Working with Diversity in International Partnerships: The GCP Experience Jean-Marcel Ribaut Limagrain Annual Meeting Faro, January 23, 2013
Nov 16, 2014
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/