Jean-Marcel Ribaut

Fund Council Meeting

9th May 2014 CIMMYT, Mexico

The Generation Challenge Programme: Lessons learnt relevant to CRPs, and

the next steps

Our discussion today:

Introduction to GCP

Major achievements

External review

Lessons learnt

Perspectives and conclusions

The CGIAR 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), with

2014 as the closing year About US$15–17m annual budget Target regions: drought-prone environments

Sub-Saharan Africa, South & South East Asia, L America Eighteen CGIAR mandate crops in Phase I Nine CGIAR mandate crops in Phase II

Cereals: maize, rice, sorghum, wheat, Legumes: beans, chickpeas, cowpeas, groundnuts Roots and tubers: cassava

Strategic objective: To use genetic diversity and advanced plant science to improve crops for greater food security in the developing world

GCP: A broker in plant science bridging the gap between upstream and applied science

www.generationcp.org

GCP Consortium

EMBRAPABrasiliaBrazil

CIPLimaPeru

CIATCali

Colombia

CIMMYTMexico City

Mexico

Cornell University USA

Wageningen University Netherlands

John Innes CentreNorwich

UK

CAASBeijing China

NIAS TsukubaJapan

AgropolisMontpellier

France

IPGRIRomeItaly

WARDABouakéCote d’Ivore

IRRILos BañosPhilippines

ICRISATPatancheruIndia

ICARDAAleppoSyria

IITAIbadanNigeria

ACGTPretoria

South Africa

ICARNew Delhi

India

BIOTECBangkokThailand

INRARabat

MoroccoCINVESTAV

IrapuatoMexico

Instituto Agronomico per l’Oltremare FlorenceItaly

9 CGIAR6 ARIs7 NARS

ETHZurichSwitzerland

Partners

Consortium

Phase II

Actual Projection Total('000 USD) 2003-2012 2013 2003-2013 %Income - Donors

Austria 54 - 54 0 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 26,861 7,376 34,237 21 CGIAR Fund 11,021 5,500 16,521 10 DFID/UK 31,767 - 31,767 19 European Commission 49,150 8,000 57,150 34 Kirkhouse 15 - 15 0 Pioneer Foundation 210 - 210 0 Rockefeller Foundation 2,225 - 2,225 1 Sweden/SIDA 874 - 874 1 Switzerland/SDC 2,567 900 3,467 2 Syngenta Foundation 688 - 688 0 USAID 400 - 400 0 World Bank 17,756 - 17,756 11 Interest income 1,249 10 1,259 1

Total Income 144,838 21,786 166,624 100

Expenditure

Research Grants 137,342 86

Program Management 20,238 13

Transfer to Contingency Reserve 3,000 2

Total Expenditure and Transfer to Contingency Reserve 160,580 100

Total Net Fund 6,044

Plus Reserve 3,000

Generation Challenge Programme:A 167-million-dollar initiative

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 2013/14, about half of the PIs are from developing countries

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

Major achievement: the GCP community

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

Genomic resources Markers for ‘orphan crops’

Informative markers Drought, viruses and insect resistance

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

salt tolerance and Sub1 for submergence tolerance.

Improved germplasm New bioinformatic tools (DM, diversity studies, breeding, etc) Enhanced capacities for MAB in country programmes

Human-resource capacities / Physical infrastructure / Analytical power

Ex-ante analyses on MB impact in developing countries

Product Catalogue available at: www.generationcp.org/impact/product-catalogue

Selected major research outputs

GCP’s Integrated Breeding Platformwww.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 whose work is embedded in research projects

Workshops, fellowship grantees, travel grants Train the trainers for future regionalised capacity-building sustainability Communities of practice

Rice in the Mekong; Cassava in Africa IBP-hosted (both crop- and expertise-based)

Perhaps not so common – probably uniquely GCP CB à la carte Integrated Breeding Multiyear Course (IB–MYC): breeding, data

management, data analysis CB along the delivery chain (scientists, technicians, station managers) Technical support for infrastructure implementation Some thoughts on whom to train

Cross-generational expertise

Capacity building

External Review

Broad context Requested for by the GCP MT and Executive Board Undertaken by the CGIAR Independent Evaluation Arrangement (IEA) A team of five reviewers:

Paramjit S Sachdeva (Team Leader) Gregory O Edmeades (Senior Technical Evaluator) Rita H Mumm (Molecular Breeding Expert) Antoni J Rafalski (Genetic Resources/Genomics Expert) Christopher Bennett (Economist/M&E Expert)

Conducted two surveys: Programme evaluation: stakeholders Governance and management: selected audience

Report’s conclusion:“The Review Team established that the GCP has performed well, has met the majority of its genetic enhancement goals and surpassed others, and will leave a formidable legacy of useful and accessible products and information”

GCP has sent its response to the review report

Assessment of GCP’s overall performance from stakeholder survey

Relevance Effectivenss Products/Outputs

Efficiency Outcomes & Impact

Partnership Sustainability Management0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

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%

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

Lessons learnt

Governance

Issue: Dysfunctional governance for nearly half of GCP’s life until

mid-2008, with governance body comprised of direct beneficiaries of its own decisions

Solution: Involvement of stakeholders (‘owners’) and partners to

define the overall objectives and general direction, but… Separate independent body to approve workplan and

oversee implementation Small group of complementary expertise (GCP EB works very well!)

with… Access to specific expertise when needed (eg, GCP’s IP Committee)

Accountability must be clarified first!

Monitoring and evaluationIssue: Inadequate research-management capacity in GCP’s early

years due to part-time appointments (attractive in theory, but difficult in practice)

Lack of an M&E framework from the beginning (though this may not have been required at the time) Conflict of interest within the MT Not the same skills

Options: Full-time management team Separate the planning and implementation from a stand-alone

M&E component

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

Science management:broker in plant science – the CP modelA management team that defines and implements ‒ in partnership and through grants ‒ a workplan to achieve overall objectives

Agile research management approach that allows… Bringing in new ideas for strong partnerships Continually enhancing research quality and efficiency Adjusting research activities based on external environment

New technologies, partners, opportunities for synergy, etc Easily discontinue unsuccessful projects

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

From Cornell’s lab to African farmers’ fields with a stopover in Brazil: a 10-year effort

Step 1: Competitive project (initiated 2004) Led by Cornell Univ, in collaboration with EMBRAPA Plantlets screened under hydroponics – Alt1 gene clonedMagalhaes et al 2007, Nature Genetics, 39: 1156–1151

Step 2: Competitive project (initiated 2007) Led by EMBRAPA in collaboration with Cornell Favourable alleles identified – improved germplasm for

Brazil Caniato et al 2011, PLoS One 6, e20830

Step 3: Commissioned work (initiated 2009) Led by NARS (Kenya, Mali and Niger) with the support of

ICRISAT in collaboration with EMBRAPA Introgression of favourable alleles – improved local

germplasm

Linking upstream research to applied science, with benefits – a practical example

Most people are reluctant or resistant to change Even people who are interested in change often do not allocate

the time and resources to effect change Even where there are clear and demonstrable benefits from

making a change, this alone is not sufficient incentive Most changes can be implemented only by:

Strong bottom-up demand Mandatory top-down decision

Need to persuade people to be ready to: Get out of their comfort zone Dedicate time to learning new things Dedicate time to things that might not benefit their work directly, or

immediately Adopt a collaborative rather than competitive approach

Enforcement and implementation Big difference between the private and public sector

Changing people’s behaviour:A real challenge in technology transfer

Other challenges

Operational Keeping key partners aligned with the overall shared

objective(s) Prioritisation and resource allocation The two bosses and part-time boss syndromes Communication (internal and external) – vital for a

distributed team Recognition and ownership

Research Germplasm exchange Genetic stocks Data management Work quality standard Inclusiveness vs efficiency

Conclusions and perspectives

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

Impact and lessons Difficult to measure impact at this stage, but overall it seems that

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

Establishing true partnership with cultural change on how to run R4D projects

Several flagship projects Enabling partners in developing countries to access modern

biotechnologies We also had some clear shortcomings

Monitoring and evaluation were the biggest shortfalls Several competitive projects were dead-ends

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

Lessons learnt from the CPs in general and GCP in particular can inform the CRP operational and organisational models

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

IBP will survive GCP

A proposal has been submitted to the Bill & Melinda Gates

Foundation

Shortfall: still need to source about USD 12m over 5 years

Potential for larger initiatives across the CRPs to support crop

improvement pipeline – from the genebank up to seed

distribution

The way forward

Research activities

To be embedded in the respective commodity CRP

About 10% of the current projects will need an extension

About 50% of the current projects will have a second phase

building and expanding on achievements thus far