Lessons learnt from the GCP experience – J-M Ribaut

Download Lessons learnt from the GCP experience – J-M Ribaut

Post on 29-Nov-2014




3 download

Embed Size (px)


Presentation at the CGIAR Independent Science and Partnership Council meeting in March 2014 by the GCP Director, Jean-Marcel Ribaut.


<ul><li> 1. Jean-Marcel Ribaut ISPC Meeting 13th March 2014 Washington DC, USA Lessons Learnt from the GCP Experience </li> <li> 2. Our Discussion Today: Introduction to the GCP Major achievements External review The transition strategy Lessons learnt The legacy Perspectives and conclusion </li> <li> 3. The Generation Challenge Programme An Introduction </li> <li> 4. GCP in Brief A CGIAR Challenge Programme hosted at CIMMYT Launched in August 2003 10-year framework (Phase I 20042008; Phase II 20092013) About US$1517m annual budget Target geographies: drought-prone environments Sub-Saharan Africa, South &amp; 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 </li> <li> 5. Technology Germplasm Breeding Needs CGIAR ARIs Products/Impact Farmers field NARS NGOs Private sector Germplasm Environments The GCP Network: 180+ Institutions Private sector </li> <li> 6. 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 Bouak Cote dIvore IRRI Los Baos 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 lOltremare Florence Italy 9 CGIAR 6 ARIs 7 NARS ETH Zurich Switzerland Partners Consortium </li> <li> 7. Phase II </li> <li> 8. Executive Board + GCP Director Theme Leaders Product Delivery Leader + Governance ManagementTeam Consortium Committee(CC) Scientific Committees Review and Advisory Panel (RAP) Theme 1 Comparative &amp; 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 </li> <li> 9. Actual Projection Total ('000 USD) 2003-2012 2013 2003-2013 % Income - Donors Austria 54 - 54 0 Bill &amp; 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 </li> <li> 10. Selected key achievements </li> <li> 11. EPMR panel (2008) noted that the GCP community is one of the Programmes 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 </li> <li> 12. 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 </li> <li> 13. 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: 20052013 Year Number In selected high impact journals (2007-2013): Nature: 5, Nature Biotech: 3 Nature Genetics: 2, PNAS: 8 </li> <li> 14. GCPs 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 &amp; other training courses Learning resources Infrastructure support Support Services Communities Blogs &amp; Forums News Publications Live chat </li> <li> 15. 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 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 </li> <li> 16. External Review </li> <li> 17. 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&amp;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 </li> <li> 18. 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% </li> <li> 19. Assessment of GCPs 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; dont know/not applicable </li> <li> 20. Transition strategy http://www.generationcp.org/gcp-s-sunset </li> <li> 21. 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 GCPs 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..) </li> <li> 22. 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 </li> <li> 23. Each of the nine component-specific Position Papers is designed to contribute to GCPs orderly closure in 2014 by considering the following three questions: 1. What assets will be completed by the end of GCPs 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 JulyAugust 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 </li> <li> 24. 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 </li> <li> 25. Lessons learnt </li> <li> 26. 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 </li> <li> 27. Governance Issue: Dysfunctional governance for nearly half of GCPs 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...</li></ul>