Jean-Marcel Ribaut

ISPC Meeting

13th March 2014 Washington DC, USA

Lessons Learnt from the GCP Experience

Our Discussion Today:

♦ Introduction to the GCP

♦ Major achievements

♦ External review

♦ The transition strategy

♦ Lessons learnt

♦ The legacy

♦ Perspectives and conclusion

The Generation Challenge Programme An Introduction

GCP in Brief ♦ A CGIAR Challenge Programme hosted at CIMMYT ♦ Launched in August 2003 ♦ 10-year framework (Phase I 2004–2008; Phase II 2009–2013) ♦ About US$15–17m annual budget ♦ Target geographies: 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

Technology

Germplasm Breeding

Needs

CGIAR

ARIs Products/Impact Farmer’s field

NARS NGOs

Private sector

Germplasm Environments

The GCP Network: 180+ Institutions

Private sector

GCP Network

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

Phase II

Executive Board

+

GCP Director

Theme Leaders

Product Delivery Leader

+

Governance

Man

agem

ent T

eam

Consortium Committee(CC) Scientific

Committees

Review and Advisory

Panel (RAP)

Theme 1 Comparative &

Applied Genomics

Theme 2 Integrated Crop

Breeding

Theme 3 Crop Information

Systems

Theme 4 Capacity Building

Theme 5 Product Delivery

Research teams Research teams Research teams Research teams Research teams

Product Delivery Coordinators

Advisory (Operational /Scientific) Advisory

(Project monitoring

/management )

Governance and Management – 2008 to the present

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 initiative

Selected key achievements

♦ EPMR panel (2008) noted that the GCP community is one of the Programme’s most crucial assets. In their words:

“Perhaps the most important value of GCP thus far, is the opportunities it has provided for people of diverse backgrounds to think collectively about solutions to complex problems, and, in the process, to learn from one another.”

♦ Linking upstream research with applied science ♦ True partnership

♦ Shared resources ♦ In-kind contribution from most of our partners ♦ Work as a team to find $ outside the GCP-funded work

♦ Evolution of roles and responsibilities ♦ Leaders became mentors ♦ Trainees become doers and leaders ♦ In 2013 about half of the PIs are from developing countries

♦ There is no doubt a unique and tangible ‘GCP spirit’ observable in the camaraderie at GCP meetings

Major Achievement: The GCP Community

♦ Genetic resources ♦ Reference sets for 18 crops (all CGIAR mandate crops)

♦ Genomic resources ♦ Markers for orphan crops

♦ Informative markers ♦ Drought, viruses and insect resistance

♦ Genes/QTL ♦ AltSB for Aluminium tolerance, Pup1 for P uptake efficiency, Saltol for

salt tolerance and Sub1 for submergence tolerance. ♦ Improved germplasm ♦ New bioinformatic tools (DM, diversity studies, breeding, etc) ♦ Enhanced capacities for MAB in NARS 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

Peer Reviewed Publications

5

25

51 57

68 78

73

90

32

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Journal articles published: 2005‒2013

Year

Num

ber

In selected high impact journals (2007-2013): • Nature: 5, Nature Biotech: 3 • Nature Genetics: 2, PNAS: 8

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

“Classic” Approach ♦ Formal postgraduate training programmes

♦ 100+ MSc and PhD students 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 – uniquely GCP ♦ CB à la carte ♦ Integrated Breeding Multi-Year Course: Breeding, Data Mgt, Data

Analysis ♦ CB along the delivery chain (scientists, technicians, station managers ♦ Technical support for infrastructure implementation ♦ Some thoughts on who to train

♦ Balance across generation-expertise

Capacity Building

External Review

The Overall Context ♦ Recommended by the GCP MT and Executive Board ♦ Under the leadership of the CGIAR Independent Evaluation

Arrangement (IEA) ♦ A team of five

♦ 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 2 survey: ♦ Programme evaluation: stakeholders ♦ Governance and management: selected audience

♦ We are at the stage of factual revision ♦ 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”

EPMR Stakeholder: Respondent Composition:

Developing-country

partner(national programme),

28.7%

Developing-country partner

(University), 8.3%

CGIAR Centre, 31.2%

Developed-country partner,

22.3%

Private sector, 1.9%

Other, 7.6%

Online survey

November, 2013

159 responses

Response rate:42%

Assessment of GCP’s overall performance from EPMR stakeholder survey

56.3% 61.7% 66.4% 64.7% 57.5% 61.3% 57.4% 65.7%

37.3% 31.1% 28.7% 27.5% 38.8% 30.1% 34.1% 24.3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Strongly Agree Agree

% Agree

93.6% 92.8% 95.1% 92.2%

96.3% 91.4% 91.5% 90.0%

Possible choices: Strongly agree; agree; disagree; strongly disagree; don’t know/not applicable

Transition strategy

http://www.generationcp.org/gcp-s-sunset

Transition Principles (2010) Overall ♦ GCP remains committed to the plan at its inception to end by 2013-14 ♦ In order that the programme is able to achieve its overall objectives

and for which activities are based on previous investments, commitments and achievements, it will be critical that it remain a coherent entity until 2013

Service ♦ The Genomics and Integrated Breeding Service is designed to be

sustained past GCP’s ‘sunset’

Research ♦ Working together with crop MP leaders, the research components will

be included and described in their MP proposals, and integrated in their respective logframes

GCP research projects were hence included in the commodity CRP workplans in Phase I (a bit artificial…..)

I Research Genetic stocks: Almost Done Management of the Genetic Stocks input on the Trust CRP

Genomic resources: Done Revolution with what we called in the past the “Orphan crops”

Informative molecular markers: Done Accessible, easy to use

Cloned genes: Done Accessible, easy to use

Molecular breeding: Almost done Improved germplasm to be converted into varieties

II Integrated Breeding Platform III Capacity building services and Training Materials IV Community and knowledge sharing GCP scientific and social network GCP institutional memory

Transition implementation (2012): GCP Components

Each of the nine component-specific Position Papers is designed to contribute to GCP’s orderly closure in 2014 by considering the following three questions:

1. What ‘assets’ will be completed by the end of GCP’s lifetime in December 2014?

2. What ‘assets’ can best continue as integral components of the CRPs or elsewhere?

3. What ‘assets’ may not fit within existing institutions or programmes and may require alternative implementation mechanisms for completion and perpetuation?

The papers were drafted in July–August 2012, externally reviewed by stakeholders in September 2012, and endorsed by the GCP governance bodies at the end of 2012.

The nine component papers plus one overall paper are available at: http://www.generationcp.org/about-us/gcp-s-sunset/sunset-position-papers

Transition implementation (2012): The position papers

Programme Closure Working Group 2013-14: Terms of Reference

Propose a closure action plan for GCP, with respect to: Pre- and post-closure communication to funders, partners and

collaborators Ongoing operational activities Transfer of research activities post-closure Staff retention to closure Post-closure legal obligations – IP, contracts with collaborators

and service providers Management of assets Post-closure financial obligations

Monitor the implementation of the closure action plan Make appropriate reports to the Executive Board and

the GCP Consortium Committee

Lessons learnt

Key Learning Areas

♦ Governance ♦ Scientific Management ♦ Monitoring and evaluation ♦ Selecting research projects ♦ Linking upstream research with

applied science ♦ Partnership ♦ Adoption and behaviour change ♦ Research leadership ♦ Product delivery ♦ Programme closure and transition

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 (e.g GCP’s IP Committee)

Accountability must be clarified first!

Monitoring and evaluation Issue:

♦ Inadequate research management capacity early in GCP’s life 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 leaders ♦ Separate the planning and implementation from ♦ Stand-alone M&E component

Of course good management capacity and practices have a cost and therefore efficiency needs to be considered carefully

Scientific 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 to: ♦ Bring new ideas on board and develop strong partnership ♦ Increase research quality and efficiency ♦ Adjust research activities based on external environment

♦ New technology, partner, opportunity for synergy, etc ♦ Allow easily to stop un-successful projects

But ♦ Must be around a specific research topic ♦ Can only exist with the support of well established Institutions ♦ Ideally focused and time-bound ♦ Excellent complement of core activities

♦ Competitive grants ♦ Do not necessarily fit well in your research priorities (dead-end projects) ♦ Capture emerging opportunities, best ideas and new partners ♦ Increase research quality

♦ Commissioned projects ♦ Not always good value for money, less transparent ♦ Consolidates our research agenda ♦ Very efficient when it builds on a successful competitive project

Different kind of research: the dynamics

Competitive Commissioned

Services

10 years

$

From Cornell’s lab to African farmers’ fields with a stopover in Brazil: a ten-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 germplasm

Clear benefits from linking upstream research with applied science

A possible model for some suitable research activities within a CRP?

Competitive and commissioned approaches each have pros and cons but to combine them over time to achieve

a specific objective can be extremely powerful!

♦ Phase I (More competitive) ♦ Build the community ♦ Identify the flagship projects and the champions

♦ Phase II (More commissioned) ♦ Refine the agenda based on Phase I outputs ♦ Do the balk part of the job

♦ Phase III (commissioned and services) ♦ Product Deployment ♦ Support services

♦ Be strategic in partnership development ♦ The importance of people

♦ People are first, and Institutions are second ♦ Building on existing partnerships, maximising on personal relations

♦ Be selective, and cautious ♦ Can easily get out of hand, can be a distraction

♦ Plan for it, and do not underestimate effort needed: ♦ managing true partnerships takes time and resources!!!

♦ But, if managed well: ♦ One of the most efficient and effective ways to do business ♦ One of the most rewarding components of the work ♦ Creates a special group dynamic and bring new ideas ♦ Cultivates public trust, with the resultant positive public image Not every project is conducted most efficiently through partnership!

Partnership: important to keep in mind

The risk of being too inclusive! Two extremely challenging projects: 1. Development and genotyping of references set collection

♦ Too many partners involved (across and within teams) ♦ Limited buy-in ♦ Different technologies to produce comparable data ♦ Poor quality data and ignorance of standards ♦ Job done at the end through centralized service, under a single PI and with

close supervision on the development of genetic stocks

2. Coding of the IBP tools ♦ Too many teams ♦ Difference styles, with limited respect for the rules ♦ Not the core competence of centres and universities ♦ Delays in delivery, and often poor quality ♦ Tasks eventually transferred to a professional service provider, Efficio LLC,

with good results

However, all these course corrections came at a significant cost in both time and resources!

♦ Most people are reluctant or resistant to change ♦ Even people who are interested often do not allocate the time

and resources to do it ♦ Even where there are clear benefits from making a change, this

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 behavior: A real challenge in technology transfer

Leadership transfer: A challenging objective Capacity-building vital for leadership transfer

♦ Must be comprehensive – spanning entire spectrum from human resources (PhDs, short-course training, technician training) to equipment & infrastructure

♦ Must be customised and goal-oriented: ♦ One size does not fit all ‒ Phase I: open-call CB à la

carte; fellowships ♦ But internal focus is a plus ‒ Phase II: project-based

graduate studies (as defined within the GCP-funded project), IBMYC + assessment to determine if trainee advances to the next year or not

♦ That developing-country partners are now leading GCP projects, with CGIAR and developed country partners in supporting roles, with corresponding budget shifts has been a major achievement!

However, it is not desirable for all projects and/or with all partners and not everybody wants to become a leader…..

Product Delivery

♦ Research product delivery pathways should be defined right at project conception

♦ Include clear identification of research product users and impact assessment parameters

♦ Should also describe product sustainability, access and dissemination mechanisms

Other challenges

Operational ♦ Keeping key partners aligned with the overall shared

objective(s) ♦ Prioritization and resource allocation ♦ The two bosses and part time boss syndrome ♦ 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

Perspectives

Research activities: Integration into CRPs GCP Research Initiative CRP in which embedded

1. Cassava Roots, Tubers and Bananas

2. Rice Global Rice Science Partnership (GRiSP)

3. Sorghum Dryland Cereals 4. Legumes Grain Legumes (TLIII project) 5. Maize MAIZE 6. Wheat WHEAT

7. Comparative genomics (sorghum, rice, maize)

Sorghum: Al tolerance in sorghum embedded in Dryland Cereals CRP Rice: Al tolerance in rice embedded in Global Rice Science Partnership (GRiSP) CRP Maize: Al tolerance in maize embedded in MAIZE CRP

♦ Some unfinished activities to be hosted in the CRP ♦ Promising project to be extended if there is a fit with the overall objectives ♦ CRP Directors involved in the transition process

The IBP will survive the GCP ♦ A proposal currently under development to be submitted to

the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in a couple of months

♦ Proposed project duration: 5 years (2014-2019), 12M US$

♦ Overarching objective: To improve the efficiency of plant breeding programmes in developing countries by enabling plant breeders to access modern breeding technologies, breeding materials and related information in a centralised, integrated and practical manner

♦ Integration in a larger initiative?

The Integrated Breeding Platform: Moving into Phase II

BMS: THE Core Product of the IBP

10 crop-specific databases with historical data: Bean, cassava, chickpea, cowpea, groundnut, maize, rice, sorghum, soya and wheat

Up next will be: barley, lentil, potato and sweet potato Empty DB available for all crops Revised phenotyping DB schema: Chado Natural Diversity Module

The Breeding Management System (BMS)

Breeding Activities

Parental selection Crossing Population development

Germplasm Management

Open Project Specify objectives Identify team Data resources Define strategy

Project Planning

Experimental Design Fieldbook production Data collection Data loading

Germplasm Evaluation

Marker selection Fingerprinting Genotyping Data loading

Molecular Analysis

Quality Assurance Trait analysis Genetic Analysis QTL Analysis Index Analysis

Data Analysis

Selected lines Recombines Recombination plans

Breeding Decisions

Version 2 released in January 31, 2014

Tool

s &

Ser

vice

s

Support Services: Genotyping, Sequencing, Omics, QA/QC, Logistics, Field trials, Mechanization, Seed logistic Business plan, Financing

Capacity building – Social Networks

Analytical tools: Association, allelic mining, statistical, modeling, breeding decision, Mgt.

Part

ners

Implemented Breeding

QC & Seed Production

Seed Delivery

Pre-Breeding Breeding

Diversity Access

• Genebanks CRP

• SEEDSEQ • ARCAD

Phase 2 • Crop

Diversity Trust

• NARS GeneBanks

• Commodity CRPs

• Seed of Discovery

• Genetic gains (Gates)

• IBP Central Unit

• IBP Regional Hubs

• Commodity CRPs

• BeCA • Multinational

• IBP Reg. Hubs • System CRPs • Commodity

CRPs • BeCA • AGRA/PASS • Seed QC

SMEs

• System CRPs

• Commodity CRPs

• AGRA/PASS • Planet

Finance • ICRA • SupAgro,

Sup Co

A Value Chain Support Service CRP for Increased Seed Delivery

Data sharing: Data bases and data management

Conclusions

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

Conclusions ♦ Difficult to measure impact at this stage but overall it seems that

GCP has been a successful venture! ♦ Major achievements have probably been around:

♦ Establishment of true partnership with cultural change on how to run R4D projects

♦ Several flagship projects ♦ Enabling partners in developing countries to access modern

biotechnologies ♦ We had also some clear shortcomings

♦ Monitoring and evaluation were the biggest shortfalls in GCP ♦ Several competitive projects were dead ends

♦ The CP research model can’t work in isolation, but is an attractive model to complement core research activities

♦ Lessons learnt from the CPs in general and GCP in particular can positively inform the CRP operational and organizational models

♦ IBP will survive GCP and can form the core part of a possible cross-cutting initiative to support commodity CRPs

The GCP Team

GCP People: The Programme’s Greatest Asset!