FinalReportrev13.doc; 03 October 2018; 14:52

Government of Japan FAO

Evaluation

of

Implementation of GPA for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

(GCP/RAS/186/JPN)

Report of the Evaluation Mission

August 2007

1

Preface

This report represents the views of the evaluation mission on the performance and achievements of the project Implementation of GPA[1] for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (GCP/RAS/186/JPN). The project started in June 2003 (original planned starting date was June 2002) and will end in April 2007. The project budget was US$ 1,459,780 (original US$ 1,607,556).

The evaluation was initiated with a view to providing the participating governments, FAO and the donor with an independent and objective assessment of the results of the project,including a review of thefunctioning of National Information-Sharing Mechanism(NISM) set up in the countries, and of the use made of the NISM-GPA software promoted by FAO. In addition, the mission is expected to make recommendations on further steps necessary to consolidate and/or expand work. The evaluation started in Bangkok on 5 March 2007, visited Malaysia(5-7 March 2007) and Sri Lanka (7-9 March)before returning to Thailand on 10 March 2007. The Thai Department of Agriculture was visited on 12 March 2007, and a presentation on Preliminary Conclusions and Recommendations was made to the project’s Third National Focal Meeting
in Bangkok on 16 March 2007[2].

The mission's main views regarding the project are presented in the Executive Summary, followed by more specific Conclusions and Recommendations. The main body of the report gives some more factual background on the project and additional discussions, while the annexes provide information on the mission background, statistical information on the main features of the project and more detailed information on the participating countries.

The evaluation used the following methods: document analysis; group and individual meetings with National Focal Points, stakeholders and experts; brainstorming (modified SWOT analysis) with stakeholders; a questionnaire to stakeholders, and repeated feedback sessions with the project CTA. The country visits were useful to give the mission a first-hand impression of the project performance, and the stakeholders’ views regarding the project. The mission also benefited greatly from the interaction with the participants at theThird National Focal Point Meeting
in Bangkok on 15-16 March 2007[3].

The evaluation mission is most appreciative of the support given to the mission by the project CTA and his Secretary, the National Focal Points and stakeholders, the FAO officials in the Regional Office and in the Sri Lanka Representation, the IPGRI/Bioversity experts, and othergovernment officials and experts in the countries visited. All people interviewed provided information and discussed issues in a frank and constructive manner.

The Evaluation Mission

Bernd Bultemeier, Evaluation Officer, FAO, Rome (Team Leader)

Duncan Vaughan, Senior Researcher, National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences, Japan

Songkran Chitrakon, Chief of Plant Genetic Conservation (retired), Thailand

List of Acronyms

BTOR-Back-to-Office Report

CBD-Convention on Biological Diversity

CGRFA -Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO)

CSO-Civil Society Organization

CTA-Chief Technical Adviser

DOA-Department of Agriculture

FAO-Food and Agriculture Organization (of the UN)

FPMIS-Field Programme Management Information System (FAO)

GCP-Government Cooperative Programme (FAO)

GDP-Gross Domestic Product

GEF-Global Environmental Fund

GOJ-Government of Japan

GPA-Global Plan of Action for the Conservation and Sustainable Utilization of PGRFA

IPGRI-International Plant Genetic Resources Institute

ITPGRFA-International Treaty for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

LOA-Letter of Agreement

LTO-Lead Technical Officer

LTU-Lead Technical Unit

NFP-National Focal Point

NGO-Non-Government Organization

NIAS-National Institute for Agro-biological Science (Japan)

NISM- National Information Sharing Mechanism

PBEE-Evaluation Service (FAO)

PGR-Plant Genetic Resources

PGRFA-Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

RAP-Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (FAO)

RAS-Asia Region (FAO)

SH-Stakeholder

SWOT-Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats

UN-United Nations

WFP-World Food Programme

1

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface

List of Acronyms

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

THE WAY FORWARD

Short term (no external funding during 2007-08)

Longer-term (donor funding for second phase to start in 2008)

Conclusions and Recommendations

Project design

Objectives and Outputs

Work Plans, Assumptions and Risks

Institutional Arrangements

Support by governments/national institutions

Technical and operational backstopping

Project management

Actual and Expected Project Results

Immediate Objective 1 – To draw/assess the current status of PGRFA in order to fill in information gaps in each of the participating countries and to identify their needs and priorities for the conservation and sustainable utilization of PGRFA

Immediate Objective 2: To improve National Committee/Programme’s capacity in monitoring PGRFA activities within the framework of the Global Plan of Action by empowering them with tools for leading efficient decision-making processes, evaluating and developing PGRFA policies at the national level

Immediate Objective 3 – To share within the region successful experiences in the implementation of GPA priority activity areas related to in situ conservation and on farm management and to improve national capacity in carrying out PGRFA in situ conservation and on farm management

Specific Topics and Issues

Adoption of NISM-GPA computer application and future relevance

Sustainability of Project Interventions

Cost-effectiveness

Gender Equity in Project Implementation and Results

Major Factors Affecting the Project Results

Any significant lesson learned that can be applied in similar programmes

1.INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

2.PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN

2.1Development and Immediate Objectives

2.2Work Plans, Assumptions and Risks

2.3Institutional Arrangements

3.PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS

3.1Project Budget and Expenditure

3.2Activities and Outputs under Immediate Objectives 1 to 3

3.2.1Immediate Objective 1 – To draw/assess the current status of PGRFA in order to fill in information gaps in each of the participating countries and to identify their needs and priorities for the conservation and sustainable utilization of PGRFA

3.2.2Immediate Objective 2 – To improve National Committee/Programme’s capacity in monitoring PGRFA activities within the framework of the Global Plan of Action by empowering them with tools for leading efficient decision-making processes, evaluating and developing PGRFA policies at the national level

3.2.3Immediate Objective 3 – To share within the region successful experiences in the implementation of GPA priority activity areas related to in situ conservation and on farm management and to improve national capacity in carrying out PGRFA in situ conservation and on farm management

4.SUPPORT BY GOVERNMENTS, TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL BACKSTOPPING, PROJECT MANAGEMENT

4.1Support by governments/national institutions

4.2Technical and operational backstopping

4.3Project management

5.ACTUAL AND POTENTIAL RESULTS

5.1Immediate Objective 1: To draw/assess the current status of PGRFA in order to fill in information gaps in each of the participating countries and to identify their needs and priorities for the conservation and sustainable utilization of PGRFA

5.2Immediate Objective 2: To improve National Committee/Programme’s capacity in monitoring PGRFA activities within the framework of the Global Plan of Action by empowering them with tools for leading efficient decision-making processes, evaluating and developing PGRFA policies at the national level

5.3Immediate Objective 3: To share within the region successful experiences in the implementation of GPA priority activity areas related to in situ conservation and on farm management and to improve national capacity in carrying out PGRFA in situ conservation and on farm management

Annex 1: Terms of Reference

Annex 2: List of People Met

Annex 3: Project Staff and Consultants

Annex 4: List of Documents and Reports

Annex 5: List of Office Equipment Provided

Annex 6: List of Expenditure on Training and Country Support

1

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Global Plan of Action (GPA) for the conservation and sustainable utilization of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (PGRFA), adopted in June 1996[4], emphasizes an integrated approach to conservation and rational utilization of PGRFA. The implementation of the GPA is monitored by the FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA), which in its 8th Session in 1999 “encouraged FAO to develop its normative activities and to facilitate implementation, through ... advice to countries on establishing National Programmes and plans, capacity building and support to community plant genetic resources for food and agriculture”. Against this background, and following the FAO Regional Conference for Asia and the Pacific held in 2000, FAO developed the project GCP/RAS/186/JPN in collaboration with the governments of the participating countries.

Project Budget: / US$ 1,459,780[5]
Duration: / June 2003 to April 2007 (actual)[6]
Project Staff: / Chief Technical Adviser, 1 Support Staff
Participating countries: / Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Viet Nam

The key objective of this project was defined as “to advance the country-driven process for conservation and utilization of PGRFA in Asia by developing a mechanism for monitoring the implementation of plans and activities within the framework of GPA with particular emphasis on sustainable in-situ PGRFA conservation”. The project strategy was to encourage the nomination of National Focal Points (or their endorsement, where they already existed) and to facilitate the establishment of National Information Sharing Mechanisms (NISM – originally called National Clearing House Mechanism) “... involving the largest number of stakeholders and ... taking advantage of established collaborative linkages between relevant organizations”.

The project document identified as its Long-term (or Development) Objective: “To contribute to enhanced world food security and socio-economic development, reduced poverty, and more sustainable agricultural systems through the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture”, and defined its Immediate Objectives as follows[7]:

  1. To draw/assess the current status of PGRFA in order to fill in information gaps in each of the participating countries and to identify their needs and priorities for the conservation and sustainable utilization of PGRFA.
  2. To improve National Committee/Programme’s capacity in monitoring PGRFA activities within the framework of the Global Plan of Action by empowering them with tools for leading efficient decision-making processes, evaluating and developing PGRFA policies at the national level.
  3. To share within the region successful experiences in the implementation of GPA priority activity areas related to in situ conservation and on farm management and to improve national capacity in carrying out PGRFA in situ conservation and on farm management.

Towards the attainment of these objectives, important results have been achieved, including:

  • National Information Mechanisms have been established in all participating countries;
  • Country reports on NISM have been completed by all countries;
  • Country Reports on the Status of PGRFA[8] have been submitted by6 countries (Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand); the information for the remaining country (Viet Nam) is already available;
  • National GPA websites have been established in all project countries; and
  • NISM-GPA has been used to develop national strategies and identify new initiatives for GEF projects (such as in Malaysia and Sri Lanka).

The project has been instrumental in the work leading to these achievements, by providing advice and guidance as well as technical and financial support[9]:

  • Training on NISM-GPA software was attended by 351participants (271 male and 80 female);
  • Training related to the GPA, ITPGRFA and CBD, Indicators and Reporting Format for Monitoring the Implementation of the GPA and national legislations had 309 participants (227 male and 82 female);
  • International workshops and training courses (NFP Meetings: 13-15 Oct 2003, 21-22 Feb 2005, 15-16 March 2007, In-situ Conservation Workshop 29-31 August 2005, GIS Training Course 1-2 September 2005) facilitated a common understanding of some issues and helped to identify joint priorities;
  • Support to in-country meetings (Malaysia 6, Sri Lanka 5, Vietnam 3, Thailand 4, India 9, Bangladesh 4, Philippines 3) facilitated the establishment of the NISM and participation by a large number of stakeholders;
  • Provision of IT Equipment (computers, printers, etc) as well as support for website development, translation, etc helped to overcome constraints among participating countries; and
  • Support to In-situ Case Studies (Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Viet Nam) helped to initiate or expand activities in this priority GPA area.

One remarkable aspect of the project is that the material support to countries was in many cases matched by significantly higher budget allocations from the countries themselves. For example, India’s NISM with 114 participating Stakeholders has gone through several rounds of meetings that were largely funded from own resources, as well as with additional support from the FAO Netherlands Partnership Programme, through its Agrobiodiversity Component. Likewise, the in-situ case study in Thailand had a large geographical coverage and received major additional funding. In some instances, the project benefited from the existence of complementary activities supported by other sources, or could build on the achievements of a similar predecessor project. It also profited from a fruitful collaboration with the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (now Bioversity International).

The project has also been successful in raising awareness on the importance of PGRFA conservation and use, the GPA and the ITPGRFA, among governmental officials, a diverse stakeholder community and the public in general, in participating countries. Four of the participating countries have ratified the ITPGRFA, two of them did so during the Project’s life-span.

The main achievement of the project is the more systematic approach to PGRFA information management now adopted by the member countries. The project played mainly an advisory and guidance role in this regard, and helped to maintain harmony in the arrangements chosen by the countries. Above all, the project ensured that the information collected, stored and analysed is in line with the reporting format proposed for the GPA. At the same time, the project created the momentum to bring together the main actors related to PGR activities in the countries.

The information contained in the NISM-GPA databases is highly valuable to the individual country as well as to other interested parties. In particular the national web pages have enhanced visibility of the NISM-GPA databases; as they are mirrored at FAO’s WIEWS web portal at FAO, they have significantly increased the amount and quality of PGRFA information available for the international scientific community.

However, the mission also noted constraints in the project that have affected its performance and may also impair future follow-up activities. These constraints relate to various factors:

  • Fluctation among NFPS and national staff;
  • Incomplete representation of stakeholders in some NISM;
  • Reluctance among some stakeholders to share data;
  • User problems especially with earlier versions of NISM-GPA software[10];
  • In-situ case studies of varying quality; and
  • Substantial delays in project initiation and missed deadlines.

Delays in project initiation in participating countries seem to have come from over-optimistic assumptions in the project design regarding the time it needed to have the project document internally approved, and the processes that were necessary to set up the NISM, select the appropriate National Focal Point and have the NISM and NFP endowed with the necessary authority to call meetings, request contributions, etc. Regarding coverage of the NISM, there is now an active circle of stakeholders in all countries, but it appears that several NISM have a relatively low participation from NGOs, universities and private sector representatives. Data sharing remains a sensitive point: bio-piracy and similar issues were coming up as constraints in several brainstorming sessions held by the mission with stakeholders, and seems to have been a re-appearing concern during stakeholder meetings. Work related to in-situ conservation was included in one regional workshop (with a strong focus on GIS), and support has been given to four country case studies (one of which still appears to be incomplete). As the in-situ case studies have only recently been concluded, regional information sharing regarding the results has not taken place. In addition, if one adds the “development of guidelines and methodologies for in-situ conservation through improved regional co-operation” to the hoped-for achievements, this has not yet been addressed.

It is thus obvious that while the project has met all its major objectives, several constraints remain a challenge to the future functioning of the NISM, and that more work remains to be done. For these reasons, the mission recommends that the project should be followed up: as there is no immediate prospect of donor funding, the mission envisagesas a minimum scenario governmentsgiving continued support to the NISM, by funding future stakeholder meetings as well as endorsing the NFP’s coordinating role.

A possible follow-up project should include the following elements:

  • Continued collaboration with the original 7 countries
  • Assistance to new countries to set up/improve their NISM
  • Decentralized regional networking
  • Better link to global GPA work
  • Support implementation of key GPA activities identified by countries
  • More NGO and private/academic sector involvement in NISM
  • Better functionality of NISM-GPA software
  • Clearer demonstration of the benefits of information sharing on PGRFA

THE WAY FORWARD

The project has achieved good results, particularly with regard to setting up a National Information Sharing Mechanism and producing up-to-date information on PGRFA in the participating countries. (The need to extend the project by one year indicates that this has not always been a smooth process[11].) Progress with regard to in-situ conservation within a regional context has been more limited. All countries have indicated that the project has had a positive impact that complements their other PGR activities. Some countrieshave used their own funding to meet project objectives. Most countries seem committed (in terms of policy as well as funding) to sustaining the NISM-GPA system as an aid to both monitoring PGR work and policy formulation.