Presentation by GCP Director to plant industry business executives attending Limagrain Annual Meeting, Faro, Portugal, January 23, 2013

1. Working with Diversity in
International Partnerships:
The GCP Experience
Jean-Marcel Ribaut
Limagrain Annual Meeting
Faro, January 23, 2013

2. 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….)

3. The CGIAR

4. Formerly the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
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

5. CGIAR Centres and Locations

6. The Generation Challenge
Programme (GCP)

7. 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

8. The Two Phases of the Programme
Phase 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

10. 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

11. Selected Major Outputs so Far
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

12. The GCP Partnership

13. GCP Network
Instituto Agronomico per l’Oltremare
Florence
Italy
BIOTEC
Wageningen University
Bangkok
Netherlands
Thailand
ICARDA
ETH
Aleppo
Zurich
Syria
Switzerland
John Innes Centre
Norwich
UK
IPGRI
Rome
Italy
Agropolis
Montpellier
France
Cornell
University
USA
INRA
Rabat
Morocco
CINVESTAV
Irapuato
Mexico
CIMMYT
Mexico City
Mexico
Partners
NIAS
Tsukuba
Japan
WARDA
Bouaké
Cote d’Ivore
CIAT
Cali
Colombia
9 CGIAR
6 ARIs
Consortium
7 NARS
IRRI
Los Baños
Philippines
EMBRAPA
Brasilia
Brazil
CIP
Lima
Peru
ACGT
Pretoria
South Africa
ICAR
New Delhi
India
IITA
Ibadan
Nigeria
CAAS
Beijing
China
ICRISAT
Patancheru
India

14. The GCP Network: 180+ Institutions
Germplasm
Breeding
Private
sector
Technology
CGIAR
Private
sector
Products/Impact
Farmer’s field
ARIs
NARS
Germplasm
Environments
NGOs
Needs

15. Building Partnership: The Dynamics
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
Competitive
Commissioned
10 years
Services

16. True Partnership
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!

17. CoPs: the concept
They seek help
from each other
when stuck
They record
what they learn
together
They share
approaches
that have
worked for
them
None of this is new, but it
often happens informally
and/or inefficiently
How do
communities
share &
create
knowledge?
They draw
lessons
together from
their
experiences
They tip and
alert each other
They explore
topics together

18. Why CoPs in GCP?

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

19. International Partnerships:
Examples of clear Added
Value

20. The Power of Grouping Forces
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.”

21. The Power of Pooling Expertise
Linking upstream with applied science
The 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 cloned
Magalhaes 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

22. The Power of working across Countries
The Cassava CoP
An 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

23. The Power of Including Service Providers
Developing Genomic Resources for CGIAR/GCP Mandate Crops
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

24. International Partnerships:
Challenges and Opportunities

25. Be Inclusive, but it’s a trade-off….
Global rationale
Accessing the diversity:
The reference sets
(A GCP initiative)
Various collections
Data collection,
Analysis
Step 1: from passport information,
sampling global resources
to produce a core sample
Representative composite sample
(10%, up to 3000)
Marker development
Genotyping,
Sampling
Step 2: from molecular data
sampling the core sample
to produce a reference sample
for integrated characterisation
and evaluation efforts
Reference sample
Anonymous
markers
Functional markers
Phenotyping
Step 3. Association studies

Genotyping
genes/alleles tagged for marker-assisted breeding

26. Development of „core reference set‟
for CGIAR mandate crops

27. Outputs of that Multi-partner Effort
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…….

28. Data Management
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

29. Communication – the usual stuff
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

30. 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?

31. Stewardship
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
Exploration of
diversity
Genomic
resources
development
Marker
development
(biotic/abiotic
stresses)
Seed
multiplication
Breeding
Seed
distribution
Germplasm
collections
Resource-poor
farmers
Generation Challenge
Programme
NARS, Foundations,
Private sector, NGOs
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

32. The Public Sector
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

33. The Potential of PPP
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)

34. PPP in GCP: Examples
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

35. Conclusions and Perspectives

36. Conclusions and Perspectives (1)
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

37. Conclusions and Perspectives (2)
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

38. 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

39. GCP People:
The Programme’s Greatest Asset!

40. IBP Home Page
5 minutes live demo
https://www.integratedbreeding.net/