Presentation at the CGIAR Independent Science and Partnership Council meeting in March 2014 by the GCP Director, Jean-Marcel Ribaut.

1. Jean-Marcel Ribaut
ISPC Meeting
13th March 2014
Washington DC, USA
Lessons Learnt from the GCP Experience

2. Our Discussion Today:
♦ Introduction to the GCP
♦ Major achievements
♦ External review
♦ The transition strategy
♦ Lessons learnt
♦ The legacy
♦ Perspectives and conclusion

3. The Generation Challenge Programme
An Introduction

4. GCP in Brief
♦ A CGIAR Challenge Programme hosted at CIMMYT
♦ Launched in August 2003
♦ 10-year framework (Phase I 2004–2008; Phase II 2009–2013)
♦ About US$15–17m annual budget
♦ Target geographies: drought-prone environments
♦ Sub-Saharan Africa, South & South East Asia, L. America
♦ Eighteen CGIAR mandate crops in Phase I
♦ Nine CGIAR mandate crops in Phase II
♦ Cereals: maize, rice, sorghum, wheat,
♦ Legumes: beans, chickpeas, cowpeas, groundnuts
♦ Roots and tubers: cassava
Strategic objective: To use genetic diversity and advanced plant science to improve crops
for greater food security in the developing world
GCP: A broker in plant science bridging the gap between upstream and applied science
www.generationcp.org

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

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

7. Phase II

8. Executive Board
+
GCP Director
Theme
Leaders
Product Delivery
Leader
+
Governance
ManagementTeam
Consortium
Committee(CC)
Scientific
Committees
Review and
Advisory
Panel (RAP)
Theme 1
Comparative &
Applied Genomics
Theme 2
Integrated Crop
Breeding
Theme 3
Crop Information
Systems
Theme 4
Capacity Building
Theme 5
Product Delivery
Research teams Research teams Research teams Research teams Research teams
Product Delivery
Coordinators
Advisory
(Operational
/Scientific)
Advisory
(Project
monitoring
/management )
Governance and Management – 2008
to the present

9. Actual Projection Total
('000 USD) 2003-2012 2013 2003-2013 %
Income - Donors
Austria 54 - 54 0
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 26,861 7,376 34,237 21
CGIAR Fund 11,021 5,500 16,521 10
DFID/UK 31,767 - 31,767 19
European Commission 49,150 8,000 57,150 34
Kirkhouse 15 - 15 0
Pioneer Foundation 210 - 210 0
Rockefeller Foundation 2,225 - 2,225 1
Sweden/SIDA 874 - 874 1
Switzerland/SDC 2,567 900 3,467 2
Syngenta Foundation 688 - 688 0
USAID 400 - 400 0
World Bank 17,756 - 17,756 11
Interest income 1,249 10 1,259 1
Total Income 144,838 21,786 166,624 100
Expenditure
Research Grants 137,342 86
Program Management 20,238 13
Transfer to Contingency Reserve 3,000 2
Total Expenditure and Transfer to Contingency Reserve 160,580 100
Total Net Fund 6,044
Plus Reserve 3,000
Generation Challenge Programme:
A 167 Million initiative

10. Selected key achievements

11. ♦ EPMR panel (2008) noted that the GCP community is
one of the Programme’s most crucial assets. In their
words:
“Perhaps the most important value of GCP thus far, is the
opportunities it has provided for people of diverse
backgrounds to think collectively about solutions to complex
problems, and, in the process, to learn from one another.”
♦ Linking upstream research with applied science
♦ True partnership
♦ Shared resources
♦ In-kind contribution from most of our partners
♦ Work as a team to find $ outside the GCP-funded work
♦ Evolution of roles and responsibilities
♦ Leaders became mentors
♦ Trainees become doers and leaders
♦ In 2013 about half of the PIs are from developing countries
♦ There is no doubt a unique and tangible ‘GCP spirit’
observable in the camaraderie at GCP meetings
Major Achievement: The GCP Community

12. ♦ Genetic resources
♦ Reference sets for 18 crops (all CGIAR mandate crops)
♦ Genomic resources
♦ Markers for orphan crops
♦ Informative markers
♦ Drought, viruses and insect resistance
♦ Genes/QTL
♦ AltSB for Aluminium tolerance, Pup1 for P uptake efficiency, Saltol for
salt tolerance and Sub1 for submergence tolerance.
♦ Improved germplasm
♦ New bioinformatic tools (DM, diversity studies, breeding, etc)
♦ Enhanced capacities for MAB in NARS programmes
♦ Human resource capacities / Physical infrastructure / Analytical power
♦ Ex-ante analyses on MB impact in developing countries
Product catalogue available at:
www.generationcp.org/impact/product-catalogue
Selected Major Research Outputs

13. Peer Reviewed Publications
5
25
51
57
68
78
73
90
32
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Journal articles published: 2005‒2013
Year
Number
In selected high impact journals (2007-2013):
• Nature: 5, Nature Biotech: 3
• Nature Genetics: 2, PNAS: 8

14. GCP’s Integrated Breeding Platform
www.integratedbreeding.net
Providing resources and building professional networks for plant
breeding
Crop Information
• Crop databases
• Trait Dictionaries
• Marker information
Breeding
• Data mgt tools
• Trial Mgt Tools
• Data analysis tools
• Molecular analysis tools
• Breeding decision tools
• Protocols
• Breeding support services
Capacity building
• IBMYC & other training
courses
• Learning resources
• Infrastructure support
• Support Services
Communities
• Blogs & Forums
• News
• Publications
• Live chat

15. “Classic” Approach
♦ Formal postgraduate training programmes
♦ 100+ MSc and PhD students embedded in research projects
♦ Workshops, fellowship grantees, travel grants
♦ Train the trainers for future regionalised capacity building sustainability
♦ Communities of Practice
♦ Rice in the Mekong; Cassava in Africa
♦ IBP-hosted (both crop- and expertise-based)
Perhaps not so common – uniquely GCP
♦ CB à la carte
♦ Integrated Breeding Multi-Year Course: Breeding, Data Mgt, Data
Analysis
♦ CB along the delivery chain (scientists, technicians, station managers
♦ Technical support for infrastructure implementation
♦ Some thoughts on who to train
♦ Balance across generation-expertise
Capacity Building

16. External Review

17. The Overall Context
♦ Recommended by the GCP MT and Executive Board
♦ Under the leadership of the CGIAR Independent Evaluation
Arrangement (IEA)
♦ A team of five
♦ Paramjit S. Sachdeva (Team Leader)
♦ Gregory O. Edmeades (Senior Technical Evaluator)
♦ Rita H. Mumm (Molecular Breeding Expert)
♦ Antoni J. Rafalski (Genetic Resources/Genomics Expert)
♦ Christopher Bennett (Economist/M&E Expert)
♦ Conducted 2 survey:
♦ Programme evaluation: stakeholders
♦ Governance and management: selected audience
♦ We are at the stage of factual revision
♦ Conclusion:
“The Review Team established that the GCP has performed well,
has met the majority of its genetic enhancement goals and
surpassed others, and will leave a formidable legacy of useful and
accessible products and information”

18. EPMR Stakeholder: Respondent
Composition:
Developing-
country
partner(national
programme),
28.7%
Developing-
country partner
(University), 8.3%
CGIAR Centre,
31.2%
Developed-
country partner,
22.3%
Private sector,
1.9%
Other, 7.6%
 Online
survey
 November,
2013
 159
responses
 Response
rate:42%

19. Assessment of GCP’s overall performance
from EPMR stakeholder survey
56.3% 61.7% 66.4% 64.7%
57.5% 61.3% 57.4%
65.7%
37.3% 31.1%
28.7% 27.5% 38.8% 30.1% 34.1%
24.3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Strongly Agree Agree
% Agree
93.6% 92.8% 95.1%
92.2%
96.3%
91.4% 91.5% 90.0%
Possible choices: Strongly agree; agree; disagree; strongly disagree;
don’t know/not applicable

20. Transition strategy
http://www.generationcp.org/gcp-s-sunset

21. Transition Principles (2010)
Overall
♦ GCP remains committed to the plan at its inception to end by 2013-14
♦ In order that the programme is able to achieve its overall objectives
and for which activities are based on previous investments,
commitments and achievements, it will be critical that it remain a
coherent entity until 2013
Service
♦ The Genomics and Integrated Breeding Service is designed to be
sustained past GCP’s ‘sunset’
Research
♦ Working together with crop MP leaders, the research components will
be included and described in their MP proposals, and integrated in
their respective logframes
GCP research projects were hence included in the commodity CRP
workplans in Phase I (a bit artificial…..)

22. I Research
 Genetic stocks: Almost Done
 Management of the Genetic Stocks input on the Trust CRP
 Genomic resources: Done
 Revolution with what we called in the past the “Orphan crops”
 Informative molecular markers: Done
 Accessible, easy to use
 Cloned genes: Done
 Accessible, easy to use
 Molecular breeding: Almost done
 Improved germplasm to be converted into varieties
II Integrated Breeding Platform
III Capacity building services and Training Materials
IV Community and knowledge sharing
 GCP scientific and social network
 GCP institutional memory
Transition implementation (2012):
GCP Components

23.  Each of the nine component-specific Position Papers is designed to
contribute to GCP’s orderly closure in 2014 by considering the
following three questions:
1. What ‘assets’ will be completed by the end of GCP’s lifetime in
December 2014?
2. What ‘assets’ can best continue as integral components of the CRPs or
elsewhere?
3. What ‘assets’ may not fit within existing institutions or programmes and
may require alternative implementation mechanisms for completion and
perpetuation?
 The papers were drafted in July–August 2012, externally reviewed by
stakeholders in September 2012, and endorsed by the GCP
governance bodies at the end of 2012.
 The nine component papers plus one overall paper are available at:
http://www.generationcp.org/about-us/gcp-s-sunset/sunset-position-papers
Transition implementation (2012):
The position papers

24. Programme Closure Working Group 2013-
14: Terms of Reference
 Propose a closure action plan for GCP, with respect to:
 Pre- and post-closure communication to funders, partners and
collaborators
 Ongoing operational activities
 Transfer of research activities post-closure
 Staff retention to closure
 Post-closure legal obligations – IP, contracts with collaborators
and service providers
 Management of assets
 Post-closure financial obligations
 Monitor the implementation of the closure action plan
 Make appropriate reports to the Executive Board and
the GCP Consortium Committee

25. Lessons learnt

26. Key Learning Areas
♦ Governance
♦ Scientific Management
♦ Monitoring and evaluation
♦ Selecting research projects
♦ Linking upstream research with
applied science
♦ Partnership
♦ Adoption and behaviour change
♦ Research leadership
♦ Product delivery
♦ Programme closure and transition

27. Governance
Issue:
♦ Dysfunctional governance for nearly half of GCP’s life until
mid-2008, with governance body comprised of direct
beneficiaries of its own decisions
Solution:
♦ Involvement of stakeholders (‘owners’) and partners to
define the overall objectives and general direction, but
♦ Separate independent body to approve workplan and
oversee implementation
♦ Small group of complementary expertise (GCP EB works very well!)
with
♦ Access to specific expertise when needed (e.g GCP’s IP Committee)
Accountability must be clarified first!

28. Monitoring and evaluation
Issue:
♦ Inadequate research management capacity early in GCP’s life
due to part time appointments (attractive in theory, but difficult in
practice)
♦ Lack of an M&E framework from the beginning (though this may
not have been required at the time)
♦ Conflict of interest within the MT
♦ Not the same skills
Options:
♦ Full-time management team leaders
♦ Separate the planning and implementation from
♦ Stand-alone M&E component
Of course good management capacity and practices have a
cost and therefore efficiency needs to be considered carefully

29. Scientific Management:
Broker in plant science, the CP model
A management team that defines and implements, in
partnership and through grants, a workplan to achieve
overall objectives
Agile research management approach that allows to:
♦ Bring new ideas on board and develop strong partnership
♦ Increase research quality and efficiency
♦ Adjust research activities based on external environment
♦ New technology, partner, opportunity for synergy, etc
♦ Allow easily to stop un-successful projects
But
♦ Must be around a specific research topic
♦ Can only exist with the support of well established Institutions
♦ Ideally focused and time-bound
♦ Excellent complement of core activities

30. ♦ Competitive grants
♦ Do not necessarily fit well in your research priorities (dead-end projects)
♦ Capture emerging opportunities, best ideas and new partners
♦ Increase research quality
♦ Commissioned projects
♦ Not always good value for money, less transparent
♦ Consolidates our research agenda
♦ Very efficient when it builds on a successful competitive project
Different kind of research: the dynamics
Competitive
Commissioned
Services
10
years
$

31. From Cornell’s lab to African farmers’ fields with a stopover
in Brazil: a ten-year effort
♦ Step 1: Competitive Project (initiated 2004)
♦ Led by Cornell Univ, in collaboration with EMBRAPA
♦ Plantlets screened under hydroponics – Alt1 Gene cloned
Magalhaes et al. 2007, Nature Genetics, 39: 1156-1151
♦ Step 2: Competitive Project (initiated 2007)
♦ Led by EMBRAPA in collaboration with Cornell
♦ Favourable alleles identified – Improved germplasm for
Brazil
Caniato et al. 2011, PLoS One 6, e20830.
♦ Step 3: Commissioned work (initiated 2009)
♦ Led by NARS (Kenya, Mali and Niger) with the support of
ICRISAT in collaboration with EMBRAPA
♦ Introgression of favourable alleles – Improved germplasm
Clear benefits from linking upstream
research with applied science

32. A possible model for some suitable
research activities within a CRP?
Competitive and commissioned approaches each have
pros and cons but to combine them over time to achieve
a specific objective can be extremely powerful!
♦ Phase I (More competitive)
♦ Build the community
♦ Identify the flagship projects and the champions
♦ Phase II (More commissioned)
♦ Refine the agenda based on Phase I outputs
♦ Do the balk part of the job
♦ Phase III (commissioned and services)
♦ Product Deployment
♦ Support services

33. ♦ Be strategic in partnership development
♦ The importance of people
♦ People are first, and Institutions are second
♦ Building on existing partnerships, maximising on personal relations
♦ Be selective, and cautious
♦ Can easily get out of hand, can be a distraction
♦ Plan for it, and do not underestimate effort needed:
♦ managing true partnerships takes time and resources!!!
♦ But, if managed well:
♦ One of the most efficient and effective ways to do business
♦ One of the most rewarding components of the work
♦ Creates a special group dynamic and bring new ideas
♦ Cultivates public trust, with the resultant positive public image
Not every project is conducted most efficiently through partnership!
Partnership: important to keep in mind

34. The risk of being too inclusive!
Two extremely challenging projects:
1. Development and genotyping of references set collection
♦ Too many partners involved (across and within teams)
♦ Limited buy-in
♦ Different technologies to produce comparable data
♦ Poor quality data and ignorance of standards
♦ Job done at the end through centralized service, under a single PI and with
close supervision on the development of genetic stocks
2. Coding of the IBP tools
♦ Too many teams
♦ Difference styles, with limited respect for the rules
♦ Not the core competence of centres and universities
♦ Delays in delivery, and often poor quality
♦ Tasks eventually transferred to a professional service provider, Efficio LLC,
with good results
However, all these course corrections came at a significant cost in
both time and resources!

35. ♦ Most people are reluctant or resistant to change
♦ Even people who are interested often do not allocate the time
and resources to do it
♦ Even where there are clear benefits from making a change, this
is not sufficient incentive
♦ Most changes can be implemented only by:
♦ Strong bottom-up demand
♦ Mandatory top-down decision
♦ Need to persuade people to be ready to:
♦ Get out of their comfort zone
♦ Dedicate time to learning new things
♦ Dedicate time to things that might not benefit their work directly or
immediately
♦ Adopt a collaborative rather than competitive approach
♦ Enforcement and implementation
♦ Big difference between the private and public sector
Changing people’s behavior:
A real challenge in technology transfer

36. Leadership transfer: A challenging objective
Capacity-building vital for leadership transfer
♦ Must be comprehensive – spanning entire spectrum from
human resources (PhDs, short-course training, technician
training) to equipment & infrastructure
♦ Must be customised and goal-oriented:
♦ One size does not fit all ‒ Phase I: open-call CB à la
carte; fellowships
♦ But internal focus is a plus ‒ Phase II: project-based
graduate studies (as defined within the GCP-funded
project), IBMYC + assessment to determine if trainee
advances to the next year or not
♦ That developing-country partners are now leading GCP projects, with CGIAR
and developed country partners in supporting roles, with corresponding budget
shifts has been a major achievement!
However, it is not desirable for all projects and/or with all partners and not
everybody wants to become a leader…..

37. Product Delivery
♦ Research product delivery pathways
should be defined right at project
conception
♦ Include clear identification of research
product users and impact assessment
parameters
♦ Should also describe product
sustainability, access and dissemination
mechanisms

38. Other challenges
Operational
♦ Keeping key partners aligned with the overall shared
objective(s)
♦ Prioritization and resource allocation
♦ The two bosses and part time boss syndrome
♦ Communication (internal and external) – vital for a
distributed team
♦ Recognition and ownership
Research
♦ Germplasm exchange
♦ Genetic stocks
♦ Data management
♦ Work quality standard
♦ Inclusiveness vs efficiency

39. Perspectives

40. Research activities: Integration into CRPs
GCP Research Initiative CRP in which embedded
1. Cassava Roots, Tubers and Bananas
2. Rice
Global Rice Science Partnership
(GRiSP)
3. Sorghum Dryland Cereals
4. Legumes Grain Legumes (TLIII project)
5. Maize MAIZE
6. Wheat WHEAT
7. Comparative genomics (sorghum,
rice, maize)
Sorghum: Al tolerance in sorghum
embedded in Dryland Cereals CRP
Rice: Al tolerance in rice embedded in
Global Rice Science Partnership
(GRiSP) CRP
Maize: Al tolerance in maize
embedded in MAIZE CRP
♦ Some unfinished activities to be hosted in the CRP
♦ Promising project to be extended if there is a fit with the overall objectives
♦ CRP Directors involved in the transition process

41. The IBP will survive the GCP
♦ A proposal currently under development to be submitted to
the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in a couple of months
♦ Proposed project duration: 5 years (2014-2019), 12M US$
♦ Overarching objective:
To improve the efficiency of plant breeding programmes in
developing countries by enabling plant breeders to access
modern breeding technologies, breeding materials and related
information in a centralised, integrated and practical manner
♦ Integration in a larger initiative?
The Integrated Breeding Platform:
Moving into Phase II

42. BMS: THE Core Product of the IBP
 10 crop-specific databases with historical data: Bean, cassava, chickpea,
cowpea, groundnut, maize, rice, sorghum, soya and wheat
 Up next will be: barley, lentil, potato and sweet potato
 Empty DB available for all crops
 Revised phenotyping DB schema: Chado Natural Diversity Module
The Breeding Management System (BMS)
Breeding Activities
Parental selection
Crossing
Population
development
Germplasm
Management
Open Project
Specify objectives
Identify team
Data resources
Define strategy
Project
Planning
Experimental Design
Fieldbook production
Data collection
Data loading
Germplasm
Evaluation
Marker selection
Fingerprinting
Genotyping
Data loading
Molecular
Analysis
Quality Assurance
Trait analysis
Genetic Analysis
QTL Analysis
Index Analysis
Data
Analysis
Selected lines
Recombines
Recombination
plans
Breeding
Decisions
Version 2 released in January 31, 2014

43. Tools&Services
Support Services: Genotyping, Sequencing, Omics, QA/QC, Logistics, Field
trials, Mechanization, Seed logistic Business plan, Financing
Capacity building – Social Networks
Analytical tools: Association, allelic mining, statistical, modeling, breeding decision,
Mgt.
Partners
Implemented
Breeding
QC & Seed
Production
Seed
Delivery
Pre-Breeding
Breeding
Diversity
Access
• Genebanks
CRP
• SEEDSEQ
• ARCAD
Phase 2
• Crop
Diversity
Trust
• NARS
GeneBanks
• Commodity
CRPs
• Seed of
Discovery
• Genetic gains
(Gates)
• IBP Central
Unit
• IBP Regional
Hubs
• Commodity
CRPs
• BeCA
• Multinational
• IBP Reg. Hubs
• System CRPs
• Commodity
CRPs
• BeCA
• AGRA/PASS
• Seed QC
SMEs
• System
CRPs
• Commodity
CRPs
• AGRA/PASS
• Planet
Finance
• ICRA
• SupAgro,
Sup Co
A Value Chain Support Service CRP
for Increased Seed Delivery
Data sharing: Data bases and data management

44. Conclusions

45. Programme Closure
♦ Where possible and appropriate there
should be defined end dates for research
programmes – with a clear handover
plan for perpetuation and dissemination
of products
♦ Engenders focus and urgency in the
performance of research tasks and
delivery of products

46. Conclusions
♦ Difficult to measure impact at this stage but overall it seems that
GCP has been a successful venture!
♦ Major achievements have probably been around:
♦ Establishment of true partnership with cultural change on how to run
R4D projects
♦ Several flagship projects
♦ Enabling partners in developing countries to access modern
biotechnologies
♦ We had also some clear shortcomings
♦ Monitoring and evaluation were the biggest shortfalls in GCP
♦ Several competitive projects were dead ends
♦ The CP research model can’t work in isolation, but is an attractive
model to complement core research activities
♦ Lessons learnt from the CPs in general and GCP in particular can
positively inform the CRP operational and organizational models
♦ IBP will survive GCP and can form the core part of a possible cross-
cutting initiative to support commodity CRPs

47. The GCP Team

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