The CCER endorsed the overall concept, objectives, strategies and direction of FGRP and was impressed by the comprehensive approach adopted by the programme. It made ten recommendations. A major recommendation pertained to consolidation of the FGRP’s thematic focus on development of methods, tools and strategies for conservation for impact from local to regional levels, combined with consolidation of geographical focus in a few tropical locations in Asia, Africa and Latin America to attain concrete results that can be applied elsewhere. Other recommendations pertained to partnership strengthening; development of national and regional plans; intensification of donor contacts; allocation of human resources in HQ and regional offices; publication in peer reviewed journals; communication of important results to international conservation agencies; use of internet technology and existent database in providing updated relevant information; keeping abreast of international political processes relating to FGR; and better coordination of efforts with CIFOR and ICRAF.
The Panel agrees with the CCER recommendations. The Panel also commends FGRP for its integrated analytical framework that accommodates complex interactions linking reproductive biology, conservation ecology, socio-economic, cultural and institutional analysis in testing options for forest genetic resource management and conservation. Apart from its conceptual sophistication, the framework offers important insights into different dimensions of scale, how they interact and their practical implications, for example, in determining the boundaries of analysis (from genes and species to ecosystems), in clarifying appropriate types of diversity for investigation (allelic, genetic, phylogenetic, etc) and in locating critical points for information flow and required levels of management intervention (local level, national, regional, etc). Such insights are important since the mismatch between the scale of the problem and the necessary institutional and decision making scale often render resource management and conservation efforts ineffective. While the scope of analysis has been considerably broadened, consistent and disciplined application of this framework should help IPGRI to prioritise based on its comparative advantage vis à vis other institutions and actors.
The Panel recognizes FGRP's considerable outputs and achievements during this evaluation period. FGRP has made major strides in refocusing efforts, in response to the CCER. FGRP has continued research on complementarities between in situ management and ex situ conservation methods and intensified studies on links between FGR and sustainable livelihoods of forest dependent communities.
IPGRI's collaboration since 1995 with the DFSC to study the physiology of tropical tree seeds and identify ways to prolong their life in storage is among FGRP's most successful projects. In addition to the successful screening of more than 50 important tropical tree species, the training of staff from 24 participating partner institutions on procedures and protocols developed by the project has enabled partners to carry on the work in their regions. Data and research results have been freely exchanged through a project newsletter received by over 500 partners and are accessible through DFSC's website with links to the IPGRI homepage.
FGRP also made major progress in establishing and strengthening regional forest genetic networks to stimulate FGR work in these regions. The programme is beginning to capitalise on the established European networks and capacity of EUFORGEN, particularly in contributing to the strengthening of SAFORGEN, a FGR network established in Sub-Saharan Africa in 1999. A similar network, APFORGEN, has been initiated in APO.
As the regional data systems are developed, there will be increasing opportunities for more creative meta-data analysis across regions. This could involve examination of larger scale patterns of gene flow, rates of erosion, etc. and how these translate into general hypotheses that could be tested in different regions. The Panel strongly suggests that the FGRP explore opportunities for optimising use of network databases through meta-analyses and other methods that would contribute to understanding of general FGR patterns and dynamics.
FGRP has been conducting research on criteria and indicators of genetic diversity. The Panel endorses the continuation of this work, but strongly suggests greater emphasis on developing simple tools, methods and indicators of genetic diversity that would be readily applicable in the field using minimal lab facilities.
Findings from FGRP's in situ research are generating important lessons with general application beyond the region of study and contributing to strengthening intra and inter-regional collaboration among partner institutions. Findings from studies on Araucaria araucana in Argentina provide insights on how genetic diversity is affected by climate changes, in particular by El Niño Southern Oscillations and the timing of seed collection by humans. In situ studies in Costa Rica suggest possibilities for restoring Swietenia macrophylla (mahogany) populations to their significant initial levels of genetic diversity despite high levels of disturbance. IPGRI is currently working with the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama and has made substantial progress in collection of DNA samples from widespread neotropical trees for sequencing and analyses of major phylogeographical patterns. In Malaysia, research initiated in 2001 with the Forest Research Institute Malaysia examines tree species (Shorea lumutensis) with narrow habitat specificity and limited seed dispersal, to determine, among others, the breeding unit area required for in situ conservation. These findings have considerable value and application in framing resource management policies and institutions at different scales.
The Panel commends FGRP for these notable contributions to IPGRI's overall goals and research agenda. Nevertheless, within IPGRI, FGRP has remained peripheral to the Institute's agricultural crop focus. As IPGRI moves to an agrobiodiversity framework as the umbrella concept for its programmes, it will be essential to clarify how FGR will fit. For practical purposes, it is important to define the conceptual and operational links between IPGRI's FGR and agrobiodiversity programmes. The exclusion of "forests" in the CBD definition of ‘agrobiodiversity’ should not be allowed to hinder communication.
During the evaluation period, FGRP produced a number of publications including journal articles, newsletters, guides, workshop proceedings, training manuals and technical protocols. In addition, FGRP conducted training workshops and conferences. Publicly accessible websites with links to the IPGRI homepage have also been developed to more widely communicate FGR information and research results. The Panel commends FGRP for this achievement and recognizes the relevance, usefulness, reach and overall high quality of these publications. However, the Panel also strongly encourages FGRP to further increase its efforts to publish with partners in peer reviewed journals to enhance its visibility and influence in the mainstream scientific community.
Within the CGIAR, IPGRI has continued to collaborate to varying degrees with ISNAR, ICRAF and CIFOR as well as with CATIE. However, the terms of IPGRI's collaboration and definition of roles, particularly in relation to CIFOR and ICRAF, should be reviewed in light of changes in programme structure and staff turnover in all three Centres since 1993. The Panel is of the opinion that IPGRI should 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.
IPGRI sees its role as primarily generating and providing information related to within species genetic diversity in forest ecosystems, which could be applied to agroforestry, forest ecosystem restoration and genetic conservation through in situ and ex situ approaches. This is a good starting point in discussions with CIFOR, ICRAF and other key institutional partners. By focusing on the link to genetic diversity IPGRI can more effectively build on and exploit its areas of comparative advantage.
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.
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.
The International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain (INIBAP) was created in 1985, to promote Musa breeding activities after a dramatic spread of black Sigatoka disease, particularly in Africa. The network approach was considered more suitable than a conventional research centre, given the fragmented nature of ongoing research, distinct regional differences and limited available resources. INIBAP’s headquarters were established in Montpellier, France. Later four regional offices were added. Two of these, Uganda and Cameroon, became operational in 1997. In 1991 INIBAP became a member of the CGIAR and in 1994 it became a programme within IPGRI. Today INIBAP is one of IPGRI’s three Programmes.
INIBAP’s mission is to increase the sustainable productivity of banana and plantain grown on smallholdings for domestic consumption and for local and export markets. Its specific objectives are: (a) to organize and coordinate a global research effort on banana and plantain, aimed at the development, evaluation and dissemination of improved cultivars and at the conservation and use of Musa diversity; (b) to promote and strengthen collaboration and partnerships in banana related research activities at the national, regional and global levels; (c) to strengthen the ability of NARS to conduct research and development activities on bananas and plantains; and (d) to coordinate, facilitate and support the production, collection and exchange of information and documentation related to banana and plantain.
The Programme is currently organized in four projects, i.e. Musa genetic resources management, genetic improvement of Musa, Musa information and communications and regional support to Musa research. The second and last projects are substantially larger than the other two. The CCER on the four Musa projects resulted in 19 recommendations. Most of these have been implemented.
Networking has remained a constant feature of the global Musa Programme. In 2001, the Global Musa Genomics Consortium (GMGC) was launched and added to the Programme. Otherwise, the Programme’s scope has altered little, although its budget has more than doubled from US$2.7 million in 1995 to US$6.2 million in 2002. Nearly 90% of the operational resources of the Programme in 2002 and 2003 came from restricted funds.
No single strategy document for the Musa work is available. However, the Global Programme for Musa Improvement PROMUSA has outlined a strategy and medium term plan. PROMUSA aims to involve all the major players in Musa improvement. It was developed as a means to link work for problems of export banana producers with those directed towards improving banana and plantain production at the subsistence and smallholder level. It focuses specifically on genetic improvement and supportive research and priority is given to research with a global or regional significance.
The GMGC has also outlined a strategy. The consortium aims to develop freely accessible resources for Musa genomics. Its efforts will focus on access and application of markers and genes in the short term. It will then build in genetic and physical maps, BAC and EST libraries, novel genetic transformation technology and haploid plants available for breeding. The long term deliverables include the ambitious goal of the complete sequence and identification of each gene of the Musa genome at a total cost of US$50 million. INIBAP provides the secretariat to the Consortium.
2.4.4.1 Ex situ conservation
The ITC unit at KUL continues the rejuvenation process of its Musa collection (the world’s largest with over 1,100 accessions); 68 accessions were placed in cryopreservation; 97% of the collection has completed virus indexing, with 64% in the Health Status Category 1, i.e. no virus particle found. Achievements include: a number of techniques developed to clean virus contaminated stocks; a protocol developed for freeze-drying leaf samples for long term storage; work continued on the characterization of Musa balbisiana; and the ploidy analysis of the ITC collection. MGIS contains passport data for over 4,000 accessions from 15 collections; training on this technology has been offered.
In 2002 a Musa diversity survey was carried out in Egypt, Oman and Jordan. During the period under review germplasm, some of which may be unique, has been collected and is being characterised in Indonesia, Vietnam, India, China and Tanzania. Security considerations have restricted further collecting missions in Indonesia and northern India.
2.4.4.2 In situ conservation and development
There has been considerable activity in the in situ area: (1) An IDRC funded project was conducted on conservation through use of bananas and plantains in the Great Lakes region of East Africa. One site includes 180 households and "scaling up" is being attempted through exchanges with a similar site in Tanzania. A second phase has been requested by the farmer conservation associations. A farmer participatory IPM project will be continued in East and Southern Africa. (2) The third phase of the IMTP has started with the participation of 35 countries in Latin America, Africa and Asia. Funds were obtained from CFC to finance a ‘Farmer participatory evaluation and dissemination of improved Musa germplasm’ project that is conducted by local institutions of seven countries with INIBAP coordination. (3) A new project was approved by USAID, to conduct germplasm evaluation in four African countries, in the framework of the TARGET/Future Harvest programme, as a joint initiative with IITA which would complement a similar project funded by CFC. A VVOB associate researcher is carrying out work on nematode control at CARBAP in collaboration with IITA.
2.4.4.3 Biotechnological tools and applications
Banana qualifies as a priority crop for the use of some molecular breeding technologies. Genetic modification can overcome many of the difficulties of breeding a sterile, clonally propagated crop. Furthermore, since banana varieties do not generally produce seeds or fertile pollen, gene flow to other varieties and species is a remote probability. Improved resistance against major pests and diseases is a priority in some developed countries. IPGRI support should go beyond biotechnology and also involve legal and policy expertise. This will also constitute an opportunity for IPGRI’s experts to obtain hands-on experience in the implementation of agreed policy and legal principles at the national level. A similar collaborative advantage stems from legal and policy inputs in the programme’s approaches to deal with IPR through the introduction of germplasm acquisition agreements and material transfer agreements. As elaborated elsewhere, this may root IPGRI’s policy and legal activities and expertise development firmly in hands-on experience and in the technical expertise acquired in IPGRI’s commodity chain crops.
The biotechnology tools being developed in the Musa Programme are many. They include all the GMGC products and: in vitro culture developed at KUL and the ITC to serve medium term, slow growth storage; cryopreservation of a considerable number of accessions; development of virus diagnostics at CIRAD and virus therapy at Gembloux; cell culture technologies for genetic transformation using either biolistics or Agrobacterium tumefaciens at KUL; the development of native banana promoters and candidate genes to protect against black Sigatoka. Transformants have been produced and await field testing. Work on banana weevil resistance has also been started in Africa.
Two segregating populations provided by CIRAD-FLHOR have been planted at CORBANA in Costa Rica, to facilitate the identification of genes of interest; another three are being developed by CIRAD. New tools from molecular biology are shared with FHIA, which has produced some hybrids with wide acceptance using conventional breeding methods.
This is an exciting area that is benefiting remarkably from the INIBAP approach, which is leveraging major inputs from researchers in ARI’s across the world.
2.4.4.4 Institutions and capacity building
PROMUSA aims to develop knowledge and tools for improved conventional and molecular banana breeding. The GMGC brings together 27 publicly funded institutions from 13 countries, which have agreed to share materials and resources, including sequence data and enabling technologies. Any new varieties will be freely available to small farmers.
The Musa Programme also invested in the building of a literature database. There are 7,000 bibliographic abstracts in three languages under MUSALIT; and the aim is to add 600 new records each year. MUSALIT was provided to the Agri2000 web site of the CATIE library in Costa Rica and it was included in the MUSADOC 2002 CD-ROM together with the updated BRIS data. The database will be expanded in the future, including organic production.
The INIBAP web site has been redesigned; its promotion has been broadened through the dissemination of bookmarks elaborated at IPGRI Headquarters and the creation of cross linkages with main partners; it has been visited over 250,000 times since it was created in April 2000. Two trilingual issues of INFOMUSA are published together with two issues of the PROMUSA section, each year.
The networks (MUSALAC in Latin America and the Caribbean, BAPNET in Asia and the Pacific, BARNESA in East and Southern Africa and MUSACO in West and Central Africa) have been strengthened or relaunched. These revitalised networks now have broad representation of key stakeholders in research and development, share information on germplasm evaluation, black Sigatoka control, biotechnology and other projects and participate in training events sponsored by the programme. The networks have their own steering committees with a clear sense of ownership of network activities. MUSALAC is building its modest "seed money" to become self sufficient; it is publishing a series on technological offer in the region. Due to language barriers, English speaking countries are not well served in this network.
These are all successful developments appropriate to IPGRI’s mission.
There were a total of 125 LoAs signed by INIBAP, for a total of US$2.2 million, during the period 1997 - 2001. INIBAP´s support to research programmes in partner institutions have been crucial to obtain funding from international donors.
In a case study on the IMTP, conducted by IPGRI during 1997-98 as part of its agenda on impact assessment, 72% of the respondents of a survey considered their acquisition of improved germplasm and so as to be able to respond to farmers’ needs for varieties with improved performance to be very important. In 41% of the trial sites, the IMTP was the sole mechanism in the country for evaluating improved varieties. The programme’s main role was to provide information on improved varieties and virus indexed planting materials to national programmes together with training and information on evaluation techniques.
KUL has played a very important role as a strategic research partner for the Musa Programme in several subjects, including management of the Musa ITC collection, development of technologies for conservation and safe movement of germplasm and genetic modification to control black Sigatoka and nematodes. Another important strategic partner has been CIRAD, with a history in banana research that goes back to 1949 in Ecuador. It has its own breeding programmes in Guadeloupe for bananas and in Cameroon for plantain and cooking bananas. It has a strong interest also in IPM, environmental impact and technology delivery. CIRAD has been instrumental for obtaining grants from the Government of France, including one for the Montpellier office. More partners like CIRAD and KUL are desirable.
The impact of INIBAP supported activities, at the household level, is currently being technically assessed in Africa with IFPRI assistance, as a leading pilot project in the CGIAR. In other parts of the world, there has been wide adoption of improved varieties tested in Musa networks. For instance, in Cuba there are more than 11,000 ha planted to FHIA hybrids and these would still be in place if there had been no recent hurricanes.
The preparation and distribution of a substantial amount of high quality technical publications has been much appreciated. However, peer reviewed publications are still few. From 1996 through 2002, over 50 articles by programme staff have been published in peer reviewed journals, most of them co-authored by an Honorary Research Fellow from KUL. Additionally a number of other publications have been offered, both in printed and electronic versions.
2.4.6.1 INIBAP in IPGRI
Undoubtedly INIBAP has contributed greatly to IPGRI over the nine years of merger. Considerable integration has been achieved. However, the Panel believes that there is room for significant further integration that will result in more strategic use of IPGRI’s regional offices and more effective use of the Montpellier facility. Rationalization within Regions will provide increased regional coordination and opportunities for more scientific synergies by not restricting Musa and other researchers to INIBAP and IPGRI offices respectively. New consistent, single reporting lines from the Regions to HQ will improve communication between Musa activities and other IPGRI activities. Similarly new scientific opportunities will be possible by further opening up the Montpellier site to IPGRI staff other than from the Musa Programme. For example some other commodity work, in addition to the cocoa work already there, might benefit from closer proximity with Musa scientists and the organization could benefit from exposing INIBAP’s present main collaborators in CIRAD and KUL to more of IPGRI’s science.
The Panel is impressed with INIBAP’s contribution to IPGRI and it firmly believes that the time is overdue when its science programme, regional networks and offices overseas and in Europe should be an integral part of a single seamless institute. (See Recommendation 4)
2.4.6.2 IPGRI and IITA
The 4th EPMR commented on the unsatisfactory nature of the relationship between IITA and INIBAP. The Centre responded appropriately by completing an IPGRI-IITA MoU in 1998. The MoU clearly defines the responsibilities of the two Centres in SSA, with IPGRI focusing on genetic resources and IITA on breeding. A key component is an annual joint planning meeting.
Great strides have been made with a newly created ‘Future Harvest Musa Programme for Africa’, in addition to which two other projects are being jointly implemented, involving a joint IITA-INIBAP staff position established at the Cameroon office in 2002. A recent co-authored journal article[4] describes the division of labour between INIBAP and IITA in relation to banana and plantain research.
However, the reality of collaboration is still sub-optimal. Communication between the two organizations tends to be factual and post hoc in nature. The instigation of the new IPGRI transgenic breeding programme in Uganda also did not help matters because IITA itself has an alliance for transgenic breeding which competes with the INIBAP-KUL link. The time must be right for both parties to adhere more strongly to the spirit of the MoU rather than just the word. The Panel strongly suggests that the two institutes collaborating in their activities concerning banana in SSA describe an optimal sharing of tasks in line with the MoU and it hopes that the new Head of IPGRI’s Musa Programme will continue to make harmonization with IITA a priority.
2.4.6.3 Other strategic issues
Genetic modification - The Review document prepared by INIBAP for the 2000 INIBAP CCER highlights a number of strategic issues. Development and testing of genetically modified bananas as well as access conditions for banana breeding materials contain major policy issues (biosafety and IPR). IPGRI has arranged for collaboration between the Musa Programme and the IPGRI policy group. IPGRI’s policy work in general will obviously benefit if it can be rooted in practical decision making in the framework of IPGRI’s own commodity work. The IPGRI Musa Programme should be an international leader in the testing of genetically modified bananas in the field. (See Recommendation 5)
Development assistance - IPGRI’s largest grant, quoted more than once in this review is the US$1.8 million, ‘Rehabilitation and modernization of Alto Beni organic banana production for export market’, funded by OAS, which was initiated in Bolivia to support organic banana production for export markets. The Panel is concerned that this project, essentially a development project, is overly distracting the Regional Office in Costa Rica from its other activities, particularly its network activities and focus on research and breeding in the Region. A further complication is that objectives of this project have to be reached within two years, starting from scratch. It is clear to the Panel that IPGRI’s role in such projects should be to underpin PGR activities, while working with one or more strategic partners, with more appropriate experience and expertise for the developmental aspects.
Scope of the Musa Programme - There are also suggestions that the Musa Programme’s future agenda could be broadened further, e.g. to include post harvest and processing technologies, marketing, socio-economic studies, consideration of banana based production systems and nutrition, all of which could improve the impact. The present budget is such that any major additions to the Programme will involve sacrificing existing activities. However it should be possible to explore how to incorporate these aspects within the current agenda, possibly by identifying new strategic partnerships and new donors.
Impact studies - There is concern in the Musa Programme that, in some instances, lack of yield advance in farmers’ fields may reflect poor local and national distribution processes rather than a lack of access to improved germplasm by NARS. The Panel therefore commends the priority given to impact studies in this area. The results will provide guidance as to whether IPGRI should actively broaden its range of partners to include NGOs and CBOs which have more direct linkages with the end-users thereby enhancing impact. This would be in line with current thinking to increasingly work on-farm and use participatory approaches. The establishment of regional multiplication centres, already part of some Musa activities, fits with this approach and is commended.
Collecting activities - The narrow genetic base of Musa is a well identified constraint that curtails the available options of sources of resistance against major pests and diseases of the crop. A concern was articulated in the CCER that major gaps in ex situ collections exist and that additional collecting missions are needed, particularly to increase coverage of wild relatives in the collections. The Musa Programme was encouraged to play a key role in coordinating efforts to collect, characterise and distribute additional materials from the wild. The Panel reiterates this encouragement.
The Panel notes that IPGRI’s Board and staff accepted the CCER recommendations to investigate the issue of somaclonal variation, the occurrence of miss-identification and the intricacies of rejuvenation and encourages implementation of these recommendations. The Panel also reiterates the recommendation for the establishment of a duplicate field collection of the ITC in vitro collection.
DNA collections - The Panel concurs with the CCER’s suggestion to build up DNA collections. However it also notes that genomic DNA has utility for analysis and gene discovery, thus it should be regarded as a secondary, but complementary, conservation activity.
International standards - As IPGRI’s Musa Programme becomes increasingly central in the delivery of goods and services, it may be convenient for the organization to obtain a certificate of quality, such as ISO 9001, to keep and improve its credibility in the business world.
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.
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.
|
[3] e.g. Draft guidelines: The
handling of germplasm and associated data collected with the Institute’s
support. [4] Ortiz R., E. Frison and S. Sharrock 2002, CGIAR - Future Harvest Programme for Musa in Africa. Chronica Horticulturae 42:18-24. |
