Date post: | 28-Nov-2014 |
Category: |
Science |
Upload: | cgiar-generation-challenge-programme |
View: | 728 times |
Download: | 2 times |
Jean-Marcel Ribaut
Fund Council Meeting
9th May 2014 CIMMYT, Mexico
The Generation Challenge Programme: Lessons learnt relevant to CRPs, and
the next steps
Our discussion today:
Introduction to GCP
Major achievements
External review
Lessons learnt
Perspectives and conclusions
The CGIAR Generation Challenge Programme:
an introduction
GCP in brief A CGIAR Challenge Programme hosted at CIMMYT Launched in August 2003 10-year framework (Phase I 2004–2008; Phase II 2009–2013), with
2014 as the closing year About US$15–17m annual budget Target regions: drought-prone environments
Sub-Saharan Africa, South & South East Asia, L America Eighteen CGIAR mandate crops in Phase I Nine CGIAR mandate crops in Phase II
Cereals: maize, rice, sorghum, wheat, Legumes: beans, chickpeas, cowpeas, groundnuts Roots and tubers: cassava
Strategic objective: To use genetic diversity and advanced plant science to improve crops for greater food security in the developing world
GCP: A broker in plant science bridging the gap between upstream and applied science
www.generationcp.org
GCP Consortium
EMBRAPABrasiliaBrazil
CIPLimaPeru
CIATCali
Colombia
CIMMYTMexico City
Mexico
Cornell University USA
Wageningen University Netherlands
John Innes CentreNorwich
UK
CAASBeijing China
NIAS TsukubaJapan
AgropolisMontpellier
France
IPGRIRomeItaly
WARDABouakéCote d’Ivore
IRRILos BañosPhilippines
ICRISATPatancheruIndia
ICARDAAleppoSyria
IITAIbadanNigeria
ACGTPretoria
South Africa
ICARNew Delhi
India
BIOTECBangkokThailand
INRARabat
MoroccoCINVESTAV
IrapuatoMexico
Instituto Agronomico per l’Oltremare FlorenceItaly
9 CGIAR6 ARIs7 NARS
ETHZurichSwitzerland
Partners
Consortium
Phase II
Actual Projection Total('000 USD) 2003-2012 2013 2003-2013 %Income - Donors
Austria 54 - 54 0 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 26,861 7,376 34,237 21 CGIAR Fund 11,021 5,500 16,521 10 DFID/UK 31,767 - 31,767 19 European Commission 49,150 8,000 57,150 34 Kirkhouse 15 - 15 0 Pioneer Foundation 210 - 210 0 Rockefeller Foundation 2,225 - 2,225 1 Sweden/SIDA 874 - 874 1 Switzerland/SDC 2,567 900 3,467 2 Syngenta Foundation 688 - 688 0 USAID 400 - 400 0 World Bank 17,756 - 17,756 11 Interest income 1,249 10 1,259 1
Total Income 144,838 21,786 166,624 100
Expenditure
Research Grants 137,342 86
Program Management 20,238 13
Transfer to Contingency Reserve 3,000 2
Total Expenditure and Transfer to Contingency Reserve 160,580 100
Total Net Fund 6,044
Plus Reserve 3,000
Generation Challenge Programme:A 167-million-dollar initiative
Selected key achievements
EPMR panel (2008) noted that the GCP community is one of the Programme’s most crucial assets. In their words:
“Perhaps the most important value of GCP thus far, is the opportunities it has provided for people of diverse backgrounds to think collectively about solutions to complex problems, and, in the process, to learn from one another.”
Linking upstream research with applied science True partnership
Shared resources In-kind contribution from most of our partners Work as a team to find $ outside the GCP-funded work
Evolution of roles and responsibilities Leaders became mentors Trainees become doers and leaders In 2013/14, about half of the PIs are from developing countries
There is no doubt a unique and tangible ‘GCP spirit’ observable in the camaraderie at GCP meetings
Major achievement: the GCP community
Genetic resources Reference sets for 18 crops (all CGIAR mandate crops)
Genomic resources Markers for ‘orphan crops’
Informative markers Drought, viruses and insect resistance
Genes/QTL AltSB for aluminium tolerance, Pup1 for P uptake efficiency, Saltol for
salt tolerance and Sub1 for submergence tolerance.
Improved germplasm New bioinformatic tools (DM, diversity studies, breeding, etc) Enhanced capacities for MAB in country programmes
Human-resource capacities / Physical infrastructure / Analytical power
Ex-ante analyses on MB impact in developing countries
Product Catalogue available at: www.generationcp.org/impact/product-catalogue
Selected major research outputs
GCP’s Integrated Breeding Platformwww.integratedbreeding.net
Providing resources and building professional networks for plant breeding
Crop Information• Crop databases• Trait Dictionaries• Marker information
Breeding• Data mgt tools• Trial Mgt Tools• Data analysis tools• Molecular analysis tools• Breeding decision tools• Protocols• Breeding support services
Capacity building• IBMYC & other training
courses• Learning resources• Infrastructure support• Support Services
Communities• Blogs & Forums• News• Publications• Live chat
‘Classic’ Approach Formal postgraduate training programmes
100+ MSc and PhD students whose work is embedded in research projects
Workshops, fellowship grantees, travel grants Train the trainers for future regionalised capacity-building sustainability Communities of practice
Rice in the Mekong; Cassava in Africa IBP-hosted (both crop- and expertise-based)
Perhaps not so common – probably uniquely GCP CB à la carte Integrated Breeding Multiyear Course (IB–MYC): breeding, data
management, data analysis CB along the delivery chain (scientists, technicians, station managers) Technical support for infrastructure implementation Some thoughts on whom to train
Cross-generational expertise
Capacity building
External Review
Broad context Requested for by the GCP MT and Executive Board Undertaken by the CGIAR Independent Evaluation Arrangement (IEA) A team of five reviewers:
Paramjit S Sachdeva (Team Leader) Gregory O Edmeades (Senior Technical Evaluator) Rita H Mumm (Molecular Breeding Expert) Antoni J Rafalski (Genetic Resources/Genomics Expert) Christopher Bennett (Economist/M&E Expert)
Conducted two surveys: Programme evaluation: stakeholders Governance and management: selected audience
Report’s conclusion:“The Review Team established that the GCP has performed well, has met the majority of its genetic enhancement goals and surpassed others, and will leave a formidable legacy of useful and accessible products and information”
GCP has sent its response to the review report
Assessment of GCP’s overall performance from stakeholder survey
Relevance Effectivenss Products/Outputs
Efficiency Outcomes & Impact
Partnership Sustainability Management0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
56.3% 61.7% 66.4% 64.7% 57.5% 61.3% 57.4%65.7%
37.3% 31.1% 28.7% 27.5% 38.8% 30.1% 34.1% 24.3%
Strongly Agree Agree
% Agree
93.6% 92.8% 95.1%92.2%
96.3%91.4% 91.5% 90.0%
Possible choices: Strongly agree; agree; disagree; strongly disagree; don’t know/not applicable
Lessons learnt
Governance
Issue: Dysfunctional governance for nearly half of GCP’s life until
mid-2008, with governance body comprised of direct beneficiaries of its own decisions
Solution: Involvement of stakeholders (‘owners’) and partners to
define the overall objectives and general direction, but… Separate independent body to approve workplan and
oversee implementation Small group of complementary expertise (GCP EB works very well!)
with… Access to specific expertise when needed (eg, GCP’s IP Committee)
Accountability must be clarified first!
Monitoring and evaluationIssue: Inadequate research-management capacity in GCP’s early
years due to part-time appointments (attractive in theory, but difficult in practice)
Lack of an M&E framework from the beginning (though this may not have been required at the time) Conflict of interest within the MT Not the same skills
Options: Full-time management team Separate the planning and implementation from a stand-alone
M&E component
Of course good management capacity and practice have a cost, and therefore efficiency needs to be considered carefully
Science management:broker in plant science – the CP modelA management team that defines and implements ‒ in partnership and through grants ‒ a workplan to achieve overall objectives
Agile research management approach that allows… Bringing in new ideas for strong partnerships Continually enhancing research quality and efficiency Adjusting research activities based on external environment
New technologies, partners, opportunities for synergy, etc Easily discontinue unsuccessful projects
But… Must revolve around a specific research topic Can only exist with the support of well-established institutes Ideally focused and time-bound Excellent complement of core activities
From Cornell’s lab to African farmers’ fields with a stopover in Brazil: a 10-year effort
Step 1: Competitive project (initiated 2004) Led by Cornell Univ, in collaboration with EMBRAPA Plantlets screened under hydroponics – Alt1 gene clonedMagalhaes et al 2007, Nature Genetics, 39: 1156–1151
Step 2: Competitive project (initiated 2007) Led by EMBRAPA in collaboration with Cornell Favourable alleles identified – improved germplasm for
Brazil Caniato et al 2011, PLoS One 6, e20830
Step 3: Commissioned work (initiated 2009) Led by NARS (Kenya, Mali and Niger) with the support of
ICRISAT in collaboration with EMBRAPA Introgression of favourable alleles – improved local
germplasm
Linking upstream research to applied science, with benefits – a practical example
Most people are reluctant or resistant to change Even people who are interested in change often do not allocate
the time and resources to effect change Even where there are clear and demonstrable benefits from
making a change, this alone is not sufficient incentive Most changes can be implemented only by:
Strong bottom-up demand Mandatory top-down decision
Need to persuade people to be ready to: Get out of their comfort zone Dedicate time to learning new things Dedicate time to things that might not benefit their work directly, or
immediately Adopt a collaborative rather than competitive approach
Enforcement and implementation Big difference between the private and public sector
Changing people’s behaviour:A real challenge in technology transfer
Other challenges
Operational Keeping key partners aligned with the overall shared
objective(s) Prioritisation and resource allocation The two bosses and part-time boss syndromes Communication (internal and external) – vital for a
distributed team Recognition and ownership
Research Germplasm exchange Genetic stocks Data management Work quality standard Inclusiveness vs efficiency
Conclusions and perspectives
Programme closure
Where possible and appropriate there should be defined end dates for research programmes – with a clear handover plan for perpetuation and dissemination of products
Engenders focus and urgency in the performance of research tasks and delivery of products
Impact and lessons Difficult to measure impact at this stage, but overall it seems that
GCP has been a successful venture! Major achievements have probably revolved around:
Establishing true partnership with cultural change on how to run R4D projects
Several flagship projects Enabling partners in developing countries to access modern
biotechnologies We also had some clear shortcomings
Monitoring and evaluation were the biggest shortfalls Several competitive projects were dead-ends
The CP research model can’t work in isolation, but it is an attractive model to complement core research activities
Lessons learnt from the CPs in general and GCP in particular can inform the CRP operational and organisational models
IBP will survive GCP and can form the core part of a possible cross-cutting initiative to support commodity CRPs
IBP will survive GCP
A proposal has been submitted to the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation
Shortfall: still need to source about USD 12m over 5 years
Potential for larger initiatives across the CRPs to support crop
improvement pipeline – from the genebank up to seed
distribution
The way forward
Research activities
To be embedded in the respective commodity CRP
About 10% of the current projects will need an extension
About 50% of the current projects will have a second phase
building and expanding on achievements thus far