Working with Diversity in International Partnerships:

The GCP Experience

Jean-Marcel Ribaut Limagrain Annual Meeting

Faro, January 23, 2013

Our Discussion Today:

The CGIAR

GCP: Overall presentation

The GCP partnership

Examples and clear added value

Challenges and opportunities

Conclusion and perspectives

IBP portal (if time allows….)

The CGIAR

A strategic partnership dedicated to advancing science to address the central development challenges of our time:

Reducing rural poverty Improving food security Improving nutrition and health Sustainably managing natural resources

• Founders: Rockefeller and Ford Foundations (1960s)• Today its research is carried out by 15 International Agricultural Research Centers • Close collaboration with hundreds of partners worldwide. • Recently concluded major reform (Consortium and Fund Offices)• 16 CGIAR Research Programmes (CRPs)• Budget: about 1 billion per year (mainly public funds)• Key achievement: Norman Borlaug: The green revolution

Formerly the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

CGIAR Centres and Locations

The Generation Challenge Programme (GCP)

GCP in Brief Launched in August 2003 10-year framework (2004–2008; 2009–2013) About US$15–17m annual budget

CGIAR donors (DFID, EC, SDC, USAID, WB) Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Target areas: Harsh drought-prone environments Africa (SSA), S & SE Asia, LA

Nine CGIAR mandate crops in Phase II Cereals: maize, rice, sorghum, wheat, Legumes: beans, chickpeas, cowpeas, groundnuts Roots and tubers: cassava

A CGIAR Challenge Programme hosted at CIMMYT

Main 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

The Two Phases of the ProgrammePhase 1 (2004–2008): A combination of commissioned and competitive projects

‘Opportunistic’ and high project turnover

Establishing the GCP community

Identifying the winners and opportunities for Phase II

Phase 2 (2009–2014): Mid-term activities

Focused and targeted research

Major effort in service development

Clear impact indicators by 2013 to evaluate success

A needs and bottom-up approach: Research and services

2014: the year of transition and closure

A Molecular Breeding Platform to Support Breeding in the South

Overall objective♦ To provide access to modern breeding

technologies, breeding material and related information in a centralised and functional manner to improve plant breeding efficiency in developing countries.

Short-term objective♦ To establish a minimum set of tools, data

management infrastructure and services to demonstrate that molecular breeding can be efficiently applied to six crops spread across 14 user cases

Multilateral funding for an overall budget of US$ 20m over 5 years (launched mid-2009)

Mainly Gates, DFID, EC

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 Aluminium tolerance, P uptake efficiency, Salt tolerance

Improved germplasm New bioinformatic tools for data management and MB Enhanced capacities for MB in NARS programmes

Human capacities / Local infrastructure / Analytical power

Ex-ante analyses on MB impact in developing countries

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

Selected Major Outputs so Far

The GCP Partnership

GCP Network

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

Technology

GermplasmBreeding

Needs

CGIAR

ARIsProducts/Impact

Farmer’s field

NARSNGOs

Private sector

GermplasmEnvironments

The GCP Network: 180+ Institutions

Private sector

Competitive grants Capture emerging opportunities, best ideas and new partners. US$ 200/500K, 2/3 years (renewable)

Commissioned projects Consolidate our research agenda Medium- to long-term projects

Project composition ARI, CG and NARS involved together projects (a must for competitive ones) At least 10% CB 10% data management (late in the game)

GCP fund allocation per kind of project over time

Building Partnership: The Dynamics

CompetitiveCommissioned

Services10 years

Indicators Money allocation to partners Significant in-kind contribution from partners Project teams find money outside GCP Partners continue to work together after GCP project ends Free exchange of information Partners not necessarily attracted (purely) by money, but to be part

of a network Critical but indispensable intangibles – trust and goodwill

Evolution of roles and responsibilities A switch: Leaders become mentors Knowledge applied & transferred: Trainees become doers & leaders Today, more than half of our PIs are from developing countries and

more than half the grants go directly to National Programmes

It takes time and resources to nurture and implement true partnership!

True Partnership

None of this is new, but it often happens informally

and/or inefficiently

They seek help from each other

when stuckThey draw

lessons together from

their experiences

They tip and alert each other

They explore topics together

They share approaches

that have worked for

them

They record what they learn

togetherHow do

communities share & create

knowledge?

CoPs: the concept

Added value:

Improves knowledge sharing, and knowledge travels further Helping, and being helped by, peers Mentoring the next generation at global level Access to new tools, technologies, funds Synergy from shared lessons and resources

Establishing partnership

Access to a broad panel of scientists Diversify sources of funding Have direct and locally relevant impact (ground level) Develop ownership, while also spreading benefits Proof of concept carried to implementation, with local

adaptations along the way Social network

Why CoPs in GCP?

International Partnerships: Examples of clear Added Value

From the GCP External Review (2008)

The panel noted that GCP community is one of the Programme’s crucial assets:

“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.”

The Power of Grouping Forces

Linking upstream with applied scienceThe sorghum case: From Cornell 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 screeed 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 Moi University in collaboration with EMBRAPA Introgression of favourable alleles – Improved germplasm

for Kenya and Niger

The Power of Pooling Expertise

The Power of working across CountriesThe Cassava CoPAn active community to empower National Programmes to

access and use new germplasm and technologies Component 1: Access to new alleles

Germplasm exchange across South America and East Africa (IITA, a key partner here)

Component 2: Strengthening the research community in Africa Countries involved: Nigeria (leader), Ghana, Tanzania, Uganda Another 9 countries added in 2012

Component 3: Visibility at international scene Eg, Nigeria’s National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI)

now a key partner in the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation breeding projects, resulting from GCP project

Participate in marker development and sequencing effort

Component 4: Government support Attracting federal funds to enhance infrastructure at NRCRI

The Power of Including Service Providers

Availability of resources has shown by ‘+’ sign as following: ‘+’ = basic, ‘++’= moderate, ‘+++’= good, ‘++++’= excellent.‘+’ sign in blue colour and bold face represents contribution of genomic resources from GCP while ‘+’ in black color represents developed/available genomic resources in public domain

Varshney R et al 2010. Trends in Biotechnology

Developing Genomic Resources for CGIAR/GCP Mandate Crops

International Partnerships: Challenges and Opportunities

Step 1: from passport information, sampling global resources to produce a core sample

Various collections

Data collection, Analysis

Representative composite sample (10%, up to 3000)

Step 3. Association studies genes/alleles tagged for marker-assisted breeding

Anonymous markers

Phenotyping Genotyping

Functional markers

Step 2: from molecular data sampling the core sample

to produce a reference sample for integrated characterisation

and evaluation efforts

Marker developmentGenotyping,Sampling

Reference sample

Global rationaleAccessing the diversity:

The reference sets(A GCP initiative)

Be Inclusive, but it’s a trade-off….

Development of ‘core reference set’ for CGIAR mandate crops

Results Very heterogeneous fingerprinting data (different machines/protocols, etc) Very poor data quality Difficulty to obtain data with suitable documentation Limited access of germplasm from National Programme partners

Mitigation steps Need to redevelop some biological material (single seed descent) Quality test for fingerprinting data by neutral lab New genotyping of reference sets by service lab

Lessons learnt Involve partners much earlier on in the design of the experiment Do not share genotyping across teams Do not spend too much time trying to correct the data (Sudoku) Subcontract for efficiency: include service providers early on No ideal approach…….

Outputs of that Multi-partner Effort

One of our major challenges but not unique to GCP… Difficult to finish the work (time, resources) Protective and proprietary attitude prevents data sharing:

Not enough time Need to publish first Just bad data quality….

Limited adoption of new tools (eg, electronic Field Book), yet we cannot impose in the public sector…

Quality and documentation are very variable Quality control implementation must start at the scientist level Retroactive quality control very challenging and expensive

Clear DM policy in place (contract, 20% budget retained) Good data management system in place

Central data repository concept: a mistake M&E of data publication can be very challenging

Change in mind-set: from institutional to corporative

Data Management

Most of our communications are virtual. Hugely cost-effective, but also presents some cons:

Different time zones, poor internet connectivity Different cultures, which also confer different meanings to the

same words and concepts Typically short: but short is not always communicative, can be

perceived as terse Virtual communication (emails, online meetings) are easy to ignore

vs in-person or physically co-located environment Personalities – some are incompatible or uncomfortable with

virtual communications

Language barrier: Communicating in languages other than English – China; francophone and lusophone Africa

Communication – the usual stuff

Communication – the less usual

New media: Blogs and microblogs – Facebook, Twitter, Google+, LinkedIn, etc Are they good or bad for science? Are key people we’d like to reach engaged? Will our scientists engage? Are new rules of engagement needed…

… on personal vs corporate communications? … on how staff share their personal opinions, eg, on GMOs?

The new media are social media: They are interactive They are not a ‘preaching pulpit’ from which to talk down to audiences

They require even greater segmenting of audiences and messages What do we want to say, to whom, why, for what effect, when, and

how?

You do not control all the steps in the delivery chain! Liability

Misuse of the products down the road (GMOs)

No respect for IP rights

Weak, unreliable or unstable partners down the chain High risk of you having reduced, or zero, impact in farmers’ fields

Everyone shares success, but you will be alone in the dock, to answer for failures

Stewardship

Exploration ofdiversity

Genomic resources

development

Marker development(biotic/abiotic

stresses)

BreedingSeed

multiplicationSeed

distribution

Germplasm collections

Resource-poor farmers

Generation Challenge Programme

NARS, Foundations, Private sector, NGOs

Every GCP project must be conducted with a very clear vision of what the products are, and who are the potential users: delivery plans

In the public sector, delivery chains typically build on complex international partnerships

Partnership in public sector not always bright!!! Claims vs the reality:

Very significant effort to build, promote and implement partnership Extensive partnership in most public efforts (websites, proposals, etc) But different realities, with some time limited responsibility and even more

limited resource-sharing

Difficult to manage: Expertise and strengths/niche not always well defined Expectations and rules can be weak (‘friendship’ agreements) IP rights might be difficult to implement (germplasm exchange with NARS)

The human component: Over-commitment at all levels (champions in the NARS) In general, scientists are quite individualistic (motivated by the mission and

task, but not necessarily by the Institution)

The issues Competition for funds and visibility Lack of clarity and coordination from funding agencies; capricious and

conflicting agendas

The Public Sector

Limited number of partners Generally no more than 2–3 partners

Focused project, with added value clearly identified beforehand Rules of the game, including IP, well defined from day one

Difficult to establish, but easy to implement thereafter, once defined and agreed upon by all parties

More opportunities Access to new markets: Increased private-sector interest in developing

countries Private sector becomes more and more open (knowledge and

processes [savoir-faire] more important the the technology or the tool per se)

Corporate social responsibility & smart public relations: projects a good public image

Increase probability of accessing public funds, and public goodwill

Proof of concept for technology transfer and adoption Key in product delivery and stewardship (eg, local SME)

The Potential of PPP

Improve sorghum productivity in semi-arid environments of Mali through integrated MARS Led by breeders from the Malian National Programme (Niaba Teme)

Mentor and supervisor from CIRAD (Jean-François Rami)

Technical support from Syngenta (Denis Lespinasse)

Scientific and Management Advisory Committee of the IBP Science and partnership: Tabare Abadie, Senior Research Manager, Pioneer Hi-Bred CB and support services: Fred Bliss, former Senior Director of R&D, Seminis Breeding services: Pascal Flament, Head,  Genotyping and Biostatistics, Limagrain Molecular breeding: Michel Ragot, Head, Vegetable Molecular Breeding, Syngenta Bioinformatics and data management: Steve Goff, iPlant Project Director Network and partnership: Morakot Tanticharoen (former Director of National

Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Thailand)

Identify the gaps and weaknesses What works, but also what doesn’t work Reality check: What is too ambitious

PPP in GCP: Examples

Conclusions and Perspectives

The importance of people: it’s a well-oiled cliché but– people are the most important aspect in partnerships People are first, and Institutions are second Building on existing partnerships, maximising personal relations

A ‘spiritual’ dimension too: The intangible and immeasurable but very important side to partnerships Some of our researchers and reviewers have called it the ‘GCP Spirit’

It is also about mind-set, ready to: Change the way you do business Share results/methods in an open way Dedicate time to things that might not benefit your work directly Adopt a corporative spirit

Enforcement and implementation Big difference between the private and the public sector

Conclusions and Perspectives (1)

Be strategic in partnership development Much more than simply numbers, no universal ‘template’:

Different kinds of partnerships for different needs Different kinds of partnership for the same need

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 way to do business One of the most rewarding components of the work Creates a special group dynamic Critical to bring new ideas The best way to promote your work

others speak well of you cultivates public trust, resultant positive public image without any PR effort

Conclusions and Perspectives (2)

Be prepared

In research Hofstadter’s law applies quite often:

“it always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law”

Under international partnership the Hofstadter’s law is generally magnified, to the power of 2, or even more….

(“it always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter‘s Law”)2

GCP People:The Programme’s Greatest

Asset!

IBP Home Page

5 minutes live demo https://www.integratedbreeding.net/