ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 1 Strengthening National Programmes for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture: Planning and Coordination Charlie Spillane, Jan Engels, Hareya Fassil, Lyndsey Withers and David Cooper IPGRI is an institute of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Issues in Genetic Resources No. 8 August 1999 Abstract Efficient and well-coordinated national programmes on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA) can contribute greatly to national socioeconomic de- velopment. The recent broadening of interest in the management and use of plant genetic resources calls for the wider involvement of different sectors and stakeholder groups in national PGRFA programmes and planning processes. If PGRFA activities are to meet current and future national needs, they require effective coordination, both horizontally – across different sectors, ministries and stakeholder groups – and vertically – between policy, institutional and field-level activities. Such coordination can minimize duplication of effort and ensure complementarity between activities. Some countries may wish to establish broader national programmes integrating the management of other forms of genetic resources such as animal, forestry, fish and microbial genetic resources. While this paper focuses on programmes for the conser- vation and use of PGRFA, many of the issues and options presented are equally valid for national programmes with a broader scope. This paper reviews national PGRFA planning processes and the purpose, func- tions and possible activities of a national PGRFA programme. Each country will need to define the purpose, functions and activities of its programme according to na- tional needs and objectives. Recognizing that different programme structures may be necessary for different countries, the requirements for meeting core functions are identified, and issues and options for structural organization and planning processes are reviewed, with reference to the experiences of existing national programmes. Major stakeholder groups are identified, and the importance of involving them fully in the planning process is emphasized. The opportunities for integrating PGRFA planning with other national planning processes are highlighted. Regional options for collabo- rative PGRFA activities between countries are also discussed. The paper concludes by suggesting that participatory planning processes and flexible national programme structures are likely to be the most appropriate, if the continual changes taking place in the physical, biological, policy, legal, economic and social environments are to be dealt with in a manner that effectively supports national socioeconomic develop- ment. Comments and queries on the contents of this paper are welcome and should be addressed to: Volume Editor: Jan Engels Genetic Resources Science and Technology (GRST) IPGRI, Via delle Sette Chiese 142, 00145 Rome, Italy TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM1 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 2 Issues in Genetic Resources is an occasional series of papers published by IPGRI on im- portant topics of interest to the genetic re- sources community. The International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) is an autonomous interna- tional scientific organization, supported by the Consultative Group on International Ag- ricultural Research (CGIAR). IPGRI’s man- date is to advance the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for the benefit of present and future generations. IPGRI’s headquarters is based in Rome, Italy, with offices in another 14 countries worldwide. It operates through three programmes: (1) the Plant Genetic Resources Programme, (2) the CGIAR Genetic Resources Support Pro- gramme, and (3) the International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain (INIBAP). The international status of IPGRI is con- ferred under an Establishment Agreement which, by January 1999, had been signed and ratified by the Governments of Algeria, Aus- tralia, 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, Mo- rocco, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Poland, Por- tugal, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Slovakia, Sudan, Switzerland, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda and Ukraine. Financial support for the Research Agenda of IPGRI is provided by the Govern- ments of Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, F.R. Yu- goslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mac- edonia (F.Y.R.), Malta, Mexico, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, the Philip- pines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Swit- zerland, Thailand, Turkey, the UK, the USA and by the Asian Development Bank, Com- mon Fund for Commodities, Technical Cen- tre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA), European Union, Food and Agricul- ture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), International Development Research Centre (IDRC), International Fund for Agri- cultural Development (IFAD), International Association for the promotion of cooperation with scientists from the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union (INTAS), Interamerican Development Bank, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Bank. The geographical designations employed and the presentation of material in this pub- lication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IPGRI, FAO or the CGIAR concerning the legal sta- tus of any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Similarly, the views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of these participating organizations. Citation: Spillane, Charlie, Jan Engels, Hareya Fassil, Lyndsey Withers and David Cooper. 1999. Strengthening National Programmes for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agri- culture: Planning and Coordination. Issues in Genetic Resources No. 8, August 1999. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy. ISBN 92-9043-411-2 IPGRI Via delle Sette Chiese 142 00145 Rome, Italy © International Plant Genetic Resources Institute 1999 TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM2 ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 3 Contents Foreword 4 Acknowledgements 5 Executive Summary 6 I. Introduction 10 II. The rationale for multi-stakeholder national PGRFA programmes 13 Facilitating the involvement of all stakeholder groups 13 Improving efficiency through better coordination 14 National-level coordination of policy objectives in intergovernmental fora 16 III. Functions and core elements of a national PGRFA programme 19 Purpose and functions 19 Core elements 19 National PGRFA plans and policies 19 National coordination mechanisms 23 IV. Types of national programme structure: Options and examples 28 Centralized programmes 30 Sectoral programmes 30 V. Mechanisms for promoting coordination, communication and collaboration 32 National workshops and conferences 33 National networks and other subsidiary bodies 33 Local-level fora and farmer participation 37 Options for collaborative efforts at the regional level 38 VI. Building public and political support for national PGRFA activities 40 Public awareness 40 Financing national programmes 40 VII. Conclusions 42 Appendix I. Sectoral national plans relevant to integrated PGRFA planning 43 Acronyms and abbreviations 46 Authors 48 References 49 Endnotes 50 TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM3 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 4 Foreword In recent years it has been increasingly rec- ognized that a wide range of stakeholders are actually involved in the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic re- sources for food and agriculture (PGRFA), including farmers who manage diversity on- farm, breeders who use genetic resources in their crop improvement programmes, and collectors and genebank curators. Similarly, it is recognized that the conser- vation and sustainable use of PGRFA — a key component of biological diversity — can make major contributions to sustainable ag- riculture. But for this potential to be realized, planning of PGRFA conservation and use ac- tivities needs to be carried out in the wider context of national plans for development and environmental management. The Global Plan of Action for the con- servation and sustainable use of plant ge- netic resources for food and agriculture, adopted at the International Technical Con- ference, Leipzig, in 1996 reflects these de- velopments, and provides further impetus to them. It gives high priority to building strong national programmes to plan, coor- dinate and promote country activities. This publication is intended to assist countries in strengthening the coordination and planning functions of national pro- grammes for PGRFA and adjusting existing programmes to a continuously changing environment. Building upon the recommen- dations of the Global Plan of Action, and the findings of the Report on the State of the World’s PGRFA, it reviews existing practices in a range of countries to highlight key func- tions of national programmes and provides options on how these can be addressed. It is hoped that this publication will also contribute to the integration of national programmes for plant genetic resources in national biodiversity strategies and action plans being prepared for the Convention on Biological Diversity. Geoffrey Hawtin Director General International Plant Genetic Resources Institute Mahmud Duwayri Director, AGP Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM4 ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 5 Acknowledgements This paper was developed through a broad consultative process, with valuable inputs and efforts made by many people. Much information was provided through the pre- paratory process for the FAO International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Re- sources, in particular the country reports that formed the basis for The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Further information was pro- vided through the regional meetings to pro- mote implementation of the Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustain- able Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, organized in 1998 by the Food and Agriculture Organi- zation of the United Nations (FAO), the Consultative Group on International Agri- cultural Research (CGIAR) and regional research organizations. Previous reports on the structure and coordination of national programmes, prepared by Mauricio Bellon, Alison McCusker, Trevor Williams and David Wood, provided useful background information. The authors particularly wish to thank Stein Bie, Sally Bunning, Manab Chakraborty, J. Clement, Random DuBois, Lyle Glowka, Doug Horton, Christian Hoste, Una Murray, Miriam Schomaker, Vivian Timon, Jeff Tschirley and Avani Vaish for their valuable help and inputs. Special thanks also go to the many staff members of IPGRI, FAO and other organi- zations who commented on earlier drafts of the paper, in particular Murthi Anishetty, George Ayad, Thomas Gass, Luigi Guarino, Iqbal Kermali, U.P. Menini, Ken Riley and Jane Toll. Also acknowledged are the edi- torial contributions made by Simon Chater and Linda Sears. TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM5 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 6 Executive Summary Plant genetic resources for food and agri- culture (PGRFA) are vital for national food security and development, especially in developing countries. Strong national PGRFA programmes can help countries improve the conservation and use of PGRFA and are the building blocks for ef- ficient international PGRFA efforts. The need to strengthen national PGRFA programmes has been widely recognized both at national level and in various inter- national agreements, including the Con- vention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the International Undertaking on Plant Ge- netic Resources and the Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustain- able Use of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Effective planning and coordination are essential ingredients of a strong national PGRFA programme. They are particularly necessary in view of a third characteristic of strong programmes – their need for a high degree of stakeholder involvement. Rationale Stakeholder involvement. The successful conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA requires action by a wide range of people in each country. Involving representatives of different stakeholder groups in planning and implementing the national PGRFA pro- gramme is vital because it instils a sense of ownership of the programme and hence a sense of responsibility for its success. Germplasm users, including plant breeders as well as genebank curators, must be involved in national programmes. Farmers’ groups and other non-govern- ment organizations (NGOs) are still under- represented in national PGRFA planning processes, but their involvement is grow- ing. It must continue to do so if political and public acceptance of PGRFA activities is to be sustained. Given the increasing in- volvement of the private for-profit sector in PGRFA activities, national PGRFA pro- grammes need to integrate private-sector concerns into their planning processes if they have not already done so. Coordination. The effectiveness of national PGRFA conservation and use depends greatly on collaboration between individu- als and institutions with differing stakeholder interests. PGRFA activities of- ten span different sectors, such as agricul- ture, forestry, natural resources and even tourism. They are increasingly complex, often giving rise to problematic issues re- lating to the ownership of knowledge and resources. All this implies the need for coordination between the different components of the na- tional PGRFA programme. Coordination needs to be both horizontal – between dif- ferent ministries and sectors – and vertical – between the policy-making or planning level and the institutional and field levels at which activities are implemented. Coordination at the policy level can en- hance programme efficiency by, for exam- ple, ensuring that different ministries inte- grate their approaches to the development of different sectors, ironing out any confu- sion over objectives, roles and responsibili- ties. It is also important for the purposes of presenting a coherent national viewpoint at international fora. At the institutional level coordinating is needed to avoid con- flicts and promote synergism between the activities of different groups. This is par- ticularly relevant given the funding cut- backs currently affecting the public sector, which necessitate greater programme effi- ciency. Coordination at the institutional level can also help increase the capacity of the programme and bridge gaps in its cov- erage, for example by enlisting universities and colleges in the collection and evalua- tion of germplasm in neglected species. Field-level coordination is important in TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM6 ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 7 linking the activities of different groups, notably farmers, NGO workers, extensionists and formal-sector scientists, many of whom can benefit from greater contact with one another, particularly in areas such as germplasm exchange. A well-coordinated national pro- gramme can help develop and express a national consensus on PGRFA issues, act- ing as an intermediary between the higher echelons of government and the many stakeholders in the country as a whole. Planning. The many stakeholders and complex nature of PGRFA activities mean that a broad participatory process is needed to develop a national strategy and plan for PGRFA activities. The Global Plan of Action, developed through a country-driven process leading up to the 1996 Leipzig Conference at which the Plan was adopted, serves as a frame- work for guiding national planning. Many countries are currently building on the con- sultation process that led to the Plan to launch their own strategic planning proc- esses. National PGRFA plans can be devel- oped as components of a broader national biodiversity strategy or action plan, and should be linked to other relevant national plans, such as those for development and the environment. The most effective PGRFA plans will be those designed to meet broader national planning objectives. Learning from other planning processes is a key advantage of not planning in isolation. The best planning processes are itera- tive, leading to an evolving set of priori- ties and actions that respond to changing needs over time. The resources allocated to the process should take the need for pe- riodic re-assessment into account. Provi- sions for monitoring implementation should also be built into the plan. Countries also need to develop national policies on specific aspects of PGRFA man- agement, such as access, exchange and the sharing of benefits. PGRFA policies, like na- tional plans, are best developed through a broad consultative process involving rep- resentatives from all stakeholder groups. Components of a national programme Planning processes. Planning is necessary to ensure that national objectives for the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA are met. Needs assessments, involving consultation with stakeholders, are a pre- requisite. At present, the process of devel- oping a national plan can draw upon the momentum established in the preparatory process for the Leipzig Conference, and the Global Plan of Action, which resulted from that, can serve as a guiding framework. National PGRFA plans can be developed as components of broader National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, or, alternatively, be developed separately. Also a range of other national plans in areas such as agriculture, environments and general socioeconomic development can be used as the content for national PGRFA plans. National policies. Because of the interde- pendency of countries with respect to PGRFA, national programmes are likely to need to gain access to genetic resources from other countries. To facilitate this, ap- propriate national policies will be required. Governments are currently negotiating in- ternational norms for access, exchange and benefit-sharing through the revision of the International Undertaking in order to bring it into harmony with the CBD. Also, other national policies might affect the conser- vation and use of PGRFA and therefore consultative processes involving all stakeholders in the development of such policies are important. Committees. Ideally, a broadly based na- tional PGRFA committee should have the responsibility for planning, coordinating and facilitating all aspects of national PGRFA conservation and use, and linking the various stakeholder groups involved. TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM7 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 8 Criteria for selecting the representatives of stakeholder groups to be committee members include knowledge of relevant issues, motivation and involvement in rel- evant activities, and power to mobilize key resources. Clearly worded mandates, unbureaucratic decision-making processes and transparent relationships between the committee and other national bodies will all promote the committee’s effectiveness. Focal points. A useful mechanism for co- ordinating a country’s response to exter- nal PGRFA matters is the national focal point. This can be a designated individual, such as the chair of the existing national committee, a government institution or a high-level task force. Many countries have already established a National Biodiversity Unit as the focal point for the coordination of national activities related to the Conven- tion on Biological Diversity. In such cases the PGRFA focal point could be a compo- nent of this unit. National focal points may also assist in generating external assistance for PGRFA activities. National focal points are likely to be- come increasingly important in facilitating the international exchange of germplasm and in overseeing the equitable sharing of benefits from PGRFA activities. Programme structures National PGRFA programmes are of two main kinds, centralized and sectoral. In centralized programmes, a single institu- tion, such as a national plant genetic re- sources centre, both coordinates and im- plements most national PGRFA activities. A major advantage of this approach is that the institution has a clear leadership role in domestic activities while also serving as the sole point of reference for external mat- ters. Dangers are that national activities can be dominated by the institution and that ex situ conservation may be overempha- sized. In sectoral programmes, a range of institutions with separate mandates take responsibility for different commodities and activities. This model takes advantage of the specialized knowledge and resources of each institution, but it also requires clear delegation of responsibilities and strong coordination across ministries and sectors. A third model also exists, in which a country has no formally established PGRFA programme but nevertheless has significant PGRFA conservation and use ac- tivities, coordinated by a national commit- tee or similar mechanism. Where the coor- dination mechanism works well, this ap- proach can be as effective as a formally con- stituted programme, but its disadvantages include lack of formal recognition by gov- ernment and lack of a secure budget. Mechanisms for promoting coordination, communication and collaboration National PGRFA programmes require effi- cient mechanisms for communicating among stakeholder groups and coordinat- ing activities at the operation level. This can be achieved through networks, lower- level committees, task forces, consortia and so on. These may be crop-specific, based on a specific zone or region, or devoted to a specific theme. Crop-specific networks are an excellent way of organizing such activities as germplasm collecting, conservation, evalu- ation and enhancement. They can also be used to promote the exchange of germplasm, greatly enhancing its use. With their relatively narrow focus, they are suit- able mechanisms for bringing together spe- cialists from different disciplines to set pri- orities, plan activities and evaluate impact. Participation in networks can be especially advantageous for countries with a limited national capacity and resources. Farming system or zone-specific bodies are an op- tion for countries that have numerous or complex farming systems. They can be par- ticularly useful in promoting partnerships between farming communities and the for- mal scientific or government sector. TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM8 ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 9 Theme-specific bodies can be used to build capacity in areas of strategic national im- portance, such as agricultural diversifica- tion, integrated pest management, gender and biotechnology. Local-level fora may be important in building farmer participation in research and links with the formal sector. They can contribute to the national PGRFA pro- gramme not only by strengthening com- munity management of PGRFA but also by exerting a demand pull on the pro- gramme’s products and services. Examples include local agricultural research commit- tees in Latin America and farmer field schools in Asia. The most urgent need in spreading the use of such fora is to address the problems associated with scaling up and sustaining activities with reduced lev- els of external support. Other mechanisms for enhancing plan- ning, coordination and collaboration in- clude workshops or conferences, and Email. National workshops are often used to launch a new programme or programme component, and frequently form part of the national planning process. They are a pow- erful means of forging consensus between different stakeholder groups. Email is be- coming increasingly used as developing countries come on-line, as it cuts the costs and increases the speed of interaction be- tween stakeholders. Collaborative regional PGRFA pro- grammes or networks can complement national activities and enhance their cost- effectiveness. They provide a useful forum for planning, needs assessment, priority- setting and actual implementation of con- servation and use activities. Building support Since most national PGRFA programmes are funded largely by public money, it is important to generate public and political support for them. Public awareness pro- grammes are the key to mobilizing this support. Such programmes can target a variety of audiences, such as policy-mak- ers, schools and NGOs, and use a variety of media, including national radio and tel- evision, newspapers and public lectures. Many PGRFA activities are long term, yielding benefits only after a decade or more. The national PGRFA programme therefore needs to be seen as a long-term investment and afforded a legal status and funding that will be resilient to shocks, such as recessions or changes in government. Often a small amount of funding consist- ently provided over 10 to 15 years can achieve more than a higher level of fund- ing available only over a 3-year period. Identifying and reviewing funding sources is an important function of the na- tional PGRFA programme, especially in the many developing countries where external funding will continue to be essential for the foreseeable future. Programmes will need to do more to distribute information about potential donors and to help stakeholder groups to prepare project proposals. Conclusion Strengthening their national PGRFA pro- grammes presents governments with a for- midable challenge. Given the importance of PGRFA resources for food security and development, a timely and appropriate re- sponse to this challenge can only reap sub- stantial benefits. TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM9 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 10 I. Introduction Plant genetic resources for food and agricul- ture (PGRFA) encompass the diversity of genetic material in traditional and modern crop varieties, breeders’ populations, crop wild relatives and other plants that can be used to support food and livelihood secu- rity. There are strong economic, social and cultural reasons for countries to conserve, enhance and use these resources. As raw materials essential for national agriculture and food production, PGRFA constitute a public good which is vital to a country’s economy. States have sovereign rights over the plant genetic resources within their bor- ders, the authority to establish how those resources are maintained and distributed, and the responsibility for ensuring that they are conserved and sustainably used. Well-coordinated national PGRFA pro- grammes or systems1 can help achieve these responsibilities and objectives. They are also the foundation for an efficient re- gional or international PGRFA effort. They are necessary building blocks for promot- ing international cooperation on access to PGRFA and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from their use. This aspect is particularly important given the interdependence of countries with regard to PGRFA: no country is self-sufficient in these resources and national production systems often rely heavily on genetic materials and related technologies found or originating outside their borders (Cooper et al. 1994). To date, the primary purpose of PGRFA conservation and use has been for agricul- tural development, and more specifically for crop improvement through plant breed- ing. Where such activities are performed by national institutions, they are usually the responsibility of particular genebanks or plant breeding programmes within a na- tional agricultural research centre. Many PGRFA conservation and use ac- tivities have been highly successful and have already contributed significantly to the development of improved crop varie- ties with increased yields. However, plant breeders could doubtless make even more effective use of PGRFA than they do at present, both through conventional plant breeding (and pre-breeding) and through the new biotechnologies. Since PGRFA are vital to the long-term prospects of a number of economic sectors, including for- estry, industry and medicine as well as food and agriculture, many other groups besides plant breeders also need to be involved in their management. Even within agricul- ture, the full benefits of PGRFA conserva- tion programmes are often not realized because of poor links between germplasm curators and potential users – notably plant breeders and farmers. Only through effective consultation and communication between relevant stakeholder groups can truly efficient na- tional PGRFA programmes be developed. Some countries have already established effective mechanisms for the national-level coordination of PGRFA activities, while others are in the process of developing such mechanisms. In 1975, the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR) reported that there were approximately 10 national PGRFA programmes in existence globally (IPGRI 1993). Since then, increas- ing awareness among governments of the importance of PGRFA has vastly improved matters such that, in 1995, about half of the countries reporting indicated that they had national PGRFA programmes of one kind or another (FAO 1998:200). Most such pro- grammes are part of national agricultural research systems (NARS) under the aus- pices of the Ministry of Agriculture (Bellon 1994). However, not all of them accommo- date the degree of planning, coordination and stakeholder involvement required to achieve their full potential. The need to strengthen national-level co- ordination of PGRFA activities is reflected in TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM10 ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 11 various international agreements, including Agenda 21, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the International Un- dertaking on Plant Genetic Resources (which is currently being revised through negotia- tions taking place under the auspices of the FAO Commission for Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture). The Convention, which is legally binding, requires that each party “shall develop national strategies, plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity”.2 More specifically, the Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utili- Box 1. National PGRFA programmes Overall purpose To contribute to national development, food security, sustainable agriculture and the maintenance of biodiversity through the conservation and use of PGRFA. Essential coordination functions A. Contribute to the development of national policies, plans and strategies B. Coordinate and oversee the implementation of national activities, involving all stakeholders; promote links C. Provide basic building blocks for regional and international collaboration. Programme activities * • Inventorying, exploring, collecting • Training and capacity-building • Conservation in situ (on-farm) and ex situ • Research and development • Characterization and evaluation • Fund-raising • Genetic enhancement • Development of appropriate legislation • Crop improvement • Regulation of access to and exchange • Seed/variety production and distribution of PGRFA • Documentation and dissemination • Public awareness of information Stakeholders and partners • Government ministries and departments (e.g. agriculture, forestry, natural resources, environment, science and technology, planning, finance, trade, research and education) • Local authorities • Universities, research and other educational institutions, extension services • Non-government organizations (NGOs), farmers’ organizations, rural women’s groups • Private-sector and parastatal companies, export promotion agencies, etc. • Regional and international organizations and networks. Source: FAO 1998:199. * Although these are typical activities for any national programme, they are not necessarily being implemented by the programme itself. In situ (on-farm) conservation is, for instance, carried out by farmers and genetic enhancement is frequently being implemented by a specialized institute. TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM11 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 12 zation of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, adopted at the FAO Inter- national Technical Conference on Plant Ge- netic Resources, Leipzig, Germany, 1996, identifies the strengthening of national pro- grammes as one of its primary objectives. One of the Plan’s 20 priority activities is the “building of strong national PGRFA pro- grammes” (FAO 1996). In fact, in the country-driven prepara- tory process leading up to the Leipzig Conference all 12 of the preparatory subregional meetings and most of the 158 country reports recommended that priority be given to strengthening national PGRFA programmes (FAO 1998:197). In drafting the Global Plan of Action, countries recognized that many existing national programmes suffer from poor planning and manage- ment, exacerbated by lack of resources and isolation from related activities (FAO 1996). National-level strategic planning and co- ordination was felt to be essential for the cost-effective use of resources, including funds (FAO 1998:203). Largely as a result of the momentum created by their prepa- rations for Leipzig, and as part of their ef- forts to implement the Plan, many coun- tries are now in the process of strengthen- ing or establishing their PGRFA pro- grammes. By 1998 it was estimated that over 100 countries had national programmes of some kind – an increase of some 40% over the number three years earlier. It is important that each country’s na- tional programme has a clear mission or statement of its purpose, developed to suit its own needs. The overall purpose identi- fied by almost all countries during the pre- paratory process for Leipzig is to contribute to national development, food security and sustainable agriculture (FAO 1998:197). This is the purpose shown in Box 1, along with the essential coordination functions of a national programme, examples of pro- gramme activities, and potential partners and stakeholders. These latter are examined in more detail in subsequent sections. In developing countries in particular, sustainable socioeconomic development and poverty eradication should be the overriding objectives of genetic resources work (UN 1992). If decisions and activi- ties at the policy or institutional levels are to have a significant impact on develop- ment, it is essential that the users of PGRFA, particularly plant breeders and farmers, be involved in their formulation and imple- mentation. Similarly, PGRFA plans and programmes should be integrated with those for the agricultural sector as a whole, which are usually also oriented toward poverty eradication and development. As noted in the World Food Summit Plan of Action, the conservation and use of plant genetic resources are essential for achiev- ing food security and sustainable increases in agricultural productivity. In particular, the improved management of such re- sources can improve the livelihoods of re- source-poor farmers in marginal areas. Because plant genetic resources activi- ties span the environment, agriculture and development spheres, they may be pivotal in reconciling environmental concerns with development needs. For example, in- creased and more strategic use of PGRFA will be necessary for the development of crop varieties suited to marginal lands, while in high-productivity areas, mount- ing pressure to reduce the use of environ- mentally harmful agrochemicals implies greater reliance on the use of PGRFA di- versity. Such issues are reflected in both the CBD and Agenda 21, both of which call for the integration of biodiversity conservation and use into relevant sectoral or cross- sectoral policies, plans and programmes.3 TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM12 ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 13 Facilitating the involvement of all stakeholder groups In all countries the conservation and use of PGRFA require action by a wide range of people, including planners, scientists, germplasm curators, breeders, extension- ists, rural communities and farmers. Box 2 summarizes some of the advantages of in- volving all stakeholder groups in planning and implementing national programmes. Many countries may have only a handful of professionals working specifically on plant genetic resources, but a much larger number who are involved in some way in conservation or use. At the same time hun- dreds of thousands, or even millions, of farmers may be engaged in the manage- ment of PGRFA on their farms. Thus in- volvement of these various stakeholder groups, through adequate representation, may greatly increase national capacity. The activities of farmers and rural com- munities are by nature decentralized, with links to formal government or institutional activities that are often weak and some- times non-existent. Yet it is vital to secure the participation of such people in the na- tional programme because of their direct interest in and day-to-day management of PGRFA. More and more countries are seek- ing the involvement of farmers in all agri- cultural research activities, for reasons of both efficiency in technology development and equity in the distribution of the ben- efits of development. Several cases of the successful participation of farmers in the improvement of PGRFA have been docu- mented (Eyzaguirre and Iwanaga 1996). Most countries now have non-govern- ment organizations (NGOs) that are active in agricultural and rural development. The NGO sector is as distinct from the profit- seeking private sector as it is from the pub- lic or government sector, but it interacts with both of these (Farrington et al. 1993). NGOs are typically group members of a local community, farmers, people with a shared special interest, people committed (or opposed) to a specific development or conservation project, and so on. They in- creasingly represent an important, though fragmented, contributor to conservation and local-level crop improvement. Despite their direct livelihood interest in the conservation and use of PGRFA, farmers’ groups and other NGOs are still underrepresented in national PGRFA plan- ning processes. The Global Plan of Action II. The rationale for multi-stakeholder national PGRFA programmes Box 2. Why involve all stakeholders?* Involving the full range of stakeholders, through adequate representation, in national programmes and planning processes: • maximizes the number of actors in PGRFA conservation and use, broadens the knowledge base and may reduce costs (through the sharing of tasks) and increase effectiveness • allows the diversity of needs to be understood and addressed, thereby facilitating the definition of programme objectives • boosts morale and increases the sense of ownership of the national programme or plan • builds a constituency for PGRFA conservation and use, which helps generate political and practical support for these activities. * Based on the conclusions of a workshop on national programmes at the Regional Meeting for Eastern and Southern Africa to Promote Implementation of the Global Plan of Action, Gaborone, Botswana, May 1998. TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM13 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 14 states that links need to be developed and strengthened both within this sector and between it and the formal sector. Never- theless, the involvement of farmers’ groups in on-farm conservation and crop improve- ment is growing, and there are some out- standing examples in which such groups are not only represented in planning and guiding NARS activities but have actually achieved an impact in redirecting resources toward users’ needs (Arnaiz 1995). Given the almost universal decline in funding for public-sector agricultural re- search, including PGRFA conservation and use, the active involvement of key stake- holders such as farmers in the planning and execution of activities is now considered to be essential if such activities are to war- rant the term ‘demand-driven’ and are hence to prove politically acceptable over the longer term (Ashby and Sperling 1995). The public and the private (for-profit) sectors have important and complemen- tary roles in the conservation and sustain- able use of PGRFA, as recognized in the CBD, Agenda 21 and the Global Plan of Action. 4 The private sector may be particu- larly important in linking conservation and use. However, its activities tend to be lim- ited to those that will realize a profit in the short term. These activities include germplasm characterization and crop im- provement (increasingly through biotechnol- ogy applications), as well as the production and distribution of seed, mainly for commer- cial crops. The improvement of crops that are only regionally or locally important, or that are grown mostly by poorer farmers for sub- sistence (such as cassava, yams, plantains and millets), is rarely financially viable and is therefore generally of less interest to com- panies (though there are exceptions). Pri- vate-sector involvement in long-term con- servation activities is usually limited to vertically integrated industries in which the same companies improve, produce and market the crop (oilpalm, rubber and sugarcane, for example). Public-sector sup- port is therefore vital for many activities that are socially or economically desirable, including long-term conservation and pre- breeding, the development of minor and underutilized plant species, and crop im- provement for resource-poor farmers and marginal environments. It may, however, be possible to promote the dissemination of traditional and improved seeds through the development of small-scale “entrepre- neurial” seed production activities among such farmers.5 The extent of private-sector involvement in PGRFA activities varies from country to country at present, but cur- rent trends suggest that all national PGRFA programmes need to integrate private-sec- tor concerns into their planning processes if they have not already done so. Improving efficiency through better coordination The effectiveness of national conservation and use depends greatly on collaboration between ministries, sectors and institutions with differing stakeholder interests. Coor- dination is needed to promote and sustain this collaboration. Inadequate coordination risks the fragmentation and duplication of efforts, or even the development of sepa- rate national strategies, plans and pro- grammes whose objectives may conflict. The increasingly complex nature of PGRFA activities is a further factor implying the need for effective coordination in policy formulation, planning and implementation of PGRFA conservation and use activities. Coordination should also ensure that pri- orities are correctly identified, that the al- location and use of resources reflects these priorities and that national policies are ef- fectively translated into national activities. Horizontal coordination is needed across different sectors and ministries and between different institutions and stakeholder groups. However, horizontal coordination alone is unlikely to be ad- equate; it needs to be complemented by TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM14 ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 15 vertical coordination within each sector or ministry, linking policy formulation and planning with the various levels at which activities are implemented. National pro- grammes should be structured so as to fos- ter the flow of information between these different levels and sectors. Policy-level coordination. PGRFA activi- ties such as ex situ conservation and plant breeding have traditionally been under the remit of the Ministry of Agriculture, while in situ conservation usually comes under ministries or departments concerned with forestry, environment, natural resources and, in some cases, tourism (FAO 1998:202). To clarify roles and responsibilities, many countries urgently need better coordination between the different ministries dealing with agricultural development and plan- ning, PGRFA management, biodiversity/ wildlife conservation and land-use plan- ning. This policy-level coordination will reap internal benefits to national socioeco- nomic development. It may also bring sec- ondary benefits in the form of more coher- ent interaction with public- and private- sector bodies outside the country. For ex- ample, it could lead to a common national position at the ministerial level in response to germplasm requests from abroad. Institutional-level coordination. Policies and legislation are typically translated into concrete plans and activities by numerous types of institutions and organizations. Such institutions can be public, private, for- mal or non-formal. Examples at the na- tional level include government ministries, NARs, universities, trade associations, la- bour unions, colleges, NGOs, companies and political parties. Foreign institutions such as donors, NGOs and companies may also be relevant to the translation of na- tional policies and legislation into concrete activities. The institutional level is there- fore in essence composed of structures that function to link policies to the operational level. Many institutions explicitly or implic- itly control the distribution of costs and benefits through regulatory and service delivery mechanisms. The institutional level is an important level to actively con- sider in any national PGRFA programme if tangible benefits are to be realized at the field level. Since different institutions typically con- centrate on different PGRFA activities, each with their own objectives, it is highly de- sirable to promote links between them, at least to avoid the potential for conflict and, if possible, to create synergism. For exam- ple, an institution responsible for the in situ conservation of biodiversity might con- sider agricultural practices in protected ar- eas to be a threat to its conservation objec- tives, whereas in fact the sustainable har- vesting of wild plants could actually con- tribute to the conservation effort. Effective communication can often overcome such problems. Similarly, stronger links between plant breeders and genebanks can lead to more effective use of collections, thereby in- creasing the incentive to maintain the genebanks. Improved links between botanic gardens/arboreta and the agricultural sec- tor could reveal opportunities for the devel- opment of new or underutilized crops.6 Even where institutions are formally linked and operate as part of a broader pro- gramme or system, there may still be op- portunities for more effective links. Because many NARS are organized as discipline- or commodity-oriented sections or institu- tions, coordinated cross-institutional plan- ning is a major challenge. For example, NARS usually focus on domesticated crops and trees of major production value, but a number of important or potentially impor- tant commodities (or commodity groups) fall outside these categories. Industrial and plantation crops, like medicinal plants, may be under separate ministries or organi- zations, or else managed primarily by the private sector. Underutilized and wild plants important to rural livelihoods are TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM15 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 16 frequently neglected by NARS. Better links can be instrumental in efficiently bridging such gaps in a resource-effective manner. Institutions such as universities and col- leges, which are not normally considered as part of the core national system, can, given suitable links, play a key role in the generation of knowledge and tech- nologies through research on PGRFA, being active in areas such as germplasm collecting, characterization, evaluation, use, genetic diversity studies and bio- technology. Moreover, such institutions are also active in training to meet future national needs and are often eager to re- spond to requests to collaborate or to priorities identified in instruments such as national plans (FAO 1998:209). In many countries, public-sector fund- ing for PGRFA conservation and use, as well as for related agricultural research, has been limited and is currently decreasing (Anderson et al. 1993). This resource con- straint makes it even more urgent to mobi- lize and coordinate more efficiently the lim- ited financial, human, institutional, tech- nological and genetic resources that are available. Field-level coordination. If decisions and activities at the policy and institutional lev- els are to have a significant impact on de- velopment, it is essential that the users of PGRFA at the field level should be involved through adequate representations in na- tional PGRFA programmes. Yet individu- als or groups working on PGRFA activities in the field often have little knowledge of the existence of other stakeholders with complementary expertise or activities. Moreover, links between formal-sector re- searchers and people in the informal sec- tor, notably farmers and NGO workers, are often weak. Many resource-poor farmers and rural communities in developing coun- tries could benefit greatly from access to a wider range of plant genetic resources and related technologies. And many at work in the formal sector are interested in increas- ing their access to the landraces and associ- ated indigenous knowledge held by rural communities. Yet farmers’ organizations may have little influence over the direction of national agricultural research, often hav- ing no links with the formal sector except through extension agents, whose work may not include any plant genetic resources ac- tivities (Ashby and Sperling 1995). The benefits of involving users in research and development have long been recognized by successful private-sector companies (Souder 1980). It is relatively easy for such companies to identify their markets as those who both need their products and can af- ford to buy them. Public-sector bodies find it much harder, since they may be required to meet the needs of different client groups, which may be difficult to identify precisely. Very few public-sector agricultural research institutes have incentive schemes which tan- gibly reward those who successfully meet clients’ needs or work with them as partners (Collion and Rondot 1998). National-level coordination of policy objectives in intergovernmental fora Governments negotiate and develop strate- gies for international cooperation in PGRFA conservation and use through a range of intergovernmental fora. The two fora most relevant to national PGRFA activities at present are the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Many countries are represented at each of these fora by delegates from different min- istries. A total of 153 national CBD focal points were listed as participating in the Third Conference of the Parties to the Con- vention. As far as could be ascertained, 103 were from Ministries of the Environment, Natural Resources or Nature Protection, while most of the others (37) came from Min- istries of Foreign Affairs or Permanent Mis- sions to the United Nations (UNEP 1996). In TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM16 ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 17 contrast, many participants at the FAO Com- mission are from Ministries of Agriculture. Clearly, there is a strong need for inter-min- isterial coordination to ensure that comple- mentary objectives are pursued and compat- ible positions held at the different fora. Besides the CBD Conference and the FAO Commission, national PGRFA programmes should be aware of the existence of many other intergovernmental fora, such as the conferences of parties to the other conven- tions concerned with natural resources, the UN Commission on Sustainable Develop- ment, and the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Council and the Committee on Trade and the Environment of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Governments are now confronted with increasingly complex policy, legal and insti- tutional issues relating to agriculture, envi- ronment, trade and biological resources. These include issues of ownership, intellec- tual property rights, access, technology de- velopment and trade. International agreements of importance to the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA are listed in Box 3. Agreements such as the CBD and the Marrakech Agreement establishing the WTO are binding on those countries that have adopted them. Action plans such as Agenda 21 and the Global Plan of Action also represent the agreed approach of the world’s governments in the area of PGRFA. Some instruments still under nego- tiation, such as the International Undertak- ing and the Biosafety Protocol to the CBD, are likely to be of great importance, and the active participation of national programmes in these negotiations is necessary to ensure that the agreements reached are satisfactory to the majority of stakeholder groups. National-level coordination in these processes is necessary for several reasons. First, because of the sheer complexity of many policy, legal and institutional issues, an interdisciplinary approach to their reso- lution is required. Second, while the con- servation and use of different categories of biological resources may require differ- ent technical approaches, many of the policy and management issues they raise are quite similar, such that a coordinated effort brings benefits, both to the knowl- edge base required for negotiation and to the development of solutions (FAO 1998:199). Third, and perhaps most impor- tant, policy-level coordination across dif- ferent ministries is essential if governments are to develop clear and unambiguous national positions on key issues. Moreover, stronger coordination be- tween ministries and sectors is also needed for the purposes of feedback, to provide national PGRFA programmes with accu- rate information on issues under interna- tional negotiation and on the state of the negotiations. This feedback will enable national programmes to both influence and assess the impact of international de- velopments and incorporate appropriate provisions into their institutions and prac- tices (FAO 1996). Likewise, government representatives participating in intergov- ernmental meetings dealing with PGRFA- related issues need to be well informed of the needs and priorities of the country’s various stakeholder groups. A well-coor- dinated national programme can play a catalytic role in developing and express- ing a national consensus on relevant issues, acting as an intermediary between the higher echelons of government and the many stakeholders in the country (Levy et al. 1992). TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM17 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 18 Box 3. Relevant international agreements Food and agriculture • World Food Summit Plan of Action (1996) • Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (1996) • International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (1983, under revision) • International Plant Protection Convention (1951) Natural resources and sustainable development • Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) • Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development (1992) • Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) • Rio Statement of Forest Principles (1992) • International Tropical Timber Agreement (1983) • Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitats (1971, 1982) • Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (1973) • Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972) • Convention Relative to the Preservation of Fauna and Flora in Their Natural State, London (1933) Trade and intellectual property rights • Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotia- tions (GATT, 1994), including: • World Trade Organization Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement (1994) • GATT Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures (1994) • International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV,1978,1991) • UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970) • The Patent Cooperation Treaty (1970). TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM18 ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 19 Purpose and functions As noted earlier, the overall purpose of most national PGRFA programmes is to contribute to national development and sustainable agriculture. It is within this context that programmes aim to identify and address national PGRFA priorities. The activities required to meet these pri- orities will vary between countries de- pending on factors such as (i) how well- endowed countries are with genetic re- sources , (ii) their capacity in conservation, crop improvement and seed distribution, (iii) the needs of different groups of farm- ers and other users, (iv) broader national socioeconomic development priorities, and (v) the size and diversity of the coun- try and its farming systems. Despite the wide range of possible ac- tivities, countries participating in the pre- paratory process for the Leipzig Confer- ence identified basic functions which all national programmes are likely to be re- quired to perform in order to ensure the efficient implementation of activities of conservation and use of PGRFA: • developing policies, plans and strat- egies to meet national objectives for PGRFA conservation and use • coordinating activities within the country, thereby facilitating partici- pation and cooperation among stakeholders • facilitating regional and interna- tional collaboration, and maximiz- ing national benefits from such col- laboration. Core elements Just as the activities of a national pro- gramme will vary between countries, so also will its structural requirements. How- ever, some basic components or core ele- ments can be identified. They fall into two groups: • national PGRFA policies and plans, including policies on access to and exchange of PGRFA • coordination mechanisms, including a national PGRFA committee (or simi- lar multi-stakeholder coordinating body) and a national focal point and/ or coordinator for PGRFA activities, including international cooperation. National PGRFA plans and policies Planning processes. Planning is necessary to ensure that national objectives for the conservation and use of PGRFA are met. Box 4 indicates some of the essential steps in developing a national plan. It is important to get the planning process right, rather than trying to produce a national plan too rapidly. Social and economic needs assessments, involving consultation with stakeholders, are a prerequisite. It is also im- portant to generate a sense of ownership and responsibility for the plan among stakeholders. This can be done most effec- tively by involving the stakeholders from the very outset of the planning process. At present, the process of developing a national plan can draw upon the momen- tum established in the preparatory proc- ess for the Leipzig Conference. The coun- try reports, prepared by 158 countries, pro- vide assessments of the current situation in each country and identify priority needs and opportunities.7 Some countries (e.g. Canada, Chile, Indonesia, South Africa and Switzerland) are now building on the ear- lier consultation process by establishing strategic national planning efforts. The Global Plan of Action, unanimously adopted at the Conference, serves as a guiding framework for national planning. While not legally binding, the Plan marks the first time that governments have ad- III. Functions and core elements of a national PGRFA programme TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM19 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 20 administration and coordination. It is ex- pected that the Plan will be regularly re- viewed and updated by countries through the FAO Commission, for which it will be a rolling planning document. The Conference of Parties to the Conven- tion on Biological Diversity (in Decision III/ 11 adopted in November 1996) urged coun- tries to develop national strategies, plans and programmes for agricultural biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.8 Thus na- tional PGRFA plans can be developed as components of broader National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) (Box 6), an approach taken by Germany, Canada, Kuwait, Lebanon, the Philippines and Zambia.9 The NBSAPs of the latter three countries include specific sections on PGRFA.10 Alternatively, separate PGRFA plans can be developed. South Africa, for example, has developed a separate White Paper on genetic resources and is now de- veloping a national medium- to long-term strategic plan for genetic resources with the involvement of all stakeholder groups. Countries may also wish to develop PGRFA plans as part of wider Agricultural Sector Plans. In Zambia, PGRFA planning is taking place in the context of the Agricultural Sec- tor Investment Plans, which are based on pri- orities and problems identified at the district level (Mwila 1998). All these approaches are in line with the Global Plan of Action, which emphasizes “the need for PGRFA pro- grammes to forge cross-sectoral links with agencies engaged in national planning and other programmes concerning agriculture, land reform and environment protection” (FAO 1996). The FAO report that summarizes the country reports prepared for the Leipzig Conference, The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, recognizes the need to place PGRFA pro- grammes firmly in the context of national development plans as well as national plans for the environment, forestry and biodiversity. A wide range of national plans Box 4. Essential steps in develop- ing a national plan for PGRFA · Determination of overall purpose and time-frame · Identification of stakeholders · Development of a strategy (shared vision and guiding principles) · Assessment of needs and opportuni- ties (including identification of avail- able resources and capacity) · Consideration of relevant regional and international frameworks (e.g. the Global Plan of Action) · Identification of objectives, goals and targets · Development of criteria for identifying priorities (e.g. equity, efficiency, food security, etc.) · Identification (by application of criteria) and detailed description of priorities (i.e. specific projects or programmes) · Estimation of time-frames for imple- mentation of priorities · Allocation of responsibilities for implementation · Identification of funding sources and funding levels · Monitoring and evaluation of national plan (periodically, using indicators) · Reporting of the results of implemen- tation. dressed the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA comprehensively, on the basis of a careful consideration of their own needs. The Plan is thus akin to an “Agenda 21” specifically for PGRFA. It comprises 20 priority activities (Box 5), under each of which is given a brief assessment of the current global situation, followed by inter- mediate and long-term objectives and agreed recommendations for action in the areas of policy and strategy, capacity- building, research and technology, and TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM20 ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 21 in the areas of agriculture, environment and general socioeconomic development have been used as the context for national PGRFA plans, including national develop- ment plans, national conservation strate- gies, national environment action plans, and national sustainable development strategies, among many others (see Appen- dix I). The most effective PGRFA activities will be those that meet broader national objectives as set out in such plans. Another advantage of not planning in isolation is that those involved in PGRFA planning can learn from the experience of other national planning processes.1 1 A national planning process could be structured around several different entities or programme components grouped into different action areas (e.g. management ac- tions, technical actions, research actions, etc.). National strategic plans for PGRFA, biodiversity or agriculture have to take into account the scientific and other resources available, as well as national socioeconomic objectives. The activity areas identified in the Global Plan of Action can be used as a frame- work for defining a series of projects. Projects may be phased in over time, depending on their relative priority and on the availability of human, technical and financial resources. Box 5. Priority activities of the Global Plan of Action In situ conservation and development 1. Surveying and inventorying PGRFA 2. Supporting on-farm management and improvement of PGRFA 3. Assisting farmers in disaster situations to restore agricultural systems 4. Promoting in situ conservation of wild crop relatives and wild food plants Ex situ conservation 5. Sustaining existing ex situ collections 6. Regenerating threatened ex situ accessions 7. Supporting planned and targeted collecting of PGRFA 8. Expanding ex situ activities for non-orthodox seeded, and minor crops Utilization of plant genetic resources 9. Expanding the characterization, evaluation and number of core collections to facilitate use 10. Increasing genetic enhancement and base-broadening efforts 11. Promoting sustainable agriculture through diversification of crop production and broader diversity in crops 12. Promoting development and commercialization of underutilized crops and species 13. Supporting seed production and distribution 14. Developing new markets for local varieties and promoting public awareness of “diversity-rich” products Institutions and capacity-building 15. Building strong national programmes 16. Promoting networks for PGRFA 17. Constructing comprehensive information systems for PGRFA 18. Developing monitoring and early warning systems 19. Expanding and improving PGRFA education and training 20. Promoting public awareness. TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM21 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 22 A national PGRFA planning process should ideally be iterative, with countries periodically assessing the status of their conservation and use activities and identi- fying an evolving set of priorities and ac- tions to respond to changing needs over time. A typical process might identify and analyze national strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT analysis). It should also specify the stakeholders Box 6. National biodiversity strategies and action plans The CBD, in its Article 6(a), recommends that each Party “shall: (a) Develop national strategies, plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity or adapt for this purpose existing strategies, plans or programmes which shall reflect, inter alia , the measures set out in this Convention relevant to the Contracting Party concerned; and (b) Integrate, as far as possible and as appropriate, the conserva- tion and sustainable use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans, programmes and policies.” In fulfilment of this article, countries that are Parties to the CBD are now developing National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs). NBSAPs, which are expected to form the basis of more detailed plans and programmes, should identify options and make specific recommendations for action on conserving biological diversity and sustainably using its components, including the integration of biodiversity considera- tions into national, sectoral and cross-sectoral plans. NBSAPs are also intended to set priorities for national funding and to inform donors of national needs. The preparation of NBSAPs has been identified as one of the enabling activities for countries that are eligible for financing by the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The guidelines for preparing an NBSAP suggest that the planning process should establish a national focal point such as a biodiversity unit or multi-stakeholder task force.* National and provincial/district workshops are recommended as a means of reviewing NBSAP drafts. Following the recommendation of the Conference of the Parties (Decision III/11) that national plans, programmes and strategies covering agricultural biodiversity be devel- oped and that agricultural biodiversity should now be an area of priority funding,† the GEF has provided for “enabling funds” to be made available for the incorporation of agrobiodiversity issues into new or ongoing NBSAPs, including, as appropriate, imple- mentation of the Global Plan of Action at national level. Some NBSAPs (e.g. Kuwait’s), already include provisions for PGRFA conservation and use activities.‡ However, for most countries the integration of PGRFA planning with biodiversity planning remains an opportunity yet to be grasped. * Countries are required to follow the WRI/IUCN/UNEP “Guidelines for National Biodiversity Planning”. These guidelines have no specific provisions for PGRFA or agrobiodiversity. However, the CBD’s SBSTTA has now been requested to develop a standard format for the future preparation of national reports on the level of implementation of the CBD, including the development of NBSAPs. Whether agricultural biodiversity or plant genetic resources are considered in such formats will be decided by the government representatives at SBSTTA. National plant genetic resources committees could provide inputs to the government decision-making process regarding their recommendations as to the standard formats of reporting on the implementation of the CBD that should be finally decided on by SBSTTA. † Decision III/11 of the Third Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity: Conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity, . ‡ Kuwait Country Report (1995) prepared for ITC/PGR. TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM22 ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 23 use. Because of the interdependency of countries with respect to PGRFA, almost all national PGRFA programmes are likely to need access to genetic resources from other countries from time to time, and ap- propriate national policies will be required to facilitate this. The use by others of a country’s sovereign PGRFA can also serve the national good, through reciprocal ex- change and other benefit-sharing arrange- ments. Governments are currently negoti- ating international norms for access, ex- change and benefit-sharing through the revision of the International Undertaking, which is being brought into harmony with the CBD. Like national plans, PGRFA poli- cies are best developed through consulta- tive processes involving all stakeholders. National coordination mechanisms PGRFA committees. A multi-stakeholder national PGRFA committee or similar co- ordinating body can facilitate the develop- ment of appropriate policies and plans to meet national PGRFA needs and objectives. It can also promote links among the broad range of actors involved in the conserva- tion and use of genetic resources. The need for coordination mechanisms of this kind has long been apparent and many countries are now in the process of establishing or strengthening a national committee or similar body (FAO 1998:199). In 1995, during the preparatory process for Leipzig, 59 countries reported the establish- ment of a national committee. By the end of 1998, this figure had risen to some 95 countries.13 In some countries, establishing a national committee was seen as the first step in the development of a national pro- gramme in which the committee will be given responsibility for overall strategic co- ordination, planning and policy guidance (FAO 1998:200). Box 7 describes an example of a well-established national committee. Ideally, a broadly based national PGRFA committee should have the responsibility for planning, coordinating and facilitating should be built into national plans so that these can be evaluated for their effective- ness (FAO 1996: para. 238). Different sets of indicators may be needed for monitor- ing at the technical and policy levels. Ge- neric planning tools for those involved in strategic planning are plentiful. For in- stance, the International Service for Na- tional Agricultural Research (ISNAR) dis- seminates a wide range of training materi- als, several modules of which would be useful in national PGRFA planning.1 2 Detailed “Guidelines for National Biodiv- ersity Planning”, jointly published by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Conservation Union (IUCN), have been available since 1995 as planning tools to support the implementation of Arti- cle 6 of the CBD. However, no guidelines spe- cifically targeted at national agricultural biodiversity or PGRFA planning have yet been developed. National policies. Countries also need to develop national policies on specific as- pects of PGRFA management, such as ac- cess, exchange and the sharing of benefits. The realization of benefits from conserved PGRFA depends on their availability for responsible for implementing each of its recommendations, and make any other provisions needed to ensure implemen- tation. In developing the national planning proc- ess, countries may first need to conduct a dialogue to articulate the overall national vision, goals and objectives for PGRFA con- servation and sustainable use. This dialogue, which should involve as many relevant stakeholder groups as possible, may also provide the opportunity to identify repre- sentatives from each group to be involved in the planning process proper. The resources allocated to the planning process should take the need for periodic re-assessment into account (FAO 1996: para. 234). Provisions for monitoring TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM23 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 24 * Based on a paper by del Rosario, B.P., C.R. Escaño and S.P. Tababa presented to the Regional Meeting to Promote Implementation of the Global Plan of Action in Asia-Pacific, Manila, the Philippines, December 1998. Box 7. Involvement of stakeholders in national planning and implementa- tion of plant genetic resources activities – the Philippine experience * In the Philippines, the National Committee on Plant Genetic Resources (NCPGR) recommends policies, rules and regulations, and determines the overall direction of all plant genetic resources activities. Established by the Department of Science and Technology in 1993, the committee consists of representatives from the 15 govern- ment and non-government agencies mandated to conduct plant genetic resources activities. It has also developed partnerships with other local and international organizations involved in PGRFA work. Policies, plans and legislation: Several laws and executive orders concerning protected areas, seed regulations, biosafety, the rights of indigenous peoples and access to genetic resources, as well as plans such as the Philippine Strategy for Biodiversity Conservation, the Philippine Agenda 21 and the Magna Carta for Small Farmers have been developed, often following lengthy consultation among the various stakeholders. Consultations with stakeholders are a standard procedure before defining Philippine positions at international and regional plant genetic resources fora. For instance, in 1998 the committee sponsored a National Consulta- tion on the FAO International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources and Farmers’ Rights, which brought together representatives of farmers’ groups, local, regional and international NGOs, universities and government agencies. The committee has also encouraged coordination among the national agencies responsible for PGRFA, including the Departments of Foreign Affairs, Agriculture, Science and Technology, and Environment and Natural Resources. Implementation of PGRFA activities: In situ conservation is carried out on-farm by farming communities. These communities may form a collective group, such as the Magsasaka at Siyentista Para sa Pagpapaunlad ng Akmang Agricultura (MASIPAG). Regional agencies, such as the Southeast Asian Regional Institute for Community Education (SEARICE) and Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN), also provide technical and other forms of support. For protected areas, such as wildlife sanctuaries, protected landscapes and seascapes, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) devolves management responsibilities to indigenous peoples, with the active support of many NGOs). Ex situ conservation and use, in contrast, are handled mainly by government agencies as part of their crop improve- ment programmes. all aspects of national PGRFA conservation and use (Box 8). The committee can also act as an interface between national resource planning in different ministries and the more technical and operational aspects of PGRFA management of concern to national institu- tions and stakeholders. In this way the com- mittee provides the links between the dif- ferent vertical levels described previously. When establishing a national commit- tee, it is important to ensure that different stakeholder groups are represented by in- TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM24 ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 25 dividuals with an adequate mandate from their group. The factors affecting decisions as to which stakeholder groups should be represented on the committee are similar to those facing the establishment of any coalition: while the theme may be common, the participants in the coalition can, and frequently do, have different preferences and goals. It will be helpful to ask: • Who knows? This will identify those who have the necessary facts and knowledge to contribute. • Who cares? This will identify those who have the necessary motivation, i.e. those who are committed to the outcome and, often, directly in- volved in current activities. • Who can? This will identify those with the power to access or mobilize resources, and/or influence events positively (Pfeffer 1981). Many national PGRFA programmes have developed out of agricultural or other research institutions in the public sector which have traditionally had a hierarchi- cal management style and a relatively nar- row range of scientific disciplines. Broad- ening the range of stakeholders, accepting and valuing the knowledge and needs of less traditional stakeholders and allowing their effective contribution to the planning process can be a significant challenge (Wolfe 1983). An objective facilitator may optimize understanding among commit- tee members and help them succeed by taking advantage of collective skills and knowledge. Also, since the committee will typically be composed of individuals who are extremely busy, the support of a facilitator or group with sufficient resources to specify and implement committee recom- mendations will be invaluable. Because of the broad range of issues at stake, the day- to-day management of a national pro- gramme is often best placed in the hands of individuals whose interests in PGRFA are of a generalist rather than a specialist nature (Mant 1983). Similarly, training in areas such as strategic management and public admin- istration may be more useful for national pro- gramme managers than training in more technical matters (Stacey 1996; Hatch 1997). The issues of how representatives are nominated or elected and how long they should serve must also be addressed when forming a national committee. How often should re-nomination or re-election take place to ensure continuity of operations and experience, but a “turnover” of viewpoints? And who will review the effectiveness of the committee? These questions should be ad- dressed at an early stage, so as to provide a clear mandate and incentive to committee members. Clearly worded mandates specifying the committee’s responsibilities and pow- ers are essential. Decision-making proc- esses should be as rapid and as non-bu- reaucratic as possible, to ensure that efforts focus on the implementation of decisions. There are distinct advantages in more par- ticipatory styles of management, based on the devolution of responsibilities and the fostering of teamwork. The relationship between the national committee and higher- and lower-level decision-making bodies should also be transparent, with strong links for report- ing purposes in both directions. National PGRFA committees are often asked to ad- vise higher authorities on appropriate poli- cies. Wherever possible, both decisions and their implementation should be delegated to lower-level bodies, particularly as re- gards operational aspects. This will allow the committee to concentrate on its primary planning and coordination functions. PGRFA focal points. These provide a cen- tral reference point to facilitate cross- sectoral coordination of national PGRFA activities and international cooperation. In particular, they also help provide commu- nication, foster broad-based participation and promote networking. Where govern- ments have to deal with a large number of TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM25 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 26 donors or foreign investment bodies, the focal point can additionally serve as a mechanism for assessing project proposals and externally funded activities to ensure that they meet national needs. In some countries a designated indi- vidual within the government serves as the focal point. For instance, in Angola, Bot- swana, Indonesia, Lesotho and Namibia, the chairpersons of the existing national committee perform this role. 14 However, a government department, a national agri- cultural research centre or a high-level task force can also serve as the national focal point. In countries with a highly central- ized national programme (see next section), the focal point function can perhaps best be exercised through a designated National Centre for PGRFA. The focal point can be designated by the head of state, parliament, a planning board, a government ministry or any other deci- sion-making body. Its responsibilities can be determined either through national leg- islation and policy guidelines (in the case of a government agency, a national agri- cultural research institute or a national biodiversity unit, etc.) or by contract (in the case of a university or a private-sector or- ganization). To be fully effective, a national focal point should be integrally linked to and report regularly to the national committee (or similar advisory and planning body). Focal points should also have strong links with counterparts in other relevant national sectors. Perhaps the most important of these is the focal point for the CBD. The importance of a national biodiversity focal point was explicitly recognized by the or- ganizations responsible for assisting coun- tries in implementing the CBD, when they made establishing such a point the first step in the seven-step biodiversity planning process they developed and promoted (Miller and Lanou 1995). As a result, many countries have already established a Na- tional Biodiversity Unit as a focal point for the coordination of national activities re- lated to the CBD. It may be advantageous to establish a PGRFA focal point focusing specifically on agricultural biodiversity, in view of its differing technical needs. Alter- natively, the PGRFA focal point could be a component of a larger National Biodiversity Unit. Focal points can play an important role in identifying funding for PGRFA activities from both domestic and external sources. In countries eligible for GEF funding, it is therefore desirable to establish links be- tween national PGRFA focal points and the GEF National Selection Committees. These committees are responsible for determin- ing national strategies and priorities within thematic areas, choosing projects for GEF awards, and overseeing programme imple- mentation, monitoring and evaluation. Collaboration with such committees in the development of project proposals is essen- Box 8. Potential responsibilities of a national PGRFA committee • Ensure that national PGRFA conservation and use activities meet national agricultural and socio- economic needs • Facilitate national PGRFA planning, and implementation of the plan • Determine the financial and other resources needed by the national programme and help to secure these resources from the relevant public- and private-sector bodies • Review and monitor the strategy of the national programme and promote its effective implementation • Provide advice to government on domestic legislation and policy necessary to enhance PGRFA conservation and use in line with national objectives • Coordinate representation in inter- national and intergovernmental fora. TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM26 ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 27 tial, as the GEF project cycle specifies that a letter of endorsement from a country’s national GEF focal point must accompany each project proposal. National focal points will be essential for mobilizing national capacity to partici- pate in, and benefit from, global efforts to conserve and use PGRFA. Because of their practical experience of national PGRFA ac- tivities they are well placed to foster re- gional and international collaboration. In- deed, many intergovernmental agreements on PGRFA access and benefit-sharing have already been developed with the active participation of such national representa- tives. Given the changing access regimes in many countries, national PGRFA focal points will be important in facilitating the exchange of germplasm and related tech- nologies among a broad range of stakeholders at the international level.1 5 They could also play an increasingly im- portant part in overseeing the equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of PGRFA, in line with the terms of the CBD and other relevant agreements. PGRFA fo- cal points may also facilitate the transfer of technology and, in this respect they should form links with bodies or focal points for this activity, where these have been established.1 6 TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM27 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 28 Each national PGRFA programme needs the organizational structure best suited to its country’s circumstances. This structure will depend partly on the country’s infrastruc- ture and human resources, but should be de- termined mainly by national PGRFA objec- tives. There is no single blueprint for struc- turing a national PGRFA programme (FAO 1998:200). The status, structure and objectives of PGRFA programmes are often evolutionary in character, reflecting past history as well as anticipated future trends. The relative level of national funding is likely to be a func- tion of the size of the country and its agri- cultural sector. The FAO Report, The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, indicates great diversity among national PGRFA programmes, many being restricted in both scope and structure (FAO 1998:200). Some programmes consist of a few under-resourced scientists collecting seeds for storage in domestic freezers. Others in- volve a large array of crop research centres with hundreds of scientists conserving and improving PGRFA through large plant breeding programmes. For example, the Irish Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Programme has one staff member facilitating genetic resources activities among a range of mainly non-governmental stakeholder groups.17 The Chinese Crop Germplasm Pro- gramme, in contrast, includes over 400 in- stitutes and 2000 scientists.18 National programmes should address more than just genebank operations. They should encompass the conservation and sus- tainable use of PGRFA in the broadest possi- ble sense, with strong links between these two areas and among all those involved in them. In establishing or strengthening a na- tional programme, every effort should be made to build on existing institutional struc- tures, so as to avoid overlap and the dupli- cation of efforts. All existing national PGRFA actors should be included in the strategic planning process, being encouraged to work in unison toward common or complemen- tary goals. Recently, several countries, in- cluding Kenya, Uganda (Box 9) and South Africa, have established a national interministerial biodiversity and/or environ- ment council authority or agency with the responsibility of coordinating the planning, management of their environment and im- plementation of biodiversity conservation and use activities. PGRFA activities are an integral part of such efforts. A comparable but more sectoral solution has been imple- mented in Costa Rica (Box 10). Different degrees of coordination and centralization may be necessary at differ- ent levels of the national programme struc- ture. It is important to highlight the differ- ence between the policy and planning level, at which centralization may be needed to maintain consistency and promote effi- ciency, and the operational level, where decentralization is necessary to scale up efforts and hence achieve greater impact. In many instances, the successful coordi- nation of PGRFA activities across different ministries, institutions and user groups will depend largely on how “embedded” the PGRFA programme is in the NARS, the structure of the research organization pro- viding the programme’s institutional “home”, and the nature of funding for the different sectors involved in the pro- gramme. However, on an exceptional ba- sis there may be specific national reasons for keeping these sectors separate. The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Re- sources for Food and Agriculture provides a regional survey of national PGRFA pro- grammes, grouping them according to whether they are predominantly central- ized or sectoral, and whether or not they have been formally established. IV. Types of national programme structure: Options and examples TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM28 ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 29 Box 9. The National Environment Management Agency (NEMA) in Uganda NEMA is the principal agency in Uganda for the management of the environment. Its mandate is to coordinate, monitor and supervise all activities in the field of the environ- ment. NEMA aims to contribute to: · Development with minimum negative effects on the environment · A better quality of life for the Ugandan population · A pollution-free environment · Effective management of factors which enhance climate change · Efficient conservation and utilization of biological diversity · Sustainable utilization of natural resources It recognizes that economic value is attached to environmental resources and serv- ices. Externalities are included in the social cost benefit analysis of development activities. Its responsibilities involve three important aspects, which constitute the three opera- tional mechanisms for implementation of its mandate: (a) Coordination, both horizontally, between NEMA and the Environmental Liaison Units, which were established in line ministries, parastatal enterprises and private sector organizations, and vertically between NEMA and the Districts, subdistricts and communities. (b) Resource and responsibility-sharing, in which the role of NEMA is to identify resources and make them available to appropriate institutions which have the primary responsibility of implementing environment management programmes and projects. (c) Monitoring, reporting and information-sharing, whereby NEMA collects, consolidates, analyzes and disseminates information to various implementing agencies, resource users and other stakeholders. Box 10. Agricultural research and technology transfer coordination in Costa Rica An interesting example of inter-institutional coordination at the national level in the broader area of agricultural research is provided by Costa Rica, which has established a coordinated system of institutions which voluntarily work together to achieve defined agricultural development objectives (Hobbs et al. 1998). A national commission for agricultural research and technology transfer (CONITTA) brings together the 23 most important agricultural institutions, both public and private. CONITTA advised the Costa Rican government on research policy and coordinates the planning of agricultural research and technology transfer. In addition 18 multi-institutional programmes for agricultural research and technology transfer were created to plan and coordinate the activities of all the organizations working on a specific commodity or production factor (e.g. rice or soil). Farmers’ groups are reported to be active in many of these programmes. TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM29 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 30 Centralized programmes In this type of programme (Box 11), one central institution, such as a national plant genetic resources centre, both coordinates and implements most national PGRFA ac- tivities. In 1996, 35 countries were reported to have such centralized programmes (FAO 1998:201). The type of central institution ranges from one solely concerned with PGRFA (e.g. the Indian National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, NBPGR) to one whose scope covers all biodiversity within a country (e.g. the Ethiopian National Biodiversity Institute). A major advantage of this approach is that it allows the desig- nation of a single national focal point which has a clear leadership role in the planning and implementation of domestic public- sector PGRFA activities relating to conser- vation and use, while also serving as the sole point of reference for issues and deci- sions relating to international access and exchange of PGRFA. Coordination is also centralized. However, if the coordination capacity is inadequate, this may result in activities being dominated by the interests of the Centre, with the exclusion of other stakeholders. There may also be an over- emphasis on ex situ conservation at the ex- pense of other activities. Sectoral programmes Sectoral programmes are based on the in- volvement of a range of institutions with separate mandates for different sectors of biodiversity conservation and use (Box 12). This model is based on the principle that specific activities are best carried out by individual institutions (or sectors) accord- ing to their different strengths, with policy and planning being governed by an over- all coordinating committee or council rep- resenting relevant government ministries and departments, universities and NGOs. In 1996, 19 countries reported having such programmes. Sectoral programmes require a clear delegation of responsibilities and Box 11. Examples of centralized national programmes • India: Decision-makers in India are well aware of the importance of conserving and using PGRFA. The National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) is responsible for India’s comprehensive national plant genetic resources system and works closely with over 30 institutions and centres. NBPGR is responsible for planning, organizing, conducting, promoting and coordinating all activi- ties related to plant exploration, collection, introduction, conservation, exchange, evaluation and documenta- tion, as well as quarantine. This includes the development of training capabilities (FAO 1998:206). • Ethiopia: In 1994 the Ethiopian Plant Genetic Resources Centre (PGRC/E) was reorganized to form part of a comprehensive national programme under the umbrella of the National Biodiversity Institute, which is now responsible for both in situ and ex situ conservation of animal and microbial, as well as plant genetic resources. • The Netherlands: The Netherlands Centre for Genetic Resources (CGN), which is the designated national genebank and central organization responsible for the conservation of the country’s PGRFA, was overseen by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Manage- ment and Fisheries (LNV) from 1985 until 1991, when it was reorganized to form part of a larger institution, namely the Centre for Plant Breeding and Reproduction Research (CPRO) of the Agricultural Research Department (DLO). CGN continues to be fully funded by the LNV. As stipulated in its formal charter, it embodies the coun- try’s contribution to the overall global effort to conserve PGRFA. TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM30 ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 31 strong coordination across government ministries and sectors to ensure that their objectives and activities are complemen- tary. The genetic resources programme of France contains features of both the cen- tralized and the sectoral models. Most ac- tivities are carried out through institutions mandated to work on specific crops or problems. Coordination is provided through a central Bureau des Ressources Génétiques, which is governed by a board comprising representatives of several sec- tors (see also Box 12). Some countries that do not have for- mally established national PGRFA pro- grammes nevertheless have significant conservation and use activities, with coor- dination provided by a national commit- tee or similar mechanism. Where the co- ordination mechanisms function well, this approach can be as effective as a formally established national programme. In 1996, 20 countries were reported to have such “coordination only” programmes (e.g. Morocco, Indonesia, Malaysia and Costa Rica). That of Morocco, in particular, is con- sidered to work well (FAO 1998:204). This approach has disadvantages, however, two of the most serious being a lack of formal recognition by government and lack of a secure budget. Box 12. Examples of sectoral national programmes • In South Africa, national plant genetic resources activities are decentralized to institutions concerned with specific activities, such as agriculture, forestry and wildlife (FAO 1998:207). Coordination is through a National Plant Genetic Resources Committee. • France and Switzerland have decentralized institutional systems for ex situ conservation, in which different genebanks organized under formal national programmes hold different categories of germplasm (FAO 1998:200). • In 1994, the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic established a National Programme on Plant Genetic Resources Conservation and Use. The programme funds 11 institutions and is coordinated by one of them. There is also a Czech Board on Plant Genetic Resources, which acts as an expert panel and scientific coordinating body. * * Czech Republic Country Report (1995) prepared for ITC/PGR. TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM31 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 32 Broad stakeholder participation will strengthen a national programme and en- able it to make the best possible use of available human, financial and technical resources. However, many stakeholders may hesitate to become involved in a na- tional programme if they feel that their in- dependence is being compromised. At- tempts to broaden participation should therefore explicitly recognize the autonomy and interests of individual stakeholders and seek to strengthen and build on their activities, not to control them. The devel- opment of shared goals and visions and the delegation of responsibility for implement- ing particular activities will be important in this respect. National programmes require efficient mechanisms for communicating among stakeholder groups and coordinating ac- tivities at the operational level. This can be achieved through networks, topic-spe- cific subsidiary bodies or committees, or by organizing workshops and conferences, as discussed below. There are many options that allow communication among the par- ticipants of a national programme in gen- eral or of a network in particular. Informa- tion can be exchanged in person, by send- ing written material by post, through news- letters or via electronic media. Electronic communication is now becoming increas- ingly important, enhancing access to infor- mation at relatively low cost (Box 13). A specific example of the application of electronic communicat ions to a PGRFA objective is found in the System- wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (SINGER) managed by the CGIAR System-wide Genetic Resources Programme (SGRP). Through the Internet or on CD-ROM, SINGER provides data on the genetic resources collections of the CGIAR centres, making it easier for ge- netic resources workers outside the CGIAR to gain access to information on the origin and agronomic characteristics of the material. V. Mechanisms for promoting coordination, communication and collaboration Box 13. Electronic communications The past decade has seen rapid growth in the use of electronic communication to exchange a wide range of information, from simple verbal messages to complex data sets and images. Recently, many developing countries have begun making increasing use of such communication. The most common and effective means of electronic communication is Email (Hart 1994). The advent of this improved information technology (IT) has much to offer the agricultural sector, and PGRFA work in particular. Email can facilitate communica- tion between the focal point of the national PGRFA programme and national stakeholders, other national PGRFA initiatives, international organizations26 and funding bodies. Genebank curators and breeders can make a range of specialized uses of the Internet and Email, including the accessing of distant genebank accession lists. The national programme should ensure that breeders and other stakeholder groups have access to electronic communications infrastructure and software. Because electronic communication also allows a degree of decentralization of activities such as data management, decision-makers need to take its potential into account when considering changes to the structure of the national PGRFA programme. An increasing number of donors now have programmes that support activities to strengthen IT capacity in developing countries. Examples are the UNESCO African Networking Initiative, the World Bank’s Africa Internet Forum and the Pan- Asian Network of the International Develop- ment Research Centre (Richardson 1996). TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM32 ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 33 National workshops and conferences Regular national workshops or confer- ences are a means of reviewing national PGRFA activities to catalyze stronger in- teraction, understanding and coopera- tion among national PGRFA stake-hold- ers. They can be arranged as a series of meetings, each focusing on themes of special interest to different stakeholders. National workshops have often been used to launch a new national pro- gramme or programme component. This approach has been pursued by several African countries. In Mauritius, a na- tional workshop resulted in the inception of a National Coordinating Committee on PGRFA. In Namibia, the first National PGRFA Workshop developed and for- malized national policy guidelines for PGRFA activities.19 The Ugandan Na- tional Committee convened a national workshop in 1992 that marked the begin- ning of organized national PGRFA activi- ties.20 In Ghana, a workshop was organ- ized in 1994 for users and potential us- ers of PGRFA to inform them of the germplasm available in the country or accessible from elsewhere via the na- tional PGRFA programme. 21 A survey of 17 countries indicated that similar con- sultative meetings or workshops had been used in the development of national biodiversity strategies and plans (Miller and Lanou 1995). A participatory plan- ning process for the development of a national PGRFA programme using a se- ries of national, regional and specialist workshops and other consultative mecha- nisms has been proposed for Chile and, with appropriate modifications, may be ap- plicable to other countries (Box 14). National networks and other subsidiary bodies Networks are a means by which parties sharing a common interest can collabo- rate and share information and technol- ogy. They can span a wide range of func- tions, from local farmer-to-farmer ex- changes to international exchanges be- tween governments. If networks are to function efficiently, it is essential that all members are able to participate fully. If they become dominated by a single indi- vidual or organization, the collaborative nature of the network is undermined (Nel- son and Farrington 1994). Networks are vital to the PGRFA sector as vehicles for scientific exchange, informa- tion-sharing, technology transfer and re- search collaboration. They promote the iden- tification and allocation of shared responsi- bilities for such activities as germplasm col- lecting, conservation, evaluation and en- hancement. They also promote the exchange of materials, thereby greatly enhancing use. The French national genetic resources pro- grammes provide a good example of the use of networks for these purposes (Box 15). Networks can, in addition, be used to help set priorities for action, develop new policy initiatives and convey crop-specific and re- gional perspectives to other organizations, including funding bodies. For countries with limited national ca- pacity in PGRFA, participation in networks can be especially advantageous. Tunisia has recently restructured its national pro- gramme using a network model. This fol- lows an earlier unsuccessful attempt to es- tablish a centralized national programme based round a single national genebank. Poor links with breeders and other re- searchers led to poor use of the central fa- cility, with a consequent erosion of the po- litical and financial commitment needed to sustain the Centre. In the new approach, a formally established national pro- gramme is based on a network of research institutions, each with its own mandate and comparative advantages. A national committee coordinates the activities of these institutions.22 Networks are the most important type of subsidiary organization found within or interacting with the national PGRFA pro- TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM33 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 34 gramme, but they are not the only one. Com- mittees, councils, working groups, task forces or consortia are alternatives. They may be crop-specific, based on a specific zone or region (e.g. ecoregional consortia) or devoted to a specific theme. Crop-specific bodies. If a crop or group of crops is particularly important to the nation’s agriculture, a crop-specific network, commit- tee or other body can be established. Such a body can provide a logical basis for multi- stakeholder coordinated planning (van Hintum et al. 1990). Crop-specific networks, with their relatively narrow focus, are an excellent way of bringing together special- ists from different disciplines to set priori- ties or evaluate impact. Such networks of- ten involve the formation of a database of all germplasm accessions in relevant ex situ Box 14. A participatory process for developing a national programme and plan for PGRFA in Chile* A participatory process involving all stakeholders is used to develop a national strategy, appropriate draft legislation and a national plan of action, and to put in place a broad- based national committee. A first national workshop sets out the main objectives to be realized, and identifies the main stakeholder groups. A series of regional workshops and seminars are convened to develop the various elements, based on needs assessments. The involvement of NGOs is facilitated, and all proposals are open for wide consulta- tion. On the basis of drafts developed in this way, a second national workshop makes definitive proposals to the authorities. It is envisaged that the various stakeholder groups would be responsible for implementing the plan, once it is approved. * Cubillos, A. 1998. Participatory development of a national programme. Presentation to the Regional Meeting to Promote Implementation of the Global Plan of Action in Latin America and the Caribbean, Cali, Colombia, 22-25 September 1998. There was wide interest in this approach and it was suggested that a regional seminar might be held on it. TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM34 ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 35 collections, the strengthening of collabora- tion in the collecting and evaluation of germplasm, and the promotion of more ef- fective use of the crop’s genetic resources. They also ensure that members keep abreast of national and international developments concerning their crop. The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agricul- ture provides a comprehensive survey of existing networks. Such bodies may also be used to help: · assess national germplasm needs for the respective crop(s) · prepare inventories of existing na- tional collections (ex situ and in situ) · identify gaps in research or other activities · monitor national and international collections for the presence of use- ful genetic resources · identify priorities for germplasm collection and introduction · coordinate and guide national evaluation and breeding efforts · manage and analyze information · identify needs for genetic enhance- ment and base-broadening · develop and/or suggest appropri- ate technologies or approaches for national level crop improvement. Box 15. The crop networks of the French national programme Genetic resources in France are managed through cooperative networks involving both public- and private-sector partners. Networks have been established for each species (maize, sunflower, melon, etc.) or group of species (fodder crops, fruits, etc.) of importance to the country. Network members agree to disseminate genetic re- sources and share in their upkeep and evaluation. Each network has its own charter and is supported by a technical committee and a steering committee. France has decided on this decentralized management system because it regards large centralized genebanks as too cumbersome. Its approach is one in which responsibility is shared among the different parties concerned with the long-term maintenance of genepools. The networks identify and manage a national collection, consisting of material which encompasses as much of the crop’s diversity as possible. Access to the collection is free and is based on the principle of reciprocal exchange. In addition, network members can maintain their own working collections, which are not considered of national interest for long-term conservation. A legal statute for the national collections maintained by these networks is being developed. Network members guarantee, jointly or otherwise, to undertake conservation, multiplication, regeneration and evaluation as necessary. Ex situ collections may be complemented, for some crops, by in situ collections (e.g. of wild relatives) and by the dynamic management of broad-based populations under agricultural conditions. The national body that coordinates activities concerning animal, plant and micro- bial genetic resources is the Bureau des Ressources Génétiques, which brings together state bodies, research and academic organizations, private-sector compa- nies and NGOs. The decentralized programme in France involves partners with widely differing interests. Their active involvement ensures that the networks are sustainable. It also ensures the evaluation of germplasm according to the needs expressed by users and the steady development of collections with the aim of ever wider utilization. Source: Bureau des Ressources Génétiques 1996. TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM35 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 36 The National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is an example of a national programme in which crop-specific germplasm committees are used to review and plan national PGRFA activities (USDA 1995) (Box 16). Linking the work of such national crop- specific bodies with regional and interna- tional networks involved in particular crops can strengthen national efforts and help spread the costs of research. Such links can also promote the more effective use of PGRFA, by increasing the users of specific collections. Good examples of this approach are provided by the networks of the European Cooperative Programme on Genetic Resources (ECP/GR). Farming system-specific bodies. An op- tion open to countries that have numerous and/or complex farming systems with many crop species is to establish networks or other bodies specific to particular farm- ing systems, agro-ecological zones or re- gions. The main purpose of these bodies is to monitor, review and make recommen- dations on the PGRFA needs of specific ar- eas. This approach may be particularly useful in promoting partnerships between farming communities and the formal sci- entific or government sector. In Mali, dis- trict committees which include farmers’ representatives advise on priorities for the NARS (Oumar Niangado, pers. comm., 1998). Norway has adopted, on an experimen- tal basis, an approach that could be adapted by large countries with heteroge- neous agro-ecological zones or farming systems. It has developed local biodiversity action plans as a possible mechanism for implementing the national biodiversity strategy. There are many other countries, especially in the developing world, where species-rich farming systems are associated with indigenous and local communities, embodying traditional lifestyles that are relevant to the conservation and sustain- able use of PGRFA. Local-level or farming system-level approaches could well prove more effective than crop-specific ap- Box 16. The role of national crop committees in PGRFA programmes: the USDA’s National Plant Germplasm System The National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is structured to ensure broad membership and international exper- tise, both of which are needed for the effective planning of national PGRFA activities: • Broad membership: 40 different Crop Germplasm Committees report to the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council of the NPGS; each committee has 8 to 25 members, including representatives from federal research institutes, universities, botanic gardens and arboreta, as well as the private sector and in some cases NGOs. Together, these constitute the main users of PGRFA. • International expertise: many Crop Germplasm Committees also have members from neighbouring countries (e.g. Canada and Mexico) and from international centres such as the Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (CIMMYT) and the Asian Vegetables Research and Development Centre (AVRDC). The chairpersons of the Crop Committees meet biennially to exchange information and experience. Source: Allan Stoner and Mark Widrlechner, pers. comm., January 1999. TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM36 ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 37 proaches in ensuring the effective partici- pation of such communities in the national PGRFA programme.2 3 Theme-specific bodies. These can be used to strengthen national capacity by build- ing critical mass in areas of strategic im- portance to national needs. Theme-specific bodies can unite those interested in a spe- cific theme in many different sectors, insti- tutions and stakeholder groups. The USDA’s NPGS has a New Crops Germplasm Committee, a Germplasm Operations Committee and several Tech- nical Advisory Committees. Indonesia has a National Working Group for Indonesian Medicinal Plants (Shelton 1995), while the Malawi National Plant Genetic Resources Programme has established three thematic working groups (the Food Crops Group, the Industrial and Horticultural Crops Group and the In situ and Forestry Group) to propose activities to the national com- mittee. 24 Based on the priority areas and recommendations of the Global Plan of Action, some examples of other themes on which bodies could be constituted are: • agricultural diversification • PGRFA in IPM strategies • PGRFA in protected areas • PGRFA information systems and in- formation management • gender and PGRFA • plant biotechnology • public awareness of PGRFA • seed production and supply • neglected and underutilized species. Local-level fora and farmer participation Decision III/11 of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity recognizes that end-users must be involved through adequate representa- tion in the national PGRFA programme if the programme’s decisions and activities are to have a significant impact on devel- opment. The Decision calls for the estab- lishment and maintenance of local-level fora in which farmers, researchers, exten- sion workers and other stakeholders can evolve genuine partnerships.2 5 Local Agricultural Research Commit- tees (CIALs) of the kind used in Colombia and elsewhere have been successful in in- stitutionalizing farmers’ participation in adaptive research, including the testing of new crop varieties (Ashby et al. 1995). Seed fairs have been organized in many parts of the world to promote the exchange of varieties and information among farmers and between farmers and the formal sec- tor. Farmer Field Schools (FFS), which have been very successful in promoting IPM by improving farmers’ understanding and application of ecological principles to crop management, are now also being used to promote the conservation and improve- ment of PGRFA (FAO 1994). National research institutes can play a role in facilitating the involvement of farm- ers in the planning and implementation of PGRFA activities. For example, the recently reorganized National Center for Agricul- tural Technology (CENTA) in El Salvador now gives farmers a central role as stakeholders in the new organization (Hobbs et al. 1997), based on five critical practices: (i) improving CENTA’s access to farmers, (ii) collecting in-depth informa- tion about farmers, (iii) involving farmers in research planning, (iv) involving farm- ers in research implementation, and (v) sharing research information with farmers. The active involvement of a wide range of farmers and rural organizations in as many activities of the national PGRFA pro- gramme as possible (e.g. planning, project formulation, technology testing, etc.) will strengthen the programme greatly and help to sharpen its focus on users’ needs. Farmer participatory research and de- velopment is unlikely to achieve large- scale impact through isolated mini- projects, especially if these require continu- ing support from scarce, highly salaried professionals (Farrington and Martin 1988). National programmes adopting a TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM37 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 38 farmer participatory approach, as envis- aged in the Global Plan of Action, will need to address the issues of scale and sustainability. Since extension staff usually outnumber both germplasm curators and plant breeders, their involvement may be key to ensuring links between the field and institutional levels (Bagchee 1993). The Extension Service in Zimbabwe (AGRITEX), for example, is working with NGOs to support seed fairs. Local govern- ment authorities may provide an alterna- tive institutional base for ensuring the sustainability of farmer participatory ap- proaches. In the Philippines, for example, they play a key role in supporting FFS (Callo 1998). Farmer-to-farmer training may be one way around the scaling-up problem (Collinson 1983). This approach was used as early as the 1960s, when Oxfam spon- sored farmer-to-farmer visits across Cen- tral American countries, and subsequently has been widely tried elsewhere, particu- larly in Southeast Asia (Farrington 1994). It is the main mechanism used for scaling- up the FFS. Scaling-up may be achieved by organizing many different groups of farm- ers, or by working with existing farmers’ organizations (e.g. Heinrich and Masikara 1992; Mattee and Lasalle 1994; Muchagata et al. 1994). A major advantage of this ap- proach is that different farmers’ groups in diverse micro-environments will adapt and adopt only the germplasm and other tech- nologies that are best suited to their needs (Okali et al. 1994). Some studies of participatory research and development indicate that such ap- proaches may reduce the costs of applied research in plant breeding (Ashby and Sperling 1994). However, their full poten- tial cannot be realized unless a range of associated problems are adequately ad- dressed (Wuyts-Fivawo 1996). Such prob- lems include, at the institutional level, the continuing lack of a systems perspective, poorly developed links with external us- ers, and donor-driven development agen- das (Eponou 1996). In addition, farmers’ organizations typically lack the ability or capacity to participate effectively in the planning of agricultural research and de- velopment (Carney 1996). The success of such local forums as CIALs in Latin America and FFS in Asia suggests that there may already be a number of cost-effective models for na- tional PGRFA programmes to consider as they seek to promote the involvement of farmers in national PGRFA activities (Loevinsohn et al. 1998). Local fora-based approaches can contribute to the national programme not only by strengthening community management of PGRFA but also by exerting a “demand pull” on the programme’s products and services. This they do by empowering farmers to articu- late their needs, such as a wider range of planting materials, more effectively. Options for collaborative efforts at the regional level Collaborative regional PGRFA pro- grammes or networks can complement national PGRFA activities, enhancing their cost-effectiveness. They provide a useful forum for planning, including the devel- opment of proposals for regional projects or programmes attractive to donors. Plan- ning at the regional level has special ad- vantages for smaller or poorer countries, such as the island states of the South Pa- cific and the Caribbean or some smaller West African countries, which would oth- erwise lack a critical mass of staff and re- sources for both planning and implemen- tation. Regional or subregional networks on aspects of PGRFA work have now been established in most parts of the world. The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture provides a compre- hensive survey of them. Many of these net- works are organized under the auspices of the relevant regional association of NARS. A Global Forum for Agricultural Research TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM38 ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 39 (GFAR) has recently been established, con- sisting of many of these regional associa- tions together with representatives from other sectors (Box 17). A good example of a regional PGRFA network is the European Cooperative Pro- gramme for Genetic Resources (ECP/GR), which aims to ensure the long-term con- servation and increased use of plant genetic resources in Europe. Coordinated by IPGRI, the programme is financed by par- ticipating countries and governed by a steering committee of national representa- tives. It operates through crop-specific working groups in which curators and breeders work together to analyze needs and set priorities. Representatives of NGOs and the private sector also participate. Box 17. The Global Forum for Agricultural Research The Global Forum for Agricultural Research (GFAR) was established in 1996 as part of the “renewal” process undergone by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). It consists of the following regional associations of NARS, as well as representatives of the CGIAR, the advanced research institutes of developed countries, NGOs and the private sector. · The Forum on Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), which is itself a grouping of three subregional organizations: the Southern Africa Council for Agricultural Research (SACCAR), the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research Systems in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA) and the Conférence des Responsables de la Recherche Agronomique Africaine (CORAF) in Central and West Africa · The Association of Asia-Pacific Agricultural Research Institutes (APAARI) · The Association of Agricultural Research Institutes in the Near East and North Africa (AARINENA) · The Forum on Agricultural Research for Latin America and the Caribbean (FORAGRO). GFAR meets every 3 years, and most of its work is carried out in the regional or subregional associations. The Forum is served by a secretariat in the World Bank. Additionally, the NARS and their regional/subregional associations are served by a secretariat in FAO. The plan of work for the NARS Secretariat includes support in implementing the Global Plan of Action. TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM39 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 40 Public awareness Since most PGRFA programmes are funded largely by public money, it is desirable that public and political opinion be supportive of them. Public (and political) awareness programmes are the key to mobilizing this support. Yet, as revealed during the pre- paratory process for the Leipzig Confer- ence, awareness of the importance of PGRFA for socioeconomic development remains low in most countries. Public meetings and stakeholder con- sultations can be used to strengthen aware- ness. The mandate and objectives of the national PGRFA programme can be publi- cized using appropriate media, such as national radio and television, the press and so on. However, the widely differing inter- ests and perspectives of different stakeholder groups should be recognized when this is done. Agricultural scientists may value PGRFA mainly for their poten- tial to increase production, while others may appreciate their social, cultural, his- torical, ecological or aesthetic qualities. The Global Plan of Action recommends that these wider values be recognized in na- tional planning, policies and resource allo- cations (FAO 1996: para. 227). In the USA, multiple non-governmental stakeholders with widely differing interests in PGRFA have come together in a single alliance, the American Genetic Resources Alliance (AMGRA), to lobby the US Congress for increased funds for the NPGS. National PGRFA planners should aim to integrate public awareness into all local, national, regional and international pro- gramme activities. In countries with many different language groups, consideration should be give to the production of public awareness materials in local languages. Awareness of the value of PGRFA to the nation, and of the role of scientists, plant breeders, farmers and local communities in maintaining and improving them, can be promoted in schools, as well as in spe- cialized agricultural research and training institutions. NGOs may also have an im- portant role to play in mobilizing public and political support for national PGRFA programmes. Financing national programmes Many PGRFA activities, and especially con- servation and genetic enhancement or pre- breeding, only deliver benefits in the long term (FAO 1998). In fact, few germplasm- based projects can achieve much in less than 5 years, while increasing production through the development and dissemina- tion of new plant varieties can take a dec- ade or more. For instance, the successful efforts to double or quadruple the yields of wheat in India and China took at least 20 years. National strategies and plans, and their associated organizational structures, should therefore be considered a long-term investment and afforded a legal status and funding that will be resilient to such shocks as changes in government or recessions (FAO 1996: paras. 227, 228). In many cases a small amount of funding, consistent and guaranteed over 10 to 15 years, can achieve more than the same or a higher level of funding which has to be used within the typical 3 to 5-year project cycle. Continu- ity of support is an important considera- tion for any long-term PGRFA activities that are dependent on donor funding. Where possible, public-sector PGRFA ac- tivities should avoid competing with or duplicating PGRFA activities that are ad- equately performed by the domestic or in- ternational private sector. Thus, the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA should ideally be accorded VI. Building public and political support for national PGRFA activities TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM40 ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 41 budget provisions on an ongoing basis rather than on a once-off or fragmentary basis (FAO 1998). Yet in 1995, only one in five countries reported that they had spe- cific budget lines for PGRFA activities (FAO 1998:207). The Philippines Bureau of Agri- cultural Research includes guaranteed al- locations for PGRFA conservation within the budgets of each of the crop networks it funds (Eliseo Ponce, Director, BAR, pers. comm., December 1998). Without guaran- teed long-term baseline funding from do- mestic sources it will be extremely difficult for any national PGRFA programme to plan and implement activities that will not be vulnerable to donor changes in priorities over time. Funding for national PGRFA plans and programmes can be provided from both internal and external sources. A complete survey of such sources is beyond the scope of this paper. However, an important func- tion of the national PGRFA programme and its planning process could be to identify and review funding sources on a regular basis. Information on such sources could be distributed widely (e.g. via a newsletter or network) and the national programme could facilitate funding by helping stakeholder groups prepare applications. For many developing countries and coun- tries in transition, external sources of fund- ing will continue to be essential for the implementation of many of their priority activities. TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM41 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 42 National governments face many issues and options in establishing or strengthening their PGRFA programmes. Because of parallel ac- tivities in the overlapping area of biodiversity, one of the first and most impor- tant issues is how to organize PGRFA activi- ties. Countries also now face a potentially confusing array of policy and legal issues relating to PGRFA, many of which are still unresolved at the international level. The rapid pace of technological change affecting the use and usefulness of PGRFA adds fur- ther complexity to the formulation of poli- cies and plans. To develop the necessary con- sensus at national or even at government level to respond to these issues will require a high degree of interministerial coordina- tion and consultation with national PGRFA stakeholder groups. For many countries, there will be clear advantages in having a distinct national PGRFA programme with strong links to activities in the related fields of biodiversity and agriculture. To ensure both efficiency and effectiveness, all national PGRFA pro- grammes need certain essential compo- nents, including a national focal point, a national PGRFA committee and a national strategic plan. Details of the programme’s structure may vary, according to the em- phasis placed on different approaches to conservation or use and the country’s ex- isting human, financial and other re- sources. A well-coordinated programme with clear priorities at the national level should be complemented by similar efforts at the regional and international levels. Interna- tional collaboration in PGRFA activities is necessary in a world in which countries are interdependent for plant genetic resources and therefore need to establish mechanisms for facilitating access to these resources and sharing the benefits arising from their use (FAO 1996: paras. 238, 239). The rapidly changing PGRFA environ- ment implies that a national PGRFA pro- gramme should not be too rigid, but should rather consist of small, loosely linked units that can be phased in and out over time as the country’s needs change (Senge 1990). Such an “adaptive” PGRFA structure would allow a rapid response to changing sectoral and crop/commodity interests, such as shifts in emphasis from high-po- tential areas to marginal lands, crop diver- sification, and so on. Given the central importance of PGRFA in achieving food security and underpin- ning national development, improving their national PGRFA programmes presents governments with a formidable challenge. A timely and appropriate re- sponse to this challenge can only reap sub- stantial benefits. VII. Conclusions TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM42 ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 43 Governments have adopted a number of approaches to strategic planning for eco- nomic development, agriculture, natural resources and other sectors related to PGRFA activities. Some of these plans or strategies focus narrowly on environmen- tal or agricultural issues, while others are broader, dealing with the integration of environmental, agricultural and socioeco- nomic concerns. The most important types are briefly described below. National Agricultural Plans Many countries have national plans for agricultural development, but few empha- size that the conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA are essential to long-term agricultural development. The omission of PGRFA concerns from such plans jeopard- izes the funding of important PGRFA ac- tivities. Consideration of PGRFA at the early stages of national agricultural plan- ning opens up possibilities for significant economic and social benefits through the strategic use of PGRFA for import substi- tution, export diversification, increased domestic food production and strength- ened national food security. National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans Many countries have chosen the develop- ment of National Biodiversity Strategies and Actions Plans (NBSAPs) as their ap- proach to meeting the requirements of Ar- ticle 6 of the CBD (see Box 6). National Environment Action Plans and National Sustainable Development Strategies Both National Environment Action Plans (NEAPs) and National Sustainable Devel- opment Strategies (NSDS) emerged as rec- ommendations from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Devel- opment (UNCED). NEAPs are promoted mainly by the World Bank and UNEP, while NSDS are promoted by UNDP. Both are broader in scope than NBSAPs and, re- flecting the significant overlap and simi- larities between their objectives, a country usually develops only one or the other of them. International donors and environ- mental NGOs have been helping countries prepare such plans since the 1980s. Many of these initiatives build on earlier experi- ences with National Tropical Forestry Ac- tion Plans, National Conservation Strate- gies and other environmental planning ex- ercises. NEAPs describe a country’s major en- vironmental concerns, identify the princi- pal causes of environmental problems and formulate policies and actions to address these. The lead ministries involved are usu- ally those of the Environment, Natural Re- sources or Planning. In 1990, donors of the International Development Association (IDA), a World Bank affiliate that provides interest-free loans to the world’s poorest countries, urged borrowers to complete NEAPs. By 1995, most had prepared NEAPs or similar documents, many of which are currently being implemented (World Bank 1995). NSDS is a generic name for a process by which countries aim to achieve internal consensus at all levels of society on the policies and programmes needed to imple- ment their own national Agenda 21 pro- gramme (in response to Chapters 8 and 37 of Agenda 21) (UNCED 1992). This consen- sus is intended to result from a participa- tory dialogue of relevant interest groups. The NSDS process should lead to an iden- tification of skill gaps, institutional capaci- ties and capabilities, technological and sci- entific requirements and resource needs to enhance environmental knowledge and ad- ministration and integrate environment Appendix I. Sectoral national plans relevant to integrated PGRFA planning TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM43 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 44 and development concerns. The strategy should cover the definition of policies and action plans, their implementation, moni- toring and regular review. National Conservation Strategies National Conservation Strategies are in- tended to provide a comprehensive, cross- sectoral analysis of conservation and re- source management issues to help integrate environmental concerns into the develop- ment process. They should identify a coun- try’s most urgent environmental problems, stimulate national debate, raise public con- sciousness, assist decision-makers in set- ting priorities and allocating human and financial resources, and build institutional capacity to handle complex environmen- tal issues (IUCN/UNEP/WWF 1991). Since 1980, over 50 countries have devel- oped National Conservation Strategies, supported mainly by IUCN but with guid- ance also from UNEP and WWF. Some of these are now evolving into NSDS, in the light of Agenda 21. National Forestry Action Plans National Forestry Action Plans (NFAPs) (FAO 1985) involve a multi-sectoral review of relevant issues and definition of national targets and actions in each of five areas: forestry and land use, forestry-based indus- trial development, fuel wood and energy, conservation of tropical forest ecosystems, and forestry institutions. NFAPs are devel- oped by adapting current policy and plan- ning frameworks, preparing national pro- posals and securing the financial support needed to put plans into action. They are promoted by the four international organi- zations that established the Tropical For- estry Action Programme (TFAP) in 1985: FAO (responsible for promoting and coor- dinating implementation; FAO/WRI/ World Bank/UNEP 1987), the World Bank, UNDP and WRI. As of 1992, 90 developing countries (38 in Africa, 20 in Asia and the Pacific and 32 in Latin America and the Caribbean) were undertaking NFAP planning processes as part of the TFAP (FAO 1992). The TFAP has promoted collaboration at the regional level between some of the countries devel- oping the NFAPs, with particular success in Central America. In a few cases the NFAP process has been successful in forg- ing cross-sectoral links at the national level (e.g. in Nepal, where the NFAP was linked to the National Conservation Action Plan) (Sizer 1994). The World Bank Country Assistance Strategies, Structural Adjustment Loans and Sectoral Adjustment Loans The institutions of the World Bank provide loans and credits to many projects in the agricultural sector, some of which are for agricultural research or PGRFA-related ac- tivities. Between 1970 and 1991, World Bank assistance to projects that had an ag- ricultural research component was over US$18 billion, of which US$1.4 billion was explicitly for agricultural research or for projects to develop national research and extension systems (Tabor and Ballantyne 1995). The Bank’s institutions also provide Structural Adjustment Loans (SALs) and Sectoral Adjustment Loans (SECALs), which consist of non-project or policy- based lending intended to facilitate eco- nomic change in a particular direction. SECALs usually govern an entire sector of a country’s economy (e.g. agriculture) and carry conditions determining the policies and national priorities for that sector. The World Bank Group is a very impor- tant actor in governmental processes that define national goals and objectives for agriculture, for biodiversity and hence for PGRFA. In most countries that have a policy dialogue with the World Bank, the Ministries of Planning or Finance are the TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM44 ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 45 lead ministries in developing Country As- sistance Strategies, in conjunction with World Bank Country Officers and Task Managers. Unless the latter are sensitized to the importance of genetic resources it is unlikely that these resources will figure highly on their long list of planning con- siderations. It is also important that na- tional PGRFA programmes are aware of and can react to relevant policy changes resulting from Country Assistance Strate- gies, SALs or SECALs. Since 1987-88, environmental and agri- cultural policy has undergone significant change at the World Bank. The Bank now has a new set of environmental policies and priorities, one of which is to “mainstream biodiversity in agriculture” by promoting the concept of sustainable agricultural in- tensification (Pagiola et al. 1997). TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM45 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 46 AARINENA- Association of Agricultural Research AARINENA - Association of Agricultural Research Institutions in the Near East and North Africa AGRITEX - Agricultural, Technical and Exten- sion Service (Zimbabwe) AMGRA - American Genetic Resources Alliance APAARI - Asia-Pacific Association of Agricul- tural Research Institutions ASARECA - Association for Strengthening Agric- ultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa AVRDC - Asian Vegetables Research and Development Centre (Taiwan) CBD - Convention on Biological Diversity CENTA - National Center for Agricultural Technology (El Salvador) CGIAR - Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CGN - Centre for Genetic Resources (Netherlands) CIAL - Comité de Investigacion Agricola Local CIMMYT - Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (Mexico) CONITTA - National committee for agricultural research and technology transfer (Costa Rica) CORAF - Conférence des Responsables de la Recherche Agronomique Africaine CPRO - Centre for Plant Breeding and Repro- duction Research (Netherlands) DLO - Agricultural Research Department (Netherlands) ECP/GR - European Cooperative Programme on Genetic Resources FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FARA - Forum on Agricultural Research in Africa FFS - Farmer Field Schools FORAGRO - Foro Regional de Investigacion y Desarrollo Technologico Agropecuario GATT - General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs GEF - Global Environment Facility GFAR - Global Forum for Agricultural Research GPA - Global Plan of Action for the Conserva- tion and Sustainable Use of PGRFA GRAIN - Genetic Resources Action International IBPGR - International Board for Plant Genetic Resources [now IPGRI] IDA - International Development Association INRAB - national agricultural research institute (Benin) IPM - Integrated pest management ISNAR - International Service for National Agricultural Research IT - Information Technology IUCN - World Conservation Union MASIPAG - Magsasaka at Siyentista Para sa Pagpapaunlad ng Akmang Agricultura (Philippines) NARS - National Agricultural Research System(s) NBPGR - National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (India) NBSAPs - National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans NCPGR - National Committee on Plant Genetic Resources (Philippines) NEAP - National Environment Action Plan NFAP - National Forestry Action Plan NGO - Non-governmental organization NPGS - National Plant Germplasm System (USA) NSDS - National Sustainable Development Strategies PGRC/E - Ethiopian Plant Genetic Resources Centre PGRFA - Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture SACCAR - Southern African Center for Coopera- tion in Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Training SALs - Structural Adjustment Loans SBSTTA - Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Techni- cal and Technological Advice SEARICE - Southeast Asian Regional Institute for Community Education SECALs - Sectoral Adjustment Loans SGRP - System-wide Genetic Resources Programme (of the CGIAR) SINGER - System-wide Information Network for Genetic Resources (of the CGIAR) SWOT - Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats TFAP - Tropical Forestry Action Programme TRIPS - Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights UNCED - United Nations Conference on Environment and Development UNDP - United Nations Development Pro- gramme UNEP - United Nations Environment Pro- gramme UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UPOV - Union Internationale pour la Protection des Obtentions Végétales USDA - United States Department of Agriculture WRI - World Resources Institute WWF - World Wide Fund for Nature Acronyms and abbreviations TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM46 ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 47 Charlie Spillane Genetic Resources Consultant Rome Italy Email: Spillane@fmi.ch Jan Engels Group Director Genetic Resources Science and Technology (GRST) International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) Via delle Sette Chiese 142 00145 Rome Italy Tel: (+39) 0651892 222 Fax: (+39) 065750309 Email: J.Engels@cgiar.org Hareya Fassil Programme Specialist, GRST IPGRI Via delle Sette Chiese 142 00145 Rome Italy Tel: (+39) 0651892 230 Fax: (+39) 065750309 Email: H.Fassil@cgiar.org Lyndsey Withers Assistant Director General IPGRI Via delle Sette Chiese 142 00145 Rome Italy Tel: (+39) 0651892 239 Fax: (+39) 065750309 Email: L.Withers@cgiar.org David Cooper Plant Genetic Resources Officer Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00100 Rome Italy Tel: (+39) 0657053789 Fax: (+39) 0657053152 Email: david.cooper@fao.org Present address: David Cooper Programme Officer, Agricultural biodiversity Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity World Trade Centre, 413 St. Jacques Montreal, Quebec Canada H2Y 1N9 Authors TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM47 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 48 Anderson, J.R., P.G. Pardey and J. Roseboom. 1993. Sustaining growth in agriculture: a quantitative review of agricultural research investments. Agric. Econ. 10:107-123. Arnaiz, M.E.O. 1995. Farmers’ Organisations in the Technology Change Process: An Anno- tated Bibliography. Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper No. 53. ODI, Lon- don, UK, 50 p. Ashby, J.A. and L. Sperling. 1994. Institutionaliz- ing participatory client-driven research and technology development in agriculture. Ag- ricultural Research and Extension Network Paper No. 49. ODI, London, UK. Ashby, J.A. and L. Sperling. 1995. Institutionalis- ing participatory, client-driven research and technology development in agriculture. De- velopment and Change 26:753-770. Ashby, J.A., T. Garcia, M. Guerrero, C. Quiros, J. Roa and J. Beltran. 1995. Institutionalising farmers’ participation in adaptive technology testing with the CIAL. Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper No. 57. ODI, London, UK. Bagchee, A. 1993. Agricultural extension in Af- rica. Discussion Paper. World Bank, Washing- ton DC, USA. Bebbington, A.J. , D. Merrill-Sands and J. Farrington. 1994. Farmer and community or- ganisations in agricultural research and exten- sion: functions, impacts and questions. Agri- cultural Research and Extension Network Pa- per No. 47. ODI, London, UK. Bellon, M. 1994. Key issues for decision-makers in the planning and implementing of plant ge- netic resources programmes within the context of Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Paper prepared for IPGRI, Rome, 21p. Bureau des Ressources Génétiques 1996. The management of plant genetic resources: inte- gration of conservation, characterization and utilization processes. Paper prepared for the Seeds and Plant Genetic Resources Service, FAO, Rome, Italy. Callo, Dmasao, Jr. 1998. Presentation on Farmer Field Schools to the Regional Meeting to Pro- mote Implementation of the Global Plan of Action in Asia-Pacific, Manilla, the Philip- pines, 15-18 December 1998. Carney, D. 1996. Formal farmers’ organisations in the agricultural technology system: current roles and future challenges. Natural Re- sources Perspectives No.14. ODI, London, UK. Collinson, M.P.O. 1983. Farm Management in Peasant Agriculture (2nd edition). Westview Press, Boulder, USA. Collion, M.-H. and P. Rondot. 1998. Partnership between agricultural services institutions and producers’ organizations: myth or reality? Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper No. 80. ODI, London, UK. Cooper, D., J. Engels and E. Frison. 1994. A multi- lateral system for plant genetic resources: im- peratives, achievements and challenges. Is- sues in Genetic Resources No. 2. IPGRI, Rome, Italy. Eponou, T. 1996. Linkages between research and technology users in Africa: the situation and how to improve it. Briefing paper No. 31. ISNAR, The Hague, Netherlands, 8 p. Eyzaguirre, P. and M. Iwanaga. 1996. Participa- tory Plant Breeding. Proceedings of a Work- shop, 26-29 July 1995, Wageningen, The Neth- erlands. IPGRI, Rome, Italy. FAO. 1985. Tropical Forestry Action Plan. Com- mittee on Forest Development in the Tropics, FAO, Rome, Italy. FAO. 1992. TFAP Update No. 26. TFAP Coordi- nating Unit, Forestry Department, FAO, Rome, Italy, p. 22. FAO. 1994. Sustainable agriculture through inte- grated pest management. Document APRC/ 94/3. FAO, Rome, Italy. FAO. 1996. Global Plan of Action for the Conser- vation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and the Leipzig Declaration adopted by the International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources, Leipzig, Germany, 17-23 June 1996. FAO, Rome, Italy. FAO. 1998. The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. FAO, Rome, Italy. FAO, WRI, World Bank/UNEP. 1987. The Tropi- cal Forestry Action Plan. FAO, Rome, Italy. Farrington, J. 1994. Public-sector agricultural ex- tension: is there life after structural adjust- ment? Natural Resources Perspectives No. 2. ODI, London, UK, 4 p. Farrington, J. and A. Martin. 1988. Farmer par- ticipation in agricultural research: a review of concepts and practices. Occasional Paper No. 9. ODI, London. UK. Farrington, J., A. Bebbington, K. Wellard and D.J. Lewis. 1993. Reluctant Partners? Non-govern- mental Organizations, the State and Sustain- References TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM48 ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 49 able Agricultural Development. Routledge, New York, USA, 222 p. Hart, R.D. 1994. Global electronic partnerships. Outlook on Agriculture 23:237-241. Hatch, M.J. 1997. Organization Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 387 p. Heinrich, G.M. and S. Masikara. 1992. Trial de- signs and logistics for farmer-implemented technology assessments with large numbers of farmers: some approaches used in Bot- swana. J. Farming Syst. Res. and Extension 3(2):131-145. Hobbs, H., J. Francisco Larios, F. Roberto Arias Milla and J. Eduardo Vides. 1997. A research partnership with farmers: the case of CENTA in El Salvador. Briefing Paper No.35. ISNAR, The Hague, Netherlands, 6 p. Hobbs, H., Mojica Bentancour F., Bonilla Bolaños O. and Solís Quirós. 1998. The Creation of a Coordinated National Agricultural Research System: The Case of Costa Rica. Briefing pa- per #37. ISNAR, The Hague, 8 p. IPGRI. 1993. Diversity for Development: The Strategy of the International Plant Genetic Re- sources Institute. IPGRI, Rome. IUCN, UNEP and WWF. 1991. Caring for the Earth. Gland, Switzerland. Jansen, W., P. Perrault and M. Housou. 1997. De- veloping an integrated agricultural research policy: experiences from Benin. Briefing Paper No. 33. ISNAR, the Hague, Netherlands, 8 p. Levy, M.A., P.M. Haas and R.O. Keohane. 1992. Institutions for the earth: promoting interna- tional environmental protection. Environment 34(4):12-17. Loevinsohn, M., G. Meijerink and B. Salasaya. 1998. Enhancing capacity to manage re- sources: assessing the Farmer Field School approach. Paper presented at the Second Meeting of the Integrated Pest Management Network for the Caribbean, sponsored by CARDI and CTA, Kingston, Jamaica, 4-6 Feb- ruary 1998. Mant, A. 1983. The Leaders We Deserve. Martin Robertson, Oxford, UK. Mattee, A.Z. and T. Lasalle. 1994. Diverse and limited: farmers’ organizations in Tanzania. Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper No. 50. ODI, London, UK. Muchagata, M.G., V. de Reynal and I.P. Verga (Jr). 1994. Building a dialogue between research- ers and small farmers: the Tocantins AgroEcology Centre (CAT) in Brazil. Agricul- tural Research and Extension Network Paper No. 50d. ODI, London, UK. Merrill-Sands, D., D. Kaimowitz, K. Sayce and S. Chater. 1990. The technology triangle: link- ing farmers, technology transfer agents and agricultural researchers. ISNAR, The Hague, Netherlands. Miller, K.R. and S. Lanou. 1995. National biodiversity planning: guidelines based on early experiences around the world. WRI, UNEP and WCU, Washington DC, USA, Nai- robi, Kenya and Gland, Switzerland. Mwila, G. 1998. Strengthening national pro- grammes for PGRFA: the Zambian case. Pa- per presented to the Regional Meeting to Pro- mote Implementation of the Global Plan of Action in Eastern and Southern Africa, Gaborone, Botswana, May 1998. Nelson, J. and J. Farrington. 1994. Information ex- change networking for agricultural develop- ment: a review of concepts and practices. CTA, Wageningen, Netherlands. Okali, C., J. Sumberg and J. Farrington. 1994. Farmer participatory research: rhetoric and reality. In- termediate Technology, London, UK, 159 p. Pagiola, S., J. Vidaeus and J. Srivastava. 1997. Mainstreaming biodiversity in agricultural development: toward good practice. Environ- ment Paper No. 15. World Bank, Washington DC, USA. Pfeffer, J. 1981. Power in Organizations. Pitman, Boston, USA. Richardson, D. 1996. The Internet and rural de- velopment: recommendations for strategy and activity. FAO, Rome, Italy, 38 p. Senge, P.M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Cen- tury, London, UK. Shelton, D. 1995. Fair play, fair pay: laws to pre- serve traditional knowledge and biological resources. International Research Report. WWF, Gland, Switzerland, p. 59. Sizer, N. 1994. Opportunities to save and sustainably use the world’s forests through international cooperation. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA, 28 p. Souder, W. 1980. Promoting effective R&D/mar- keting interfaces. Int. J. Res. Manage.23:10-15. Sperling, L., U. Scheidegger and R. Buruchara. 1996. Designing seed systems with small farmers: principles derived from bean re- search in the Great Lakes region of Africa. Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper No. 60. ODI, London, UK. Stacey, R.D. 1996. Strategic Management and Or- ganizational Dynamics (2nd edition). Pitman, London, UK. TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM49 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 50 Tabor, S.R. and P. Ballantyne. 1995. Policy conditionality in agricultural research projects. Pp. 166-177 in Agricultural Research in an Era of Adjustment: Policies, Institutions and Progress (S.R. Tabor, ed.). World Bank, Washington DC, USA. UNCED. 1992. Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development. UN, New York. UNEP. 1996. List of national focal points. Docu- ment UNEP/CBD/COP/3/Inf.11. UNEP, Nai- robi, Kenya. United Nations. 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity. Preamble. UNEP, Geneva, Switzer- land. USDA. 1995. Directory of national plant germplasm system. USDA, Washington DC, USA, 129 p. Van Hintum, T.J.L., L. Frese and P.M. Perret. 1990. Crop networks: searching for new concepts for collaborative genetic resources management. International Crop Network Series 4. IPGRI, Rome, Italy, 125 p. Wolfe, T. 1983. From Bauhaus to Our House. Aba- cus, London, UK. World Bank. 1995. National environmental strate- gies: learning from experience. World Bank, Washington DC, USA, 75 p. Wuyts-Fivawo, A. 1996. Linkages between re- search, farmers and farmers’ organizations in Kenya: a summary of findings. Briefing paper No. 32. ISNAR, The Hague, Netherlands, 8 p. Endnotes 1 In the Americas, the term “national systems” is used, whereas elsewhere, “national pro- grammes” is more common. A “system” may re- fer to a wider range of activities, of which a “pro- gramme” constitutes the core. In either case, a cross-institutional activity is meant. This is dis- cussed further in Section III. 2 Article 6(a). 3 CBD Article 6 (b); Agenda 21, 15.5 (b). 4 For instance, the CBD requests that nations encourage cooperation between their governmen- tal authorities and their private sector in develop- ing methods for the sustainable use of biological resources (United Nations 1992:Article 10). 5 For example, the Global Plan of Action in- cludes among the objectives of Activity 2 “to fos- ter the future emergence of public or private seed companies and cooperative enterprises as an out- growth of successful on-farm selection and breed- ing” (para. 32). Included among the objectives of Activity 13 is “to develop and expand viable lo- cal-level seed production and distribution mecha- nisms for varieties and crops important to small- scale farmers” (para. 201). 6 The Plant Genetic Resources Centre of Ghana has been successful in developing arboreta cover- ing timber, medicinal, ornamental and fruit tree species of economic importance. Ghana. 1995. Country Report to the International Technical Con- ference, Leipzig, 1996. 7 Other national reports, such as those prepared for UNCED in 1992, and the Country Studies on Biodiversity prepared since then, may also pro- vide useful information. All countries were invited to submit national reports as part of their preparations for UNCED in June 1992. These reports were prepared by na- tional governments, often in consultation with the private sector and local, regional and international NGOs. Their preparation was promoted as a means of increasing public participation in gov- ernment decision-making and in the UNCED proc- ess. Each report addressed development trends, environmental impacts and responses to environ- ment and development issues through policies, legislation, institutions, programmes, projects and international cooperation. Some UNCED national reports served as a basis for subsequent National Sustainable Development Strategies (NSDS). At least 130 reports had been prepared by April 1992, TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM50 ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8 SPILLANE et al. 51 about 85 countries having formed national com- mittees composed of government and other na- tional stakeholders to facilitate the preparation of the reports. With the coming into force of the CBD and the implementation of Agenda 21, many countries have prepared or are preparing studies that assess the national status of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. These assessments will be useful as inputs to the national PGRFA planning process, particularly to highlight comple- mentarities as well as possible conflicts between the agriculturally driven PGRFA perspective and the more environmentally driven biodiversity per- spective. There may be many such conflicts. For instance, there may be a conflict resulting from agricultural activities in protected areas or the ef- fects of agricultural intensification on aquatic biodiversity. Many such biodiversity assessments highlight agriculture as a threat to non-agricultural biodiversity. 8 Decision III/11 of the Third Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity: Conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity, . 9 Statement made by the Canadian delegation at the Seventh Session of the FAO Commission. 10 Presentations and personal communications at the Regional Meetings to Promote Implementation of the Global Plan of Action in Central/West Asia- North Africa, Asia-Pacific and Eastern and South- ern Africa respectively. 11 For example, the national agricultural research institute of Benin (INRAB), in collaboration with ISNAR, developed an integrated agricultural re- search policy for the country. The key lessons learned in the process were to guard against an overoptimistic schedule for finalizing national policy, to facilitate stakeholder involvement through common methodologies and vocabulary, to reconcile scientific and development interests, and to understand the value of empirical evidence for decision-making (Jansen et al. 1997). 12 Strategic planning. (ISNAR, ). Strategic planning in agricultural research management (ISNAR, ). Priority-setting for agricultural research pro- grams (ISNAR, ). Strengthening linkages between research and technology users (ISNAR, ). Participatory research (ISNAR, ). Planning, monitoring and evaluation of re- search projects (ISNAR, ). 13 Estimates from Country Reports (1995) pre- pared for ITC/PGR and Reports (1998) prepared for the Regional Meetings on GPA implementa- tion. 14 Various Country Reports (1995) prepared for ITC/PGR. 15 Agenda 21 (para. 37.6) calls for countries to “designate and strengthen a focal point for tech- nology cooperation with responsibilities includ- ing organizing and coordinating technology trans- fer and linkage with existing priority-setting and resource allocation processes.” National PGRFA programmes may wish to develop strong links between such technology transfer coordinating bodies, where established, and the national PGRFA focal point, to ensure that both PGRFA and related technologies are efficiently exchanged in a com- plementary manner. 16 Agenda 21 para. 37.6 recommends the estab- lishment of national focal points for technology transfer. 17 Ireland Country Report (1995) prepared for ITC/PGR. 18 China Country Report (1995) prepared for ITC/PGR. 19 Namibia Country Report (1995) prepared for ITC/PGR. 20 Uganda Country Report (1995) prepared for ITC/PGR. 21 Ghana Country Report (1995) prepared for ITC/PGR. 22 Nacuer Hamza. 1998. Presentation to the Re- gional Meeting to Promote Implementation of the Global Plan of Action in Central/West Asia-North Africa, June 1998, ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria. 23 CBD Article 8(j). 24 Malawi Country Report (1995) prepared for ITC/PGR. 25 Decision III/11 of the Third Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity: Conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity, . TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM51 STRENGTHENING NATIONAL PROGRAMMES FOR PGRFA INTERNATIONAL PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES INSTITUTE 52 ISBN 92-9043-411-2 TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM52