IPGRI maintains five Regional offices and a number of strategically located sub-offices. Three of the Regions also have INIBAP offices dedicated to Musa work. The Regions are: the Americas with the IPGRI-AMS office at CIAT in Columbia and the INIBAP-LAC office at CATIE in Costa Rica; Asia, Pacific & Oceania with the IPGRI-APO office in Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia and the INIBAP-AP office at IRRI in the Philippines; Sub-Saharan Africa with the IPGRI office at ICRAF in Kenya and INIBAP-ESA and WCA offices in Uganda and Cameroon respectively; Europe with the IPGRI-EUR office at HQ in Rome; and Central Asia and North Africa with the IPGRI-CWANA office at ICARDA in Syria.
The Regional groups are the main institutional links between national programmes and IPGRI. The Regional groups derive their strategic foci from local needs, priorities and modes of operation as they map onto the Institute’s overall strategy. They also provide a route whereby generic PGR research and development activities may be linked to IPGRI HQ-based thematic groups.
The Panel was aided by CCERs for each of the Regions and for INIBAP.
The Americas Region comprises 36 independent countries and territories but IPGRI’s primary focus is on Latin America and the Caribbean. The Region contains two centres of ancient civilizations and agricultural systems in the Mesoamerica and Andean regions. In addition the Americas have a tremendous variety of climates and topographies. The result is a rich storehouse of agrobiodiversity.
The thrusts of IPGRI’s work in the Americas are the establishment and support of sub-regional PGR networks and, to a lesser extent, work on selected crops, such as the tropical American fruits. Networks operate independently but have been established in collaboration with IICA which has its headquarters in Costa Rica and which is the agricultural cooperation arm of OAS. IPGRI’s main function in the networks is to support research, documentation and training. IPGRI identifies sources of funding for the networks, interacts with donors and retains a part of the overheads. IPGRI also provides technical support to projects developed within the networks, manages project funds and prepares reports to donors.
Because IPGRI has no legal status in Colombia the IPGRI-AMS office operates under the CIAT umbrella. In Costa Rica, pending final ratification of an agreement between IPGRI and the government, the INIBAP office operates under the IICA/CATIE umbrella. Professional staff numbers at IPGRI-AMS have remained constant at ten which includes IPGRI’s molecular genetics expert. Two professional INIBAP staff are located at CATIE. A CCER of the Americas programme was carried out in 1999.
AMS have not yet completed a formal separate strategy document, although elements of the strategy were prepared for the CCER in 1999. An annually updated Regional logframe is the main strategic document. The key strategy of the Americas project is to work with and through the six well established sub-regional networks in collaboration with IICA: REMERFI in Central America, REDARFIT in the Andean region, TROPIGEN in the north east of South America, RESURGEN in the Southern Cone of South America, CAPGERNET in the Caribbean and NORGEN in the north and including Mexico. In principle each network has an annual meeting where priority setting is done and joint activities are planned. Projects are selected by consensus of the members and submitted to donors for external funding. Many are funded through the AMS office.
The INIBAP-LAC office has strengthened its MUSALAC network. Some strategic activities are supported by INIBAP, e.g. work at CATIE to investigate natural fungicides and the placement of an internship student at CORBANA. INIBAP-LAC is very active in generating and servicing other external grants. An example is the FONTAGRO project on training and technology transfer for black Sigatoka management. In other cases funding is raised by INIBAP but administered elsewhere, as with the USAID grant supporting banana breeding at FHIA in Honduras. These approaches to support PGR are consistent with the CGIAR regional strategy. It is necessary to recognize, however, that national capacity to undertake research varies enormously within this Region, which includes both developed and developing countries. Also there are major differences in the available PGR facilities and capacity among the different developing countries. The networking and linkage approach works better in those countries that already have reasonable research capacity.
In addition to servicing the networks, AMS coordinates other activities: a biotechnology project focussing on molecular marker characterization of Capsicum in several countries, with input from the IPGRI molecular geneticist; a project on the conservation and use of tropical fruits, of which a remarkable 1100 species have been listed so far; and documentation, information dissemination and public awareness in the Region. Finally, as part of the Global in situ project, AMS hosts a project to study and strengthen seed supply systems at sites in two countries.
The in situ studies in Mexico are coordinated by CINVESTAV and involve five other organizations in their study of five crop species throughout the Yucatan and in particular on a Mayan ‘slash and burn’ farming site. A major output, in addition to publications arising from collaborator meetings, has been the successful bringing together, apparently sustainably, of neighbouring institutes that have not collaborated before. The inability of the Mexican collaborators to find secure seed storage for their valuable, already two year old collections of maize, beans, squash and chilli is, however, disappointing.
In addition to the Americas Regional newsletter, published in English and Spanish, AMS provides a range of information on tropical American fruits. GIS information and models have been developed in collaboration with CIAT and CIP. Genebank documentation software has been developed with USDA and technical support and training in its use has been provided. AMS has a remarkable record in training, with 53 short courses organized and 1733 NARS staff trained.
One of INIBAP’s activities is to organize MUSALAC steering committee meetings. CORBANA has established a site for segregating banana populations for molecular mapping and future QTL studies. FONTAGRO sponsored workshops were among various INIBAP supported courses that catered to over 500 participants in 2001. Successes arising from the FHIA programme include large fungicide free acreages of FHIA’s Musa hybrids growing in Cuba. The FHIA breeding programme was very active up to 2001 and INIBAP is now assisting the restarting of the programme with a new breeder.
The financial health of the sub-regional networks varies tremendously. RESURGEN has Brazil as a member and was well funded for a number of years, but has recently lost the support from PROCISUR. REMERFI has no funds but its annual meeting last year was supported by IPGRI. Weak groupings like the Caribbean CAPGERNET appear not to have enough activities to sustain the network. Some of these problems may reflect donors’ current focus on Africa rather than Latin America. The AMS office nevertheless disbursed over US$3 million for LoAs over the period.
The Region appears also to be characterised by NARS that need policy advice. The responses to the EPMR’s questionnaire revealed mixed perceptions with regard to satisfaction with support for policy formulation. The Panel hopes that the recommendation concerning the balance between project work and technical assistance is especially noted in the Americas (see Recommendation 9). The Panel also notes the high expectations for GRPI in the Region. The questionnaire revealed good NARS perceptions for training, dissemination of information and networking.
Staff publications, both for AMS and LAC staff, have focussed particularly on tropical fruits. Papers on other topics, co-authored with NARS partners, are few.
The IPGRI-APO Region consists of 45 countries and is home to about half of the world’s population. The Region has the world’s highest concentration of poverty and malnutrition. Its varied agroecological conditions, diverse cultures and long history of intensive agriculture are reflected in a high genetic diversity in crops, forest species and their wild crop relatives. IPGRI started working in the APO Region in 1974. IPGRI-APO currently operates through its regional office in Malaysia and its sub-offices in Beijing and New Delhi and has an out-posted staff member in Nepal. Honorary Fellows and Associate Experts, especially in social science disciplines, coming from collaborating universities in the Region have significantly added to APO’s capacity. The INIBAP-AP office hosted by IRRI in the Philippines has been operational since 1991 and today has two staff members.
IPGRI-APO continues to work with national systems and regional networks towards: (1) strengthening national capacities, particularly in developing countries, to conserve, access and use genetic resources; (2) international collaboration in the conservation and use of PGR; and (3) generation and use of knowledge and technologies relevant to improved conservation and use of PGR. INIBAP-AP similarly has objectives to: (1) develop a regional Musa strategy, (2) promote partnerships at regional and national levels, (3) strengthen the capacity of BAPNET (the successor to ASPNET), (4) provide up-to-date information and support training and (5) coordinate all Musa activities in the Region.
Under the Regional PGR project IPGRI-APO has five major activities: supporting national PGR activities; regional collaboration and human resources development; work on underutilised crops; work on tropical fruit trees; and documentation, information management and public awareness. In addition, activities as part of other IPGRI thematic and commodity programmes are carried out. The most prominent of these commodity programmes are on coconut, coordinated through COGENT and on banana and plantain, which is coordinated through BAPNET at the INIBAP office.
Since the last EPMR, the APO Project has remained largely unchanged, although some new components have been added, including national information support, work on medicinal plants, policy and the expansion of work on tropical fruits. Work on bamboo and rattan has been ongoing but focus on forest trees started relatively recently when IPGRI became a collaborator in the APAFRI network in 2000. This collaboration continues with the initiation of the APFORGEN network that is currently is in its early stages of establishment.
The Panel was aided by two CCERs on the APO Regional programme, one from 1997 and a second one completed in September 2002.
In 2000, IPGRI-APO developed a Region specific Strategic Plan (2002-2007) articulating its vision, goals and operational strategies as well as planned outputs, impact assessment criteria and resource requirements. Its vision for the Region is that, through the collective action of all stakeholders, plant genetic diversity will be harnessed to enhance food and nutritional security, reduce poverty and protect and improve the environment. The Plan document was developed through a two-year consultative process involving regional partners. IPGRI-APO and partners have been using the document as a tool for monitoring, activity tracking and priority setting. Annual mid-year "course correction" discussions are scheduled to determine progress and changes needed to jointly planned activities. Based on Plan priorities, IPGRI-APO staff has started to plan collaborative activities with colleagues in the CWANA Region on areas of common interest.
In response to the 1997 CCER recommendations, IPGRI-APO has developed indicators and put in place mechanisms and processes for information collection to facilitate measurement and assessment of project impacts. APO staff is in discussion with HQ regarding general, institution-wide indicators under which their local and regional indicators could fit. The Panel concurs with the recent CCER and encourages IPGRI-APO to proceed with full implementation of the Strategic Plan, monitoring and evaluation with partners and overall impact assessment at the end of the Plan period.
The Panel also urges IPGRI-APO to explore further avenues for stakeholders' input into agenda setting for research, training and outreach. Despite the overwhelmingly positive assessment of IPGRI's contributions to the region, more than half of those who responded to an EPMR survey of stakeholders indicated that there were less than adequate opportunities to participate in IPGRI's agenda setting.
The national programmes in the Region, which are IPGRI's primary partners, vary greatly in strength, capability and needs. Hence, IPGRI's role has varied from country to country and from project to project. IPGRI-APO currently concentrates its efforts on the least developed national programmes, particularly in the Pacific area, to develop essential skills and to build self-reliance through staff training, technical assistance and direct funding. About 90% of funding for IPGRI-APO activities have been mobilised from the Region. The Panel strongly supports this strategy for capacity building and regional resource mobilization.
IPGRI has been working closely with APAARI, a network consisting of NARS, CGIAR Centres, ARIs and other networks operating in the APO Region. There are four sub-regional networks under the APAARI umbrella (East Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia and the Pacific). IPGRI's collaboration with APAARI, which also includes INIBAP, was formalised through a MoU signed in 1999. Joint activities have included research, training and exchange of information and expertise. Currently, only 17 NARS are members of APAARI. This low membership constrains the network's reach and scope for impact.
During the period under review, IPGRI-APO increased its engagement with NGOs (e.g. LIBIRD, ATREE, MS Swaminathan Research Foundation in South Asia) especially in its projects with pronounced livelihood development components, such as the "In situ conservation and development". Overall, however, collaboration with NGOs remains patchy and could be expanded. Acceptability and credibility of NGO partners with NARS institutions and limited NGO technical capacity have been major impediments to collaboration.
As part of the FGRP, IPGRI-APO is facilitating the establishment of a forestry network, APFORGEN, for 13 countries in the Asia Pacific Region. IPGRI-APO collaborates with INBAR on genetic diversity research on bamboo and rattan, two of the Region's most important non-timber forest resources. IPGRI's ex situ activities have focused on developing in vitro collecting techniques for Dipterocarps, slow growth techniques for citrus and sweet potato and cryopreservation techniques for selected fruit trees and vegetatively propagated crops. The Panel strongly endorses the CCER recommendation to incorporate an ecosystem approach to IPGRI-APO's work on sustainable management and use forest genetic diversity in natural and agroforests.
The INIBAP-AP office has two projects ongoing in the Philippines and undertakes virus indexing work in Taiwan. Activities include collections in north-eastern India and establishment of a national genebank. Scholarships have been obtained for Vietnamese researchers, including one in KUL on nematology. INIBAP also links with COGENT on coconut-banana intercropping systems.
Stakeholders gave an overwhelmingly positive assessment of IPGRI's contribution and credibility in research, technical assistance, information provision, training, networking and in virtually every aspect of its work. This is an indicator to IPGRI's achievements and performance in the Region. Outputs have included a number of publications, including peer reviewed articles, technical reports, workshop proceedings, manuals and newsletters. IPGRI-APO also conducted a number of short courses and individual training sessions (see Section 6.1.4) and has had significant continuing focus on capacity building in the Region through the MSc courses and curricula on PGR developed with UPLB (Philippines), UKM (Malaysia) and IARI (India).
INIBAP training on banana virus management strategies, using expertise from Taiwan, has benefited more than 100 scientists in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Philippines and facilitated transfer of antibodies for virus indexing from Taiwan to these countries. Coconut embryo culture protocols developed through COGENT have raised efficiency of seedling establishment.
Work on agrobiodiversity conservation since 1997 in Nepal and Vietnam, primarily through NARS and agricultural universities, generated and refined the application of innovative participatory research tools, e.g. community biodiversity registers and approaches, e.g. biodiversity fairs and farmers’ awards. Output indicators include increased public awareness on agrobiodiversity, greater appreciation of the role and contribution of farmers to genetic conservation, capacity building for NARS and farmers and enhanced livelihood opportunities. The incorporation of banana, coconut, forest species and other crops into the home garden system is creating space for mutual learning across IPGRI's programmes and partners.
Collaboration with the CAAS has resulted in techniques for establishing core collections of germplasm, e.g. of sesame, which are now being extended to other countries in the APO Region. Findings from studies on optimal seed water content to improve longevity in ex situ gene banks with ICRISAT, NSSL (USA) and ICGR (China) have yielded considerable potential for the use of ultra-dry methods for long term storage of various species.
The Panel commends IPGRI for its record of performance in the Region and notes the important role played by IPGRI staff in the Region as facilitators, technical advisers and active partners to achieve these outputs.
IPGRI’s activities in Europe date back to 1974 when IBPGR identified the Mediterranean as a priority area for addressing problems of PGR loss due to the almost total replacement of many traditional crops by newer, high-yielding commercial varieties. Over the years, IPGRI-EUR’s activities have expanded and now cover 54 countries, including Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. IPGRI-EUR activities are conducted in close collaboration with two inter-regional PGR programmes, ECP/GR and EUFORGEN, as well as with national programmes, particularly in Eastern Europe. ECP/GR has established thematic groups for inter-regional collaboration and for in situ/on-farm management of PGR. It has also considerably expanded its number of working groups for specific crops. ECP/GR’s and EUFORGEN’s membership has expanded to 35 and 31 member countries respectively. The networks are constituted through country membership and member countries fund their activities.
A CCER was conducted in September 1998. It made 15 recommendations most of them focusing on measures to strengthen cooperation between Europe and other Regions (particularly CWANA) and increasing resources and activities in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. The recommendations have largely been implemented.
Both regional networks undertake priority setting, with the regional staff participating in this process. However the Europe Group has developed its own national support priorities by focusing on the Caucasus and the Balkan areas, as well as Russia. The justification is that these countries are most in need of support in establishing their own national programmes and - in the case of Russia - the global importance of the collections of the Vavilov Institute.
Currently, ECP/GR is going through a new round of priority setting in preparation for its VIIth phase. EUFORGEN is in its second five year phase (2000 - 2004).
IPGRI-EUR provides the international coordinating secretariat for ECP/GR and EUFORGEN and many of their activities. The networks focus on developing inventories, descriptor lists, shared databases, joint characterization of collections and technical guidelines, amongst other activities. ECP/GR operates through 10 networks, of which seven are crop specific and three have a thematic focus. Major outputs of the networks include the European Central Crop Databases (currently 34) and the core collections developed on the basis of these databases. EUFORGEN is coordinated by IPGRI in collaboration with FAO. The network operates through five sub-networks. Inter-regional collaboration is taking place with North African countries on Quercus suber (cork oak).
The Europe Group also continues to provide direct support to national systems through promoting and participating in national workshops. The Group helped prepare project proposals with partners in the countries of the Caucasus, reflecting the Group’s priority for Eastern Europe and the independent states of the former Soviet Union.
The Group has also promoted alliances among countries. From 1998 to 2000, six ECP/GR initiated projects worth €1.5 million were funded by the EU. In particular, the project for a European PGR Information Infrastructure, which is now resulting in the launch of the pan-European database, EURISCO, was developed within ECP/GR with support from the IPGRI-EUR and other IPGRI staff. Likewise, EUFORGEN has been able to secure EU funding for the evaluation of cork oak GR. A Pan-European strategy has been developed on elms and was EU funded.
IPGRI has provided major assistance to the Vavilov Institute in St. Petersburg that houses one of the world’s most important ex situ collections and has been suffering from the political and economic changes in Russia. IPGRI also provided emergency assistance to the Romanian National Genebank where storage facilities appeared no longer adequate.
In the area of forest genetic resources, national programmes in Romania, Bulgaria and Moldova were supported in the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources of broad-leaved forest trees, which are of major economic importance to those countries.
IPGRI-EUR has produced more than 40 publications to disseminate the results of ECP/GR. The Programme has led to a high degree of harmonization of characterization activities over different crops, facilitating the preparation of international descriptor lists.
The Panel recognizes that the two major European genetic resources networks have acquired a large degree of autonomy, thereby reducing IPGRI’s own role in contributing to regional priority setting. However, IPGRI-EUR’s role remains extremely relevant for the continued commendable support for the Balkan and Caucasus countries and of Russia. The Vavilov Institute, in particular, requires continued support.
A substantial number of European countries have not developed national PGR programmes. This situation may have a negative impact on institutional mandates, in-country and international collaboration, policy development and sustainability of funding of national activities, in particular of ex situ genebanks. The Panel can only reiterate the recommendation of the CCER that IPGRI-EUR continue to support the building of strong national programmes.
A clear trend is the increasing demand from ECP/GR members for IPGRI-EUR to play a facilitating role in obtaining additional funding from the EU and a variety of other sources, for inter-regional collaboration in particular. IPGRI-EUR is encouraged to increase its efforts in this area, even though other network activities may receive less attention as a result.
With the advanced level of European agriculture, very little traditional genetic diversity remains in farmers’ fields. However, hobby gardeners and NGOs may conserve and maintain old landraces and farmers’ varieties on a small scale and there is a clear need to develop strategies and methodologies to manage such diversity. Such a need may also have surfaced in other Regions, where home gardens are receiving increasing attention.
The Panel commends IPGRI-EUR for providing support for and establishing collaboration between the European and other regional networks. Continued collaboration between the European networks and IPGRI’s activities in the CWANA Region is encouraged, given the many crop interests in common. IPGRI is also encouraged to re-evaluate IPGRI-EUR’s potential as a partner for other Regional groups. In addition, the experiences of EUFORGEN in the establishment of inventories and conservation strategies, as well as experience of analysing and understanding the collected genetic data may form a foundation for the development of forest genetic resources networks in other Regions. SAFORGEN and APFORGEN are the first of such Regional networks and IPGRI is invited to consider the needs and options for other such initiatives. In this respect, due attention should be given to potential benefits stemming from a closer collaboration between the IPGRI-EUR and GRST in the area of forest genetic resources.
IPGRI’s activities in Sub-Saharan Africa cover a diverse region comprising 48 sovereign states in Eastern, Western, Central and Southern Africa. This Region is endowed with a rich base of PGR and its national economies are heavily dependent on the use of PGR in agriculture, industry and other sectors. However SSA is also experiencing increasing loss of genetic resources, caused by interrelated factors including rapid growth of human population, policies that lead to deforestation following agriculture extensification and neglect of traditional PGR. The situation is exacerbated by the declining financial and administrative capacities of governments to manage ex situ PGR collections.
IPGRI’s work in the Region is dedicated to help stem the loss of PGR and improve the capacity of countries to sustainably use PGR. With the main regional office in Kenya (established in 1982) and a sub-regional office in Benin (established in 1996), the Institute works mainly through networks at national and sub-regional levels. Since the last EPMR, IPGRI’s activities in the Region have evolved from a focus on supporting PGR collection and the establishment of national ex situ conservation programmes to a range of in situ conservation, socio-economic and policy work.
The last CCER of IPGRI-SSA activities was carried in September 2001. It concluded that the "SSA group is one of IPGRI’s largest Regional groups and is involved in an enormous range of activities", but raised the concern that IPGRI-SSA was spreading itself too thinly. It recommended that additional financial resources be sought for the work in the Region and if it is not possible to secure such resources, IPGRI should focus on priority activities. However, the CCER also recommends that IPGRI-SSA activities should be expanded, specifically to: (a) support the establishment of a sub-regional genebank for Western Africa, (b) enhance links to Southern Africa programmes by posting staff to the sub-region, (c) strengthen the capacity of African policy makers to address PGR policy issues and (d) increase support to post graduate training in PGR science and assist African universities to develop courses on PGR.
INIBAP’s presence and activities in the Region have grown over the past five years. There are two staff members in Cameroon (INIBAP-WCA established 1997) and seven in Uganda (INIBAP-ESA established 1997), including the INIBAP’s Regional coordinator who is also the coordinator of BARNESA. Likewise, the regional coordinator for West and Central Africa is the coordinator of MUSACO.
Work in the Region is largely guided by the overall IPGRI strategy. A 2001 workshop resulted in an IPGRI-SSA strategic plan, with the following components: (a) promoting the institutionalization of PGR as a key component of national efforts for food security and environmental management and supporting national PGR programmes to build effective strategies, (b) supporting and building the capacity of regional PGR networks, (c) developing strategies, approaches and methodologies for the conservation and use of PGR, (d) raising awareness and building the capacity of stakeholders in policy analysis, especially in relation to proprietary rights related to PGR, (e) strengthening capacities of universities and other educational institutions to develop and offer courses on PGR and (f) supporting the development of computer based germplasm documentation and management systems as well as facilitating the flow of information to improve decision making.
During the period under review, IPGRI-SSA has been engaged in the implementation of a wide range of activities within the framework of the Project on ‘Support to national plant genetic resources programmes in Sub-Saharan Africa’. Most of these activities were reviewed by the CCER. This EPMR concurs with the findings and recommendations of the CCER. As noted above, the activities of IPGRI-SSA have expanded and overall the Institute has made considerable impact on national PGR conservation and sustainable use efforts.
IPGRI-SSA has provided financial and technical assistance to national programmes to organize workshops. It provided documentation on various aspects of PGR conservation and sustainable use and information on the GPA and ITPGRFA. These workshops, which were organized in 15 of the 48 countries, were well attended. For example, 47 participants drawn from NGOs, farmers’ groups, government departments and academic institutions attended the national workshop held in Gambia in 1999, which led to the creation of a high level committee to oversee the establishment of a national PGR centre.
IPGRI-SSA also assisted national programmes to improve conservation facilities. It provided deep freezers, seed containers and scales to programmes in Benin, Cameroon, Congo, Ghana, Guinea, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal and Togo. The Institute has also worked with local communities to assist them in restoring agricultural systems in Somalia and in the documentation of on-farm conservation practices for leafy vegetables in Botswana, Cameroon, Kenya, Senegal and Zimbabwe.
IPGRI-SSA works mainly through ASARECA, CORAF/WECARD and SACCAR. IPGRI’s role is to provide advice on PGR issues to these networks. In collaboration with FAO, IITA, WARDA, ICRISAT and CORAF, IPGRI provided administrative and technical support to establish GRENEWECA in 1998 and worked well with ASARECA to establish EAPGREN in 2001 with funding from SIDA. IPGRI-SSA also played a leading role in the creation of a regional forest genetic resources network, SAFORGEN.
IPGRI has worked with a number of universities and networks to develop and provide training courses on PGR conservation. With GRENEWECA, it developed and provided training on in vitro conservation at the University of Ghana. IPGRI has also awarded MSc scholarships to national scientists.
IPGRI has been instrumental in assisting countries to collect, document and conserve neglected crops. For example, between 1998-99, technical support was provided to collect germplasm of Eguis (Cucumeropsis spp, Lagernaria siceraria, Citrullus spp and Telfairia occidentalis).
In addition to provision of equipment, IPGRI-SSA has worked with a number of national programmes to develop and improve conservation technologies. Since 1998 IPGRI-SSA scientists have been working with the National Genebank of Kenya to investigate the effects of sun and shade drying on the quality of maize, finger millet and groundnut. Similar research is being conducted with the Agricultural Research Corporation of Sudan on sorghum.
In the policy and law area IPGRI has organized a number of workshops. In 1999 it organized a regional workshop on PGR policy and law in Eastern and Southern Africa. In 2000 IPGRI-SSA facilitated the organization and management of an electronic conference to raise awareness and discuss provisions of the OAU model legislation on access to genetic resources and community rights and in 2002 it organized an Africa-wide round table to promote the integration of PGR policy issues into the programmes of OAU and NEPAD.
INIBAP has focused its activities on improvement of Musa genetic conservation and enhancement. It supports the on-farm conservation of banana germplasm in East Africa. In Uganda, INIBAP collaborates with NARO to develop IPM technologies. In collaboration with IITA in Cameroon, where the Centre initiated a joint position in 2002, IPGRI organized training workshops on in vitro techniques for farmers and scientists from West and Central Africa.
In Uganda, INIBAP supervises a field gene bank at Mbarara and transgenic breeding facilities at Kawanda station. Its scientists at the breeding station are engaged in DNA analysis to develop virus resistance varieties.
Generally, IPGRI’s work in SSA has grown in scope. It has taken on PGR modern policy and law research and advocacy, expanded its activities into West Africa and is engaged with three new networks. Demand for the Institute’s support is increasing as many countries become aware of the ITPGRFA and the CBD and start to implement the GPA.
IPGRI-SSA’s scientific staff complement has grown. Since the last EPMR IPGRI’s new Senior Training Officer, a Documentation/Information Officer, two Scientific Assistants and a Senior Fellow on policy have been recruited. In addition, a Visiting Researcher was at IPGRI-SSA for one year between 2001 and 2002 and very recently the GRPI office has been established under the wings of IPGRI-SSA. The group also hosted several interns during the review period. Though its staff capacity has grown, the Panel is concerned that IPGRI-SSA is still taking on too many activities, as identified by the last CCER. Also some expertise required for working on some of the new areas and activities is not available in the SSA office. For example, IPGRI-SSA only had access to expertise in economic analysis through IPGRI-HQ prior to starting work on a range of policy and legal issues that require knowledge of and information on economics of PGR.
To improve its capacity to manage LoAs, IPGRI-SSA recruited an Administrative Officer in Nairobi and Accounts/Administrative Assistant in the Cotonou office in 1999. The Panel noted that this has freed some of the Regional Director’s time for scientific and technical work. The Director is also now spending more of his time strengthening links to IPGRI-HQ and identifying new institutional partners.
SSA staff is undertaking some research, e.g. on in situ conservation, wild rice, ethnobotany of gourds and recalcitrance in forest species seed. The Panel is nevertheless concerned that IPGRI-SSA runs the risk of under-investing in science projects and tilting the balance too much to support for workshops and facilitating networking. While this is crucial given the mandate and mode of operations of IPGRI, active participation in scientific and technical research should be strengthened. The Panel recognizes that the Regional Director has been taking initiatives in this direction; for example all professional staff have now identified and prioritised publications to be written up.
IPGRI-SSA’s publication output is low. SSA generated about 5% of the total number of publications and many of these are workshop reports.
In summary, IPGRI-SSA is doing a commendable job with a relatively limited staff and financial resource base. The Panel suggests that, in order to avoid spreading itself thinly, IPGRI-SSA develop and follow clear guidelines for priority setting and engage more in scientific and technical activities.
The Musa Programme has been extremely active in the Region. The Panel commends the collaboration with NARO in setting up the transgenic banana breeding programme, the establishment of a joint post with IITA in the Cameroon, the in situ work in Uganda and particularly the plans to carry out an impact assessment of this work. Publications, particularly involving joint authorship with NARS researchers, are also good. As noted earlier the Panel was pleased that a new MoU had been signed with IITA, but was still convinced that there was room for further improvement in the working relationship between the two Centres.
The Region includes 28 countries in three sub-regions, 18 in West Asia, five in North Africa and five in Central Asia. It covers an area of about 19.5 million km2 and has a total population of more than 600 million inhabitants. In 2001 seven countries in the Region had developed national PGR programmes. Arable land is limited in most parts of the Region due to the presence of large dry or desert areas. Many key crops were domesticated in the Region, including wheat, barley, food legumes and many fruit trees.
The number of staff at the CWANA office has grown from four in 1995 to 14 in March 2001. The activities in Central Asia have added a major component to IPGRI’s regional mandate. A sub-office was established in Uzbekistan. More recently IPGRI has established a project office in Tunisia and also has a staff member out-posted in Morocco.
A CCER of the CWANA Group was carried out in September 2000. This CCER contained 22 recommendations that were all accepted.
The CCER recommended the development of an overall five year strategic plan to fit the regional objectives and set a clear agenda for the Central Asian sub-region. The CCER also recommended cross-sector analysis in establishing regional priorities. The CWANA Group responded favourably. While the regional strategic plan is not yet available, priority setting took place at CWANA Regional Priority Setting Conference in Aleppo to prepare for the new D-series Project. This meeting identified fruit trees, vegetables, forage and rangeland species and medicinal and aromatic plants as priorities for the coming five years. The CCER also recommended the establishment of an IPGRI wide thematic group with inputs from all Regions on the socio-economic and participatory content of IPGRI’s work.
The date palm project has a substantial share in CWANA’s project portfolio (approximately 30% of D Project 05 budget, US$3.5 million, 5 years, GEF UNDP funded). It is implemented in the three Maghreb countries: Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. Date palm forms the major component of the oasis ecosystem and dates are the major source of income for farmers and sources of foreign exchange to the countries. The project was established in 2001 to counter the threat of genetic erosion in date palm diversity in the oases of the three countries. Objectives of the project are to strengthen and restore genetic resources of date palm in the oases, to improve income for farmers and to raise public awareness on the value of and threats to date palm diversity.
Further highlights of recent work in the Region include the molecular characterization of pistachio, pomegranate and wild Vicia taxa and studies on market-related quality traits of recently collected almond and pistachio varieties. Diversity surveys were done for laurel, pistachio and olives, as well as a wild relative of pomegranate. Baseline studies were undertaken on medicinal plants. A new externally funded project was started on in situ/on-farm conservation of agrobiodiversity with a focus on horticultural crops and wild fruit trees in Central Asia.
IPGRI’s focal point for NUS is based in CWANA, which is reflected in the activities of the Group. This work includes such species as pistachio, pomegranate, traditional vegetables, medicinal plants, date palm and other fruit trees. It is unclear to what extent the CCER recommendation of the delegation of responsibilities for some of these species to national programmes has been realised.
Through the date palm project the Group has further embarked on work in desert ecosystems. The Panel is of the opinion that the present work on date palm is well designed and well implemented with the right balance between research and technical assistance and that it represents a strategic IPGRI investment. However the project is expanding further into desert ecosystems and exemplifies an issue that IPGRI is confronted with in general: how to strike the right balance between genetic resources and community development oriented project components, while always, for the PGR component, maintaining an appropriate balance between research and technical assistance issues. The date palm project should remain focussed on genetic resources issues. However initiatives by third parties, whether NGOs, CBOs or government agencies, to undertake complementary activities necessary to improve the impact of the IPGRI project should be supported by IPGRI staff by identifying potential funding sources and helping in project formulation. IPGRI should not itself invest in such related non-PGR activities in the date palm oases.
Finally with regard to CWANA’s project portfolio in general and the date palm project specifically, it was clear to the Panel that assistance from IPGRI HQ in the development of a clear IPR policy was becoming pressing.
More generally and most importantly, the Panel visit to the Region identified a need for increased contact and communication between staff in the different Regions and with the thematic groups at HQ. An annual workshop, for example, for all regional projects is strongly suggested. This would improve knowledge amongst regional staff of IPGRI’s wider project portfolio and the expertise available within IPGRI. In general, local staff often feels that IPGRI HQ is far away. This suggestion follows up on and extends a CCER Recommendation that personal communication, with electronic support, should be the backbone of the networks.
For CWANA more specifically the Panel suggests that the Group explore ways to increase collaboration with the IPGRI-EUR and to improve collaboration between the CWANA and European networks on crops that are of mutual interest, particularly in the Mediterranean area. The CCER recommendation to increase work on olive tree, forest trees, forages and grasses, is relevant.
With regard to priority setting, the Panel strongly urges CWANA to complete a publicly available strategic plan. The Panel agrees with the CCER suggestion that strategic research into the use of PGRFA in desertification control should receive strong attention.
Finally, the Panel concurs with the CCER in commending the CWANA group for its substantial efforts on public awareness in Central Asia under difficult political and economic circumstances.
IPGRI’s regional groups have witnessed increased demand for their activities. Their networks have increased in numbers and expanded in terms of coverage. IPGRI has also responded by increasing the numbers of offices maintained, e.g. by the INIBAP programmes in SSA. Generally, capacities to engage in strategic planning and project development have improved. Two Regions, APO and SSA, have adopted formal five-year strategic plans.
There are similarities in the priorities of all the groups. For example, all of them have identified the implementation of the ITPGRFA and the GPA, strengthening of networks and increased focus on in situ conservation as some of their foci over the next years. To achieve these strategic goals, the Panel believes that the regional groups can benefit from increased collaboration in both design and implementation of activities. Inter-regional staff exchange and sharing of experiences on how well they are achieving their goals is also desirable. At present there are no established mechanisms to promote inter-regional (particularly of bilateral nature) workshops and research activities. The Panel would like to see specific opportunities put in place for Regional Directors and Coordinators to interact, in addition to those provided by MC and PPRC meetings. These could take the form of Regional Directors hosting, on a rotational basis, inter-regional meetings to explore and develop common activities and share experiences in implementing their respective activities. It was clear to the Panel that there was a similar lack of formal opportunity for INIBAP regional coordinators to interact, either among themselves or with the IPGRI Regional Directors.
The Panel also became aware that the level of project-related activity - proposal preparation, donor consultation, oversight, report writing, etc. - was, for some regional staff, so high that there was little time left for technical assistance activities. The Panel felt that it would be timely to review staff workloads and whether appropriate balance, for instance, between project maintenance and technical assistance was being struck.
The 4th EPMR recommended that "IPGRI define more precisely the role and responsibilities of the Regional Groups in their interaction with the headquarters based Thematic Groups in order to contribute to more efficient and effective operation of the Regional Groups and to more closely integrate Rome based and Regional activities". IPGRI Management has made efforts to implement the recommendation. Interaction between the HQ and the Regional groups has improved considerably during the period under review. IPGRI has increased its administrative support to the Regions in a variety of ways.
8. The Panel recommends that IPGRI establish specific mechanisms to promote collaboration between the Regions at the Regional Director level.
9. The Panel recommends that Management review staff time allocation between research work and technical assistance, particularly in the Regions.
