strengthening national programmes for plant genetic ... · food and agriculture (pgrfa) can...

ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8

SPILLANE et al.

1

Strengthening National Programmes for PlantGenetic Resources for Food and Agriculture:Planning and Coordination

Charlie Spillane, Jan Engels, Hareya Fassil,Lyndsey Withers and David Cooper

IPGRI is an instituteof the ConsultativeGroup on InternationalAgricultural Research(CGIAR)

Issues in Genetic Resources No. 8 August 1999

Abstract

Efficient and well-coordinated national programmes on plant genetic resources forfood and agriculture (PGRFA) can contribute greatly to national socioeconomic de-velopment. The recent broadening of interest in the management and use of plantgenetic resources calls for the wider involvement of different sectors and stakeholdergroups in national PGRFA programmes and planning processes. If PGRFA activitiesare to meet current and future national needs, they require effective coordination,both horizontally – across different sectors, ministries and stakeholder groups – andvertically – between policy, institutional and field-level activities. Such coordinationcan minimize duplication of effort and ensure complementarity between activities.Some countries may wish to establish broader national programmes integrating themanagement of other forms of genetic resources such as animal, forestry, fish andmicrobial 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 validfor 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 needto define the purpose, functions and activities of its programme according to na-tional needs and objectives. Recognizing that different programme structures maybe necessary for different countries, the requirements for meeting core functions areidentified, and issues and options for structural organization and planning processesare reviewed, with reference to the experiences of existing national programmes. Majorstakeholder groups are identified, and the importance of involving them fully in theplanning process is emphasized. The opportunities for integrating PGRFA planningwith other national planning processes are highlighted. Regional options for collabo-rative PGRFA activities between countries are also discussed. The paper concludesby suggesting that participatory planning processes and flexible national programmestructures are likely to be the most appropriate, if the continual changes taking placein the physical, biological, policy, legal, economic and social environments are to bedealt 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 <[email protected]>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 occasionalseries of papers published by IPGRI on im-portant topics of interest to the genetic re-sources community.

The International Plant Genetic ResourcesInstitute (IPGRI) is an autonomous interna-tional scientific organization, supported bythe Consultative Group on International Ag-ricultural Research (CGIAR). IPGRI’s man-date is to advance the conservation and useof plant genetic resources for the benefit ofpresent and future generations. IPGRI’sheadquarters is based in Rome, Italy, withoffices in another 14 countries worldwide. Itoperates through three programmes: (1) thePlant Genetic Resources Programme, (2) theCGIAR Genetic Resources Support Pro-gramme, and (3) the International Networkfor the Improvement of Banana and Plantain(INIBAP).

The international status of IPGRI is con-ferred under an Establishment Agreementwhich, by January 1999, had been signed andratified by the Governments of Algeria, Aus-tralia, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, BurkinaFaso, Cameroon, Chile, China, Congo, CostaRica, 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 ResearchAgenda 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 ofKorea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mac-edonia (F.Y.R.), Malta, Mexico, Monaco, theNetherlands, Norway, Pakistan, the Philip-pines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia,Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Swit-zerland, Thailand, Turkey, the UK, the USAand 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 ResearchCentre (IDRC), International Fund for Agri-cultural Development (IFAD), InternationalAssociation for the promotion of cooperationwith scientists from the New IndependentStates of the former Soviet Union (INTAS),Interamerican Development Bank, UnitedNations Development Programme (UNDP),United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP) and the World Bank.

The geographical designations employedand the presentation of material in this pub-lication do not imply the expression of anyopinion whatsoever on the part of IPGRI,FAO or the CGIAR concerning the legal sta-tus of any country, territory, city or area or itsauthorities, or concerning the delimitation ofits frontiers or boundaries. Similarly, theviews expressed are those of the authors anddo not necessarily reflect the views of theseparticipating organizations.

Citation:Spillane, Charlie, Jan Engels, Hareya Fassil,Lyndsey Withers and David Cooper. 1999.Strengthening National Programmes forPlant Genetic Resources for Food and Agri-culture: Planning and Coordination. Issuesin Genetic Resources No. 8, August 1999.International Plant Genetic ResourcesInstitute, Rome, Italy.

ISBN 92-9043-411-2

IPGRIVia delle Sette Chiese 14200145 Rome, Italy

© International Plant Genetic ResourcesInstitute 1999

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM2


SPILLANE et al.

3ISSUES IN GENETIC RESOURCES NO. 8

SPILLANE et al.

Contents

Foreword 4Acknowledgements 5Executive Summary 6I. Introduction 10II. The rationale for multi-stakeholder national PGRFA programmes 13

Facilitating the involvement of all stakeholder groups 13Improving efficiency through better coordination 14National-level coordination of policy objectives in intergovernmental fora 16

III. Functions and core elements of a national PGRFA programme 19Purpose and functions 19Core elements 19National PGRFA plans and policies 19National coordination mechanisms 23

IV. Types of national programme structure: Options and examples 28Centralized programmes 30Sectoral programmes 30

V. Mechanisms for promoting coordination, communicationand collaboration 32National workshops and conferences 33National networks and other subsidiary bodies 33Local-level fora and farmer participation 37Options for collaborative efforts at the regional level 38

VI. Building public and political support for national PGRFA activities 40Public awareness 40Financing national programmes 40

VII. Conclusions 42Appendix I. Sectoral national plans relevant to integrated

PGRFA planning 43Acronyms and abbreviations 46Authors 48References 49Endnotes 50

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM3



4

ForewordIn recent years it has been increasingly rec-ognized that a wide range of stakeholdersare actually involved in the conservationand sustainable use of plant genetic re-sources for food and agriculture (PGRFA),including farmers who manage diversity on-farm, breeders who use genetic resources intheir crop improvement programmes, andcollectors and genebank curators.

Similarly, it is recognized that the conser-vation and sustainable use of PGRFA — akey component of biological diversity — canmake 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 widercontext of national plans for developmentand 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 impetusto them. It gives high priority to buildingstrong national programmes to plan, coor-dinate and promote country activities.

This publication is intended to assistcountries in strengthening the coordinationand planning functions of national pro-grammes for PGRFA and adjusting existingprogrammes to a continuously changingenvironment. Building upon the recommen-dations of the Global Plan of Action, and thefindings of the Report on the State of theWorld’s PGRFA, it reviews existing practicesin a range of countries to highlight key func-tions of national programmes and providesoptions on how these can be addressed.

It is hoped that this publication will alsocontribute to the integration of nationalprogrammes for plant genetic resources innational biodiversity strategies and actionplans being prepared for the Conventionon Biological Diversity.

Geoffrey HawtinDirector GeneralInternational Plant GeneticResources Institute

Mahmud DuwayriDirector, AGPFood and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM4


SPILLANE et al.

5

AcknowledgementsThis paper was developed through a broadconsultative process, with valuable inputsand efforts made by many people. Muchinformation was provided through the pre-paratory process for the FAO InternationalTechnical Conference on Plant Genetic Re-sources, in particular the country reportsthat formed the basis for The State of theWorld’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food andAgriculture. Further information was pro-vided through the regional meetings to pro-mote implementation of the Global Plan ofAction for the Conservation and Sustain-able Utilization of Plant Genetic Resourcesfor Food and Agriculture, organized in1998 by the Food and Agriculture Organi-zation of the United Nations (FAO), theConsultative Group on International Agri-cultural Research (CGIAR) and regionalresearch organizations. Previous reports onthe structure and coordination of nationalprogrammes, prepared by Mauricio Bellon,Alison McCusker, Trevor Williams andDavid Wood, provided useful backgroundinformation. The authors particularly wishto thank Stein Bie, Sally Bunning, ManabChakraborty, J. Clement, Random DuBois,Lyle Glowka, Doug Horton, ChristianHoste, Una Murray, Miriam Schomaker,Vivian Timon, Jeff Tschirley and AvaniVaish for their valuable help and inputs.Special thanks also go to the many staffmembers of IPGRI, FAO and other organi-zations who commented on earlier draftsof the paper, in particular Murthi Anishetty,George Ayad, Thomas Gass, Luigi Guarino,Iqbal Kermali, U.P. Menini, Ken Riley andJane Toll. Also acknowledged are the edi-torial contributions made by Simon Chaterand Linda Sears.

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM5



6

Executive SummaryPlant genetic resources for food and agri-culture (PGRFA) are vital for national foodsecurity and development, especially indeveloping countries. Strong nationalPGRFA programmes can help countriesimprove the conservation and use ofPGRFA and are the building blocks for ef-ficient international PGRFA efforts.

The need to strengthen national PGRFAprogrammes has been widely recognizedboth at national level and in various inter-national agreements, including the Con-vention on Biological Diversity (CBD), theInternational Undertaking on Plant Ge-netic Resources and the Global Plan ofAction for the Conservation and Sustain-able Use of Plant Genetic Resources forFood and Agriculture.

Effective planning and coordination areessential ingredients of a strong nationalPGRFA programme. They are particularlynecessary in view of a third characteristicof strong programmes – their need for ahigh degree of stakeholder involvement.

RationaleStakeholder involvement. The successfulconservation and sustainable use of PGRFArequires action by a wide range of peoplein each country. Involving representativesof different stakeholder groups in planningand implementing the national PGRFA pro-gramme is vital because it instils a sense ofownership of the programme and hence asense of responsibility for its success.

Germplasm users, including plantbreeders 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 planningprocesses, but their involvement is grow-ing. It must continue to do so if politicaland public acceptance of PGRFA activitiesis 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-sectorconcerns into their planning processes ifthey have not already done so.

Coordination. The effectiveness of nationalPGRFA conservation and use dependsgreatly on collaboration between individu-als and institutions with differingstakeholder interests. PGRFA activities of-ten span different sectors, such as agricul-ture, forestry, natural resources and eventourism. They are increasingly complex,often giving rise to problematic issues re-lating to the ownership of knowledge andresources.

All this implies the need for coordinationbetween the different components of the na-tional PGRFA programme. Coordinationneeds to be both horizontal – between dif-ferent ministries and sectors – and vertical –between the policy-making or planning leveland the institutional and field levels at whichactivities 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 developmentof different sectors, ironing out any confu-sion over objectives, roles and responsibili-ties. It is also important for the purposesof presenting a coherent national viewpointat international fora. At the institutionallevel coordinating is needed to avoid con-flicts and promote synergism between theactivities 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 institutionallevel can also help increase the capacity ofthe programme and bridge gaps in its cov-erage, for example by enlisting universitiesand 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


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 greatercontact with one another, particularly inareas such as germplasm exchange.

A well-coordinated national pro-gramme can help develop and express anational consensus on PGRFA issues, act-ing as an intermediary between the higherechelons of government and the manystakeholders in the country as a whole.

Planning. The many stakeholders andcomplex nature of PGRFA activities meanthat a broad participatory process is neededto develop a national strategy and plan forPGRFA activities.

The Global Plan of Action, developedthrough a country-driven process leadingup to the 1996 Leipzig Conference at whichthe Plan was adopted, serves as a frame-work for guiding national planning. Manycountries are currently building on the con-sultation process that led to the Plan tolaunch their own strategic planning proc-esses. National PGRFA plans can be devel-oped as components of a broader nationalbiodiversity strategy or action plan, andshould be linked to other relevant nationalplans, such as those for development and theenvironment. The most effective PGRFAplans will be those designed to meet broadernational planning objectives. Learning fromother planning processes is a key advantageof not planning in isolation.

The best planning processes are itera-tive, leading to an evolving set of priori-ties and actions that respond to changingneeds over time. The resources allocatedto the process should take the need for pe-riodic re-assessment into account. Provi-sions for monitoring implementationshould also be built into the plan.

Countries also need to develop nationalpolicies on specific aspects of PGRFA man-agement, such as access, exchange and thesharing of benefits. PGRFA policies, like na-

tional plans, are best developed through abroad consultative process involving rep-resentatives from all stakeholder groups.

Components of a national programmePlanning processes. Planning is necessaryto ensure that national objectives for theconservation and sustainable use of PGRFAare met. Needs assessments, involvingconsultation with stakeholders, are a pre-requisite. At present, the process of devel-oping a national plan can draw upon themomentum established in the preparatoryprocess for the Leipzig Conference, and theGlobal Plan of Action, which resulted fromthat, can serve as a guiding framework.National PGRFA plans can be developed ascomponents of broader NationalBiodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, or,alternatively, be developed separately. Alsoa range of other national plans in areas suchas agriculture, environments and generalsocioeconomic development can be used asthe content for national PGRFA plans.

National policies. Because of the interde-pendency of countries with respect toPGRFA, national programmes are likely toneed to gain access to genetic resourcesfrom other countries. To facilitate this, ap-propriate national policies will be required.Governments are currently negotiating in-ternational norms for access, exchange andbenefit-sharing through the revision of theInternational Undertaking in order to bringit into harmony with the CBD. Also, othernational policies might affect the conser-vation and use of PGRFA and thereforeconsultative processes involving allstakeholders in the development of suchpolicies are important.

Committees. Ideally, a broadly based na-tional PGRFA committee should have theresponsibility for planning, coordinatingand facilitating all aspects of nationalPGRFA conservation and use, and linkingthe various stakeholder groups involved.

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM7



8

Criteria for selecting the representativesof stakeholder groups to be committeemembers include knowledge of relevantissues, motivation and involvement in rel-evant activities, and power to mobilize keyresources. Clearly worded mandates,unbureaucratic decision-making processesand transparent relationships between thecommittee and other national bodies willall 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 focalpoint. This can be a designated individual,such as the chair of the existing nationalcommittee, a government institution or ahigh-level task force. Many countries havealready established a National BiodiversityUnit as the focal point for the coordinationof national activities related to the Conven-tion on Biological Diversity. In such casesthe PGRFA focal point could be a compo-nent of this unit. National focal points mayalso assist in generating external assistancefor PGRFA activities.

National focal points are likely to be-come increasingly important in facilitatingthe international exchange of germplasmand in overseeing the equitable sharing ofbenefits from PGRFA activities.

Programme structuresNational PGRFA programmes are of twomain kinds, centralized and sectoral. Incentralized 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 thatthe institution has a clear leadership rolein domestic activities while also serving asthe sole point of reference for external mat-ters. Dangers are that national activities canbe dominated by the institution and thatex situ conservation may be overempha-sized. In sectoral programmes, a range ofinstitutions with separate mandates take

responsibility for different commoditiesand activities. This model takes advantageof the specialized knowledge and resourcesof each institution, but it also requires cleardelegation of responsibilities and strongcoordination across ministries and sectors.

A third model also exists, in which acountry has no formally establishedPGRFA programme but nevertheless hassignificant 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 disadvantagesinclude lack of formal recognition by gov-ernment and lack of a secure budget.

Mechanisms for promoting coordination,communication and collaborationNational PGRFA programmes require effi-cient mechanisms for communicatingamong stakeholder groups and coordinat-ing activities at the operation level. Thiscan be achieved through networks, lower-level committees, task forces, consortia andso on. These may be crop-specific, basedon a specific zone or region, or devoted toa specific theme.

Crop-specific networks are an excellentway of organizing such activities asgermplasm collecting, conservation, evalu-ation and enhancement. They can also beused to promote the exchange ofgermplasm, greatly enhancing its use. Withtheir 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 especiallyadvantageous for countries with a limitednational capacity and resources. Farmingsystem or zone-specific bodies are an op-tion for countries that have numerous orcomplex farming systems. They can be par-ticularly useful in promoting partnershipsbetween farming communities and the for-mal scientific or government sector.

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM8


SPILLANE et al.

9

Theme-specific bodies can be used to buildcapacity in areas of strategic national im-portance, such as agricultural diversifica-tion, integrated pest management, genderand biotechnology.

Local-level fora may be important inbuilding farmer participation in researchand links with the formal sector. They cancontribute to the national PGRFA pro-gramme not only by strengthening com-munity management of PGRFA but also byexerting a demand pull on the pro-gramme’s products and services. Examplesinclude local agricultural research commit-tees in Latin America and farmer fieldschools in Asia. The most urgent need inspreading the use of such fora is to addressthe problems associated with scaling upand sustaining activities with reduced lev-els of external support.

Other mechanisms for enhancing plan-ning, coordination and collaboration in-clude workshops or conferences, andEmail. National workshops are often usedto launch a new programme or programmecomponent, and frequently form part of thenational planning process. They are a pow-erful means of forging consensus betweendifferent stakeholder groups. Email is be-coming increasingly used as developingcountries come on-line, as it cuts the costsand increases the speed of interaction be-tween stakeholders.

Collaborative regional PGRFA pro-grammes or networks can complementnational activities and enhance their cost-effectiveness. They provide a useful forumfor planning, needs assessment, priority-setting and actual implementation of con-servation and use activities.

Building supportSince most national PGRFA programmesare funded largely by public money, it isimportant to generate public and politicalsupport for them. Public awareness pro-grammes are the key to mobilizing thissupport. Such programmes can target a

variety of audiences, such as policy-mak-ers, schools and NGOs, and use a varietyof media, including national radio and tel-evision, newspapers and public lectures.

Many PGRFA activities are long term,yielding benefits only after a decade ormore. The national PGRFA programmetherefore needs to be seen as a long-terminvestment and afforded a legal status andfunding that will be resilient to shocks, suchas recessions or changes in government.Often a small amount of funding consist-ently provided over 10 to 15 years canachieve more than a higher level of fund-ing available only over a 3-year period.

Identifying and reviewing fundingsources is an important function of the na-tional PGRFA programme, especially in themany developing countries where externalfunding will continue to be essential for theforeseeable future. Programmes will needto do more to distribute information aboutpotential donors and to help stakeholdergroups to prepare project proposals.

ConclusionStrengthening their national PGRFA pro-grammes presents governments with a for-midable challenge. Given the importanceof PGRFA resources for food security anddevelopment, a timely and appropriate re-sponse to this challenge can only reap sub-stantial benefits.

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM9



10

I. IntroductionPlant genetic resources for food and agricul-ture (PGRFA) encompass the diversity ofgenetic material in traditional and moderncrop varieties, breeders’ populations, cropwild relatives and other plants that can beused to support food and livelihood secu-rity. There are strong economic, social andcultural reasons for countries to conserve,enhance and use these resources. As rawmaterials essential for national agricultureand food production, PGRFA constitute apublic good which is vital to a country’seconomy. States have sovereign rights overthe plant genetic resources within their bor-ders, the authority to establish how thoseresources are maintained and distributed,and the responsibility for ensuring that theyare conserved and sustainably used.

Well-coordinated national PGRFA pro-grammes or systems1 can help achievethese responsibilities and objectives. Theyare also the foundation for an efficient re-gional or international PGRFA effort. Theyare necessary building blocks for promot-ing international cooperation on access toPGRFA and the fair and equitable sharingof the benefits arising from their use. Thisaspect is particularly important given theinterdependence of countries with regard toPGRFA: no country is self-sufficient in theseresources and national production systemsoften rely heavily on genetic materials andrelated technologies found or originatingoutside their borders (Cooper et al. 1994).

To date, the primary purpose of PGRFAconservation and use has been for agricul-tural development, and more specificallyfor crop improvement through plant breed-ing. Where such activities are performedby national institutions, they are usuallythe responsibility of particular genebanksor plant breeding programmes within a na-tional agricultural research centre.

Many PGRFA conservation and use ac-tivities have been highly successful andhave already contributed significantly to

the development of improved crop varie-ties with increased yields. However, plantbreeders could doubtless make even moreeffective use of PGRFA than they do atpresent, both through conventional plantbreeding (and pre-breeding) and throughthe new biotechnologies. Since PGRFA arevital to the long-term prospects of anumber of economic sectors, including for-estry, industry and medicine as well as foodand agriculture, many other groups besidesplant breeders also need to be involved intheir management. Even within agricul-ture, the full benefits of PGRFA conserva-tion programmes are often not realizedbecause of poor links between germplasmcurators and potential users – notably plantbreeders and farmers.

Only through effective consultation andcommunication between relevantstakeholder groups can truly efficient na-tional PGRFA programmes be developed.Some countries have already establishedeffective mechanisms for the national-levelcoordination of PGRFA activities, whileothers are in the process of developing suchmechanisms. In 1975, the InternationalBoard for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR)reported that there were approximately 10national PGRFA programmes in existenceglobally (IPGRI 1993). Since then, increas-ing awareness among governments of theimportance of PGRFA has vastly improvedmatters such that, in 1995, about half of thecountries reporting indicated that they hadnational PGRFA programmes of one kindor another (FAO 1998:200). Most such pro-grammes are part of national agriculturalresearch systems (NARS) under the aus-pices of the Ministry of Agriculture (Bellon1994). However, not all of them accommo-date the degree of planning, coordinationand stakeholder involvement required toachieve 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


SPILLANE et al.

11

various international agreements, includingAgenda 21, the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD) and the International Un-dertaking on Plant Genetic Resources (whichis currently being revised through negotia-tions taking place under the auspices of theFAO Commission for Genetic Resources for

Food and Agriculture). The Convention,which is legally binding, requires that eachparty “shall develop national strategies,plans or programmes for the conservationand sustainable use of biological diversity”.2

More specifically, the Global Plan of Actionfor the Conservation and Sustainable Utili-

Box 1. National PGRFA programmes

Overall purposeTo contribute to national development, food security, sustainable agriculture and themaintenance of biodiversity through the conservation and use of PGRFA.

Essential coordination functionsA. Contribute to the development of national policies, plans and strategiesB. Coordinate and oversee the implementation of national activities, involving

all stakeholders; promote linksC. 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 notnecessarily being implemented by the programme itself. In situ (on-farm)conservation is, for instance, carried out by farmers and genetic enhancementis frequently being implemented by a specialized institute.

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM11



12

zation of Plant Genetic Resources for Foodand 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 LeipzigConference all 12 of the preparatorysubregional meetings and most of the 158country reports recommended that prioritybe given to strengthening national PGRFAprogrammes (FAO 1998:197). In drafting theGlobal Plan of Action, countries recognizedthat many existing national programmessuffer from poor planning and manage-ment, exacerbated by lack of resources andisolation from related activities (FAO 1996).National-level strategic planning and co-ordination was felt to be essential for thecost-effective use of resources, includingfunds (FAO 1998:203). Largely as a resultof 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 thatover 100 countries had national programmesof some kind – an increase of some 40% overthe number three years earlier.

It is important that each country’s na-tional programme has a clear mission orstatement of its purpose, developed to suitits own needs. The overall purpose identi-fied by almost all countries during the pre-paratory process for Leipzig is to contributeto national development, food security andsustainable agriculture (FAO 1998:197). Thisis the purpose shown in Box 1, along withthe essential coordination functions of anational programme, examples of pro-gramme activities, and potential partnersand stakeholders. These latter are examinedin more detail in subsequent sections.

In developing countries in particular,sustainable socioeconomic developmentand poverty eradication should be theoverriding objectives of genetic resourceswork (UN 1992). If decisions and activi-ties at the policy or institutional levels areto have a significant impact on develop-ment, it is essential that the users of PGRFA,particularly plant breeders and farmers, beinvolved in their formulation and imple-mentation. Similarly, PGRFA plans andprogrammes should be integrated withthose for the agricultural sector as a whole,which are usually also oriented towardpoverty eradication and development. Asnoted in the World Food Summit Plan ofAction, the conservation and use of plantgenetic resources are essential for achiev-ing food security and sustainable increasesin 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 anddevelopment spheres, they may be pivotalin reconciling environmental concerns withdevelopment needs. For example, in-creased and more strategic use of PGRFAwill be necessary for the development ofcrop varieties suited to marginal lands,while in high-productivity areas, mount-ing pressure to reduce the use of environ-mentally harmful agrochemicals impliesgreater reliance on the use of PGRFA di-versity. Such issues are reflected in both theCBD and Agenda 21, both of which call forthe integration of biodiversity conservationand use into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral policies, plans and programmes.3

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM12


SPILLANE et al.

13

Facilitating the involvement of all stakeholdergroupsIn all countries the conservation and useof PGRFA require action by a wide rangeof people, including planners, scientists,germplasm curators, breeders, extension-ists, rural communities and farmers. Box 2summarizes some of the advantages of in-volving all stakeholder groups in planningand implementing national programmes.Many countries may have only a handfulof professionals working specifically onplant genetic resources, but a much largernumber who are involved in some way inconservation or use. At the same time hun-dreds of thousands, or even millions, offarmers may be engaged in the manage-ment of PGRFA on their farms. Thus in-volvement of these various stakeholdergroups, through adequate representation,may greatly increase national capacity.

The activities of farmers and rural com-munities are by nature decentralized, withlinks to formal government or institutionalactivities that are often weak and some-times non-existent. Yet it is vital to securethe participation of such people in the na-tional programme because of their directinterest in and day-to-day management ofPGRFA. More and more countries are seek-ing the involvement of farmers in all agri-cultural research activities, for reasons ofboth efficiency in technology developmentand equity in the distribution of the ben-efits of development. Several cases of thesuccessful participation of farmers in theimprovement of PGRFA have been docu-mented (Eyzaguirre and Iwanaga 1996).

Most countries now have non-govern-ment organizations (NGOs) that are activein agricultural and rural development. TheNGO 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 alocal community, farmers, people with ashared special interest, people committed(or opposed) to a specific development orconservation project, and so on. They in-creasingly represent an important, thoughfragmented, contributor to conservationand local-level crop improvement.

Despite their direct livelihood interestin the conservation and use of PGRFA,farmers’ groups and other NGOs are stillunderrepresented 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, innational programmes and planningprocesses:• maximizes the number of actors in

PGRFA conservation and use,broadens the knowledge base andmay reduce costs (through the sharingof tasks) and increase effectiveness

• allows the diversity of needs to beunderstood and addressed, therebyfacilitating the definition of programmeobjectives

• boosts morale and increases thesense of ownership of the nationalprogramme or plan

• builds a constituency for PGRFAconservation and use, which helpsgenerate political and practicalsupport for these activities.

* Based on the conclusions of a workshop onnational programmes at the Regional Meetingfor Eastern and Southern Africa to PromoteImplementation of the Global Plan of Action,Gaborone, Botswana, May 1998.

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM13



14

states that links need to be developed andstrengthened both within this sector andbetween it and the formal sector. Never-theless, the involvement of farmers’ groupsin on-farm conservation and crop improve-ment is growing, and there are some out-standing examples in which such groupsare not only represented in planning andguiding NARS activities but have actuallyachieved an impact in redirecting resourcestoward users’ needs (Arnaiz 1995).

Given the almost universal decline infunding for public-sector agricultural re-search, including PGRFA conservation anduse, the active involvement of key stake-holders such as farmers in the planning andexecution of activities is now consideredto be essential if such activities are to war-rant the term ‘demand-driven’ and arehence to prove politically acceptable overthe 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 theCBD, Agenda 21 and the Global Plan ofAction. 4 The private sector may be particu-larly important in linking conservation anduse. However, its activities tend to be lim-ited to those that will realize a profit in theshort term. These activities includegermplasm characterization and crop im-provement (increasingly through biotechnol-ogy applications), as well as the productionand distribution of seed, mainly for commer-cial crops.

The improvement of crops that are onlyregionally or locally important, or that aregrown mostly by poorer farmers for sub-sistence (such as cassava, yams, plantainsand millets), is rarely financially viable andis 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 tovertically integrated industries in which thesame companies improve, produce andmarket the crop (oilpalm, rubber and

sugarcane, for example). Public-sector sup-port is therefore vital for many activitiesthat are socially or economically desirable,including long-term conservation and pre-breeding, the development of minor andunderutilized plant species, and crop im-provement for resource-poor farmers andmarginal environments. It may, however,be possible to promote the disseminationof traditional and improved seeds throughthe development of small-scale “entrepre-neurial” seed production activities amongsuch farmers.5 The extent of private-sectorinvolvement in PGRFA activities variesfrom country to country at present, but cur-rent trends suggest that all national PGRFAprogrammes need to integrate private-sec-tor concerns into their planning processesif they have not already done so.

Improving efficiency through bettercoordinationThe effectiveness of national conservationand use depends greatly on collaborationbetween ministries, sectors and institutionswith differing stakeholder interests. Coor-dination is needed to promote and sustainthis collaboration. Inadequate coordinationrisks the fragmentation and duplication ofefforts, or even the development of sepa-rate national strategies, plans and pro-grammes whose objectives may conflict.The increasingly complex nature of PGRFAactivities is a further factor implying theneed for effective coordination in policyformulation, planning and implementationof PGRFA conservation and use activities.Coordination should also ensure that pri-orities are correctly identified, that the al-location and use of resources reflects thesepriorities and that national policies are ef-fectively translated into national activities.

Horizontal coordination is neededacross different sectors and ministries andbetween different institutions andstakeholder groups. However, horizontalcoordination alone is unlikely to be ad-equate; it needs to be complemented by

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM14


SPILLANE et al.

15

vertical coordination within each sector orministry, linking policy formulation andplanning with the various levels at whichactivities are implemented. National pro-grammes should be structured so as to fos-ter the flow of information between thesedifferent levels and sectors.

Policy-level coordination. PGRFA activi-ties such as ex situ conservation and plantbreeding have traditionally been under theremit of the Ministry of Agriculture, whilein situ conservation usually comes underministries or departments concerned withforestry, environment, natural resourcesand, in some cases, tourism (FAO 1998:202).To clarify roles and responsibilities, manycountries urgently need better coordinationbetween the different ministries dealingwith agricultural development and plan-ning, PGRFA management, biodiversity/wildlife conservation and land-use plan-ning. This policy-level coordination willreap 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 nationalposition at the ministerial level in responseto germplasm requests from abroad.

Institutional-level coordination. Policiesand legislation are typically translated intoconcrete plans and activities by numeroustypes 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, companiesand political parties. Foreign institutionssuch as donors, NGOs and companies mayalso be relevant to the translation of na-tional policies and legislation into concreteactivities. The institutional level is there-fore in essence composed of structures thatfunction to link policies to the operational

level. Many institutions explicitly or implic-itly control the distribution of costs andbenefits through regulatory and servicedelivery mechanisms. The institutionallevel is an important level to actively con-sider in any national PGRFA programmeif tangible benefits are to be realized at thefield level.

Since different institutions typically con-centrate on different PGRFA activities, eachwith their own objectives, it is highly de-sirable to promote links between them, atleast to avoid the potential for conflict and,if possible, to create synergism. For exam-ple, an institution responsible for the in situconservation 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. Effectivecommunication can often overcome suchproblems. Similarly, stronger links betweenplant breeders and genebanks can lead tomore effective use of collections, thereby in-creasing the incentive to maintain thegenebanks. Improved links between botanicgardens/arboreta and the agricultural sec-tor could reveal opportunities for the devel-opment of new or underutilized crops.6

Even where institutions are formallylinked and operate as part of a broader pro-gramme or system, there may still be op-portunities for more effective links. Becausemany 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 cropsand trees of major production value, but anumber of important or potentially impor-tant commodities (or commodity groups)fall outside these categories. Industrial andplantation crops, like medicinal plants,may be under separate ministries or organi-zations, or else managed primarily by theprivate sector. Underutilized and wildplants important to rural livelihoods are

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM15



16

frequently neglected by NARS. Better linkscan be instrumental in efficiently bridgingsuch gaps in a resource-effective manner.Institutions such as universities and col-leges, which are not normally consideredas part of the core national system, can,given suitable links, play a key role inthe generation of knowledge and tech-nologies through research on PGRFA,being active in areas such as germplasmcollecting, characterization, evaluation,use, genetic diversity studies and bio-technology. Moreover, such institutionsare also active in training to meet futurenational needs and are often eager to re-spond to requests to collaborate or topriorities identified in instruments suchas national plans (FAO 1998:209).

In many countries, public-sector fund-ing for PGRFA conservation and use, aswell as for related agricultural research, hasbeen 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 areavailable.

Field-level coordination. If decisions andactivities at the policy and institutional lev-els are to have a significant impact on de-velopment, it is essential that the users ofPGRFA at the field level should be involvedthrough adequate representations in na-tional PGRFA programmes. Yet individu-als or groups working on PGRFA activitiesin the field often have little knowledge ofthe existence of other stakeholders withcomplementary expertise or activities.Moreover, links between formal-sector re-searchers and people in the informal sec-tor, notably farmers and NGO workers, areoften weak. Many resource-poor farmersand rural communities in developing coun-tries could benefit greatly from access to awider range of plant genetic resources andrelated 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 ruralcommunities. Yet farmers’ organizationsmay have little influence over the directionof national agricultural research, often hav-ing no links with the formal sector exceptthrough extension agents, whose work maynot include any plant genetic resources ac-tivities (Ashby and Sperling 1995).

The benefits of involving users in researchand development have long been recognizedby successful private-sector companies(Souder 1980). It is relatively easy for suchcompanies to identify their markets as thosewho both need their products and can af-ford to buy them. Public-sector bodies findit much harder, since they may be requiredto meet the needs of different client groups,which may be difficult to identify precisely.Very few public-sector agricultural researchinstitutes have incentive schemes which tan-gibly reward those who successfully meetclients’ needs or work with them as partners(Collion and Rondot 1998).

National-level coordination of policyobjectives in intergovernmental foraGovernments negotiate and develop strate-gies for international cooperation in PGRFAconservation and use through a range ofintergovernmental fora. The two fora mostrelevant to national PGRFA activities atpresent are the Conference of the Parties tothe Convention on Biological Diversity andthe FAO Commission on Genetic Resourcesfor Food and Agriculture.

Many countries are represented at eachof these fora by delegates from different min-istries. A total of 153 national CBD focalpoints were listed as participating in theThird Conference of the Parties to the Con-vention. As far as could be ascertained, 103were 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


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 FAOCommission, national PGRFA programmesshould be aware of the existence of manyother intergovernmental fora, such as theconferences of parties to the other conven-tions concerned with natural resources, theUN Commission on Sustainable Develop-ment, and the Trade Related IntellectualProperty Rights (TRIPs) Council and theCommittee on Trade and the Environmentof the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Governments are now confronted withincreasingly 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 importanceto the conservation and sustainable use ofPGRFA are listed in Box 3. Agreements suchas the CBD and the Marrakech Agreementestablishing the WTO are binding on thosecountries that have adopted them. Actionplans such as Agenda 21 and the Global Planof Action also represent the agreed approachof the world’s governments in the area ofPGRFA. 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 theactive participation of national programmesin these negotiations is necessary to ensurethat the agreements reached are satisfactoryto the majority of stakeholder groups.

National-level coordination in theseprocesses is necessary for several reasons.First, because of the sheer complexity ofmany 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 thepolicy and management issues they raiseare quite similar, such that a coordinatedeffort brings benefits, both to the knowl-edge base required for negotiation and tothe development of solutions (FAO1998:199). Third, and perhaps most impor-tant, policy-level coordination across dif-ferent ministries is essential if governmentsare to develop clear and unambiguousnational positions on key issues.

Moreover, stronger coordination be-tween ministries and sectors is also neededfor the purposes of feedback, to providenational PGRFA programmes with accu-rate information on issues under interna-tional negotiation and on the state of thenegotiations. This feedback will enablenational programmes to both influenceand assess the impact of international de-velopments and incorporate appropriateprovisions into their institutions and prac-tices (FAO 1996). Likewise, governmentrepresentatives participating in intergov-ernmental meetings dealing with PGRFA-related issues need to be well informed ofthe needs and priorities of the country’svarious stakeholder groups. A well-coor-dinated national programme can play acatalytic role in developing and express-ing a national consensus on relevant issues,acting as an intermediary between thehigher echelons of government and themany stakeholders in the country (Levy etal. 1992).

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM17



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


SPILLANE et al.

19

Purpose and functionsAs noted earlier, the overall purpose ofmost national PGRFA programmes is tocontribute to national development andsustainable agriculture. It is within thiscontext that programmes aim to identifyand 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 nationalsocioeconomic 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 allnational programmes are likely to be re-quired to perform in order to ensure theefficient implementation of activities ofconservation and use of PGRFA:

• developing policies, plans and strat-egies to meet national objectives forPGRFA conservation and use

• coordinating activities within thecountry, thereby facilitating partici-pation and cooperation amongstakeholders

• facilitating regional and interna-tional collaboration, and maximiz-ing national benefits from such col-laboration.

Core elementsJust as the activities of a national pro-gramme will vary between countries, soalso 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 andexchange of PGRFA

• coordination mechanisms, includinga national PGRFA committee (or simi-lar multi-stakeholder coordinatingbody) and a national focal point and/or coordinator for PGRFA activities,including international cooperation.

National PGRFA plans and policiesPlanning processes. Planning is necessaryto ensure that national objectives for theconservation and use of PGRFA are met.Box 4 indicates some of the essential stepsin developing a national plan.

It is important to get the planning processright, rather than trying to produce a nationalplan too rapidly. Social and economic needsassessments, involving consultation withstakeholders, are a prerequisite. It is also im-portant to generate a sense of ownership andresponsibility for the plan amongstakeholders. This can be done most effec-tively by involving the stakeholders from thevery outset of the planning process.

At present, the process of developing anational 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 situationin each country and identify priority needsand opportunities.7 Some countries (e.g.Canada, Chile, Indonesia, South Africa andSwitzerland) are now building on the ear-lier consultation process by establishingstrategic national planning efforts. TheGlobal Plan of Action, unanimouslyadopted at the Conference, serves as aguiding framework for national planning.While not legally binding, the Plan marksthe first time that governments have ad-

III. Functions and core elements of a national PGRFA programme

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM19



20

administration and coordination. It is ex-pected that the Plan will be regularly re-viewed and updated by countries throughthe FAO Commission, for which it will bea 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 andprogrammes for agricultural biodiversityconservation and sustainable use.8 Thus na-tional PGRFA plans can be developed ascomponents of broader NationalBiodiversity Strategies and Action Plans(NBSAPs) (Box 6), an approach taken byGermany, Canada, Kuwait, Lebanon, thePhilippines and Zambia.9 The NBSAPs of thelatter three countries include specific sectionson PGRFA.10 Alternatively, separate PGRFAplans can be developed. South Africa, forexample, has developed a separate WhitePaper on genetic resources and is now de-veloping a national medium- to long-termstrategic plan for genetic resources with theinvolvement of all stakeholder groups.Countries may also wish to develop PGRFAplans as part of wider Agricultural SectorPlans. In Zambia, PGRFA planning is takingplace in the context of the Agricultural Sec-tor Investment Plans, which are based on pri-orities and problems identified at the districtlevel (Mwila 1998). All these approaches arein line with the Global Plan of Action, whichemphasizes “the need for PGRFA pro-grammes to forge cross-sectoral links withagencies engaged in national planning andother programmes concerning agriculture,land reform and environment protection”(FAO 1996).

The FAO report that summarizes thecountry reports prepared for the LeipzigConference, The State of the World’s PlantGenetic Resources for Food and Agriculture,recognizes the need to place PGRFA pro-grammes firmly in the context of nationaldevelopment plans as well as nationalplans for the environment, forestry andbiodiversity. A wide range of national plans

Box 4. Essential steps in develop-ing a national plan for PGRFA

• Determination of overall purpose andtime-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 regionaland international frameworks (e.g. theGlobal Plan of Action)

• Identification of objectives, goals andtargets

• Development of criteria for identifyingpriorities (e.g. equity, efficiency, foodsecurity, etc.)

• Identification (by application ofcriteria) and detailed description ofpriorities (i.e. specific projects orprogrammes)

• Estimation of time-frames for imple-mentation of priorities

• Allocation of responsibilities forimplementation

• Identification of funding sources andfunding levels

• Monitoring and evaluation of nationalplan (periodically, using indicators)

• Reporting of the results of implemen-tation.

dressed the conservation and sustainableuse of PGRFA comprehensively, on thebasis of a careful consideration of their ownneeds. The Plan is thus akin to an “Agenda21” specifically for PGRFA. It comprises20 priority activities (Box 5), under eachof which is given a brief assessment of thecurrent global situation, followed by inter-mediate and long-term objectives andagreed recommendations for action in theareas of policy and strategy, capacity-building, research and technology, and

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM20


SPILLANE et al.

21

in the areas of agriculture, environmentand general socioeconomic developmenthave been used as the context for nationalPGRFA plans, including national develop-ment plans, national conservation strate-gies, national environment action plans,and national sustainable developmentstrategies, among many others (see Appen-dix I). The most effective PGRFA activitieswill be those that meet broader nationalobjectives as set out in such plans. Anotheradvantage of not planning in isolation isthat those involved in PGRFA planning canlearn from the experience of other nationalplanning processes.1 1

A national planning process could bestructured around several different entitiesor programme components grouped intodifferent action areas (e.g. management ac-tions, technical actions, research actions, etc.).National strategic plans for PGRFA,biodiversity or agriculture have to take intoaccount the scientific and other resourcesavailable, as well as national socioeconomicobjectives. The activity areas identified in theGlobal Plan of Action can be used as a frame-work for defining a series of projects. Projectsmay be phased in over time, depending ontheir relative priority and on the availabilityof human, technical and financial resources.

Box 5. Priority activities of the Global Plan of Action

In situ conservation and development1. Surveying and inventorying PGRFA2. Supporting on-farm management and improvement of PGRFA3. Assisting farmers in disaster situations to restore agricultural systems4. Promoting in situ conservation of wild crop relatives and wild food plants

Ex situ conservation5. Sustaining existing ex situ collections6. Regenerating threatened ex situ accessions7. Supporting planned and targeted collecting of PGRFA8. Expanding ex situ activities for non-orthodox seeded, and minor crops

Utilization of plant genetic resources9. Expanding the characterization, evaluation and number of core collections to

facilitate use10. Increasing genetic enhancement and base-broadening efforts11. Promoting sustainable agriculture through diversification of crop production and

broader diversity in crops12. Promoting development and commercialization of underutilized crops and species13. Supporting seed production and distribution14. Developing new markets for local varieties and promoting public awareness of

“diversity-rich” products

Institutions and capacity-building15. Building strong national programmes16. Promoting networks for PGRFA17. Constructing comprehensive information systems for PGRFA18. Developing monitoring and early warning systems19. Expanding and improving PGRFA education and training20. Promoting public awareness.

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM21



22

A national PGRFA planning processshould ideally be iterative, with countriesperiodically assessing the status of theirconservation and use activities and identi-fying an evolving set of priorities and ac-

tions to respond to changing needs overtime. A typical process might identify andanalyze 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 nationalstrategies, plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biologicaldiversity or adapt for this purpose existing strategies, plans or programmes which shallreflect, inter alia , the measures set out in this Convention relevant to the ContractingParty 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-sectoralplans, programmes and policies.”

In fulfilment of this article, countries that are Parties to the CBD are now developingNational Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs). NBSAPs, which areexpected to form the basis of more detailed plans and programmes, should identifyoptions and make specific recommendations for action on conserving biological diversityand sustainably using its components, including the integration of biodiversity considera-tions into national, sectoral and cross-sectoral plans. NBSAPs are also intended to setpriorities for national funding and to inform donors of national needs.

The preparation of NBSAPs has been identified as one of the enabling activities forcountries that are eligible for financing by the Global Environment Facility (GEF). Theguidelines for preparing an NBSAP suggest that the planning process should establish anational focal point such as a biodiversity unit or multi-stakeholder task force.* Nationaland provincial/district workshops are recommended as a means of reviewing NBSAPdrafts.

Following the recommendation of the Conference of the Parties (Decision III/11) thatnational plans, programmes and strategies covering agricultural biodiversity be devel-oped and that agricultural biodiversity should now be an area of priority funding,† theGEF has provided for “enabling funds” to be made available for the incorporation ofagrobiodiversity 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, formost countries the integration of PGRFA planning with biodiversity planning remains anopportunity 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’sSBSTTA has now been requested to develop a standard format for the future preparation of nationalreports on the level of implementation of the CBD, including the development of NBSAPs. Whetheragricultural biodiversity or plant genetic resources are considered in such formats will be decided bythe government representatives at SBSTTA. National plant genetic resources committees couldprovide inputs to the government decision-making process regarding their recommendations as to thestandard formats of reporting on the implementation of the CBD that should be finally decided on bySBSTTA.

† Decision III/11 of the Third Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity:Conservation and sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity, <http://www.biodiv.org/>.

‡ Kuwait Country Report (1995) prepared for ITC/PGR.

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM22


SPILLANE et al.

23

use. Because of the interdependency ofcountries with respect to PGRFA, almostall national PGRFA programmes are likelyto need access to genetic resources fromother countries from time to time, and ap-propriate national policies will be requiredto facilitate this. The use by others of acountry’s sovereign PGRFA can also servethe 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 therevision of the International Undertaking,which is being brought into harmony withthe CBD. Like national plans, PGRFA poli-cies are best developed through consulta-tive processes involving all stakeholders.

National coordination mechanismsPGRFA committees. A multi-stakeholdernational PGRFA committee or similar co-ordinating body can facilitate the develop-ment of appropriate policies and plans tomeet national PGRFA needs and objectives.It can also promote links among the broadrange of actors involved in the conserva-tion and use of genetic resources.

The need for coordination mechanismsof this kind has long been apparent andmany countries are now in the process ofestablishing or strengthening a nationalcommittee or similar body (FAO 1998:199).In 1995, during the preparatory process forLeipzig, 59 countries reported the establish-ment of a national committee. By the endof 1998, this figure had risen to some 95countries.13 In some countries, establishinga national committee was seen as the firststep in the development of a national pro-gramme in which the committee will begiven responsibility for overall strategic co-ordination, planning and policy guidance(FAO 1998:200). Box 7 describes an exampleof a well-established national committee.

Ideally, a broadly based national PGRFAcommittee should have the responsibilityfor planning, coordinating and facilitating

should be built into national plans so thatthese can be evaluated for their effective-ness (FAO 1996: para. 238). Different setsof indicators may be needed for monitor-ing at the technical and policy levels. Ge-neric planning tools for those involved instrategic 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 beuseful in national PGRFA planning.1 2

Detailed “Guidelines for National Biodiv-ersity Planning”, jointly published by theUnited Nations Environment Programme(UNEP), the World Resources Institute (WRI)and the World Conservation Union (IUCN),have been available since 1995 as planningtools to support the implementation of Arti-cle 6 of the CBD. However, no guidelines spe-cifically targeted at national agriculturalbiodiversity or PGRFA planning have yetbeen developed.

National policies. Countries also need todevelop national policies on specific as-pects of PGRFA management, such as ac-cess, exchange and the sharing of benefits.The realization of benefits from conservedPGRFA depends on their availability for

responsible for implementing each of itsrecommendations, and make any otherprovisions needed to ensure implemen-tation.

In developing the national planning proc-ess, countries may first need to conduct adialogue to articulate the overall nationalvision, goals and objectives for PGRFA con-servation and sustainable use. This dialogue,which should involve as many relevantstakeholder groups as possible, may alsoprovide the opportunity to identify repre-sentatives from each group to be involvedin the planning process proper.

The resources allocated to the planningprocess should take the need for periodicre-assessment into account (FAO 1996:para. 234). Provisions for monitoring

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM23



24

* Based on a paper by del Rosario, B.P., C.R. Escaño and S.P. Tababa presented to theRegional 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 ofall plant genetic resources activities. Established by the Department of Science andTechnology in 1993, the committee consists of representatives from the 15 govern-ment and non-government agencies mandated to conduct plant genetic resourcesactivities. It has also developed partnerships with other local and internationalorganizations involved in PGRFA work.

Policies, plans and legislation: Several laws and executive orders concerningprotected areas, seed regulations, biosafety, the rights of indigenous peoples andaccess to genetic resources, as well as plans such as the Philippine Strategy forBiodiversity Conservation, the Philippine Agenda 21 and the Magna Carta for SmallFarmers have been developed, often following lengthy consultation among thevarious stakeholders. Consultations with stakeholders are a standard procedurebefore defining Philippine positions at international and regional plant geneticresources 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, regionaland international NGOs, universities and government agencies. The committee hasalso 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 byfarming communities. These communities may form a collective group, such as theMagsasaka at Siyentista Para sa Pagpapaunlad ng Akmang Agricultura (MASIPAG).Regional agencies, such as the Southeast Asian Regional Institute for CommunityEducation (SEARICE) and Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN), alsoprovide technical and other forms of support. For protected areas, such as wildlifesanctuaries, protected landscapes and seascapes, the Department of Environmentand Natural Resources (DENR) devolves management responsibilities to indigenouspeoples, with the active support of many NGOs). Ex situ conservation and use, incontrast, are handled mainly by government agencies as part of their crop improve-ment programmes.

all aspects of national PGRFA conservationand use (Box 8). The committee can also actas an interface between national resourceplanning in different ministries and the moretechnical and operational aspects of PGRFAmanagement 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 differentstakeholder groups are represented by in-

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM24


SPILLANE et al.

25

dividuals with an adequate mandate fromtheir group. The factors affecting decisionsas to which stakeholder groups should berepresented on the committee are similarto those facing the establishment of anycoalition: while the theme may be common,the participants in the coalition can, andfrequently do, have different preferencesand goals. It will be helpful to ask:

• Who knows? This will identify thosewho have the necessary facts andknowledge to contribute.

• Who cares? This will identify thosewho have the necessary motivation,i.e. those who are committed to theoutcome and, often, directly in-volved in current activities.

• Who can? This will identify thosewith the power to access or mobilizeresources, and/or influence eventspositively (Pfeffer 1981).

Many national PGRFA programmeshave developed out of agricultural or otherresearch institutions in the public sectorwhich have traditionally had a hierarchi-cal management style and a relatively nar-row range of scientific disciplines. Broad-ening the range of stakeholders, acceptingand valuing the knowledge and needs ofless traditional stakeholders and allowingtheir effective contribution to the planningprocess can be a significant challenge(Wolfe 1983). An objective facilitator mayoptimize understanding among commit-tee members and help them succeed bytaking advantage of collective skills andknowledge. Also, since the committee willtypically be composed of individuals whoare extremely busy, the support of afacilitator or group with sufficient resourcesto specify and implement committee recom-mendations will be invaluable. Because ofthe broad range of issues at stake, the day-to-day management of a national pro-gramme is often best placed in the hands ofindividuals whose interests in PGRFA are ofa 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 moretechnical matters (Stacey 1996; Hatch 1997).

The issues of how representatives arenominated or elected and how long theyshould serve must also be addressed whenforming a national committee. How oftenshould re-nomination or re-election takeplace to ensure continuity of operations andexperience, but a “turnover” of viewpoints?And who will review the effectiveness of thecommittee? These questions should be ad-dressed at an early stage, so as to provide aclear mandate and incentive to committeemembers.

Clearly worded mandates specifyingthe 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 effortsfocus on the implementation of decisions.There are distinct advantages in more par-ticipatory styles of management, based onthe devolution of responsibilities and thefostering of teamwork.

The relationship between the nationalcommittee and higher- and lower-leveldecision-making bodies should also betransparent, with strong links for report-ing purposes in both directions. NationalPGRFA committees are often asked to ad-vise higher authorities on appropriate poli-cies. Wherever possible, both decisions andtheir implementation should be delegatedto lower-level bodies, particularly as re-gards operational aspects. This will allowthe committee to concentrate on its primaryplanning and coordination functions.

PGRFA focal points. These provide a cen-tral reference point to facilitate cross-sectoral coordination of national PGRFAactivities and international cooperation. Inparticular, they also help provide commu-nication, foster broad-based participationand promote networking. Where govern-ments have to deal with a large number of

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM25



26

donors or foreign investment bodies, thefocal point can additionally serve as amechanism for assessing project proposalsand externally funded activities to ensurethat they meet national needs.

In some countries a designated indi-vidual within the government serves as thefocal point. For instance, in Angola, Bot-swana, Indonesia, Lesotho and Namibia,the chairpersons of the existing nationalcommittee perform this role. 14 However, agovernment department, a national agri-cultural research centre or a high-level taskforce can also serve as the national focalpoint. In countries with a highly central-ized national programme (see next section),the focal point function can perhaps bestbe exercised through a designated NationalCentre for PGRFA.

The focal point can be designated by thehead of state, parliament, a planning board,a government ministry or any other deci-

sion-making body. Its responsibilities canbe determined either through national leg-islation and policy guidelines (in the caseof a government agency, a national agri-cultural research institute or a nationalbiodiversity unit, etc.) or by contract (in thecase of a university or a private-sector or-ganization).

To be fully effective, a national focalpoint should be integrally linked to andreport regularly to the national committee(or similar advisory and planning body).Focal points should also have strong linkswith counterparts in other relevant nationalsectors. Perhaps the most important ofthese is the focal point for the CBD. Theimportance of a national biodiversity focalpoint was explicitly recognized by the or-ganizations responsible for assisting coun-tries in implementing the CBD, when theymade establishing such a point the first stepin the seven-step biodiversity planningprocess they developed and promoted(Miller and Lanou 1995). As a result, manycountries have already established a Na-tional Biodiversity Unit as a focal point forthe coordination of national activities re-lated to the CBD. It may be advantageousto establish a PGRFA focal point focusingspecifically on agricultural biodiversity, inview of its differing technical needs. Alter-natively, the PGRFA focal point could be acomponent of a larger NationalBiodiversity Unit.

Focal points can play an important rolein identifying funding for PGRFA activitiesfrom both domestic and external sources.In countries eligible for GEF funding, it istherefore desirable to establish links be-tween national PGRFA focal points and theGEF National Selection Committees. Thesecommittees are responsible for determin-ing national strategies and priorities withinthematic areas, choosing projects for GEFawards, and overseeing programme imple-mentation, monitoring and evaluation.Collaboration with such committees in thedevelopment of project proposals is essen-

Box 8. Potential responsibilities ofa national PGRFA committee

• Ensure that national PGRFAconservation and use activities meetnational agricultural and socio-economic needs

• Facilitate national PGRFA planning,and implementation of the plan

• Determine the financial and otherresources needed by the nationalprogramme and help to secure theseresources from the relevant public-and private-sector bodies

• Review and monitor the strategy ofthe national programme and promoteits effective implementation

• Provide advice to government ondomestic legislation and policynecessary to enhance PGRFAconservation and use in line withnational objectives

• Coordinate representation in inter-national and intergovernmental fora.

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM26


SPILLANE et al.

27

tial, as the GEF project cycle specifies thata letter of endorsement from a country’snational GEF focal point must accompanyeach project proposal.

National focal points will be essentialfor mobilizing national capacity to partici-pate in, and benefit from, global efforts toconserve and use PGRFA. Because of theirpractical experience of national PGRFA ac-tivities they are well placed to foster re-gional and international collaboration. In-deed, many intergovernmental agreementson PGRFA access and benefit-sharing havealready been developed with the activeparticipation of such national representa-tives. Given the changing access regimesin many countries, national PGRFA focalpoints will be important in facilitating theexchange of germplasm and related tech-nologies among a broad range ofstakeholders at the international level.1 5

They could also play an increasingly im-portant part in overseeing the equitablesharing of benefits arising from the use ofPGRFA, in line with the terms of the CBDand other relevant agreements. PGRFA fo-cal points may also facilitate the transferof technology and, in this respect theyshould form links with bodies or focalpoints for this activity, where these havebeen established.1 6

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM27



28

Each national PGRFA programme needs theorganizational structure best suited to itscountry’s circumstances. This structure willdepend 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 (FAO1998:200).

The status, structure and objectives ofPGRFA programmes are often evolutionaryin character, reflecting past history as wellas anticipated future trends. The relativelevel 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 ofthe World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food andAgriculture, indicates great diversity amongnational PGRFA programmes, many beingrestricted in both scope and structure (FAO1998:200). Some programmes consist of a fewunder-resourced scientists collecting seedsfor storage in domestic freezers. Others in-volve a large array of crop research centreswith hundreds of scientists conserving andimproving PGRFA through large plantbreeding programmes. For example, the IrishGenetic Resources for Food and AgricultureProgramme has one staff member facilitatinggenetic resources activities among a rangeof mainly non-governmental stakeholdergroups.17 The Chinese Crop Germplasm Pro-gramme, in contrast, includes over 400 in-stitutes and 2000 scientists.18

National programmes should addressmore than just genebank operations. Theyshould encompass the conservation and sus-tainable use of PGRFA in the broadest possi-ble sense, with strong links between thesetwo areas and among all those involved inthem. In establishing or strengthening a na-tional programme, every effort should bemade 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 strategicplanning process, being encouraged to workin unison toward common or complemen-tary goals. Recently, several countries, in-cluding Kenya, Uganda (Box 9) and SouthAfrica, have established a nationalinterministerial biodiversity and/or environ-ment council authority or agency with theresponsibility of coordinating the planning,management of their environment and im-plementation of biodiversity conservationand use activities. PGRFA activities are anintegral part of such efforts. A comparablebut more sectoral solution has been imple-mented in Costa Rica (Box 10).

Different degrees of coordination andcentralization 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 tomaintain consistency and promote effi-ciency, and the operational level, wheredecentralization is necessary to scale upefforts and hence achieve greater impact.In many instances, the successful coordi-nation of PGRFA activities across differentministries, institutions and user groups willdepend largely on how “embedded” thePGRFA programme is in the NARS, thestructure of the research organization pro-viding the programme’s institutional“home”, and the nature of funding for thedifferent sectors involved in the pro-gramme. However, on an exceptional ba-sis there may be specific national reasonsfor keeping these sectors separate.

The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Re-sources for Food and Agriculture provides aregional survey of national PGRFA pro-grammes, grouping them according towhether they are predominantly central-ized or sectoral, and whether or not theyhave been formally established.

IV. Types of national programme structure: Options and examples

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM28


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. Itsmandate 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 developmentactivities.

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 LiaisonUnits, which were established in line ministries, parastatal enterprises and privatesector organizations, and vertically between NEMA and the Districts, subdistrictsand communities.

(b) Resource and responsibility-sharing, in which the role of NEMA is to identifyresources and make them available to appropriate institutions which have theprimary responsibility of implementing environment management programmes andprojects.

(c) Monitoring, reporting and information-sharing, whereby NEMA collects,consolidates, analyzes and disseminates information to various implementingagencies, resource users and other stakeholders.

Box 10. Agricultural research and technology transfer coordinationin Costa Rica

An interesting example of inter-institutional coordination at the national level in thebroader area of agricultural research is provided by Costa Rica, which has establisheda coordinated system of institutions which voluntarily work together to achieve definedagricultural development objectives (Hobbs et al. 1998). A national commission foragricultural research and technology transfer (CONITTA) brings together the 23 mostimportant agricultural institutions, both public and private. CONITTA advised the CostaRican government on research policy and coordinates the planning of agriculturalresearch and technology transfer. In addition 18 multi-institutional programmes foragricultural research and technology transfer were created to plan and coordinate theactivities 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 theseprogrammes.

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM29



30

Centralized programmesIn this type of programme (Box 11), onecentral institution, such as a national plantgenetic resources centre, both coordinatesand implements most national PGRFA ac-tivities. In 1996, 35 countries were reportedto have such centralized programmes (FAO1998:201). The type of central institutionranges from one solely concerned withPGRFA (e.g. the Indian National Bureau ofPlant Genetic Resources, NBPGR) to onewhose scope covers all biodiversity withina country (e.g. the Ethiopian NationalBiodiversity Institute). A major advantageof this approach is that it allows the desig-nation of a single national focal point whichhas a clear leadership role in the planningand implementation of domestic public-sector PGRFA activities relating to conser-vation and use, while also serving as thesole point of reference for issues and deci-sions relating to international access andexchange of PGRFA. Coordination is alsocentralized. However, if the coordinationcapacity is inadequate, this may result inactivities being dominated by the interestsof the Centre, with the exclusion of otherstakeholders. There may also be an over-emphasis on ex situ conservation at the ex-pense of other activities.

Sectoral programmesSectoral programmes are based on the in-volvement of a range of institutions withseparate mandates for different sectors ofbiodiversity conservation and use (Box 12).This model is based on the principle thatspecific activities are best carried out byindividual institutions (or sectors) accord-ing to their different strengths, with policyand planning being governed by an over-all coordinating committee or council rep-resenting relevant government ministriesand departments, universities and NGOs.In 1996, 19 countries reported having suchprogrammes. Sectoral programmes requirea clear delegation of responsibilities and

Box 11. Examples of centralizednational programmes

• India: Decision-makers in India arewell aware of the importance ofconserving and using PGRFA. TheNational Bureau of Plant GeneticResources (NBPGR) is responsible forIndia’s comprehensive national plantgenetic resources system and worksclosely with over 30 institutions andcentres. NBPGR is responsible forplanning, organizing, conducting,promoting and coordinating all activi-ties related to plant exploration,collection, introduction, conservation,exchange, evaluation and documenta-tion, as well as quarantine. Thisincludes the development of trainingcapabilities (FAO 1998:206).

• Ethiopia: In 1994 the Ethiopian PlantGenetic Resources Centre (PGRC/E)was reorganized to form part of acomprehensive national programmeunder the umbrella of the NationalBiodiversity Institute, which is nowresponsible for both in situ and ex situconservation of animal and microbial,as well as plant genetic resources.

• The Netherlands: The NetherlandsCentre for Genetic Resources (CGN),which is the designated nationalgenebank and central organizationresponsible for the conservation of thecountry’s PGRFA, was overseen by theMinistry of Agriculture, Nature Manage-ment and Fisheries (LNV) from 1985until 1991, when it was reorganized toform part of a larger institution, namelythe Centre for Plant Breeding andReproduction Research (CPRO) of theAgricultural Research Department(DLO). CGN continues to be fullyfunded by the LNV. As stipulated in itsformal charter, it embodies the coun-try’s contribution to the overall globaleffort to conserve PGRFA.

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM30


SPILLANE et al.

31

strong coordination across governmentministries and sectors to ensure that theirobjectives and activities are complemen-tary.

The genetic resources programme ofFrance contains features of both the cen-tralized and the sectoral models. Most ac-tivities are carried out through institutionsmandated to work on specific crops orproblems. Coordination is providedthrough a central Bureau des RessourcesGénétiques, which is governed by a boardcomprising representatives of several sec-tors (see also Box 12).

Some countries that do not have for-mally established national PGRFA pro-grammes nevertheless have significantconservation and use activities, with coor-dination provided by a national commit-tee or similar mechanism. Where the co-ordination mechanisms function well, thisapproach can be as effective as a formallyestablished national programme. In 1996,20 countries were reported to have such“coordination only” programmes (e.g.Morocco, Indonesia, Malaysia and CostaRica). That of Morocco, in particular, is con-

sidered to work well (FAO 1998:204). Thisapproach has disadvantages, however, twoof the most serious being a lack of formalrecognition by government and lack of asecure budget.

Box 12. Examples of sectoral national programmes

• In South Africa, national plant genetic resources activities are decentralized toinstitutions concerned with specific activities, such as agriculture, forestry andwildlife (FAO 1998:207). Coordination is through a National Plant GeneticResources Committee.

• France and Switzerland have decentralized institutional systems for ex situconservation, in which different genebanks organized under formal nationalprogrammes hold different categories of germplasm (FAO 1998:200).

• In 1994, the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic established a NationalProgramme on Plant Genetic Resources Conservation and Use. The programmefunds 11 institutions and is coordinated by one of them. There is also a Czech Boardon Plant Genetic Resources, which acts as an expert panel and scientificcoordinating body. *

* Czech Republic Country Report (1995) prepared for ITC/PGR.

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM31



32

Broad stakeholder participation willstrengthen a national programme and en-able it to make the best possible use ofavailable human, financial and technicalresources. However, many stakeholdersmay hesitate to become involved in a na-tional programme if they feel that their in-dependence is being compromised. At-tempts to broaden participation shouldtherefore explicitly recognize the autonomyand interests of individual stakeholdersand seek to strengthen and build on theiractivities, not to control them. The devel-opment of shared goals and visions and thedelegation of responsibility for implement-ing particular activities will be importantin this respect.

National programmes require efficientmechanisms for communicating amongstakeholder groups and coordinating ac-tivities at the operational level. This canbe achieved through networks, topic-spe-cific subsidiary bodies or committees, orby organizing workshops and conferences,as discussed below. There are many optionsthat 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. Electroniccommunication is now becoming increas-ingly important, enhancing access to infor-mation at relatively low cost (Box 13).

A specific example of the applicationof electronic communicat ions to aPGRFA objective is found in the System-wide Information Network for GeneticResources (SINGER) managed by theCGIAR System-wide Genetic ResourcesProgramme (SGRP). Through theInternet <http://www.cgiar.org/singer>or on CD-ROM, SINGER provides dataon the genetic resources collections of theCGIAR centres, making it easier for ge-

netic resources workers outside theCGIAR to gain access to information onthe origin and agronomic characteristicsof the material.

V. Mechanisms for promoting coordination, communication and collaboration

Box 13. Electronic communications

The past decade has seen rapid growth inthe use of electronic communication toexchange a wide range of information, fromsimple verbal messages to complex datasets and images. Recently, many developingcountries have begun making increasinguse of such communication. The mostcommon and effective means of electroniccommunication is Email (Hart 1994).

The advent of this improved informationtechnology (IT) has much to offer theagricultural sector, and PGRFA work inparticular. Email can facilitate communica-tion between the focal point of the nationalPGRFA programme and nationalstakeholders, other national PGRFAinitiatives, international organizations26 andfunding bodies. Genebank curators andbreeders can make a range of specializeduses of the Internet and Email, including theaccessing of distant genebank accessionlists. The national programme should ensurethat breeders and other stakeholder groupshave access to electronic communicationsinfrastructure and software. Becauseelectronic communication also allows adegree of decentralization of activities suchas data management, decision-makers needto take its potential into account whenconsidering changes to the structure of thenational PGRFA programme.

An increasing number of donors nowhave programmes that support activities tostrengthen IT capacity in developingcountries. Examples are the UNESCOAfrican Networking Initiative, the WorldBank’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


SPILLANE et al.

33

National workshops and conferencesRegular national workshops or confer-ences are a means of reviewing nationalPGRFA activities to catalyze stronger in-teraction, understanding and coopera-tion among national PGRFA stake-hold-ers. They can be arranged as a series ofmeetings, each focusing on themes ofspecial interest to different stakeholders.National workshops have often beenused to launch a new national pro-gramme or programme component. Thisapproach has been pursued by severalAfrican countries. In Mauritius, a na-tional workshop resulted in the inceptionof a National Coordinating Committeeon PGRFA. In Namibia, the first NationalPGRFA Workshop developed and for-malized national policy guidelines forPGRFA activities.19 The Ugandan Na-tional Committee convened a nationalworkshop 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 thegermplasm available in the country oraccessible from elsewhere via the na-tional PGRFA programme. 21 A survey of17 countries indicated that similar con-sultative meetings or workshops hadbeen used in the development of nationalbiodiversity strategies and plans (Millerand Lanou 1995). A participatory plan-ning process for the development of anational PGRFA programme using a se-ries of national, regional and specialistworkshops 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 subsidiarybodiesNetworks are a means by which partiessharing 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 tofunction efficiently, it is essential that allmembers are able to participate fully. Ifthey become dominated by a single indi-vidual or organization, the collaborativenature of the network is undermined (Nel-son and Farrington 1994).

Networks are vital to the PGRFA sectoras 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 exchangeof materials, thereby greatly enhancing use.The French national genetic resources pro-grammes provide a good example of the useof networks for these purposes (Box 15).Networks can, in addition, be used to helpset priorities for action, develop new policyinitiatives 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 networkscan be especially advantageous. Tunisiahas recently restructured its national pro-gramme using a network model. This fol-lows an earlier unsuccessful attempt to es-tablish a centralized national programmebased 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 neededto sustain the Centre. In the new approach,a formally established national pro-gramme is based on a network of researchinstitutions, each with its own mandateand comparative advantages. A nationalcommittee coordinates the activities ofthese institutions.22

Networks are the most important typeof subsidiary organization found within orinteracting with the national PGRFA pro-

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM33



34

gramme, but they are not the only one. Com-mittees, councils, working groups, taskforces or consortia are alternatives. They maybe crop-specific, based on a specific zone orregion (e.g. ecoregional consortia) or devotedto a specific theme.

Crop-specific bodies. If a crop or group ofcrops is particularly important to the nation’sagriculture, a crop-specific network, commit-

tee or other body can be established. Such abody can provide a logical basis for multi-stakeholder coordinated planning (vanHintum et al. 1990). Crop-specific networks,with their relatively narrow focus, are anexcellent 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 ofall germplasm accessions in relevant ex situ

Box 14. A participatory process for developing a national programmeand 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 berealized, and identifies the main stakeholder groups. A series of regional workshops andseminars 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 makesdefinitive proposals to the authorities. It is envisaged that the various stakeholdergroups would be responsible for implementing the plan, once it is approved.

* Cubillos, A. 1998. Participatory development of a national programme. Presentation to the RegionalMeeting 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 wassuggested that a regional seminar might be held on it.

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM34


SPILLANE et al.

35

collections, the strengthening of collabora-tion in the collecting and evaluation ofgermplasm, and the promotion of more ef-fective use of the crop’s genetic resources.They also ensure that members keep abreastof national and international developmentsconcerning their crop. The State of the World’sPlant Genetic Resources for Food and Agricul-ture provides a comprehensive survey ofexisting 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 otheractivities

• monitor national and internationalcollections for the presence of use-ful genetic resources

• identify priorities for germplasmcollection and introduction

• coordinate and guide nationalevaluation 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 fornational level crop improvement.

Box 15. The crop networks of the French national programme

Genetic resources in France are managed through cooperative networks involvingboth public- and private-sector partners. Networks have been established for eachspecies (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 charterand is supported by a technical committee and a steering committee.

France has decided on this decentralized management system because it regardslarge centralized genebanks as too cumbersome. Its approach is one in whichresponsibility is shared among the different parties concerned with the long-termmaintenance 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 arenot considered of national interest for long-term conservation. A legal statute for thenational collections maintained by these networks is being developed. Networkmembers 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 dynamicmanagement 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 bringstogether state bodies, research and academic organizations, private-sector compa-nies and NGOs.

The decentralized programme in France involves partners with widely differinginterests. Their active involvement ensures that the networks are sustainable. It alsoensures the evaluation of germplasm according to the needs expressed by users andthe 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



36

The National Plant Germplasm System(NPGS) of the United States Departmentof Agriculture (USDA) is an example of anational programme in which crop-specificgermplasm committees are used to reviewand plan national PGRFA activities (USDA1995) (Box 16).

Linking the work of such national crop-specific bodies with regional and interna-tional networks involved in particularcrops can strengthen national efforts andhelp spread the costs of research. Suchlinks can also promote the more effectiveuse of PGRFA, by increasing the users ofspecific collections. Good examples of thisapproach are provided by the networks ofthe European Cooperative Programme onGenetic Resources (ECP/GR).

Farming system-specific bodies. An op-tion open to countries that have numerousand/or complex farming systems withmany crop species is to establish networksor 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 particularlyuseful in promoting partnerships betweenfarming communities and the formal sci-entific or government sector. In Mali, dis-trict committees which include farmers’representatives advise on priorities for theNARS (Oumar Niangado, pers. comm.,1998).

Norway has adopted, on an experimen-tal basis, an approach that could beadapted by large countries with heteroge-neous agro-ecological zones or farmingsystems. It has developed local biodiversityaction plans as a possible mechanism forimplementing the national biodiversitystrategy. There are many other countries,especially in the developing world, wherespecies-rich farming systems are associatedwith indigenous and local communities,embodying traditional lifestyles that arerelevant to the conservation and sustain-able use of PGRFA. Local-level or farmingsystem-level approaches could well provemore 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 ofAgriculture (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 NationalGenetic Resources Advisory Council of the NPGS; each committee has 8 to 25members, 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 membersfrom neighbouring countries (e.g. Canada and Mexico) and from international centressuch as the Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (CIMMYT) and theAsian Vegetables Research and Development Centre (AVRDC).

The chairpersons of the Crop Committees meet biennially to exchange information andexperience.

Source: Allan Stoner and Mark Widrlechner, pers. comm., January 1999.

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM36


SPILLANE et al.

37

proaches in ensuring the effective partici-pation of such communities in the nationalPGRFA programme.2 3

Theme-specific bodies. These can be usedto strengthen national capacity by build-ing critical mass in areas of strategic im-portance to national needs. Theme-specificbodies can unite those interested in a spe-cific theme in many different sectors, insti-tutions and stakeholder groups. TheUSDA’s NPGS has a New CropsGermplasm Committee, a GermplasmOperations Committee and several Tech-nical Advisory Committees. Indonesia hasa National Working Group for IndonesianMedicinal Plants (Shelton 1995), while theMalawi National Plant Genetic ResourcesProgramme has established three thematicworking groups (the Food Crops Group,the Industrial and Horticultural CropsGroup and the In situ and Forestry Group)to propose activities to the national com-mittee. 24 Based on the priority areas andrecommendations of the Global Plan ofAction, some examples of other themes onwhich 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 participationDecision III/11 of the Conference of theParties to the Convention on BiologicalDiversity recognizes that end-users mustbe involved through adequate representa-tion in the national PGRFA programme ifthe programme’s decisions and activitiesare to have a significant impact on devel-opment. The Decision calls for the estab-lishment and maintenance of local-levelfora in which farmers, researchers, exten-

sion workers and other stakeholders canevolve genuine partnerships.2 5

Local Agricultural Research Commit-tees (CIALs) of the kind used in Colombiaand elsewhere have been successful in in-stitutionalizing farmers’ participation inadaptive research, including the testing ofnew crop varieties (Ashby et al. 1995). Seedfairs have been organized in many partsof the world to promote the exchange ofvarieties and information among farmersand between farmers and the formal sec-tor. Farmer Field Schools (FFS), which havebeen very successful in promoting IPM byimproving farmers’ understanding andapplication of ecological principles to cropmanagement, are now also being used topromote the conservation and improve-ment of PGRFA (FAO 1994).

National research institutes can play arole in facilitating the involvement of farm-ers in the planning and implementation ofPGRFA activities. For example, the recentlyreorganized National Center for Agricul-tural Technology (CENTA) in El Salvadornow gives farmers a central role asstakeholders in the new organization(Hobbs et al. 1997), based on five criticalpractices: (i) improving CENTA’s access tofarmers, (ii) collecting in-depth informa-tion about farmers, (iii) involving farmersin research planning, (iv) involving farm-ers in research implementation, and (v)sharing research information with farmers.The active involvement of a wide range offarmers and rural organizations in as manyactivities of the national PGRFA pro-gramme as possible (e.g. planning, projectformulation, technology testing, etc.) willstrengthen the programme greatly andhelp 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 salariedprofessionals (Farrington and Martin1988). National programmes adopting a

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM37



38

farmer participatory approach, as envis-aged in the Global Plan of Action, will needto address the issues of scale andsustainability. Since extension staff usuallyoutnumber both germplasm curators andplant breeders, their involvement may bekey to ensuring links between the field andinstitutional levels (Bagchee 1993). TheExtension Service in Zimbabwe(AGRITEX), for example, is working withNGOs to support seed fairs. Local govern-ment authorities may provide an alterna-tive institutional base for ensuring thesustainability 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 oneway around the scaling-up problem(Collinson 1983). This approach was usedas early as the 1960s, when Oxfam spon-sored farmer-to-farmer visits across Cen-tral American countries, and subsequentlyhas 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 byorganizing many different groups of farm-ers, or by working with existing farmers’organizations (e.g. Heinrich and Masikara1992; Mattee and Lasalle 1994; Muchagataet al. 1994). A major advantage of this ap-proach is that different farmers’ groups indiverse micro-environments will adapt andadopt only the germplasm and other tech-nologies that are best suited to their needs(Okali et al. 1994).

Some studies of participatory researchand development indicate that such ap-proaches may reduce the costs of appliedresearch in plant breeding (Ashby andSperling 1994). However, their full poten-tial cannot be realized unless a range ofassociated problems are adequately ad-dressed (Wuyts-Fivawo 1996). Such prob-lems include, at the institutional level, thecontinuing 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 orcapacity to participate effectively in theplanning of agricultural research and de-velopment (Carney 1996).

The success of such local forums asCIALs in Latin America and FFS in Asiasuggests that there may already be anumber of cost-effective models for na-tional PGRFA programmes to consider asthey seek to promote the involvement offarmers in national PGRFA activities(Loevinsohn et al. 1998). Local fora-basedapproaches can contribute to the nationalprogramme not only by strengtheningcommunity management of PGRFA butalso by exerting a “demand pull” on theprogramme’s products and services. Thisthey do by empowering farmers to articu-late their needs, such as a wider range ofplanting materials, more effectively.

Options for collaborative efforts at theregional levelCollaborative regional PGRFA pro-grammes or networks can complementnational PGRFA activities, enhancing theircost-effectiveness. They provide a usefulforum for planning, including the devel-opment of proposals for regional projectsor 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 smallerWest African countries, which would oth-erwise lack a critical mass of staff and re-sources for both planning and implemen-tation. Regional or subregional networkson aspects of PGRFA work have now beenestablished in most parts of the world. TheState of the World’s Plant Genetic Resourcesfor Food and Agriculture provides a compre-hensive survey of them. Many of these net-works are organized under the auspices ofthe relevant regional association of NARS.A Global Forum for Agricultural Research

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM38


SPILLANE et al.

39

(GFAR) has recently been established, con-sisting of many of these regional associa-tions together with representatives fromother sectors (Box 17).

A good example of a regional PGRFAnetwork 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 geneticresources in Europe. Coordinated byIPGRI, the programme is financed by par-ticipating countries and governed by asteering committee of national representa-tives. It operates through crop-specificworking groups in which curators andbreeders work together to analyze needsand set priorities. Representatives of NGOsand 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 ofthe “renewal” process undergone by the Consultative Group on International AgriculturalResearch (CGIAR). It consists of the following regional associations of NARS, as well asrepresentatives 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 ofthree subregional organizations: the Southern Africa Council for AgriculturalResearch (SACCAR), the Association for Strengthening Agricultural ResearchSystems in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA) and the Conférence desResponsables de la Recherche Agronomique Africaine (CORAF) in Central andWest 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 orsubregional associations. The Forum is served by a secretariat in the World Bank.Additionally, the NARS and their regional/subregional associations are served by asecretariat in FAO. The plan of work for the NARS Secretariat includes support inimplementing the Global Plan of Action.

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM39



40

Public awarenessSince most PGRFA programmes are fundedlargely by public money, it is desirable thatpublic and political opinion be supportiveof them. Public (and political) awarenessprogrammes are the key to mobilizing thissupport. Yet, as revealed during the pre-paratory process for the Leipzig Confer-ence, awareness of the importance ofPGRFA for socioeconomic developmentremains low in most countries.

Public meetings and stakeholder con-sultations can be used to strengthen aware-ness. The mandate and objectives of thenational PGRFA programme can be publi-cized using appropriate media, such asnational radio and television, the press andso on. However, the widely differing inter-ests and perspectives of differentstakeholder groups should be recognizedwhen this is done. Agricultural scientistsmay value PGRFA mainly for their poten-tial to increase production, while othersmay appreciate their social, cultural, his-torical, ecological or aesthetic qualities. TheGlobal Plan of Action recommends thatthese wider values be recognized in na-tional planning, policies and resource allo-cations (FAO 1996: para. 227). In the USA,multiple non-governmental stakeholderswith widely differing interests in PGRFAhave come together in a single alliance, theAmerican Genetic Resources Alliance(AMGRA), to lobby the US Congress forincreased funds for the NPGS.

National PGRFA planners should aimto integrate public awareness into all local,national, regional and international pro-gramme activities. In countries with manydifferent language groups, considerationshould be give to the production of publicawareness materials in local languages.Awareness of the value of PGRFA to thenation, and of the role of scientists, plant

breeders, farmers and local communitiesin maintaining and improving them, canbe promoted in schools, as well as in spe-cialized agricultural research and traininginstitutions. NGOs may also have an im-portant role to play in mobilizing publicand political support for national PGRFAprogrammes.

Financing national programmesMany PGRFA activities, and especially con-servation and genetic enhancement or pre-breeding, only deliver benefits in the longterm (FAO 1998). In fact, few germplasm-based projects can achieve much in lessthan 5 years, while increasing productionthrough the development and dissemina-tion of new plant varieties can take a dec-ade or more. For instance, the successfulefforts to double or quadruple the yieldsof wheat in India and China took at least20 years.

National strategies and plans, and theirassociated organizational structures,should therefore be considered a long-terminvestment and afforded a legal status andfunding that will be resilient to such shocksas changes in government or recessions(FAO 1996: paras. 227, 228). In many casesa small amount of funding, consistent andguaranteed over 10 to 15 years, can achievemore than the same or a higher level offunding which has to be used within thetypical 3 to 5-year project cycle. Continu-ity of support is an important considera-tion for any long-term PGRFA activitiesthat are dependent on donor funding.Where possible, public-sector PGRFA ac-tivities should avoid competing with orduplicating PGRFA activities that are ad-equately performed by the domestic or in-ternational private sector.

Thus, the conservation and sustainableuse of PGRFA should ideally be accorded

VI. Building public and political support for national PGRFA activities

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM40


SPILLANE et al.

41

budget provisions on an ongoing basisrather than on a once-off or fragmentarybasis (FAO 1998). Yet in 1995, only one infive countries reported that they had spe-cific budget lines for PGRFA activities (FAO1998:207). The Philippines Bureau of Agri-cultural Research includes guaranteed al-locations for PGRFA conservation withinthe budgets of each of the crop networks itfunds (Eliseo Ponce, Director, BAR, pers.comm., December 1998). Without guaran-teed long-term baseline funding from do-mestic sources it will be extremely difficultfor any national PGRFA programme to planand implement activities that will not bevulnerable to donor changes in prioritiesover time.

Funding for national PGRFA plans andprogrammes can be provided from bothinternal and external sources. A completesurvey of such sources is beyond the scopeof this paper. However, an important func-tion of the national PGRFA programme andits planning process could be to identifyand review funding sources on a regularbasis. Information on such sources couldbe distributed widely (e.g. via a newsletteror network) and the national programmecould facilitate funding by helpingstakeholder groups prepare applications.For many developing countries and coun-tries in transition, external sources of fund-ing will continue to be essential for theimplementation of many of their priorityactivities.

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM41



42

National governments face many issues andoptions in establishing or strengthening theirPGRFA programmes. Because of parallel ac-tivities in the overlapping area ofbiodiversity, one of the first and most impor-tant issues is how to organize PGRFA activi-ties. Countries also now face a potentiallyconfusing array of policy and legal issuesrelating to PGRFA, many of which are stillunresolved at the international level. Therapid pace of technological change affectingthe 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 governmentlevel to respond to these issues will requirea high degree of interministerial coordina-tion and consultation with national PGRFAstakeholder groups.

For many countries, there will be clearadvantages in having a distinct nationalPGRFA programme with strong links toactivities in the related fields of biodiversityand agriculture. To ensure both efficiencyand effectiveness, all national PGRFA pro-grammes need certain essential compo-nents, including a national focal point, anational PGRFA committee and a nationalstrategic plan. Details of the programme’sstructure may vary, according to the em-phasis placed on different approaches toconservation or use and the country’s ex-isting human, financial and other re-sources.

A well-coordinated programme withclear priorities at the national level shouldbe complemented by similar efforts at theregional and international levels. Interna-tional collaboration in PGRFA activities isnecessary in a world in which countries areinterdependent for plant genetic resourcesand therefore need to establish mechanismsfor facilitating access to these resources andsharing 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 shouldrather consist of small, loosely linked unitsthat can be phased in and out over time asthe country’s needs change (Senge 1990).Such an “adaptive” PGRFA structurewould allow a rapid response to changingsectoral 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 PGRFAin achieving food security and underpin-ning national development, improvingtheir national PGRFA programmespresents governments with a formidablechallenge. 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


SPILLANE et al.

43

Governments have adopted a number ofapproaches to strategic planning for eco-nomic development, agriculture, naturalresources and other sectors related toPGRFA activities. Some of these plans orstrategies focus narrowly on environmen-tal or agricultural issues, while others arebroader, dealing with the integration ofenvironmental, agricultural and socioeco-nomic concerns. The most important typesare briefly described below.

National Agricultural Plans

Many countries have national plans foragricultural development, but few empha-size that the conservation and sustainableuse of PGRFA are essential to long-termagricultural development. The omission ofPGRFA concerns from such plans jeopard-izes the funding of important PGRFA ac-tivities. Consideration of PGRFA at theearly stages of national agricultural plan-ning opens up possibilities for significanteconomic and social benefits through thestrategic use of PGRFA for import substi-tution, export diversification, increaseddomestic food production and strength-ened national food security.

National Biodiversity Strategies andAction Plans

Many countries have chosen the develop-ment of National Biodiversity Strategiesand 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 andNational Sustainable Development Strategies

Both National Environment Action Plans(NEAPs) and National Sustainable Devel-opment Strategies (NSDS) emerged as rec-ommendations from the United NationsConference on Environment and Devel-

opment (UNCED). NEAPs are promotedmainly by the World Bank and UNEP,while NSDS are promoted by UNDP. Bothare broader in scope than NBSAPs and, re-flecting the significant overlap and simi-larities between their objectives, a countryusually develops only one or the other ofthem. International donors and environ-mental NGOs have been helping countriesprepare such plans since the 1980s. Manyof 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 andformulate policies and actions to addressthese. The lead ministries involved are usu-ally those of the Environment, Natural Re-sources or Planning. In 1990, donors of theInternational Development Association(IDA), a World Bank affiliate that providesinterest-free loans to the world’s poorestcountries, urged borrowers to completeNEAPs. By 1995, most had preparedNEAPs or similar documents, many ofwhich are currently being implemented(World Bank 1995).

NSDS is a generic name for a processby which countries aim to achieve internalconsensus at all levels of society on thepolicies and programmes needed to imple-ment their own national Agenda 21 pro-gramme (in response to Chapters 8 and 37of 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 toenhance 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



44

and development concerns. The strategyshould cover the definition of policies andaction 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 integrateenvironmental 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 andfinancial resources, and build institutionalcapacity 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 ofthese are now evolving into NSDS, in thelight of Agenda 21.

National Forestry Action Plans

National Forestry Action Plans (NFAPs)(FAO 1985) involve a multi-sectoral reviewof relevant issues and definition of nationaltargets 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 supportneeded to put plans into action. They arepromoted 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 (38in Africa, 20 in Asia and the Pacific and 32in Latin America and the Caribbean) wereundertaking NFAP planning processes aspart of the TFAP (FAO 1992). The TFAP haspromoted collaboration at the regionallevel between some of the countries devel-oping the NFAPs, with particular successin Central America. In a few cases theNFAP process has been successful in forg-ing cross-sectoral links at the national level(e.g. in Nepal, where the NFAP was linkedto the National Conservation Action Plan)(Sizer 1994).

The World Bank Country AssistanceStrategies, Structural Adjustment Loansand Sectoral Adjustment Loans

The institutions of the World Bank provideloans and credits to many projects in theagricultural sector, some of which are foragricultural research or PGRFA-related ac-tivities. Between 1970 and 1991, WorldBank assistance to projects that had an ag-ricultural research component was overUS$18 billion, of which US$1.4 billion wasexplicitly for agricultural research or forprojects to develop national research andextension systems (Tabor and Ballantyne1995).

The Bank’s institutions also provideStructural Adjustment Loans (SALs) andSectoral 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 ofa country’s economy (e.g. agriculture) andcarry conditions determining the policiesand national priorities for that sector.

The World Bank Group is a very impor-tant actor in governmental processes thatdefine national goals and objectives foragriculture, for biodiversity and hence forPGRFA. In most countries that have apolicy dialogue with the World Bank, theMinistries of Planning or Finance are the

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM44


SPILLANE et al.

45

lead ministries in developing Country As-sistance Strategies, in conjunction withWorld Bank Country Officers and TaskManagers. Unless the latter are sensitizedto the importance of genetic resources it isunlikely that these resources will figurehighly on their long list of planning con-siderations. It is also important that na-tional PGRFA programmes are aware ofand can react to relevant policy changesresulting from Country Assistance Strate-gies, SALs or SECALs.

Since 1987-88, environmental and agri-cultural policy has undergone significantchange at the World Bank. The Bank nowhas a new set of environmental policies andpriorities, one of which is to “mainstreambiodiversity in agriculture” by promotingthe concept of sustainable agricultural in-tensification (Pagiola et al. 1997).

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM45



46

AARINENA- Association of Agricultural ResearchAARINENA - Association of Agricultural

Research Institutions in the Near East andNorth Africa

AGRITEX - Agricultural, Technical and Exten-sion Service (Zimbabwe)

AMGRA - American Genetic Resources AllianceAPAARI - Asia-Pacific Association of Agricul-

tural Research InstitutionsASARECA - Association for Strengthening Agric-

ultural Research in Eastern and Central AfricaAVRDC - Asian Vegetables Research and

Development Centre (Taiwan)CBD - Convention on Biological DiversityCENTA - National Center for Agricultural

Technology (El Salvador)CGIAR - Consultative Group on International

Agricultural ResearchCGN - Centre for Genetic Resources (Netherlands)CIAL - Comité de Investigacion Agricola LocalCIMMYT - 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 AfricaineCPRO - Centre for Plant Breeding and Repro-

duction Research (Netherlands)DLO - Agricultural Research Department

(Netherlands)ECP/GR - European Cooperative Programme on

Genetic ResourcesFAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United NationsFARA - Forum on Agricultural Research in AfricaFFS - Farmer Field SchoolsFORAGRO - Foro Regional de Investigacion y

Desarrollo Technologico AgropecuarioGATT - General Agreement on Trade and TariffsGEF - Global Environment FacilityGFAR - Global Forum for Agricultural ResearchGPA - Global Plan of Action for the Conserva-

tion and Sustainable Use of PGRFAGRAIN - Genetic Resources Action InternationalIBPGR - International Board for Plant Genetic

Resources [now IPGRI]IDA - International Development AssociationINRAB - national agricultural research institute

(Benin)IPM - Integrated pest managementISNAR - International Service for National

Agricultural Research

IT - Information TechnologyIUCN - World Conservation UnionMASIPAG - 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 PlansNCPGR - National Committee on Plant Genetic

Resources (Philippines)NEAP - National Environment Action PlanNFAP - National Forestry Action PlanNGO - Non-governmental organizationNPGS - National Plant Germplasm System (USA)NSDS - National Sustainable Development

StrategiesPGRC/E - Ethiopian Plant Genetic Resources CentrePGRFA - Plant Genetic Resources for Food and

AgricultureSACCAR - Southern African Center for Coopera-

tion in Agricultural and Natural ResourcesResearch and Training

SALs - Structural Adjustment LoansSBSTTA - Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Techni-

cal and Technological AdviceSEARICE - Southeast Asian Regional Institute

for Community EducationSECALs - Sectoral Adjustment LoansSGRP - System-wide Genetic Resources

Programme (of the CGIAR)SINGER - System-wide Information Network

for Genetic Resources (of the CGIAR)SWOT - Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities

and threatsTFAP - Tropical Forestry Action ProgrammeTRIPS - Trade Related Intellectual Property RightsUNCED - United Nations Conference on

Environment and DevelopmentUNDP - United Nations Development Pro-

grammeUNEP - United Nations Environment Pro-

grammeUNESCO - United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural OrganizationUPOV - Union Internationale pour la Protection

des Obtentions VégétalesUSDA - United States Department of AgricultureWRI - World Resources InstituteWWF - World Wide Fund for Nature

Acronyms and abbreviations

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM46


SPILLANE et al.

47

Charlie SpillaneGenetic Resources ConsultantRomeItalyEmail: [email protected]

Jan EngelsGroup DirectorGenetic Resources Science and

Technology (GRST)International Plant Genetic Resources

Institute (IPGRI)Via delle Sette Chiese 14200145 RomeItalyTel: (+39) 0651892 222Fax: (+39) 065750309Email: [email protected]

Hareya FassilProgramme Specialist, GRSTIPGRIVia delle Sette Chiese 14200145 RomeItalyTel: (+39) 0651892 230Fax: (+39) 065750309Email: [email protected]

Lyndsey WithersAssistant Director GeneralIPGRIVia delle Sette Chiese 14200145 RomeItalyTel: (+39) 0651892 239Fax: (+39) 065750309Email: [email protected]

David CooperPlant Genetic Resources OfficerFood and Agriculture Organization of

the United Nations (FAO)Viale delle Terme di Caracalla00100 RomeItalyTel: (+39) 0657053789Fax: (+39) 0657053152Email: [email protected] address:David CooperProgramme Officer, Agricultural

biodiversitySecretariat of the Convention on

Biological DiversityWorld Trade Centre, 413 St. JacquesMontreal, QuebecCanada H2Y 1N9

Authors

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM47



48

Anderson, J.R., P.G. Pardey and J. Roseboom.1993. Sustaining growth in agriculture: aquantitative review of agricultural researchinvestments. Agric. Econ. 10:107-123.

Arnaiz, M.E.O. 1995. Farmers’ Organisations inthe Technology Change Process: An Anno-tated Bibliography. Agricultural Research andExtension Network Paper No. 53. ODI, Lon-don, UK, 50 p.

Ashby, J.A. and L. Sperling. 1994. Institutionaliz-ing participatory client-driven research andtechnology development in agriculture. Ag-ricultural Research and Extension NetworkPaper No. 49. ODI, London, UK.

Ashby, J.A. and L. Sperling. 1995. Institutionalis-ing participatory, client-driven research andtechnology 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. Institutionalisingfarmers’ participation in adaptive technologytesting with the CIAL. Agricultural Researchand 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 andJ. 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-makersin the planning and implementing of plant ge-netic resources programmes within the contextof Agenda 21 and the Convention on BiologicalDiversity. Paper prepared for IPGRI, Rome, 21p.

Bureau des Ressources Génétiques 1996. Themanagement of plant genetic resources: inte-gration of conservation, characterization andutilization processes. Paper prepared for theSeeds and Plant Genetic Resources Service,FAO, Rome, Italy.

Callo, Dmasao, Jr. 1998. Presentation on FarmerField Schools to the Regional Meeting to Pro-mote Implementation of the Global Plan ofAction in Asia-Pacific, Manilla, the Philip-pines, 15-18 December 1998.

Carney, D. 1996. Formal farmers’ organisationsin the agricultural technology system: currentroles and future challenges. Natural Re-sources Perspectives No.14. ODI, London, UK.

Collinson, M.P.O. 1983. Farm Management inPeasant Agriculture (2nd edition). WestviewPress, Boulder, USA.

Collion, M.-H. and P. Rondot. 1998. Partnershipbetween agricultural services institutions andproducers’ organizations: myth or reality?Agricultural Research and Extension NetworkPaper 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 andtechnology users in Africa: the situation andhow 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 PlantGenetic Resources for Food and Agricultureand the Leipzig Declaration adopted by theInternational Technical Conference on PlantGenetic Resources, Leipzig, Germany, 17-23June 1996. FAO, Rome, Italy.

FAO. 1998. The State of the World’s Plant GeneticResources 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 ofconcepts 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


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. OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford, UK, 387 p.

Heinrich, G.M. and S. Masikara. 1992. Trial de-signs and logistics for farmer-implementedtechnology assessments with large numbersof farmers: some approaches used in Bot-swana. J. Farming Syst. Res. and Extension3(2):131-145.

Hobbs, H., J. Francisco Larios, F. Roberto AriasMilla and J. Eduardo Vides. 1997. A researchpartnership with farmers: the case of CENTAin El Salvador. Briefing Paper No.35. ISNAR,The Hague, Netherlands, 6 p.

Hobbs, H., Mojica Bentancour F., Bonilla BolañosO. and Solís Quirós. 1998. The Creation of aCoordinated National Agricultural ResearchSystem: The Case of Costa Rica. Briefing pa-per #37. ISNAR, The Hague, 8 p.

IPGRI. 1993. Diversity for Development: TheStrategy of the International Plant Genetic Re-sources Institute. IPGRI, Rome.

IUCN, UNEP and WWF. 1991. Caring for theEarth. Gland, Switzerland.

Jansen, W., P. Perrault and M. Housou. 1997. De-veloping an integrated agricultural researchpolicy: experiences from Benin. Briefing PaperNo. 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. Environment34(4):12-17.

Loevinsohn, M., G. Meijerink and B. Salasaya.1998. Enhancing capacity to manage re-sources: assessing the Farmer Field Schoolapproach. Paper presented at the SecondMeeting of the Integrated Pest ManagementNetwork for the Caribbean, sponsored byCARDI and CTA, Kingston, Jamaica, 4-6 Feb-ruary 1998.

Mant, A. 1983. The Leaders We Deserve. MartinRobertson, Oxford, UK.

Mattee, A.Z. and T. Lasalle. 1994. Diverse andlimited: farmers’ organizations in Tanzania.Agricultural Research and Extension NetworkPaper 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 TocantinsAgroEcology Centre (CAT) in Brazil. Agricul-tural Research and Extension Network PaperNo. 50d. ODI, London, UK.

Merrill-Sands, D., D. Kaimowitz, K. Sayce andS. Chater. 1990. The technology triangle: link-ing farmers, technology transfer agents andagricultural researchers. ISNAR, The Hague,Netherlands.

Miller, K.R. and S. Lanou. 1995. Nationalbiodiversity planning: guidelines based onearly 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 ofAction 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. Farmerparticipatory research: rhetoric and reality. In-termediate Technology, London, UK, 159 p.

Pagiola, S., J. Vidaeus and J. Srivastava. 1997.Mainstreaming biodiversity in agriculturaldevelopment: toward good practice. Environ-ment Paper No. 15. World Bank, WashingtonDC, USA.

Pfeffer, J. 1981. Power in Organizations. Pitman,Boston, USA.

Richardson, D. 1996. The Internet and rural de-velopment: recommendations for strategy andactivity. FAO, Rome, Italy, 38 p.

Senge, P.M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art andPractice of the Learning Organization. Cen-tury, London, UK.

Shelton, D. 1995. Fair play, fair pay: laws to pre-serve traditional knowledge and biologicalresources. International Research Report.WWF, Gland, Switzerland, p. 59.

Sizer, N. 1994. Opportunities to save andsustainably use the world’s forests throughinternational cooperation. World ResourcesInstitute, 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 smallfarmers: principles derived from bean re-search in the Great Lakes region of Africa.Agricultural Research and Extension NetworkPaper 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



50

Tabor, S.R. and P. Ballantyne. 1995. Policyconditionality in agricultural researchprojects. Pp. 166-177 in Agricultural Researchin an Era of Adjustment: Policies, Institutionsand Progress (S.R. Tabor, ed.). World Bank,Washington DC, USA.

UNCED. 1992. Agenda 21: Programme of Actionfor 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 BiologicalDiversity. Preamble. UNEP, Geneva, Switzer-land.

USDA. 1995. Directory of national plantgermplasm 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 forcollaborative 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 inKenya: a summary of findings. Briefing paperNo. 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, across-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 nationsencourage cooperation between their governmen-tal authorities and their private sector in develop-ing methods for the sustainable use of biologicalresources (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 seedcompanies and cooperative enterprises as an out-growth of successful on-farm selection and breed-ing” (para. 32). Included among the objectives ofActivity 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 Ghanahas been successful in developing arboreta cover-ing timber, medicinal, ornamental and fruit treespecies of economic importance. Ghana. 1995.Country Report to the International Technical Con-ference, Leipzig, 1996.7 Other national reports, such as those preparedfor UNCED in 1992, and the Country Studies onBiodiversity prepared since then, may also pro-vide useful information.

All countries were invited to submit nationalreports as part of their preparations for UNCEDin June 1992. These reports were prepared by na-tional governments, often in consultation with theprivate sector and local, regional and internationalNGOs. Their preparation was promoted as ameans 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 andinternational cooperation. Some UNCED nationalreports served as a basis for subsequent NationalSustainable Development Strategies (NSDS). Atleast 130 reports had been prepared by April 1992,

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM50


SPILLANE et al.

51

about 85 countries having formed national com-mittees composed of government and other na-tional stakeholders to facilitate the preparation ofthe reports.

With the coming into force of the CBD and theimplementation of Agenda 21, many countrieshave prepared or are preparing studies that assessthe national status of biodiversity conservationand sustainable use. These assessments will beuseful as inputs to the national PGRFA planningprocess, particularly to highlight comple-mentarities as well as possible conflicts betweenthe agriculturally driven PGRFA perspective andthe more environmentally driven biodiversity per-spective. There may be many such conflicts. Forinstance, there may be a conflict resulting fromagricultural activities in protected areas or the ef-fects of agricultural intensification on aquaticbiodiversity. Many such biodiversity assessmentshighlight agriculture as a threat to non-agriculturalbiodiversity.8 Decision III/11 of the Third Conference of theParties to the Convention on Biological Diversity:Conservation and sustainable use of agriculturalbiodiversity, <http://www.biodiv.org/>.9 Statement made by the Canadian delegationat the Seventh Session of the FAO Commission.10 Presentations and personal communications atthe Regional Meetings to Promote Implementationof 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 researchinstitute of Benin (INRAB), in collaboration withISNAR, developed an integrated agricultural re-search policy for the country. The key lessonslearned in the process were to guard against anoveroptimistic schedule for finalizing nationalpolicy, to facilitate stakeholder involvementthrough common methodologies and vocabulary,to reconcile scientific and development interests,and to understand the value of empirical evidencefor decision-making (Jansen et al. 1997).12 Strategic planning. (ISNAR, <http://www.cgiar.org/isnar/training/7str.htm>).

Strategic planning in agricultural researchmanagement (ISNAR, <http://www.cgiar.org/isnar/training/PME2.htm>).

Priority-setting for agricultural research pro-grams (ISNAR, <http://www.cgiar.org/isnar/training/1prio.htm>).

Strengthening linkages between research andtechnology users (ISNAR, <http://

www.cgiar.org/isnar/training/9str.htm>).Participatory research (ISNAR, <http://

www.cgiar.org/isnar/training/10pa.htm>).Planning, monitoring and evaluation of re-

search projects (ISNAR, <http://www.cgiar.org/isnar/training/2pla.htm>).13 Estimates from Country Reports (1995) pre-pared for ITC/PGR and Reports (1998) preparedfor the Regional Meetings on GPA implementa-tion.14 Various Country Reports (1995) prepared forITC/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 andresource allocation processes.” National PGRFAprogrammes may wish to develop strong linksbetween such technology transfer coordinatingbodies, where established, and the national PGRFAfocal point, to ensure that both PGRFA and relatedtechnologies are efficiently exchanged in a com-plementary manner.16 Agenda 21 para. 37.6 recommends the estab-lishment of national focal points for technologytransfer.17 Ireland Country Report (1995) prepared forITC/PGR.18 China Country Report (1995) prepared forITC/PGR.19 Namibia Country Report (1995) prepared forITC/PGR.20 Uganda Country Report (1995) prepared forITC/PGR.21 Ghana Country Report (1995) prepared forITC/PGR.22 Nacuer Hamza. 1998. Presentation to the Re-gional Meeting to Promote Implementation of theGlobal Plan of Action in Central/West Asia-NorthAfrica, June 1998, ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria.23 CBD Article 8(j).24 Malawi Country Report (1995) prepared forITC/PGR.25 Decision III/11 of the Third Conference of theParties to the Convention on Biological Diversity:Conservation and sustainable use of agriculturalbiodiversity, <http://www.biodiv.org/>.

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM51



52

ISBN 92-9043-411-2

TextIGR8.p65 7/25/00, 2:55 PM52

strengthening national programmes for plant genetic ... · food and agriculture (pgrfa) can...

Documents