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