1. GRDC
ACRCP Review

2. Independent ACRCP review panel
Dr John Radcliffe (Chair)
Honorary Research Fellow and Commissioner: National Water Commission
Council Member of the University of Adelaide
Chairman of the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Eminent Scientists Group
Dr (William) Ronnie Coffman
Director Durable Rust Resistance in Wheat Project
Chair, Borlaug Global Rust Initiative Cornell University, USA.
Dr Mark Sweetingham
Director Grains Industry Development Department of Agriculture and Food, WA
Chairman Pulse Breeding Australia
Dr Lindsay O’Brien - Wheat Breeders Reference Group Nominee
Principal of Solheimar Pty Ltd, is LongReach’s Senior Breeding Advisor.Wheat Breeders
Dr Jerome (Jerry) Franckowiak - Barley Breeding Australia Nominee
Senior Plant Breeder (Barley) for Barley Breeding Australia (BBA) - Northern Node

3. Independent ACRCP review panel
L-R: L. O’Brien, J.C. Radcliffe (Chair), W.R. Coffman, M. Sweetingham, R Rainbow (Observer), J Juttner (Observer), J. Franckowiak

4. ACRCP review process Pre-Review CIMMYT Audit reviewer
Dr Ron DePauw - Section Head Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Swift Current, Saskatchewan Canada

5. ACRCP Executive summary
The Panel concludes that the program is of international significance and contributes internationally as well as to Australia.
The GRDC should be complimented for sustaining the program in its current form while the rest of the world has let its rust research capability run down and even disappear.
The program has world-class science using a mix of new science and classical rust pathology and phenotyping skills. The international reputation of its Director and other key scientists is widely acknowledged.
The survey and monitoring service that the program provides is highly valued for the information and cooperation it brings to Australian agriculture.

6. ACRCP Executive summary
The ACRCP program is critical for Australian cereal breeding. In particular, the screening service is crucial to the breeding industry.
While recognising some recent improvements, there is scope for further improvement in its services.
There could be closer integration within the program between genetic and cultural components of rust control including the use of fungicides.
The program includes high risk, innovative, leading edge, basic research. Consideration needs to be given to identifying a conceptual path to market of this research. The IP issues need to be clarified

7. ACRCP Executive summary
A revised management structure would provide opportunities for the Director to be more effectively involved in science management and delivery against the scientific program milestones with less distraction in day-to-day operational management issues.
The program should adopt a more commercial approach to service delivery.  
The program would benefit from greater strategic planning in the areas of research (particularly with the role of adult plant resistance in future research), services and communication.

8. ACRCP Review – Key steps
ACRCP independent review panel have provided 21 recommendations.
ACRCP review recommendations will be tabled to GRDC National Panel on 25 March 2011.
GRDC has developed an action plan in response to these recommendations.
Review response and action plan approved by GRDC National Panel June 2011
Consideration of ACRCP review recommendations for further GRDC investment in ACRCP from 2012/13 and next 5 year plan.
Recommendations and GRDC action plan will be tabled to ACRCP and the consultative committee at the Spring CC meeting September 2011.

9. Progress on ACRCP review recommendations
Greater emphasis needs to be given to setting long-term strategic goals and directions and identifying the portfolio of genetic and cultural responses to achieve them. A small Strategic Planning Group should be established encompassing an independent Chair, the ACRCP Director, a person responsible for ACRCP service activities, a representative of commercial breeders, a regional cereal pathologist and a GRDC nominee to develop a ten-year strategic plan for the ACRCP. The draft should be exposed to the Centre’s Consultative Committee before finalisation.
• The GRDC has initiated a consultancy with Tony Kent to complete this strategy which will deliver an early draft strategy to the GRDC by late-September 2011, prior to presenting this to the ACRCP consultative committee for comment and finalisation by late-October 2011.

10. Progress on ACRCP review recommendations
2. The leadership structure within the ACRCP should be reviewed, taking into account subsequent recommendations in this review, to allow greater opportunity for the Director to undertake national and international scientific leadership.
• GRDC recommends that the Chair of Cereal rust should continue to remain as ACRCP director for the overall strategic direction of the ACRCP plus scientific leadership.
A new business manager will also be responsible for improving ACRCP services and regional ACRCP collaboration.
The business manager will also be responsible for improving ACRCP collaboration under the Charter of Participation and support the strategic planning group.
The GRDC will withdraw the subsidy for the FFSP to zero over 5 years to offset the cost of supporting the business manager.

11. ACRCP review recommended structure

12. Progress on ACRCP review recommendations
3. In principle, the ACRCP should be continued because it is critical to controlling losses caused by cereal rusts in Australia. But change is needed, and is discussed subsequently, resulting in further recommendations arising from this Review. • The GRDC supports this recommendation and has detailed an investment proposal for this to continue in the 2012/13 investment plan.

13. Progress on ACRCP review recommendations
Succession planning should be immediately resolved to identify a replacement for Professor Wellings at the time he is expected to retire, 30 June In the event that NSW Industry and Investment is not prepared to fund a replacement, an alternative funding source should be sought.
• Replacement for Dr Colin Wellings subject to NSW DPI funding with funding for a 6 month cross over of the appointee fully funded by the GRDC in 2011/12.

14. Progress on ACRCP review recommendations
5. ACRCP representatives should meet with senior plant breeders to explore opportunities to improve the availability of monitoring information from the already well-run survey service. • It is recommendation that a process to engage with plant breeders is addressed through the ACRCP steering committee following discussions with the ACRCP consultative committee.

15. Progress on ACRCP review recommendations
The primary wheat focus of ACRCP should be the creation of genetic diversity in resistance to the three rust diseases using a more diverse array of resistances and fewer recurrent parent backgrounds. This could be achieved by using just three backgrounds in the pre-breeding area chosen to cover the main gene pools of the major wheat quality types currently dominating production across the country. This would enable a greater share of the resources of the GRDC-funded backcross program to be devoted to creating utilisation of greater genetic diversity within these three recurrent parents.
• GRDC recommends reducing the background parents to 2-3 for all rusts. This will create additional resource savings allowing increased investment in the Adult Plant Resistance (APR) genetics introgression program.

16. Progress on ACRCP review recommendations
7. A Breeders’ Advisory Group should be established to meet annually to discuss the genetic importation program and the availability of other services to be provided though the ACRCP.
It is recommended that this breeders advisory group is being established and formalised at the ACRCP consultative committee in September 2011. 
8. The inadequacy of available glasshouse and growth chamber facilities for the University of Adelaide project should be addressed.
• This has been addressed for the interim period through accessing other secure glasshouse facilities at the Waite Campus on a FFS basis. Negotiations for improved glasshouse and growth chamber infrastructure with the University of Adelaide resulting from Research Infrastructure Block Grant (RIBG) funding will occur in discussion on further investment.

17. Progress on ACRCP review recommendations
9. The intellectual property ownership being brought to and being created within project CSP00099 and any successor projects of the ACRCP should be clarified and the components of a conceptual “route to market” established for the potential outputs from it.
• A detailed CSIRO business plan for further investment in CSP00099 detailing the 'route to market' has already been drafted and will be finalised by September The new GRDC investment will include co-funding with CSIRO in a specialist consultant to support commercialisation, access to additional partnering technologies and additional co-investment by biotech companies in commercialising both the 'natural gene cassette' and the 'synthetic gene cassette'.
• The GRDC will invest on a 50:50 basis with CSIRO to ensure detailed consideration to commercialisation options are fully explored

18. Progress on ACRCP review recommendations
10. GRDC, in consultation with research providers under the National Grains RD&E Framework, should evaluate the future breadth and scope of the ACRCP in relation to regional pathology initiatives to ensure adequate linkages between the ACRCP and regional pathology services and the effective integration of research and development effort towards genetic and cultural practices, including the use of fungicides, for rust control. • Regional pathology support for at least 2 regional fungicide control rust sites coordinated by the ACRCP will be established through GRDC investment. This includes additional investment in the ACRCP as detailed in the 2012/13 investment plan to support a fungicide specialist, not necessarily located at PBI Cobbitty.

19. Progress on ACRCP review recommendations
11. The University of Sydney should commission an independent review of the Cobbitty services to identify a commercial structure, the demand for services, its economic capacity limits, the site requirements, its access to agronomic skills, any additional infrastructure needs and the management requirements to achieve an economically viable, efficient and customer sensitive service. Some of the issues to consider in the review are given in Annex D. • This review is underway through the consultancy with Tony Kent.

20. Progress on ACRCP review recommendations
12. The University of Sydney should consider incorporating the operations of the field testing services at Cobbitty into a stand-alone commercial entity owned by the University with a small Board drawn from the University, users, the GRDC and with independent representation.
The GRDC supports this review recommendation.
Finalisation of this decision be addressed by the GRDC and University of Sydney following completion of the consultancy with Tony Kent and completion of the ACRCP 10 year strategy.

21. Progress on ACRCP review recommendations
13. A commercial Business Manager should be secured for operation of services directly provided by the ACRCP.
The GRDC will provide support for this approach through investment in an ACRCP Business Manager as detailed in the 2012/13 investment plan subject to co-investment in this position by the University of Sydney.
Increased agronomy support is part of this package
• The GRDC will withdraw the subsidy for the FFSP to zero over 5 years to offset the cost of supporting the business manager.

22. Progress on ACRCP review recommendations
14. Effective links and coordination should be established between the Cobbitty services and the field testing conducted by regional pathologists.
Regional ACRCP pathology support is provided through additional GRDC investment as detailed in the 2012/13 investment plan but may be funded through redirection of existing funding from regional pathology projects..
15. An analysis of the long term climate data should be conducted for Cobbitty and all potential regional rust testing sites for use in coordinating sites management.
This review is included in consultancy with Tony Kent and incorporated into strategic plan discussions.
16. The ACRCP should not have a regulatory role in the availability of cereal varieties on the Australian market.
The GRDC supports this position

23. Progress on ACRCP review recommendations
17. The Director and the person responsible for ACRCP service activities should meet with senior breeders to develop an improved communication system for the output from gene discovery work, including markers, to be available to breeders to permit easier utilisation by commercial breeding programs. • The GRDC is reviewing the coordination of marker delivery and will be proposing a new model for delivery between University of Sydney and CSIRO.

24. Progress on ACRCP review recommendations
18. The GRDC should determine that breeding line cereal testing services to commercial breeding companies should move to becoming fully cost-recovered and should negotiate a progressive transition arrangement over several years to achieve that point while also restructuring the management of the testing services. • The GRDC will withdraw the subsidy for the FFSP to zero over 5 years.

25. Progress on ACRCP review recommendations
19. An alternative site should be identified away from the Plant Breeding Institute for the storage and maintenance of the pathogen type back-up collection. A security hazard assessment should be undertaken, security upgrades initiated where necessary, and a disaster recovery plan established.
This has been discussed with PBI and steps are in place to implement this recommendation by September 2011
20. The Strategic Planning Group (Recommendation 1) should give consideration to whether any long term plan needs to be developed for the relocation of current Cobbitty activities.
Consultancy with Tony Kent to complete this strategy which will deliver a draft strategy to the GRDC by late-September This recommendation will be considered through the ACRCP strategic plan development.

26. Progress on ACRCP review recommendations
21. A Material Transfer Agreement Register should be established.
An agreed ACRCP MTA register will be established in each partner organisation and managed across the ACRCP by the steering committee.

27. ACRCP review recommendations for CC comment
CC comments on review recommendations and draft ACRCP strategy
CC comments on the establishment of a breeders advisory group
CC comments on the GRDC proposal to withdraw the subsidy for the FFSP to zero over 5 years with contingent support for a ACRCP business manager.

28. Prosperity through Innovation
Questions?
GRDC
Prosperity through Innovation