Report of the First Project Planning Workshop6-10 February 2012, Rome, Italy

Ronnie Vernooy

Strengthening national capacities to implement the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

Bioversity International is a world leading research-for-development non-profit organization, working towards a world in which smallholder farming communities in developing countries are thriving and sustainable. Bioversity International’s purpose is to investigate the use and conservation of agricultural biodiversity in order to achieve better nutrition, improve smallholders’ livelihoods and enhance agricultural sustainability. Bioversity International works with a global range of partners to maximize impact, to develop capacity and to ensure that all stakeholders have an effective voice. Bioversity International is a CGIAR Consortium Research Centre. CGIAR is a global research partnership that unites organizations engaged in research for sustainable development. CGIAR research is dedicated to reducing rural poverty, increasing food security, improving human health and nutrition, and ensuring more sustainable management of natural resources. It is carried out by the 15 centers who are members of the CGIAR Consortium in close collaboration with hundreds of partner organizations, including national and regional research institutes, civil society organizations, academia, and the private sector.

The Genetic Resources Policy Initiative 2: Strengthening National Capacities to Implement the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture aims to: promote the participation of countries in the multilateral system of access and benefit-sharing of the Treaty; identify means to improve countries’ access to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture; and pursue options to benefit from other aspects of the Treaty. The project is supported by the Directorate-General for International Cooperation (DGIS) of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Bioversity International is the main executing agency. The project is under the overall coordination and guidance framework of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/Treaty Secretariat/Bioversity International Joint Capacity Building Programme for Developing Countries on the Implementation of the Treaty and its Multilateral System.

Citation: Ronnie Vernooy. 2012. Strengthening national capacities to implement the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Report of the First Project Planning Workshop, 6-10 February 2012. Bioversity International, Rome, Italy.

© Bioversity International 2012 Bioversity Headquarters Via dei Tre Denari 472/a 00057 Maccarese (Fiumicino) Rome, Italy Tel. (39-06) 61181 Fax. (39-06) 61979661 bioversity@cgiar.org ISBN: 978-92-9043-910-3

1

Summary

The planning workshop for the project on Strengthening national capacities to implement the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) was held at Bioversity International, Rome, Italy, from 6-10 February 2012. The project, also known as “Genetic Resources Policy Initiative 2” or ”GRPI 2”, supports research and capacity building related to the implementation of the multilateral system of access and benefit-sharing (MLS) created by the ITPGRFA. About 40 researchers came together from: eight project countries (Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Guatemala, Nepal, Rwanda and Uganda); the ITPGRFA Secretariat; Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO); Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR); Universities of Reading (UK), Leuven (Belgium), Illinois at Chicago (USA) and Malaya (Malaysia); and Bioversity International. Key tasks to fully implement the ITPGRFA are: identification and selection of the most appropriate policy, legal and/or administrative options; identification and confirmation of which PGRFA in the country are included in the MLS (and therefore available for exchange); and clarification of who in the country has the authority to grant access to materials in the MLS. The group will carry out common research, to support the country-level implementation processes, on: policy actors and networks; germplasm flows and interdependence; technology transfer; and farmers’ involvement and farmers’ rights. A“Genetic Resources Policy Blog” has been set up at: http://grpi2.wordpress.com/

The workshop agenda (Annex 1) and list of participants (Annex 2) are at the end of the report. Acknowledgments We thank Evelyn Clancy and Francesca Corsi for their logistical support for the workshop and Evelyn Clancy for the editing of this report. Strengthening national capacities to implement the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) receives funding from the Directorate General for International Cooperation of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Front cover illustration: Guida Jessica Joseph1 Group photo, last page: Shawn Landersz, Bioversity International.

1 Guida Jessica Joseph, illustrator and graphic designer. http://www.guidajessicajoseph.com/guidajosepheng.html

2

1. Sharing experiences

Update from the Secretariat of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

Daniele Manzella gave an update on the implementation process of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) referring to: the funding strategy; information management; compliance; non-monetary benefits (capacity building, technology transfer and information sharing); use of the Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA); cooperation with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) office; farmers’ rights; and the role of the Third Party Beneficiary (i.e., the FAO)2.

Alvaro Toledo gave an overview of the most recent activities of the Benefit Sharing Fund (BSF) and plans for 2012. Another call for BSF proposals and a joint call with the Global Environment Facility (GEF) are under development3. Identifying expected benefits from implementing the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Country teams identified and prioritized the benefits they hope to obtain at national level from implementing the ITPGRFA in the coming years. A synthesis is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Expected benefits of the ITPGRFA

Benefit/Country* BF CI UG RW BH NP CR GT

Facilitated access to germplasm 1 3 6 3 3 1 1 1 Monetary benefits from germplasm distributed to other countries 7 5 5 7 4 6 6 6

Financial support for conservation and use of PGRFA 3 1 2 4 1 3 2 5

Access to technologies for conservation and use of PGRFA 2 2 1 1 2 5 3 2

Increased access to information about PGRFA that are under the MLS 4 4 4 2 6 2 5 4

Benefit from participation in meetings of international genetic resources networks, crop-based thematic groups

6 6 7 5 5 4 7 7

Coordinate the country’s conservation efforts with conservation efforts in other countries

5 7 3 6 7 7 4 3

*BF=Burkina Faso; CI=Cóte d’Ivoire; UG=Uganda; RW=Rwanda; BH=Bhutan; NP=Nepal; CR=Costa Rica; GT=Guatemala.

1=highest priority, 7=lowest priority. When scores are averaged across countries, the three top priorities are: access to technologies for conservation and use of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA);

2 For more information, see the report of the Fourth Session of the Governing Body of the ITPGRFA at: http://www.planttreaty.org/sites/default/files/gb4re.pdf 3 For further details on the ITPGRFA Benefit Sharing Fund, see http://www.planttreaty.org/content/benefit-sharing-fund

3

facilitated access to germplasm; and financial support for conservation and use of PGRFA. Respondents added several other expected benefits to the ones listed in Table 1. The four most mentioned are: 1. establishment of genebanks/seed banks; 2. development of legislation on farmers’ rights; 3. increased legal and policy capacities; and 4. awareness raised at the policy-making level. Indentifying policy/legal/administrative space to implement the multilateral system of access and benefit-sharing For the effective implementation of the multilateral system of access and benefit-sharing (MLS) at country level, there are a number of core requirements to be fulfilled. Gerald Moore presented a summary of these requirements highlighting the rationale, practicalities and challenges. The following guide offers detailed explanations: G. Moore and W. Tymowoski. 2005. Explanatory Guide to the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. IUCN, Gland and Cambridge4.

Gurdial Singh Nijar from the University of Malaya (Malaysia) shared Malaysia’s experience in analyzing the core requirements, including policy/legal/administrative space; the identification/confirmation of what PGRFA in the country are under the management and control of the contracting party and in the public domain (i.e. materials that are automatically in the MLS); and the clarification of who in the country has the authority to consider requests for access to materials in the MLS. Malaysia has made considerable progress clarifying these matters and could serve as an inspiring example.

Michael Halewood presented the lessons learned from the first phase of the Joint Programme on Implementation of the ITPGRFA. The first phase focused on capacity building with only a few small research activities. It concluded that more in-depth research could provide increased knowledge to identify and select the most appropriate policy/legal/administrative options, as well as ways to implement the ITPGRFA/MLS in an effective way. It also identified a number of implementation bottlenecks which many countries face: definition of policy/legal/administrative space; identification of a competent national authority; relationship between the ITPGRFA and the CBD/Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS)5; the inclusion/exclusion of in situ materials; limited farmers’ involvement in the policy development process; and lack of/conflictive leadership.

There is strong convergence between the lessons learned during the first phase of the Joint Programme, the experience of Malaysia and the key requirements presented in the IUCN Explanatory Guide. These findings led to the development of the new project proposal (i.e. GRPI2) in which research plays a central role in support of implementation.

Given the importance of the creation of proper policy/legal/administrative space for the implementation of the MLS (it is the cornerstone for implementation), workshop participants delved into the issue through small group discussions. The results of their analysis are

4 The IUCN Explanatory Guide to the ITPGRFA is available from: http://www.bioversityinternational.org/nc/publications/publication/issue/explanatory_guide_to_the_international_treaty_on_plant_genetic_resources_for_food_and_agriculture.html 5Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity: http://www.cbd.int/abs/

4

presented in Table 2. Many of the bottlenecks are more or less the same across countries, offering a good opportunity for cross-learning.

Table 2: Policy/legal/administrative space to implement the multilateral system of access and benefit-sharing

Is there space? If so, is it clearly defined?

What could be done to forward?

Are genebanks involved? Do they have authority to transfer materials?

Guatemala No. But there is administrative space. A technical document has been prepared to set up a national plant genetic resources commission which could develop an administrative measure for MLS implementation.

A process to set up the space needs to be designed and implemented. No legal authority has yet been designated. It is one of the first things to be done. Treaty Focal Points should educate the national authorities.

A national genebank is under reconstruction. There is no capacity at this moment to transfer materials in a proper way.

Costa Rica Yes, but not clearly defined. The issue of synergy between the CBD and the ITPGRFA requires elaboration.

An administrative order could be the way forward. A national competent authority needs to be identified and given adequate implementation power.

There is a national genebank. CATIE has an important genebank. National universities have genebanks.

Uganda There is a law for access and benefit-sharing related to genetic resources, but it lacks clarity. There is need fo another law to take care of PGRFA. Administratively there is space for the MLS.

Stakeholders have to decide if there is a need for another law, or another procedure. Focal points should educate the national authorities.

The director of the National Research Institute has the authority. The genebank signed SMTAs and there have been 7 exchanges of materials.

Rwanda There is enough space: a draft Biodiversity law. There is one Focal Point for both the CBD and the Treaty. A national information sharing mechanism has been set up.

There is a new national genebank. There is no inventory of PGRFA in the country.

5

Is there space? If so, is it clearly defined?

What could be done to forward?

Are genebanks involved? Do they have authority to transfer materials?

Burkina Faso

Yes. Under the same space as for the CBD. A national commission on PGRFA has been set up.

More awareness needs to be created among stakeholders. Coordination among key agencies should be set up. Farmers need to be informed.

There is no national genebank. There are smaller genebanks but they do not meet international standards.

Côte d’Ivoire

Yes. Currently, germplasm requests first go to the Ministry of Research (since all research institutions belong to this Ministry) who passes the request to the Ministry of Agriculture, as the focal point of the Treaty. This Ministry studies the requests and issues a certificate for the institution holding the material to sign the SMTA and transfer the germplasm.

Maybe an administrative procedure could be created to make the current process more straightforward and clearer with regard to MLS material. There needs to be coordination among all key agencies and a national platform of stakeholders could move things forward.

No functional national genebank.

Bhutan Yes. A national policy on agricultural biodiversity and an ABS act are under development which will create the necessary policy space by providing for an exception for germplasm in ex situ conditions which belong to crops listed in Annex 1 of the Treaty. This germplasm will be “subject to international law”.

The interim procedure is that a scientific committee appraises each request (in terms of the use of the germplasm and advises the Ministry of Agriculture as the Treaty implementing agency, and issues an MTA. A clear procedure concerning PGRFA is required.

The national genebank at the National Biodiversity Center is involved. It has delegated authority to transfer materials. About 20 exchanges have been made using the SMTA.

Nepal Space is unclear. The issue of synergy between the CBD and the ITPGRFA requires elaboration. There is lack of coordination between the CBD and the Treaty Focal Points.

The ITPGRFA requires higher political priority. An executive (administrative) order could be the way forward. A national competent authority needs to be identified and given adequate implementation power.

There is a new national genebank under NARC. No materials have been sent yet.

6

2. Developing a common research agenda

Participants reviewed six draft themes for research activities to support the eight country implementation processes. Following working group discussions, the six themes were synthesized and reduced to four: a) policy actors and networks; b) germplasm flows and interdependence (merging themes related to gene-banks, breeding programmes and interdependence); c) technology transfer; and d) farmers’ involvement (in the ITPGRFA/MLS). Some progress was made in elaborating the draft themes but more time and effort is required to finalize them. A research development and training workshop is planned for 2-4 May 2012 to work on methodologies. The main feedback on the six originally identified themes is summarized below.

Theme 1: policy networks. There is strong interest in this study. It is proposed that the scope covers the ITPGRFA and not only the MLS. Partners see the study as an important means to raise awareness about the ITPGRFA broadly, which is one of the constraints all eight countries face. All the eight country teams want to be actively involved in methodology development, training, translation (of the survey), data collection and analysis. One expected use of the study results is to strengthen national cooperation and networking for effective policy implementation through the identification of “gaps” in current policy dynamics (e.g. important policy actors not known and/or not involved, ineffective information flows).

Theme 2: interdependence. It is suggested to define the scope in (more) realistic terms (and perhaps give more attention to access to germplasm, which is a major problem genebanks and breeders face) and to use mostly existing information. Three components are proposed: a) gathering transactional data and use data (where do breeders get material from and pedigrees of improved material?); b) conducting economic impact studies using existing productivity data (GDP) and adoption/impact studies conducted by CGIAR Centres; and c) use the climate analogue tool as an awareness raising tool (germplasm needed in the future, in view of climate change (see the next page, second paragraph for more information).

Theme 3: genebanks and theme 4: breeding programmes. In none of the eight countries is there a well-developed and fully functional formal germplasm system in place. Capacities and resources are limited. National genebanks are in crisis (Guatemala), new (Rwanda, Bhutan), functioning with great difficulty (Côte d’Ivoire) or absent (Burkina Faso). Farmers rarely receive materials directly from genebanks. In many countries, there are few breeding programmes through which farmers could benefit indirectly (through the use of genebank materials used in breeding). There is scarce documentation of germplasm flows and use. In light of this situation, how to define the objectives and use of this study remains a question.

Theme 5: farmers’ involvement. There is general agreement that farmers’ access to diverse, good quality and useful improved germplasm is a major constraint in all eight countries. This theme is therefore important. Information and germplasm flows are lacking or functioning poorly. The policy/legal environment is often not supportive. Farmers’ own “improved access” efforts (such as through community seed banks) merit attention and more support. A case study approach could be interesting as a means to strengthen capacities of farmers to obtain better access to germplasm (from genebanks and breeding programmes).

Theme 6: technology transfer. There is strong interest in this theme. It is suggested to define the research in ways that are practical and feasible, given the fact that the concept of technology transfer is very broad and so many actors are involved in transfers of technology. However, it is

7

important to avoid a ‘classic, top-down, north-to-south, government-to-farmers’ technology transfer methodology. Developing countries and farmers are also potential sources of useful technologies and could serve as entry points for research. The suggestion to conduct small action-oriented case studies was well received but more time is required to define them. These would focus on one group of technology users and carry out an assessment of their technology needs and of existing capacities. Another activity could be to look at past successful and unsuccessful cases of technology diffusion within the countries concerned and try to identify the factors that contributed to their success or failure. This theme needs to build upon existing experiences and literature at the country level.

Flora Mer from the International Center for Tropical Research (CIAT), Colombia, presented the new “climate analogues tool” developed by the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). The tool identifies areas where either the climate today corresponds to the future climate projected at another location, or the projected future climate corresponds to the current climate of another site. The tool could be useful as part of the research on germplasm flows and interdependence, and farmers’ involvement. Several of the country teams expressed interest to try out the tool6.

Chikelu Mba from FAO made a presentation about the Global Partnership Initiative for Plant Breeding Capacity Building (GIPB). GIPB has carried out surveys in over a hundred countries on the state of the art of plant breeding and the challenges faced by countries to strengthen national capacities. Plant breeders are important stakeholders in ITPGRFA/MLS implementation. Participants expressed interest to explore venues for cooperation with GPPB7

6 A paper on the Climate Analogues Tool is available from: http://ccafs.cgiar.org/sites/default/files/assets/docs/ccafs-wp-12-climate-analogues-web.pdf. The tool is available from http://gismap.ciat.cgiar.org/analogues/ 7 GIPB website: http://km.fao.org/gipb/

8

3. Joint activities

Communications

Evelyn Clancy presented the structure and content of a project intranet site set up for internal communications. The site allows storage and retrieval of key documents and also offers a workspace for joint activities, such as writing.

Jeremy Cherfas presented a rationale and options for external communications, in particular by means of a website (or blog) and newsletter8.

Francisco Lopez gave a brief overview of the ITPGRFA Secretariat’s communications efforts, including their “Media and Communications Resource Kit”9.

Questions raised concerned internet access, which in some countries is still limited; and translations, given that the project is implemented in anglophone, francophone and Spanish speaking countries. Outputs Suggestions for joint outputs include: (new) tools, guidelines and training materials; country cases studies; thematic studies based on cross-cutting analysis of research outcomes; joint submissions (e.g. briefs, papers) to the Governing Body of the ITPGRFA (e.g. concerning technology transfer) or the Ad-Hoc Technical Advisory Committee on the SMTA and MLS (on legal issues related to MLS implementation); options and guidelines for implementing the MLS based on the eight country experiences; one or more synthesis papers (e.g. lessons learned about implementation, lessons learned about integrating research); journal articles; and one or more books. As the project gets under way in each of the countries, a clearer picture will emerge of who would be involved in the production of outputs, how the production would be coordinated and when the outputs would be available. Monitoring A very first draft of a monitoring plan for the overall project was made (Table 3). The suggestion is to focus on the three main areas of work: country level implementation processes; research; and communications. The proposal is to assess six-monthly outcomes, stakeholder participation and financial management. A more detailed plan will be elaborated by the Bioversity project management team for review by all partners.

8 Following the workshop, the “Genetic Resources Policy Blog” has been set up at: http://grpi2.wordpress.com/ and an electronic newsletter “Policy Unit Update” has been launched. For enquiries or to subscribe, contact: bio-policy@cgiar.org. For an overview of the Bioversity Policy Unit’s activities, see: http://www.bioversityinternational.org/policy_law.html 9 For more information on the ITPGRFA Secretariat’s communicatios efforts, see: http://www.planttreaty.org/ and http://www.planttreaty.org/content/media-and-communication-resource-kit

9

Table 3: Draft monitoring plan

Why? Assess if agreements with stakeholders are working out in practice Adjust strategies if needed Keep track of achievements (progress)

What?

Accomplishments/level of progress Activities and outputs for each of the main areas of work: implementation processes, research, communications New tools: actual use and usefulness, e.g., the intranet, website/blog Stakeholders’ participation Finances

For Whom? Team at large (Internal) – monitoring Donor and team at large, national partners – monitoring and evaluation

Who? Members of the country teams; research group, with support of Bioversity project management team

When? Six monthly Mid-term At the end of project

How?

Define indicators Milestones Project log-frame Face to face meetings Interviews Tracking use of intranet and website Small questionnaires Simple participatory monitoring tools

10

4. Follow up

Follow up activities were identified for the country teams, for all participants jointly and for the Bioversity project management team. Table 4 summarizes the main activities.

Table 4: Follow up activities

Project wide – all together

Country teams Bioversity

Further definition of research questions and methods –February-March 2012

Identify who will support/lead research in different areas* -February 2012.

Further development of intranet site. Support for users –February 2012.

Research tool development and testing and approach (maybe different in each country)

Inception workshops –spring 2012.

Workshop report –end February 2012.

Training for interviews/surveys, data analysis

Research activities –spring 2012. First draft of communication strategy – end March 2012.

Research development meeting in Rome – proposed April 2012.

First draft of a generic checklist of issues/questions to address for MLS implementation at national level – circulate for comments –end February 2012.

Develop Letters of Agreement (LoAs) for complementary research –April 2012.

Draft revision of research questions etc. and circulate

Draft monitoring plan –end March 2012.

Presentation of overall project framework and outputs and how different parts contribute –end March 2012.

* Requirements for two core researchers per country team: 1. A social scientist able to do: network data analysis and statistical software, e.g., UCI-Net and 2. A social or agricultural scientist able to do: group interviews with farmers and community level meetings and participatory research (with farmers and other stakeholders).

11

5. Workshop evaluation

Sixteen of the participants assessed the main workshop objectives/outcomes as follows:

Table 5: Workshop evaluation

Workshop objectives ☺ Happy Neutral

Unhappy

Share experiences 13 3 Obtain common understanding of project

7 9

Plan for joint work 4 11 1 Finalize 8 countryplans 7 9 Encourage participation 15 1 Provide good logisticalsSupport 11 5

As can be seen from this partial assessment, results vary according to objective. The joint work planning appears the least satisfactory. The limited progress made on developing a joint research agenda is one explanation for this. The objective to finalize the country plans resulted too ambitious given the scope of the workshop agenda and time available.

12

Annex 1: Agenda

Strengthening national capacities to implement the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Planning Workshop Bioversity International, Maccarese, Rome, 6-10 February 2012

Objectives: • To share experiences about implementation of the Treaty’s multilateral system of access and

benefit sharing • To develop a shared understanding of project objectives, research and capacity building activities

and outputs • To prepare a plan for joint activities including communication; exchange; monitoring; technical

reporting; links to the Governing Body; and outreach • To finalize work plans for the eight participating countries

Time Programme Day 1 Chair: Isabel López Noriega

DAY 1 Monday 6 February 2012 09.00 – 09.30 Welcome, Introduction of participants,

Introduction to the workshop Emile Frison, Director General, Bioversity International and Shakeel Bhatti, Secretary, International Treaty for Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

09.30 – 10.00 Workshop objectives, proposed agenda Michael Halewood, Head, Policy Unit, Bioversity

10.00 – 10.45 An update on the ITPGRFA, MLS and Benefit Sharing Fund Projects

Daniele Manzella and Alvaro Toledo, Treaty Secretariat

10.45 – 11.00 Coffee, Cafeteria, ground floor

11.00 – 12.00 Country status of Treaty implementation / Expected benefits from the MLS (8 project countries)

Tom Dedeurwaerdere, Université catholique de Louvain

12.00 – 13.00 Lunch, Staff room

13.00 – 14.00 National Implementation of the ITPGRFA: Issues for consideration: case study Malaysia

Gurdial Singh Nijar, University of Malaya (by video link)

14:00-15:30 Core requirements for implementing the multilateral system

Gerald Moore

15:30-15:45 Coffee, Cafeteria, ground floor

15:45-17:30 Introduction to complementary research topics: brief plenary presentations and feedback (Themes 1, 2, 3, see list at the end of the document)

C.S. Srinivasan, University of Reading, Eric Welch and Aseffa Seyoum, University of Illinois at Chicago and Tom Dedeurwaerdere

13

Time Programme Day 2 Chair: Daniele Manzella

DAY 2 Tuesday 7 February 2012 09:00 -10:30 Introduction to complementary research

topics: brief plenary presentations and feedback (Themes 4, 5, 6, see list at the end of the document)

Ronnie Vernooy, Eric Welch and Tom Dedeurwaerdere, Isabel López Noriega

10:30 -11:00 Coffee, Cafeteria, ground floor

11:00-12:15 Guest presentation: Climate Analogues: Finding tomorrow’s agriculture today

Flora Mer, CIAT Colombia (session open to all Bioversity staff)

12:15 -13:15 Lunch, Staff room, first floor

13.15 - 14.00 Guest presentation: Global Partnership Initiative for Plant Breeding Capacity Building

Chikelu Mba, FAO

14:00-15:30 Complementary research topics: small group planning (parallel sessions Themes 1 and 2)

15:30 – 15:45 Coffee, Cafeteria, ground floor

15:45 -17:15 Complementary research topics: small group planning (parallel sessions Themes 3 and 4)

Time Programme Day 3 Chair: Ronnie Vernooy DAY 3 Wednesday 8 February 2012 09:00-10:30 Complementary research topics: small group

planning (parallel sessions Themes 5 and 6)

10.30-11:00 Coffee, Cafeteria, ground floor

11:00-12:00 Joint activities and outputs, possible regional level activities, links to the Governing Body

Michael Halewood

12:00-13:00 Lunch, Staff room, first floor

13.00-13.30 Free time

13:30-14:30 Emerging issues

14:30-16:00 Plenary wrap-up concerning complementary research themes: coordination within themes across countries, roles, etc

Free time

20.00 Group dinner in Rome at Restaurant L’Isola, Via Assisi n. 146, Tel. 06 7806618

14

Time Programme Day 4 Chair: Michael Halewood

DAY 4 Thursday 9 February 2012 09:00-10:00 Experiences from the Joint Programme

10:00-10:30 Cornetto morning (coffee meeting Bioversity staff, Staff room, first floor)

10:30-12:00 Communications: internal (project-wide and thematic research) and external

Evelyn Clancy and Jeremy Cherfas

12:00-13:00 Lunch, Staff room, first floor

13:00-14:00 Project monitoring Ronnie Vernooy

14:00-15:30 Emerging issues

15:30-15:45 Coffee, Cafeteria, ground floor

15:45-16:30 Workshop evaluation

16:30-17:00 Closure

Time Programme DAY 5 Friday 10 February 2012 09:00-12:30 Interviews/follow up (complementary

research) – for participants from Bhutan, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Ivory Coast and Rwanda

(Board Room, 4th Floor)

10:30-11:00 Coffee, Cafeteria, ground floor

12:30-13:30 Lunch, Staff room, first floor

15

List of complementary research themes

1. Interdependence on PGRFA: Identifying and measuring the benefits of a multilateral

system

(coordinators: C.S. Srinivasan/Michael Halewood)

2. Developing capacity to effectively implement the ITPGRFA: research on policy

network structure, actor characteristics, and coalitions (coordinators: Eric Welch and

Aseffa Seyoum)

3. Collective action and governance of PGRFA: Understanding the role of stakeholder

participation in the management of public sector and university crop gene banks

(coordinator: Tom Dedeurwaerdere)

4. Linking farmers to the ITPGRFA: Potential and challenges of community-based

PGRFA management initiatives (coordinator: Ronnie Vernooy)

5. Understanding the patterns and modalities of exchange among seed collections used

in crop breeding (university collections, private collections and government

collections) (coordinators: Eric Welch/Tom Dedeurwaerdere)

6. Technology transfers: The challenges of generating non-monetary benefit sharing in

support of conservation and sustainable use of PGRFA (coordinator: Isabel López

Noriega)

16

Annex 2: List of participants

Name Affiliation Country Email

Mr Singay DORJI National Biodiversity Centre, Ministry of Agriculture and Forests

Bhutan sdbhutan@gmail.com; sdbhutan@googlemail.com

Ms Tashi Yangzome DORJI

National Biodiversity Centre, Ministry of Agriculture and Forests

Bhutan yangzome3@gmail.com; yangzome2011@gmail.com

Dr Didier BALMA Secretariat permanent de la Commision nationale de Gestion des Ressources Phytogénétiques (SP/CONAGREP)

Burkina Faso

balma_didier@yahoo.fr; Inera.direction@fasonet.bf;

Dr Mahamadou ZONGO Comision Nacional de Recursos Fitogeneticos

Burkina Faso

zongomahamadou@yahoo.fr

Mr Luis Guillermo GONZALEZ RODRIGUEZ

Comision Nacional de Recursos Fitogeneticos

Costa Rica luisgonzalez35@gmail.com

Dr Jorge Alberto CABRERA MEDAGLIA

Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad (INBio)

Costa Rica jorgecmedaglia@hotmail.com; jacmed@racsa.co.cr

Dr Kouablan Edmond KOFFI

National Center for Agronomic Research (CNRA)

Cote d'Ivoire

kofiedmond@yahoo.fr; edmond.koffi@cnra.ci

Mr Yao Bernard BROU National Commision for Sustainable Development, Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development

Cote d'Ivoire

broubernardca@yahoo.fr; broubernardca@gmail.com

Dr Silvana MASELLI DE SANCHEZ

Universidad del Valle de Guatemala

Guatemala smaselligua@gmail.com; smdes@uvg.edu.gt

Ing Agr Samuel AJQUEJAY AJQUEJAY

Ministerio de Agricultura Ganderia y Alimentacion (MAGA)

Guatemala sammyajquejay@gmail.com

Dr Hari DAHAL Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives

Nepal drdahal_h@yahoo.com

Dr Devendra GAUCHAN

Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC)

Nepal devendragauchan@yahoo.co.uk; dgauchan11@gmail.com

Mr Jean Rwihaniza GAPUSI

Rwanda Agriculture Board (RAB)

Rwanda gapusirj@yahoo.fr

Dr John Wasswa MULUMBA

Plant Genetic Resources Center, Entebbe Botanic Gardens

Uganda curator@infocom.co.ug; jwmulumba@yahoo.com

Dr Ronald George NALUWAIRO

Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment (ACODE)

Uganda r.naluwairo@acode-u.org; naluwairo@yahoo.co.uk

Prof Eric WELCH Technology and Environment Policy Lab, University of Illinois at Chicago

USA ewwelch@uic.edu

17

Name Affiliation Country Email

Prof Tom DEDEURWAERDERE

Centre for the Philosophy of Law (CPDR), Université catholique de Louvain

Belgium tom.dedeurwaerdere@uclouvain.be

Prof C. S. SRINIVASAN Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, The University of Reading

UK c.s.srinivasan@reading.ac.uk

Dr Aseffa SEYOUM Addis Ababa University (AAU) Ethiopia aseyoumw@yahoo.com

Dr Nicola LUCCHI Centre for the Philosophy of Law (CPDR), Université catholique de Louvain

Belgium nicola.lucchi@uclouvain.be

Dr Bhuwon STHAPIT Bioversity International India b.sthapit@cgiar.org

Dr Raymond VODOUHE Bioversity International Benin r.vodouhe@cgiar.org

Dr Carlo FADDA Bioversity International Kenya c.fadda@cgiar.org

Ing Agr Flora MER International Center for Tropical Research (CIAT)

Colombia f.mer@cgiar.org

Prof Gurdial SINGH NIJAR*

University of Malaya Malaysia nijar@apclegal.com; nijar46@hotmail.com

Dr Daniele MANZELLA ITPGRFA Secretariat, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

Italy Daniele.Manzella@fao.org

Dr Francisco LOPEZ ITPGRFA Secretariat, FAO Italy Francisco.Lopez@fao.org

Dr Alvaro TOLEDO ITPGRFA Secretariat, FAO Italy alvaro.toledo@fao.org

Dr Chikelu MBA Plant Production & Protection Division, FAO

Italy chikelu.mba@fao.org

Mr Gerald MOORE Consultant Italy g.moore@cgiar.org

Ms Isabel LAPEÑA Consultant Spain isalapena@gmail.com

Dr Michael HALEWOOD Bioversity International Italy m.halewood@cgiar.org

Dr Ronnie VERNOOY Bioversity International Italy r.vernooy@cgiar.org

Ms Isabel LOPEZ NORIEGA

Bioversity International Italy i.lopez@cgiar.org

Dr Jeremy CHERFAS Bioversity International Italy j.cherfas@cgiar.org

Ms Evelyn CLANCY Bioversity International Italy e.clancy@cgiar.org

Ms Marie-Lara HUBERT-CHARTIER

Bioversity International Italy m.l.hubert-chartier@cgiar.org; Marie-lara@hotmail.com

*Participated via conference video

18

Group photo

© Bioversity International 2012Bioversity HeadquartersVia dei Tre Denari 472/a00057 Maccarese, (Fiumicino)Rome, Italy

www.bioversityinternational.org

Tel. (39-06) 61181Fax. (39-06) 61979661Email: bioversity@cgiar.org

ISBN 978-92-9043-910-3