annual report 2002 - bioversity international · annual report 2002 of the cgiar system- ... surya...

sgrp

AnnualReport 2002of the CGIARSystem-wide Genetic ResourcesProgramme

<www.futureharvest.org>

IPGRI isa Future Harvest Centersupported by theConsultative Group onInternational AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR)

COP. ANNUAL REPORT D2884/03 24-11-2004 11:56 Page i

The Future Harvest Centres† comprise 16 food and environmentalresearch organizations located around the world, which conductresearch in partnership with farmers, scientists and policy-makersto help alleviate poverty and increase food security while protectingthe natural resource base. The Centres are principally fundedthrough the 58 countries, private foundations, and regional andinternational organizations that make up the Consultative Group onInternational Agricultural Research (CGIAR). The CGIAR is co-sponsored by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development(IFAD), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) andthe World Bank. See http://www.cgiar.org

The System-wide Genetic Resources Programme (SGRP) joinsthe genetic resources programmes and activities of the FutureHarvest Centres in a partnership whose goal is to maximizecollaboration, particularly in five thematic areas. The thematicareas—policy, public awareness and representation, information,knowledge and technology, and capacity building—relate to issuesor fields of work that are critical to the success of genetic resourcesefforts. The SGRP contributes to the global effort to conserveagricultural, forestry and aquatic genetic resources and promotestheir use in ways that are consistent with the Convention onBiological Diversity. The Inter-Centre Working Group on GeneticResources (ICWG-GR), which includes representatives from theCentres and FAO, is the Steering Committee. IPGRI is theConvening Centre for SGRP and hosts its coordinating Secretariat.Japan, Netherlands, Switzerland and World Bank are donors toSGRP. See http://www.sgrp.cgiar.org

The International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) is aFuture Harvest Centre whose mandate is to advance theconservation and use of genetic diversity for the well-being ofpresent and future generations. IPGRl’s headquarters is inMaccarese, near Rome, Italy, with offices in another 22 countriesworldwide. See http://www.ipgri.cgiar.org

Cover photo: Women clean seeds before they are stored in theICARDA genebank in Syria.C. Boursnell/IPGRI

Citation: SGRP. 2003. Annual Report 2002 of the CGIAR System-wide Genetic Resources Programme. International Plant GeneticResources Institute, Rome, Italy.

ISBN 92-9043-599-2

IPGRIVia dei Tre Denari, 472/a00057 MaccareseRome, Italy

© International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, 2003

† CIAT Centro Internacional deAgricultura Tropical, Cali, Colombia;CIFOR Center for InternationalForestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia;CIMMYT Centro Internacional deMejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo,Mexico DF, Mexico; CIP CentroInternacional de la Papa, Lima, Peru; ICARDA International Centerfor Agricultural Research in the DryAreas, Aleppo, Syrian Arab Republic;ICRISAT International CropsResearch Institute for the Semi-AridTropics, Patancheru, India; IFPRIInternational Food Policy ResearchInstitute, Washington DC, USA; IITAInternational Institute of TropicalAgriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria; ILRIInternational Livestock ResearchInstitute, Nairobi, Kenya; IPGRIInternational Plant GeneticResources Institute, Rome, Italy;IRRI International Rice ResearchInstitute, Los Baños, Philippines;ISNAR International Service forNational Agricultural Research, TheHague, Netherlands; IWMIInternational Water ManagementInstitute, Colombo, Sri Lanka;WARDA The Africa Rice Center,Bouaké, Côte d’lvoire; WorldAgroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya;WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia.

COP. ANNUAL REPORT D2884/03 24-11-2004 11:56 Page ii

of the CGIARSystem-wideGenetic ResourcesProgramme

AnnualReport 2002

ANNUAL REPORT 02 D2884/03 24-11-2004 11:58 Page i

iiIntroduction 1

Regular programme activities 2

The new International Treaty and the Future HarvestCentres 5New Material Transfer Agreement 8

Start with a Seed: the Global Crop Diversity Trust 11

Costing the conservation of plant genetic resources 14

SINGER—knowledge makes the difference 17

Members of the ICWG-GR 19

SGRP secretariat staff 21

SGRP reports and publications 21

Financial report 23

Abbreviations and acronyms 24

Centre addresses 25

Contents

ANNUAL REPORT 02 D2884/03 24-11-2004 11:58 Page ii

The past two years have seenagriculture and thebiodiversity that underpins ittake a much more prominentposition on the world stage. In2001 the members of theFood and AgricultureOrganization of the UnitedNations (FAO) adopted thenew International Treaty onPlant Genetic Resources forFood and Agriculture, whichushers in a new era in theexchange of plant geneticresources and equitablebenefit-sharing. The Treatycomes into force once 40countries have ratified it,which at current rates will takeplace some time in 2004.SGRP has embraced thechallenge of helping theCGIAR to fulfil its role as oneof the world’s most importantguardians of plant geneticresources.

In 2002 there were twoeven more prominent events,the five-year follow-up to theWorld Food Summit and the10-year follow-up to the 1992Earth Summit. Both meetings

recognized the crucial rolethat diversity plays in enablingagriculture to advance. TheWorld Summit on SustainableDevelopment in Johannesburgfurthermore saw the launch ofthe campaign for the GlobalCrop Diversity Trust. TheTrust’s goal of an endowmentto secure the future of theworld’s most importantcollections of crop diversitygrew out of studies initiatedby SGRP. Together, all theseadvances will enable us tomove closer to the creation ofan efficient and sustainableglobal system of ex situconservation foreseen by theFAO Global Plan of Action forplant genetic resources.

This report examines thenew Treaty and itsramifications for the FutureHarvest Centres (p. 5). It alsocovers two of the crucialelements of developing aglobal system, the costingstudies (p. 14) that supply partof the rationale for the GlobalCrop Diversity Trust, and thelaunch of the Trust itself (p.11).There are articles too onrecent developments in theSystem-wide InformationNetwork for GeneticResources (SINGER, p. 17)and on regular programmeactivities (p. 2).

In the period covered bythis report, SGRP receivedfunding from Japan,Netherlands, Switzerland andthe World Bank. The CGIARSystem-wide Program onParticipatory Research andGender Analysis in TechnologyDevelopment and InstitutionalInnovation (PRGA) hosted atCIAT provided funding for theworkshop on participatoryplant breeding. SGRP isgrateful for all the support itreceives.

Introduction

Introduction

SGRP aims to strengthenthe contribution of theFuture Harvest Centres ofthe Consultative Group onInternational AgriculturalResearch to the effectivemanagement of geneticresources for thesustainable development ofagriculture, forestry andfisheries. Individual Centreshave long worked toresearch and managegenetic resources, and theSGRP was created to bringconsistency and efficiency tothe CGIAR system’s efforts,especially with regard to thecollections of plant geneticresources held in trust forthe global community. Sincethe inception of the SGRPsome 150 institutes fromaround the world have takenpart in specific programmeactivities.

Packets of wheat at theEthiopian genebank, awaitingdistribution to plant breeders.F. Botts/FAO

1

ANNUAL REPORT 02 D2884/03 24-11-2004 11:58 Page 1

As in previous years, annualworkplans were approved atmeetings of the Inter-CentreWorking Group on GeneticResources (ICWG-GR), whichis SGRP’s SteeringCommittee. The ICWG-GR’smost recent meeting tookplace from 4 to 8 February2002. It was hosted by IPGRIat its headquarters inMaccarese, Italy.

Several ongoing activitiescan best be described aspublic awareness, though thenature of the ‘publics’ variesconsiderably. The SGRPrepresents the Future HarvestCentres and coordinates theircontributions to internationalfora and global programmeson agricultural, forest andaquatic genetic resources. Atthe regular meeting of the FAOCommission on GeneticResources for Food andAgriculture in October 2002SGRP presented a report onthe activities of the FutureHarvest Centres in the broadarea of genetic resources. Thereport was well received bythe Commission. SeveralCentres took part in the 6thmeeting of the Conference ofthe Parties to the Conventionon Biological Diversity (COP6)in The Hague in April 2002.IPGRI staff represented theCentres in the debate onaccess and benefit-sharing,and COP6 adopted the BonnGuidelines on access andbenefit-sharing. SGRP alsorepresented Centre interests ata meeting of the WorldIntellectual PropertyOrganization in June 2002. Fora wider public, posters anddisplays on SGRP activitieswere mounted at some ofthese meetings and elsewhere.

An Expert ConsultationMeeting on ‘The evolving role

of genebanks in the light ofdevelopments in moleculargenetics’ took place in Spainin November 2002. IPGRIorganized the meeting forSGRP, and it was co-sponsored by the host,Fundación Española para laCiencia y la Tecnología.FECYT, the Instituto Nacionalde Investigación y TecnologíaAgraria y Alimentaría (INIASpain), the US Agency forInternational Development(USAID), FAO and SGRPprovided financial support. Themeeting brought together 22experts in genebankmanagement and moleculargenetics, including membersof the ICWG-GR. Theparticipants came to severalinteresting conclusions, amongthem the idea that genebanksmight begin to base theirminimum core collections ongenes rather than phenotypes,and that it might beappropriate to shift moreattention to wild relatives as asource of genes that breederscan make use of now. Makinguse of molecular biology willrequire a special emphasis ontraining and capacity building,which will necessitate globalcollaboration and strongnetworks of support. And thevexatious issues of policy andintellectual property will needto be approached verycarefully and thoroughly,possibly through a specialworkshop to build stakeholderconsensus. A full report on themeeting will be published in2003.

SGRP continued to workon the management of geneticresources in ecosystemsthrough its involvement withthe CGIAR’s agenda onIntegrated Natural ResourceManagement. The fourth INRM

Reg

ular

pro

gram

me

activ

ities REGULAR

PROGRAMMEACTIVITIES

Aside from the effortsdetailed elsewhere in thisreport, the SGRP hascontinued to take part in arange of activities.

2


3

Surya and Saraswati Adhikari,farmer–breeders in Begnas,Nepal, are crossing localfavourites with wild rices tocreate better varieties for theircommunity.C. Boursnell/IPGRI

Task Force workshop, held inAleppo at ICARDA inSeptember 2002, wasattended by the SGRPCoordinator and CIFOR’sICWG-GR representative, whois also a member of theCGIAR’s INRM Task Force.The meeting developed aframework for operationalizingthe INRM approach, in whichthe multi-functional role ofdiversity—in production andecosystem health—featuresprominently. A report of themeeting Putting Practice intoAction is available fromhttp://www.icarda.cgiar.org/INRM/INRM4_Site/index.htm

SGRP joined with theSystem-wide Programme onParticipatory Research andGender Analysis (PRGA) inhosting a workshop on ‘TheQuality of Science inParticipatory Plant Breeding’ atIPGRI headquarters inSeptember 2002. This meetingbrought together 33participatory plant breeding

(PPB) practitioners fromNGOs, universities and otherorganizations around theworld, including CG Centres.The agenda included anexamination of PPB in agro-ecosystem approaches togenetic resourcesmanagement, use andimprovement. Severalrecommendations were madeon how PPB can bettercombine production anddiversity goals. The report ofthe meeting and its outcomeswill be available in 2003. Thereport can be downloadedfrom http://www.prgaprogram.org/download/q_of_s_mtg/q_of_s_report.pdf

Regular program

me activities


4

12

3

4

5

11

9, 15

1 CIAT Centro Internacionalde AgriculturaTropicalApdo. Aéreo 6713Cali Colombia

2 CIFOR Center forInternationalForestry ResearchJalan CIFORSitu Gede, SindangbarangBogor, Barat 16680Indonesia

3 CIMMYT Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y TrigoApdo. Postal 6-64106600 Mexico, DFMexico

4 CIP Centro Internacionalde la PapaApdo. 1558 Lima 12Peru

9 ILRI InternationalLivestock ResearchInstitutePO Box 30709NairobiKenya

10 IPGRIInternational PlantGenetic ResourcesInstituteVia dei Tre Denari, 472/a00057 MaccareseRomeItaly

11 IRRI International RiceResearch InstituteDAPO Box 7777 Metro ManilaPhilippines

12 ISNARInternationalService for NationalAgriculturalResearchPO Box 933752509 AJ The HagueNetherlands

6

7

8

10

12

1314

future harvest Centres

13 IWMIInternational WaterManagementInstitutePO Box 2075ColomboSri Lanka

14 WARDA The Africa RiceCenter01 BP 2551BouakéCôte d’Ivoire

15 WorldAgroforestryCentre United Nations Ave. PO Box 30677 NairobiKenya

16 WorldFishCenterPO Box 500GPO 10670 Penang Malaysia

16

5 ICARDAInternational Centerfor AgriculturalResearch in the DryAreasPO Box 5466AleppoSyrian Arab Republic

6 ICRISATInternational CropsResearch Institutefor the Semi-AridTropicsPatancheru 502 324Andhra PradeshIndia

7 IFPRIInternationalFood PolicyResearch Institute2033 K St NWWashington, DC20006-1002USA

8 I ITA InternationalInstitute of TropicalAgriculturePMB 5320IbadanNigeria


5The International Rice ResearchInstitute in Los Baños hosted ameeting in February 2002 toexamine the Treaty’s call foragreements with Centresconcerning the in-trustcollections of plant geneticresources. In particular themeeting looked at the requestfrom the FAO Commission for anew Material TransferAgreement (MTA) that wouldaccompany in-trust germplasmand would be used in theinterim until the Treaty comesinto force. SGRP organized themeeting, with the CGIARGenetic Resources PolicyCommittee (GRPC), the CGIARCentral Advisory Service onIntellectual Property (CAS) andthe CGIAR Secretariat.Participants included DirectorsGeneral, senior managers,individual Centre trustees andgenetic resources andintellectual property scientistsfrom 12 of the Centres, as wellas members of the GRPC, theSGRP Secretariat, CAS, theCGIAR Technical AdvisoryCommittee (TAC), the CGIARSecretariat and FAO.

At the meeting participantsdrew up a text for theagreement between Centresand the Governing Body of theTreaty, which will be negotiatedon the coming into force of theTreaty. They also identifiedissues that will need to beaddressed for the practicalimplementation of theagreement. And they produceda draft for the new interim MTA.

The Treaty: its provisions andbackground

The Treaty operates at theintersection of agriculture,trade and the environment. It

provides agriculture with anew legally binding instrumenton a par with trade andenvironmental instruments andis intended to promoteharmony and synergy and toencourage sustainableagriculture and to improvefood security.

The Treaty’s objectives arethe conservation andsustainable use of plantgenetic resources and the fairand equitable sharing ofbenefits arising from their use,in harmony with theConvention on BiologicalDiversity. It aims to ensure thatthe inherited capital that plantgenetic resources represent isconserved and continues tosupply the flow of services onwhich food security anddevelopment depend.

The Treaty covers all plantgenetic resources relevant tofood and agriculture, althoughit sets up a multilateral systemof access and benefit-sharingfor an agreed list of crops thatwas established on the basisof interdependence and foodsecurity. The list of species onAnnex 1, which are subject tothe multilateral system,currently covers 35 food cropsand 29 genera of forageplants, representing more than80% of the world’s intake ofcalories. The Treaty pools thegenetic resources of theselisted species which meansthat the benefits will be sharedon a multilateral basis.

Benefits go beyond thepurely financial and includeinformation exchange, accessto technology and transfer oftechnology. The Treatyenvisages a mechanism forsharing benefits whereby the‘owners’ of a commercializedproduct that incorporatesmaterial obtained from the

THE NEWINTERNATIONAL

TREATY AND THE Future

harvestCENTRES

The members of FAOadopted the InternationalTreaty on Plant GeneticResources for Food andAgriculture at theirconference in November2001. This brought to aclose seven years ofnegotiations in which IPGRIpolicy experts representedthe Future Harvest Centresto provide technical inputs.A major occupation for theSGRP during 2002 has beento examine the implicationsof the Treaty for the work ofthe Centres, and inparticular how it affects themanagement of thecollections that they hold intrust for the worldcommunity.

The new International Treaty and the Future H

arvest Centres


multilateral system will pay aroyalty into a speciallydesignated fund. The royaltywill be mandatory if theproduct is not available forfurther research and breedingbecause it is covered byspecific forms of intellectualproperty rights. It is voluntarywhen the product can befreely used for breeding andresearch. The Treaty furtherprovides for the realization ofequitable participation offarmers in benefit-sharing.National governments areencouraged to grant farmersrights through the protection ofrelevant traditional knowledgeand participation in nationaldecision-making about theconservation and use of plantgenetic resources for food andagriculture.

The Treaty calls for thedevelopment of a fundingstrategy to help mobilize fundsfor priority activities, plans andprogrammes, taking into

account the Global Plan ofAction for the Conservationand Sustainable Utilization ofPlant Genetic Resources forFood and Agriculture adoptedin Leipzig in 1996. Developingcountries and countries witheconomies in transition will befavoured in any such funding.

The International Treaty willenter into force 90 days after ithas been ratified by 40countries. Within a year of thatdate a Governing Body,composed of all ContractingParties to the Treaty, will beconvened. Until then, the FAOCommission on GeneticResources for Food andAgriculture will act as theInterim Committee for theTreaty, and will oversee anumber of tasks to beundertaken in the interimperiod. As of October 2003, 32countries have ratified theTreaty. Progress can bemonitored at http://www.fao.org/Legal/treaties/033s-e.htm

6Th

e ne

w In

tern

atio

nal T

reat

y an

d th

e Fu

ture

Har

vest

Cen

tres

SGRP produced a guide tothe Treaty specifically to helpCentres and their Boards ofTrustees, although it is alsoavailable to anyone who wouldlike a copy. ‘The InternationalTreaty on Plant GeneticResources for Food andAgriculture: a Primer for theFuture Harvest Centres of theCGIAR’ focuses on theobligations that Centres willassume when they formallyassociate themselves with theTreaty by signing anagreement with the GoverningBody. It is available on requestfrom the SGRP Secretariat orfor download electronicallyfrom http://sgrp.cgiar.org/publications



arvest Centres

The Treaty and theFuture Harvest Centres

In 1994 the Centres signedagreements with FAO, whichplaced the Centres’ collectionsof germplasm ‘in trust’ for thebenefit of all humanity, underthe auspices of FAO. It wasalways understood that thesein-trust agreements weretemporary, pending completionof intergovernmentalnegotiations on the Treaty. TheTreaty, now adopted,specifically recognizes theimportance of the ex situcollections held in trust, andArticle 15 provides foragreements concerning ex situcollections to be signedbetween the Treaty’s GoverningBody and the Future HarvestCentres (and other relevantinternational institutions). TheTreaty provides a new kind ofagreement to govern themovement of plant geneticresources for food andagriculture. Species covered in

the Treaty’s Annex 1 will bedistributed by countries andCentres alike under the termsof a standard MTA to be agreedby the Governing Body.Accessions of crops notcovered in Annex 1 but held intrust by the Centres before thecoming into force of the Treaty,will also be covered, possiblyby a different MTA to be agreedby the Governing Body.

Access to plant geneticresources for food andagriculture of Annex 1 speciesshould become routine andeasy—‘facilitated’ in thelanguage of the Treaty.Acquisition of material of othercrops will require, as it doesnow, a specific agreement withthe country providing theaccess. In sum, the Treatyshould help to reduceinternational tensions over thetransfer and use of plantgenetic resources for food andagriculture, and thus shouldmake it easier to collect andexchange material.

Radwan Hajer examines astand of wild wheat near theICARDA genebank in Syria.C. Boursnell/IPGRI

7


The

new

Inte

rnat

iona

l Tre

aty

and

the

Futu

re H

arve

st C

entre

s

8

This MTA covers materialswhich are being transferredbefore the entry into force ofthe International Treaty onPlant Genetic Resources forFood and Agriculture. TheTreaty envisages that the[Centre] will enter into anagreement with theGoverning Body of the Treaty,once the Treaty enters intoforce. The [Centre] hasindicated its intention toconclude such an agreementwith the Governing Body.This agreement, in line withthe Treaty, will provide fornew MTAs and benefit-sharing arrangements formaterials transferred after theentry into force of theagreement.

The plant genetic resources(hereinafter referred to as the“material”) contained hereinare being furnished by the[Centre] under the followingconditions:

The [Centre] is making thematerial described in theattached list available as partof its policy of maximizing the

utilization of material forresearch, breeding andtraining. The material waseither developed by the[Centre]; or was acquiredprior to the entry into force ofthe Convention on BiologicalDiversity; or if it was acquiredafter the entering into force ofthe Convention on BiologicalDiversity, it was obtained withthe understanding that itcould be made available forany agricultural research,breeding and trainingpurposes under the termsand conditions set out in theagreement between the[Centre] and FAO dated 26October 1994.

The material is held in trustunder the terms of thisagreement, and the recipienthas no rights to obtainIntellectual Property Rights(IPRs) on the material orrelated information.

The recipient may utilize andconserve the material forresearch, breeding andtraining and may distribute itto other parties provided

MaterialTransfer

AgreementFor Plant

GeneticResources

Held In TrustBy The

[Centre]1

New Material Transfer Agreement

Following the workshop at IRRI, the draft interim MTA wasfinalized in consultation with FAO, and presented to the FAOCommission at its 9th regular session in October 2002. TheCommission agreed on the text with some modification and inDecember its Secretariat circulated it to Centres for review andendorsement by their Boards of Trustees. The new MTA cameinto use on 1 May 2003, following its approval by all Boards ofTrustees.

This MTA does not require the signature of the recipient ofthe germplasm. Instead, it utilizes the so-called softwareapproach, which binds the recipient to the terms and conditionsspelled out in the MTA provided that the recipient accepts andretains the material. The MTA is posted on Centre and CGIARWeb sites and is available in FAO’s five official languages.


9


arvest Centres

such other parties accept theterms and conditions of thisagreement.2

The recipient, therefore,hereby agrees not to claimownership over the material,nor to seek IPRs over thatmaterial, or its genetic partsor components, in the formreceived. The recipient alsoagrees not to seek IPRs overrelated information received.

The recipient further agreesto ensure that anysubsequent person orinstitution to whom he/shemay make samples of thematerial available, is boundby the same provisions andundertakes to pass on thesame obligations to futurerecipients of the material.

The [Centre] makes nowarranties as to the safety ortitle of the material, nor as tothe accuracy or correctnessof any passport or other dataprovided with the material.Neither does it make anywarranties as to the quality,viability, or purity (genetic ormechanical) of the materialbeing furnished. Thephytosanitary condition of thematerial is warranted only asdescribed in the attachedphytosanitary certificate. Therecipient assumes fullresponsibility for complyingwith the recipient nation’squarantine and biosafetyregulations and rules as toimport or release of geneticmaterial.

Upon request, the [Centre]will furnish information thatmay be available in additionto whatever is furnished withthe material. Recipients are

requested to furnish the[Centre] with related data andinformation collected duringevaluation and utilization.

The recipient of materialprovided under this MTA isencouraged to share thebenefits accruing from itsuse, including commercialuse, through the mechanismsof exchange of information,access to and transfer oftechnology, capacity buildingand sharing of benefitsarising fromcommercialization. The[Centre] is prepared tofacilitate the sharing of suchbenefits by directing them tothe conservation andsustainable use of the plantgenetic resources inquestion, particularly innational and regionalprogrammes in developingcountries and countries witheconomies in transition,especially in centres ofdiversity and the leastdeveloped countries.

The material is suppliedexpressly conditional onacceptance of the terms ofthis Agreement. Therecipient’s acceptance of thematerial constitutesacceptance of the terms ofthis Agreement.

1 The attention of the recipient isdrawn to the fact that thedetails of the MTA, includingthe identity of the recipient,will be made publicly available.

2 This does not prevent therecipients from releasing thematerial for purposes ofmaking it directly available tofarmers or consumers forcultivation, provided that theother conditions set out in thisMTA are complied with.


The

new

Inte

rnat

iona

l Tre

aty

and

the

Futu

re H

arve

st C

entre

s

Several internationalconventions, agreements andguidelines govern the use ofgenetic resources and therelated issues ofbiotechnology and intellectualproperty rights. The FutureHarvest Centres arecommitted to operating inconformity with all relevantinternational instruments andhave developed and agreedon various policy instruments,guidelines and positionstatements to guide andvalidate their decisions onthese matters.

SGRP, through the Inter-Centre Working Group onGenetic Resources (ICWG-GR) and in consultation withFAO, formulates, reviews andrecommends for System-wideadoption, policy instrumentsand guidelines concerning themanagement of geneticresources, including thosegoverning the in-trust plantgenetic resources collectionsheld in accordance withagreements signed betweenCentres and the FAO in 1994.The SGRP and the CGIARGenetic Resources PolicyCommittee (GRPC) first

collated these variousdocuments in a booklet in2001. An updated version,with the new interim MaterialTransfer Agreement, has beenprepared for issue in 2003.The booklet contains thecommon genetic resourcesrelated policies of the FutureHarvest Centres, endorsed forSystem-wide use by theCGIAR Members, the GRPCand the Centre DirectorsCommittee.

The first section of the bookletconcerns the policies andguidelines for managing thein-trust plant geneticresources collections. Thesecond section concerns thepolicies for acquiring,managing and transferringanimal, aquatic and microbialgenetic resources. The finalsection presents CGIAR andCentre Committee statementson several genetic resourcesand related issues.

The booklet is intendedprimarily as a reference for theFuture Harvest Centres. It isavailable to outside partiesupon request from the SGRPSecretariat.

Booklet of CGIAR policies

Reference booklet for theFuture Harvest Centresproduced by the SGRP andthe CGIAR GeneticResources Policy Committee.

10


11The Global Crop DiversityTrust is an initiative of SGRParising from the series ofstudies on genebankoperations and their costsdetailed elsewhere in thisreport (see p. 14). Thesestudies concluded that theonly way to ensure practicalsuccess of the long-termcommitment of the Centres tothe management of the cropdiversity collections in theircare was through theestablishment of anendowment. The FutureHarvest Centres hold theircrop diversity collections intrust for humanity, as part ofthe FAO International Networkof Ex Situ Collections. Underagreements with FAO, theCentres maintain thecollections according tointernationally agreedstandards and ensure thatthey remain in the publicdomain.

Importantly, the costingstudies at last put a price tagon the long-term costs ofconserving the Future Harvest

collections, allowing for aclearer estimation of the fundsneeded to endow them.However, importantcollections of crop diversityare also held in national andregional genebanks aroundthe world. A priority of theGlobal Plan of Action for plantgenetic resources is to sustainexisting ex situ collectionswithin the framework of arational global conservationsystem. Thus, in 2001, SGRPsupported a feasibility studyon the funds needed to endowkey collections worldwide,including those held in trustby the Centres. This studyindicated that a preliminarygoal of US$260 million isreasonable.

The partners announcedtheir plans to establish theTrust at the World Summit onSustainable Development inJohannesburg. Theannouncement followed on theheels of the release of a studyby Imperial College, UK, ‘CropDiversity at Risk: The Case forSustaining Crop Collections’.

START WITH A SEED:

THE GLOBALCROP DIVERSITY

TRUST

After two years ofstakeholder discussions andfeasibility studies, thecampaign for the GlobalCrop Diversity Trust wasformally launched in 2002.The campaign, apartnership between IPGRI(for the Future HarvestCentres) and FAO, seeks toestablish an endowment tosupport the conservation—in perpetuity—of the world’smost critical crop diversitycollections. The goal is toraise US$260 million frommultilateral and bilateralagencies, corporations,foundations andgovernments. In addition toconservation, the Trust willsupport training and otherupgrading assistance tocrop collections in need.National and internationalcollections will be eligiblefor funding by the Trust.

Start w

ith a Seed: the G

lobal Crop D

iversity Trust

Genebanks in the Andes haveworked with PROINPA, aBolivian NGO, to characterizealmost 3000 varieties ofquinoa.A. King/IPGRIh

tt

p:

//

ww

w.

st

ar

tw

it

ha

se

ed

.o

rg


12The study drew largely oninformation gathered by FAOin 2000 from about 100countries. Its findings werealarming: not only is cropdiversity disappearing from thefields, a large proportion of thecrop resources ‘safeguarded’in genebanks around the worldcould soon be lost due to lackof funding.

The report found that whilethe number of samples held incrop collections has increasedin 66% of countries since1996 (the last time FAOgathered such data),genebank budgets have beenreduced in 25% of countriesand have remained static inanother 35%. Not surprisingly,the majority of budgetcutbacks have taken place inthe poorest countries, whichare home to the diversity ofthe world’s most critical crops.

The issue of regenerationis perhaps even morerevealing. The new data showthat some 52% of developingcountries have more samplesin need of urgent regenerationthan they did in 1996. Amongdeveloped countries, 27%reported increased need.

Individual genebanks havebarely averted disaster: whenduplicate seeds held in otherlands have been used toreplace collections lost in thecourse of war or naturaldisaster. Rwanda, Burundi,Somalia and Romania providea few such examples. Othergenebanks have lost or are atrisk of losing portions of theircollections, Albania, Fiji andNigeria among them.

Until now, the worldcommunity has dealt withgenebank crises in an ad hocmanner. The Imperial Collegereport made it clear that suchan approach cannot work

indefinitely. Even some of theworld’s largest genebanks arefacing severe budget cuts: theFuture Harvest Centres haveseen their core funding—thefunds that support thegenebanks—drop by 50%since 1994. The reportendorsed the conclusions ofSGRP by recommending theestablishment of a globalendowment fund for ex situconservation as the best wayto ensure humanity’s ability tomeet the long-term nature ofits conservation needs.

Public awareness is at theheart of the campaign toestablish the Global CropDiversity Trust. It is a vital wayto reach donors—particularly‘new’ donors who are likely tobe unfamiliar with genebanksand their importance. Inaddition, the intensely politicalnature of genetic resourcesissues and the great interestshown by countries in theTrust means that it is critical toensure openness andtransparency in every steptaken towards itsestablishment.

Global media coverage ofthe Trust has been intense,spanning five continents. TheTrust’s communicationsprogramme was honouredwith a bronze award in 2002by AgriculturalCommunicators in Education(ACE), an internationalprofessional society ofcommunicators. (See theTrust’s Web site athttp://www.startwithaseed.org)

A lengthy process ofresearch and consultation withstakeholder groups during2002 examined options for theoversight and governance ofthe Trust, as well as forstakeholder involvement indecision-making, structure,

Sta

rt w

ith a

See

d: th

e G

loba

l Cro

p D

iver

sity

Tru

st


13financial management,allocation of resources, taxefficiency and transactioncosts. At the request of and inconsultation with a number ofkey stakeholder groups, FAOand IPGRI, on behalf of theFuture Harvest Centres,appointed an Interim Panel ofEminent Experts (IPEE) tooversee the establishment ofthe Trust. The panel containsrepresentatives from allstakeholder groups, each akey person in agriculturalresearch.

The IPEE will decide thepreferred legal status,governance and financialmechanisms for the Trust,based on consultations with alarge number of governments,individuals and organizations,South and North. The InterimPanel will also decide uponquestions like the properbalance to be achieved in theallocation of funds. The Panelwill hold its first meeting inearly 2003. (Furtherinformation on Trustgovernance can be found athttp://www.startwithaseed.org/pages/governance.htm)

The Global Crop DiversityTrust initiative (formerly calledthe ‘Global ConservationTrust’) was presented to theNinth Regular Session of theCommission on GeneticResources for Food andAgriculture in October 2002.The Commission stronglyendorsed the initiative, sayingin its report:

“The Commission heard apresentation from the DirectorGeneral of the InternationalPlant Genetic ResourcesInstitute, Mr Geoffrey Hawtinon the joint efforts of FAO andthe CGIAR to establish aGlobal Conservation Trust, toprovide, in perpetuity, a flow

of funds for ex situconservation by national andinternational institutions, andfor relevant capacity-building.The Trust would operate in theframework of the InternationalTreaty, and be an essentialelement of its FundingStrategy. The overall policyguidance to the Trust wouldcome from the GoverningBody of the Treaty.

“This initiative wasuniversally appreciated andsupported, and appeals weremade to donors to assist inthe establishment of the Trust.The Trust would, it was hoped,attract new and additionalfunds from a wide-range ofdonors. The Commissionstressed the need for theGovernance of the Trust towork in a transparent andefficient manner, as proposed,and requested progressregarding the Trust to bereported at sessions of theInter-governmental TechnicalWorking Group on PlantGenetic Resources.”

By year’s end, the Trusthad received significantcommitments from public andprivate sector sources andfrom developed anddeveloping countries. It isexpected that the Trust willreach its first goal ofUS$100 million by the end of2003. In that case, the firstcall for proposals will takeplace in mid-2004 with theinitial grants awarded at theend of that year.

Start w

ith a Seed: the G

lobal Crop D

iversity Trust

A farmer in Zimbabweexamining open pollinatedsorghum. The local genebankis making varieties available forfarmers to use and improve.A. King/IPGRI


14COSTING THE

CONSERVATIONOF PLANT

GENETICRESOURCES

What exactly does it cost tostore a sample of diversityin perpetuity? Thatseemingly simple questionhas been the focus of aseries of studies organizedby SGRP over the past fewyears. Answers have startedto emerge, and perhaps themost surprising conclusionis that compared to thepotential benefits, the costsof storage are trivial. Whichis not to say that the fundswill be easy to find.

Cos

ting

the

cons

erva

tion

of p

lant

gen

etic

reso

urce

s

In 1995 the SGRPcommissioned an externalreview of the operations of theFuture Harvest Centregenebanks, in association withFAO. While this reviewidentified actions that wouldimprove genebankperformance, a subsequentexternal review of SGRP in1998 drew attention to the factthat Centres lacked the fundsto implement fully and in atimely fashion therecommendations that hadbeen made. SGRP thereforesought the support of theCGIAR Technical AdvisoryCommittee (TAC) and FinanceCommittee/World Bank fordeveloping a costed plan toaddress the shortcomings andfor studies to determine thecomparative costs of cropconservation in the FutureHarvest Centres’ 11genebanks. The InternationalFood Policy Research Institute(IFPRI) led the studies on thecosts of conservation at FutureHarvest Centre genebankswhich were instrumental to thelaunch of the Global CropDiversity Trust campaign in2002 (see p. 11). The plan forupgrading genebankoperations to bring all theCentres up to the expectedinternational standards ofgenebank management led, in2003, to support from theWorld Bank for a short-terminflux of funds to enableCentres to meet their long-termobligations.

IFPRI worked over the pastseveral years with genebanksat five Future Harvest Centres:the International Center forTropical Agriculture (CentroInternacional de AgriculturaTropical—CIAT); theInternational Maize and WheatImprovement Center (Centro

Internacional de Mejoramientode Maíz y Trigo—CIMMYT); theInternational Center forAgricultural Research in theDry Areas (ICARDA); theInternational Crops ResearchInstitute for the Semi-AridTropics (ICRISAT); and theInternational Rice ResearchInstitute (IRRI). These fiveCentres collectively account fornearly 90% of the in-trustmaterial held by the FutureHarvest Centres.

The ultimate goal of thestudies is the answer to a bigquestion: “how costly is it toconserve genetic resources ingenebanks and to maintaintheir viability and sample sizesin perpetuity?” It all depends,of course, on many factors.But in essence the bigquestion can be broken downinto smaller ones.

How much does it cost tohold a sample for a year? Thisis essentially the annualizedcapital cost of the storagefacility, plus the cost ofelectricity and a small amountto maintain equipment in goodcondition. In general the cost isvery low, less than US$1.50per accession. Maize, becauseits seeds are large and so takeup more room, is moreexpensive, at US$2.16 peraccession. And cassava, whichis stored in vitro at CIAT, isexpensive at US$11.98 peraccession. Some Centres, forexample IRRI and ICARDA,have cheap electricity and lowlabour costs; both costUS$0.47 per accession. AtICRISAT costs are higher,US$1.32 per accession, largelythe result of expensiveelectricity.

Merely storing a sample,however, is not enough. Itsviability also has to bemaintained, and that means

An experimental procedure toextend the life of cassavamicroplants results in healthierindividuals (right) anddramatically reduces genebankcosts.CIAT


regular testing and, whennecessary, regeneration. Howmuch does that add? Thecosts of testing andregeneration are not incurredevery year, but they have amarked effect on the cost ofconservation. In general wildand weedy relatives, cross-pollinating crops, andvegetatively propagated crops,all of which are more expensiveto regenerate because theyrequire more labour, becomemuch more costly over the longterm. Thus long-term storage offorages at CIAT costsUS$89.35 per accession whilewild rice at IRRI is US$68.76.By contrast chickpeas andsorghum at ICRISAT costUS$15.48 and US$14.66 peraccession for storage inperpetuity, because the labourcosts of regeneration are somuch lower.

Then there is the cost ofdistribution. One of thepurposes of ex situ collectionsis to make diversity available tobreeders and others. This issomething that the Centreshave normally borne as part oftheir responsibility to makeaccessions available, but it isnot inconsiderable. One canassess the costs of distributionin two ways. Partial costsinclude multiplying theaccession and shipping, butnot characterization or storage.(These can be apportioned andassigned to the full cost,although they add very little, anaverage of about 16%.) Thecost of distribution variesgreatly depending on crop,even at the same Centre. Forexample, wheat costs CIMMYTUS$12.56 per accession todistribute, while maize costsUS$264.31.

15

Costing the conservation of plant genetic resources

A synthesis report of thecosting studies of FutureHarvest Centre genebanksconducted by theInternational Food PolicyResearch Institute (IFPRI) in2000 and 2001, ‘EndowingFuture Harvests: the Long-term Costs of ConservingGenetic Resources at theCGIAR Centres’ waspublished by the SGRP inMarch 2002. This reportprovided the basis forestimating the endowmentneeded for the in-trustcollections and has beenwidely distributed and usedin support of the Global CropDiversity Trust.

‘Saving Seeds: TheEconomics of ConservingCrop Genetic Resources ExSitu in the Future HarvestCentres of the CGIAR,’ the full

monograph of all the studies,will be published in 2003.

An article on the costing atCIMMYT (Philip G. Pardey,Bonwoo Koo, Brian D.Wright, M. Eric Van Dusen,Bent Skovmand, andSuketoshi Taba (2001).Costing the conservation ofgenetic resources: CIMMYT’sex situ maize and wheatcollection. Crop Science41(4):1286–1299) receivedthe Crop Science Societyaward at its annual meetingin 2002. The February 2003issue of NatureBiotechnology featured thisstudy. (Bonwoo Koo, PhilipPardey and Brian Wright(2002). The price ofconserving agriculturalbiodiversity. NatureBiotechnology21(2):126–128).

Publications—and Prizes

This report is available fromthe SGRP Secretariat.


16C

ostin

g th

e co

nser

vatio

n of

pla

nt g

enet

ic re

sour

ces Management

implications

For the first time, given thedetailed cost analyses nowavailable, genebank managerscan begin to consider someoperational questions ineconomic terms. For example,maintaining cultures of cropsstored in vitro is very expensivebecause the culture has to berefreshed frequently. Forcassava at CIAT the cost ofsub-culturing every yearrepresents almost 90% of thein-perpetuity costs ofconservation. CIAT has beenexperimenting with a techniquethat slows the growth of thecassava plantlets, which canmean that they need be sub-cultured half as often. Thatreduces the long-term storagecost from US$537 to US$307.Summed over the 6080cassava accessions in theCIAT genebank, that representsa potential saving ofUS$1.4 million. As the authorsof the study comment, “if themethod can be developed foranything less thanUS$1.4 million, the research isa worthwhile investment, eventaking a narrow, CIAT-centricperspective.”

Using a similar approach itis possible to look at the costsof different aspects of storage.At ICRISAT groundnuts havetraditionally been stored aspods, in their shells. Likemaize, the large size of thepods means that accessionsrequire 5-litre containers, sothe entire collection of morethan 15 000 accessions fillstwo large storage modules.ICRISAT has beenexperimenting with shelling thepods before storage. Thiswould halve the volumeoccupied by the collection, soit would fit in a single module.

Given the high costs ofelectricity and low costs oflabour at ICRISAT, such achange could save almost20% of the in-perpetuity costs.

The bottom line

One reason for the costingstudies was to provide cleardata. Based on the studies,the Future Harvest Centresneed some US$5.7 million ayear to conserve their in-trustholdings in perpetuity. Usingreasonable expectations ofinterest rates and inflation, thiscould be provided by anendowment fund ofUS$149 million. If interestrates are higher and storagetimes longer the sum drops toUS$100 million. Under lowerinterest rates and shorterperiods between regenerationit climbs to US$325 million.Neither is a huge amount.

The real problem lies inestimating the benefits.“Attributing an appropriatepart of the agronomicimprovement in a plant to theuse of conserved germplasmis a daunting, if notintractable, inferentialchallenge,” say the authors ofthe costing studies. And evenif that could be done,germplasm also has value interms of future demand, itsso-called option value, andthe sheer value of its veryexistence, as opposed to itsextinction. Hard though thesemay be to calculate, it seemsobvious that they must faroutweigh the present costs ofUS$149 million for the FutureHarvest Centres, orUS$260 million for thebeginnings of a rationalsystem of crop conservationas anticipated by the GlobalCrop Diversity Trust.

Costing exercises can helpcurators to manage theirgenebanks more effectively.CIAT


17SINGER is a conduit. Throughit flows information from theFuture Harvest Centres aboutthe crop diversity that theyhold in trust under agreementswith FAO. SINGER alsorepresents an important partof the Centres’ commitment tosupporting the development ofglobal information systems.Work to fulfil these functions(and others) has broughtabout considerable changes,although the original functionof linking all with an interest incrop diversity remains thefoundation of SINGER’sactivities.

Behind the scenes, therehas been a fundamentalchange in the software usedto power SINGER. After anextensive review, the projectdecided to adopt OpenSource Software as the basisfor the SINGER Toolkit, theapplications developed by theSINGER team for the displayand querying of the data. Forexample, advanced GISapplications allow users tomap the source of samplesagainst various environmentalparameters. Curators ofgenebank information systemsnow have cost-effective tools

that offer maximumcompatibility with differentcomputer platforms as well asgreater flexibility.

Adding value to theinformation it presents isanother driving force behindSINGER’s development. Workhas begun on the creation of aportal that will give access toadditional information beyondthat in the databases. Thisportal links to more than 500relevant sources on the Websites of Future HarvestCentres. All the sources havebeen catalogued andcategorized with metadatathat will allow powerfulsearching and also enablelinks to be built betweenqueries on SINGER andsources relevant to thespecies concerned. To beginwith the sources are restrictedto crops covered by the in-trust agreements, but it ishoped to extend coverage inthe future.

Strategically, the most far-reaching activities have beento forge links with othergenetic resources informationsystems. These have tendedbe based either on particularcrops or geographical regions.

SIN

GER

—know

ledge makes the difference

SINGER—KNOWLEDGEMAKES THEDIFFERENCE

The System-wideInformation Network forGenetic Resources offers awindow on the samples ofcrop diversity held in trustfor the global community.Work has focused onimproving the breadth andscope of the informationavailable through SINGERand the usability of the Website. SINGER is alsobecoming the partner ofchoice for other efforts tomake genebank informationmore widely available.

ht

tp

:/

/w

ww

.s

in

ge

r.

cg

ia

r.

or

g


Pilot networks linking holdersof wheat and barleycollections are beingestablished under the lead ofthe Future Harvest Centresmandated for those crops;CIMMYT for wheat andICARDA for barley.

On the regional front, theEuropean Co-operativeProgramme for Crop GeneticResources (ECP/GR)contracted SINGER toimplement the technologicalinfrastructure of EURISCO.EURISCO is a regionalcatalogue with passport dataon more than one millionsamples held in genebanksacross Europe. SINGER staffdesigned and implementedthe searchable Web site that

will give access to Europeangenebank information. Theyhave worked closely withECP/GR in the training andcapacity building needed toensure that all 41 of thecountries involved inEURISCO were able to supplydata that met the higheststandards of quality. When theSINGER-EURISCO alliance isfully in place, towards the endof 2003, it will list more than1500 000 accessions, morethan one third of the globaltotal.

The collaboration betweenSINGER and ECP/GR thatresulted in the creation ofEURISCO is being seen as amodel for other regional andcrop networks. Discussionshave been sought with the USGermplasm ResourcesInformation Network (GRIN),which may bring opportunitiesto develop regional networksin the Americas. Interest hasalso been shown by theGenetic Resources Networkfor West and Central Africa(GRENEWECA), which will beworking with ECP/GR andSINGER to develop aninformation network for itsmembers.

SINGER is now placed asa key player in thedevelopment of a globalinformation system for geneticresources, as foreseen underthe new International Treatyon Plant Genetic Resourcesfor Food and Agriculture.

SIN

GER

—kn

owle

dge

mak

es th

e di

ffere

nce

Farmers in Nepal work withlocal NGO LI-BIRD to breedbetter varieties that will givethem more to sell at market.A. King/IPGRI

In part to recognize thefundamental changes in itspower and usability, SINGERlaunched a new look in 2002.The new design, new lookand new slogan have beenincorporated into a packageof material for publicawareness, including factsheets, bookmarks, stickers,poster and generalintroductory brochure. Allhelp to spread the word andto put the URL of SINGER’sWeb site in front of as manypeople as possible.http://www.singer.cgiar.org

A new look18


19Dr Daniel DebouckHead, Genetic Resources Unit(CIAT)

Dr John PoulsenScientist, Research Division(CIFOR)

Dr Bent SkovmandHead, Wheat Germplasm Bank and Genetic Resources(CIMMYT)

Dr William RocaPlant Cell Physiologist, Crop Improvement and GeneticResources Department(CIP)

Dr Jan ValkounHead, Genetic Resources Unit(ICARDA)

Dr Paula Bramel (Chair) (through April 2002)Principal Scientist, Genetic Resources and EnhancementProgram (ICRISAT)

Dr C.L.L. Gowda (from May 2002)Global Theme Leader—Crop Management and Utilization(ICRISAT)

Dr Phil Pardey (through April 2002)Research Fellow(IFPRI)

Dr Peter Hazell (from May 2002)Division Director, Environment and Production Technology(IFPRI)

Dr Rodomiro Ortiz (from 1 November 2001)(Acting) Deputy Director General, Research-for-Development Director, Research-for-Development(IITA)

Dr Jean HansonProject Coordinator, Forage Genetic Resources(ILRI)

Dr Coosje HoogendoornDeputy Director General, Programmes(IPGRI)

Dr Mike Jackson (through July 2002) Director for Research Planning and Coordination(IRRI)

Mem

bers of the ICW

G-G

R

MEMBERS OF THE ICWG-GR

IN 2002


20Dr Ruaraidh Sackville-Hamilton (from August 2002)Head, Genetic Resources Center(IRRI)

Dr Joel CohenProgram Director, Information and New Technologies(ISNAR)

Dr Robert GueiHead, Genetic Resources Unit and INGER Coordinator(WARDA—The Africa Rice Centre)

Dr Tony SimonsProgramme Leader, Domestication of Agroforestry TreesProgramme(World Agroforestry Centre)

Dr Alphis Ponniah (from 10 December 2001)Leader, Biodiversity and Genetic Resources Research Program(WorldFish Center)

Ex Officio Members

Dr Murthi AnishettySenior Officer, Plant Genetic ResourcesSeed and Plant Genetic Resources ServicePlant Production and Protection DivisionFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)Via delle Terme di Caracalla00100 RomeItaly

Dr Geoffrey Hawtin, SGRP Programme LeaderDirector General(IPGRI)

Ms Jane Toll, Coordinator, SGRP(IPGRI)

Executive Committee Members

Dr Rodomiro Ortiz, IITADr Willy Roca, CIPDr Tony Simons, World Agroforestry CentreMs Jane Toll, SGRP Coordinator (Secretary of the ExecutiveCommittee) Dr Geoffrey Hawtin, SGRP Programme Leader, IPGRI

Mem

bers

of t

he IC

WG

-GR


21Secretariat of the CGIAR System-wide Genetic ResourcesProgramme:

c/o International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI)Via dei Tre Denari, 472/a00057 MaccareseRome, ItalyTelephone: +39-0661181Fax: +39-0661979661Email: [email protected]

Ms Jane Toll Coordinator, SGRP

Mr Samy GaijiProject Leader, SINGER

Ms Layla DaoudCommunications and Information Assistant, SGRP

Mr Milko SkoficDatabase Developer, SINGER

Ms Oonagh Darby1

Programme Assistant, SGRP

Reports

Report of the Twelfth Meeting of the Inter-Centre WorkingGroup on Genetic Resources, held at the International PlantGenetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), Maccarese (Rome),Italy, 4–8 February 2002.

Publications

CGIAR Centre Policy Instruments, Guidelines and Statementson Genetic Resources, Biotechnology and IntellectualProperty Rights. Version II. July 2003. Produced by theCGIAR System-wide Genetic Resources Programme withthe Genetic Resources Policy Committee.

Fowler, C., M. Smale and S. Gaiji, 2001. Unequal Exchange?Recent Transfers of Agricultural Resources and theirImplications for Developing Countries. Development PolicyReview, Vol. 19, No. 2.

Fowler, C., Moore, G. and Hawtin, G.C. 2003. The InternationalTreaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture:A Primer for the Future Harvest Centres of the CGIAR.International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy.

SG

RP

secretariat staff & S

GR

P reports and publications

SGRPSECRETARIAT

STAFF

1 From 21 January 2002.

SGRP REPORTSAND

PUBLICATIONS


22Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine. 2002.

Crop Diversity at Risk: the Case for Sustaining CropCollections. The Department of Agricultural Sciences,Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, Wye,United Kingdom.

IPGRI. 2002. Start with a Seed [brochure and video film].International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy.

Koo, Bonwoo, Pardey, Philip G., and Wright, Brian D. 2003. Theeconomic costs of conserving genetic resources at the CGIARCentres. Agricultural Economics 29 (2003) pp 287-297.

Koo, Bonwoo, Pardey, Philip G., and Wright, Brian D. 2002.Endowing Future Harvests: The Long-Term Costs ofConserving Genetic Resources at the CGIAR Centres.International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy.

Koo, Bonwoo, Philip Pardey and Brian Wright. 2003. The priceof agricultural biodiversity. Nature Biotechnology 21(2):126-128 (February 2003).

Koo, Bonwoo, Pardey, Philip G., and Wright, Brian D. 2003.Conserving genetic resources for agriculture: counting thecost. Research at a Glance [Brief]. International Food PolicyResearch Institute, Washington, DC, USA, 6 pages.

Ninnes, Peter, Payne, T. and Lawrence, J. 2002. SINGER is musicto crop scientists. Partners in Research for Development15:41-44 (May 2002), Australian Centre for InternationalAgricultural Research (ACIAR). Canberra, Australia.

Ongsansoy, Hans and Jim Romahn. 2002. Efficient Exchange.Germination 6(5):23-25 (November 2002).

Pardey, Philip G., Koo, Bonwoo, Wright, Brian D., Van Dusen,M. Eric, Skovmand, Bent, and Taba, Suketoshi. 2001.Costing the conservation of genetic resources: CIMMYT’s ExSitu maize and wheat collection. Crop Sci 41(4):1286-1299.

Sackville Hamilton, N.R., J.M.M. Engels, Th.J.L. van Hintum, B.Koo and M. Smale. 2002. Accession management.Combining or splitting accessions as a tool to improvegermplasm management efficiency. IPGRI Technical BulletinNo. 5. International Plant Genetic Resources institute, Rome,Italy.

SGRP. 2001. Annual Report 2000 of the CGIAR System-wideGenetic Resources Programme. International Plant GeneticResources Institute, Rome, Italy.

SGRP. 2002. System-wide Information Network for GeneticResources [Brochure]. International Plant Genetic ResourcesInstitute, Rome, Italy.

SG

RP

sec

reta

riat s

taff

& S

GR

P re

ports

and

pub

licat

ions


23

Financial report

This report presents income and expenditures for SGRP for theperiod 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002.

2002 Income

US$Japan 50 000Netherlands (DFL 650 000) 276 597Switzerland (CHF 250 000) 147 065CIAT 23 238World Bank 140 542Total funds available in 2002 637 442

2002 expenditures

US$SGRP coordination 166 486ICWG-GR meeting 22 123Global Crop Diversity Trust related activities 157 249SINGER 265 815Technical and capacity-building activities 28 378Administrative costs 140 079Total expenditures 780 130

Opening balance† 529 441

Funds available in 2002 637 442

Expenditures in 2002 780 130

Closing balance 386 753

2002 FINANCIALREPORT

† Opening balance includescarryforward of US$194 000restricted funding for SINGERand SGRP work in support ofthe Global Crop Diversity Trustand SGRP’s operating reserve.IPGRI policy requires reservesto cover 60 days of operatingexpenses.


Abb

revi

atio

ns a

nd a

cron

yms

CAS CGIAR Central Advisory Service on Intellectual Property

CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

CIAT Centro Internacional de Agricultura TropicalCIFOR Center for International Forestry ResearchCIMMYT Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y

TrigoCIP Centro Internacional de la PapaECP/GR European Co-operative Programme for Crop

Genetic ResourcesFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations GIS Geographic information systemsGPA Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and

Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resourcesfor Food and Agriculture

GRPC Genetic Resources Policy CommitteeICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in the

Dry AreasICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-

Arid TropicsICWG-GR Inter-Centre Working Group on Genetic ResourcesIFPRI International Food Policy Research InstituteIITA International Institute of Tropical AgricultureILRI International Livestock Research InstituteINIBAP International Network for the Improvement of

Banana and PlantainINRM Integrated natural resource managementIPGRI International Plant Genetic Resources InstituteIPR Intellectual property rightsIRRI International Rice Research InstituteISNAR International Service for National Agricultural

ResearchIWMI International Water Management InstituteLI-BIRD Local Initiatives for Biodiversity and DevelopmentMTA Material Transfer AgreementNGO Non-governmental organizationPPB Participatory plant breedingSGRP CGIAR System-wide Genetic Resources

ProgrammeSINGER CGIAR System-wide Information Network for

Genetic ResourcesTAC CGIAR Technical Advisory CommitteeWARDA The Africa Rice Center

ABBREVIATIONSAND ACRONYMS

24


25

CIATCentro Internacional deAgricultura TropicalApartado Aéreo 6713CaliColombiaEmail: [email protected]

CIFORCenter for InternationalForestry ResearchJalan CIFORSitu Gede, SindangbarangBogor Barat 16680IndonesiaEmail: [email protected]

CIMMYTCentro Internacional deMejoramiento de Maíz y TrigoApartado Postal 6-64106600 Mexico, DF MexicoEmail: [email protected]

CIPCentro Internacional de laPapaApartado 1558Lima 12PeruEmail: [email protected]

ICARDAInternational Center forAgricultural Research in theDry AreasPO Box 5466AleppoSyrian Arab RepublicEmail: [email protected]

ICRISATInternational Crops ResearchInstitute for the Semi-AridTropicsPatancheru 502 324Andhra PradeshIndiaEmail: [email protected]

IFPRIInternational Food PolicyResearch Institute2033 K Street NWWashington, DC 20006-1002USAEmail: [email protected]

IITAInternational Institute ofTropical AgriculturePMB 5320IbadanNigeriaEmail: [email protected]

ILRIInternational LivestockResearch InstitutePO Box 30709NairobiKenyaEmail: [email protected]

IPGRIInternational Plant GeneticResources InstituteVia dei Tre Denari 472/a00057 Maccarese RomeItalyEmail: [email protected]

IRRIInternational Rice ResearchInstituteDAPO Box 7777Metro ManilaPhilippinesEmail: [email protected]

ISNARInternational Service forNational Agricultural ResearchPO Box 933752509 AJ The HagueNetherlandsEmail: [email protected]

IWMIInternational WaterManagement InstitutePO Box 2075ColomboSri LankaEmail: [email protected]

WARDAThe Africa Rice Center01 BP 2551Bouaké 01Côte d’IvoireEmail: [email protected]

World Agroforestry CentrePO Box 30677 NairobiKenyaEmail: [email protected]

WorldFish CenterPO Box 500GPO 10670 PenangMalaysiaEmail:[email protected]

Centre addresses

CENTREADDRESSES


26


annual report 2002 - bioversity international · annual report 2002 of the cgiar system- ... surya...

Documents