Ch. 10— Maintaining Biological Diversity Internationally • 271 



Table 10-4.— International Agricultural Research 



Centers Designated as Base Seed Conservation 



Centers for Particular Crops 



Nature of 

 Center Crop collection 



AVRDC mungbean (Vigna radiata) global 



sweet potato (seed) Asia 



CIAT beans (Phaseolus): cultivated 



species global 



cassava (seed) global 



CIP potato (seed) global 



ICARDA barley global 



chickpea global 



faba bean {Vicia faba) global 



ICRISAT sorghum global 



pearl millet global 



minor millets {Eleusine, Setaria, 



Panicum) global 



pigeon pea global 



groundnut global 



chicl<pea global 



IITA rice Africa 



cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) global 



cassava [Manitiot esculenta; seed). Africa 



IRRI tropical rice (w\\6 species and 



cultivated varieties) global 



SOURCE: Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, Summary 

 of International Agricultural Research Centers: A Study of Achieve- 

 ments and Potential (Washington, DC: 1985). 



cies. IBPGR is a small group; part of the secre- 

 tariat is provided by FAO. Its mission has been 

 a coordinating one, of setting priorities and cre- 

 ating a network of national programs and re- 

 gional centers for the conservation of plant 

 germplasm. It has provided training facilities, 

 supported research in techniques of plant germ- 

 plasm conservation, sponsored numerous col- 

 lection missions, and provided limited finan- 

 cial assistance for conservation facilities (see 

 ch. 11). It does not operate any germplasm stor- 

 age facilities itself, however. 



As envisioned by IBPGR, collection efforts 

 were to focus on crop plants, based on priori- 

 ties set by the board and reflecting the economic 

 importance of the crop, the quality of existing 

 collections, and the threat that diversity would 

 disappear. The collected materials were to be 

 kept in national programs and duplicated out- 

 side the nation in which they were collected. 

 A global base collection was to be established 

 for major crops, and there were hopes of cre- 

 ating regional programs. 



The achievements of IBPGR are impressive, 

 measured in its own terms and against the list 

 of objectives. Ten years after IBPGR was estab- 

 lished, the network for base collection storage 

 included 35 institutions in 28 countries. Re- 

 gional maize collections exist in Japan, Portu- 

 gal, Thailand, and the United States, for ex- 

 ample, and one in the Soviet Union is under 

 negotiation. For rice, a global collection has 

 been established in Japan and the Philippines, 

 and regional collections are found in Nigeria 

 and the United States (27). National programs 

 were created during IBPGR's first 10 years in 

 about 50 countries, and by 1986 some 50 base 

 collection centers had been designated for 

 about 40 crops of major importance (38,79). The 

 program has limited itself to a particular group 

 of plants and has been successful in coordina- 

 tion, in encouragement of national programs, 

 and in scientific and educational assistance (33). 

 In all, IBPGR has links with more than 500 in- 

 stitutes in 106 countries (79). 



In part, due to the success of IBPGR in focus- 

 ing attention on the need to conserve genetic 

 diversity, the issue has become embroiled in 

 political controversy. IBPGR regards itself as 

 a technical and scientific organization. But a 

 number of critics regard the issue of plant 

 genetic resources as much more political. They 

 maintain that IBPGR is implicitly working for 

 the corporate and agribusiness interests of the 

 industrial world, particularly the United States 

 (36,56). Critics also argue that the current ge- 

 netic material exchange system is inadequate 

 to ensure that material will continue to be avail- 

 able, particularly to developing countries. The 

 debate has become quite acrimonious, with 

 proponents of IBPGR emphasizing their scien- 

 tific and pragmatic approach to the issue, and 

 critics emphasizing their fear that multinational 

 corporations will gain control over plant germ- 

 plasm. Plant patenting and access to plant ge- 

 netic resources are also important elements in 

 the current controversy (see earlier section) (6). 



This entire controversy helped catalyze a 

 move toward deeper FAO involvement in the 

 germplasm area and toward a new interna- 

 tional approach (70). FAO argued that it should 

 be taking the lead in plant genetic conserva- 



