International Plant Genetic Resources Institute
The International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) is an
international scientific organization, supported by the Consultative
Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). IPGRI’s
mandate is to advance the conservation and use of plant genetic
resources for the benefit of present and future generations. IPGRI’s
headquarters are in Maccarese near Rome, Italy, with offices in
another 22 countries worldwide. It operates through three
programmes:
 Plant Genetic Resources 
 CGIAR Genetic Resources Support 
 the International Network for the Improvement of Banana and
Plantain (INIBAP).
Citation:
IPGRI. 2003. Annual Report 2002. International Plant Genetic
Resources Institute, Rome
ISBN 92-9043-591-7
IPGRI, Via dei Tre Denari 472/a, 00057 Maccarese, 
Rome, Italy
© International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, 2003
Annual Report
2002
Annual Report
In
te
rn
at
io
na
l P
la
nt
 G
en
et
ic
R
es
ou
rc
es
 In
st
itu
te
2002
Foreword 1
Banking on local knowledge 2
Drying without dying: improved 
options for tropical trees 4
Genetic Resources Policy 
Initiative 6
Traditional foods, modern 
diets and the conservation 
of biodiversity 9
Tree conservation strategies 
for sub-Saharan Africa 12
Start with a Seed: the Global
Conservation Trust 14
New banana project on target 17
Participating in better 
breeding efforts 19
New light on the value of 
old rice 23
Domesticated yams develop 
farmers’ diversity 26
Tropical fruit project grows to
maturity 29
Selected publications 32
IPGRI’s projects 32
Financial report 33
IPGRI’s professional staff 37
IPGRI’s Board of Trustees 40
Establishment agreement 40
IPGRI office locations 41
An
nu
al 
Re
po
rt
20
02
Contents
IPGRI’s vision...
“Through the collective,
concerted action of farmers,
forest dwellers, pastoralists,
scientists, development workers
and political leaders, the full
potential of the Earth’s plant
genetic diversity will be
harnessed to eradicate poverty,
achieve food security and
protect the environment for the
benefit of present and future
generations.”
...and how we
approach it
IPGRI’s modus operandi is
based firmly on working with
others, leveraging our funds and
abilities so that we not only
achieve results, but also help to
build capacity in those we work
with and for. So strong and
plentiful are these links,
however, that to list them all in
every case would make for a
very long and dry document. In
the following stories some of our
partners have been mentioned
by name while others have not,
but we would like to take this
opportunity to thank them all.
IPGRI depends on partnerships
and partners to get the job
done. We also acknowledge the
support of all our donors,
especially those that contribute
unrestricted funds.
<www.futureharvest.org>
IPGRI is
a Future Harvest Centre
supported by the
Consultative Group on
International Agricultural
Research (CGIAR)
The year was dominated by the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), held
in September in Johannesburg, South Africa. Also billed as Rio Plus 10, the Summit sought
to obtain real commitments to meeting the Millennium Development Goals that were set at
a conference in New York in September 2000. World leaders agreed there to halve the
number of people affected by poverty and those who have no access to clean water by the
year 2015.
Agricultural research will play a key role in meeting both goals, and IPGRI was proud to
have been asked by the Future Harvest Centres of the Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research to coordinate the participation of the Centres. Thanks to those
efforts, and the efforts of others, agriculture was firmly on the agenda and given
considerable prominence at the World Summit. IPGRI and FAO also took advantage of the
WSSD to launch the campaign for the Global Conservation Trust. This effort to secure the
future of genebanks in perpetuity was warmly welcomed in Johannesburg and at the 9th
Regular Session of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. In part
as a result of this support the Trust expects to reach its first goal of US$100 million in
pledges by the end of 2003.
IPGRI is striking out into new areas of work. A large project to study the conservation and
use of wild relatives of crops received the go ahead from GEF/UNEP late in 2002. The
project will bring together scientists and policy-makers in five countries, which share both
mountainous terrain and a wealth of wild relatives, in an effort to ensure that the countries
concerned have the capacity to take care of their plant genetic resources. Making use of
wild relatives and other species neglected by mainstream science can make a genuine
contribution to poverty alleviation, as an IFAD-supported global project on neglected and
underutilized species is proving.
As a result of the experience IPGRI and its partners have gained working with minor crops,
we feel it is important to address the question of nutrition. To do so, IPGRI staff and
consultants are working on a Nutrition Strategy that will enable us to put our understanding
of crop and plant diversity to work in the service of dietary diversity. This too will contribute
to poverty alleviation, food security and improved human health.
Finally, we should draw attention to some changes in our Board of Trustees. During the
year we were saddened by the death of Gene Namkoong, a member of the Board since
1997 and a good friend of IPGRI. We also said farewell to Marcio de Miranda Santos, our
Board Chair for the past six years. We are truly grateful for the leadership and advice he
provided during challenging times, and wish him well in the future.
The Millennium Development Goals will be hard to meet. They will require all sectors to
work together and even then may not succeed. IPGRI remains committed to the basic
premise that diversity is the foundation without which we cannot hope to build the
improved agricultural systems that the world’s poor and hungry need to build themselves
better lives.
Geoffrey Hawtin Benchaphun Shinawatra Ekasingh
Director General Board Chair
Foreword
Fo
re
w
or
d
Walking the baking deserts or stony mountain slopes
of Jordan in the summertime, when the temperature can
reach 40ºC and more, it is hard to believe that come the
spring, after winter rains, the land will be carpeted with a
wealth of green grass and jewelled flowers. That, however,
is the reality in Jordan, and generations of farmers and
herders have learned not only to survive but also to thrive
there. In doing so the local people have built up a
formidable knowledge bank that preserves the most
valuable of the lessons learned through their active
innovation and experimentation. An IPGRI project, funded
in part by the Noor Al-Hussein Foundation, seeks to
document that knowledge, preserve it, and make it more
widely available.
Nabeel Abu-Shriha and Mahmoud Hadid, working with the Noor Al-Hussein Foundation,
set out to discover what farmers and pastoralists from all of Jordan’s different regions
could tell them. “The diversity of climatic regions in Jordan makes the Jordanian farmer a
mobile information encyclopaedia,” say the researchers, who sought to understand not
only the use of local plants as food and feed for livestock, but also how some are valued
as medicines and others for handicrafts. Nor did they neglect associated information, such
as the best time of year and place to gather these plants, or the procedures needed to
make a particular product. 
As in so many parts of the world, genetic diversity is under threat, and for all the usual
reasons: intensification of agriculture, changed patterns of land use, physical erosion. Older
landraces and wild varieties, which were
widely planted in the past, are in decline.
Farmers no longer grow the semi-wild
wheat and barley landraces that they used
to. Local olive and fig selections are also
being abandoned, as are the wild plums
and staples of the vegetable garden, such
as watermelons and onions. Farmers cite
droughts and water scarcity—springs have
dried up and flows in some rivers are
greatly reduced—as driving the shift away
from old and traditional crops. They prefer
improved varieties of just a few cash crops,
to sell in the markets, and they say that
these represent a better use of the available
supplies of water.
Bankingon local knowledge
Farmers in
Jordan are
working with
local researchers
to document and
share the secrets
of agricultural
survival in a
harsh and
inhospitable
climate.
Lo
ca
l
kn
ow
le
dg
e
A farmer in Jordan sows pasture crops.
Tapping the traditional knowledge of
farmers should help improve
livelihoods.
F. Botts/FAO
Farmers are well aware of the root
cause of water scarcity. They mention
increases in population, which lead to
house-building and deforestation,
which in turn take both land and
water from agriculture. They also
shared some of the traditional
practices that make better use of land
and water. One of these is known as
shigag, which involves allowing
animals to graze narrow strips across
the slope of a hillside. Land prepared
in this way absorbs more of the
winter rain and gives a better harvest
the following year. Another technique
involves building sand walls along the
contours, which again slows down
the runoff of rainwater and thus
ensures better penetration for the
following season’s crops.
Low rainfall hits diversity in two ways.
First the natural forages that support
livestock on the rangelands are less
productive, so the animals may eat into the natural capital of these resources. That
damages the land in the long term. Secondly, lack of water stunts the growth of crops
planted specifically to provide feed for livestock, which further intensifies grazing pressure
on the rangelands. 
The surveys also tapped farmers’ knowledge about the use of wild plants. In addition to
the expected information about sources of food and fodder, and how best to make use of
it, the researchers also uncovered some surprises. Wild pistachio, for example, is a source
of chewing gum. People deliberately damage the trunk of the tree and collect the thick
liquid that bleeds from the wound. This is dried to make a gum that people chew for
pleasure and medicinally to treat oral disease and stomach disorders. The use of pistachio
resin in this way was once more widespread, but it still survives in a few areas. People also
use wild fenugreek flowers, gathered in the winter, to help make a kind of soft cheese
known as gee. The flowers, and another additive derived from pine trees, help to coagulate
whole milk to make the gee.
Abu-Shriha and Hadid conclude that many of the individual nuggets of knowledge the
farmers shared with them could have an impact on the sustainability of farming and
livelihoods if copied across the country. And they make a plea for more studies to include
participation by farmers. “Not only is it a way of doing better, more relevant research,” they
say, “it is also a way of empowering communities at the same time.” Every development
programme, they say, should include an assessment of the impact on agricultural
biodiversity and should work with farmers to make use of their experience in building a
more sustainable system for making use of the available natural resources.
Further information
r.khalil@cgiar.org
2002 3Annual Report
Overgrazing, seen here on the outskirts of
Amman, threatens the long-term future of
agriculture in much of Jordan.
R. Faidutti/FAO
The common wisdom about many tropical tree seeds
is that they are difficult to store for any length of time.
Unlike conventional seeds of, say, wheat, or barley or rice,
they do not take kindly to drying and generally fail to
germinate unless handled with care and planted quickly
after they have matured. Even seeds collected in the
forest and taken to nurseries often perish on the journey.
Such seeds are called ‘recalcitrant’, and they have made
it difficult for people to manage re-afforestation schemes
in the tropics: because there is such a narrow range of
species from which to produce seedlings, planting
schemes suffer a lack of diversity and also may lack
species local to the area. But a recently completed
project, funded by Danish International Development
Assistance (Danida) and coordinated by IPGRI and the
Danida Forest Seed Centre (DFSC), discovered that many
species are not, in fact, quite as recalcitrant as had been
believed. Almost half the species examined can actually
be stored for reasonable lengths of time, provided they
are treated with care.
The primary goal of the project was to examine in detail the storage biology of
economically important tree species, with a view to increasing the diversity of available
species. In addition it was vital to improve the abilities of partners to work with these tree
seeds. So training and sharing information was an integral component of the project from
the start. At an early workshop in 1996 the partners came together to define a screening
protocol that would be used to test all the species. The protocol established ground rules
for collecting and handling seeds and enumerated the many different pieces of data that
researchers needed to collect. It also set out specific methodologies to adhere to when
drying seeds and then when testing their germination. By adopting a single protocol the
partners ensured that data gathered around the world by different centres, and from
different species, would be comparable. 
In the end, 22 tree-seed institutions from developing countries participated directly in the
seed-testing aspects of the project. Other centres in more developed countries acted as
‘replicating partners’, offering training in the agreed protocol and confirming the research
results where possible.
The project focused
especially on valuable
species that were also
of social importance,
because these are the
species people are
most interested in. 
Fruits of
Syzygium cumini
being prepared
for initial trials in
Tanzania.
K. Thomsen
Studies on 61
tree species in
18 countries have
resulted in
techniques that
give foresters
and nurseries
access to far
greater diversity
as they seek to
manage forest
genetic
resources. 
Drying without dying: improved options for tropical trees
Tr
op
ic
al
fo
re
st
 s
ee
ds
The big surprise was that
many species could indeed
be stored, if handled
properly. Just under half
(46%) of the 61 species
screened had seeds that
could be dried and stored. A
further 41% were sensitive to desiccation and did not survive, with results for the
remaining 13% still inconclusive at the end of the project. By making use of this
information in seedling nurseries, foresters can begin to think about extending the range of
species they work with in re-afforestation schemes.
In addition to the training that replicating partners were able to offer to the institutes they
worked with, the project also organized three regional training workshops, in Africa, Asia
and Latin America. In all 53 people from 32 organizations benefited from these workshops
and were able to put their enhanced skills to work.
One of the great successes of the project has been the way that it offered a platform for
the publication and sharing of results. A Web site (www.dfsc.dk) gave researchers and
others access to the latest results. A newsletter, published twice a year by IPGRI and
DFSC, not only provided a home for published papers but also extended the scope and
reach of the project partners by informing them of meetings and research relevant to the
work. For example, other scientists, who were not part of the project but who were working
with recalcitrant seeds, submitted short communications and other information. IPGRI and
DFSC hope to continue publishing this newsletter even after the end of the project, as a
way of extending the life of the International Tropical Forest Recalcitrant Seed Network that
the project gave birth to.
At a final workshop the partners discussed the lessons they had learned during the lifetime
of the project and the challenges they now faced. The replicating partners noted that
sometimes seeds had died or been damaged as a result of lengthy delays during transit
from the collecting institute. Ways will have to be found to overcome this, and the partners
are thinking about modifying the protocols to improve conditions during transport from the
field sites to the laboratories. Germination was also a problem for some species. Obviously
not all species are identical in their requirements and it may be necessary to identify
different procedures for different species. 
Overall, the final workshop identified three objectives that future work should address. First
is the need to scale up the use of target species in planting programmes, which will mean
improving the collection and supply of seeds, better nursery practices, and changes to the
way seedlings are planted and cared for. These efforts, however, will be valuable only if
they are a response to increased demand, which will require a public awareness
programme to disseminate the results, conclusions and recommendations of the project to
those involved in tropical forestry and to the general public. And, finally, there remain
outstanding research questions that will require further study to improve the use of high-
value tropical tree species.
Further information
e.dulloo@cgiar.org
Women in
Ghana carrying
shea (Vitellaria
paradoxa) fruits,
one of the more
important forest
products.
P. Lovett
2002Annual Report 5
The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture, adopted by the member
countries of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
UN in November 2001, is the latest formal recognition of
the vital contribution that genetic resources make to food
security, poverty alleviation and environmental
sustainability. While the Treaty, with its emphasis on
multilateral access and equitable benefit sharing, is
welcome, it creates yet another factor that national
governments have to take into account as they frame
their laws and policies about genetic resources. IPGRI
has long been involved in the analysis and synthesis of
policy options but in 2002 a new project, the Genetic
Resources Policy Initiative (GRPI), got under way in
earnest.
GRPI is supported by governments and foundations and is jointly executed by IPGRI and
Canada’s International Development Research Centre (IDRC). It is rooted in the idea that
regulation of the use, control, management and conservation of genetic resources has
become increasingly complex and fragmented across different policy-making bodies in any
given country. In part
these challenges arise
from technology. New
ways to divide and make
use of genetic resources,
such as the direct
manipulation of DNA,
bring forth new
arguments about the
ownership and use of
new products and
processes. In part the
challenges arise from
socioeconomic changes
as newly empowered
stakeholders, such as
farmers, indigenous
peoples and even
governments, raise their
own concerns and
demands.
Faced with the clamour
of competing claims,
government departments
and policy-makers do
their best but often lack
the basic evidence on
which to make policy
decisions. They may also
have very limited
budgets, and in some
cases are wary of
developing any policies
Genetic ResourcesPolicy Initiative
Members of the GRPI task force and appraisal team
in Zambia. Left to right: Prudence Musonda, Dr Judith
Lungu, Sande Ngalande, Ronald Msoni, Mwendabai
Uyoya, Dr Catherine Mungoma, Brian Mwitwa
Chimbanga, Dr Walter de Boef, Lovemore Simwanda
and Godfrey Mwila.
J. Estrella/IPGRI
G
en
et
ic
 re
so
ur
ce
s
po
lic
y
A new project
designed to help
national
governments
navigate the
maze of policy
options around
genetic resources
is getting under
way.
whatsoever for fear of attracting public disapproval. Often individual policy-makers go their
own way and do not consult either with colleagues or with other stakeholders. The result
can be an uneven patchwork of policies and laws that reflect uncoordinated and
competing priorities.
GRPI aims to use a two-step process to help governments and regional groupings to build
a more coordinated policy platform. The first phase of the project is the Southern Country
Demand Analysis. This consists, essentially, of getting to know what it is that national
partners need in the way of genetic resources policy. It begins with primary contact, usually
in the department of agriculture, through which the project gets in touch with as wide a
range of stakeholders as possible. Missions by GRPI staff to the country generally follow
and involve preliminary meetings with 20 to 30 representatives of various interested parties.
These include non-governmental organizations (NGOs), local communities, farmers’
organizations, government departments, private sector interests, Future Harvest Centres,
internationally funded projects and so on. In these initial meetings the GRPI team probes
the willingness of each party to work with others in multi-stakeholder, multi-sectoral
processes. If they are willing to work together then GRPI supports them to create a small
national GRPI task force to undertake the demand analysis.
“So far, almost everyone has been willing,” commented Michael Halewood, who oversees
the project and has helped GRPI task forces start work on demand analysis in Nepal,
Peru and Zambia. (Work in Egypt, Ethiopia and Vietnam was due to start early in 2003, as
was the establishment of the GRPI project office in IPGRI’s regional office for sub-
Saharan Africa in Nairobi, Kenya.) The demand analysis covers a wide range of
questions, assessed through interviews and questionnaires. What laws and policies
currently affect genetic resources? Who is doing what with respect to genetic resources?
What are the hot topics in genetic resources that the country will have to address in the
near future? What resources have they got to address those issues? What resources do
they need? 
GRPI is financially supported by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, BMZ/GTZ
(Germany), IDRC (Canada), Rockefeller Foundation (USA) and CIDA (Canada).
Collaborating institutions (hosting task forces):
• Institute for Biodiversity Conservation and Research, Ethiopia
• National Agriculture Research Council, Ministry of Agriculture (NARC), Nepal
• Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agraria (INIA), Peru
• Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Zambia
• East African Plant Genetic Resources Network (EAPGREN)
• Genetic Resources Network for West and Central Africa (GRENEWECA)
Discussions with partners in the Comunidad Andina, Egypt and Vietnam, are
continuing.
Financial support and collaboration
2002Annual Report 7
8The demand analysis will culminate in a national workshop at which the interviewed parties
come together to use the results of the survey to agree a list of priority areas for action and
a work plan to undertake them. That meeting ends with the expansion of the task force to
include still more representatives of different partners, to guide the projects in the work
plan. Carrying out the activities identified by the demand analysis and incorporated into the
work plan by the stakeholders
constitutes phase 2 of the GRPI
project in each country. It is
anticipated that phase 2 will take
between 3 and 4 years.
The report and work plan
formulated at the end of the
demand analysis will be formally
submitted to the government and
regional groupings. The actions
and research will also come to a
GRPI International Steering
Committee, which will evaluate
each country’s plans and may, if
necessary, offer suggestions as to
how different GRPI countries
could work together to achieve
synergies and efficiencies.
And when it is all over, what will the outcomes be? To some extent that will depend on the
needs identified by each country. Broadly speaking, however, the project foresees several
different kinds of output, beyond the surveys. There will be research papers and training
materials. Domestic governments will be more capable of formulating their policies on
genetic resources and of ensuring that all parties are consulted and represented in a
coordinated system. The project may have a core of draft national policies and laws
related to genetic resources which, it is hoped, will be part of an Internet-based brokerage
service that will link national policy-makers, trainers and researchers to a compendium of
documents of various types, and that will enable them easily to communicate with one
another. Ultimately, though, these are simply steps on the road to a framework within
which the use, control, management and conservation of genetic resources are based on
a sound foundation of fair and effective policies and laws.
Further information
j.estrella@cgiar.org
m.halewood@cgiar.org
2002Annual Report
Groundnuts—
originally from
South America—
are a vital crop in
Zimbabwe. This
two-tone variety is
called ‘Zaire’,
further evidence
of the movement
of varieties that
underpins
agricultural
development.
A. King/IPGRI
In India, food scientists use ancient ingredients and modern
technology to prepare snacks for sale in local supermarkets. In
Bolivia, farmers plant grains that are more nutritious than both
wheat and soybean. In Egypt a community-based seed system
is supplying improved oregano seeds to the farmers who in turn
supply a growing market for herbs. What unites all these
activities is that they are making the most of plant species that
have been bypassed by mainstream agricultural research and
development. They are just three examples from a global study
coordinated by IPGRI and supported by the International Fund
for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
The programme has grown from modest early beginnings. The Italian government
supported an effort to investigate neglected and underutilized species of the Mediterranean
region some 10 years ago. That transformed a wild salad-leaf, rocket, into a fashionable
foodstuff and gave new life to the hulled wheats, especially farro. The lessons learned and
approaches adopted in that early work have now been applied in several IPGRI projects
and they feed into a new strategic direction for IPGRI, one that focuses squarely on
nutrition. The IFAD study is only in its first year, but has already made considerable
progress in all of its areas of interest.
One important objective of the study is to make sure that local people can improve their
livelihoods in a sustainable way by working with the target species. The people at the
start of the process of agricultural production are the ones doing the vital work of
maintaining and growing the diversity, and yet at present they reap very little of the
rewards for doing so. An earlier case study of the filière, or commodity chain, for capers in
Syria brought to light some of the problems. Picking wild capers is typically a job for
young children in marginal areas. They get about Euro 0.70 a kilogram from
intermediaries, who do a little preliminary processing and then sell the capers to a Syrian
trader for about Euro 1.30 per kg. The Syrian trader sells to a Turkish trader for about
Euro 2.00 per kg.
The Turkish trader
does the final
processing and
packaging and
sells into the
European Union
market, where
consumers pay
the equivalent of
about Euro 27.00
per kg. That is a
final markup of
more than 3800%
from the child
gathering the
capers to the
shopper in the
supermarket. If
just a little more of
that could be
passed back to
the families it
would make a
Traditional foods, modern diets and the conservation of biodiversity
Li
nk
in
g 
nu
tri
tio
n 
an
d 
bi
od
ive
rs
ity
Making greater
use of minor
crops is just one
aspect of a new
approach that
forges links
between
nutrition, health,
conservation
and biodiversity.
In Bolivia Fundación PROINPA holds 2727 varieties of quinoa.
All are being evaluated to see which would be most useful.
A. King/IPGRI
huge difference to their standard of living—and enable them to buy the food they need to
be healthy. So working with commodity chains to ensure that farmers get a fair return is
an important component of the project.
At the other end of the chain are consumers, whose needs may be very different. The Kolli
Hills in the centre of Tamil Nadu state, in the south of India, have seen some remarkable
developments thanks to the IFAD project and the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation.
As a result, people in nearby towns and cities now have access to cheaper and more
nutritious foods based on various kinds of millet.
Millets underpin much of the agriculture in the Kolli Hills, and under the guidance of the
project, farmers’ self-help groups were established to promote and exploit these small-
grain cereals. The groups identified two products as worthy of further development, malt
made from a finger millet and a mixed-grain preparation that is particularly useful to
diabetics. The groups are organizing micro-finance schemes to enable them to buy simple
milling and processing equipment, which will give them a bigger share of the added value.
And food technologists have worked with the people in the groups to develop new
products, such as biscuits and snacks, that make use of the processed millet grains.
One task the project still has to address is that urban shoppers may not be aware that
millet-based products are often healthier than more expensive alternatives. Urbanites often
tend to associate traditional foods with the peasantry and ‘backwardness’ and it will take
concerted educational efforts to change their minds. The result, however, is a win–win
virtuous circle that protects genetic diversity and the wider environment, offers farmers a
better standard of living, and thus better health,
and also offers shoppers the chance to buy
healthier food.
It is the prospect of so many multiple benefits
that has increasingly led IPGRI to work more on
nutrition. The African Leafy Vegetables project is
just one example that has shown that locally
important plants, such as cat’s whiskers
(Cleome gynandra) and black nightshade
(Solanum nigrum), generally contain
considerably more minerals and vitamins than
introduced crops such as cabbage. Promoting
the use of indigenous crops can improve the
health of farming families directly and, by
stimulating demand in nearby cash markets,
can also contribute to better incomes. Similar
approaches are possible throughout the
developing world, which is why during 2002
IPGRI worked with Honorary Fellow Professor
Tim Johns, taking a sabbatical from McGill
University in Canada, to develop a new
nutritional strategy.
The crucial observation is that worldwide,
peoples’ diets are becoming simpler, less varied
and with lower nutritional value. This is
especially so as people move from rural to
urban areas. The simpler diets are often energy
rich but nutritionally poor, and the result is poor
A bold new proposal arising from IPGRI’s successes
achieved to date is under development in the
Institute’s office for sub-Saharan Africa. Bringing
together a wide range of partners, the goal of the
project is to improve urban health and rural livelihoods
in Africa. It will do so by raising the awareness of the
value of traditional food species for health and
nutrition and influencing national and international food
policies and research agendas to take note of this. It
will also gather and develop recipes and improve
marketing channels so that these foods can be used in
urban diets. Thus, by increasing the demand for
traditional foods, the project will increase the incomes
of farmers and at the same time sustainably conserve
genetic resources, in line with IPGRI’s mission. The
project plans to take an innovative approach, for
example tapping into a growing global interest in
cooking shows on TV, and with a variety of national
and pan-African components. Imagine the bambara
groundnut, cowpea leaves and sorrel reclaiming their
central place in the modern African diet and
demonstrating that good value, good taste, good
health, and culture can thrive together. 
Linking urban and rural dwellers
in the quest for a better life
10 2002Annual Report
health, with the incidence of obesity and diseases such as diabetes and heart disease
growing dramatically among the urban poor. In diet, as in agriculture, diversity is often of
value in its own right. A rounded nutritional strategy will make use of a mutually reinforcing
cycle of improvement. 
As an example, imagine boosting the demand for a traditional rural foodstuff among city
dwellers. The people who buy the food enjoy greater health. That gives them a certain
independence and will probably contribute to their ability to earn a living themselves. The
farmers who grow the food, and the people who process and sell it, will make more money
too, which will enable them to enjoy better health, and will contribute to keeping social and
cultural traditions alive. The need to grow the food will promote its conservation and thus
add to the protection of the environment, and that too can help maintain traditions. And
finally, a better environment also contributes to the nutrition and health of people in cities
and rural areas alike. 
There is enough evidence, from IPGRI projects and elsewhere, to suggest that a strategy to
link nutrition, health and the conservation of biodiversity has much to recommend it.
People need a diet that gives them quality as well as quantity, and affordability is often the
limiting factor. Urban dwellers, who buy their food in a cash economy, may be in an even
worse position than those who have access to land in rural areas. If the connections can
be made it will benefit everyone.
Further information
Underutilized species: s.padulosi@cgiar.org
Nutrition: p.eyzaguirre@cgiar.org
m.grum@cgiar.org
2002 11Annual Report
The Karanjee Limuni
Women’s Seed Saving
Group in Santa Monica,
Kenya, is helping to
ensure that people can
buy good seed of local
leafy vegetables.
A. King/IPGRI
IPGRI and FAO jointly established the sub-Saharan Africa
Forest Genetic Resources Programme (SAFORGEN) in
1999. One of the key requirements to emerge from initial
workshops with partners was the need to develop
conservation strategies for selected species. In August
2000 a project funded by UNEP began in three countries—
Benin, Kenya and Togo—to examine the status of target
species in each country. Preliminary results are now in and
have indeed resulted in recommendations for conservation
strategies.
Each country chose two tree
species, one with a wide
distribution and one more
geographically restricted. In Benin
the choices were two fodder
trees, Khaya senegalensis and
Afzelia africana. Kenya chose two
food species, Dialium orientale
and Tamarindus indica. In Togo
the choices, Alstonia boonei and
Nauclea latifolia, are used primarily as a source of medicines against malaria. The choices
thus fit with SAFORGEN’s existing sub-networks, which concentrate on species used as
food, medicines, fodder, and wood and fibre. The decision to concentrate this study on
species important for food and medicine was deliberate, as malnutrition and disease are
among the most pressing problems for people in the region.
In each country the same sorts of parameter were studied, with slightly different emphasis
depending on local conditions. These included the distribution of the target species, the
level of threat, including patterns of use, reproduction and seed dispersal, natural
regeneration, and levels of diversity within populations and the species as a whole.
Benin
A. africana is broadly distributed while K. sengalensis is restricted to the northern part of
the country. Both species are used primarily to feed animals, by lopping branches,
although they are also used for timber and medicinal purposes. The level of threat varied
Tree conservation strategies for sub-Saharan Africa
Wide-ranging
pilot studies of
important tree
species in three
countries have
indicated the
best options for
ensuring that
they will
continue to
provide useful
goods.
Tr
ee
 c
on
se
rv
at
io
n:
 
su
b-
S
ah
ar
an
 A
fri
ca
The leaves of
Nauclea latifolia are
valued in Togo for
their medicinal
properties.
O. Eyog-Matig/IPGRI
• National University of Benin, Benin
• Kenya Forestry Research Institute, Kenya
• CERPHALATA (NGO), Togo
Project partners
across the country. In the north
more than 97% of the specimens
of K. sengalensis showed some
evidence of harvesting branches.
To conserve the species the project
suggested two options. First, both
can be conserved in forest
reserves and national parks, where
the threat is lower. And secondly, in
northern areas, the species can be
conserved in plantations, possibly
with improved selections, which
would take the pressure off natural
populations.
Kenya
T. indica and D. orientale are both
harvested for their fruit, which may
be eaten alone as pulp or juice or
used to flavour other dishes such
as porridge. Both species are in
decline, but of the two D. orientale
is at greater risk. In part this is
because its range is more
restricted, to just the coastal region
of Kenya. It is also threatened by
urban expansion. The project recommended that ex situ conservation measures be
implemented as soon as possible to establish collections of seed in genebanks and
perhaps also trees in field genebanks. For T. indica, which is more widely distributed and
less threatened, in situ conservation within gazetted forests, which have been officially
designated for protection, and ex situ conservation in genebanks were recommended.
Togo
As in the other two countries, the surveys confirmed that one species, N. latifolia, is widely
distributed all over the country, while A. boonei is restricted to the less extreme climate in
the southwest. Even there it is not common, and many species have had most of their bark
removed because it is believed to be medicinal. It is also logged for timber and fuel. N.
latifolia is uprooted for medicinal purposes, and people eat its fruits too. Both species are
at risk, particularly because natural regeneration is very low. In situ conservation was felt to
be the best option for safeguarding N. latifolia, especially in the northern areas where it is
both relatively plentiful and under most severe pressure. For both species, the project
recommended that the way
they are harvested be
examined and, if possible,
improved.
Further information
o.eyog-matig@cgiar.org
2002 13Annual Report
At the end of 2002 the following countries had
appointed national coordinators and participated in
one or more of SAFORGEN’s activities: Benin, Burkina
Faso, Chad, Congo (Brazzaville), Ethiopia, Gambia,
Guinea, Kenya, Madagascar, Mali, Niger, Senegal,
South Africa, Sudan, Togo and Uganda.
SAFORGEN members
Debarking specimens of Alstonia boonei for medicinal use is a
serious threat in Togo.
O. Eyog-Matig/IPGRI
Start with a Seed:the Global Conservation Trust
After two years of stakeholder discussions and
feasibility studies, the campaign for the Global
Conservation Trust was formally launched in 2002. The
campaign, a partnership between IPGRI (for the CGIAR)
and FAO, seeks to establish an endowment to support the
conservation—in perpetuity—of the world’s crop diversity
collections. The goal is to raise US$260 million from
multilateral and bilateral agencies, corporations,
foundations and governments. As well as conservation, the
Trust will support training and other upgrading assistance
to crop collections in need. 
The partners announced their plans to establish the Trust at the World Summit on
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. The announcement followed on the heels of
the release of a study by Imperial College, UK, ‘Crop Diversity at Risk: the Case for
Sustaining Crop Collections’. 
The study drew largely on information gathered by FAO in 2000 from about 100 countries.
Its findings were alarming: not only is crop diversity disappearing from the fields, but also a
large proportion of the crop resources ‘safeguarded’ in genebanks around the world could
soon be lost due to lack of funding. The report found that while the number of samples
held in crop collections has increased in 66% of countries since 1996 (the last time FAO
gathered such data), genebank budgets have been reduced in 25% of countries and have
remained static in another 35%. Not surprisingly, the majority of budget cutbacks have
taken place in the poorest countries, which are home to the diversity of the world’s most
critical crops. 
The issue of regeneration
is perhaps even more
revealing. The new data
show that some 52% of
developing countries have
more samples in need of
urgent regeneration than
they did in 1996. Among
developed countries, 27%
reported increased need.
Some genebanks have
barely averted disaster,
when duplicate seeds
held in other lands have
been used to replace
collections lost in the
course of war or natural
disaster. Rwanda,
Burundi, Somalia and
Romania provide a few
such examples. Other
genebanks have lost or
are at risk of losing
portions of their
collections, Albania, Fiji
and Nigeria among them. 
Efforts to
underwrite the
future of globally
important
collections of
plant genetic
resources are
moving forward.
At a community genebank in UMP District, Zimbabwe,
local people clean the seeds before storage. The Trust
encourages genebanks to work with farmers.
A. King/IPGRI
G
lo
ba
l C
on
se
rv
at
io
n 
Tr
us
t
Until now, the world
community has dealt with
genebank crises in an ad hoc
manner. The Imperial College
report made it clear that such
an approach cannot work
indefinitely. Even some of the
world’s largest genebanks are
facing severe budget cuts: the
Future Harvest Centres of the
Consultative Group on
International Agricultural
Research (CGIAR) have seen
their core funding—the funds
that support the genebanks—
drop by 50% since 1994. The
report recommended the
establishment of a global
endowment fund for ex situ
conservation as the best way
to ensure humanity’s ability to
meet the long-term nature of
its conservation needs. 
Public awareness is at the
heart of the campaign to
establish the Global
Conservation Trust. It is a vital
way to reach donors—
particularly ‘new’ donors who
are likely to be unfamiliar with
genebanks and their
importance. In addition, the
intensely political nature of
genetic resources issues and
the great interest shown by
countries in the Trust means
that it is critical to ensure
openness and transparency in
every step taken towards its
establishment. 
Global media coverage of the Trust has been intense, spanning five continents. Material
developed for the Trust’s communications programme received a bronze award in 2002
from Agricultural Communicators in Education (ACE), an international professional society
of communicators. (See the Trust’s Web site at www.startwithaseed.org.)
A lengthy process of research and consultation with stakeholder groups during 2002
examined options for the oversight and governance of the Trust, as well as for stakeholder
involvement in decision-making, structure, financial management, allocation of resources,
tax efficiency and transaction costs. At the request of and in consultation with a number
of key stakeholder groups, FAO and IPGRI, on behalf of the CGIAR, appointed an Interim
Panel of Eminent Experts (IPEE) to oversee the establishment of the Trust. 
2002 15Annual Report
Research by Francisco Morales, assisted by Tito
Franco, both at IPGRI’s office for the Americas,
revealed the major threats to the ex situ
conservation of plant genetic resources in the
region. Morales surveyed 103 genebanks, about
40% of those located in the region. The survey
clearly demonstrated that the majority (85%) of the
curators who replied believe that their
infrastructure is not adequate for conservation
purposes. The second most important constraint
was the lack of adequate seed processing and
conservation equipment. A majority of respondents
also mentioned pests and diseases and abiotic
factors such as drought and flooding, as significant
challenges. 
Genebanks in the region are also adversely
affected by lack of official support, trained
personnel, technical support, and lack of proper
facilities to conduct strategic and basic research.
The lack of documentation and pertinent
information on plant genetic resources
management is contributing to the loss or
deterioration of plant genetic resources in the
collections. 
Morales concludes that proposals for donor
funding should pay close attention to the
upgrading needs identified in the survey.
Otherwise, the genetic erosion occurring in
genebanks could begin to rival that which is
already going on in the field. 
The state of genebanks in
Latin America
16
The IPEE will decide the preferred legal status, governance and financial mechanisms for
the Trust, based on consultations with a large number of governments, individuals and
organizations, South and North. The Interim Panel will also decide upon questions like the
proper balance to be achieved in the allocation of funds. The Panel will hold its first
meeting in early 2003. (Further information on Trust governance can be found at
http://www.startwithaseed.org/pages/governance.htm.)
The Global
Conservation Trust
initiative was presented
to the Ninth Regular
Session of the
Commission on Genetic
Resources for Food and
Agriculture in October
2002. The Commission
strongly endorsed the
initiative, saying in its
report: “This initiative
was universally
appreciated and
supported, and appeals
were made to donors to
assist in the
establishment of the
Trust. The Trust would,
it was hoped, attract
new and additional
funds from a wide-
range of donors. The
Commission stressed
the need for the
Governance of the Trust
to work in a transparent
and efficient manner, as
proposed, and requested progress regarding the Trust to be reported at sessions of the
Inter-governmental Technical Working Group.” The Trust also received “consistently strong
statements of support from the floor” when it was presented to the FAO Commission on
Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture during its meeting from 14 to 18
October.
By year’s end, the Trust had received significant commitments from public and private
sector sources and from developed and developing countries. It is expected that the Trust
will reach its first goal of US$100 million by the end of 2003. In that case, the first call for
proposals from genebanks will take place in mid-2004 with the initial grants awarded at the
end of that year. 
Further information
r.raymond@cgiar.org
2002Annual Report
Workers clean seed before it enters the national Andean
Grain genebank in Peru.
A. King/IPGRI
New banana projecton target
The disease resistant and high-yielding varieties of plantain
and banana developed over the past few years represent the
most significant scientific achievement in the history of breeding
Musa. They are between two and five times more productive
than traditional varieties and yield well without the need for
labour-intensive management, which makes them especially
useful in countries ravaged by AIDS. Along with other
techniques, such as the bulk production of disease-free planting
material and improved post-harvest handling and processing,
the new varieties could make an enormous contribution to food
security and poverty alleviation in sub-Saharan Africa.
In 2002 a joint project of IPGRI and the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA),
funded by the Technology Access Fund of the Technology Applications for Rural Growth
and Economic Transformation (TARGET) programme of the United States Agency for
International Development, started to roll out a package of benefits in four African
countries: Cameroon, Ghana, Mozambique and Tanzania.
The starting point for the programme is the new varieties. These were selected with
partners in each participating country to ensure that they met the farmers’ needs. Thus in
Tanzania the choices are good for cooking and brewing, while in Mozambique dessert
varieties were chosen with an eye on the nearby export market in South Africa. IPGRI
supplied virus-tested in vitro cultures to a commercial laboratory in South Africa, which is
bulking them up so that it can send thousands of rooted plantlets to specially built weaning
facilities in each country. There the plantlets are weaned off their special nutrients,
hardened off, and grown to about 30 cm in height before being despatched to the
participating farmers.
Roughly 500 farmers are taking part in each country, about 50 in each of 10 villages. They
get not only the improved varieties but also considerable amounts of training. The project
is working with community extension workers and representatives of the farmers, training
these trainers so that they can spread the word about how to make best use of the new
varieties. Training covers managing the
plants for maximum productivity and,
more importantly, improving the market
quality of the fruit they harvest.
The project is also working with the
communities in each village to develop
and promote new ideas about sales and
marketing. The focus will be on adding
value to the crop. So, for example,
communities will learn how to make
sun-dried banana chips and banana
juice, both of which extend storage and
improve the value of the harvest. There
are also plans for communities to
develop handicrafts that make use of
banana fibre and the like.
The final strand is particularly
innovative as it closes the cycle,
making the project both self-sustaining
and capable of rapid expansion. At the
A package of
new varieties,
new
technologies
and new
approaches to
marketing will
improve the
livelihoods of
banana growers
in Africa.
Im
pr
ov
ed
 liv
el
ih
oo
ds
 
fo
r b
an
an
a 
gr
ow
er
s
Women from the village of Loum 99 in Cameroon
gather to unload healthy plants supplied by the project.
A. Nkakwa Attey
end of the first year each farmer will be
expected to return one sucker for every
plant he or she received. These will go
back to the central facility in each
country, where they will be cleaned up so
that they can be given to a second wave
of farmers. Thus in the second year
another batch of farmers will be given
clean planting material of the improved
varieties. Project workers expect this to
carry on beyond the life of the project to
ensure a continual and expanding supply
of improved planting material.
That’s the plan, and implementation has been going extremely well. Project sites have been
identified in each country and arrangements made to manage them. Some 64 000 plants of
eight varieties were bulked up and rooted, ready to be sent to the farmers early in 2003.
Workshops in the villages have introduced the ideas and gained the support of the farmers
and extension workers.
Experience in more limited trials gives great cause for optimism. At the core are the
resistant varieties, which can restore the productivity of areas ravaged by black Sigatoka
disease. Clean planting material has already proved effective against nematode worms and
weevils in trials in Cameroon, Ghana, Tanzania and Uganda. In Uganda, more than 90% of
farmers who used clean planting material found the mature plants more vigorous and
robust and the fruit of higher quality. In Ghana, clean planting material was an essential
component of an improved management package that increased farmers’ incomes by
about US$475 a year. Marketing too has proven its
worth. Low-tech options for storage, such as banana
chips and banana juice, have been rapidly adopted in
trials in Uganda and Tanzania. Another idea pioneered in
Uganda, selling bananas of some varieties singly,
instead of by the bunch, not only allows farmers to
market small bunches that were previously unsaleable,
but also meets the needs of the urban poor, who may
not be able to afford to buy a whole bunch at a time.
The need, now, is not for further trials but for the wider
promulgation of a package of best practices.
On conservative estimates the project could easily
enable each farmer to earn an extra US$80 in the first
year. By the end of the second year, the project could
be helping the farmers involved to earn an extra
US$1 million in total, with the ability to continue rapid
deployment beyond the life of the project. Thus there is
every chance that the project will achieve its goal of
improving the food and income security of small-scale
farmers in selected countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
Further information
e.akyeampong@cgiar.org
Implementing agencies: IPGRI, IITA
Cameroon: Centre Africain de recherché sur
bananas et plantains (CARBAP); Cameroon
Gatsby Trust
Ghana: Council for Scientific and Industrial
Research; World Vision International
Mozambique: Instituto Nacional de Investigação
Agronómicó; Extension Department, Ministry of
Agriculture and Rural Development; University
Eduardo Mondlane; Institute of Tropical and
Subtropical Crops; Technoserve
Tanzania: Agricultural Research and
Development Institute; Adventist Development
and Relief Agency; FAIDA; Kagera Community
Development Project
Project partners
Ignatius Nkondung, one of five extension
agents recruited by the project in
Cameroon. He works with about 100
farmers in two villages, to whom he is
taking a variety called FHIA 17.
A. Nkakwa Attey
18
Participatory plant breeding explicitly brings together
farmers, plant breeders and development personnel in the
effort to create and disseminate improved varieties and to
strengthen farmers’ own local materials. The idea is that each
brings special insights and skills to the effort. As a result, their
combined whole contribution will be greater than the sum of
its parts. To what extent, however, is this wishful thinking?
Perhaps not at all, if popularity is any judge. From roughly
nowhere 10 years ago, by 2002 there were about 120 such
projects going on around the world, with 80 of them well
documented on the Web site (www.prgaprogram.org) of the
CGIAR’s Program on Participatory Research and Gender
Analysis in Technology Development and Institutional
Innovation (PRGA). Then again, maybe that popularity merely
reflects fashion—among donors and executing agencies.
Prompted by these concerns a System-wide Review of Plant Breeding Methodologies in
the Future Harvest Centres recommended that “Centres should evaluate the use of
[participatory plant breeding] as an organic part of each Centre’s entire breeding
programme”. In response, the PGRA and the System-wide Genetic Resources Programme
(SGRP) got together to organize a week-long meeting that was held at IPGRI’s
headquarters. To have two system-wide programmes co-host a meeting was somewhat
unusual. Yet it encouraged a diversity of perspectives, and ensured that the links between
plant breeding and crop diversity would be integral to the review process, rather than
simply ad hoc. And of course an integrated, diverse, holistic perspective is exactly the
basis on which farmers manage their land, their use of natural resources, their households,
and so on.
Although the meeting was small—just 35 participants—it brought together the leading
people in participatory plant breeding from the Future Harvest Centres and, as would be
expected given the topic, expertise from farmers’ organizations, non-governmental groups,
university departments, development workers and national agricultural research systems. A
total of 17 papers were
presented, grouped by the
planning committee into
six umbrella topics. What
follows is a brief selection.
The proceedings,
including all the papers
and discussions and full
attributions of the
multidisciplinary teams
involved in so much of the
research, is available at
www.prgaprogram.org/
participatory.htm. 
Priority setting
Participatory plant
breeding is founded on
the shift from technology
push to demand pull. But
if breeders are really to
Participating in betterbreeding efforts
Two system-wide
programmes
came together in
2002 to examine
the quality of
science in
participatory
plant breeding.
The verdict? It is
good. 
P
ar
tic
ip
at
or
y
pl
an
t b
re
ed
in
g
Community leaders in Takaka, on the altiplano of
Bolivia, helped organize their participation in an
evaluation of cañahua, an Andean grain related to
quinoa.
A. King/IPGRI
comprehend what farmers are demanding they need to have a deep understanding of the
farmers’ production systems and goals, and how they reach their decisions. In Nepal’s
western Gulmi district, Li-Bird (a local NGO), with support from IPGRI/PRGA and partners,
has worked to establish Krishak Anushandhan Samuha, or Farmers’ Research Committees.
These act as a bridge between farmers and researchers to plan, implement and evaluate
participatory maize breeding. The farmers in Nepal have used mass selection to isolate
three new maize varieties from diverse material they were supplied with, and these are
being widely adopted.
In East Africa too, farmers have been working on maize. Commercial varieties do very
poorly against old favourites, which prompted researchers from the International Maize and
Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) to get together with farmers and the formal sector in
a breeding programme. By engaging farmers early in the selection process many people
assess many breeding lines at many locations. After three years, some interesting
observations have emerged. Breeders seem less interested in the process than farmers,
perhaps because these experiments generate large, messy data sets that the breeders find
hard to handle. More interestingly, there was little correspondence between the evaluations
of the farmers and those of the breeders. For farmers, yield accounts for only about half of
the total score they give a variety; many other criteria are important. Breeders seem
focused on yield per se. This suggests that one reason commercial varieties do not do well
is that they do not meet farmers’ needs.
Scale-up
Putting a few farmers in touch with a breeder or two is one thing. But in north-eastern
Brazil 1500 families in more than 70 communities are working with the cassava
improvement programme to try new varieties. Each farm grows plots of 50 plants of each
of the most promising new varieties to emerge from preliminary breeding, plus a local
variety for comparison. The most tangible outcome has been the release of two new
varieties resistant to root rot, a scourge of cassava growers. The effort has also changed
the way breeders and farmers work. The breeders get feedback on their choices early and
often, which makes it more likely that the needs of the farmers will be met and that the new
varieties will be adopted. The farmers get more cassava diversity on their properties, which
seems itself to offer some protection against pests and diseases. In general, the flow of
information about varieties and the varieties themselves has been enhanced. It remains to
be seen how the efforts of farmers that result in the official release of new varieties can be
recognized, if at all.
Farmers in Sergipe State in
Brazil with a new cassava that
is resistant to root rot. The
farmers chose this variety from
a selection of crosses supplied
by government breeders.
W. Fukuda
20 2002Annual Report
Intellectual property
rights
Ethically, all collaborators
in a project should benefit
from their collaboration.
That would see the
benefits that accrue from
the release of a variety produced as a result of participatory plant breeding shared
among all the participants. At present, however, there are no clear guidelines for how this
might be achieved. Indeed, most work to date has skirted the issue with one of two very
different strategies. In the first case, varieties have been fed into the formal sector with
no reward for farmers’ inputs. In the second, the varieties have been released into the
farming communities with no official launch and no direct reward for the breeders.
Neither is fully satisfactory.  As a contribution to the debate, Louise Sperling
(International Center for Tropical Agriculture—CIAT) and Dan Leskien (independent
consultant) reviewed the legal requirements of collaboration, including joint inventorship
and employee inventions in the USA, UK and Germany (and many other countries) in a
bid to uncover elements that might be used to establish joint breedership and employee
varieties. They conclude that “existing legal regimes may not be sufficient for ensuring
that [participatory plant breeding] collaborations unfold fairly for all partners.” A formal
agreement may be needed to examine benefit sharing as well as more general access
issues. The use of such a ‘Code of Conduct’ is presently being reviewed by the PRGA.
Much is at stake.
Impact
Just how valuable is participatory plant breeding? The International Center for Agricultural
Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) has made use of participatory barley breeding since
1996 and has undertaken a detailed economic study of the costs and benefits for research
institutes and farming communities. The greatest gains come from the reduction in
research time and the speed with which varieties developed with the participation of
farmers reach rural households, generally 3 or 4 years before conventional varieties. In the
Syrian context, increased speed of uptake alone can more than double the return on
investment. There are other benefits too. Putting farmers on the team helps identify early-
maturing varieties, which are especially useful for the poor.
Increasing holism and integration
One of the challenges facing participatory plant breeding is to mesh it more closely with
existing efforts to conserve and broaden the use of genetic diversity in farmers’ fields.
That, of course, requires a deep understanding of how farmers conserve and use the
diversity they already have. In Nepal, for example, informal networks may not promote the
exchange of information and diversity. In response, communities have been encouraged to
hold diversity fairs, which act as a source of seed for newly developed varieties as well as
for more traditional selections.
In Rajasthan, in India, farmers do not simply replace their old pearl millet varieties with
modern seed. They make seed mixtures, and use small amounts of modern seeds and
seeds gathered from hybrid varieties as breeding material, along with their local
populations. Knowing this, researchers have worked to support the farmers’ own breeding
efforts. One problem is that plant populations that farmers have modified, perhaps by
selection, or mixture, are often better when conditions are favourable but offer no
advantage at all under drought stress. So the poorest people, in the most marginal
In Nepal old
varieties of rice
hang in a display.
Farmers are
working with
researchers to
improve their
traditional
varieties. 
A. King/IPGRI
environments, do best by also guarding their traditional varieties. This too needs to be
borne in mind by breeders wishing to work with farmers.
Future horizons
Most participatory breeding to date has built on farmers’ traditional practices and wisdom.
Is there a place for modern technology in participatory efforts? Probably so. A study of rice
in India and Nepal used an approach called marker-assisted selection to improve efficiency.
Marker-assisted selection uses genetic markers to screen the offspring of a breeding cross
for the presence of a particular trait, often genetically rather complex and poorly inherited.
The idea of the study was to create bulk populations that brought together markers for
several traits, for example those that help plants avoid and tolerate drought, such as deep
roots, early flowering and retaining green leaves. The breeders crossed two varieties, one
that has many qualities that farmers prefer and another that is drought resistant but shunned
by farmers. Marker-assisted selection allowed the breeders to find those offspring of the
cross that combined the good qualities of both varieties. These were bulked up and given to
farmers to grow alongside their usual varieties. The farmers consistently preferred the
breeders’ crosses to their own varieties, although those crosses are still quite variable. The
breeders were especially pleased that the farmers had noticed that one of the bulks had the
characteristic smell of aromatic rice, which commands a higher price in the market and
which had never before been grown by upland farmers in Eastern India.
While more remains to be done, this study shows that modern technology can provide
participating farmers with material that already matches their needs. Moreover, the
scientists are now looking at varieties that the farmers had selected from random offspring
and asking whether those selections can be used to discover genetic markers for the
specific qualities that the farmers prefer. First indications are that they can.
Conclusions
As this all-too-brief survey reveals, there is much that is good—and getting better—in
participatory plant breeding. Of course challenges remain. For example, the formal sector
is still pretty resistant to the idea, and participatory plant breeding tends to be carried out
project by project rather than being institutionalized. Nevertheless, the meeting ended on
an upbeat note as evidence is growing that participatory plant breeding indeed offers a
valuable set of approaches to the problem of improving overall food security, reaching
more marginal farmers—and saving money along the way.
Further information
l.sperling@cgiar.org
j.toll@cgiar.org
Farmers in India with
the bulk populations of
rice that had already
been selected to have a
good chance of bringing
together desirable
qualities.
K. Steele 
22 2002Annual Report
A fundamental assumption of the early days of the Green
Revolution was that the new varieties being produced were so
superior that farmers would be foolish not to replace their
traditional landraces. Indeed, to suggest that they continue
growing old varieties was to condemn them to perpetual
poverty. And since they would inevitably abandon old varieties,
the only safe way to conserve the diversity of the old varieties
was to collect seeds and store them off site, in ex situ
genebanks. Strangely, not all farmers did give up their old varieties. In some environments,
they continued to grow them. On this observation was built the complementary strategy of
in situ and on-farm conservation. The question remains: why do some farmers in some
places continue to grow old varieties?
Many studies by IPGRI, its partners, and others, have offered answers. Most often these
are couched in terms of the non-market value of the old varieties under particular
conditions. Diversity may be needed to cope with different land on the same farm, for
example wet valley bottoms and dry uplands. Different varieties may be preserved because
they are adapted to different uses. Varieties may have spiritual or medicinal value. Until
recently, the straightforward relative economic costs and benefits of landraces versus
modern varieties had not been examined. Over the past year, however, intriguing results
have begun to emerge.
The most complete study to date concerns the rice farmers of Nepal, where IPGRI’s in situ
project has a long and fruitful collaboration. Devendra Gauchan, of the Nepal Agricultural
Research Council, is completing a doctoral dissertation that illustrates the complexity of
assessing the value to farmers of old and new rice varieties. In Bara, a fertile, lowland site
on the southern border with India, Gauchan and other researchers surveyed the farmers to
measure the costs and benefits associated with traditional and modern varieties. In good
environments the modern variety China-4 is much more profitable than the traditional
Nakhisaro. In fact for every additional rupee they invest in China-4 instead of Nakhisaro,
farmers can expect to
earn more than 13
rupees, a rate of return
that is more than 10
times higher than the
minimum rate of return
that farmers expect.
Taking the community as
a whole, the cost of not
growing China-4 would
be more than
rupees 1 million per
season (more than
US$15 000 in 1999).
Small wonder then that
China-4 is indeed
replacing traditional
varieties such as
Nakhisaro.
But only in favourable
environments—those
where farmers have
access to productive,
New light on the value of old rice
Va
lu
e 
of
tra
di
tio
na
l v
ar
ie
tie
s
Detailed
economic
studies are
beginning to add
a deeper
understanding of
why some
farmers continue
to grow old
varieties—and
how to
encourage them.
Farmers not only still grow traditional varieties in Bara,
Nepal, but they also store them in traditional clay pots,
sealed with animal dung to keep insects out.
A. King/IPGRI 
irrigated land, modern seed and well-functioning markets. In marginal environments, such
as the uplands and swamps of Bara, no modern varieties can compete with traditional
landraces. Farmers lose nothing by growing old varieties. Indeed, they would be foolish
not to.
The researchers divided the farmers into three categories, rich, medium and poor. Farm
size varied with wealth, as did the amount of irrigated land. But astonishingly, it was the
poor farmers overwhelmingly who grew only modern varieties. About two-thirds grew no
traditional landraces, while 60% of the rich and medium farmers grew ancient and modern
varieties simultaneously. It may be that wealthier households can absorb the labour and
management costs associated with a more complex pattern of rice-growing, but in any
case this result must give policy-makers pause for thought as they wonder how to support
on-farm conservation of diversity.
Neoclassical economic theory has a hard time explaining why farmers might grow two or
more varieties simultaneously. ‘Efficient’ farmers should grow only the most profitable.
However, just as the farmers’ decisions make sense if one factors in, for example, different
growing conditions in different fields, so too they can make sense if the household is faced
In Hungary, during the period of collectivized agriculture, small plots ranging in size from a few square
metres to 5 hectares remained in private hands. These home gardens are micro-agro-ecosystems, farmed
intensively with family labour. They are a treasure house of ancient crops and livestock breeds that
improves family diets at the same time as enriching the biodiversity of the Hungarian countryside. A
partnership of IPGRI and national scientists (Dr László Holly leads the National On-Farm Conservation
Project in Hungary; this work is part of Ekin Birol’s doctoral dissertation) recently completed a preliminary
economic analysis of the value to farmers of home gardens in three environmentally sensitive areas. The
team assessed the relative importance of five dimensions of diversity: number of crop species; presence
of old varieties; mixed farms with crops and livestock; organic methods; and food self-sufficiency.
All were important, but their relative importance depended on other factors. The region of Dévaványa has
good roads, is close to the centre of the country and has plenty of local food markets. The soil is good
and suited to intensive agriculture. People there rated a mixed farm and organic methods the most
important attributes of a home garden. Old landraces and number of species were much less important.
By contrast, the region of Örség-Vendvidék is isolated with poor soils and few village food markets. Feed
is costly and organic methods do not apparently work. Farmers in Örség-Vendvidék say they want high
diversity of species and many older varieties in their home gardens, but do not rate mixed farms or
organic methods as valuable.
Education and employment offers another view of the ideal home garden. Better educated farmers, with
jobs off the farm and higher incomes, prefer a simpler home garden with fewer crops, no landraces, and
no time-consuming livestock. Households with more children also prefer simpler home gardens,
“perhaps,” as the report says, “because they are substituting one labour intensive activity (child rearing)
with another (tending of a home garden).” 
As Hungary’s economy changes its orientation the government needs to design appropriate policies that
will make the most of these home gardens in the context of the European Union. Studies such as this one
will feed into that process.
Hungarian home gardens (re)valued
24 2002Annual Report
with poorly functioning markets, especially if
the farm is only semi-commercial, dividing its
production between rice to eat and rice to sell.
When agriculture is semi-subsistence, or semi-
commercial, depending on your
point of view, each household
may well make different decisions
about how much of their
production to eat and how much
to sell. Most landraces, for
example, fetch a poor price in the
market but some, such as
Basmati, command a premium
and can compete with modern
varieties. But traders do not
generally like to deal with
landraces because they are often
available only in smaller quantities
and are of variable quality. So one
policy option might be to create
stronger links between growers
and traders. Another might be to
promote the branding of particular
landraces which would protect
their identity and quality.
The choices farmers make are complex. In the survey, for example, there were significant
relationships between the variety combinations grown and characteristics of the
household. This goes beyond the simple richer–poorer dimension and includes factors
such as the number of bullocks and the self-sufficiency of the household. Thus the
benefits of growing landraces vary considerably among farm households, and it may not
be possible to generalize.
Yet another explanation for the choice to grow landraces is provided by the reasons the
farmers themselves give. These often hinge on attributes of the variety that are not related
to the yield and which are therefore not easily captured by neoclassical economics. For
example, farmers themselves say that the most important reason for growing Nakhisaro is
that it is adapted to poor, rain-fed soils. But this is not the prime reason for growing
another variety, Sathi. This variety has religious significance in Hindu culture, and
incidentally boasts much better eating quality than Nakhisaro.
In the end, having established the costs and benefits of growing traditional and modern
rice varieties in Nepal, the studies concluded that economists need to use a diversity of
tools to assess the value of diversity. This will be done and, it is hoped, will offer guidance
to policy-makers about the best routes for influencing the on-farm conservation of crop
diversity. 
Further information
m.smale@cgiar.org
2002 25Annual Report
On the steep hillsides
of Nepal, traditional
landraces of rice may
be more valuable than
modern varieties.
A. King/IPGRI 
More than 90% of the world’s harvest of yams (Dioscorea
species) grows in west and central Africa. The yam belt
stretches from Guinea through Ghana, Togo, Benin and Nigeria
down to western Cameroon, Central Africa and the Congo
basin. Much of it is grown by small and medium scale farmers,
and a large part of the community depends on yam for food
security and income. The word yam covers a multitude of
species. Cultivated yams include traditional varieties assigned
to the D. rotundata–cayenensis complex, other indigenous
species such as D. bulbifera and D. dorietorum, and introduced
species such as D. alata and D. esculenta. There are also wild
species, such as D. burkilliana, D. abyssinica and D.
praehensilis, which farmers may have adopted and which may
have contributed to the genetic diversity of current landraces.
Given the importance of yams to local communities and their food security, IPGRI joined
the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA), another Future Harvest Centre, in a
study that aimed at a better understanding of how farmers domesticate yam and what that
contributes to yam improvement and production. The three-year project ended in 2002
and, as part of it, two students at the National University of Benin, Nasser Baco and
Florent Okry, made anthropological studies of yam domestication the subject of their
theses. This work was complemented by broader surveys and biochemical and molecular
analyses carried out by other partners. The combination of techniques helped provide a
deeper understanding of domestication.
Of the 80 farmers who were actively domesticating yam in the study, 78 were men, and all
were the heads of their households. One reason only heads of households domesticate
yams may be that it is a risky business. Yams contain toxins that have been known to kill
people. Domestication consists in part of reducing the toxic load, and only when the yam
is ‘safe’ are other members of the household permitted to cultivate, harvest, process and
sell the new variety, which then becomes incorporated in the family’s basket of yam
varieties. In general each farmer is domesticating just one kind of yam, although 14% had
two and 4% three. There is no formal support for people domesticating yams. Roughly
three-quarters said they had acquired the skills from their neighbours, the other quarter
from relatives.
Different farmers approach
the domestication of yams
in different ways. For
example some, but not all,
place a piece of pottery
beneath the roots, and
offer various explanations
of why this is a good thing.
But almost all select from
Domesticated yamsdevelop farmers’ diversity
A study with
farmers in Benin
reveals that they
are continuously
boosting the
diversity on their
plots with the
offspring of wild
and cultivated
yams.
Yams are a mainstay
of local food security
in much of West and
Central Africa.
IITA 
Fa
rm
er
s 
do
m
es
tic
at
e
ya
m
s
each harvest the tubers of the individual plants that most nearly approach their ideal of a
domesticated variety and plant these the following year. The study could find no
relationship between the methods used and any aspect of the outcome.
Why do they do it? Mostly to develop more productive varieties. Farmers say that
cultivated yams lose vigour over time (which might be expected if they accumulate
diseases), and that bringing in fresh blood from wild yams will maintain, or even increase,
productivity on the farm. The farmers classify yams as wild or domesticated based on their
appearance. Wild yams have thorny stems and roots and the tubers are thin. As
domestication proceeds the number of thorns goes down and the tubers thicken. The
farmers also gave the plants under domestication specific variety names, often the names
of existing varieties. They start doing this before the domestication process is complete,
and adopt the name of the variety they expected to end up with. However, individual
farmers often disagreed about which variety a wild yam would produce when it had been
domesticated.
Technical studies looked in detail at
the morphology and genetics of the
varieties, cultivated and
domesticated. In one study of 68
newly domesticated yams, just under
a quarter were biochemically and
morphologically very similar to
existing varieties. Of the rest, half
were similar but not identical to some
landraces, but the other half were
completely different. This confirms for
the first time that domestication
makes a significant contribution to
the genetic diversity of the yam
farmers’ agricultural system.
Domesticators tend to find their yams
in the savannah forest margins, with
almost a fifth coming from old fields
that have been abandoned to fallow
272002Annual Report
Farmers in Benin
examine the thorny
stems of a wild yam.
M. Grum/IPGRI 
• International Institute for Tropical
Agriculture
• Bariba, Nago and Fon farmers selected
through surveys
• Université National du Bénin in
collaboration with IRD (L’Institut pour le
recherche pour le développement)
• Institut National des Recherches Agricoles
du Bénin (INRAB)
• CIRAD-IITA Yam Research Coordination
Unit (YRCU)
Project partners
for a long time. Yams
on the farm are
generally multiplied as
clones, using tubers
from the previous
harvest. But the
species also multiplies
by seed. So yams from
the fallow and field
margins could be
either remnants of old
clones or else
seedlings from chance
matings. The
biochemical and
molecular studies
indicate that at least
two things are going
on. First,
domesticators are
selecting offspring of
matings between
cultivated varieties
which, because they grow from seed, initially look very similar to wild plants. This is in
effect a gradual breeding process. Secondly, they are also in rare cases selecting hybrids
between wild and cultivated material. Over a number of cycles this is bringing fresh
genetic diversity into the population of cultivated varieties, as newly domesticated
varieties remain in fallow fields and offer further generations of seedlings for possible
selection. The farmers are not aware of this long-term cycle.
Farmers do not actually appreciate that yams produce true seed and that they are using
selection from true seed as a method to create and select improved clones. This offers
great opportunities for improving the yam crop through participatory breeding. Already
one researcher from the University of Benin has established a non-governmental
organization specifically to work with farmer-breeders. In the future, one can imagine
breeders making deliberate crosses of favoured cultivars in order to supply farmers with
seed to assess and domesticate. Farmers, too, can be taught about true seed and
encouraged to think of ways to incorporate this knowledge in their individual breeding
efforts. Either way, the close study of domestication as practised by the yam farmers of
Benin indicates not only the value of maintaining diversity in the areas around the farms,
but also the vital part that their domestication plays in securing their food supply and
improving their livelihoods.
Further information
m.grum@cgiar.org
28 2002Annual Report
Domesticated yams, as seen here, have thicker tubers
and less thorny stems.
M. Grum/IPGRI 
In 10 countries across Asia IPGRI has been working with
local partners to improve the conservation and use of tropical
fruit species. The project is funded by the Asian Development
Bank and, at roughly the three-quarters point in its life, can
already point to some impressive achievements: diversity has
been collected and characterized, people have been trained,
techniques have been advanced, and ways found to improve
the part tropical fruits can play in rural livelihoods.
Finding and collecting diversity remains a
key focus of the project, which
encompasses six fruits: mango, citrus,
rambutan, jackfruit, litchi and
mangosteen. A similar story could be told
for each of them, but let us home in on
mango (Mangifera spp.), and indeed on
just some of the project’s successes with
that fruit. A survey in India resulted in 36
new accessions being added to a field
genebank in Bangalore. An expedition in
Manipur identified mangoes that were
dwarf and matured early, which could be
very useful to breed improved
commercial varieties. And in Bangladesh,
explorers found four varieties that bear
their fruits year-round and nine that bear
in the off-season, again potentially
valuable traits for efforts to improve
mangoes.
These are just a few obvious traits. The
project has sought to thoroughly
characterize and evaluate diversity in the
target species. More than 1300 mango accessions have now been assessed, and the
information gathered is being transferred to databases for easier searching and exchange.
This will ultimately make it easier for breeders and researchers to find the particular
qualities they are looking for—anything from less fibrous fruits to the beautiful red rind
colour and exemplary storage quality uncovered in Tai Ya, a Chinese variety.
Tropical fruit projectgrows to maturity
Very few tropical
fruits are
cultivated on a
plantation scale;
most are grown
in home gardens
and small plots.
IPGRI projects
have been
working to
improve their
value to small
farmers.
• Bangladesh
• China
• India
• Indonesia
• Malaysia
• Nepal
• the Philippines
• Thailand
• Sri Lanka
• Vietnam
Project countries
Mangifera odorata on
sale at a roadside
market stall.
I. de Boreghyi/IPGRI
Tr
op
ic
al
 fr
ui
t
pr
oj
ec
t m
at
ur
es
Of course valuable diversity that is represented by the collected varieties needs to be
conserved if it is to be useful to farmers and growers. In Vietnam an Italian NGO, Centro
Internazionale Crocevia, has helped to establish an in situ conservation garden at the
northern town of Son La. About 5000 rootstocks are being grafted with 12 local varieties
for eventual distribution to people in the district. And while ex situ collections are being
expanded in most countries, the detailed efforts at characterization have suggested that
some of the varieties in the Vietnamese field genebank are in fact duplicates. With further
testing it may be possible to rationalize the Vietnamese collections and thus improve the
cost-effectiveness of their conservation.
Socioeconomic factors, such as the return on investment, consumer preferences,
marketability and the like, influence the attitude of farmers and growers to tropical fruits. The
project has carried out some work along these lines. For example, in Malaysia a preliminary
investigation of the value of a mango species known locally as kuini (M. odorata) has
identified the value of individual trees to farmers and estimated that the total acreage of
some 700 hectares is worth about US$250 000 a year. Project partners noted in 2002 that
additional socioeconomic studies, to look at all aspects of production, processing and
marketing, should be carried out. These would necessarily involve collaboration with other
organizations, such as UTFANET (Underutilized Tropical Fruits in Asia Network) and TFNet
(International Tropical Fruits Network), and during the year the project appointed a full-time
socioeconomist.
Another important goal of the project is to develop human resources and build capacity in
the partners. While informal capacity building takes place in almost all exchanges, the
project also conducted four formal training workshops during 2002. These ranged from the
30 2002Annual Report
Tropical fruits are often very important in local food markets, like this one in
Yucatan, Mexico.
H. Jaenicke/ICRAF
very technical—a course on
the use of molecular
techniques to study and
understand fruit genetic
diversity—to the much
more general—training on
how to write scientific
papers and proposals for
funding. In this way the
project helps national
programmes to become
self-sustaining in the future.
Indeed the sustainability of
the effort once the project has ended is an important consideration. Many of the Country
Coordinators are making efforts to ensure that the activities that they have been looking
after become integrated into national research and development programmes.
The project has also made plans to make use of an idea that IPGRI and its partners have
promoted elsewhere, that of diversity fairs. These are gatherings at which farmers display
the diversity of their crops, and are rewarded for the breadth of their varieties, rather than
for the quality or yield of a particular variety. Diversity fairs at district, regional and national
levels have proved an ideal mechanism for allowing farmers and growers to exchange
selections and information. Researchers too can gather samples and the knowledge
associated with them, perhaps with a view to diffusing varieties with desirable traits.
Further information
b.mal@cgiar.org
2002 31Annual Report
A farmer in Chitwan
District, Nepal, is
growing one of the
Indian mangoes that
bears fruit all year
round.
A. King/IPGRI
• IPGRI Annual Report 2001
• Networking Bananas and Plantains: INIBAP Annual Report 2001
• Selected Highlights of 2001
• Geneflow 2002 (English and Spanish)
• Endowing Future Harvests: the Long-term Costs of Conserving
Genetic Resources at the CGIAR Centres (with SGRP and IFPRI)
• Atlas of Wild Potatoes. Systematic and Ecogeographic Studies
on Crop Genepools 10 (with CIP)
• FAO/IPGRI PGR Newsletter Nos 128–131 (with FAO)
• Plant Genetic Resources Abstracts, Volume 11 (with CABI)
• Towards Sustainable National Plant Genetic Resources
Programmes Policy, Planning and Coordination Issues (with
DSE/ZEL) 
• L'approche participative dans la recherche sur le mode de
gestion des espèces cultivées localement en fonction du genre
au Mali: méthodologie et techniques: cas du Mali (with FAO)
• Home Gardens and In Situ Conservation of Plant Genetic
Resources in Farming Systems (with DSE/ZEL and GTZ)
• Ruby Treasure: Securing the Wealth of Pomegranate in Central
Asia (in English and Russian)
• Forest Genetic Resources Conservation and Management: In
Managed Natural Forests and Protected Areas (In Situ)—Vol. 2
(with FAO and DFSC)
• Programme de ressources génétiques forestières en Afrique au
sud du Sahara (with SAFORGEN)
• Promoting the Conservation and Use of Plant Genetic Resources
by Training and Research: Capabilities and Capacities for Plant
Genetic Resources Training in Public Universities and Institutions
in Eastern Africa
• FAO/IPGRI Technical Guidelines for the Safe Movement of
Germplasm: Acacia spp. (No. 20) and Pinus spp. (No. 21) (with
FAO)
• Report of the 4th and 5th Noble Hardwoods Network Meetings
(with EUFORGEN)
• Flax Genetic Resources in Europe (with ECP/GR)
• European Collections of Vegetatively Propagated Allium (with
ECP/GR)
• The Economics of Conserving Agricultural Biodiversity On-farm
(with SDC, BMZ, DGIS, IDRC and IFPRI)
• IPGRI Technical Bulletins on Accession Management Trials 
(No. 5), Forest Tree Seed Health (No. 6) and In Vitro Collecting
Techniques (No. 7, with CATIE and FAO)
• Strategy for the Global Musa Genomics Consortium (with the
Global Musa Genomics Consortium)
• Global Evaluation of Musa Germplasm for Resistance to
Fusarium Wilt, Mycosphaerella Leaf Spot Diseases, and
Nematodes: In-depth Evaluation. INIBAP Technical Guidelines 6
(in English, French and Spanish)
• Oferta tecnológica de banano y plátano para América Latina y el
Caribe: una contribución de MUSALAC a la investigación y
desarrollo de la Musáceas
• Coconut Embryo In Vitro Culture: Part II (with COGENT)
These and other IPGRI publications are available in portable
document format (PDF) from the IPGRI Web site
(www.ipgri.cgiar.org/publications/indexpub.htm).
Support to plant genetic resources programmes and
regional networks in the Americas
(Project Coordinator: David Williams)
assists countries in Latin America and the Caribbean to build up
their capacities to conserve and use plant genetic resources
Support to plant genetic resources programmes and
regional networks in Asia, the Pacific and Oceania
(Project Coordinator: V. Ramanatha Rao)
assists countries in Asia, the Pacific and Oceania to build up
their capacities to conserve and use plant genetic resources
Support to plant genetic resources programmes and
regional networks in Europe
(Project Coordinator: Jozef Turok)
assists countries in Western and Eastern Europe to build up their
capacities to conserve and use plant genetic resources
Support to plant genetic resources programmes and
regional networks in sub-Saharan Africa
(Project Coordinator: Mikkel Grum)
assists countries in sub-Saharan Africa to build up their
capacities to conserve and use plant genetic resources
Support to plant genetic resources programmes and
regional networks in Central and West Asia and North Africa
(Project Coordinator: Stefano Padulosi)
assists countries in Central and West Asia and North Africa to
build up their capacities to conserve and use plant genetic
resources
Global capacity building and institutional support
(Project Coordinator: Issiaka Zoungrana)
develops options and tools for institutional frameworks to
strengthen plant genetic resources national programmes;
facilitates individual and group training and capacity building
activities; strengthens structure and coordination mechanisms
for carrying out training and capacity building.
Global forest genetic resources strategies
(Project Coordinator: Weber Amaral)
supports strategic research on the conservation and use of
intraspecific diversity of useful forest tree species; it also aims to
develop an information system on forest genetic resources
Promoting sustainable conservation and use of coconut
genetic resources
(Project Coordinator: Pons Batugal)
promotes national, regional and global collaboration through
COGENT among coconut-producing countries and partner
institutions in the conservation and use of coconut genetic
resources
Locating and monitoring genetic diversity
(Project Coordinator: Luigi Guarino, Prem Mathur)
develops methods for locating and measuring genetic diversity
in cultivated and wild species, combining ethnobotanical with
agro-ecological approaches; it also develops methods for
monitoring genetic erosion
Ex situ conservation technologies and strategies
(Project Coordinator: Ehsan Dulloo)
develops improved low-input technologies for the ex situ
conservation of plant genetic resources, and investigates ex situ
conservation strategies 
In situ conservation of crop plants and wild relatives
(Project Coordinator: Devra Jarvis)
develops a scientific basis for effective on-farm conservation
that meets farmer and community needs and maintains diversity;
assists national systems in locating, monitoring and maintaining
viable in situ populations of wild relatives of crops
Linking conservation and use
(Project Coordinator: Toby Hodgkin)
takes ex situ, in situ and complementary approaches;
emphasizes neglected and underused crops and supports the
use of cocoa genetic resources 
Selectedpublications IPGRI’sprojects
Human and policy aspects of plant genetic resources
conservation and use
(Project Coordinator: Pablo Eyzaguirre)
strengthens links between conservation and the well-being of
people, particularly poor rural people, emphasizing gender,
nutrition, income, indigenous knowledge, traditional resource
rights and participatory approaches
Information management and services
(Project Coordinator: Paul Neate)
builds capacity in information management and service provision
to meet national, regional and international responsibilities;
provides publications and information to support the research
activities of IPGRI staff and their partners 
Public awareness and impact assessment
(Project Coordinator: Ruth Raymond)
builds financial and institutional support for plant genetic
resources activities worldwide by raising awareness among key
target audiences of the role of these resources in sustainable
development and food security; assesses IPGRI’s impact on the
conservation and use of plant genetic resources 
Musa genetic resources management
(Project Coordinator: Suzanne Sharrock)
collects the germplasm of Musa and its wild relatives; promotes
its safe storage, movement and use; develops standardized
tools for retrieving and exchanging information on Musa
germplasm 
Musa germplasm improvement
(Project Coordinator: Jean-Vincent Escalant)
identifies disease- and pest-resistant Musa genotypes,
researches Musa pathogen diversity, screening methods and
molecular genetics and develops improved Musa genotypes;
provides Musa germplasm 
Musa information and communication
(Project Coordinator: Claudine Picq)
supports the production, collection and exchange of information
on banana and plantain; publicizes Musa issues and the work of
INIBAP to scientific and non-technical audiences 
Support to regional Musa programmes
(Project Coordinator: Suzanne Sharrock)
supports INIBAP’s global, regional and national networks and
other partnerships in Latin America and the Caribbean, in Asia,
the Pacific and Oceania, and in sub-Saharan Africa
CGIAR System-wide Genetic Resources Programme and
policy support
(Project Coordinator: Jane Toll)
provides support to the CGIAR system in two areas: (1) genetic
resources policy, (2) in IPGRI’s capacity as convening centre of
the CGIAR’s System-wide Genetic Resources Programme
(SGRP). 
33Financial report
For the year ended 31 December 2002, 
in US dollars (000s)
Unrestricted and 
Attributed
Australia 238
Belgium 271
Canada 446
China 120
Denmark 527
France 302 1
Germany 192
India 75
Italy 1364 2
Japan 442
Korea, Republic of 50
Mexico 10
Netherlands 1407
Norway 467
Philippines 17 3
South Africa 50
Sweden 361
Switzerland 559
Thailand 8
USA 650
World Bank 2431
Subtotal 9987
Restricted
ACIAR 117
ADB 471
AfDB 53
AusAID 8
Belgium 1016
Brazil 16
CAPRi 43
CAS 5
CATIE 7
CFC 1032
CGIAR Secretariat 53
CIDA 4
CIRAD 167
COL 14
CORAF/WECARD 32
CTA 85
DAGS-Malaysia 16
Danida 66
DFID 1079
DFSC 10
DSE 4
European Countries 558
European Union 1739
FAO 202
FECYT 14
FFTC 19
Finland 53
FONTAGRO 69
France 187
Gatsby Foundation 136
GTZ/BMZ 700
ICIPE 10
ICRAF 16
IDRC 161
IFAD 445
IFPRI 8
IFS 4
IICD 15
ISNAR 3
Italy 106
Japan 428
Korea, Republic of 126
KUL 6
Luxembourg 44
Mexico 46
Multi-donors to Genetic 
Resources Policy Initiative 128
Multi-donors to Global 
Conservation Trust 679
Multi-donors to World 
Summit on Sustainable 
Development 167
National Geographic 
Society 8
Netherlands 403
Norway 115
NZAID 85
OAS/CICAD 914
Peru 73
Pioneer 4
Portugal 11
PRGA 22
Quebec 93
Rockefeller Foundation 58
SDC 768
SIDA 110
Spain 101
SPC 3
Technova 9
Uganda 592
UNDP-GEF 564
UNEP-GEF 225
USAID 340
USDA 46
VVOB 176
World Bank 64
Worldview Foundation 7
Subtotal 15 161
Total Grants 25 148
1 France’s 2002 unrestricted
contribution of Euro 287 597
at year-end rate of exchange
of Euro 0.9529=US$1.00.
2 Italy’s 2002 unrestricted
contribution of
Euro 1 300 000 at year-end
rate of exchange of 
Euro 0.9529=US$1.00.
3 The Philippines’ 2002
unrestricted contribution of
PHP487 700 at year-end
rate of exchange of
PHP53.385=US$1.00.
Financialreport
Continued
Restricted projects
ACIAR
SINGER-International Crop Information System 7
Technical Support for Regional Plant Genetic Resources
Development in the Pacific 96
Associate Expert—Nematology in Vietnam 14
Subtotal 117
ADB
Conservation and Use of Native Tropical Fruit Species
Biodiversity in Asia 177
Developing Sustainable Coconut-based Income-
generating Technologies in Poor Rural Communities 294
Subtotal 471
AfDB
Plant Genetic Resources in Sub-Saharan Africa 53
AusAID
Taro Genetic Resources Conservation and Utilization 8
Belgium
Collaborative Musa Research—KUL 335
INIBAP Musa Conservation Research 305
INIBAP Transit Centre—KUL 189
Musa Coordination in Africa 185
Study of Diversity (Colletotrichum and Stylosanthes) 
Phase II 2
Subtotal 1016
Brazil
The Lusophone project 16
CAPRi
Strengthening Community Institutions to Support the 
Conservation and Use of Plant Genetic Resources in 
Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan 43
CAS
Workshop—International Treaty on Plant Genetic 
Resources for Food and Agriculture 5
CATIE
Training in Black Sigatoka Management 7
CFC
Cocoa Germplasm Utilization and Conservation 377
Coconut Germplasm Utilization and Conservation 156
Farmer Participatory Evaluation and Dissemination of 
Improved Musa Germplasm 499
Subtotal 1032
CGIAR Secretariat
Human Resources Policy Initiative 30
African Evaluation Association Conference 23
Subtotal 53
CIDA
Developing Decision-making Strategies on Priorities for
Conservation and Use of Forest Genetic Resources 4
CIRAD
Musa Publications 88
Nematode Research 79
Subtotal 167
COL
Biodiversity and Distance Education Internship 14
CORAF/WECARD
Promoting Fonio Production in West and Central Africa 
through Germplasm Management and Improvement of 
Post Harvest Technology 32
CTA
Information Services/Publications 54
Musa Germplasm Information System Training Workshop 17
Training Workshop on Gender Analysis and Participatory
Approaches for Sustainable Use and Conservation of 
Agricultural Biodiversity in Mozambique 14
Subtotal 85
DAGS—Malaysia 
Cyber Plant Conservation Project 16
Danida
Danish Junior Professional Officer—Benin 11
Effective Conservation and Use of Intermediate and 
Recalcitrant Tropical Forest Tree Seed Phase II 55
Subtotal 66
DFID
Coconut Genetic Resources 72
Ex Situ Conservation Technologies and Strategies 263
Farmer Testing of Banana IPM Options in East Africa 101
Gender and Diversity 4
Human and Policy Dimensions of Genetic Resources 288
Plant Genetic Resources Programmes in Sub-Saharan Africa 263
Support to Regional Musa Programmes 88
Subtotal 1079
DFSC
Forest Genetic Resources Conservation and 
Management: in Managed Natural Forests and 
Protected Areas (In Situ) Guidelines 10
DSE
Home Gardens Publication 4
European Countries 1
ECP/GR—Phase VI 325
EUFORGEN—Phase II 233
Subtotal 558
European Commission
Biodiversity and Economics for Conservation (BioECON) 48
European Plant Genetic Resources Information Infra-
Structure (EPGRIS) 2
European Crop Wild Relative Diversity Assessment and
Conservation Forum 17
Gene-Mine 1
Global Forest Genetic Resources Strategies—Latin America 133
Global Forest Genetic Resources Strategies—MEDA 153
Locating and Monitoring Genetic Diversity—Asia 127
Locating and Monitoring Genetic Diversity—MEDA 137
Promoting Sustainable Conservation and Use of Coconut
Genetic Resources—Asia 185
Promoting Sustainable Conservation and Use of Coconut
Genetic Resources—Latin America 167
Support to Plant Genetic Resources Programmes and 
Regional Networks in Sub-Saharan Africa—ACP 285
Support to Regional Musa Programmes—Asia 254
Support to Regional Musa Programmes—Latin America 230
Subtotal 1739
FAO
Adaptation of Existing Systems for the Management 
and Exchange of Information on Plant Genetic Resources  
for Food and Agriculture 10
Biotechnology and Biosafety in non-EU Pre-accession 
Countries in Central and Eastern Europe (Balkans) and 
Caucasian countries 7
Collecting Mission in Middle East 10
Development of the User Manual of the Electronic 
Reporting Format for Monitoring the Implementation of 
the Global Plan of Action on Plant Genetic Resources for 
Food and Agriculture 5
Expert Consultation and Development of a List of Indicators 
and a Reporting Format for Monitoring the Implementation 
of the Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and 
Sustainable Use of Plant Genetic Resources 35
FAO/Plant Genetic Resources Activities for Consultation 
with Stakeholders and Development of a Mechanism to
1 These countries supported both ECP/GR and EUFORGEN: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Macedonia (FYR), Malta, Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom.
These countries supported ECP/GR: Armenia, Greece, Iceland, Romania.
Luxembourg supported EUFORGEN.
2002 35Annual Report
Facilitate the Implementation of the Global Plan of 
Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of 
Plant Genetic Resources 6
FAO/IPGRI Activities for the Review and Development of 
Indicators for Genetic Diversity, Genetic Erosion and 
Genetic Vulnerability 25
FAO–IPGRI Technical Guidelines for the Safe Movement 
of Germplasm—Acacia spp. and the FAO–IPGRI 
Technical Guidelines for the Safe Movement of 
Germplasm—Pinus spp. 10
Governance paper for the Global Conservation Trust 3
In Vitro Conservation and Cryopreservation of Tropical 
Genetic Resources for Asia 3
Internet-based Plant Biotechnology Inventory and Further
Development of a Plant Biotechnology Web Site 40
Meeting on ‘The Evolving Role of Genebanks in the Light 
of Developments in Molecular Genetics’ 6
National Programme Strategies and In Vitro Conservation 
Manual 5
Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 28
Workshop on ‘Agricultural Biodiversity Measurement: 
with a Special Focus on Sorghum and Wheat’ 9
Subtotal 202
FECYT
Meeting on ‘The Evolving Role of Genebanks in the Light of 
Developments in Molecular Genetics’ 14
FFTC
Germplasm Multiplication Training Workshop 19
Finland
Associate Expert—Malaysia 53
FONTAGRO
Utilization of Papaya Genetic Resources for their 
Improvement and Promotion 69
France
Acropolis Plateforme Project 9
Coconut Genetic Resources Network 30
Commodity Chains Project 50
Peri-urban Banana Production in West Africa 1
Research on Tropical Fruit 41
The Montpellier Biotech Platform 56
Subtotal 187
Gatsby Foundation
Musa Germplasm Conservation 136
GTZ/BMZ
Access and Benefit Sharing: Exploring Options to 
Implement the International Treaty on Plant Genetic 
Resources for Food and Agriculture 9
Baseline Survey on Neglected and Underutilized Crops in 
East and Central Africa 43
Forest Genetic Resources in Brazil and Argentina 200
Home Gardens and In Situ Conservation 3
In Situ Conservation (Morocco component) 6
In Situ Conservation (Morocco component) Phase II 227
Patterns of Genetic Diversity and Genetic Erosion of 
Traditional Crops in Peru 212
Subtotal 700
ICIPE
Conservation of Biodiversity of Gramineae and Arthropods 10
ICRAF
Conservation and Use of the Mountain AgroBiodiversity 
in the East African Highlands 16
IDRC
Crucible Meetings—Publications in French and Spanish 6
In Situ Conservation of Agricultural Biodiversity Phase II 64
Musa In Situ Conservation 61
Promoting Traditional Seed Systems and Community 
Based Seed Management 13
Regional Roundtable on Contribution of Plant Genetic 
Resources in Africa's Economic Renewal 10
Symposium on Managing Biodiversity 7
Subtotal 161
IFAD
Enhancing the Contribution of Neglected and 
Underutilized Species to Food Security, and to Incomes 
of the Rural Poor 352
In Situ Conservation and Utilization of Plant Genetic 
Resources in Desert-prone Areas of Africa 73
Workshop—Developing Sustainable Coconut-based 
Income-generating Technologies as a Strategy to Promote 
Poverty Reduction and On-farm Conservation 
of Coconut Genetic Resources 20
Subtotal 445
IFPRI
Impact Assessment in Uganda 8
IFS
Forestry Genetic Resources Workshop 4
IICD
Collecting and Propagating Local Development 
Content—Indigenous Biodiversity Case Studies 15
ISNAR
Evaluation of Organizational Capacity Development 3
Italy
Fellowship on Molecular Tools for Enhancing the 
Management of Crop Diversity 6
Associate Expert—Forest Genetic Resources Research 85
Associate Expert—Socioeconomic Studies on Neglected 
and Underutilized Species in CWANA 15
Subtotal 106
Japan
Associate Researcher—Ethnobotany 12
CGIAR Genetic Resources Support Programme Policy 
Research and Coordination of the System-wide Genetic 
Resources Programme 100
Global Forestry Genetic Resources Strategies—Research 
on the Genetic Resources of Bamboo Rattan 108
Global Forestry Genetic Resources Strategies—Research 
on the Genetic Resources of Bamboo Rattan 125
Plant Genetic Programme in Asia, the Pacific and Oceania 3
Plant Genetic Programme in Asia, the Pacific and Oceania 80
Subtotal 428
Korea, Republic of
Associate Scientist 90
Associate Scientist Research Grant 16
Medicinal Plants in 16 countries in Asia–Pacific 20
Subtotal 126
KUL
ITC Musa Collection Data System 6
Luxembourg
Development of National Programmes on Plant Genetic 
Resources in Southeastern Europe Phase II 44
Mexico
Genomics Research on BSV Virus 46
Multi-donors to Genetic Resources Policy Initiative, GRPI 2
Genetic Resources Policy Initiative Expenditure 128
Multi-donors to Global Conservation Trust Campaign Phase I 3
Global Conservation Trust Campaign Expenditure Phase I 407
Multi-donors to Global Conservation Trust Campaign Phase II 4
Global Conservation Trust Campaign Expenditure Phase II 272
Multi-donors to World Summit on Sustainable Development 5
World Summit on Sustainable Development Expenditure 167
National Geographic Society
Emergency Expedition to Rescue Wild Peanut in Bolivia 8
2 The following provided support for the Genetic Resources Policy Initiative, GRPI: BMZ, IDRC, Netherlands, Rockefeller Foundation.
3 The following provided support for the Global Conservation Trust Campaign Phase I: Brazil, CGIAR Finance Committee, CIAT, CIFOR,
CIMMYT, CIP, Colombia, ICARDA, ICLARM, ICRAF, ICRISAT, IFPRI, IITA, ILRI, IRRI, ISNAR, IWMI, SDC, USAID, WARDA.
4 The following provided support for the Global Conservation Trust Campaign Phase II: SDC, USAID.
5 The following provided support for the World Summit on Sustainable Development: CDC, CGIAR Secretariat, IDRC, PARC.
Netherlands
Associate Expert—Forest Genetic Resources Research—
Americas 70
Associate Expert—Forest Genetic Resources Research—
CWANA 85
Associate Expert—Fruit and Nut Tree Complementary 
Conservation Strategies 59
Associate Expert—Information Management, Networking 
and Capacity Building in Conservation and Use of Forest 
Genetic Resources in Sub-Saharan Africa 53
Associate Expert—Restoration of Plant Genetic Diversity 42
In Situ Conservation in Burkina Faso and Nepal 94
Subtotal 403
Norway
Policy Unit 115
NZAID
Pacific Plant Genetic Resources 85
OAS/CICAD
Introduction of Improved Banana Varieties to Alto Beni, 
Bolivia 24
Organic Banana Project—Bolivia 890
Subtotal 914
Peru
Strengthening the Scientific Basis of the In Situ
Conservation: Manejo y monitoreo de variedades
locales de cultivos amazónicos 50
Organic Banana Project 23
Subtotal 73
Pioneer
Advisory Committee Meeting on Public Domain/Public 
Goods 4
Portugal
Improving Coconut Production in Mozambique through 
Germplasm Characterization and Evaluation of Promising 
Hybrids 5
The Lusophone Project 6
Subtotal 11
PRGA
Quality of Science in Participatory Plant Breeding 22
Quebec
Internship on Plant Genetic Resources Policy 11.5
Internship on Impact Assessment Uganda 11.5
Internship on Musa Germplasm Information System 11.5
Internship on Forestry Policy 6
Internship on Genetic Resources Policy Issues 10
Internship on Integrating Print and Electronic Publishing 8
Internship on Impact of IPGRI's Work 11.5
Internship on World Summits 11.5
Internship on SINGER Crop Portal 11.5
Subtotal 93
Rockefeller
Musa Baseline Project 14
Research and Training of a PhD student 44
Subtotal 58
SDC
CGIAR—Plant Genetic Resources Policy Research Unit 118
Enhancing Contribution of Home Gardens to On-farm 
Management of Plant Genetic Resources and to Improve 
Livelihoods of Nepalese Farmers 66
In Situ Conservation of Agricultural Biodiversity Phase III 526
Legal Research on Traditional Intellectual Property to 
Plant Genetic Resources 16
SINGER Gateway Model 42
Subtotal 768
SIDA
Genetic Resources Policy 82
Regional Roundtable on Contribution of Plant Genetic 
Resources in Africa's Economic Renewal 14
Advisory Committee Meeting on Public Domain/
Public Goods 14
Subtotal 110
Spain
Cherimoya Germplasm Bank in Peru 20
In Situ Conservation in Peru 11
Technology Transfer Project (Musa) 26
Training Programme 44
Subtotal 101
SPC
Taro Genetic Resources Conservation and Utilization 3
Technova
Research on Sweet Potato 9
Uganda
Musa Biotechnology for Uganda Project 592
UNDP-GEF
Participatory Management of Date Palm Plant Genetic 
Resources in Oases of the Maghreb 564
UNEP-GEF
Community-based Management of On-farm Plant 
Genetic Resources in Arid and Semi-arid Areas of 
Sub-Saharan Africa 204
In Situ Conservation of Crop Wild Relatives through 
Enhanced Information Management and Field Application 15
In Situ/On Farm Conservation of Agricultural Biodiversity 
(Horticultural Crops and Wild Relatives Species) 
in Central Asia 6
Subtotal 225
USAID
Empirical Studies with IFPRI 14
Meeting on ‘The Evolving Role of Genebanks in the Light 
of Developments in Molecular Genetics’ 10
Support to FHIA Breeding Programme 75
Target Project—Increasing Productivity and Market 
Opportunities for Banana in Africa 241
Subtotal 340
USDA
Collection of Germplasm in Bolivia and Guyana 8
Collection of Germplasm of Phaseolus spp. and Arachis 
hypogaea L. in Venezuela 22
Development/Testing of Geographical Information System 
for Locating Cultivated Plant Diversity 6
Documentation and Management of Plant Genetic 
Resources in Developing Countries 3
In Situ Conservation of Wild Crop Relatives in Paraguay 7
Subtotal 46
VVOB
Associate Scientist—Nematology in Costa Rica 60
Associate Scientist—Technology Transfer in Uganda 60
Associate Scientist—Nematology in Cameroon 59
Subtotal 179
World Bank
CGIAR Genetic Resources Policy Committee 55
Germplasm Conservation in Central Asia and the Caucasus 9
Subtotal 64
World View Foundation
Temuan Tribe Indigenous Local Community (Orang Asli) 
Working Together to Conserve and Sustainably Use 
their Environment via Sustainable Livelihoods 7
Total Restricted Grants 15 161
Financial report
Continued
37IPGRI’sprofessional staff
OFFICE OF DIRECTOR GENERAL
HAWTIN, Dr Geoffrey Director General
FOWLER, Dr Cary Honorary Research Fellow, 
Senior Advisor
MALGRAND, Ms Karine Fund Raising Assistant
WATANABE, Dr Kazuo Honorary Research Fellow 
WATTS, Ms Jamie Impact Assessment and 
Evaluation Specialist
WITHERS, Dr Lyndsey Assistant Director General
SECRETARIAT OF THE CGIAR SYSTEM-WIDE GENETIC
RESOURCES PROGRAMME
TOLL, Ms Jane Senior Scientist, SGRP 
Coordinator
DAOUD, Ms Layla Communications and 
Information Assistant
GAIJI, Mr Samy Senior Scientist, 
SINGER Project Leader
SKOFIC, Mr Milko Database and Programmer  
Analyst
OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL, PROGRAMMES
HOOGENDOORN, Dr Coosje Deputy Director General, 
Programmes
THOMPSON, Dr Judith Scientific Assistant
DOCUMENTATION, INFORMATION AND TRAINING GROUP
GOLDBERG, Ms Elizabeth Group Director
ALERCIA, Ms Adriana Germplasm Information Specialist
BUONAIUTO, Mr Massimo* Multimedia/Web Specialist
CHERFAS, Dr Jeremy Science Writer
CISSOKHO, Ms Pascale** Multimedia/Web Specialist
DREW, Ms Jennie Editor
GARRUCCIO, Ms Maria Library and Information 
Services Specialist
METZ, Dr Thomas Senior Scientist, Genetic Resources
Information Systems Management
NEATE, Mr Paul Senior Scientist, Head, 
Communications Services
RAYMOND, Ms Ruth Senior Scientist, Public 
Awareness
SOOD, Mr Rajesh* Database Developer/Information 
System Analyst
TAZZA, Ms Patrizia Design and Layout Specialist
GENETIC RESOURCES SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY GROUP
ENGELS, Dr Jan Group Director
AMARAL, Dr Weber Forest Genetic Resources 
Coordinator, Senior Scientist
BORDONI, Mr A. Paul* Scientific Assistant, 
Underutilized Species
BRAGDON, Ms Susan Senior Scientist, Law and Policy
BROWN, Dr Tony Honorary Research Fellow,
Genetic Diversity
DULLOO, Dr M. Ehsan* Scientist, Conservation and 
Management of Germplasm 
Collections
ENGELMANN, Dr Florent Honorary Research Fellow
EYZAGUIRRE, Dr Pablo Senior Scientist, Anthropology 
and Socioeconomics
GUARINO, Mr Luigi* Honorary Research Fellow
HANSON, Dr Jean* Senior Advisor, Ex Situ
Conservation
HALEWOOD, Mr Michael Legal Specialist
HODGKIN, Dr Toby Principal Scientist, 
Genetic Diversity
JARVIS, Dr Devra Senior Scientist, In Situ
Conservation of Agricultural 
Biodiversity
JOHNS, Prof. Timothy* Honorary Research Fellow
MBOGGA, Mr Michael* Associate Expert, 
Conservation and Use of 
Forest Genetic Resources
MOORE, Dr Gerald Honorary Research Fellow,
Law and Policy
SAKALIAN, Dr Marieta** Consultant, In Situ Conservation 
of Crop Wild Relatives
SMALE, Dr Melinda Senior Economist
THORMANN, Ms Imke Scientific Assistant, 
Plant Genetic Resources 
Information Management
VINCETI, Ms Barbara* Associate Scientist, 
Forest Genetic Resources
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
GEERTS, Mr Koen Director Finance and 
Administration
COUMBES, Mr Mark Budget/Audit Officer
HARMANN, Ms Karen Senior Accountant
LUZON, Ms Josephine Finance Manager
PAPINI, Ms Silvia Office Manager
RASMUSSON, Ms Lotta Human Resources Manager
VALORI, Mr Dario Information Technology Manager
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
ATTA-KRAH, Dr Kwesi Regional Director
DULLOO, Dr M. Ehsan*** Germplasm Conservation 
Scientist
GRUM, Dr Mikkel Scientist, Genetic Diversity
KAMAU, Mr Henry Scientist, Training/SADC 
Programme
KIAMBI, Dr Dionysious K. Scientist, East Africa Programme
MAUNDU, Mr Patrick Scientist, Ethnobotany
MORIMOTO, Mr Yasuyuki Associate Scientist, Cuburbitaceae
MUKEMA, Mr Isaiah Documentation and 
Information Officer
NDUNG’U-SKILTON, Ms Julia Associate Scientist, In Situ
Conservation
38 2002Annual Report
OBARA, Ms Anne Administrative Officer
OBEL-LAWSON, Ms Elizabeth Scientific Assistant
RAO, Dr N. Kameswara* Germplasm Conservation 
Scientist
VAN DER STEEG, Mr Robbert* Associate Scientist, Restoration 
of Plant Genetic Diversity
ZOUNGRANA, Dr Issiaka Senior Scientist, Training Officer
West and Central Africa
VODOUHE, Dr S. Raymond Scientist/Coordinator, 
Genetic Diversity
DOSSOU, Dr Bernadette Associate Scientist, In Situ
Conservation (Burkina Faso)
EYOG-MATIG, Dr Oscar Forest Genetics Resources
Scientist/Coordinator SAFORGEN
GAOUE, Mr Orou Gander** Scientific Assistant, SAFORGEN
SANGARE, Dr Abdourahamane** Honorary Research Fellow,
Training
AMERICAS
LASTRA, Dr Ramón Regional Director
AZURDIA, Dr Cesar** Honorary Research Fellow,
Plant Genetic Resources 
BAENA, Ms Margarita Publications and Public 
Awareness Specialist
CHAVEZ, Dr Jose Luis Conservation Specialist, 
In Situ Crop Genetic Resources
COPPENS, Dr Geo Senior Scientist, Tropical Fruit
DE VICENTE, Dr M. Carmen Scientist, Plant Molecular 
Genetics
FRANCO, Mr Tito Documentation and Information 
Programme Specialist
GUARINO, Mr Luigi** Senior Scientist, Genetic Diversity
JARVIS, Dr Andrew* Honorary Research Fellow,
Geographic Information System
MORALES, Dr Francisco** Germplasm Health Specialist
OCAMPO, Mr John Albero Visiting Researcher, Passiflora
SCHELDEMAN, Dr Xavier* Senior Scientist, Conservation 
and Use of Neotropical PGR
VAN BREUGEL, Mr Paulo** Associate Scientist, Forest
Genetic Resources
WILLIAMS, Dr David E. Senior Scientist, Genetic Diversity
ASIA, PACIFIC AND OCEANIA
SAJISE, Dr Percy Regional Director
BATUGAL, Dr Pons A. Senior Scientist, COGENT 
Coordinator
CHIN, Prof. H.F. Honorary Research Fellow,
Public Awareness
HONG, Mr Lay Thong Specialist, Bamboo and Rattan 
and Forest Genetic Resources
KOSKELA, Dr Jarkko Associate Scientist, Forest 
Genetic Resources Conservation 
and Use
MOHAMED, Hj. Azhari Consultant
QUEK, Dr Paul Scientist, Documentation/
Information
RAO, Dr V. Ramanatha Senior Scientist, Genetic 
Diversity/Conservation
STHAPIT, Dr Bhuwon Ratna Scientist, In Situ Crop 
Conservation Specialist
WELLER, Mr Michael Administrative Officer
YOUNG-JIN, Dr Kim Associate Scientist, Citrus 
Cryopreservation
East Asia
ZHOU, Prof. Mingde Senior Scientist, East Asia 
Coordinator
ZHANG, Mr Zongwen Associate Scientist, East 
Asia Associate Coordinator
South Asia
BHAG MAL, Dr Senior Scientist, South 
Asia Coordinator
ARORA, Dr R.K. Honorary Research Fellow, 
MATHUR, Dr Prem N. Associate Scientist, South 
Asia Associate Coordinator
RAMAMANI, Ms Y.S. Scientific Officer (Tropical Fruits)
SURENDRAKUMAR, Administrative Officer
Mr Veluthattil
CENTRAL AND WEST ASIA AND NORTH AFRICA
AYAD, Dr George Regional Director
BAMMOUN, Ms Aicha In Situ Conservation of 
Agricultural Biodiversity—
National Professional Officer
BARI, Mr Abdullah Associate Scientist, PGR 
Information/Data Management 
and Analysis Methodologies
BAZUIN, Mr Tom Associate Scientist, Forestry 
Genetic Resources
DURAH, Dr Kheder Regional Network and 
Information Manager
KHALIL, Mr Rami Public Awareness Officer
GIULIANI, Ms Alessandra* Associate Scientist,  
Socioeconomics of Neglected 
and Underutilized Crops
HADJ HASSAN, Dr Adnan Honorary Research Fellow
LEE, Ms Marina* Research Assistant to the
Regional Specialist on 
Community Conservation 
of PGR
MAMELLY, Mr Adib Finance and Administration Officer
NASR, Dr Noureddine* Regional Coordinator,  
GEF-UNDP-Date Palm
PADULOSI, Dr Stefano Senior Scientist, Integrated  
Conservation Methodologies  
and Use
39
RENKEMA, Ms Heidi* Associate Scientist, Fruit and 
Nut Tree Complementary 
Conservation Strategies
SHUMAN, Mr Firas* Consultant/Research Assistant/ 
Underutilized–Neglected 
Species 
TRESHKIN, Dr Sergey* Regional Specialist on
Community Conservation of 
Plant Genetic Resources
TURDIEVA, Dr Muhabbat Scientist, Forestry Genetic 
Resources, Central Asia 
and the Caucasus
ZIRARI, Mr Abdelmalek* National Coordinator,  
GEF-UNDEP-Date Palm   
Project, Morocco
EUROPE
TUROK, Dr Jozef Regional Director/EUFORGEN
Coordinator
LALIBERTÉ, Ms Brigitte Scientific Assistant, Crop 
Genetic Resources
LIPMAN, Ms Elinor Scientific Assistant
MAGGIONI, Mr Lorenzo Scientist, ECP/GR Coordinator
INTERNATIONAL NETWORK FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF
BANANA AND PLANTAIN
FRISON, Dr Emile A.G. Director
ARNAUD, Ms Elizabeth Information/Documentation 
Specialist
DOCO, Ms Hélène Information/Communication 
Specialist
ESCALANT, Dr Jean-Vincent Senior Scientist, Musa
Genetic Resources
ESKES, Dr Bertus Coordinator CFC/ICCO/IPGRI 
Cocoa Project
LIPMAN, Ms Elinor Scientific Assistant
LUSTY, Ms Charlotte Public Awareness and Impact 
Assessment Specialist
OCAMPO, Mr John Albero Visiting Researcher, Passiflora
OMONT, Mr Hubert** Senior Scientist, 
Commodity Chains
PICQ, Ms Claudine Head, Information/Communication
PONSIOEN, Mr Guido Information/Documentation
Specialist
SHARROCK, Ms Suzanne Senior Scientist, Germplasm 
Conservation
THORNTON, Mr Tom Financial Manager
VEZINA, Ms Anne* Editor/Scientific Writer
VILARINHOS, Mr Alberto Duarte Associate Scientist, Molecular 
Biology
Asia and Pacific
MOLINA, Dr Agustín Regional Coordinator
VAN DEN BERGH, Dr Inge Visiting Associate Scientist, 
Technology Transfer
Eastern and Southern Africa
KARAMURA, Dr Eldad Regional Coordinator
BLOMME, Dr Guy Associate Scientist, Assistant 
to Regional Coordinator
ELEDU, Mr Charles GIS Specialist
KAMULINDWA, Mr Julius Araall Project Administrator
KARAMURA, Dr Deborah Genetic Resources Specialist
West and Central Africa
AKYEAMPONG, Dr Ekow Regional Coordinator
JACOBSEN, Ms Kim Visiting Associate Scientist
MESSIAEN, Ir Stijn Associate Scientist, Entomology
Latin America and Caribbean
ROSALES, Dr Franklin Regional Coordinator
ANTUNEZ, Mr Gustavo*/** Project Manager
BELALCAZAR, Dr Sylvio* Honorary Research Fellow
MOENS, Mr Thomas Associate Scientist, Nematology
POCASANGRE, Dr Luis Associate Scientist, 
Technology Transfer
INIBAP Transit Centre
VAN DEN HOUWE, Ir Inès Scientist, Germplasm 
Conservation
SWENNEN, Prof. R. Honorary Research Fellow, 
Musa Genetic Improvement
* Joined during 2002
** Left during 2002
*** Moved groups during 2002
2002Annual Report
IPGRI’s Boardof Trustees
Via dell’Università 100
80055 Portici, Naples 
Italy
Dr Masahiro Nakagahra**
Vice Director General
STAFF Institute
446–1 Ippaizuka
Kamiyokoba,Tsukuba
Ibaraki 305–0854
Japan
Dr Gene Namkoong (deceased)
PO Box 763
Leicester, NC 28748
USA
Prof. Ivan Nielsen
Department of Systematic
Botany
University of Århus
Nordlandsvej 68
8240 Risskov
Denmark
Dr René Salazar
c/o SEARICE, 331 Eagle Court
Condominium
26 Matlino St, Quezon City
Philippines
Dr Theresa Sengooba
Namulonge Agricultural and
Animal Production Research
Institute
PO Box 7084
Kampala
Uganda
Dr Benchaphun Shinawatra
Ekasingh 
Chiang Mai University
Multiple Cropping Centre
Faculty of Agriculture
Chiang Mai 50002
Thailand
Dr Stephen Smith*
Pioneer Hi-Bred International
7300 NW 62nd Ave
PO Box 1004
Johnston, Iowa 50131
USA
Dr Mahmoud Solh*
Director Plant Production and
Protection Division
FAO
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00100 Rome
Italy
Dr Florence Wambugu 
AHBFI
Mimosa Vale
Nairobi 25556
Kenya
* Joined during 2002
* * Left during 2002
BOARD CHAIR
Dr Marcio de Miranda Santos
(to March 2002)** 
CGE-Centro de Estudos de
Gestão Estratégica 
Ministério da Ciência e
Tecnologia-MCT
SPO-Área 05 Quadra 03 
Bloco A Sala 133 
70.610–200 Brasília-DF 
Brazil
Dr Benchaphun Shinawatra
Ekasingh (from March 2002)
Chiang Mai University
Multiple Cropping Centre
Faculty of Agriculture
Chiang Mai 50200
Thailand
MEMBERS
Dr. Carlos Cano*
Ministro de Agricoltura
Av. Jimenez #7-65
Bogota
Colombia
Prof. Dr Thomas Cottier
Institute of European and
International Economic Law
Hallerstrasse 6/9
CH-3012 Berne 
Switzerland
Dr Anthony Gregson*
Oakview East
PO Box 197
Warracknabeal
Victoria 3393
Australia
Dr Geoffrey Hawtin
Director General, IPGRI 
Via dei Tre Denari 472/a
00057 Maccarese, Rome
Italy
Dr Marianne Lefort
Head of Plant Breeding Dept
INRA - DGAP
RD 10 (Route de Saint Cyr)
78026 Versailles Cedex
France
Dr Olga F. Linares*
Smithsonian Tropical 
Research Institute
Unit 0948
Balboa
Panama
Dr Shoji Miyazaki*
Director, Genebank, NIAS
2-1-2 Kannondai
Tsukuba 305-8602
Japan
Prof. Luigi Monti
Istituto di Agronomia Generale e
Coltivazione Erbacee
Cattedra di Genetica Agraria
Università di Napoli
The international status of IPGRI is conferred under an
Establishment Agreement which, by December 2002, had been
signed and ratified by the Governments of:
Algeria, Australia, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso,
Cameroon, Chile, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus,
Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Greece, Guinea,
Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia,
Mauritania, Morocco, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Slovakia, Sudan, Switzerland,
Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda and Ukraine.
Establishmentagreement
Credits
Text: Jeremy Cherfas
Editor: Jennie Drew
Design: Patrizia Tazza
Layout: Frances Ferraiuolo
Printing: Marchesi
Grafiche Editoriali Roma
Cover illustration 
Our cover shows a
painting ‘Tropical Home
Garden’ 24x24 inches
acrylic on canvas, by
John Dyer, resident artist
for the Eden Project. 
© John Dyer.
Right: John Dyer at work.
Regional Offices
Sub-Regional Offices
INIBAP Offices
Turrialba, Costa Rica
Cali, Colombia
Hervelee, Belgium
Aleppo,
Syria
Douala, Cameroon
Cotonou, Benin
Kampala, Uganda
Nairobi, Kenya
Serdang, Malaysia
Los Baños, Philippines
Beijing, China
New Delhi, India
Tashkent, 
Uzbekistan
IPGRI HQ, Rome, ItalyINIBAP HQ, Montpellier, France
Rome, Italy
Rabat, Morocco Tozeur,
Tunisia
IPGRI officelocations