lessons learnt from the gcp experience - jean-marcel ribaut
Post on 18-May-2015
191 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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
GermplasmBreeding
Needs
CGIAR
ARIs Products/ImpactFarmer’s field
NARSNGOs
Private sector
GermplasmEnvironments
The GCP Network: 180+ Institutions
Private sector
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
Phase II
Executive Board
+
GCP Director
ThemeLeaders
Product Delivery Leader
+
Governance
Ma
na
ge
me
nt
Tea
m
Consortium Committee(CC)
Scientific Committees
Review and Advisory
Panel (RAP)
Theme 1Comparative &
Applied Genomics
Theme 2Integrated Crop
Breeding
Theme 3Crop Information
Systems
Theme 4Capacity Building
Theme 5Product Delivery
Research teams Research teams Research teams Research teams Research teams
Product DeliveryCoordinators
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
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20130
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
5
25
5157
68
7873
90
32
Journal articles published: 2005‒2013
Year
Nu
mb
er
In selected high impact journals (2007-2013):• Nature: 5, Nature Biotech: 3• Nature Genetics: 2, PNAS: 8
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 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
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
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 evaluationIssue: 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 modelA 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
CompetitiveCommissioned
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 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 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 imageNot 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 objectiveCapacity-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 CRPsGCP 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 selectionCrossingPopulation development
GermplasmManagement
Open ProjectSpecify objectivesIdentify teamData resourcesDefine strategy
Project Planning
Experimental DesignFieldbook productionData collectionData loading
GermplasmEvaluation
Marker selectionFingerprintingGenotypingData loading
MolecularAnalysis
Quality AssuranceTrait analysisGenetic AnalysisQTL AnalysisIndex Analysis
DataAnalysis
Selected linesRecombinesRecombination plans
BreedingDecisions
Version 2 released in January 31, 2014
Too
ls &
S
ervi
ces
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.
Par
tner
s
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!
top related