Underutilized Plant Species Research and Development Activities – Review of issues and options

A report submitted to the chairs of the GFU Steering Committee and the

ICUC Scientific Advisory Board

by

Geoffrey Hawtin1 31 July 2007

________________________________________________________________

Contents Page Summary 2 1) Introduction: 9 2) Information sources: 10 3) Opportunities and barriers to a greater use of underused species 11 4) A brief global overview of research and development of underused plants – potential partners for the new entity 13

• Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research 14 • Non-CGIAR Institutions involved in underused species 18

5) Need for, mission and objectives of the new entity 20 6) Programme focus 22 7) Institutional Options 47

Nature of the institution 47 Host institution and governance arrangements 48 Location 50 Staffing 52 Lifespan 52 Name 53

8) Conclusions 53 ANNEX 1 Terms of reference of the study 55 ANNEX 2 The questionnaire 57 ANNEX 3 List of individuals who responded to the questionnaire 62 ANNEX 4 Results of questions 6a – 6n: 63 ANNEX 5 Indicative list of institutions active in research and development of underused crops 66 ANNEX 6 Institutional options – food for thought 74 ANNEX 7 Possible names 78

1Manor Farm House, 17 Front Street, Portesham, Dorset, UK. Phone: +44 01305 871043 Email: geoffhawtin@hotmail.com

2

SUMMARY

More than 7,000 plant species have been used for human food. However, recent decades have seen a small number of crops come to dominate agriculture, to the exclusion of many others. Yet a large number of crops that are now overlooked have the potential to play a much more important role in sustaining livelihoods and enhancing environmental health. ICUC and GFU are both active internationally in promoting and backstopping efforts to realize the potential of such species. While both are making an extremely valuable contribution, they recognize that there are areas of overlap and opportunities for building further on their complementarities. They have thus, in an unprecedented and voluntary move, expressed the desire to integrate their efforts. This report represents an attempt to evaluate the continuing need for services such as those provided by ICUC and GFU, and to suggest an appropriate institutional profile for a successor. The report is based on published documents and databases, interviews and a survey of key stakeholders to which 35 individuals responded. The author is very grateful to all who took the time and effort to express their views. Designing an optimal institutional profile requires an understanding of the major opportunities for, and barriers to the increased use of underused species, as well as knowledge about the work of other key actors in the field. Opportunities for expanding use of underused species include:

• a growing interest in agricultural, market and dietary diversification; • the effects of globalization and the opening up of new markets; • a growing demand for familiar but possibly ‘lost’, traditional foods; • increasing opportunities for Fair Trade and e-commerce; • a growing interest in organic and nutritionally healthy foods; • an expanding demand for herbal medicines; • a growing interest in agro-tourism, increasing demand for local foods; • greater interest by donors NGOs and others in safeguarding local culture; • new opportunities for the production of biofuels.

Barriers to capitalizing on these opportunities include:

• the erosion of traditional culture, values and practices, • the often high level of home processing required; • the lack of effective market research and intelligence; • insufficient entrepreneurial expertise and product promotion skills; • poor organization and weak links among actors along the value chain; • lack of market access; • inability to supply/obtain quality products when and where needed; • a lack of access to affordable credit; • a lack of genetic diversity, suitable varieties, and effective seed systems;

3

• uneconomic and/or unsustainable cultural practices; • remoteness, seasonality and/or harshness of traditional production

environments; • high levels of loss and quality deterioration in storage; • a lack of attention to, and investment in, developing novel products.

Underpinning the above is the lack of readily available information and awareness of their potential contribution, resulting in insufficient attention to creating a favourable policy environment and inadequate investment in R&D. Thus, the proposed new entity should focus at least on the following:

• Creating awareness: especially to help raise the status of underused and traditional crops, and create a more favourable policy environment;

• Promoting better information about, and access to markets, • Supporting institutions that are addressing germplasm and production

issues to help facilitate their work and to help provide a marketing perspective

Many players are active in R&D of underused species: universities; international, national and state governmental institutions; NGOs; private companies and many others. Of particular importance as potential partners for the new entity are those that provide services to the underused crops community. Perhaps foremost among these potential partners are the Centres of the CGIAR and similar international or regional research centres (e.g. AVRDC, CATIE, SPC, and ACSAD). Several CGIAR Centres have worked on underused species for many years, e.g. ICRISAT on minor millets, ICARDA on grasspea, CIP on Andean roots and tubers, ICRAF on agroforestry species, IITA on Bambara groundnut, ICARDA, ILRI and CIAT on forages and Bioversity International (previously IBPGR and IPGRI) on a wide range of different species. The new ‘System Priorities for CGIAR Research, 2005–2015’ opens the way for expanding work on underused species. Priorities include:

• Promoting conservation and characterization of under-utilized PGR • Genetic enhancement of selected high-value species • Increasing income from fruits and vegetables • Promoting sustainable income generation from forests and trees • Improving science and technology policies and institutions • Making international and domestic markets work for the poor

The CGIAR has considerably expanded its work on underused crops in recent years and in addition to work on specific species, broader services are offered such as the on-line Agroforestry Tree Database at ICRAF, the Information Centre for Tropical Fruits at CIAT and the Platform for Agrobiodiversity Research at Bioversity International. Several non-CGIAR international institutions also offer

4

international services, including the Global Horticultural Initiative hosted by AVRDC and the species-level information services provided by PROTA and PROSEA. In addition to IARCS, national government sponsored R&D institutions also provide partnership opportunities. Perhaps foremost among these are agencies that provide technical assistance internationally such as CIRAD and GTZ. A number of universities around the world provide information and other services and are important potential partners. These include the New Crops Centre, University of Purdue, USA; the Australian New Crops Information Service, University of Queensland; the Southampton Centre for Underutilised Crops, UK; the International Initiative for Non-food Crops, Imperial College, UK; and AlternativeCropsCanada.org, University of Guelph. Many NGOs are also involved, ranging from small, local organizations (e.g. farmers’ associations) to international development NGOs and scientific societies. While most tend to focus narrowly on a few crops and/or locations, others, such as ISHS, have a wide and dispersed range of activities and could be important partners for the new entity. Private for-profit organizations range from small seed merchants and processors to multinational agro-industrial conglomerates and supermarket chains. They are an important client group and some could become key partners. Donors do not normally implement projects, although a few are actively involved in the projects they fund, such as the McKnight Foundation (USA) and ACIAR (Australia), both of which support projects on underused species. A number of networks/consortia are also potentially important partners including both national networks such as the All India Coordinated Research Project on Underutilized Crops, and international ones such the INBAR-led GFAR Partnership Programme on Non-timber Forest Products. Given the large number of institutions active in R&D of underused plants, is an additional entity needed, and if so, with what objectives? With respect to the first question, the answer is a definite ‘yes’. The large majority of respondents to the questionnaire recognized the importance of the new entity; valuable services would certainly be lost, and missed, if GFU and ICUC ceased to exist. There would also appear to be broad agreement that the mission of the new entity should encompass: enhancing the role of underused crops in improving the livelihoods and wellbeing of the world’s poorest people, in sustaining human cultures and in achieving a better stewardship of the environment.

5

Overall, the new entity would have its greatest comparative advantage at the international and regional rather than national and local levels. It should give highest consideration to the following activities:

1) Providing information and communication services, building upon the work of GFU and ICUC: acting as a knowledge broker, or clearinghouse at the meta-level, providing a one-stop-shop to assist stakeholders;

2) Pro-actively analysing and synthesising data and disseminating results; 3) Promoting two-way communications; 4) Catalysing, supporting and adding value to the research efforts of others; 5) Fostering the creation of, and participating in (though rarely leading)

regional and international consortia and networks; 6) Influencing policies, especially at the international and regional levels,

through policy analysis and preparation of policy briefs; 7) Raising awareness among donors and key policy- and decision-makers,

and thereby seeking to raise financial, political and other support; 8) Promoting improved market access through:

• maintaining a database, or linking to existing databases, of marketing expertise, both of individuals and institutions;

• conducting case studies and producing guidelines on best practice; • promoting consortia that link producers, processors and markets; • promoting the concept of value chains; • supporting training in entrepreneurship, processing, marketing etc; • improving access to local and international market information

9) Although not a primary provider of education or training, the new entity should develop and provide access to training materials, influence curricula and provide information on education and training opportunities.

10) While maintaining good donor relations and undertaking effective fundraising to support its own needs are essential, the case for helping to raise funds for others is less clear and should generally be avoided.

If resources allow, the new entity might also give consideration to one or more of the following: 1) Undertaking analyses of secondary data and/or supervising students; 2) Developing and maintaining primary databases. However, this should only

be taken on if there is a very clear need and a gap in existing services; 3) Promoting and supporting broad communities of practice. This might

involve hosting web-based services such as on-line discussion fora and/or through an international newsletter;

4) Promoting and facilitating the development of generic concepts, models and decision tools – generally in partnership with other institutions;

5) Proactively facilitating the development of regional and international priorities and strategic frameworks, especially for regions not yet covered;

6) Providing guidelines and advice in monitoring and evaluation

6

There are perhaps two main options for the modus operandi of the new entity: an institution conducting hands-on research, or a facilitating and catalytic service based largely on information and knowledge management. It is suggested that the second option is the most appropriate, although a minor role in research, especially in synthesising and analysing secondary data, should not be excluded. Institutional options for the new entity include establishing it as:

• a programme of another national or international institute. • a System-wide Programme of the CGIAR • a Challenge Programme of the CGIAR • a consortium or platform for action • an autonomous or semi-autonomous institution hosted either by a CGIAR

Centre or other international or national institution • a ‘free-standing’ international institution

Based on the analysis of these options by Jaenicke and Hoeschle-Zeledon (2006) and feedback from the questionnaire and interviews, it is recommended that it be established as a new, semi-autonomous entity, hosted by a well-functioning, technically appropriate institution. There should be a reasonable measure of independence from the host institution while at the same time being well positioned to capture programme synergies. To help ensure the new entity achieves its own strong institutional identity, it is suggested that it be established in its own right de novo, and not through a formal merger of GFU and ICUC or a take-over of one by the other. While the new entity will probably have to come under the overall fiscal, programmatic and governance arrangements of the host institute, to the extent possible the entity should be free to pursue its mission unhindered and in line with the directions set by its own oversight body. Such a body could take a number of forms, from a purely technical advisory body to an executive steering committee having both programmatic and managerial decision-making authority. A small (6-8 member) Programme and Budget Oversight Committee might be one configuration worth considering, comprising individuals acting in their own capacity together with perhaps two ex-officio members: the entity’s CEO and a representative of the host institute. With respect to possible host institutions, the overall advantages of an international host seem compelling in terms of ability to provide an appropriately supportive environment. The ideal host institution would be working on topics that are closely related to the interests of the new entity and it should regard such hosting as being in its own programmatic interests.

Institutions that best meet these criteria include, inter alia, AVRDC, Bioversity International, CIAT, FAO, ICARDA, ICRISAT, IITA and the World Agroforestry Centre. All have experience with hosting arrangements of the kind desired.

7

Given the likely small number of staff members, it is probably best to centralise the institution in a single location. However, consideration should be given to out-posting staff to other locations as and when opportunities and resources allow. A developing country location has the advantage of being close to a sample of the beneficiaries and ‘action’, and sends a strong message of commitment to development. Local staff and office costs are generally lower, but the pool of skilled people may be smaller than in a developed country. A developed country location, on the other hand, would help ensure that all developing regions get treated equally – or at least would help to assuage fears that this might not be the case. Developed countries also, in general, tend to have better telecommunications and international travel connections. Fears that there could be less donor support if the entity were to be located in a developed country are probably largely unfounded. Whatever location is decided upon, it should ideally afford opportunities for interaction with a range of other relevant national and international institutions. Given the above, it is suggested that the following, at least, be considered as possible hosting institutions: • Bioversity International, either at its HQ in Rome, Italy, or possibly at one of its

regional offices • FAO in Rome • World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi, Kenya • World Vegetable Centre (AVRDC): with the Global Horticultural Initiative’s

headquarters at AVRDC’s regional office for Africa in Arusha, Tanzania While it is it is believed that, overall, Bioversity International offers the best institutional hosting option, in large part because of the very strong programmatic affinity, others should not be ruled out. It is suggested that each leading candidate be canvassed regarding their interest in hosting, and under what terms and conditions. Once such information has been assembled, together with cost estimates of the various options, a final decision can be made. Funding realities are likely to determine that, at least at the outset, the staff complement be small. Expertise might initially be considered in the following four areas:

• crop production (diversification strategies together with participatory research and/or value chains)

• socio-economics/policy • marketing/product development • information management

One of these positions would be the CEO, with an added responsibility for management and fundraising. If additional positions were possible, consideration should be given to communications/public awareness and/or post harvest technology/processing.

8

Of equal or greater importance to the disciplinary background of the staff is their ‘people skills’: their ability to communicate and network, to build partnerships and to inspire confidence and trust. Given the proposed nature of the new entity, it is likely that it can serve a useful function for many years to come. However, it should be subject to regular 5-year external reviews with a possibility of termination if it is judged that the need for its services no longer exists or if it fails to meet clear milestones. Concerning the name of the new entity, the terms ‘underutilized’ and ‘neglected’ are considered to have a somewhat negative connotation and are probably best avoided. A term like ‘Service’ might be preferable to ‘Facilitation Unit’ - and both would give a more accurate impression of the entity’s proposed function than ‘Institute’ or ‘Centre’. Given the advice for simplicity, ‘Global New Crops Service’, ‘World New Crops Service’ or ‘New Crops Service International’ might be considered, or for greater simplicity, ‘New Crops Service’, ‘New Crops International’, ‘Crops of the Future’ or simply ‘NewCrops’ or ‘Novoplants’ In conclusion, there is a clear and on-going need for an international entity to help catalyse, backstop, promote and publicise work on underused crops. However, there is undoubtedly a minimum size – and critical mass of staff – below which the entity would risk failure. It is very much hoped that donor support will be forthcoming to not only guarantee such a minimum operation, but to go well beyond it, enabling the new entity to work and provide services across a much broader front. Such an entity would have much to offer and could help underpin the success of current and future efforts worldwide to capitalise on the potential of underused crops in the fight against poverty and malnutrition and to sustain the environment.

9

1) Introduction: Changing lifestyles and the increasing globalization of trade have tended to favour only a few major crops and these have come to dominate agricultural production, processing and commerce, nationally and internationally. The demands for research – and hence funding - have inevitably concentrated on these same commodities. As a result, not only are a number of food species falling into disuse, to be replaced by the major crops and the products derived from them, but also many other species are similarly affected such as those that can contribute fibre, medicine, fodder, or construction material. However, these neglected and underused23 plant species are part of a rich economic, social and cultural diversity, and many have the potential to play a much more important role than they do today in sustaining livelihoods and human wellbeing and in enhancing ecosystem health and stability. Two small international institutions, the International Centre for Underutilised Crops (ICUC) and the Global Facility for Underutilized Species (GFU), have both been active internationally in promoting and backstopping efforts aimed at realizing the potential of these species to help alleviate poverty and protect the environment. They have acted through conducting hands-on research and development activities, catalysing and facilitating partnerships, brokering information and knowledge, and through backstopping and adding value to the initiatives of others. While both have made extremely valuable and highly commendable contributions acting individually, they have come to recognize that there are areas of overlap between them that would benefit from rationalization, and that there are excellent opportunities for building on their many 2 Throughout this report I have used the term ‘underused’ rather than the more lengthy ‘underutilized’ or ‘underutilised’, except when making a direct quotation. 3 For the purposes of this report, ‘underused species’ are those that conform with the definition contained in the discussion paper: H. Jaenicke and I. Hoeschle-Zeledon, 2006: Contributing to the CGIAR System Priorities – The future of underutilized plants research and development:

Species with under-exploited potential for contributing to food security, health (nutritional/medicinal), income generation, and environmental services. These species: • represent an enormous wealth of agrobiodiversity and have great potential for

contributing to improved incomes, food security and nutrition, and for combating the ‘hidden hunger’ caused by micronutrient (vitamin and mineral) deficiencies;

• are strongly linked to the cultural heritage of their places of origin; • are mainly local and traditional crops (with their ecotypes and landraces) or wild species

whose distribution, biology, cultivation and uses are poorly documented; • tend to be adapted to specific agro-ecological niches and marginal land; • have weak or no formal seed supply systems; • are recognized to have traditional uses in localized areas, but with considerable potential

elsewhere ; • are collected from the wild or produced in traditional production systems with little or no

external inputs; • receive little attention from research, extension services, farmers, policy and decision

makers, donors, technology providers and consumers; • may be highly nutritious and/or have medicinal properties or other multiple uses.

10

complementarities in a synergistic way. They have thus, in an unprecedented and voluntary move, recently expressed the desire for closer collaboration or even for full integration, in the belief that the new entity so created will have greater institutional efficiency and effectiveness. Thus an excellent strategic opportunity has now presented itself for an evaluation of the continuing need for activities and services such as those currently provided by ICUC and GFU, and an assessment of the role that such a joint or integrated entity could best play: its objectives, thematic and institutional profile, and the key institutions with which it should partner in achieving its mission. This report aims to contribute to this process of integration through looking in more detail at these various issues. The terms of reference are given in Annex 1. I would like to take this opportunity to express my very sincere thanks and appreciation to the leaders of both institutions (Drs George Rothschild and Hannah Jaenicke of ICUC and Drs. Eric Kueneman and Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon from GFU) for inviting me to undertake this work, for providing me with appropriate background information and for taking the time to discuss their views with me. I would also like to thank all those who contributed either through responding to the questionnaire (see Annex 3) or who gave up their time to discuss the issues with me directly. In the latter category I am particularly grateful to Grahame Dixie, Senior Agribusiness and Marketing Advisor, World Bank, for his valuable insights and contacts, especially in relation to marketing. 2) Information sources: The information contained in this report comes from a wide variety of sources. The overview of research and development of underused plants is based largely on information contained in the Medium Term plans (2007-2009) of the CGIAR Centres and the GFU database, together with a web sites of various international, regional and national organizations, and a few other documents, e.g. Williams and Haq, 20024 and Jaenicke and Höschle-Zeledon, 20065. In order to gain further insight into the potential role and responsibilities of an entity arising from the merger of ICUC and GFU, as well as suggestions regarding its organizational profile and modus operandi, a survey was conducted in which some 56 stakeholders were contacted and invited to fill in a questionnaire (see Annex 2). There was a good return, with 35 (63%) of those contacted providing a detailed response (for a list of respondents see Annex 3).

4 Williams J.T. and Haq N. 2002. Global Research on Underutilized Crops. An assessment of current activities and proposals for enhanced cooperation. ICUC Southampton, UK. 46 pp. 5 Jaenicke, H. and Höschle-Zeledon, I. (eds) 2006. Strategic Framework for Underutilized Plant Species Research and Development, with Special Reference to Asia and the Pacific, and to Sub-Saharan Africa. International Centre for Underutilised Crops, Colombo, Sri Lanka and Global Facilitation Unit for Underutilized Species, Rome, Italy. 33 pp.

11

In addition to the survey, a number of telephone interviews, direct, face-to-face discussions and email exchanges were held with several key individuals to gain further suggestions and insight into various aspects of the study. 3) Opportunities and barriers to a greater use of underused species: Before considering the nature and profile of any entity arising from the merger of ICUC and GFU, it is clearly useful to first identify some of the major opportunities for increasing the production and consumption of underused species, and the major barriers to successfully achieving such increases. From such an analysis, coupled with an assessment of what others are doing to address these opportunities and challenges (see Section 4), it should be possible to design an institutional profile for the proposed entity that would maximize its impact and efficiency. Considerable thought has already gone into identifying opportunities and barriers; the GFU-ICUC Strategic Framework6, for example, provides an excellent analysis of these. The following lists, in no particular order of importance, some of the major opportunities for expanding the production and use of underused species, based on such analyses and the feedback provided by those responding to question 4 of the questionnaire:

• a growing interest in agricultural and market diversification by farmers and other stakeholders active within value chains;

• the effects of globalization and the opening up of new markets internationally;

• a growing demand from urban consumers, especially in many developing countries, for familiar but possibly ‘lost’, traditional foods;

• an increasing interest in, and opportunities for Fair Trade and e-commerce marketing arrangements;

• a growing consumer interest in biological/organic agriculture, for which many underused species offer advantages;

• greater demands for increased dietary diversity: for novel and nutritionally healthy foods;

• an expanding demand for herbal remedies, both internationally and in situations where modern pharmaceuticals are unavailable or too expensive for local populations;

• a growing interest in eco-tourism and agro-tourism resulting in an increased demand for local ‘ethnic’ foods;

• greater interest by donor agencies, civil society organizations and others in helping to safeguard local culture and traditions, of which underused species are often a key component;

6 See footnote 4, page 10

12

• new and rapidly expanding opportunities for the production of biofuels. While potential opportunities for increasing the production and consumption of underused species abound, with consequent benefits for producers, consumers and others operating at all stages along a given value chain, there are many barriers to realizing this potential. Such barriers can operate at all stages and levels along the chain and include, again in no particular order of importance:

• changing food fashions and habits and the erosion of traditional culture, values and practices, often associated with urbanization and globalization;

• the low status attached to many traditional foods and the often high level of home processing required;

• the lack of effective market research and intelligence to identify where demand exists or could be created (n.b. many crops/products are likely never to become economic);

• insufficient entrepreneurial expertise and product promotion skills; • poor organization, and lack of contacts and linkages among different

actors along the value chain; • lack of market access due to tariff and non-tariff barriers as well as

difficulties created by distance, poor roads and transport infrastructure, cultural and language barriers, a lack of telecommunications, on-road taxes, control by cartels, etc.;

• inability to supply/obtain products when and where needed and in the quantity and of the consistency and quality demanded;

• negative effects of competition with large, often more economically efficient companies which themselves tend to concentrate on major commodities

• a lack of access to affordable credit; • a lack of suitable varieties; most plant breeding effort goes into the genetic

improvement of highly productive major crops; • a lack, or inaccessibility of genetic diversity on which to base the breeding

of new varieties (underused crops mostly lie outside the purview of the multilateral system of access and benefit-sharing of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. This can severely limit their availability for research and production);

• inadequate seed information, production, certification and distribution systems;

• uneconomic and/or unsustainable cultural practices, exacerbated by a lack of research attention;

• many underused species are confined, perhaps through local adaptation/fitness to their traditional production zones, where remoteness, seasonality and/or harsh environments can limit opportunities to expand production;

• high levels of loss and quality deterioration in storage;

13

• a lack of attention to, and investment in, the development of novel products.

Underpinning all of the above is the inadequate availability of information and a general lack of awareness by the general public, producers, consumers, policy makers, donors and others of the potential contribution that many underused species could make to economic, social and cultural development, sustaining livelihoods, enhancing human well-being, and contributing to ecosystem health and stability. Such a lack of awareness results in insufficient attention being given to the creation of a favourable policy environment for underused crops and to insufficient financial and human resources being invested in research and development. Based on the above overview of opportunities and barriers, it would appear desirable that the scope of work the of the new entity encompass at least the following:

• Creating awareness: especially to help raise the status of underused and ‘traditional’ crops, and to help create a favourable policy environment in a wide range of areas such as for the marketing of novel products, for ensuring better access to credit, etc.

• Promoting better awareness of and access to markets, e.g. through promoting the concept of value chains, producing guidelines on best practice, providing appropriate information services, supporting training etc.

• Supporting institutions, of which there are many, that are addressing germplasm and production issues to a) help facilitate their work, where appropriate, and b) help provide a marketing perspective and to promote links along the value chain through processors and the developers of new products, to markets and ultimately consumers.

The means by which the new entity might address such issues as these are discussed in more detail in section 6. 4) A brief global overview of research and development of underused plants – potential partners for the new entity: There is a wide range of players active in research and development of underused species. Universities, international, national and state research and development institutions, botanical gardens, NGOs, private companies and many other types of institution all over the world are involved in one way or another. It is not possible here to do more than provide a brief overview of some of the major ones, although a more complete listing is provided in Annex 5. What follows is an overview of the work of the CGIAR Centres and a brief indication of some of the major programmes outside the CGIAR that seek to provide general services to those working on underused crops. It is with programmes such as

14

these, in particular, that the new entity should seek to develop strong partnerships and to avoid competition. This review does not aim to be complete and apologies are presented in advance to the very many individuals and institutions that have not been referred to either here or in Annex 5. Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR): From its inception the CGIAR has been involved in research on underused crops. Several of the so-called ‘mandate’ crops of the Centres, the subject of extensive breeding and other research at the Centres concerned, could be regarded as underused, to the extent that they are grown on relatively small areas and have the potential to expand in importance: pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) at ICRISAT, lentil (Lens culinaris) at ICARDA and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) and yam (Dioscorea spp.) at IITA might all be considered in this category. Furthermore, ICRISAT has a formal mandate for the conservation, characterization and distribution of the genetic resources of minor millets, which include foxtail millet (Setaria italica), little millet (Panicum sumatrense), Kodo millet (Paspalum scrobiculatum), Proso millet (Panicum miliaceum), barnyard millet (Echinochloa spp.) and finger millet (Eleusine coracana). While not necessarily strictly regarded as ‘mandate’ crops, several of the Centres have had significant programmes on various underused species going back many years. ICARDA, for example, undertakes genetic resources work as well as breeding and selection on grasspea (Lathyrus sativus); IITA manages a collection of Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea); and CIP has for many years had a programme on Andean roots and tubers involving 9 species: achira (Canna indica), ahipa (Pachyrhizus ahipa), arracacha (Arracacia xanthorrhiza), maca (Lepidium meyenii), mashua (Tropaeolum tuberosum), mauka (Mirabilis expansa), oca (Oxalis tuberosa), ulluco (Ullucus tuberosus) and yacón (Smallanthus sonchifolius). ILRI, ICARDA and CIAT all have long standing programmes on forages, covering a very extensive range of species, many of which are wild and almost all of which could be regarded as underused. The World Agroforestry Centre, ICRAF, has since its inception carried out extensive research and development work on a wide range of species including, for example, the vegetable tree moringa (Moringa oleifera), the safou plum (Dacryodes edulis), the fruit trees Irvingia gabonensis, and Sclerocarya birrea, the edible oilseed 'Allanblackia tree', the medicinal African plum (Prunus africana), and many others. Perhaps the centre having the largest involvement in underused species is Bioversity International (previously IBPGR and IPGRI). It has had a wide-ranging programme since its establishment but work received a boost in the early 1990s with the initiation of a special project to give focus to the work on these species. Many other of Bioversity’s projects have also involved underused crops such as those on African leafy vegetable and tropical fruits. Bioversity has published

15

some 26 monographs on underused crops7 (most in partnership with other institutions, including ICUC), as well as lists of germplasm descriptors for about 20 underused species and a number of other publications, both on specific species and on more general topics including, in 2001, a specific ‘Strategic Action Plan on Neglected and Underutilized Species’ for the institute. While, as described above, certain Centres of the CGIAR have been involved in research on underused crops for many years, there has recently been a growing interest in them, reflected in and guided by the new system priorities as released in 2005 in the document: ‘System Priorities for CGIAR Research 2005–2015’. All of the five main priority areas described in the document offer opportunities for work on underused crops. These are: Priority area 1: Sustaining biodiversity for current and future generations Priority area 2: Producing more and better food at lower cost through genetic

improvements Priority area 3: Reducing rural poverty through agricultural diversification and

emerging opportunities for high-value commodities and products Priority area 4: Promoting poverty alleviation and sustainable management of

water land and forest resources Priority area 5: Improving policies and facilitate institutional innovation to support

sustainable reduction of poverty and hunger Each of these priority areas comprises 4 more specific priorities and of these the following are perhaps the most relevant and have resulted in a number of important initiatives on underused species: Priority 1B: Promoting conservation and characterization of under-utilized plant

genetic resources Priority 2C: Enhancing nutritional quality and safety Priority 2D: Genetic enhancement of selected high-value species Priority 3A: Increasing income from fruits and vegetables Priority 3D: Promoting sustainable income generation from forests and trees Priority 4D: Promoting sustainable agro-ecological intensification in low and high

potential areas Priority 5A: Improving science and technology policies and institutions Priority 5B: Making international and domestic markets work for the poor

7 Monographs include: Buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentus), Chenopods (Chenopodium spp.), Hulled Wheats, Tef (Eragrostis tef), Bambara Groundnut (Vigna subterranea), Grass pea (Lathyrus sativus), Lupin (Lupinus spp.), Coriander (Coriandrum sativum), Oregano (Origanum vulgare), Niger (Guizotia abyssinica), Andean roots and tubers: Ahipa, arracacha, maca and yacon, Chayote (Sechium edule), Mashua (Tropaeolum tuberosum), Yam Bean (Pachyrhizus spp.), Carob tree (Ceratonia siliqua), Physic nut (Jatropha curcas), Breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis), Mangosteen (Garcinia mangostana), Monkey Orange (Strychnos cocculoides), Ndjanssang (Ricinodendroni heudelotii), Pili nut (Canarium ovatum), Sago palm (Metroxylon sagu), Tres Especies de Zapote en América Tropical (Pouteria spp), Aibika/Bele (Abelmoschus manihot), Black nightshades (Solanum nigrum and related species), and Cat's whiskers (Cleome gynandra).

16

This evolution in the CGIAR’s priorities and strategies has led to a situation where today a significant number of the Centres are involved in one way or another, directly or indirectly, with underused species. In addition to the more traditional CGIAR work on genetic resources, plant breeding and agronomy, activities now encompass such areas as crop diversification, domestication, income generation, processing, nutrition and health, marketing, and policy and institutional reform. The following gives a few examples of the work of some of the Centres on underused species, in order to show the range and diversity of activities currently being undertaken within the system. It does not aim to be comprehensive and significantly more work is being carried out than it has been possible to list here: 1. Bioversity International remains, arguably the most active Centre in

underused species and it currently hosts GFU. A new Platform for Agrobiodiversity Research has been launched, with significant implications for research on underused crops, and a new System-wide Plant Genetic Resources Programme (SGRP) strategy is being developed that includes new and under-utilized species. A major international collaborative project supported by IFAD works in Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Morocco, Peru and Yemen to: • increase the contributions of neglected and underutilised species (NUS) to

improved livelihoods through enhancing the capacities of stakeholders in value-adding technologies and best practices for the promotion of local biodiversity, together with more effective marketing of target species and products

• identify the contribution that key species can make to dietary diversity and to improved nutrition, particularly in children and expectant women.

• strengthen the contribution of NUS to sustainable agricultural production through their integration into an increased range of production systems, ensuring their improved use and diversity maintenance in these systems

• develop methodologies and approaches for the management of tourism activities by local communities with a focus on safeguarding their own cultural identity and their genetic resource assets through NUS

• support the development of multi-sectoral enabling policies at national and international levels, including the provision of relevant data to policy makers, and to strengthen collaboration among institutions working on NUS.

CIAT has initiated a Rural Agro-enterprise Development (RAeD) project that works across commodities and disciplines in a commodity chain perspective. Activities involve not only production but also process and marketing. CIAT is also working on various tropical fruits including; lulo or narajilla, (Solanum quitoensis), mora or Andean raspberry (Rubus glaucus) and avocado (Persea americana). The work promotes on-farm conservation and the evaluation and

17

selection of superior clones and has links to the RAeD project. CIAT has also established an Information Centre of Tropical Fruits. CIFOR is involved indirectly with underused forest species in a number of its projects, although these are mostly designed to address more generic issues such as the sustainable use of forests and managing landscapes for sustainable livelihoods. A project on protecting and improving human well being through forests, for example, is conducting a series of case studies in India, Nepal, Cameroon, and Guinea, looking at markets for non-timber forest products and identifying methods and opportunities for sustainably producing them. CIP is continuing to work on Andean roots and tubers, primarily through it in situ and ex situ conservation activities and the selection of superior genotypes. It is also involved in activities on other Andean crops, for example quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa). CIP also convenes a collaborative project entitled Urban Harvest that promotes urban and peri-urban agriculture and includes a number of research activities on underused species, especially vegetables. ICARDA, over recent years has become involved in conducting research on a wide variety of underused crops, especially through its Mega-projects on a) integrated gene management: conservation, improvement and sustainable use of agrobiodiversity in dry areas, and b) improvement, intensification and diversification of sustainable crop and livestock production systems in dry areas. Much of the research focuses on diversification and includes both production and marketing. Underused crops studied by ICARDA include: pomegranate (Punica granatum), pistachio (Pistacia vera), cactus pear (Opuntia spp.), sesame (Sesamum indicum), linseed (Linum usitatissimum), lupin (Lupinus spp.), and various medicinal and spice plants. ICRISAT, in addition to the work on minor millets mentioned earlier, has a number of other activities that involve underused species, for example in its project ‘Reducing Rural Poverty through Agricultural Diversification and Enhancing Opportunities for High-Value Commodities and Products’ and through the collaborative Desert Margins Project. Research and development work includes:

• Domestication of Acacia senegal • Research and promotion of traditional vegetables. • Promoting Roselle (Hibiscus sabdifara.) as a cash crop for export • Research and promotion of forage millet varieties • Production of watermelons on stored soil moisture • Pomme du Sahel: introduction of the domesticated Ziziphus mauritiana

from India • Introduction of new species and varieties of various fruit trees

IFPRI is carrying out a number of policy-related activities that are relevant to underused species. One of the outputs foreseen of its sub-theme on Genetic

18

Resource Policies for the Poor is the identification of market related means of promoting the sustainable management of crop genetic resources, including underused species. Under its research theme on the Future of Smallholder Agriculture, IFPRI aims to improve the competitiveness of small farms through better links with markets, for example through contract farming, vertically integrated schemes, market information systems, commercial rules and laws, commodity exchanges, and producer and trader associations. IITA, in addition to its work on Bambara groundnut, yam and cowpea referred to earlier, is working on underused crops primarily through its projects on Agrobiodiversity and High-Value Products. The IITA genebank is processing for long-term storage and distribution approximately 200 accessions of 11 different underused species and aims, by 2009, to have characterized and be in a position to distribute 200 accessions of African yam bean (Sphenostylis stenocarpa). IITA also convenes the Sustainable Tree Crops Programme(STCP) that is looking, among other things, at how underused species can best be associated with perennial tree-crop systems. IWMI, in addition to hosting ICUC, is involved indirectly in underused crops through its work on alternative crops in irrigated systems. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) has been active in underused species since its establishment – indeed almost all the species with which it works have the potential to be grown on a larger scale. ICRAF has developed and maintains an on-line searchable agroforestry tree database that contains details of more than 500 species and it manages a germplasm collection of approximately 1,800 accessions. Non-CGIAR Institutions involved in underused species: There is a very large number of institutions outside the CGIAR that work, in one capacity or another, on underused species. The database of institutions and projects maintained by GFU provides a glimpse of some of the actors involved, but only a rather partial one. It is summarized in Annex 5 but is heavily biased towards Europe and the Anglophone developing world and is largely silent on the very large amount of work being done, for example, in North America, India and China and in many university departments throughout the world. While a complete listing would be interesting in order to gauge where most efforts lie – and hence what services are most needed - and where significant gaps exist, this is clearly beyond the scope of this report. An attempt is made here only to briefly describe the major types of institutions involved and to identify a few of those that provide services of interest more generally and that go beyond the research and development of a just a single, or small group of species. While it is clearly difficult to fully categorize the wide variety of institutions involved with underused species, most fall into one of the following broad categories:

19

• International and regional institutions and programmes come in a range of

different guises, from CGIAR-like international research centres such as the World Vegetable Centre (AVRDC), headquartered in Taiwan and CATIE in Costa Rica, international foundations such as PROTA in the Netherlands and PROSEA in Indonesia, to special programmes of international agencies such FAO and the MOST Programme of UNESCO. Such institutions and programmes, like those of the CGIAR, often provide services in addition to more narrowly focussed R&D, and are thus likely to be key partners for the new entity.

• National government-sponsored research and development institutions, of

which there is a large number and variety. While many have programmes that are narrowly focussed on a few crops of national interest (a large number of NARS institutions come in this category), others, including several government-supported technical assistance institutions operate internationally (e.g. CIRAD, France and GTZ, Germany) and have a much wider range of expertise and projects. As such they are natural partners for the new entity.

• Universities collectively have perhaps the largest number of projects focussed

on underused crops. These are often the result of a particular interest of one, or a few, professors or other staff. They can cover everything from a narrow focus on one or a few species to many, and from just one component of the value chain to a broad coverage of all aspects from the conservation of genetic resources and breeding to processing and marketing. A few universities have programmes that offer important international services (such as information or technical assistance) that go beyond a single or small group of crops, and it is these that are perhaps of special interest as key partners for the new entity. They include, for example: the New Crops Centre at the University of Purdue, USA; the Australian New Crops information service at the University of Queensland, Australia; the Agroforestry and Novel Crops Unit at James Cook University, Australia; the Laboratory of Tropical and Subtropical Agronomy and Ethnobotany at the University of Ghent; the Centre for Underutilised Crops at Southampton University, UK; the ILDIS Coordinating Centre at the University of Reading, UK; the International Initiative for Non-food Crops (IIN) at Imperial College, UK; and AlternativeCropsCanada.org at the University of Guelph, Canada.

• Botanical gardens and herbaria frequently carry out activities relevant to

underused species and provide services of interest to others. For example, they may offer a valuable source of taxonomic and other information (such as Index Kewensis maintained by he Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew) or of seed, and if so are likely to be important partners for the new entity.

• NGOs come in many shapes and sizes, as seen in even the very partial listing

given in Annex 6. They range from small, local organizations (including

20

farmers and growers associations and the like), to international scientific societies such as the International Society of Horticultural Science (ISHS). While most tend to be somewhat narrowly focussed on a small number of crops and/or locations, others, such as ISHS, have a wide range of activities in many different countries and could be very important partners for the new entity.

• Private For-Profit organizations also come in a vast range of shapes and

sizes and it is impossible to categorize them all here. However, they range from small seed merchants and processors to international agro-industrial giants and supermarket chains. Collectively they constitute a very important client group for the new entity and some may even become important partners in certain areas of the work (e.g. as leading members of consortia or as providers of information and knowledge).

• Donor institutions do not normally implement projects, although a few are very

active in supporting and being involved in the projects they fund. The McKnight Foundation (USA), for example, supports and links a number of projects on underused species around the world and ACIAR supports a several projects on underused crops in Southeast Asia. The new entity should make special efforts to dialogue with and partner such institutions.

• Networks and Consortia, in addition to those for which the CGIAR provides

coordination and leadership (such as the European ECP/GR programme and the Platform for Agrobiodiversity Research convened by Bioversity International), various networks and consortia have been established that are concerned in some way with underused crops and which could be important partners for the new entity. They may be national in scope (such as the All India Coordinated Research Project un Underutilized Crops) or international (such the Interactive European Network for Industrial Crops and their Applications, or the INBAR-led GFAR Partnership Programme on Non-timber Forest Products for Livelihood Development). One such consortium that should be considered a key partner for the new entity is the Global Horticultural Initiative, set up under the auspices of the World Vegetable Centre (AVRDC), CIRAD and ISHS.

In conclusion, while the new entity clearly needs to forge strong partnerships with the CGIAR, there are clearly many other institutions with which it should also seek to partner in order to reduce unnecessary competition and to build on the many possible complementarities and synergies. In the first instance, it might be most useful to identify and seek to form alliances with all those that offer important information services relating to the needs of researchers and others involved with underused crops. 5) Need for, mission and objectives of the new entity:

21

Given the large number of individuals and institutions active in research and development of underused plant species, the question arises as to a) whether or not an additional entity is needed and b) if so, what should be its mission and objectives? With respect to the first question, all respondents to the questionnaire, without exception, recognized that there was an important role to be played by the proposed new entity, although differences inevitably existed as to what they felt should be its primary objectives and how it should be structured and organized. ICUC, and more recently GFU were both created to play a role for which there was a recognised and widely felt need, especially among developing country research and development institutions – a need that was clearly demonstrated through the priority given by the Global Forum for Agricultural Research (GFAR) to the creation of GFU. Since their creation it has continued to be abundantly evident, not least from the extensive calls made on the services of both institutions, that they do indeed fill an important niche and one that is likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future. The provision of a user-friendly one-stop-shop for information and knowledge, technical backstopping, the facilitation of capacity building and the brokering of partnerships and consortia are all areas that would be greatly missed if GFU and ICUC no longer existed. Question 5 of the questionnaire asked respondents to indicate what they believed should be the main objectives of the new entity. At the highest level, there appears to be broad agreement for a mission statement that would encompass the following: to enhance the role of underused crops in improving the livelihoods and wellbeing of the world’s poorest people, in sustaining human cultures and in achieving a better stewardship of the environment. It should be noted that such a mission statement would be broadly in line with those of both ICUC8 and GFU9.

8 ICUC’s Mission: To promote the use of underutilised crops for the benefit of humankind and the environment ICUC’s Goal: Reduced poverty and suffering through the improvement and promotion of underutilized crops for food, medicines, fodder and industrial needs and for environmental protection 9 GFU’s Mission: Promote and facilitate the sustainable deployment of underutilized plant species to increase food security and alleviate poverty among the rural and urban poor. GFU’s Objective: Support and strengthen organizations and networks working on different aspects of underutilized species through: • providing improved access to information and financial resources • increasing public awareness on the role of underutilized species for improving livelihoods • giving advice to policy makers on how to create an enabling policy environment for the

deployment of underutilized species

22

Almost all the ‘lower-order’ objectives listed by respondents are subsidiary to such a broad mission statement and tended to relate more to the new entity’s thematic focus and/or modus operandi, the subject of the following sections. 6) Programme focus: The major programmatic focus of the new entity was explored in question 6 of the questionnaire. A series of possible activities were presented, based broadly on the range of activities currently covered by ICUC and GFU. Respondents were requested to rate these in terms of their importance for the new entity and were invited to add any comments they felt were relevant and to suggest additional areas that should be covered. A summary of the numerical ratings is provided in Annex 4. In the sections that follow, each topic is presented and analysed separately and an overall summary is provided at the end. a) Providing an information clearinghouse/global knowledge management service: The highest rating of all was given to the new entity playing a key role in information management, with almost 90% or all respondents indicating that such a function was either essential or highly desirable. Of the 35 responses only two felt that such a function was not very important or unimportant, the latter commenting: “Why a global (information) management service when the focus is on local values and practices associated with underutilized crops?”. Commenting on the importance of providing information and communication services, one respondent noted that there is “more readily available information on African plants in the north than in Africa itself.” Several respondents commented on the current service provided by GFU through its web portal, indicating that it is well recognized and appreciated. A range of different approaches to information management and dissemination were advocated including:

• developing and maintaining on-line primary databases covering as wide a range of underused crop species as possible, as well as on other key topics (however, see below);

• concentrating on the provision of “meta knowledge”, i.e. providing a guide and gateway to databases and information sources maintained by others;

• providing synthesized information and analyses, packaged and disseminated in a form suitable for particular target audiences – including in local languages;

• working with others to extend and strengthen the coverage of underused crops within their own information services, e.g. FAO’s World Information and Early Warning System (WIEWS); Bioversity’s germplasm collection directory; Purdue University’s NewCrop website; the information service of the new International Initiative for Non-Food Crops at Imperial College;

23

and the new information service being developed by the Global Horticultural Initiative;

• providing an on-line facility for discussion and the exchange of information and ideas; not just a passive service but the promotion of on-line meetings and a venue where various stakeholders can build alliances, discuss ideas, plan activities, etc. (Efforts by GFU and ICUC to launch an initiative along these lines under the umbrella of the International Society of Horticultural Science were commended).

A number of specific topics were mentioned that respondents felt should be given particular attention within the context of the information and communication services to be provided by the new entity. These included: • providing access to information on a wide range of different underused

crops, including their nutritional value, potential uses, varietal characteristics, environmental requirements, cultivation methods, processing methods, etc.;

• providing a gateway to accession-level crop databases in conjunction with the CGIAR’s Systemwide Information Network on Genetic Resources (SINGER) or other accession level information system;

• information on research and development; • providing access to information on local and indigenous knowledge

concerning underused crops. As such knowledge is often only to be found in local languages, there is a particular need for access to it in English and/or other major languages;

• providing information on policy and regulatory issues including analytical policy briefs;

• information on potential sources of funding and a guide to accessing such sources;

• information on institutions involved in underused species and experts who would be willing to make their expertise available;

• information on opportunities for education and training; • market information, including the results of previous market research (see

also questions d. and e. below); • scientific publications. There was a suggestion that the new entity should

publish, perhaps jointly with one or more other institutions, a technical newsletter or even an on-line refereed scientific journal on underused crops;

• language was identified as an issue, especially for farmers, local NGOs, traders etc. One way to address this would be for the new entity to foster the development of local/national information sources.

Respondents were asked to identify the key target audiences for the proposed information and communication services. All main stakeholder groups were mentioned including:

• Researchers (in national, regional and international institutions)

24

• Research mangers • Extension agents • Policy makers and national funding agencies • Bilateral and multilateral donors and staff in development assistance

organizations • Farmers • Members of growers associations, cooperatives etc. • Grassroots/local and international Civil Society Organizations • Agro-industry: processors and product developers • Marketers, traders and buyers for supermarkets etc.

Conclusions: there is a strong consensus that the provision of information and communication services should be among the key activities of the new entity. This should build upon the current initiatives of GFU and ICUC and the services should be widely publicized. It is proposed that a major focus would be on acting as a knowledge broker, or clearinghouse at the meta-level, providing a one-stop-shop to assist stakeholders in their search for reliable information on the topics they need. In addition to facilitating access to information held by others, the new entity should also be pro-active in analysing and synthesising data and in disseminating the results in formats designed to meet the needs of clearly identified target audiences. The new entity should also aim to promote two-way communications: the exchange of data, information and ideas, a forum for building partnerships and alliances, etc. A fourth area might be in promoting the development of local information services, especially in local languages It is strongly suggested that prior to making any major additions or changes to the information and communication services already provided by GRU and ICUC, and in particular before considering the development of any new primary databases, an in-depth study/survey should be carried out of stakeholder information needs as well as of other already existing, readily accessible information sources that might, with or without modification or strengthening, serve to meet such needs. b) Undertaking hands-on research and development activities: Of all the activities listed in the questionnaire, respondents appeared most divided on the question of whether or not the new entity should be active in hands-on research and development. While 30% said that they felt it was essential or highly desirable that the new entity should take on such a role, 45% said it was not very, or not at all important.

25

Comments on this question included: • Underutilised crops are under-researched crops. • Research should be carried out with / through organizations located in

the relevant regions. • Creating a new research Centre rather than promoting a platform or

network would contradict present trends resulting from the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.

• Research should be done by national entities, possibly with support and guidance from the new entity.

• Implementation of pilot projects (if successful) would be an incentive to others engaging in similar activities.

• This would probably go beyond the capacity of even a joint unit. • Research and development should be carried out by units that are

already working on the species concerned. The new entity should try to raise funds and promote collaboration among all those working on the species.

• It is impractical for the new entity to be established as a research institute given the large number of potential species (6-7,000). It is more important to synthesise research results achieved by others and make this available to potential users.

• How to prioritise the huge number of species? This should be done at the national level.

• The entity should seek to stimulate research and development work but should only be involved if there is wide general significance of any results.

• It is extremely important that the entity undertake research to fill in gaps in knowledge.

• Species are underused because markets are lacking altogether or are not available to sectors of the agricultural community. Models for the adoption of new species with a view to income generation (at regional or national level) might be valuable.

• New models are particularly valuable, but lessons from previous successes (e.g. kiwis, the many new citrus species available, ugly fruit, the many new fruits available in Brazil) must also be worth having documented.

• Plenty of entities are out there who are in a better position to carry out hands-on research.

• Conducting active, hands-on research can help give credibility, but by doing so the new entity would risk compromising its role as a neutral, all-encompassing advocacy body.

• There is no end to the amount of research that can be done, most of it will be somewhat location specific. The center may participate in the occasional study to show it is knowledgeable, and to keep itself up to date.

26

• Hands-on research and development should be promoted but carried out by others, including the CGIAR at the international level and national research agencies and universities at the national level. The new entity need not carry out its own research; indeed this might even be seen as counter-productive.

• The entity should foster formally designed comparative trials and nurseries of non-invasive underused species.

• Advocacy that does not stand on some sort of research basis is likely to sound hollow.

• There are enough labs/programmes/universities where such work can be done and contracted. They need promoting and fostering.

While the above set of comments reflects a wide diversity of opinion, this is at least in part due to different interpretations of the question; it was not about the importance of research per se, but the role, if any of the new entity in hands-on primary research. While all doubtless agree that research and development are critically important, only a small minority actually saw hands-on research and development as a major function of the new entity. There seems to be a clear majority view that the new entity should predominantly play a catalytic, facilitating and supportive role, while a few respondents felt that it should also maintain a small hands-on research function as well, mainly for reasons of credibility and keeping up-to-date. Some explicitly acknowledged that such a role, if undertaken, could be based on the analysis of secondary data rather than on the generation and analysis of primary research data. Conclusions: it is suggested that the new entity should not itself have a major hands-on research and development function. It should, however, act primarily to catalyse, backstop and add value to the efforts of others. It should be active in areas such as helping to build R&D consortia and networks, backstop R&D efforts through its information and communication services, be active in helping to publicize the results of research and possibly help facilitate the process of setting international research priorities and strategies. To the extent that staff of the new entity are actively involved in any research, this might best be carried out through the analysis of secondary data and/or through supervising interns, Associate Experts, higher degree students or the like. Policy research and analysis lends itself to such an approach (see following section). c) Policy analysis and advocating for policy change: There was a broad consensus that a change in policy, at all levels, could help provide a more favourable environment for the production, processing, marketing and consumption of underused species. A large majority felt that the new entity should be active in the policy arena through carrying out appropriate analyses and, where necessary, advocating for change. 74% of respondents indicated that they thought that such activities were essential or highly desirable and only one felt that it was not at all important, stating: “ Promoting underutilized species cannot be a goal by itself. If the case can be made that (some) underutilized

27

species have a lot to offer as poverty alleviation tools or towards sustainable agriculture, the center should make the effort to integrate them in such programs.” Comments and suggestions relating to policy as a topic for the new entity included:

• Some reservations because policy analysis / change requires in-depth knowledge and being immersed in national / regional fora / bodies, which is only feasible for individuals / organizations located in the respective countries / regions – thus “advocating for policy change” yes – conducting (directly) “policy analysis” no.

• Policy analysis – Yes. Advocacy – this is less likely to be effective except at a local level.

• Sound technical and scientific data supporting the cause for higher attention and investment in underutilized species is crucial.

• Advocacy – funding is scarce because of lack of interest/understanding of the potential of underutilized species amongst policy and decision makers

• Easier said than done. Putting up some form of guidelines on prioritization of species and activities, strategies for conservation etc. may be a more practical and achievable objective.

• The preparation of, and advice on policy would be a very important contribution

• This may well be a particular niche that only the new entity would be adequately equipped to fulfil.

• It would be very relevant to address market failure issues by doing global policy analysis-related research on the conservation and productive utilization of underutilized species. Such activity would involve advocacy to bring global attention to the research results.

• I’m tempted to say that the role should be limited to presenting and analyzing policy options, but I do like the idea of a more advocacy role, for all its potential political difficulties. Would be great if the new entity could behave more like an NGO in some ways, but that may be dreaming.....

• This is one of the most important areas and one where large-scale changes might be possible. But policy analysis needs to be built on solid data and these don’t sufficiently exist at present. However, if this entity is not tasked to carry out primary research then an “intelligent” way of funding such targeted research must be found.

• Absence of enabling and focussed policies from governments has led to the current state of affairs in the sector. In order to bring awareness and positive change, analysis of the existing policies and advocacy for change based on research findings should be aimed at.

• Policy is a major constraint, including trade policy, economic incentives, subsidies, and so fourth. This is a serious pressure point.

28

• Focus on policy change by the new entity should be at the regional / international level. Local partners should be the ones to focus at the national level.

• It would not be sensible to cover in-house the needs for specialist skills for legal issues, IPR and trade barriers. The work could possibly be farmed out to specialized centres under close direction of the new entity.

• This is necessary to promote the strategy of Think Locally and Act Locally

Conclusions: there is a strong case to be made for the new entity being active in the policy arena. This could be through direct policy analysis and the preparation of policy briefs by staff of the new entity and/or through contracting or partnership arrangements with specialists in the areas concerned. The major focus of the entity’s own research and advocacy should probably be at the regional and international levels, while at the same time offering advice and assistance to partners active at the local and national levels. d) Providing links to market research and intelligence organizations and systems: Most respondents saw marketing as of critical importance and a key to many, if not most efforts to expand the use of underused species. While it is clearly not feasible for a small organization to take on a major role in providing market research and intelligence services, the question was asked whether or not the new entity should help provide links to organizations that do provide such services. 73% of respondents indicated that they felt this was an essential or highly desirable activity for the new entity while only 12% felt that it was not very, or not at all important. Comments on this question included:

• Key activity! If we wish to reverse the trend described in the first paragraph introducing this questionnaire, we have to “fight fire with fire”. If the market demand isn’t there, underused plant species will continue to be underused. Creating market demand is enormously complicated and requires specialist partners – hence the emphasis on ‘links’ to these organizations is the correct focus.

• This will require specific staffing • This seems the kind of work for which the new entity could have a

comparative advantage compared to most other entities that deal with specific aspects of neglected and underused species.

• This might involve the entity in focussing on specific crops and should only be undertaken where there are likely to be general experiences of value to the wider NUS community.

• This is important, but may not be overly difficult, i.e. it can be achieved fairly easily by maintaining a well-sourced database.

29

• It is important to provide marketing linkages. It would be appropriate for the new entity to create a portal where updated information could be accessed and posted by those working in the sector.

• Inclusion in market is critical for these species. • This could in fact be a subject of the information and knowledge

management services. • A core activity. • If the underutilized crop has commercial value, then the private sector

will definitely pick up this investment opportunity. We do not need to spend scarce resources to help the poor to market their products. Most likely the poor don’t have the marketing skill and resources to sustain the products in the market.

• Cooperate with development partners that have marketing experience. • In the first instance, NGOs, where they exist, are useful stakeholders.

A discussion and conclusions regarding the possible role of the new entity in the whole are of marketing is provided at the end of the following section. e) Promoting market-oriented action and the concept of value-chains In addition to the possibility of providing links to sources of market information, the question was asked as to whether or not the new entity should be active in promoting market-oriented (demand driven) action, including promoting the concept of value-chains (or commodity chains) when conceiving, planning and executing projects designed to promote a greater use of underused crops. While the question may not have been fully understood by all, there was nevertheless a clear majority in favour, with 2/3rds of respondents saying such activities were essential or highly desirable. Comments on this question included:

• Markets and value chains are an essential basis for promotion and expansion of underused crops.

• I give it less priority than the previous point because I fear that the new institution will want to take on part of this role itself (e.g. developing value chains), which will not work. Promoting the concept of value chains, yes.

• Should perhaps seek to build alliances with other organizations to do this.

• I am not so sure that this approach would help the farmers much; it seems less practical than the previous point (d).

• This is important to providing the required conceptual framework for neglected and underused species. The activities undertaken should provide general lessons.

• Yes, ok, in the sense of providing an information platform on which value chains can be built, as appropriate.

• Essential to expanding the use of underutilised crops.

30

• To be implemented in a general way so that it benefits a range of underutilized species.

• One of the most important activities, but again something that will ‘fall into place’ if appropriate data collection (whether through primary research or synthesis) has been carried out. If the question is whether market research (in whichever form) should be a priority, then I would give it a clear 1.

• Beware that commercialization can be harmful, but if locally, yes. • Should be addressed mainly through networks that understand local

barriers and options for their removal.

Conclusions: almost by definition, underused crops tend to be those for which there is a limited market. This can result from insufficient awareness of the product, poor product quality, an inability to supply the market with the quality or quantity of produce required and/or at the time needed, the existence of more economic and/or higher quality alternative products, insufficient marketable surpluses, excessive transport distances, lack of adequate transport infrastructure, excessive exploitation by middle men, overly stringent food safety regulations, etc. Addressing challenges such as these is essential to the success of attempts to increase the use of underused crops. The new entity should consider employing at least one senior staff member with expertise in this area. The new entity clearly cannot offer comprehensive market intelligence or market research services – the scale of the task required being way beyond what might be possible for a relatively small international institution. However, in order to promote a better understanding of the importance of markets and how they operate, and to provide advice and backstopping on how to influence them, how to maximize marketing opportunities and how to access and use them, the new entity might consider, inter alia:

• maintaining a database – and/or links to existing databases – of marketing expertise, both of individuals and institutions

• promoting the carrying out of case studies to determine best practices in a range of different situations

• preparing and disseminating guidelines and examples of best practice. • promoting the creation of consortia that link producers with processors

and local or international markets e.g. through establishing suitable electronic or other fora where producers, processors, traders, etc. can make contact and develop and exchange ideas

• promoting the concept of value chains (production-to-consumption chains) through the entity’s information and communication services

• training – capacity building is key and the new entity could develop training materials that emphasize such areas as the concept of value chains, entrepreneurship, processing, storage, marketing, packaging, labelling, quality control, meeting regulatory requirements etc.

31

• providing know-how on how and where to access local and international market information and, if feasible, providing appropriate links to relevant information sources

f) Fostering the development of a broad-based underused species community at the national and international levels: All too often people with an interest in underused crops are isolated from each other, for example a farmer or university researcher with an interest in a particular species may not have any connection with people having knowledge or skills in the areas of processing or marketing. The question was thus raised as to whether the new entity should actively promote the development of communities of practice involving individuals and institutions interested in underused crops at either or both the national or international levels. A majority (70%) of respondents felt it was essential or highly desirable for the new entity to take on such a role. Comments on this question included:

• A community of practice is required that includes growers, consumers, traders and researchers across species and commodity chains

• Who else is filling this role, if anyone? • A critical mass of stakeholders will generate desired momentum to

spark more work. • This is possibly one of the preconditions to carry out some of the high-

priority activities. • Community of practice? Sure, again that just comes down to better

information and better information flows. • Important activity in support of the advocacy role of the new entity. • An activity that is necessary but cannot in itself be the raison d’etre of

this new entity. If the entity has credibility through its outputs it can play a leadership role. ICUC has started through recent activities within the International Society for Horticultural Science. Not sure how much influence the entity can have at national level.

• Yes, this is very important, for three reasons: o It may be difficult to find the funding and the critical mass for

working as an old fashioned international center o The idea of such a community is much more in line with the

current times, with the concept of devolution, networks, developing national capacity etc.

o It is probably the only way to accommodate the large range of different species and issues in this field

• The new entity need not carry out its own research to be able to develop such a broad-based community. Rather, this can be done through promoting research, developing policy, providing information, holding meetings (especially as part of other meetings, such as those organised by FAO or under some of the international Conventions).

• Engage also movements such as Via Campesina.

32

• Rather than moving from country to country to foster such development at the national level (that would take too much energy and make the task almost impossible), the new entity should promote processes and mechanisms at the international level (e.g. using UN fora) to influence governments to embed NUS in their R&D efforts.

• Too fluffy to be attractive when expressed in this way. • The development of a broad-based underused species community at

the national level is important in order to promote national identity through national values, culture and practices.

• Work on increasing awareness then this will follow. • The past global newsletter of ICUC-UK and FAO seemed to

accomplish this very well. It’s a cheap and effective way of doing it. Conclusions: promoting and backstopping partnerships, networks or consortia are clearly important functions for the new entity (see i below). However, in general these are probably most effective when fairly narrowly focussed on shared objectives, outputs and outcomes such as the development and marketing of a single species or product. Fostering the development of broadly-based communities of practice, having interests across a wide range of disciplines, regions, species and products, could be both more difficult or expensive to achieve and is likely to have less impact, especially when aimed at the international level. Three areas suggest themselves as worthy of consideration by the new entity: a) the creation of appropriate web-based services aimed at creating an international community of stakeholders (such as setting up on-line discussion fora etc.), b) the publication of a newsletter having this as one of its objectives, and/or c) facilitating the creation of appropriate communities of practice and support systems at the national level (for example, promoting the concept of national underused crops support units). g) Increasing awareness among targeted audiences and the general public of the importance and potential of neglected and underused species; A lack of awareness among consumers, farmers, traders, processors, policy-makers, donors and others has often been cited as a – or even the - major barrier to a greater use of underused species. When questioned on this, 53% of respondents said that increasing awareness among targeted audiences and the general public was an essential activity for the new entity and a further 24% felt it was highly desirable. Comments on this question included:

• The main target groups should be formal education (schools through to universities), end-users (actual and potential growers and consumers) and policy-makers (sponsors and governments).

• Working with others to create market demand yes, but more Natural History Channel Documentaries are not going to change the situation in the short-medium term.

33

• I think this could be a role provided that the purpose in doing so is clear. General dissemination etc. is expensive – the question is inevitably, what do the target audiences want to know? – or is this more about social marketing and improving market pull?

• Should be more aimed at targeted audiences than the general public • This activity is seen as a key one in order to create the preconditions

for meaningful interventions. • The important discussion for the entity may be where to focus

awareness-raising work. • The general public is better targeted by national-level efforts carried

out by partners at that level. An international entity such as this is better off targeting researchers, policy-makers, the development community etc.

• Increased awareness of the role of underutilized species in livelihood strategies, farming systems, environmental services etc., is a pre-condition for increased investments in underutilized species.

• This should be part of the core work of the new entity - to focus mostly at the international level. I would recommend initiatives by professional PA experts to help NARS on mounting campaigns at the national level.

• Public awareness is important to get the programme funded and keep it funded.

• A higher rating would be given to promoting awareness among donors! Conclusions: while there was clearly very strong support for the new entity being involved in public awareness, there was some divergence of views regarding the nature of such activities and who should be the primary target audiences. The question needs to be asked regarding the value of raising awareness of underused crops in general (‘there are a lot of species out there that have the potential, with a little R&D, to make an important impact on poverty, livelihoods, food security, health, the environment, etc.”) compared to raising awareness of specific opportunities, commodities, etc. The former is probably a key background message (ideally backed by specific case studies) for donors, national and international policy-makers, etc., while the latter may be more relevant for helping to galvanize action among farmers, researchers, traders, processors and the like. Awareness-raising targeted at donors and key policy- and decision-makers, especially at the international level, would seem to be a legitimate, and important activity for the new entity. More specific awareness of particular crops or products, and opportunities for expanding their production and use, is probably best left to actors or consortia active in field or commodity concerned, often, but not exclusively at the national level. However, the new entity might be in a position to provide advice and other assistance to such efforts. h) Capacity-building, education and training:

34

When answering the question of whether the new entity should be involved in capacity-building, education and training, 66% of respondents said they thought this was essential or highly desirably. Comments included:

• Start by creating a database of what is presently offered around the world; target education and training on the capacity needed to create demand for, and relevant information about the use of these species.

• The inevitable question – capacity to do what, where and how will that capacity be sustained? Creating and sustaining institutions and supporting education programmes are expensive and long-term work, and to do this systematically will probably be beyond the resources of the new organisation. On the job and skills training is probably within both the resources and necessary mandate.

• I do not think that the new entity will ever be able to provide “hands-on” training etc., it should provide the tools and products that the specialist trainers, educators and capacity builders can use in their jobs.

• It might be better for the entity to stimulate development by others of capacity building activities. However, staff should be available to undertake capacity building work where practicable.

• The new entity should work with partners to strengthen the NUS component of the courses they offer (as was done in the case of GFU’s input to the joint Bioversity/Wageningen International/GFU/course on Promoting Agrobiodiversity Use: Markets and Chains).

• The new entity should be active in sponsoring PhD thesis research. It would be in a very good position to help identify research needs and to work with Bioversity, and/or other research institutions, to facilitate linkages between them and formal education establishments for generating new knowledge.

• I don’t think the new entity should itself necessarily provide training, any more than carry out hands-on research. But it could publicize training opportunities, provide the occasional bursary, try to link up supply with demand, influence curricula etc.

• ICUC has already found that this is an effective way to promote underused crops.

• The problem here is defining the scope of work on what could be an essentially endless task. The new entity might better serve its objectives by promoting such activities rather than carrying them out itself. This could include preparation of appropriate capacity building, education and training materials.

• Important in relation to techniques, but not individual species. • When promoting national values, culture and practices is part of the

national education system, then it would be easy to promote the conservation and utilization of underutilized crops that are associated with such values and practices.

35

• Extremely important, but in the context of networking, to build critical mass on a high priority species. Collaborators should be involved in defining the type of training.

Conclusions: given the huge size and complexity of the task, there is a clear consensus that the new entity should not aim to be a primary provider of education or training. However, there is a very real sense, as pointed out by one respondent, that most – if not all – of the activities of the new entity would, in one way or another, contribute to building capacity. More specifically, it is suggested that the new entity should be active in developing and disseminating appropriate training materials and in helping to provide access to materials developed by others. It should be well positioned to influence curricula and to provide information on available education and training opportunities. Although it is unlikely to be in a position to offer scholarships or bursaries, it could assist in raising funds for this through its contacts with donors and in the context of specific projects. There may well be opportunities for higher degree students to conduct their thesis research in association with the new entity, and staff could, to a limited extent, be encouraged to supervise or co-supervise such students. They might also give specific lectures on courses, or occasionally even run whole course modules. The new entity might also give consideration to promoting and facilitating exchange visits among scientists, farmers and/or others. With respect to target audiences, topics and methods, the list of possibilities is clearly very extensive and more detailed study and analysis is required before the new entity can set, and have confidence in its priorities. However, for the record, the following were specifically mentioned by various respondents as being important areas for the new entity: training of entrepreneurs; a special focus on processing, storage, marketing, packaging, labelling, quality control and meeting regulatory requirements; and the concept of value chains and how to develop and manage them. i) Promoting partnerships, convening consortia, backstopping networks etc. On average, this was regarded as the second most important activity for the new entity after its information function, with 83% of respondents rating it as essential or highly desirable. Comments included:

• Pump-priming only to establish consortia and networks that should then be self-sustaining.

• The new entity will need to work through partnerships, specifically those who have specific and complementary assets and resources. Backstopping rather than funding networks will be useful.

36

• This is the kind of work that would allow a much bigger “impact factor” then for instance training people. It is also a means to be strategic and to create new alliances that would not get established without help.

• Can the organization really hope to promote local consortia, beyond working on models?

• Essential. Indeed a core activity. • Essential for achieving big impact of any activities being carried out by

stakeholders • I would not see this as the main activity – to my mind there are too

many non-operational networks in place and everyone loves to be a coordinator but nobody really likes to be coordinated by others. A support role can be played, syntheses ought to be made but I would think that this would not be the main role.

• This will be a very important part of getting a community of practice to work.

• The entity should aim at being the ‘information component’ in multi-partnerships in rural development and should play a role in the coordinated biodiversity conservation efforts involving Bioversity, GEF, Global Crop Diversity Trust.

Conclusions: while promoting partnerships, convening consortia, backstopping networks, etc. were seen as extremely import concepts and activities for the new entity, there was a divergence of opinion as how best it should be involved. Past experience with running networks, e.g. UTFANET have not always been entirely positive. There were strong voices to avoid getting involved in setting up and running networks or consortia at the national level – although the new entity might assist in such cases through providing guidelines, examples of best practice, etc. A more appropriate role might be to promote and assist the creation and operation of regional and international consortia, and to participate in them (though rarely if ever lead them) primarily through the provision of relevant information and facilitating communications. j) Donor liaison and fundraising: 57% of respondents considered that donor liaison and fundraising were essential activities of the new entity, with a further 23% rating it as highly desirable. Comments on this question included:

• Conventional sources of support, as for major crops, are lacking. Funds need to be raised through convincing foundations and other private sector agencies and local governments that underutilised crops are the future.

• Clearly, to survive, the new entity will need reliable and predictable funding – in this respect it will inevitably be in competition with other organisations – raising funds is time consuming and very demanding of senior staff. The ideal would be to raise largish grants from two or three sources, if they can be found, though this could render it vulnerable to

37

a shift in donor staff or policies. It should avoid fund-raising on behalf of others; partners should raise their own funds! The business plan might look at raising funding directly from the public – for example the ‘Rare Breeds Survival Trust’ raises much of its income directly.

• This is possibly one of the key responsibilities of the entity, especially since the growers of NUS have no advocacy or “pressure” group anywhere.

• Extremely difficult to do as a general objective. Some will be necessary on its own behalf but it should not generally plan to do it for others.

• Fundraising and donor liaison should be done by the stakeholders for their specific purposes. The new entity should focus on sensitizing donors to the topic “underutilized species” and providing them with evidence of the importance of these crops (awareness creation). The entity can, however, provide stakeholders with information on funding opportunities

• Absolutely necessary; neither GFU nor ICUC have done sufficiently on this - though they are trying!

• Issues of donor liaison are something that might better be accomplished by the CGIAR and the national entities. At the national level, the ministries of agriculture should be promoted to do such work, and they are perhaps not best considered as donors.

• Essential – but not as an objective in itself. • This is important to leverage the government support system. • ICUC/GFU experience problems because they don’t have enough

critical mass; PROTA has much more critical mass, but is experiencing funding problems because it focused too much on content generation and forgot to sell the programme to the donors.

• This is a vital point. Donors should be educated on the value of these crops and their importance for the wellbeing of poor people.

• Should be in the context of mobilizing support and action for specific projects/networks working on agreed target species and using standard methodologies.

Conclusions: all inevitably agreed that good donor relations and fundraising to support its own programmatic and administrative needs are essential if the new entity is to thrive and be in a position to make a positive impact. Opinion was divided, however, over the extent to which it should be involved in fundraising for others. Respondents most closely associated with fundraising and donor agencies almost uniformly advised against taking on a responsibility for raising funds for others. It is suggested that the new entity follow this advice, while at the same time recognizing that it does have a significant role to play in raising awareness of the potential contribution of many underused species (see g above) among donors (bilateral, multi-lateral, foundations etc.) as well as with appropriate ministries in developing countries having a capacity to provide funding at the national level (Ministries of Agriculture, Science and Technology, Environment, Finance, Commerce etc.). It should also consider making

38

information available on the existence of specific funding sources and how to tap into them, through its information and communication services. k) Developing and promoting generic concepts, models and decision tools for research and development: In general there was less enthusiasm for this as a significant activity for the new entity than for many of the other possibilities presented. Only 59% of respondents felt that this was an essential or highly desirable activity. Comments on this question included:

• We neither have the time or luxury of researching individual crops ad hoc and without co-ordination. Priority species and activities need to be identified and set across crops and commodity chains. Models, new genetic and information technologies and decision tools need to be harnessed to accelerate progress and maximise impact.

• This should be covered already by Bioversity and others. I am suspicious of this focus when a hardnosed business mentality should be the main approach to creating an opening for these species – I doubt that modelling will achieve that aim.

• For whom? Who is the customer and who will pay? • As a facilitation unit, this would be a core activity for the new entity. • Other organizations are doing this in partnership with national projects • The new entity would be the appropriate place where these generic

concepts and tools should be developed and disseminated to all stakeholders for adaptation and adoption. Other existing institutions have no mandate and interest to develop generic tools and models but focus on specific cases.

• Much of this is already covered by Bioversity. • This is important but should be done principally by participating in

projects/studies at the national level. • This is consistent with encouraging others to do the work. This is a

way of contributing value to the development of the broad-based underused species community.

• This is also an important task, but probably will only be efficiently implemented after the launching of the organisation and the designation of one staff member to take care of this specific domain.

Conclusions: there seems to be reasonable agreement on the importance of developing and promoting generic concepts, models and decision tools to support the development and promote the use of underused species. There is also reasonable agreement that this is an appropriate activity for an international entity. Opinion is divided as to the extent others are filling this need – especially Bioversity, although the Director of that institute himself stated: “such activity is central to the reason for supporting and maintaining [a new] entity. It could be done through commissioned research. The results can be shared in the information clearing house in point “a” above.” It is suggested that the new entity

39

should work closely with Bioversity and other relevant institutions to define a programme of work that would result in the creation and dissemination of appropriate generic concepts, models and decision tools. Much, or even all of the work might best be carried by other institutions, possibly with the new entity playing a facilitating role. l) Promoting the establishment of priorities and strategies at the local, national and international level: Promoting wide agreement on priorities and strategies – creating a shared agenda - among key stakeholders is an important step in developing productive partnerships and fostering action. 66% of respondents addressing this question thought that this was an essential or highly desirable activity for the new entity. Comments included:

• As long as these are set at local/national levels. Integrating (agreeing on) these for more than one country will not be easy.

• This type of work might be able to build on the experience of Bioversity and GCDT – but this might turn the entity into a consultancy-type body, which would put a huge strain on the organisation.

• I do not think that the new entity should get involved in the priority setting at the local or even national level. It possibly should influence the processes through the provision of information and advice, not by being directly involved. The same might apply to strategies but is more complex and thus, more difficult to judge.

• The most important elements might include establishing strategies at an international level and developing frameworks and methodologies that can be adopted and used for local and national level priority setting and strategy development.

• I like the idea followed at the moment by ICUC and GFU of setting the international (and to some extent regional) framework and then letting people run with that at the national level.

• Enough has been done - let’s do the work now on the strategy already developed by various organisations.

• I would put more importance to identifying the approaches by which countries/organizations can identify their priorities and strategies.

• The promotion aspect is the most attractive, building the local and national capacity to develop their own priorities and strategies, while perhaps taking a more hands-on approach at the international level.

• This work should form part of the mandate of ISNAR-at-IFPRI rather than special pleading for NUS within a NARS. Should arise out of a rationalised NARS process of strategy development and priority setting not as a one-off exercise.

• This is only important at the local and national levels. • Should maintain a ‘watching brief’ on such strategies and be in a

position to comment constructively, suggest changes and help development of strategies where needed. Sufficient global strategies

40

exist without reinventing the wheel; they may need some fine-tuning and possible revision in a decade or so.

Conclusions: shared priorities and strategies underlie successful partnerships, thus their existence is important to the overall success of the new entity. However, there is a strong argument to be made that such priorities and strategies are most useful for guiding action at the local and national levels where the new entity would have little advantage in taking a significant role beyond promoting their development, possibly providing guidelines and examples of best practice, and making available appropriate information. However, the new entity could take on a more proactive role for updating and for monitoring the implementation of the regional strategic frameworks for Asia and the Pacific, and Sub-Saharan Africa, developed by GFU and ICUC, and for promoting the development of similar frameworks for other regions. m) Developing baseline data and indicators for monitoring and evaluating progress in the expanding use of neglected and underused crops: Only about one quarter of respondents felt this was an essential activity for the new entity and only just over half felt this was either essential or highly desirable. Comments on this question included:

• Yes as long as data are credible and transparent – this is not a promotional tool.

• Success if achieved should be fairly obvious; do we need indicators (numbers in boxes) to show this? Documenting successes and how they were achieved (e.g. conditions/actions that favoured success) would be an important contribution. Systematization studies, carried out by multi-disciplinary teams, are a much better way to spend scarce resources than using them for a detailed monitoring and evaluation scheme; the former is much more likely to contribute to further positive change.

• As a generic exercise I think this might have limited value and demand – however building in M and E performance measure in any activity undertaken is good practice and might help secure funding. However the traditional donor community might be more interested in livelihoods improved and poverty reduced, and the extent to which UUCs are the most effective way of achieving these goals.

• Possibly too big a task to conduct and also very resource demanding. This kind of baseline data and indicator development for monitoring NUS is possibly a typical responsibility for FAO. The entity should advise FAO how best to go about this.

• A valuable contribution that might be undertaken with some relevant international collaborators (FAO, Bioversity International).

• Important not only in English but also in other languages such as Spanish.

41

• Indicators yes, not so sure about data. Developing data suggests going out and doing research, which I don’t think this entity should be doing, at least not hands-on. But collating existing data, identifying gaps etc., yes.

• Would be very valuable but probably a very demanding task that requires substantial resources. Needs involvement of other organizations such as CBD, FAO, Bioversity International.

• Shouldn’t this be part of any project? Definitely necessary but not in isolation.

• Only in so far as it is important for donor agencies. Make use of FAO and CGIAR data-collection and analytical services. Species-specific networks should organise their own crop surveys and publicise results.

• This is important to relate the conservation and use of neglected and underused crops to traditional values and practices and national identity.

• Will be more important later. Conclusions: as for any organization, it will be important for the new entity to be able to monitor its progress and assess its impact, both to help improve its own performance and to be able to demonstrate to its donors the wise use of the funds provided. This will inevitably involve establishing baselines, milestones, and indicators. The experience gained in setting up its own monitoring and evaluation system is likely to put it in a good position to help others, through the provision of guidelines and advice. Such advice and assistance is likely to be especially helpful at the level of individual crops or projects, where such monitoring and evaluation should become routine. Accepting that it will be extremely difficult to set up a system for monitoring and evaluating more general progress in the expanding use of neglected and underused crops, going beyond just an aggregation of data on individual crops, some attempt should probably be made to do this, ideally in collaboration with other institutions such as FAO, Bioversity International and other CGIAR Centres. n) Conducting or supporting research and compiling evidence to demonstrate the value of underused species: 59% of respondents thought that it was essential or highly desirable that the new entity should conduct or support research, or at least compile evidence, specifically designed to demonstrate the value of underused species. Comments on this question included:

• I think that this is ‘do able’ for a small organisation – but I think that focusing solely on UUCs rather than in comparison with the fully utilised crops might only have limited value. However the opportunity to demonstrate that under certain conditions UUCs are superior could be very valuable.

42

• This gets a 4 because “supporting” was included in the question (otherwise it would have been a 5!). I am not at all in favour of establishing a new research institute for this theme.

• We need sound technical and scientific data that makes a solid point on the nutritional, economic, environmental and income generation value of engaging in work with underutilized species.

• Possibly an activity that can be done opportunistically and on a case-by-case basis.

• The entity may not be the best body to conduct research but could usefully be involved in compiling evidence. GFU and ICUC are in a unique position to strengthen and bring together research based on identified needs gathered from their extensive network of partners.

• Compiling evidence is an obvious role for the database • It is an important task but should not force the new entity to focus on a

number of species. The activity could be carried out by several others with the new entity analyzing and summarizing the various findings

• Needs to be done by collaborators • Absolutely necessary to underpin policy analysis and advocacy. This is

obviously very important, because the organization must believe in itself. The key here is to show how underused species contribute to sustainable and equitable development.

• Evidence based output would be the best way to disseminate or replicate any action research undertaken with specific objectives.

• Not actually conducting research, but rather promoting research and compiling evidence. The focus needs to be supporting the broad-based underused species community.

• New entity to collate successful stories (and failures as well) to draw general lessons and further knowledge on NUS

• It is more important to develop methodology to quantify values of UCs than to compile case studies and focus on benefits along the production-to-consumption supply chain.

Conclusions: in answering this question, there was a clear consensus that the new entity should not itself be directly involved in primary research to demonstrate the value of underused species. However, it was also recognized that such data is necessary to underpin policy advocacy, awareness raising and to make a convincing case to donors for funding. It is thus suggested that the new entity promote the collection of such data, help compile and synthesise it, and carry out analyses to increase its value for advocacy and fundraising. o) Please add any additional activities you feel should be undertaken by the new entity: Very few suggestions were received for additional activities to be taken on by the new entity, with several respondents commenting that the potential list of activities provided in the questionnaire was already long enough! Of the few

43

suggestions made, some had already been subsumed within items already addressed and others were clearly already the responsibility of other institutions. There were two main additional areas identified. The first was the suggestion to highlight processing – an area regarded as generally neglected. While many national and international institutions are heavily involved in genetic resources conservation and improvement and in crop production research and development, far fewer are active in the area of processing and the creation of new products. Furthermore, many of those that do work in this area have relatively weak links with the production research and development community. It is thus suggested that the new entity give special attention to this area, and in particular help to strengthen these links through its facilitation work, information and communication services and advocacy. The second area suggested for attention is the socio-economic environment of the research and development activities. Traditionally many underused crops are crops of the poor and marginalised and in order to maximise the impact of the work on their wellbeing, it is extremely important that it take full account of their social, cultural and economic context. Participatory research methods should be encouraged wherever appropriate, and due care paid to gender and human diversity issues. Recording and understanding local and indigenous knowledge about the crops and products is likely to be of critical importance in many situations – and attention must be paid to the issues of ownership of, and rights over the intellectual property embodied in such knowledge. Overall conclusions and suggestions on programmatic focus: The sections above have identified a series of important programmatic areas where the new entity would have a comparative advantage and could expect to make a significant impact. Overall it has a clear comparative advantage in undertaking activities in the international and regional arenas, while at the national and local levels it can generally best be of service through supporting and backstopping those who are better positioned to act at those levels. Given the large number of possible activities discussed, it might be helpful to indicate those that are considered essential for the new entity and those that should be taken on only if funding and other resources allow. It is thus suggested that the new entity give highest consideration to carrying out activities in the following areas:

1) Providing information and communication services, building upon the current activities of GFU and ICUC. A major focus would be on acting as a knowledge broker, or clearinghouse at the meta-level, providing a one-stop-shop to assist stakeholders in their search for reliable information on the topics they need.

44

2) In addition to facilitating access to information held by others, the new entity should also be pro-active in analysing and synthesising data and in disseminating the results in formats designed to meet the needs of the target audiences.

3) The new entity should also aim to promote two-way communications: the

exchange of data, information and ideas, creating fora for building partnerships and alliances, etc.

4) While it suggested that the new entity should not itself have a major

hands-on research function, it should aim to catalyse, backstop and add value to the efforts of others. It should backstop research efforts through its information and communication services, promotion of networks and consortia, publicizing the results of research and possibly through facilitating the setting of international research priorities and strategic frameworks.

5) Partnerships, consortia, networks, etc. are extremely import approaches

for the new entity, especially those that bring together different actors along the value chain. The most appropriate role might be to actively encourage the creation of regional and international consortia and networks, and to participate in them (though rarely, if ever, lead them), primarily through the provision of relevant information and facilitating communications. Although the new entity would not have a comparative advantage in taking a leading role in setting up and running networks or consortia at the national level, it might assist in such cases through providing guidelines, examples of best practice, etc.

6) The new entity should be active in the policy arena, especially at the

international and regional levels, both through direct policy analysis and the preparation of policy briefs by its staff, and through contracting or partnership arrangements with specialists in other institutions.

7) Awareness raising among donors and key policy- and decision-makers,

especially at the international level, would seem to be highly relevant for the new entity. It should seek to highlight the potential contribution of many underused species and thereby seek to raise support and create a more favourable environment for research and development. More specific and focussed awareness of particular crops or products, and opportunities for expanding their production and use, are probably best left to actors or consortia directly involved in the commodity concerned, often, but not exclusively at the national level. However, the new entity might be in a position to provide advice and other assistance to such efforts. The new entity should probably not be directly involved in primary research to obtain data demonstrating the value of underused species. However, given the need for good quality data to underpin both awareness raising

45

and policy advocacy, it is suggested that the new entity promote the collection of such data and help compile, synthesise and analyse it to increase its utility and value.

8) The existence or creation of effectively functioning markets, and linking

producers and processors with such markets are vital to the success of efforts to increase the use of most underused species. In order to promote a better understanding of the importance of markets and how they operate, and to be able to provide advice and backstopping on how to influence them, how to maximize marketing opportunities and how to access and work with them, the new entity might consider such activities as, inter alia:

a. maintaining a database, or linking to existing databases of marketing expertise, both of individuals and institutions

b. conducting case studies and determining best practice for a range of different situations;

c. preparing and disseminating guidelines and examples of best practice;

d. promoting the creation of consortia that link producers with processors and local or international markets;

e. promoting the concept of value chains; f. supporting training in such areas as entrepreneurship, processing,

storage, marketing, packaging, labelling, quality control, regulatory requirements etc.;

g. providing know-how on how and where to access local and international market information and, if feasible, provide links to relevant information sources

9) Good donor relations and effective fundraising to support its own

programme and administrative needs are essential – and will doubtless be a major responsibility of the CEO. The case for the new entity helping to raise funds for others, however, is less clear and should probably be avoided, apart from its role in raising awareness of the potential contribution of many underused species among donor agencies as well as among appropriate ministries in developing countries that have a mandate to provide funding at the national level (Ministries of Agriculture, Science and Technology, Environment, Finance, Commerce etc.). It might also consider making information available on the existence of specific funding sources and opportunities and how to tap into them.

10) There is a very real sense that most of the activities of the new entity

would, in one way or another, contribute to building capacity. However, given the huge size and complexity of the task, the new entity should probably not aim to be a primary provider of education or training. More specifically, it is suggested that the new entity be active in developing and disseminating appropriate training materials and in promoting access to

46

materials developed by others. It should aim to influence curricula and to provide information on available education and training opportunities. There may well be opportunities for higher degree students to conduct their thesis research in association with the new entity, and staff could, to a limited extent, be encouraged to give lectures, or occasionally even to run courses.

If resources allow, the new entity might also give consideration to taking on one or more of the following activities:

1) Conducting primary or field-based research is generally considered not

appropriate for staff of the new entity. However, to the extent that staff members are actively involved in research, this might best be carried out through the analysis of secondary data and/or through supervising interns, Associate Experts or higher degree students.

2) There may be a role for the new entity to develop and maintain one or

more primary databases. However, it is strongly suggested that prior to making any major new moves in this direction, an in-depth study/survey be carried out of stakeholder information needs as well as of other already existing, readily accessible information sources that might, with or without modification or strengthening, serve to meet such needs.

3) With respect to fostering the development of broadly-based communities

of practice, three areas suggest themselves as worthy of consideration by the new entity: a) the creation of appropriate web-based services aimed at creating an international community of stakeholders (such as setting up on-line discussion fora etc.), b) the publication of a newsletter having this as one of its objectives, and/or c) facilitating the creation of appropriate communities of practice and support systems at the national level (for example, promoting the establishment of national underused crops support units).

4) Developing and promoting generic concepts, models and decision tools is

an appropriate activity for an international institution. However, it is suggested that before making any moves in this direction, the new entity might consider consulting with other relevant institutions with the aim of defining an appropriate programme of work that would result in the creation and dissemination of clearly identified and needed outputs. In general, other partner institutions might best carry such work, possibly with the new entity playing a facilitating role.

5) While shared priorities and strategies underlie most successful

partnerships, efforts spent to develop them are arguably most useful in guiding focussed action at the local and national levels where the new

47

entity would have little comparative advantage except to provide guidance and support. It could, however, to the extent such priorities and strategies are needed, take a more proactive and leading role at the regional and international levels, e.g. in developing strategic frameworks for the regions not yet covered by the work of ICUC and GFU.

6) While the new entity will undoubtedly want to monitor its progress and

evaluate its impact, both to help improve its own performance and to be able to demonstrate to its donors the wise use of the funds provided, the extent to which this should become a more general service activity is questionable. However, the experience gained through its own monitoring and evaluation activities is likely to put the entity in a good position to help others, e.g. through the provision of guidelines and advice. This could be especially helpful at the level of individual crops or projects, where such monitoring and evaluation should become routine. Setting up systems for monitoring and evaluating more general progress in expanding the use of neglected and underused crops, going beyond just an aggregation of data on individual crops, while extremely difficult might usefully be attempted in collaboration with other relevant institutions.

7) Institutional Options The terms of reference of the study call for presenting institutional options with respect to issues such as staffing, length of life of the entity, potential host institution (if any) and location. Questions 7 to 9 of the questionnaire sought feedback on these issues and the results have informed the discussion presented in the following sections. Nature of the institution: There are perhaps two main broad options for the form that the new entity could take: an institution conducting hands-on research in its own right or a facilitating and catalytic service based largely on information and knowledge management. While only one respondent felt that it should be established as an international research institution (analogous to a CGIAR Centre and having a staff of 30 – 50 scientists conducting hands-on research), a number of others felt that it should take on a dual research and facilitating role. A number of respondents, however, felt the facilitating role alone was more appropriate and sufficient, and some explicitly rejected the idea of any hands-on research, both on the grounds of cost and because it could compromise the facilitating and service function. It is thus suggested that he new entity function in this way, i.e. as a facilitating and catalysing institution, but based on the arguments in section 6 above, this should probably not exclude it taking on a minor role in research, especially in synthesising and analysing secondary data relating to policy issues.

48

One respondent, emphasizing the proposed information function, suggested that the new entity be established specifically as an umbrella organization to oversee, publicise and raise funds for the three plant resources foundations: PROTA (Plant Resources of Africa), PROSEA (Plant Resources of South-East Asia) and PROLAC (Plant Resources of Latin America and the Caribbean)10. While the new entity should undoubtedly forge a close working relationship with these foundations, the majority of respondents clearly see a very important role for it that goes significantly beyond this proposal, or any other similarly narrow one. As to whether the new entity should take on the role of an information-based service unit (rather like GFU today) or assume more the role of establishing, leading or coordinating networks or consortia (more akin to ICUC’s modus operandi), the former role was generally seen as the more relevant. As one respondent stated: “everyone likes to coordinate, nobody likes to be coordinated”. While elements of the new entity’s programme would undoubtedly involve promoting, fostering, backstopping and participating in networks and consortia, it is doubtful that the new entity would have a significant comparative advantage in taking on a major on-going leadership role in many, if any such arrangements beyond their establishment phase. The question was raised as to what institutional form the entity should take. Options suggested included:

• a programme of another national or international institute. • a System-wide Programme of the CGIAR • a Challenge Programme of the CGIAR • a consortium or platform for action • an autonomous or semi-autonomous institution hosted either by a CGIAR

Centre or other international or national institution • a ‘free-standing’ international institution

Most of these options were considered in some detail in the excellent discussion paper prepared by Jaenicke and Hoeschle-Zeledon (2006) and the arguments pro and con the various options will not be repeated here. They are, however, reproduced in full in Annex 6 for anyone wishing to refer to them. Based on this analysis, and the feedback received through the questionnaire and interviews, it is strongly suggested that consideration be given to establishing a new, semi-autonomous entity, hosted by a well-functioning and technically appropriate institution. Such an arrangement would provide a solid administrative and legal basis for the new entity that, in turn, would hopefully inspire donor confidence. The hosting arrangements should be set up so as to allow for a reasonable measure of independence and an ability to pursue its own mission without undue influence from the hosting institution. At the same time, the entity should be sufficiently integrated into the host institution to be able to capture

10The name PROW was suggested: Plant Resources of the World

49

programme synergies that result from the association. This is explored further in the next section. While clearly the new entity should take on many of the functions and programme elements of both ICUC and GFU, it should probably be selective about this, mindful of its new mission, programme focus and modus operandi. To achieve this, it is suggested that it be set up as a new entity in its own right, de novo, and not through a formal merger between GFU and ICUC, or as a take-over of one by the other. However, the question arises as to who should be responsible for establishing the new institution if it is not to be a merger or take over? The Boards might wish to consider various options here including appointing an implementing agency (possibly a donor), or taking on the role themselves, possibly through establishing a joint committee or working group. Host institution and governance arrangements: If it is decided that the new entity should be hosted by another, already established institution as suggested above, the questions arise as to what is the desired relationship between the two and which institutes should be approached concerning their possible interest in hosting the new entity. On the first question, it would seem desirable that a formal agreement be reached between the implementing agency or committee (or other responsible body) and the host institution, outlining the terms and conditions of the hosting arrangements. As the entity will probably not have its own independent legal personality, at least initially11, this agreement should establish the legal basis of the entity within that of the host institute. This will undoubtedly require that it come under the overall fiscal and programmatic policies of the host institute and the governance of its Board of Trustees (or other legally responsible body). However, the agreement should make clear that for all practical purpose, providing there are no conflicts, the entity should be free to pursue its mission unhindered and in line with the directions set by its own oversight body. Such a body could take a number of forms, from a purely technical advisory body to an executive steering committee with both programmatic and managerial decision-making authority. It could comprise eminent individuals acting in their own capacity, or representatives of key partner and stakeholder organizations. Something in between these extremes is probably desirable; perhaps a Programme and Budget Oversight Committee comprising individuals acting in their own capacity as well as one or two ex-officio members (such as the entity’s CEO and a representative of the host institute). Due care must be paid to achieving an acceptable balance among members with respect to areas of expertise, gender, nationality, discipline, age etc. and it is recommended that whatever form it takes, its size be kept small, ideally to no more than 6 – 8 people. 11 It can take a considerable time and expense to obtain a legal personality, especially if it is to be recognized under international law. This may well not be necessary unless required by one or more significant donors.

50

With respect to possible host institutions, one decision that needs to be made is whether it should be a national or international institution, Both have advantages and disadvantages. Advantages of national institutions include:

• being closer the ultimate beneficiaries and ‘action’ • spin-off benefits for the hosting institution

Disadvantages include: • lack of international legal status • generally little experience hosting international staff and visitors – and

internal policies and procedures may hinder this. In the case of international institutions advantages include:

• international legal status is assured, with concomitant privileges and immunities;

• experience with, and set up to handle international staff and visitors with respect to such things as visas and work permits, travel arrangements, housing, schooling, handling international compensation packages, etc.;

Disadvantages include: • being further from ultimate beneficiaries • probably more expensive

While there are a number of instances of international organizations being successfully hosted but national ones, the overall advantages of an international host would seem compelling. To help decide on a suitable choice of host institution, it might be helpful to consider the following:

• It should be working on relevant topics, ideally closely related to the interests of the new entity.

• It should have a critical mass of staff with whom the entity can interact on programmatic and technical matters.

• It should regard hosting the entity as adding to its own programmatic interests, strengths and stature and hence actively want to act as host.

• Its desire to host should ideally be reflected in its willingness to grant generous terms and conditions in the hosting arrangements.

While several international organizations meet the first two conditions as is evident from their mandates and programme structures, the last two can best be assessed by direct discussion with the institutions themselves – or by tendering. Those that best meet the first criteria – i.e. that have the greatest programme affinity and a critical mass of relevant staff include, inter alia: AVRDC, Bioversity International, CIAT, FAO, ICARDA, ICRISAT, IITA and the World Agroforestry Centre. Of these, the ones with probably the best programme ‘fit’ are: AVRDC, Bioversity International, FAO and the World Agroforestry Centre. All have experience with similar hosting arrangements.

51

Location: The question arises as to whether it is best to adopt a centralised or decentralised institutional structure. Given the likely small number of the staff (see below) it is probably better to centralise, to help ensure a critical mass in one location. However, consideration should be given to out-posting staff to other locations as and when opportunities and resources allow. The location of the headquarters was regarded by many – but not all - respondents to the questionnaire as an important factor in the choice of hosting institution. However there was no clear consensus as to whether a developing or developed country location is to be preferred. The former is closer to at least a sample of the beneficiaries and ‘action’, and sends out a strong message of commitment to development. Staff and office costs are generally lower in developing countries, but the pool of skilled people may be smaller. A location in a developed country on the other hand is likely to ensure a larger pool of skilled personnel upon which to draw and possibly a better security situation. They also tend to offer better telecommunications facilities and greater international travel connections, although a number of developing countries compare well in such respects. Fears that donor support is likely to be less if the entity is located in a developed country are probably largely unfounded. Some felt that location in a developed country would help ensure that all developing regions get treated equally – or at least help to assuage fears that this would not be the case. There was, however, general agreement that whatever location was finally decided upon, it should afford opportunities for interaction with a range of other relevant institutions and programmes including, ideally, international as well as national ones. Given the arguments above, it is suggested that the following be considered as possible hosting institutions and locations for the new entity, in general order of priority: • Bioversity International: probably the institution with the greatest

programmatic affinity. It has extensive and largely very positive experience of hosting other entities, including GFU. Rome is an important global communications hub with excellent access to all regions, and is an important centre for a number of other relevant agricultural organizations including FAO, GFAR, The Global Crop Diversity Trust, IFAD and the World Food Programme. Italy, a country, has taken an interest in underused crops nationally and internationally, with work underway at several national institutions. If a developing country location is to be preferred, one option would be to locate in one of Bioversity’s regional offices, for example in its Regional Office for Sub-Saharan Africa on the ICRAF campus in Nairobi.

• FAO: has slightly less programmatic affinity than Bioversity International, but has a perceived neutrality that the CGIAR system sometimes lacks. It has the same advantages and disadvantages of the Rome location as Bioversity, but FAO bureaucracy can be onerous.

52

• World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF): the Nairobi campus of ICRAF offers a lot of advantages and houses a number of relevant institutions, including the regional or country offices of many of the other CGIAR Centres. It is also adjacent to the UNEP campus. There has been a considerable amount of work on underused crops in Kenya, by various national institutions NGOs etc. However while the new entity should probably give highest priority to working in Sub-Saharan Africa, individuals in other regions might look negatively on such a choice of location. Other regions of the world, with the exception of Southern Africa and possibly West Africa, are generally less accessible from Nairobi than from Rome.

• World Vegetable Centre (AVRDC): while location in the HQ of AVRDC in Taiwan is probably ruled out for political reasons, co-location with the Global Horticultural Initiative’s headquarters at AVRDC’s regional office for Africa in Arusha, Tanzania could be considered. It is likely to be the cheapest option and the work of AVRDC, and of GHI in particular, is very relevant to that of the new entity. While it also has the advantage of being “very near the coalface”, communications can be a problem and it has many of the same overall advantages and disadvantages of an East African location as does Nairobi.

In conclusion, while it is it is believed that Bioversity International offers the best institutional hosting option by virtue of its programme affinity and location, others should also not be ruled out, especially if they are significantly cheaper. It is suggested that each candidate institution be sounded out as to their interests in hosting, and the terms and conditions under which they would be willing to take this on. Once such information has been assembled, together with cost estimates of the various options, a final decision can be made. Staffing: Funding realities are likely to determine that the staff complement, at least at the outset, be very small. This was also the general view of most respondents to the questionnaire. Assuming an initial senior scientific/professional staff of four (internationally and/or regionally recruited), expertise might be considered for recruitment in the following areas:

• crop production (diversification strategies, participatory research and/or value chains – n.b. genetic resources and breeding are well covered by other institution)

• socio-economics/policy • marketing/product development • information management

One of these positions would be that of the CEO, with an added responsibility for management, and fundraising. If additional positions were possible, they should probably be for communications/public awareness and/or for post harvest technology/processing.

53

Of equal or greater importance to the disciplinary background of the staff is their ‘people skills’; their ability to communicate and network, to build partnerships and to inspire confidence and trust. In addition to the full-time professionals, local part-time staff and/or consultants might be needed in such areas as information technology, policy analysis, administration, writing, editing, translation, data entry etc. The entity needs to be innovative about its staffing, and actively seek opportunities for staff secondments from other organizations and to take on less expensive or honorary staff such as retired professionals, honorary fellows, Associate Professional Officers, PhD students and the like. Lifespan: Given the proposed nature of the new entity, it is likely that it can serve a useful function for many years to come. However, while it may not make sense to set it up with a strict sunset clause, it should be subject to regular external reviews with a real possibility of termination if it is judged that the need for its services no longer exists or if it fails to meet clear milestones. Such reviews should probably take place every five years, possibly with a small mid-term review after the first three years to help make sure things are on track and to provide an external input to its development in its early, formative years. Name: Question 8 of the questionnaire invited respondents to suggest a name for the new entity. A list of all names submitted is given in Annex 7. A few people declined to suggest a name but made the following comments:

• The name should suggest that it is NOT business as usual • No acronyms – one single full name • Both ‘underutilized’ and ‘neglected’ have a somewhat negative

connotation (as one of my old friends put it: ‘why is Germany supporting unimportant crops? ….). It may be useful to sacrifice being precise and all-inclusive for something simple, such as ‘New Crops’. OK – perhaps not that simple!

• Stay away from ‘underutilized’ but focus on the potential. • underutilised plants should be called 'promising' plants

Given the advice for simplicity, a term like ‘Service’ might be preferable to ‘Facilitation Unit’ - and both would give a more accurate impression of the entity’s proposed function than ‘Institute’ or ‘Centre’. On this logic, ‘Global New Crops Service’, ‘World New Crops Service’ or ‘New Crops Service International’ might be considered. However, for greater simplicity still names such as ‘New Crops Service’, ‘New Crops International’ or ‘Crops of the Future’ might offer the best solution of all – or going simpler still, one person suggested the name ‘Novoplants’

54

8) Conclusions This report has tried to demonstrate that there is a clear and on-going need for an international entity to help catalyse, backstop, promote and publicise work on underused crops for the benefit of the poor and the environment. The services provided to date by ICUC and GFU are widely recognized as being of very considerable value and both are to be congratulated on their many achievements. The proposed action promises to result in the establishment of an entity that is even more efficient and effective, and one with the potential to achieve an even greater impact. However, there is undoubtedly a minimum size and critical mass of staff – possibly four senior staff members - below which the entity would risk failure. It is very much hoped that donor support will be forthcoming to not only guarantee such a minimal operation, but to go well beyond it, enabling the new entity to work and provide services across a much broader front. Such an entity would have much to offer and could be decisive in the success of efforts worldwide to capitalize on the potential of so many underused crops and to promote their use in the fight against poverty and malnutrition and in the struggle to achieve a sustainable future.

55

ANNEX 1

Underutilized Plant Species Research and Development Activities – Review of issues and options

Background Plant biodiversity plays a critical role in food and nutrition security of households, human and environmental health and other aspects of the overall livelihoods of people. However, globalization of trade and changing lifestyles have favoured only few major crops that have come to dominate national and international agricultural research and production and commerce. These species are now the basis of world’s agriculture with all the well-known negative side effects on agro-ecosystems and on the livelihoods of many small farmers in developing countries. Not only are a number of food species falling into disuse and are being replaced by the main commodities, but also many other species belonging to other categories such as fibres, medicinal plants, fodder species or those used in traditional construction. However, these neglected and underutilized plant species are part of a rich diversity and human culture, and they have a vital role to play in sustainable livelihoods, human well-being and ecosystem health and stability. There is increasing understanding among scientists, policy-makers and development specialists that they make valuable contributions to the following specific areas:

o Food and nutrition security and health o Income generation o Cultural identity o Biodiversity o Environmental risk management

Many achievements have been made by different stakeholders in the promotion of underutilized species as important assets to improve livelihoods. However, during broad consultations carried out over the past years by the International Centre for Underutilised Crops (ICUC) and the Global Facility for Underutilized Species (GFU) further need for leadership in creating a stronger evidence base for these contributions was identified.

56

Whilst GFU and ICUC both have played significant roles as champions in that field, their desire for closer institutional collaboration provides opportunity for a re-assessment of the role of a joint entity as a catalyst and intelligent knowledge br oker, adding value to other initiatives. The two organisations have started the process of consultation with an open brainstorming meeting during CGIAR-AGM in December 2006 (background document and minutes attached) which in itself built upon the jointly developed Strategic Framework for Underutilized Plant Species Research and Development. Terms of Reference An independent consultant is now being sought to carry out the following tasks:

1) Review of available information of ongoing and pipeline research and development activities on underutilized plants of major actors (e.g. from the GFU database, CGIAR Centre MTPs) and identify their comparative advantages.

2) Interview major actors in the field of underutilized crops on their perceptions regarding the role of the joint entity.

3) From these results suggest a profile for the entity that includes thematic as well as institutional options, staffing, length of life of the entity, potential host institution (if any) and location

4) Identify key partners to ensure success and impact of the entity’s operations

Duration The duration of the consultancy will be for a maximum of 15 days and will be performed between 01 June and 31 July 2007. The consultant will submit a draft report to the chairs of the GFU Steering Committee (Eric Kuenemann: eric.kueneman@fao.org) and the ICUC Scientific Advisory Board (george.rothschild@btopenworld.com) by 15 July 2007.

57

ANNEX 2 Questionnaire

The Future of the International Centre for Underutilised Crops (ICUC) and the Global Facility for Underutilized Species (GFU)

The globalization of trade and changing lifestyles have favoured only a few major crops and these have come to dominate agricultural production, commerce and research, nationally and internationally. Not only are a number of food species falling into disuse, to be replaced by the major commodities, but also many other species are similarly affected, such as those that can contribute fibre, medicine, fodder, or construction material. However, these neglected and underused plant species are part of a rich diversity, and many have the potential to play a much more important role than they do today in sustaining livelihoods, human well-being and ecosystem health and stability. The International Centre for Underutilised Crops (ICUC) and the Global Facility for Underutilized Species (GFU) have both been promoting and backstopping efforts aimed at realizing the potential of these species, through acting as a catalyst, facilitator and intelligent knowledge broker, conducting hands-on research and development activities, and through backstopping and adding value to the initiatives of others. Recently they have expressed the desire for closer institutional collaboration or integration, thus providing an excellent opportunity for a re-assessment of the role that such a joint or integrated entity could best play, its objectives and how it might be best organized and managed. To help provide guidance to moves in this direction, the views are being sought, through this questionnaire, of some of the main actors in the field. We welcome not only your reaction to the specific questions raised below, but also any other relevant comments or suggestions you may have. It would be very much appreciated if you could respond to as many of the questions below as you feel able to address, and return the questionnaire by 28 June either electronically to: geoffhawtin@hotmail.com or in hard copy to: Geoff Hawtin Manor Farm House 17 Front Street Portesham Dorset, DT3 4ET, United Kingdom Many thanks for your assistance in this process – it is very highly appreciated.

58

1) Name of respondent: ……………………………………………………………………….. 2) Address of respondent ……………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………….. 3) Are you or your institution directly involved with neglected and underused species and if so in what capacity (e.g. research, funding etc.) ……………………………………………………………………….. 4) What do consider the main barriers preventing the greater use of neglected and underused species? ……………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………….. 5) What should be the main objectives of the new entity? ……………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………….. 6) Please indicate against each activity listed a - n below, your rating of how important you feel it is for the new entity to carry out the activity indicated. Please indicate whether you feel the activity is (1) essential (2) highly desirable (3) desirable (4) not very important or (5) not at all important to be carried out by the new entity. Please add any clarifying/supplementary information and comments to each activity you regard as important, as well as any additional activities not listed.

a. Providing an information clearing house/global knowledge management service (if possible, please specify the main subjects of, or target audiences for such a service)

Rating: ……………………………..

Comments: ….……………………………………………………..

59

b. Undertaking hands-on research and development activities on specific species Rating: ……………………………..

Comments: ….……………………………………………………..

c. Policy analysis and advocating for policy change Rating: ……………………………..

Comments: ….……………………………………………………..

d. Providing links to market research and intelligence organizations and systems Rating: ……………………………..

Comments: ….……………………………………………………..

e. Promoting market-oriented action and the concept of value-chains Rating: ……………………………..

Comments: ….……………………………………………………..

f. Fostering the development of a broad-based underused species community at

the national and international levels Rating: …………………………….. Comments: ….……………………………………………………..

g. Increasing awareness among targeted audiences and the general public of the

importance and potential of neglected and underused species Rating: …………………………….. Comments: ….……………………………………………………..

h. Capacity building, education and training Rating: ……………………………..

Comments: ….……………………………………………………..

i. Promoting partnerships, convening consortia, backstopping networks etc. Rating: ……………………………..

Comments: ….……………………………………………………..

60

j. Donor liaison and fundraising Rating: ……………………………..

Comments: ….……………………………………………………..

k. Developing and promoting generic concepts, models and decision tools for

research and development Rating: ……………………………..

Comments: ….……………………………………………………..

l. Promoting the establishment of priorities and strategies at the local, national

and international level Rating: ……………………………..

Comments: ….……………………………………………………..

m. Developing baseline data and indicators for monitoring and evaluating progress

in the expanding use of neglected and underused crops Rating: ……………………………..

Comments: ….……………………………………………………..

n. Conducting or supporting research and compiling evidence to demonstrate the

value of underused species Rating: ……………………………..

Comments: ….……………………………………………………..

o. Please add any additional activities you feel should be undertaken by the new

entity:

……………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………..

7) Please provide any comments, suggestions or recommendations you may have regarding the organization, structure and management of the new entity, particularly with respect to:

I. Staffing (number of professional staff, main disciplines required, etc.) ……………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………..

61

II. Modus operandi (hands-on research vs. playing a catalytic, facilitating role; centralized vs. decentralized operation etc.)

……………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………..

III. Location of headquarters (developed vs. developing country, preferred continent, and/or indicate the most important factors to be taken into account in deciding the location)

……………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………..

IV. Institutional arrangements (fully independent vs. being hosted by another institution – national or international – vs. being incorporated as a programme within another institute, etc.)

……………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………..

V. Other ……………………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………..

8) Can you suggest an appropriate name for the new entity? ……………………………………………………………………… 9) Lifespan (should there be a set lifespan for the new entity? If so, what?) ……………………………………………………………………… 10) Any other comments or suggestions

……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………

62

ANNEX 3 List of individuals who responded to the questionnaire Name Institution Azam-Ali, Sayed University of Nottingham, UK Beer, John CATIE, Turrialba, Costa Rica Bennett, Andrew Syngenta Foundation, Basel, Switzerland Bordoni, Paul GFU, Rome, Italy Diekmann, Marlene BEAF, Bonn, Germany Engle, Liwayway AVRDC, Tainan, Taiwan Engels, Jan Bioversity, Rome Frison, Emile Bioversity International, Rome, Italy Galan, Victor ICIA, Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain Gale, Mike CGIAR Science Council, Norwich, UK Guarino, Luigi Global Crop Diversity Trust, Rome Italy Haq, Nazmul, SCUC, Southampton University, UK Hegde, Narayan BAIF, ICUC Scientific Advisory Board, Pune, India Hoeschle-Zeledon, Irmgard GFU, Rome, Italy Hoogendoorn, Coosje INBAR, Beijing, China Iwanaga, Masa CIMMYT, El Batan, Mexico Jaenicke, Hannah ICUC, IWMW, Battaramulla, Sri Lanka Janick, Jules CNCNP, Purdue University, USA Janssen, Willem World Bank, Washington, USA Karki, M & Rawat RBS ICIMOD, Khumaltar, Nepal Kueneman, Eric FAO, Rome, Italy Siand, Lim Eng Ex Min of. Agriculture, Malaysia Maru, Ajit GFAR Secretariat, Rome, Italy McNeely, Jeff IUCN, Gland, Switzerland Meschinelli, Alessandro IFAD, Rome, Italy Ochatt, Sergio INRA, Dijon, France Oshaug, Arne Akershus University College, Norway Padulosi, Stefano Bioversity International, Rome, Italy Palmer, John Forest Management Trust, Gainsville, Florida, USA Prabhu, Ravi ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya Siemonsma, Jan PROTA, U. of Wageningen, Netherlands Solh, Mahmoud ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria Sonwa, Denis IITA, Yaounde, Cameroon Swaminathan, M.S. MSSRF, Chennai, India Williams, J.T. ex ICUC Board, Cheadle, UK

63

ANNEX 4 Results of Question number 6a – 6n: Each of the following possible activities was rated (1) essential (2) highly desirable (3) desirable (4) not very important or (5) not at all important to be carried out by the new entity. The following provides the average score and the number of respondents in each of the five categories. Where respondents gave a rating that was intermediate between two of the five values, the score has been counted as being in the higher category.

a) Providing an information clearing house/global knowledge management service (if possible, please specify the main subjects of, or target audiences for such a service) Average score (35 responses): 1.49 Number rated essential (1): 25 Number rated highly desirable (2): 6 Number rated desirable (3): 2 Number rated not very important (4): 1 Number rated not at all important (5): 1

b) Undertaking hands-on research and development activities on specific

species Average score (33 responses): 3.15 Number rated essential (1): 7 Number rated highly desirable (2): 3 Number rated desirable (3): 8 Number rated not very important (4): 7 Number rated not at all important (5): 8

c) Policy analysis and advocating for policy change

Average score (34 responses): 1.88 Number rated essential (1): 17 Number rated highly desirable (2): 8 Number rated desirable (3): 6 Number rated not very important (4): 2 Number rated not at all important (5): 1

d) Providing links to market research and intelligence organizations and

systems Average score (33 responses): 2.20 Number rated essential (1): 7 Number rated highly desirable (2): 17 Number rated desirable (3): 5 Number rated not very important (4): 3 Number rated not at all important (5): 1

64

e) Promoting market-oriented action and the concept of value-chains

Average score (33 responses): 2.21 Number rated essential (1): 7 Number rated highly desirable (2): 15 Number rated desirable (3): 9 Number rated not very important (4): 0 Number rated not at all important (5): 2

f) Fostering the development of a broad-based underused species

community of at the national and international levels Average score (34 responses): 1.99 Number rated essential (1): 12 Number rated highly desirable (2): 12 Number rated desirable (3): 8 Number rated not very important (4): 1 Number rated not at all important (5): 1

g) Increasing awareness among targeted audiences and the general public

of the importance and potential of neglected and underused species Average score (34 responses): 1.75 Number rated essential (1): 18 Number rated highly desirable (2): 8 Number rated desirable (3): 6 Number rated not very important (4): 2 Number rated not at all important (5): 0

h) Capacity building, education and training

Average score (35 responses): 2.16 Number rated essential (1): 10 Number rated highly desirable (2): 13 Number rated desirable (3): 8 Number rated not very important (4): 4 Number rated not at all important (5): 0

i) Promoting partnerships, convening consortia, backstopping networks etc.

Average score (35 responses): 1.71 Number rated essential (1): 18 Number rated highly desirable (2): 11 Number rated desirable (3): 4 Number rated not very important (4): 2 Number rated not at all important (5): 0

j) Donor liaison and fundraising

Average score: 1.69 Number rated essential (1): 20

65

Number rated highly desirable (2): 8 Number rated desirable (3): 5 Number rated not very important (4): 2 Number rated not at all important (5): 0

k) Developing and promoting generic concepts, models and decision tools for

research and development Average score (34 responses): 2.26 Number rated essential (1): 10 Number rated highly desirable (2): 10 Number rated desirable (3): 9 Number rated not very important (4): 5 Number rated not at all important (5): 0

l) Promoting the establishment of priorities and strategies at the local,

national and international level Average score (35 responses): 2.17 Number rated essential (1): 10 Number rated highly desirable (2): 13 Number rated desirable (3): 7 Number rated not very important (4): 5 Number rated not at all important (5): 0

m) Developing baseline data and indicators for monitoring and evaluating

progress in the expanding use of neglected and underused crops Average score (34 responses): 2.35 Number rated essential (1): 8 Number rated highly desirable (2): 10 Number rated desirable (3): 12 Number rated not very important (4): 4 Number rated not at all important (5): 0

n) Conducting or supporting research and compiling evidence to demonstrate the value of underused species Average score (34 responses): 2.53 Number rated essential (1): 8 Number rated highly desirable (2): 12 Number rated desirable (3): 6 Number rated not very important (4): 4 Number rated not at all important (5): 4

66

ANNEX 5 Indicative list of institutions active in research and development

of underused crops The following lists some of the main institutions involved in research and development of underused crops, in addition to ICUC, GFU and the IARCs of the CGIAR. It has been assembled largely as an extract from the GFU database, supplemented by a few other sources such as information from Annex 4 of the Strategic Framework for Underutilized Plant Species Research and Development published by ICUC, GFU and IPGRI. It should be noted, however, that while the GFU database is very useful, its coverage tends to be biased to the Anglophone world and of necessity it lists only those institutions and projects that have agreed to be included or have provided information. The following therefore does not aim to be complete in any way, and may, in some cases be out of date, but has been included here mainly to illustrate the extremely large range of different types of organization involved in different aspects of the work on underused species. International and regional institutions: Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Ensenanza (CATIE), Costa Rica: has many activities involving underused crops, including maintaining a large grmplasm collection of fruits, vegetable, palms and others. One example of a project involving underused crops is on the participatory domestication of indigenous fruits (Byrsonima crassifolia, Sapodilla (Manilkara zapota)) in Meso-America. The World Vegetable Centre (AVRDC), Taiwan: has extensive activities on underused vegetable species. It conserves the most diverse collection of vegetable germplasm in the world with more than 55,000 accessions of about 300 different species from at least 140 countries. It is active in research and development of indigenous vegetables in Asia and has a web site and information service dedicated to this. It has a regional Centre for Africa in Tanzania that works, inter alia, on indigenous African vegetables and hosts the Global Horticultural Initiative (see ‘Networks and consortia’ below). The Arab Center for the Studies of Arid Zones and Dry Lands (ACSAD), Damascus, Syria: has programmes on fruit trees, plant biodiversity and plant genetic resources, covering both major and minor crops such as pistachio and indigenous vegetables, as well as on wild relatives of the many crops that were domesticated in the region. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Rome, Italy: has undertaken a huge body of work over the years on underused species. It has had a number of specific field projects in many parts of the world to study and promote them, as well as on indigenous knowledge. The FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture is an important intergovernmental forum concerned, inter alia, with the genetic resources of underused species. The FAO Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture has as one of its 20 priority areas for action: “Promoting development and commercialization of under-utilised crops and species”.

67

Management of Social Transformations Programme, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO - MOST): has a programme entitled the “Indigenous Food Plants Programme” that is compiling a database of the indigenous food plants of Kenya and promoting the cultivation, consumption and marketing of these foods. Fundación Promocion e Investigacion de Productos Andinos (PROINPA): has a number of projects and activities including: 1 Maintaining the germplasm bank of Andean grains (SIBTA) - Bolivia 2 Contribution of neglected and underutilized species for food security and for resource

poor rural populations 3 Genetic improvement of quinoa Plant Resources of Tropical Africa (PROTA), Netherlands: is an international foundation that networks with a large number of development and other organizations, within and outside tropical Africa. It is a sister institution of PROSEA in Indonesia and aims to reduce the existing wealth of information of useful plant species to manageable proportions and to make the knowledge synthesis readily available by means of web databases, a multi-volume handbook, and a series of CD-Roms. Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), Fiji: coordinates the Pacific Agricultural Plant Genetic Resources Network and includes work on such species as taro, breadfruit, yams, pandanus and local fruit and nuts. National governmental research institutions Institut d'Economie Rurale (IER), Mali: is involved in collecting, conserving and characterising underused species as well as research on adaptation, propagation, nutritional characteristics, and marketing (e.g. baobab, tamarind, amaranth, and shea). It has a project on improving the production of Bambara groundnut in the Sudano-Sahelian zone of Mali Indonesian Fruit Research Institute (IFRURI): among the underused fruits worked on are breadfruit, as a source of staple food in eastern Indonesia, and sapota as a potential income source in Sumatra. Papua New Guinea National Agricultural Research Institute: works on a wide variety of crops, cropping systems and post-harvest technology including, in addition to the major staples of PNG, emerging crops such a pyrethrum and traditional vegetable crops such as aibika (Abelmoschus manihot) and the two species of pitpit: Setaria palmifolia and Saccharum edule. Pakistan Agricultural Research Council (PARC): has recently initiated a programme of research and development of ten underused crops. Emphasis is on collecting and evaluating indigenous landraces. Research Institute for Fruits and Vegetables (RIFAV), Vietnam: has a breeding programme for underused Vietnamese and exotic fruit and vegetable species. Industrial Technology Institute (ITI) Sri Lanka: conducts applied research to develop and promote the food industry. It works with such crops as such as jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus), breadfruit (A. altilis), rambutan (Nephelium lappaceum), beli

68

(Aegle marmelos), kirala (Sonneratia caseolaris), soursop (Annona muricata), wood apple (Feronia limonia) and durian (Durio zibethinus). Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC): has a limited R&D programme on buckwheat, finger millet, oat, barley and minor legumes and oilseed crops. Agro Enterprise Centre (AEC), Nepal: is the business development/promotion unit of the Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry and was involved in the identification of underutilized fruits of significance in Nepal: lapsi (Choerospondias axillaris), bael (Aegle marmelos) and jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus). This program was initiated under ICUC with DFID financial support. Centre de coopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement (CIRAD) France: has numerous projects involving underused species. Two examples are: • Root Crops Agrobiodiversity in Vanuatu (involving Alocasia macrorhiza,

Amorphophallus campanulatus, Colocasia esculenta, Cyrtosperma chamissonis, Xanthosoma sagittifolium and 8 Dioscorea species)

• Upgrading quality and competitiveness of fonio (Digitaria exilis) for improved livelihoods in West Africa

• Producing added value from under-utilized tropical fruit crops with high commercial potential (PAVUC) (Anacardium occidentale, Bactris gasipaes, Cyphomandra betacea, Euterpe oleracea, Hylocereus purpusii, Myrciaria dubia, Myrtillocactus schenki, Solanum quitoense)

Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, BMZ/GTZ Sectoral Project Managing Agrobiodiversity in Rural Areas: has several on-going and planned projects including: • Sustainable Use of Balsam of Peru, Sierra de Bálsamo, El Salvador • Underutilized Plants and Breeds in the South American Chaco Region • Fostering the Production Chains of Tropcial Fruits from the Amazon Region, Ecuador • Impact of the EU Novel Food Regulation on development activities promoting exotic

foods • Protection by Utilization: Economic Potential of Neglected Breeds and Crops in Rural

Development International Program for Arid Land Crops (IPALAC), Ben Gurion University, Israel: has a project in Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Mali, Niger and Senegal on promoting development through introduction and evaluation of plants from other regions. Species involved include: Acacia colei, Annona reticulata, Balanites aegyptiaca, Capparis spinosa, Ceratonia siliqua, Hibiscus sabdariffa, Jatropha curcas, Mangifera indica, Moringa oleifera, Phoenix dactylifera, Psidium guajava, Quercus alba, Tamarindus indica, Tamarix aphylla, Ziziphus mauritiana Istituto Agronomico per l'Oltremare (IAO): is involved in cooperative project with Brazil on the Conservation and sustainable use of PGRs, especially PGRFA and wild species traditionally used for food, condiment, traditional herbal medicine, in several locations within three biomes (Amazonia, Cerrado, Caatinga). Institute of Botany - Vilnius, Lithuania: has several projects including:

69

• Investigations on genetic diversity and conservation of wild small fruits and underutilized horticultural crops

• Assessment of genetic stability and variability of plant genetic resources of medicinal and aromatic plants and development of conservation strategies

• Evaluation of habitats of Arnica montana in Southern Lithuania and the development of a management plan

Universities University of Mauritius: works on aromatic and medicinal plant and other lesser-known and underutilized plant resources. It maintains a database of such species. School of Agronomy & Horticulture, University of Queensland, Australia: manages the Australian New Crops Website, produces a newsletter and a range of other publications on new crops, It has an active research programme that currently includes research project on Echinacea angustifolia, German chamomile, ginseng, essential oils from potential new crops including geranium, moth bean (Vigna aconitifolia) cashew, millets, guar (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba), and Marama bean

Center for New Crops and Plant Products, Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Purdue University, USA: operates a broad range of information services including: • CropINDEX A list of scientific and common names of crops • CropSEARCH A search engine to access crop information • CropMAP A nation-wide (US) location-specific crop information system • Current Projects Classes, presentations, websites • CropREFERENCE Books and manuals on crops • CropEXPERT Directory of new crop resource personnel • NewCropEVENTS Conferences, events and upcoming symposia • NewCrop DISCUSSION GROUP An e-mail list for discussion, and information • Aromatic-MedicinalPLANTS A guide to aromatic & medicinal plants • IMPORT—EXPORT Plant quarantine information for all countries. • Famine Foods A list of unconventional food sources • NewCrop LINKS School of Biosciences, University of Nottingham: has been working collaboratively with institutions in Western and Southern Africa on bambara groundnut for almost 20 years through projects such as: • EU Framework Programmes 3 and 5 bambara groundnut projects • Soil moisture and the proximate composition of bambara groundnut seeds • Vegetable milk production and basic protein functionality systems in bambara

groundnut • Phenotypic and genetic diversity in bambara groundnut landraces • Opportunities for increased utilisation of bambara groundnut in Southern Africa Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI); part of Wageningen University and Research Centre (WUR): has a project on the Participatory Enhancement of Diversity of Genetic Resources in Asia (PEDIGREA) which uses a farmer field school approach to focus on local vegetables (in addition to rice and local farm animal breeds) in Indonesia (Java), Philippines (Mindanao) and Cambodia.

70

Agroforestry and Novel Crops Unit, School of Tropical Biology - James Cook University: has projects entitled: • Domestication of indigenous fruit and nut trees in Solomon Islands.. • Domestication and commercialisation of multi-purpose indigenous trees in Papua

New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Australia • Genetic diversity of Sandalwood in Vanuatu and Queensland, Australia Department of Crop Sciences: Tropical Crops - University of Gottingen: had a project entitled: Diversity, Domestication and Development of New and Underutilized Crops – Developing “neglected” crops and exploring potentially “new” crop plants. The project focuses mainly on the hyacinth bean (Lablab purpureus). Department of Horticulture, University of Florence: had a project that ended in 2003 entitled the “Conservation, evaluation and collection of minor fruit tree species”. Department Plant Production - Laboratory Tropical and Subtropical Agronomy and Ethnobotany - University of Ghent: has projects on: • Promotion of sustainable Cherimoya Production Systems in Latin America through

the Characterization, Conservation and Use of Local Germplasm Diversity (CHERLA)

• Domestication and development of baobab and tamarind (DADOBAT) CAZS Natural Resources, University of Wales, Bangor, UK: coordinates a network, IndigenoVeg, that aims to bring together a network of leading EU and sub-Saharan African researchers to promote the production of indigenous vegetables (including Basella rubra, Corchorus olitorius, and Solanum nigrum) in urban and peri-urban agriculture. Southampton Centre for Underutilised Crops (SCUC), University of Southampton, UK: undertakes projects in several parts of the world, especially in Asia and Africa. In September 2007 it is hosting an international symposium on ‘New Crops and Uses: their role in a rapidly changing world’. Projects include, for example: • Indigenous crop diversity among smallholders in Malawi • Collection, conservation and utilisation of niger and sesame in Nepal • Collection, characterisation, conservation and propagation of selected underutilised

crops in Sri Lanka • Germplasm collection, evaluation and propagation of amla and tamarind in Pakistan NGOs Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (LI-BIRD), Nepal: has had several projects and initiatives concerning underused crops. Currently the Seed for Survival project aims to improve the socio-economic status of por rural and marginalized farmers through conservation and management of agro-biodiversity. BAIF Development Research Foundation, India: works with a wide range of rural development activities in several parts of India. Many underused fruit-tree species have been introduced on a small scale, mainly on field borders and bunds. Various fruits are being popularised including custard apple (Annona squamosa), ber (Zizyphus

71

mauritiana), tamarind (Tamarindus indica), jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus) and Indian gooseberry (Emblica officinalis). M.S Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF), India: has a project on Enhancing the contribution of nutritious but neglected crops to food security and to incomes of the rural poor: Asia component - Nutritious Millets (Eleusine coracana, Panicum miliare, Panicum sumatrense, Setaria italica). PROPAGE – MORINGANEWS (France): is an NGO based in France that provides information on Moringa production and consumption in Southern Togo and is Investigating markets for Moringa leaves. SAVE Foundation, St.Gallen branch, Switzerland: convenes a network, Fruit-Net, that aims to record and catalogue the genetic diversity of "neglected" or "forgotten" fruit and berry varieties in Europe Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institutions (SRISTI): has an ongoing project on incentives and policies for supporting on-farm cultivations and conservation of less known or underutilized crops. International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS): has a Working Group on Underutilized Species is the latest recognition by the scientific community of the role played by NUS in people’s livelihoods and the need for greater synergy and increased efforts to support them. International Initiative for Non-food Crops: a UK-based charitable foundation based at Imperial College, Wye Campus. It aims to facilitate specific pilot projects in developing countries, establish a web-based information hub and champion the full potential of non-food crops. Private Sector Companies Private For-Profit organizations come in a vast range of shapes and sizes and it is impossible to list many here. They range from small seed merchants and processors to international agro-industrial giants and supermarket chains. Only a couple of examples are given here: Tulimara, Zimbabwe: a private limited company based in Harare that focuses on processing and commercialising underused crops such as indigenous beans, wild fruits and herbal tea. High Value Horticulture (3TL) Limited, UK: is a technical, management and marketing consultancy based in the UK and has worked in more than 50 countries worldwide. It works with companies in the establishment, development and expansion of business across the supply chain from production, through processing and product formulation to the identification and development of markets. It specializes in spices, essential oils and medicinal plants - from traditional medicines, nutraceuticals and phytopharmaceuticals to the flavours and fragrances industries. Donors

72

Many donors support work on underused crops. DFID (UK) and BMZ (Germany) have, for example, been very generous in their support to ICUC and GFU, and IFAD is supporting a major project with IPGRI. This list does not aim to include mention of all donors who support work on underused crops but rather give just a couple of examples of donor organizations that are themselves actively and technically involved in the projects they support, beyond providing funds. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR): supports a number of projects on underused crops for example: • The role of women in the production and marketing of indigenous vegetable in

Vietnam • The re-commercialisation of the PNG pyrethrum industry McKnight Foundation (USA): is supporting a number of projects around the world that involve R&D on underused crops. These include: • Sustainable production of quinoa, a neglected food crop in the Andean region • Development of High-yielding, Disease-resistant, and Drought-tolerant Finger Millet

Genotypes • Development of Mechanisms for Sustainable Production, Utilization, and

Management of Genetic Diversity of Indigenous Vegetables in Uganda. • Strengthening Food Security and the On-farm Conservation of Andean Tubers in the

Fragile Ecosystem of the Southern Peruvian Highlands. Networks and consortia The Global Horticulture Initiative (GHI): was launched in 2006 in Montpellier France, under the auspices of the World Vegetable Center (AVRDC), CIRAD, and the International Society for Horticulture Science (ISHS). The initiative will begin by focusing on alliaceous, cucurbitaceous, leguminous, and solanaceous vegetables, tropical and subtropical tree fruits, and indigenous horticultural crops. Activities for ornamentals, aromatic and medicinal plants will be added later. The Initiative is developing its work through the following Interwoven Research Themes as Platform for Collaboration: • Management and Dissemination of Knowledge • Germplasm Conservation and Evaluation • Genetic Improvement • Sustainable Production Technologies • Efficient and Profitable Supply Chains • Post-harvest Storage, Processing, Packaging and Marketing • Impact Analysis and Policy Planning European Cooperative Programme for Crop Genetic Resources Networks (ECP/GR): has several activities relating to underused crops, including: • The ECP/GR Brassica Working Group • The ECP/GR Working Group on Medicinal and Aromatic Plants • Minor Crops Network Genetic Resources Network for West and Central Africa (GRENEWECA/ROCAREG): has a project on promoting fonio production in West and Central Africa through germplasm management and post harvest technology

73

Govind Ballabh Pant University Of Agriculture and Technology: provides the coordination for the All India Coordinated Research Project on Underutilized Crops. implemented at the national and local level through Indian Council of Agricultural Research. Crops covered include: Amaranthus caudatus, Amaranthus hypochondriacus, Chenopodium album, Coix lacryma-jobi, Fagopyrum esculentum, Fagopyrum tataricum, Perilla frutescens, Vigna angularis and Vigna umbellata PELUM Association: is a regional network of 160 civil society organisations in east, central and southern Africa, which is working towards sustainable agriculture, food security, and sustainable community development in the region. The Association plans to host its 6th Triennial General Assembly in October 2008 on the theme “Promoting indigenous underutilized crop varieties and species as the most viable means of enhancing food security and food sovereignty” Southern Alliance for Indigenous Resources (SAFIRE): in Zimbabwe promotes the use of underused crops, especially through research on processing for nutritional supplements and for use by people with HIV/AIDS. It also works on managing the natural resource base from which these crops are harvested. It develops products for commercialisation by private companies. Participatory Enhancement of Diversity of Genetic Resources in Asia (PEDIGREA): is a Southeast Asian consortium that aims to strengthen the capacity of local communities to improve their own crop and animal germplasm and to create a market for their products. It is active in Indonesia (West Java), Philippines (Mindanao) and Cambodia. In underused crops it works with Benincasa hispida, Luffa cylindrica, Momordica charantia and Solanum melongena.

74

ANNEX 6

Institutional options – Food for thought Taken from the discussion paper by Hannah Jaenicke (ICUC) and Irmgard Hoeschle-Zeledon (GFU) 2006: Contributing to the CGIAR System Priorities – The future of underutilized plants research and development. “In this section several options for a future institutional set up are discussed. Delineation between the models is fluid, and other options exist which are not discussed here for reasons of brevity. 3.1 Absorption of either unit into the other The Global Facilitation Unit is a Global Partnership Programme of GFAR, initiated by BMZ, FAO, ICUC, IFAD and Bioversity International. In its current arrangement, GFU is integrated into Bioversity International as part of the Institute’s Global Partnerships Programme. It has its independent Steering Committee and an independent budget. GFU’s main mandate is to create an enabling environment for stakeholders who are engaged in developing underutilized species. It deals with cross-cutting issues relevant for all stakeholders and most underutilized species. Absorbing ICUC into GFU without changing its scope and mandate would mean (apart from lower transactions costs): positively: • better access to ICUC’s networks • direct access to crop research activities • better compatibility with the concept of GFAR’s Global Partnership Programme • strengthening of Bioversity International’s overall role as underutilized species advocate negatively: • GFU at present is not mandated to carry out crop-specific research and training activities – this would be lost from ICUC’s agenda • ICUC’s networks would lose their coordinator since they have specific MoUs with ICUC The International Centre for Underutilised Crops is an independent institution which is currently hosted – and thus covered administratively and legally – by IWMI. ICUC has its own Scientific Advisory Board and dedicated budget. Its mandate is the provision of expertise and support in research activities of national partner organizations, many of which have signed specific Memoranda of Agreement with ICUC’s Southampton-based predecessor. ICUC is involved in its own – limited – research and development activities on specific underutilized crop species. It is currently active in Asia and Africa but is also playing a role as a global champion of underutilized crops and has been leading with GFU in the recent development of the new Strategic Framework. Absorbing GFU into ICUC without changing its scope and mandate would mean (apart from lower transaction costs): positively: • benefit of direct access to GFU’s links and databases • stronger voice in political lobbying • increased global activities and visibility

75

negatively: • ICUC is not a GFAR partnership programme, so the links provided through this setup would be lost • underutilized plant activities managed from a Water Management Institute is not a credible setup 3.2 Center Core activity Description: ICUC and GFU would cease to exist as individual units and their current work would be fully integrated into a Center’s core activities. For the Center concerned, it would mean strengthening and expanding its existing activities, such as the Trees and Markets Theme at ICRAF, or the Neglected and Underutilized Species project at Bioversity International. Advantages: Possibly the easiest option from a donor’s point of view as it can be supported simply by an increase to the Center’s funding; full integration into the Center’s priorities; access to core funding. Disadvantages: Not flexible and limited to Center’s priorities; life time depends on the Center’s policy; not a separate identity; no obvious incentive for coordination between Centers. 3.3 System-wide Programme hosted and led by one particular Center Description: SWPs are one of the mechanisms used by the CGIAR to enhance inter-Center collaboration and activity. There are a number of well functioning examples e.g. SGRP, CAPRI, SLP. Advantages: Facilitates inter-Center collaboration and ensures that it produces results relevant for all participating Centers and other partners; cost sharing between Centers/partners; no limited life span; strong own identity with governance vested with the convening Center; streamlines work within Centers; flexible enough to collaborate with non-CG partners; transaction costs moderate. Disadvantages: Operates well only if the participating Centers and partners are fully committed. Identity as a CG-System Programme may constrain collaboration with private sector (the private sector is a very important partner for underutilized plants research and development). 3.4 Challenge Program Description: A CGIAR Challenge Program (CP) is a time-bound, ndependently-governed program of high-impact research that targets the CGIAR goals in relation to complex issues of overwhelming global and/or regional significance, and requires partnerships among a wide range of institutions in order to deliver its products. There are now 4 Challenge Programs in the CGIAR – all are managed differently, however, all are consortia with CGIAR, ARI and NARES core partners carry out their research agenda through a combination of their own research and subcontracted activities. Since the CGIAR expects a consortium approach in research on important challenges, such as the conservation and utilization of existing genetic diversity of underutilized plants (CGIAR, 2005), an underutilized plant research and development CP would

76

address well the System Priorities. There is currently debate about initiating a new CP on “Horticulture for Nutrition”, similar to, or aligned with, the AVRDC-led Global Horticulture Initiative. The scope of such a CP would definitively include many underutilized species such as fruits and vegetables but is likely to neglect grains and pulses, non-timber forest products and all the plant-based foods collected in the wild. It would also exclude all work on underutilized species which are used for energy, medicinal, ornamental, fiber purposes. An alternative would be to open the scope of this proposed CP to include these other functions. Advantages: Commitment by consortium partners, especially if run as a joint venture; addresses global goals; support of NARS as a funding body aligned to a central strategy; strong international voice; significant funding base thus able to ‘make a difference’. Disadvantages: Consortium approach is an inflexible model as partners are fixed. It operates through projects, i.e. with limited lifespan (5-year cycles with significant administrative inputs required for extension). High administrative overheads to manage consortium partners; limited to a clearly defined challenge (e.g. the development of particular underutilized species in a specific region); still not proven whether CP add value over other forms of partnerships. 3.5 Entity functioning from within a CGIAR Center Description: Such an entity operates with its own identity from within a Center which is usually its implementing agency, whilst it is overseen by a broad range of stakeholders (Steering Committee with members from different organizations). It could have the characteristics of a Facilitation Unit such as the GFU or have a more network type of operation such as ICUC. GFU is an integral part of Bioversity International’s programme structure. ICUC is an independent organization which receives administrative support only from its hosting organization, IWMI. A formal network like COGENT operates less flexibly and its Steering Committee is limited to the network members. The networks’ efficiency greatly depends on the commitment and capacity of the members. Advantages: A hosted or integrated entity within a Center is usually very flexible. Partners can change easily. NARS partners are strengthened. The Center provides administrative support and a legal ‘home’ under the Center’s host country agreement. It involves minimal transaction costs. Fund raising for the entity can be facilitated by the Center (lends its name and reputation). Life time is not dependent on a change of the Center’s priorities as it could be moved easily to another Center. Disadvantages: Future as a separate entity may be weak if it is very close to Center core activities; limited visibility and power to the outside world. Fund raising may be difficult as donors fund already other projects of the Center or provide core funding which would not, or only under difficulties, be accessible to the entity. 3.6 Center/unit outside CGIAR There are several options for such a setup: either there would be a fully operational international research and/or development NGO, or we could imagine a setup as unit of another international player, such as for example FAO. Most international research centers, such as ICIPE, AVRDC, INBAR, are however

77

closely associated with the CGIAR, and many are considered by the donor community as de facto CGIAR Centers, i.e. their funding is provided from the same budget line. Advantages: As an independent Center the new entity would enjoy relative flexibility in setting its research and development priorities. The Center would attract non-CGIAR funding as well as CGIAR funding (similarly to ICIPE and AVRDC); local ownership might be stronger than if inside the CGIAR – some of these Centers are intergovernmental networks (INBAR, ICIMOD); can have long life (depending on funding)... Disadvantages: Suffers the not-in-the-club syndrome; may find it difficult in future to maintain funding base if outside of CGIAR, has to cope with all administrative costs, needs substantial staffing; may be inhibited by country partners’ different ability to contribute. If international status sought, legal registration may be difficult. The entity could also be part of a large non-research intergovernmental organization, such as FAO. Similar issues as discussed above for the CGIAR may apply, such as integration into existing structures, visibility, access to funding. Advantages: The entity would have access to FAO’s country links and its large and diverse bank of expert knowledge; it would be able to directly influence FAO’s agenda in various areas. Disadvantages: As part of such a large organization, the new entity might have limited visibility; funding may be difficult and insecure.”

78

ANNEX 7

Possible Names The following list of names were those suggested by people responding to question 8 of the questionnaire, inviting suggestions on a name for the new entity:

• Association for the Advancement of New Crops (AANC) • Challenge Programme on Underutilized Species (CPUS) • Crops of the Future • Cropversity • Global Facilitation Unit for Neglected and Underutilized Species (GFU-NUS) • Global Facility for the Conservation and Utilization of Underutilized Species

(GFCUUS) • International Centre for Development (of Facilitation) of Underutilised Crops

(ICDUC or ICFUC) • International Centre for Enlarging the Food Basket and Strengthening Nutritional

Security (ICEFBSNS) • International Centre for Exploring the Diversity of Agricultural Species (ICEDAS) • International Centre for Integrated Underutilised Crops (ICIUC) • International Centre for Research and Development in Underutilised Crops

(ICRDUC) • International Centre for Underutilised Crops (ICUC) • International Institute for Under-Utilized Agricultural Crops and Animal Species

(IIUACAS) • International Institute for Underutilized Crops (IIUC) • International Neglected and Under-utilised Crops Research Facility (INUCRF) • International New Fruits Institute (INFI) • Networks on Underutilized Species • Novoplants: plants for diversified livelihoods • livelihoods • Partnership Initiative for Under-Utilized Crops (PIUC) • Phoenix Institute (Plants for Health, Occupation and Environment through

Networking, Information and eXchange) • Plant Diversity International • Plant Resources of the World (PROW) • Underutilised Crops International (UCI) • Versatile Income-generating Bigger Edible Species (VIBES) • World Underutilised Species Centre (WUSC)