The past five years have been characterized by considerable change both within IPGRI and in its external political and scientific environment. IPGRI has negotiated these with great skill and success. Today it has a larger and substantially redirected but still relevant PGR research programme, particularly in the Regions; it has expanded an already successful Musa Programme; it has extended its work into other commodities; it has remained intimately involved in the centre of the ITPGRFA negotiations while it is starting to expand its policy work in the economic arena; and it has established a state-of-the-art communications and publishing facility. Most importantly it has maintained its status as an "honest broker" in its relationships with stakeholders. Its supporting role in the CGIAR’s SGRP is a prime example. At the same time the Panel was impressed with the dedication and energy of staff of all levels and noted the tremendous staff morale in Rome, Montpellier and in the regions.
The body of this report does, of course, contain some constructive criticism as well as a number of suggestions. In general these reflect the Panel’s views that would help continue to keep a larger IPGRI with an expanded research remit not only relevant, but also at the forefront of PGR science. A new name for the Centre that would more precisely capture its key position in today’s world is being mooted. The Panel believes that this would be an entirely appropriate way for the Centre to start the new millennium.
The Panel draws the reader’s attention to a number of key issues for IPGRI’s future that reoccur time and again in the body of this report. They reflect the overarching considerations, outlined in Chapter 1.6, that the Panel bore in mind during its work.
Mandate and Scope - There are suggestions that IPGRI should take a more holistic approach to genetic resources by extending its mission beyond plants to other ecosystem components. This is an attractive idea as the interactions between animals, fish, microbes and plants will bring a new dimension to the field of genetic resources conservation. The potential for IPGRI of one option, animal GR, has already been researched. The conclusions were that (i) IPGRI’s way of working with networks, particularly through SGRP, can be applied to animal genetic resources; (ii) IPGRI’s policy expertise is relevant to animal genetic resources; (iii) much of IPGRI’s molecular and cryoconservation technology is applicable; and (iv) appropriate and experienced institutions, such as in this case, ILRI and FAO, are available as leading partners with the knowledge of the organism itself that IPGRI lacks. Similar arguments can be made for fish genetic resources, with ICLARM as the leading partner and even for microbial genetic resources. The Panel is therefore of the opinion that IPGRI should continue with the necessary exploratory studies to ensure that it fully appreciates the ramifications of expanding its mandate. However, if new areas can be incorporated without compromising the mission of the Institute and the quality of its existing programme then IPGRI should not hesitate to take on the new responsibilities in collaboration with appropriate new partners.
IPGRI is also under some pressure to extend its coverage, particularly within its commodity programmes, into marketing and community development work. This is also an area that should be investigated. However, the experience to date would indicate that such work can require a substantial commitment of staff over a longer period than a conventional PGR project and that such work is often site or region specific. The Panel is convinced that IPGRI should limit itself to projects with a significant PGR component where it can usefully employ its comparative advantage and that it should partner with NGOs and others who have the necessary development experience. This is particularly important because IPGRI’s reputation as an honest broker must be kept sacrosanct.
Balance in Research - Successful organizations tend to get larger and richer. One consequence to be guarded against in this circumstance is imbalance in research programmes and the opportunities for imbalance at IPGRI are many. A number of factors, including the rapid emergence of attractive and relevant new technologies; the relatively few staff in an institution with a monumental mission encompassing the whole globe; a reduction of unrestricted funds with which to maintain a solid base; and an increasing restricted funding portfolio where donor demands and preferences are more keenly felt, can all destabilise the status quo. For the individual scientist, there is the balance to be struck in the attention given to a substantial project workload and the giving of technical and policy advice to partners (see Recommendation 9). At the programme level attention has to be paid to the balance between in situ and ex situ work; the balance between the relatively new applications of high-tech molecular biology and GIS methods and traditional practices; and the balance between desk and field based research. The balance struck needs to take into account the Institute’s comparative advantages. Formal agreement on these balances is vital, to both maintain the focus of the Institute’s work programme and to keep the stress on staff under control. Imbalance creates confusion; the work of the Institute will become muddled; and the stress on staff unsustainable. The Panel believes that the measures that are being put in place to make the MEC more effective will help immeasurably. Greater clarity in IPGRI’s strategies and targets will help retain the Institute’s balance and relieve much of the stress and make the Institute more effective.
A final word is appropriate on IPGRI’s contribution to science. IPGRI is a world leader in its field and its scientists command the respect of their peers. While not wanting to detract from IPGRI staff who do vital work maintaining networks and the like, the Panel hopes that the next EPMR will be able to review the Centre’s first paper published in Nature or Science.
Governance - The Panel was impressed with the quality of senior management. However it was also clear that, sadly, the present informal decision making systems are becoming less appropriate as the Centre grows and pursues its policy of decentralization (see Recommendation 9). The Panel was impressed with the execution of Board functions. Again, however, while the manner in which these functions are carried out has not changed, what constitutes good practice and the exercise of accountability has changed. Recommendation 10 is designed to ensure that the IPGRI BoT is sufficiently engaged with the Centre to meet these new requirements.
IPGRI and other CGIAR Centres - Interactions between CGIAR Centres are always important. The value of the System is that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This has never been more important than at this time. IPGRI, of course, already has productive linkages with other Centres. For example its role in supporting SGRP is highly appreciated throughout the System. IPGRI has an imaginative staff appointment policy and has three strategic joint appointments with other Centres at the present time. Extending the Centre’s scope beyond plant genetic resources and the execution of Challenge Programme collaborations offers yet more opportunities.
In areas where mandates are closely aligned, harmonious and productive interactions are even more important. In the area of FGR productive links with CIFOR and ICRAF are vital (see Recommendation 3). In IPGRI’s Musa Programme in Africa links with IITA are crucial. It is essential that links such as these are fostered sensitively. All parties stand to benefit.
Integration of INIBAP into IPGRI - Recommendation 4 encourages IPGRI to complete the important integration of INIBAP and IPGRI. The Panel is of the opinion that there are significant opportunities today for scientific synergy that are being missed both in the regions and in Europe. There are still further unexplored research opportunities involving research partnerships. A new, seamless, rational, streamlined organization with simple reporting lines and decision making processes is needed for the larger, more efficient IPGRI of the future. There will be a unique opportunity if IPGRI rebrands itself as a centre for biodiversity in world agriculture to complete the merger of two successful institutes by subsuming the two acronyms IPGRI and INIBAP into one new name.
ISNAR - A late issue of relevance to this EPMR concerns ISNAR. The options being considered at the end of March 2003 include alternatives for merger, co-location and virtual operation. IPGRI is suggested as one possible host. Although not specifically part of the ToR, the Panel feels it should comment on the complementarities between the two Centres’ operations.
It is clear to the Panel that some features of the way that ISNAR works, namely through networks and with national programmes, are similar to IPGRI’s. Activities like the Central Advisory Service, management of networks and the Intermediary Biotechnology Service are relevant to IPGRI’s mission and complement its present operations. There are also synergies between both Centres’ training and capacity strengthening activities and in impact assessment functions.
The Panel believes that relevant elements of ISNAR could, with mutual benefits, be brought under IPGRI’s wing, particularly if those additional activities were largely located at a regional office. IPGRI could use its experience of the merger with INIBAP to its advantage. IPGRI’s programmatic integrity should not, however, be compromised.
The future looks bright for IPGRI. The move to Maccarese has been a masterstroke. It has helped strengthen IPGRI’s own identity while maintaining close links with FAO, afforded it room to grow and provided a first class facility for it scientists and other staff. IPGRI is set to remain at the centre of one of the most important efforts mankind is making to ensure the long term sustainability of the planet. IPGRI is the honest broker in the concerted effort that encompasses countless international, regional, national and individual players to conserve the world’s PGR. When IPGRI took up its mission genetic resources were firmly established as a public good available to all. Geopolitical developments and international debate have changed the situation. IPGRI’s research and that of its partners around the world, its central role in PGR policy and most of all its goodwill can ensure that the benefits of PGR are shared fairly by all people. Its role and focus must continue to be refined; its role as an honest broker protected; and its capacity to continue to grow, to support these efforts and play a guiding role must be enhanced. The Panel is confident that IPGRI’s staff and Board and its donors will continue to ensure that this happens.
