risk management
Risk evaluation
Contributors to this section: PhilRice, Philippines (Gabriel Romero); CGIAR IAU (John Fitzsimon); Bioversity-ILRI, Addis Ababa (Alexandra Jorge); IRRI, Los Baños, Philippines (Ruaraidh Sackville Hamilton, Renato Reaño); ILRI, Addis Ababa (Jean Hanson); CIMMYT, Mexico (Thomas Payne); IITA, Nigeria (Dominique Dumet); ICRISAT, Patancheru, India (Hari D Upadhyaya); NCGR USDA-ARS, Oregon, USA (Barbara Reed); NCGRP USDA-ARS, Fort Collins, Colorado (Dave Ellis).
Once the current total risk rating is determined, the risk owners and higher levels of management consider whether the level of risk is acceptable. This will determine if additional control efforts or contingency planning should be made. Current technical or financial feasibility will be a factor in making decisions in this regard. However, such constraints should be explicitly considered and flagged so that they can be revisited either when new or cheaper technologies become available, or additional funding can be found to implement them.
Future course of action should be identified to deal with those risks where the current total risk rating is considered unacceptable, giving top priority to the highest assessed residual risks. The action plan comprises mitigation measures designed to reduce the risk level from High to Medium or Low total risk, by lowering the likelihood and/or cushioning the consequences through contingency planning such as provisions of safety backups of collections or information. Potential preventive controls are suggested in Table 1 and Table 2 that are by no means exhaustive, nor fully and directly applicable to all Centres. They can be amended, enhanced and tailored to each genebank to comprise a set of measures deemed adequate.
Possible contingency measures should also be considered for external risks for which the genebank cannot implement preventive controls and in the event that risks do occur, despite controls being put in place. Table 1 and Table 2 provide suggested controls and contingency measures that can be considered for particular risks.
To present an overall picture of the unacceptable risks and mitigation measures that are relevant to the subject genebank, these can be entered in a worksheet (table for risk management germplasm bank) for a quick monitoring guide.
Monitoring and review is concerned with analyzing and learning lessons from:
- Risk events or trends that occur.
- Changes in the external environment since this was last assessed.
- The results of ongoing surveillance and periodic auditing they control.
- Mitigating risks that continue to be appropriately designed and implemented as intended.
Responsibilities for monitoring and review should be clearly defined and documented.There should be a systematic consideration of the results to determine if changes to the risk management framework are required.
Risk identification and analysis
Contributors to this section: PhilRice, Philippines (Gabriel Romero); CGIAR IAU (John Fitzsimon); Bioversity-ILRI, Addis Ababa (Alexandra Jorge); IRRI, Los Baños, Philippines (Ruaraidh Sackville Hamilton, Renato Reaño); ILRI, Addis Ababa (Jean Hanson); CIMMYT, Mexico (Thomas Payne); IITA, Nigeria (Dominique Dumet); ICRISAT, Patancheru, India (Hari D Upadhyaya); NCGR USDA-ARS, Oregon, USA (Barbara Reed); NCGRP USDA-ARS, Fort Collins, Colorado (Dave Ellis).
 |
|
Click on the image above for the generic risk assessment tool for |
|
|
|
Click on the image above for the generic risk assessment tool for clonal crops |
Taking into account information gathered in Risk assessment, an inventory of relevant risks to the genebank operations should be made. The major risks to genebanks are germplasm mis-identification, unstable storage facilities and insufficient funding support. An extensive list of risks gathered in documents from five CGIAR Centers and genebank of the Philippine Rice Research Institute, discussions with four USDA-ARS conservation and database management sites and information contained in various genebank management literature has been compiled and is set out in Table 1 for seeds and Table 2 for clonal materials.
The generic risk assessment tool for seed crops and clonal crops serves as the input forms for risks and other information required for a particular genebank. For this step, the general area of genebank operations and specific activity and the risk source/indicator should be identified. These can be selected from those listed in Table 1a and Table 2a, but need not be limited to these.
Also, as part of the risk identification step, risk ownership should be identified. This means identifying the organizational unit or manager who is responsible for monitoring, analyzing, evaluating the risk and implementing the controls or contingency plans associated with the risk. Most of the risks identified will be managed by managers and staff within the genebank or larger Genetic Resources Unit (or equivalent) in which the genebank staff are organizationally located. Others will be managed in partnership with other units within the Centres. The suggested partner units are identified in Table 1b and Table 2b.
Risk analysis covers both the potential impact (or consequence) of the identified risks, and their likelihood (probability). In the case of likelihood, an intrinsic likelihood was first considered, taking into account the nature of the risk and its probability in the absence of controls or other mitigations, and then adjusted for mitigating controls that were confirmed as being in place. To develop a quantitative risk assessment, a point system for the scales or levels of the likelihood and impact of risks was devised in the context of genebanking operations. The point system was simplified and, consistent with the approach taken by many CGIAR Centres for their enterprise wide risk management frameworks; a 3-point scale was proposed: 1 point (Low), 2 points (Medium), and 3 points (High) for both likelihood and impact.
Intrinsic likelihood
The likelihood levels table below provides suggested definitions for the likelihood scale. These likelihood levels can be amended to suit a particular genebank’s conditions. Should a genebank wish to initially simplify this further, a 2-point scale could be adopted: 1 point (Low) and 2 points (High) for both likelihood and impact.
Likelihood levels
|
Low (1) |
Very unlikely to practically impossible; 0-10% of the time. (Example: one or no occurrence in ten years.) |
|
Medium (2) |
Occasional; 20-60% of the time. (Example: two or six occurrences in ten years.) |
|
High (3) |
Moderately frequent to frequent; Above 60% of the time. (Example: seven and more occurrences in ten years.) |
Impact
Since risks can impact multiple aspects of genebanking, namely: germplasm, information, people, environment, asset/facility, operations, legal and reputation; quantitative cut-offs can be set for each area. For initial implementation, to keep the process simpler, impact of legal and reputation risks may be excluded. Table 3 sets out suggested definitions for the impact levels taking into account these multiple aspects. There will be risks that impact multiple aspects per category. The highest risk level in any aspect should be the one selected for each category.
|
Example 1: For category germplasm, a certain risk poses high (3) impact on viability, medium (2) on diversity and low (1) on availability, then the score for this category is 3. However, if at least two of the aspects have medium (2) impact, then the category as a whole gets the highest (3) score for impact. For regular implementation of this rating scheme, low is loss of seed viability by 0-1%, medium by 2-5% and high by above 5% per year. For an initial, simpler implementation, low could be loss of seed viability by 0-1%, and high could be loss by more than 1% per year. The total impact score can then be the sum of the scores in all the aspects considered. Note that 1 point should be given to any of the above mentioned aspects that are not affected by the risk as a normalization step for computing for relative weights of the risks. |
One suggested rating scheme, taking account of the multiple aspects reflected in Table 3, is to award an overall Low impact rating where there is an aggregate total of 8 points, a Medium rating where this a total of 9 points (with 2 points in at least one area) and a High rating where this is a total of 10 points (with 3 points in at least one area) under High impact. Hence, risks with an impact score of 2 points each (Medium) in two or more areas will have a total greater than 9 points and subsequently fall under High impact.
|
Example 2: If the risk indicator is “Misidentification of germplasm” during collecting, the impact may be assessed in the various categories from germplasm to reputation using the generic risk assessment tool for seed crops and clonal crops, as follows:
Germplasm – 3, if the misidentified germplasm is in terms of diversity “recoverable from only 1 to 3 sources to total loss.” This can happen if the material is grown only in one location that is undergoing conversion or becoming inaccessible. Information – 2, if this risk indicator results in “6-10% gap in data or 6-10% loss in data accuracy or 30-90% usefulness”. People, Environment, Operation, Asset/Facility, Legal and Reputation - 1, since this risk source does not affect any aspect in these categories. In this case the total score comes to 11, and so the risk is rated “High” impact. The above rating scheme can be changed to more accurately reflect local conditions and standards. |
Adjustment Factor
Existing controls or strategies to mitigate the risks were identified and described. These controls or other mitigations can be in three areas: personnel; facility and equipment; and procedure/methodology. The areas of control table below provides further information on these three areas.
Areas of control
|
Personnel |
Staff performing the activity receives competency through training or actual experience. Dedication and enthusiasm through adequate compensation. |
|
Facility and |
Machine or equipment used is of correct specification, capability and good condition, and is available. |
|
Procedure |
Appropriate procedure developed and communicated on conduct of activity. |
Table 1c and Table 2c provide examples of controls, classified according to these three areas, for the risks listed in the tables. As illustrated in these Tables, there are risks that need controls in all three areas, while some risks can be addressed in only one or two areas.
The documented references to these controls should be linked to the supporting documents such as policies and procedures, and the evidence(s)/proof(s) that the control measures described are being implemented should be checked through analysis of operating measurements and periodic audits.
Based on adequacy of controls, the risk likelihood rating may be adjusted. The adjustment factor table below presents a scheme for this purpose. For a more simple, initial adoption, Moderate to Full control, worth 1 point, means there are existing controls in at least one of all applicable areas during the time of risk assessment. No control, worth 2 points, indicates there is no mitigation at all.
Adjustment factor
|
Rating |
Points |
Description |
|
Full Control |
|
Consistent control in all applicable areas |
|
Moderate Control |
|
Existing controls in one or two areas during the time of risk assessment |
|
No Control |
|
No control at all during the time of risk assessment |
Total Risk Rating
The total level of risk (risk rating) is determined by the product of the ratings for impact, intrinsic likelihood and the adjustment factor to reflect the contribution of existing controls or other mitigating factors to decrease the level of risk. The products of all the combinations of likelihood, impact and control levels are in given the table for the total risk rating below. The ultimate goal is to have full control in order to reduce the total risk rating to Low Risk wherever possible, while acknowledging that some external risks may only be addressed by contingency plans.
Total risk rating
|
|
|
Total Impact |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Low (8) |
Medium (9) |
High (10) |
|
|
|
Intrinsic likelihood |
|
8 |
9 |
10 |
Full (1) |
Control |
|
Low (1) |
16 |
18 |
20 |
Partial (2) |
||
|
|
24 |
27 |
30 |
No (3) |
||
|
|
16 |
18 |
20 |
Full (1) |
||
|
Medium (2) |
32 |
36 |
40 |
Partial (2) |
||
|
|
48 |
54 |
60 |
No (3) |
||
|
|
24 |
27 |
30 |
Full (1) |
||
|
High (3) |
48 |
54 |
60 |
Partial (2) |
||
|
|
72 |
81 |
90 |
No (3) |
||
Low Risk: 8 - 27 points (scores in blue cells)
Medium Risk: 28 – 54 points (scores in yellow cells)
High Risk: > 54 points (scores in red cells)
Medium and high risks are then further addressed through in risk evaluation.
Risk management
Contact person for Risk management: Gabriel Romero, PhilRice, the Philippines.
Contributors to this section: PhilRice, the Philippines (Gabriel Romero); CGIAR IAU (John Fitzsimon); Bioversity-ILRI, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (Alexandra Jorge); IRRI, Los Baños, Philippines (Ruaraidh Sackville Hamilton, Renato Reaño); ILRI, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (Jean Hanson); CIMMYT, Mexico (Thomas Payne); IITA, Nigeria (Dominique Dumet); ICRISAT, Patancheru, India (Hari D Upadhyaya); NCGR USDA-ARS, Oregon, USA (Barbara Reed); NCGRP USDA-ARS, Fort Collins, Colorado (Dave Ellis).
The importance of secure conservation
Secure conservation is at the heart of Centres’ stewardship of their collections and depends on an accurate assessment and appropriate management of risks. The risks of ex situ storage in genebanks should be, on balance, less than those to which the accessions would be exposed if maintained only in the wild or in production systems. The risks are less principally because of the hands-on nature of ex situ conservation and the extent of our understanding of the behaviour of accessions under controlled conditions. Still, due to the enormous size and importance of the in-trust collections, there is compelling need to implement and promote systematic risk management that addresses the physical and biological risks in the every-day environment to which the collections and related information are exposed. Accordingly, the management of risk in the storage environment involves responsible adherence to good practices, the application of the necessary skills, and the provision of appropriate storage conditions, through targeting funds to where they will have the most impact. The adequacy of conservation technologies is key, requiring particular attention for clonal crops.
Risk management guidelines
These guidelines set out the broad principles for risk management, which are primarily based on a review of the frameworks already adopted by the CGIAR Centres. They, in turn, follow the approaches set out in the Australia/New Zealand Risk Management Standard AS/NZS 4360:1995.
This work was supplemented by:
- Further exchanges of information and feedback with Centre genebank staff;
- A tour of USDA-ARS sites for clonal crops, legumes, data management, and long-term back-up collections;
- Vulnerability reports of USDA-ARS Crop Germplasm committees.
Structuring risk management systems
The common objectives, which all the CGIAR genebanks are encouraged to use in structuring their risk management systems, are to:
- Acquire and introduce new germplasm in compliance with international standards, agreements and regulations.
- Conserve germplasm samples in a secure facility that maintains their viability.
- Distribute healthy germplasm in compliance with international standards, agreements and regulations.
- Manage and provide complete and accurate germplasm information as a global public good.
- Conduct genebank operations in an efficient and sustainable way.
Steps in the Risk Assessment and Management guidelines
The steps involved in the Risk Assessment and Management guidelines include:
| Communication and consultation |
 |
| Establishing the context |
|
|
| Risk identification |
|
|
| Risk analysis |
|
|
| Risk evaluation |
|
|
| Risk treatment |
|
|
| Monitoring and review |
You can click directly on each of the above steps or on the risk sub menus on the left to have a detailed explanation of what to do in each step.
These guidelines are also designed to assist non-CGIAR genebanks, which are also encouraged, as part of the global system envisaged under the International Treaty, to implement a risk management system for their collections.
You can also see the full document of the guidelines below or access the risk analyis and management tools directy from this page.
Genebank Risk Management Framework guidelines (Romero GO, Fitzsimon J., 2010).
Risk assessment tools
- Generic risk assessment tool for seed crops.
- Generic risk assessment tool for clonal crops.
- Specific risk assessment tool for rice.
- Specific risk assessment tool for Musa.
References and further reading
Alconero R,
Benson EE. 2008. Cryopreservation of phytodiversity: A critical appraisal of theory & practice. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 27(3): 141-219.
Calles T, Dulloo ME, Engels JMM,
CIAT Risk Management Team. 2004. Risk Management at the CIAT genebank operations. Draft report available here.
CIP Risk Management Team. 2004. Genetic Resources Risk Management in CIP. Draft report available here.
Clark RL, Shands HL, Bretting PK, Eberhardt SA. 1997. Managing large diverse germplasm collections. Crop Science, 37:1-6.
Clement SL, Griswold TL, Rust RW, Hellier BC, Stout DM. 2006. Bee associates of flowering Astragalus and Onobrychis genebank accessions at a Snake River site in
Ellis D,
Fitzsimon J. 2006.
Fitzsimon J. 2007. Conservation and Use of Genetic Resources: Risk Management. Paper presented at the GPG2/GCP Quality Management and Performance Management System Design Workshop, October 2007,
GRC Risk Management Team. 2007. Risk Matrix at the IRRI Genetic
ICARDA Risk Management Team. 2005. Risk Analysis of Genetic Resources in ICARDA. Draft report available here
ICRISAT Risk Management Team. 2007. Risk Management at ICRISAT.
IITA Risk Management Committee. 2008. Risk Assessment Report at IITA. Available here
INIBAP Risk Management Team. 2008. Risk Assessment Report at INIBAP Musa Genebank. Available here.
Panis B, Thinh NT. 2001. Cryopreservation of Musa germplasm. In: Escalant, Sharrock S, editors. JVINIBAP Technical Guideline 5. International Network for the Improvement of Banana and Plantain.
Rao NK, Hanson J, Dulloo ME, Ghosh K, Nowel D, Larinde M. 2006. Manual of seed handling in genebanks. Handbooks for Genebanks No. 8. Bioversity International, Rome, Italy. Available in English (1.5 MB), Spanish (1.4 MB) and French (1.9 MB).
Reed BM, Engelmann F, Dulloo ME, Engels JMM. 2004. Technical guidelines for the management of field and in vitro germplasm collections. IPGRI Handbooks for Genebanks No. 7. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute,
USDA Forage and Turf Grass Crop Germplasm Committee. 1997. Crop vulnerability statement for forage and turf. (Can be obtained from Blair L. Waldron [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.]).
USDA Maize Crop Germplasm Committee. 2000. Maize report and vulnerability statement. http://www.ars-grin.gov/npgs/cgc_reports/maizecgc.html.
USDA Potato Germplasm Committee. 2004. Genetic vulnerability in potato. (Can be obtained from John Bamberg [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.]).
USDA Rice Germplasm Committee. 2004. Crop vulnerability statement for rice. http://www.ars-grin.gov/npgs/cgc_reports/CropVulnerabilityRiceRevised.pdf.
USDA Sorghum and Millet Crop Germplasm Committee. 2004. Sorghum and millet vulnerability statement. (Can be obtained from Gary C. Peterson [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.]).
USDA Sweetpotato Crop Germplasm Committee. 2001. Sweetpotato germplasm acquisition, maintenance and evaluation priorities 2001-2006. (Can be obtained from G. Craig Yencho [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.]).
USDA Vigna Crop Germplasm Committee. 2004. Vigna germplasm: Current status and future needs. http://www.ars-grin.gov/npgs/cgc_reports/vignarpt2004.pdf.
USDA Wheat Crop Germplasm Committee. 1996. Wheat vulnerability report. http://www.ars-grin.gov/npgs/cgc_reports/1996_wheatcgc_report.pdf.
Risk assessment
Contributors to this section: PhilRice, Philippines (Gabriel Romero); CGIAR IAU (John Fitzsimon); Bioversity-ILRI, Addis Ababa (Alexandra Jorge); IRRI, Los Baños, Philippines (Ruaraidh Sackville Hamilton, Renato Reaño); ILRI, Addis Ababa (Jean Hanson); CIMMYT, Mexico (Thomas Payne); IITA, Nigeria (Dominique Dumet); ICRISAT, Patancheru, India (Hari D Upadhyaya); NCGR USDA-ARS, Oregon, USA (Barbara Reed); NCGRP USDA-ARS, Fort Collins, Colorado (Dave Ellis).
Communication and consultation
Everyone involved in implementing a risk management system should be oriented in the concepts, methodology, terminology, documentation requirements and decision-making processes of the system. This should happen for all those involved at the inception of the system, and thereafter for those who come after and are new to the system. That communication process should also allow for suggestions for improvement.
The risk assessment process itself begins with the consideration of the objectives of the genebank, the environment in which the activities operate and the stakeholders.
Objectives
A complete analysis of all activities' relevant risks is most likely if their identification is explicitly linked, in the same way that performance indicators of the activity should be, to the agreed objectives of the activity. The common objectives, which all the CGIAR genebanks are encouraged to use in structuring their risk management systems, are to:
- Acquire and introduce new germplasm in compliance with international standards, agreements and regulations.
- Conserve germplasm samples in a secure facility that maintains their viability.
- Distribute healthy germplasm in compliance with international standards, agreements and regulations.
- Manage and provide complete and accurate germplasm information as a global public good.
- Conduct genebank operations in an efficient and sustainable way.
Environment
Genebank activities are affected by various factors in the environment. Those elements that might support or impair the genebank’s ability to achieve its objectives and functions should be identified as part of the risk management process. These could be related to such factors as:
- The strategic focus and existing or planned portfolio of the Centre.
- People (staff, consultant, partners).
- The available physical infrastructure.
- Financial resources.
- Legal compliance requirements.
- Technology.
- Existing internal processes.
- Developments in the external environment such as political changes.
These factors may be controlled to different degrees. An understanding of the environment can help determine the proper response to the risks identified in the risk assessment.
Stakeholders
There is a wide range of stakeholders that have an interest in the sustainable operations, products and services of CGIAR genebanks, such as:
- Researchers (breeders, geneticists, agronomists, physiologists, pathologists, entomologists).
- Farmers.
- Private sector.
- Host country.
- Other CGIAR Centres.
- International crop networks.
- Donor community.
The perceived effects and impact of failure of genebank services to stakeholders can help to evaluate the importance of risks and guide the development of necessary mitigation with due consideration of the stakeholders.