giar research program on grain legumes: extension proposal ... · our idos, targets and related...

1 of 32

CGIAR Research Program on Grain Legumes: Extension proposal 2015 - 2016

Introduction

This proposal for the extension of the Grain Legume CRP begins with reflections on the expected

outcomes (IDOs) which are the contribution of the CRP to the System level Outcomes. This is

justified given the special social role that grain legumes play. These development outcomes in turn

are supported by the Theory of Change and Impact Pathways that must be in place for grain legumes

to fulfil their unique potential. These IDOs were established in 2013 and we look critically on how we

can address them and monitor progress and our strategy towards achieving them. Finally, we

address the outputs and the respective activities that bring science to bear on the food security,

nutritional and social needs of the poor.

Intermediate development outcomes (IDOs), Theories of Change (ToCs) and Impact Pathways

(IPs):

The CGIAR Research Program on Grain Legumes espouses five Intermediate Development Outcomes

(IDOs) that contribute to the four System Level Outcomes:

The contribution of the CRP to these

IDOs is uneven, and dominated by

the contribution to IDO4, which

indirectly contributes to IDO1, IDO2,

IDO3 and IDO5 because (i) food

security and nutrition are, in part,

dependent on the availability of grain

legumes (for which demand outstrips

supply in most regions); (ii) grain

legume crops being high value crops

are a source of income provided that

they are productive; and (iii)

increased productivity and

intensification are the context for

IDO5, but here grain legumes have a

positive environmental effect, contributing to soil fertility. The nutritional impact of Grain Legumes -

are generally nutritious with abundant protein (iv) contributes to IDO3, but largely through

increased production, activities relate to maintaining quality under constraint and there is some

work on micro nutrients (Fe and Zn), and these link to CRP A4NH.

Theory of Change

Most of the measurable outputs of Grain Legumes are seed-based and therefore have

commonalities in their development and dissemination. Historically, seed-based technologies have

been relatively easy to transfer to and to be adopted by farmers, with many farmers anxious to

experiment with new varieties or hybrids. Exceptions to this route are Flagship Project (FP) 1 that

deals mainly with the biological issues not dependent on plant genetics and that is not necessarily

delivered through seed based technology. FP1 will produce significant Integrated Pest Management

outputs that will include natural enemies of pests, but this will be complemented by host plant

resistance components delivered through the trait delivery pipeline of FPs 2, 3 and 4. On the other

hand, most seed-based approaches will act synergistically with a crop/pest/disease management

component, and will also be strengthened by increased market participation that in turn motivates

investment in inputs. Similarly our activities on improved biological nitrogen fixation will include the

CGIAR Research Program on Grain Legumes Extension Proposal 2015-16

2 of 32

generation of new inoculants (where the N2Africa project is not active) as well as the generation of

new varieties.

Underlying these interventions is the theory of change strategy of ‘Inclusive Market Oriented

Development’ or IMOD (http://exploreit.icrisat.org/page/imod/649/123, http://Grain

Legumes.cgiar.org/how-we-do-it/impact-pathways/) as a framework for priority setting and

monitoring within the programme. This seeks to identify targets for intervention, and to assess the

performance of activities with respect to the aim of improving the livelihood of smallholder farmers

as well as the urban and rural poor. IMOD highlights value returned to smallholder farmers through

agriculture and diversification, for which legumes are well suited given their high market value, their

ability to fit into production niches, and their multiplicity of uses from leafy vegetables, immature

grain, mature grain or fodder. While the technologies we are developing have in mind resource poor

farmers with small areas of land to cultivate, we realise that societal changes may have a radical

effect on the way that agriculture is conducted over the next 50 years. This approach is itself under

review in order to identify good metrics with which to assess our priority setting, monitoring and

evaluation in phase 2. However, we are confident that whatever approach is taken, the crops we are

targeting will remain an essential component of farming systems and that enhanced capacity to

tolerate the main constraints we have identified will remain valid research priorities.

Our IDOs, targets and related assumptions are provided in Annex 1. These targets were developed

prior to the emphasis on common IDOs and also the reorganisation of the CRP according to Flagship

Projects. As the CGIAR drives toward more specific metrics that lead to IDOs, we will refine our own

metrics and assure that we are well positioned to use them for M&E and strategy development.

Accordingly in the extension phase we will address some concerns regarding the targets and

measures within Cross-Cutting area 1 (CC1).

Specifically these are:

IDO1 Food Security: Improved and stable access to grain legumes by urban and rural poor

We have relatively few targets for this IDO, and these tend to be expressed in the same terms as our

targets for productivity (hectares; numbers of households). We need to determine whether these

should be amalgamated or whether new measures are required.

The IDO refers to “access”. This implies per capita availability in the market on the one hand, and/or

economic capacity to purchase on the other as a function of price, both are strongly influenced by

productivity. To address IDO adequately requires further investment in the development a baseline

of “access” to show how, whether or to what degree this improved; in turn this requires the

development of appropriate metrics.

IDO2 Income: Increased and more equitable income from grain legumes by low income value

chain actors, especially women

We have a wide array of indicators for this IDO and these need to be consolidated. The percentage

increase per beneficiary (men, women, households) seems the most appropriate measure, but again

good baseline data needs to be established and benchmarked.

IDO3 Nutrition & Health: Increased consumption of healthy grain legumes and products by the

poor for a more balanced and nutritious diet, especially among nutritionally vulnerable

women and children

Grain legumes are generally nutritious with abundant protein. The relatively high lysine content of

legumes complements the amino acid profile in cereals such that each gram of legume protein

potentiates another gram of cereal protein. Oil-rich soybean and groundnut have a complementary

http://exploreit.icrisat.org/page/imod/649/123

http://grainlegumes.cgiar.org/how-we-do-it/impact-pathways/

http://grainlegumes.cgiar.org/how-we-do-it/impact-pathways/


3 of 32

effect on absorption of oil-soluble vitamins. Moreover, grain legumes are also a source of fibre,

minerals and folate and contain a diversity of bioactive compounds. Currently legumes and

especially chickpea1, common bean, groundnut2 and lentil are attracting attention3 for reducing risk

of the so-called non-communicable or chronic diseases (diabetes, cardio-vascular, and certain types

of cancer4), in part due to their slowly digestible starch. Partners and notably the Legume

Innovation Laboratory and Peanut and Mycotoxin Innovation Laboratory maintain a research

commitment on health benefits of legume consumption. These issues are important to Grain

Legumes given the increasing levels of chronic disease, especially diabetes, in the developing world,

and as component of the message that we convey to policy makers. While improved nutritional

quality is not a primary goal of this CRP, work on genetic enhancement of nutritional value focused

on improving the iron and zinc concentration in bean and lentil, within CRP Agriculture for Nutrition

and Health under HarvestPlus is closely aligned to Grain Legumes. Aflatoxins are a common issue for

both the GL CRP and for A4NH, and approaches are complementary.

While the benefits of legumes in relation to nutrition and health are wide ranging, we are not in a

position to assume metrics of health per se. For IDO3 we use per capita consumption as our metric,

assuming that the multiple benefits from eating legumes must start with greater consumption. This

indicator requires household survey data to show that (especially) women and children are in fact

consuming legumes, and this needs to be measured with respect to a baseline.

IDO4 Productivity: Improved productivity of farming systems, especially among smallholder

farmers

This is the centre of gravity of the CRP and the other IDOs depend largely on improved productivity

either directly or indirectly. Conceptually this is very simple but the complexity lies in obtaining

reliable data of the real situation among users of technology. Currently we rely on FAO data for

these measures, but we know there are some difficulties with these data (for example ‘bean’ is not

used consistently) so we need to establish independently verified baseline data in the extension

phase.

This is the centre of gravity of the CRP and the other IDOs depend largely on improved productivity

either directly or indirectly. Currently we rely on FAO data for these measures, but we know there

are some difficulties with these data (for example ‘bean’ is not used consistently) so these need to

be validated in some way, and we need to establish independently verified baseline data in the

extension phase.

IDO5 Environment: Minimized adverse environmental effects of increased production and

intensification of grain legumes

Here our indicators focus on nitrogen or organic matter which are closely related but not the same.

Reduced pesticide use is also a target but baseline data is needed. The Product Line 7 ‘Labour saving

traits’ includes the use of herbicides for weed control, so this needs to be monitored.

Impact Pathways

IDOs are somewhat remote from research activities; the lag time between action and outcome

means that these serve for broad direction setting and post hoc assessment of impact. For project

management more immediate measures are needed, and to this end targets were developed when

1 Jukanti et al (2012) Brit J Nutr. 108: S11–S26 2 Bao et al (2013) N Engl J Med 369: 2001-11 3 Bennett et al. (2009). Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 41: S74, http://www.genki-bar.com/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfood, 4 Aune et al (2009) Cancer Causes Control. 20:1605-15; Clemente et al (2011) Curr. Prot. Pep. Sci. 12, 358-373


4 of 32

the proposal was submitted and these are presented in the document describing the program and

dated 15 Aug 2012 (http://1drv.ms/1gNUKVb) and in Annex 1.

These measures are also often remote and dependent on many external factors. For this reason we

need to develop impact pathways at the level of individual output targets as this will enable us to

monitor progress towards our outcomes. Two examples are given below:

The process of defining these output delivery pathways for each output target is not yet complete,

but will be completed before the beginning of the extension Phase and integrated with our

Monitoring and Evaluation system. The purpose of this exercise is to define operational metrics that

relate our project management to the broader impact pathway.

http://1drv.ms/1gNUKVb


5 of 32

Flagship projects

The CRP on Grain legumes was defined by the description document agreed in August 2012,

although it had a formal start date of January 2012. The structure of the program matured with the

appointment of the Research Management Committee a year later. It is therefore too early for Grain

Legumes to institute radical change. The Output Targets identified in the 2014 Plan of Work and

Budget (POWB) are mostly ‘deliverable’ after 2016, so these remain the basis of, and identify, the

activities we will undertake. Nevertheless the extension proposal provides an opportunity for Grain

Legumes to implement some changes that respond to the needs of the program in terms of our

gender strategy, the implementation of results based management and the processes needed to

undertake the considerations and consultations required for the phase two proposal. The main

changes we propose are as follows:

1) We will restructure the management of the program by including women and disciplines other

than biological sciences in the RMC. (see also ‘Gender’ below)

2) We will redirect a portion of our funding on the basis of a competitive grants scheme, allowing us

to build in flexibility, rigor and management for results. (see also Budget)

3) We will institute a studentship program, in part allied to the USAID-funded Feed the Future

Laboratories (see also Phased Work plan).

4) We will regroup our activity clusters thematically in a way that has a clearer relationship to our

Intermediate Development Outcomes, while preserving the Product Line focus in terms of

outputs.

The realignment of the CRP according to Flagships rather than Product Lines places our most

important outputs into the context of the R4D process leading to IDOs, rather than emphasizing the

specific technical innovations. Product Lines remain intact, and run through the FPs provide the

outcome focus in this process perspective. The Flagship Projects 1 to 5 identify the crop interactions

with biotic and abiotic constraints (FP1), the trait discovery and deployment pipeline (FP2 and FP3),

the seed systems required for their adoption, and markets that produce income (FP4), capacity (FP5)

that act together with the assessment of impact, redefining priorities and assessing gender

components of priorities and activities (CC1). A new Cross-cutting area, CC2, that we intend to

develop concerns high throughput genotyping and associated bioinformatics.

These are summarised below but a more detailed description relating output targets to these

Flagship Projects and the Product Lines is given in Annex 2

FP1 Managing productivity concerns the crop interactions with organisms and the environment.

Crop biotic interactions include beneficial and detrimental relationships, and some of these biotic

relationships act synergistically with abiotic constraints.

Insect pests are a major constraint on legume production and have been largely intractable

genetically, notably in the case of polyphagous insects in the genera Helicoverpa and Maruca.

Management practices that include rearing and deployment of parasitoids and/or the use of

biopesticides are an opportunity that could have a major impact independent of the availability of

sources of genetic resistance or tolerance. This corresponds to our Product Line 5 (PL5) on

integrated pest management.

Crops have associations with a range of microbes, some are pathogens but others promote growth

either directly (eg Rhizobium) or indirectly by competing with pathogens or negatively impacting on

pests (eg certain actinomycetes and/or stimulate plant growth - Azospirillum spp). These organisms

and their management are therefore significant levers in managing the performance of grain legume

crops. Some of these crop-microbe interactions are also impacted by the environment, for example

N fixation is modulated by phosphorous availability, water and temperature as well as plant

maturity. Studies on N fixation (PL4) are allied to the BMGF N2Africa project where this is active.


6 of 32

There are major uncertainties associated with projected climate change with some areas projected

as becoming wetter and others drier, but overall an increase in temperature is likely to be a general

concern. Elevated temperature (especially night time temperature) can have a major impact on

plant fertility (ie seed set) so understanding the mechanisms underlying existing variation in

temperature sensitivity of yield is needed in order to combine mechanisms and strategies.

Moreover, temperature changes also modify agroecologies especially microclimate, and can favour

an increase in pathogen and pest reproductive fitness leading to rapid build-up of populations and

consequently disease and pest outbreaks. The abiotic consequences of climate change affect pests

and pathogens as well as our target crops, so this also has a consequence for crop responses to and

challenges by biotic stress.

FP2 Trait determination characterises available genetic variation for those traits characterised as

‘game changer’ traits in the analysis presented in the project document as agreed in August 2012.

These traits defined several of our ‘Product Lines’ that deal directly with breeding for specific

characters (PLs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8), and they continue to direct major strands of activity along the

‘trait delivery pipeline’ of FP2, 3 and 4. In the present formulation of the program the additional

necessary components of successful varieties (market acceptability, foliar disease resistance) are

more clearly a component of the activities within the Flagship Projects although subordinate to the

object of these Product Lines (which could be designated Flagship Products). This FP includes the

definition of genetic and molecular mechanisms of the trait determination.

FP3 Trait deployment takes the genetic variation obtained in FP2 and combines this with other

useful traits using integrated breeding approaches by deploying tools, technologies and platforms

from CC2. These novel breeding tools and methods will be used to enhance efficiency and precision

of breeding process.

The lines and genotypes generated will be made available to breeders to adapt these to local,

national and agroecological conditions as well as market needs. In some countries we take varieties

beyond the ‘pre-breeding’ stage and even in countries with active breeding programs the provision

of finished lines is often welcome. The point at which the CRP finishes breeding activities and

delivers material to the NARS is responsive to the needs of the partnership. The adoption of

improved varieties developed through the efforts of FP3 will be enhanced by strengthening the seed

systems in FP4.

FP4 Seed systems, post-harvest processing, markets and nutrition acts after the generation of

useful varieties, minimising post-harvest losses (eg from bruchid damage) while maintaining or

exploiting market acceptability (eg seed colour & pattern in common bean and lentil) and also

maintaining nutritional value (eg micronutrient availability in coordination with CRP A4NH) and

taking advantage of processing opportunities such as the use of immature chickpea seeds for their

nutritional and culinary value as well as their advantage as short duration crops.

All of these conditions must be met in association with an effective seed recognition, production,

and distribution system with associated standards, and FP4 seeks to maintain or establish these

systems and give farmers grounds for confidence in the distribution method.

It is at the level of the FP4 that IDO targets begin to emerge. Markets are the source of income.

Monitoring of seed distribution offers an estimate of area covered with new varieties. Nutritional

impacts have their first indicator in data on consumption. Thus FP4 has a special significance in the

monitoring of our success.

FP5 Capacity Building and Partnerships operates in a variety of modes; at the most direct it interacts

with farmers in the demonstration of agricultural practices (eg Integrated Crop Management) or the


7 of 32

selection of appropriate varieties for cultivation (Participatory Varietal Selection). The activities of

this FP catalyse adoption by tapping into local knowledge to enhance adoption and improve

targeting of research outputs, and we do this through strategic partnerships with varied

stakeholders involving innovation platforms facilitated by national partners. The program also

engages in strengthening through training activities for extension workers, breeders, technicians

and seed producers, and is also engaged in training researchers within the program from early post

graduate training (MSc PhD) to specialist training for experienced researchers. Virtual and distance

learning platforms harnessing new ICT tools will be explored and implemented for cost effective

learning process.

Cross Cutting Area 1 (CC1) is like a Flagship Project but is internally directed, it engages in reviews of

progress such as impact assessment and draws lessons from these that can update our research

priorities. This includes gender analytical research that indicates those areas where interventions

may have the most significant gender disaggregated differential effect and so allows us to prioritise

certain areas of work. We will develop our communications strategy for managing data, information

and disseminating knowledge to ensure the optimization, reach and end use of the R4D outcomes of

Grain Legumes is also included in this component of the program. This strategy will innovatively

make use of the new and emerging media tools (like Community radio, video, mobile and web based

platforms) with a participatory approach to enable exchange of knowledge and information from

and across the stakeholders including the smallholder farmers.

Cross Cutting Area 2 (CC2) is intended to include informatics and high density genotyping platforms

and the support proposed by the CO in the letter of 08/04/14. This emerges from four sources: (i) a

new BMGF initiative the ‘genomics back-office’, (ii) the initiative from the Consortium office detailed

in the letter of 08/04/14, (iii) the contribution to IBP5 phase II within the CRP and (iv) the Tools and

Platforms component of the new phase of the Tropical Legumes proposal, currently under

development.

Cross Cutting Area 3 includes the Project Management Unit and the various governance and

oversight committees (See Annex 3 for a description of the changes proposed to be implemented for

the Extension phase and preparations for Phase 2).

New dimensions to this are the development of a results based management system that includes a

grants scheme. We have remodelled our budget to obtain ca. 2M$ that we will disperse on the basis

of grant applications. These will be aimed at three types of activities:

1) Projects that strengthen strategic partnerships.

2) Projects that are joint activities between the participating CGIAR Institutes

3) Projects that are joint with other CRPs (and jointly funded)

Projects will be assessed by a subcommittee of the RMC and those selected sent for external review.

Criteria for funding will be: alignment with our IDOs, potential impact, scientific excellence, and

capacity for sustaining our research agenda.

We also want to institute a system that monitors potential Intellectual Property and gives Quality

Assurance while integrating our shared understanding of our Research Agenda (see Annex 4)

5 Draft genome sequences either are available or will be available soon for almost all CRP target legume crop, facilitating the development efficient genotyping platforms. The IBP (phase II) will help establishing such cross cutting platforms for the CRP as a whole building on ICRISAT’s Center of Excellence in Genomics (CEG, www.icrisat.org/ceg). The informatics platform will combine genetic, genomic, physiological biochemical and other data to provide decision support tools for breeders. These activities will provide access to tools, resources and databases to target legume communities.


8 of 32

Gender

The main target population for impact in this CRP are smallholder farmers living in marginal

environments many of whom are women or from other marginalized groups. To improve targeting,

as well as delivery of R4D benefits to these populations, it is imperative that activities be

implemented in a manner that adequately addresses social inequality and gender is one of the most

common determinants of social inequity that influences other socio-economic factors driving

differences in communities. The CRP gender strategy6 recognizes these facts and describes how we

will address them by deepening understanding of social inequity in target communities and so

inform research priority, technology generation, deployment and promotion. In each region gender

studies that leverage existing knowledge and/or generate more specific information will be

conducted. This knowledge will be used to inform and/or modify design of R4D interventions: FP1-

improve targeting by elucidating the influences of social inequity on uptake and use of IPM

strategies; FP2&3- support selection of traits that have gender implications, FP4- clarify gender

dimensions that may compound technology dissemination activities or access of women to markets;

FP5- define and rationalize social inequity considerations to aid knowledge management efforts.

The CRP gender team will develop an inventory of gender research activities to identify which

populations targeted so far and to assess the impact of research on these populations. This will

identify other potential target populations, for example, young men or women who may be invisible

actors in the value chain yet could benefit through inclusion and/or innovation. We will analyse the

degree of integration of gender into grain legumes research. Gender-disaggregated data is being

reported in the CRP and further disaggregation of demographic data will be implemented to enrich

the use of the data in diagnosing constraints and informing research plans. The framework for

reporting, monitoring and evaluating gender integration into research projects will also be

evaluated. Areas of greatest gender inequality will be defined with respect to the IDOs from the

collected baseline data. Strategies will be developed to redress the identified inequalities within the

Flagship projects.

Sex-disaggregated data within program research and activities will be coordinated and integrated for

ongoing activities. For capacity building activities indicators and targets will be designed, to assess

outcomes of interventions on women’s empowerment.

These studies will be conducted at PL and/or ‘Cross Cutting’ (CC1) levels. In order to assure

compliance to the gender strategy, the CRP will draw on the strengths of gender experts from CGIAR

centres and NARS partners. All priority setting, participatory technology testing and dissemination

activities will be required to capture both qualitative and quantitative gender disaggregated data.

Through monitoring, regularly done through quarterly reporting, gender imperatives will be

captured and used to inform the CRP research management. Additionally, the CRP research

management committee is being expanded (Annex 3) to include a sociologist and women to

strengthen the social science related implementation of the CRP.

Gender & nationality disaggregated committee

membership (target for Extn. Phase in italic)

Number of Nationality of members

women men (ISO 3166 country codes)

CRP Steering Committee (SC) 0, (3)§ 9 BRA, ETH, IND, LBN, NGA, PHL, TUR,

URY, USA

Independent Advisory Committee (IAC) 3 5 IND (2), IRN, SEN, UGA, USA (2), ZWE

Research Management Committee (RMC) 0 (5) 11 CHE, GBR, IND (4), LBN, UGA, USA (3)

Program Management Unit (PMU) 1 2 GBR, IND (2) § SC and IAC may merge

6 The CRP Grain Legumes Gender Strategy http://grainlegumes.cgiar.org/how-we-do-it/gender-strategy/ was generated in 2013 and has recently been accepted this document is available at and we do not propose to alter it before a full year of implementation and evaluation

http://grainlegumes.cgiar.org/how-we-do-it/gender-strategy/


9 of 32

Partnerships

The CRP Grain Legumes has partners throughout its activities. For example, BGI and UC Davis are

important partners in genomics. For variety development our partners vary by location and are

determined by the NARS and regional organisations that are active or have local responsibility. EIAR

has been an especially close partner, and is represented on the Steering Committee of the program.

Some of our most important partnerships are highlighted in the section on Regional Collaborations.

Here we cite those on a more local level, or those that transcend a given region and have a global

outlook. Among these latter partnerships, the Legume Innovation Laboratory and Peanut and

Mycotoxin Innovation Laboratory funded by USAID are two of the most important, and link us to

advanced research institutions in the United States. The development of a joint studentship plan will

give immediate connectivity, but it is anticipated that the personal and lab to lab connections that

will be made will focus long term interactions. These programs are unusual in the sense that they

imply medium to long term commitments of expert researchers who bring their knowledge to bear

on specific issues relevant to the improvement of agriculture in the developing world. This expertise

can be an important complement to the strengths of the CGIAR, for example, in the area of nutrition

as cited above, or in basic research on insect population dynamics that backstops PL 5 on IPM.

Strategic partners:

Examples of strategic partners below were highlighted for the Dalberg study:

Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research : EIAR is represented on the Steering Committee of

the CRP Grain Legumes. This partnership has been important for the delivery of improved

Grain Legume varieties to Ethiopian farmers.

The Indian Council of Agricultural Research is a key partner for activities in India (notably through

ICRISAT and ICARDA). ICAR is represented on the Steering Committee of the CRP Grain

Legumes.

Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (Morocco) is a key partner especially for ICARDA

and is hosting many of its activities in the CRP Grain Legumes as part of the relocation strategy

for ICARDA supported through the CRP Grain Legumes with additional W1 funding (to

ICARDA).

The PABRA network is CIAT supported (W3 funding through CIAT with $285,000 in staff time

dedicated to seed systems) and acts as a broad regional coordinating body.

With KARI in Kenya there are multiple interactions for chickpea, common bean, cowpea,

groundnut, and pigeonpea. Joint workplans with KARI are being initiated.

The extension phase will bring closer interactions with partners including those listed above, for

some this involves closer and joint planning of work programs (eg with EIAR and as is planned with

KARI). Our partnership with the Feed the Future Innovation labs will be strengthened by the

studentship scheme to which the CRP will contribute financially from unspent funds from the PMU

which was not fully established until the latter part of 2013 this will draw the USAID effort in these

organisations closer to the CRP.

We also propose a ‘grants scheme’ (see New instruments in the description of the ‘phased workplan’

below). This scheme is designed to improve interactions between the CGIAR Centres and with these

and Partners while piloting the monitoring and evaluation of proposed projects at the CRP level.

These are small changes to the way the CRP works internally and to how it interacts with partners,

but are important in establishing ways of managing these interactions that are new and will be

tested prior to their full deployment in the second phase of the program.


10 of 32

Changes in CRP governance, structure, partnerships

In 2015 and 2016 we do not anticipate major changes to the structure of CRP Governance or

partnerships, however the changes to be implemented are anticipated to presage the more radical

changes that will be proposed to be implemented in Phase 2.

The IEA report on CRP and governance together with the restructuring of the program with Flagships

creates some opportunities for re-organising some of the Committee Structure. We anticipate the

expansion or RMC to include wider representation by gender and discipline (see Gender above and

Annex 2 below). One further possibility is that the Steering Committee and the Independent

Advisory Committee may merge if the IEA report is adopted by the FC and this is agreed by the

current SC.

Budget partitioning between participating Centres will remain largely unchanged and the

partnership budget will be about 10% of the FP (or PL) budgets. However, we have allocated about

$2M to a grants scheme (a little more than 10% of the W1/W2 funding), and this could distort the

pattern of funding by institution or discipline according to the quality and timeliness of the proposed

projects (see Grants Scheme below).

CRP-CRP and related interactions

The program of work also depends on a network of formal and informal partnerships that are often

specific to individuals, institutions or geographies. We will continue to develop both formal and

structured links with other CRPs (notably PIM,CCAFS, A4NH, Dryland Cereals and Dryland Systems).

The BMGF projects Tropical Legumes and N2Africa are strongly aligned with the CRP Grain Legumes,

a new phase of the Tropical Legumes program will be developed in 2014, that will support scaling

out our outcomes and for which the alignment of proposed outputs is currently being developed.

W3/bilateral funding represents about 65% of our funding and creates stability in our cash flow, but

does present challenges in describing the common framework because W3/bilateral projects have

their own internal outputs, targets and evaluations and the alignment with CRP needs both to

respect these boundaries and ensure synergy. W3 funding does contribute substantially to inter-

centre and partner collaboration so it is a very important glue for the program as a whole.

W3/bilateral funding also tends to align these projects with a single CRP, in part because of the

complexity of mapping and partitioning output goals; this means that there is a heavy bias away

from such projects that overtly align CRPs.

We will introduce a Grants Scheme in this phase (see below) and within this portfolio will look to the

possibility of joint funding from different CRPs for proposals of common interest.


11 of 32

Regional collaborations

Grain Legumes is integrated with regional organisations in several ways. The most direct is through

long term support of crop networks such as CIAT’s support for the PABRA (www.pabra-africa.org/)

network in Africa that functions through its eastern, southern and western sub structures which

serve a total of 29 countries. The PABRA network functions under the auspices of CIAT, but the three

regional components each have a governance mechanism in the form of a steering committee with

national representatives. Technology developed in CIAT or in partner countries is channelled through

the networks for evaluation, validation, and eventual delivery to clients. In Central America formal

networks have not been functional for over a decade, but collegial relationships established under

past networks continue to facilitate regional collaboration, with the support of the Legume

Innovation Laboratory.

In Asia an ongoing network called Cereals and Legumes Asia Network (CLAN

www.icrisat.org/impacts/impact-stories/icrisat-is-clan.pdf) is hosted by ICRISAT, and co-facilitated by

AVRDC and ICARDA. CLAN is also supported by the Asia Pacific Association of Agriculture Research

Institutions (APAARI). CLAN has established a viable and dynamic partnership with NARS, NGOs and

regional institutions in 12 South and Southeast Asian countries for R4D collaboration among

member countries, and with IARCs and regional institutions.

At an organisational level the Independent Advisory Committee of Grain Legumes

(http://grainlegumes.cgiar.org/about-us/people/iac/) includes representatives from regional

organisations (APAARI, ASARECA & CORAF).

In SSA Grain Legumes will also leverage ongoing agricultural research for development investments

being implemented by Sub-Regional Agricultural Organisations (SROs) and the African Orphan Crops

Consortium (AOCC). In West Africa our work contributes to the R4D investments of West and Central

African Council for Agricultural Research and Development (CORAF/WECARD); in Eastern Africa, the

Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa (ASARECA) and in

Southern Africa Centre for Coordination of Agricultural Research and Development for Southern

Africa (CCARDESA) and Nile Valley and Sub-Saharan Africa network in North Africa. These SROs are

the lead agencies for implementation of CAADP agricultural research for development (pillar number

4). CORAF and ASARECA were essential in developing regional seed policies that will be used to

support regional seed activities of this CRP. The ability of these agencies to influence policy will be

used as necessary. Another important regional actor is the Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa

(AGRA). AGRA operates in most of Sub–Saharan Africa. We will leverage their investments especially

under the Program for Africa's Seed System (PASS) to scale up improved seed delivery to farmers.

Linkages with regional Official Development Assistance (ODA) programmes such as Feed the Future

and UK Aid under DFID will be used to similarly support technology reach.


12 of 32

Phased workplan covering the 2 year extension period until 2016

The content of Flagship Projects is indicated in Annex 2 and the output target due during the

Extension Phase are given in Annex 5.

The CRP Grain Legumes

currently has a wide

geographical reach:

Additional countries are

associated with the program,

for example Madagascar is

part of the PABRA network

that is part of Grain Legumes. However, the extension phase of Grain Legumes is mainly about

consolidation and focussing of effort. The Tropical Legumes (TL) Project (BMGF – W3) represents a

subset of the crops and countries of interest to Grain Legumes, thus an explicit plan for the

‘spillover’ countries will be established within CC1. Similarly the distinction between TL activities and

W1/W2 funded activities in common target areas will be made explicit in the POWB and the TL

renewal application.

The realignment of the description of Grain Legumes according to Flagships rather than Product

Lines emphasises the process of technology development and deployment rather than the specific

implementations we intend. Nevertheless the Product Lines remain our focus and coordinating

principle and this will be reflected in the project management structure. The Product Lines are

focussed on technological developments that were assessed as likely to add value to on-going work,

and to have maximal impact for Grain Legume production and use, but this focus tended to distract

attention from other necessary activities. For example the development of heat tolerant lines that

were susceptible to foliar disease or had poor market acceptability would likely have a poor (or

negative) impact, so the adjustment in program design allows us to be clear about the relative

importance of these activities.

The realignment of the program has also enabled us to emphasise those components that are not

specifically orientated towards plant breeding. FP1 is overtly focussed on the interaction of plants

with their environment, both in terms of other organisms and physical and chemical conditions. We

are also better able to identify and track the socio-economic components of the program in Cross-

Cutting area 1. These developments should assist us in the creation of a robust monitoring and

evaluation process that focuses on our intended outcomes rather than the biological means by

which these are achieved.

An underlying development is the emergence of the use of DNA sequence based methodologies.

Genome sequences are available for soybean, chickpea, pigeonpea groundnut and common bean

(although the latter is publically available it is not formally published). An international consortium is

working on the lentil genome and extensive genomic tools have been developed for cowpea. This

leaves faba bean as the target crop with the least genomic resources. This is not surprising: the faba

bean genome is almost four times the size of the human genome and it is full of repetitive elements,

but marker development is underway. DNA sequencing is widely used within the program; and

features in all the FPs except FP4 which is focussed on seed systems, post-harvest processing,

markets and nutrition.

Output targets deliverable in 2015 and 2016 are listed in Annex 5, note that additional Output

Targets have partial outputs in this period.


13 of 32

New instruments

We have instigated three new instruments in the Extension Phase, with the intention that these can

be trialled prior to expansion in Phase 2.

Studentship scheme

This has two components, one is a scheme that is joint between the CRP and the USAID funded

Legume Innovation Lab. These studentship projects are agreed by a subcommittee of the RMC (to be

established) working together with the Legume Innovation Laboratory. Studentships are open to

persons nominated by the CRP and can be held in any US University. The second component is an

internally funded studentship scheme tenable in any partner academic organisation.

Grants Scheme

We have held back ca. 2M$ of our W1/W2 budget to be deployed through a grants scheme. This will

operate in two ways.

The first is through the request for proposals that involve interactions between participating centres

or centres and partners. These will be judged on scientific merit and relevance to Grain Legumes.

Most likely this will correspond to four grants of $250k, though smaller grants would also be

considered.

The second route is through commissioning – areas where there is a gap in our activities will be

identified and applications sought for proposals that address the missing work area. These could be

within the Grain Legumes program or include a partner organisation. This is anticipated to

correspond to eight proposals of ca. $125k.

Capacity building

The Grain Legumes program has a strong capacity building effort that is needed for its

transformation of outputs to outcomes and for the development of efficient and effective

relationships with partner organisations. However these have tended to have an institutional focus

and to be somewhat ad hoc. There has been criticism from the ISPC that (in the CGIAR as a whole

and not necessarily Grain Legumes) some courses have been offered with more enthusiasm than

content.

We propose that Grain Legumes funded (and therefore approved) courses should have an

accreditation scheme, and this accreditation will be established by the RMC in consultation with the

SC and will follow the route proposed for publications (Annex 4). This will avoid unnecessary

duplication (or clashes) and should promote internal communications within Grain Legumes.

Capacity building will include a variety of approaches and technician training will be included –

degree based training is dealt with under the ‘studentship scheme’ above.

Knowledge sharing and communications

A state-of-the-art ICT mediated platform will host all the CC1.3 services including data repository,

knowledge resource, knowledge network, Community of Practice, communications and outreach.

The platform will also engage with other collaborators, research institutes and universities working

on grain legumes. This platform aims to become a single source of reference for grain legumes.


14 of 32

Budget 2015-2016.

Grain Legumes officially ends on 30 June, 2015. However, we propose budget and planning for the

full year of 2015, and for 2016. The Financial plan for 2015 was set by the Consortium Office on 6th

December 2013, and the 2014 budget is estimated here from the budgets over the whole of the

Phase 1 period, ie this smoothens-out the peak in funding for 2013, assuming that the claw-back of

funds was completed within the timeframe of phase 1.

The basis of the 2016 budget estimate is explained in the figure:

The ‘actual’ budget shows the unusual budget allocation in 2013 which was ‘rectified’ by a

considerable reduction in 2014 and 2015. Note that the project was agreed in August 2012 and the

2012 budget is for a half year.

The ‘averaged’ budget shows what the funding profile would have been if the funds were allocated

evenly over this period (and we were not penalised for the large allocation in 2013). We estimate

the 2016 budget based on this averaged figure rather than the actual (and reduced) 2015 figure.

The Flagship Project budgets for 2015 and 2016 are given below (thousands of USD):

Description

2015 2016

W1/W2 W3/Bilat Total W1/W2 W3/Bilat Total

FP1 Managing productivity 2,677 7,500 10,177 3,102 8,250 11,352

FP2 Trait determination 1,458 4,122 5,580 1,644 4,534 6,178

FP3 Trait deployment 3,205 9,715 12,920 3,734 10,687 14,421

FP4 Seed systems, post-harvest

processing, markets and nutrition

1,706 6,326 8,032 1,941 6,959 8,900

FP5 Capacity Building and Partnerships 1,348 4,298 5,646 2,113 4,728 6,841

CC1 Knowledge, Impacts, Priorities, and

Gender Organisation

2,020 4,598 6,618 2,316 5,058 7,374

CC2 Tools and platforms for genotyping

and bioinformatics

110 541 651 133 596 729

CC3 Management 1,626 0 1,626 1,945 0 1,945

CC3.1 Grants Scheme 2,000 0 2,000 2,393 0 2,393

Total 16,150 37,100 53,250 19,321 40,812 60,133

We also intend to seek support of ca. $1M additional W1/2 funding for the implementation of our

results based management strategy that will be allied to the grants scheme discussed in this

document. These additional W1/W2 funds will be the subject of a separate document, and if

obtained will be in addition to the W1/W2 budget presented here, for the new RBM activity.


15 of 32

The assignment of costs to IDOs is estimated on the basis of the contribution of activity clusters to

IDOs.

2015

2016

W1/W2 W3/Bilat Total W1/W2 W3/Bilat Total

IDO1 2,283 7,430 9,713 2,732 8,173 10,905

IDO2 1,127 2,612 3,739 1,348 2,873 4,221

IDO3 1,850 6,392 8,242 2,213 7,032 9,245

IDO4 6,177 16,853 23,030 7,390 18,539 25,929

IDO5 1,087 3,813 4,900 1,300 4,195 5,495

Total 12,524 37,100 49,624 14,983 40,812 55,795

(Note: these figures exclude management and grants scheme costs see Annex 1 for definition of

IDOs)

The additional W1/W2 funding we intend to apply for in order to implement Results Based

Management will be allied to the grants scheme (see above). This anticipates the intended shift

from an ‘allocated’ budget to a ‘justified request’ budget in the second phase and will test the

systems to manage this new way of working.


16 of 32

Annex 1 IDOs, targets and assumptions

IDO Targets

The Intermediate Development Outcomes are broad, and each could be enhanced by many of our

activities and, below, these are not disaggregated by Flagship Product.

IDO1 Food Security: Improved and stable access to grain legumes by urban and rural poor

• An additional 1.6 million tons of common beans are available annually in Latin America, and

1.3 million tons in Africa, derived in part from an additional 500,000 hectares in heat prone

areas, and an additional 500,000 hectares of climbing beans

• At least 10% increase in cowpea production resulting in higher supply of grains to the market

and ultimately consumers

• At least 550,000 ha area in new niches brought under cultivation of chickpea, faba bean, lentil

and common bean by growing heat tolerant varieties

• At least 15% increase in groundnut supply at household level in target areas in Malawi,

Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda and 10-15% in Nigeria, Mali, Senegal and Niger

• Decrease in grain legume price volatility/variability by at least 3-5% in the target regions in

India, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Nigeria, Mali, Senegal and Niger; and 2% in

Egypt, Ethiopia, Morocco, Syria, Turkey and Iran

• About 1 million households growing an additional crop of short-duration chickpea/lentil in rice

fallows and rice-rice systems

• Decline in real price of pigeonpea by at least 10% in target regions

IDO2 Income: Increased and more equitable income from grain legumes by low income value chain

actors, especially women

• Income from common bean sales increases by at least USD 100 million in Latin America and

USD 300 million in Africa

• 10-15% increase in income of 1 million households from growing drought and low-P tolerant

cowpea varieties

• 15-20% increase in income for at least 2.5 million households, of which 30% income earned by

women, by growing heat tolerant varieties of chickpea, faba bean and lentil

• 10-15% increase in income from groundnut for 1 million households across India and Vietnam

• 10-20% reduction in labour requirement for women by cultivating short duration improved

groundnut in India, Vietnam, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda, Burkina Faso,

Ghana, Mali, Senegal, Nigeria and Niger

• 10-20% increase in groundnut export due to reduced aflatoxin contamination in India and

Vietnam; 15-20% in Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania and Uganda; and up to 10% in Burkina

Faso, Ghana, in Nigeria, Mali, Senegal and Niger

• 10% increase in income from groundnut in 150,000 households in Burkina Faso, Ghana,

Nigeria, Senegal, Mali; and 15-20% increase in income from groundnut in 200,000 households

in Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda; of which at least 50% earned by women

• 15-20% increase in income from cultivation of short-duration chickpea and lentil varieties to

about 1 million smallholder families, especially women-headed households

• Chickpea, faba bean and lentil harvested mechanically in 2 million ha with 15-20% increase in

income in target regions due to reduction in production costs, and 20-25% reduction in labour

requirements of farm women involved in chickpea cultivation


17 of 32

IDO3 Nutrition & Health: Increased consumption of healthy grain legumes and products by the

poor for a more balanced and nutritious diet, especially among nutritionally vulnerable women and

children

• 10-15% increase in consumption of chickpea and faba bean, 10% of bean in Africa, and 15-20%

of lentil in target areas

• 10% higher consumption of groundnut containing low aflatoxin particularly by women and

children in India, Vietnam, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda, Burkina Faso, Ghana,

Nigeria, Mali, Senegal and Niger

• 20% higher consumption of lentil containing high iron and zinc content particularly by women

and children in India, Bangladesh, Nepal and Ethiopia

• 20% increase in consumption of pigeonpea in poor rural households in India, and 10% in

Tanzania, Kenya, Malawi and Uganda, especially by women and children

IDO4 Productivity: Improved productivity of farming systems, especially among smallholder

farmers

• Yields of common bean increase at least 40% among adopters of bush beans in Latin America

and Africa, and 100% among adopters of climbing beans in Africa.

• Drought tolerant cowpea varieties with 15-20% increase in yield adopted by 10-15% of

farmers in target countries and planted in 1.0 million hectares; low-P tolerant cowpea

varieties cover at least 500,000 ha in low soil fertility areas of Burkina Faso, Mali,

Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal and Tanzania.

• Heat tolerant varieties of chickpea, faba bean, lentil and bean cultivated in 1.5 million

hectares with 20- 25% increase in yield in target regions

• Short-duration chickpea and lentil varieties grown in 500,000 ha in rice-fallows and new

niches, improving the cropping system productivity by 20-25% in target regions of South Asia

• Adoption of drought tolerant groundnut cultivars provides 10-15% increase in yield in 500,000

ha in India and Vietnam; 200,000 ha in Tanzania, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Nigeria, Mali, Niger,

and Senegal; 150,000 ha in Malawi; 100,000 ha in Uganda and Mozambique

• Adoption of drought tolerant soybean cultivars will increase grain yield by 15-30% in 50,000

ha in Malawi, 10,000 ha in Mozambique, 15,000 ha in Zambia and 100,000 ha in Nigeria

• Adoption of soybean varieties with enhanced biological nitrogen fixation will provide 20-30%

increases in grain and biomass yields and add at least 20 kg nitrogen per hectare to soil

• Hybrid pigeonpea cultivated on 150,000 ha in target regions in India with an average increase

of 20-25% productivity.

• 15-20% increase in pigeonpea yields in 200,000 ha in Tanzania, Kenya, Malawi and Uganda

IDO5 Environment: Minimized adverse environmental effects of increased production and

intensification of grain legumes

• An additional 25,000 metric tons of nitrogen from climbing beans, and 25,000 metric tons

from improved bush beans

• Cultivation of short-duration foliar diseases resistant groundnut varieties reduces pesticide

use by 20-25% in target groundnut producing areas, minimizing environmental contamination

by pesticide residues by at least 15%

• Reduction in pesticide use in chickpea and pigeonpea by at least 25% in target regions of Asia

• Reduction of yield losses by 35% in cowpea due to the adoption of IPM innovations based on

host plant resistance (including Bt-transgenics), biological control and bio-pesticides, thereby

reducing the use of synthetic pesticides by at least 25%

• Increase soil fertility and organic matter content by 0.1-0.2% in the target groundnut areas in

SSEA, ESA and WCA


18 of 32

• Increase in soil organic matter content by 0.1 to 0.2 % in target (pigeonpea growing) regions in

India and ESA.

Assumptions related to activities to create outputs

A number of assumptions are made regarding the potential for the Grain Legumes Research

Program to produce the targeted outputs. These include the following.

• Research for poverty-stricken low-potential areas will remain the domain of the public sector

at least in next 10 years.

• Grain legumes are a major livelihood strategy element for addressing food, nutrition income

and environmental services of legume-farmers and their related value chain actors.

• Adequate genetic diversity exists in germplasm collections to offer significant protection

against abiotic stress and as sources for diverse production input traits

• Modern breeding techniques can enhance the breeding of abiotic and biotic stress tolerance

as well as nutritional quality.

Past success in identifying natural enemies of legume pests can be converted into viable IPM

systems.

• There is buy-in of partners in the production of the outputs, along with an enabling

environment.

A common assumption about dissemination of new legume varieties is that farmers save their own

stocks and seldom purchase seed, and that this is a disincentive to the private sector to produce and

stock legume seed. Undoubtedly this has been a barrier to the rapid dissemination and the “reach”

of improved legume varieties. However, this has also stimulated a more creative and diversified

approach to legume seed production and dissemination systems. Among the multiple approaches

tested, several scenarios for the marketing of small quantities of seed at economical prices (eg small

seed packets) proved promising especially in reaching women who in particular are seldom in a

position to afford large quantities at one time. Being able to experiment with new varieties at

minimal risk motivated thousands of farmers to purchase seed packets for as little as the cost of a

cup of tea. In turn some seed producers were motivated to enter the legume seed business, selling

at a small unit price but at a higher per weight price. Governmental recognition of Quality Declared

Seed (QDS) in several countries will facilitate decentralized seed production at much lower cost to

farmers than certified seed. Mapping access by farmers to seed outlets will facilitate putting

improved and high quality seed within reach of smallholder farmers. Some of the CRP seed-based

products are designed to augment total food production and availability, and could also targeted to

producers with more resources (e.g., hybrid pigeonpea, herbicide resistant and/or machine

harvestable varieties), at least in the near term. Some of these technologies implicitly will be

accompanied by changes in input use or machinery, with the expectation that input providers will

respond to this opportunity and for women farmers drudgery may also be reduced.

One critical component of success has been to substitute the vertical model of the impact pathway

(researchers to national partners to extension agents and seed producers) for an interactive model

with feedback loops back and forth between farmers, traders, researchers, and seed producers. This

links supply and demand, and has permitted the development of business and professional

relationships whereby users and suppliers of seed (or other technologies) enter into agreements

that facilitate the flow of seed. These relationships should be nurtured to evolve into “innovation

platforms”. Other technologies benefit from other sorts of person-to-person communication such as

farmer field schools, for which a “gender sensitive training of trainers” strategy can serve for scaling

up. These considerations suggest the requirement for Grain Legumes to leverage diverse but

complementary investments of development agencies targeting improvement in agricultural

productivity, market competitiveness and increased benefits to person and the environment. These

could be monitored and evaluated for lesson learning to inform further R4D and scaling up and out

activities, and we will devise this monitoring scheme during the extension phase.


19 of 32

Assumptions and risks to attain “reach”

• Quality breeder and foundation seed can be produced in adequate quantities.

• While small seed packs are a low risk option for farmers, especially women, that permits them to

experiment with new varieties or hybrids, private seed companies may need some support to

participate in this strategy.

• Multiple approaches encouraged by the public sector will be needed to expand dissemination.

• Novel agronomic practices that require capital investment will find slower adoption but this will

be facilitated by marketable varieties.

• Increased focus on delivery of results by development agencies and governments will support

scaling up and out efforts.

Developing economies continue to experience growth in their economies, with increased

aggregate demand for agricultural products as population growth and urbanisation increases.

In order to achieve the net effect of the increased growth for sub –Saharan Africa, with the

change in behaviour described above, support for legumes at all levels should be enhanced and

the enabling environment greatly facilitated.

While there are many behavioural changes in terms of seed purchase, crop management, etc., the

essential behaviour change at all levels (farmers, seed producers, input suppliers, and policy makers)

needs to be a new attitude toward legumes. Farmers often plant a legume only after other crops are

already established. As noted above, many seed producers see little future in legume seed. Policy

makers fix their attention on volumes of food that normally proceed from cereals, and not on

quality. All must be encouraged to consider legumes to be an indispensable component of the diet

and of the farming system. An awareness of their nutritional value and health effects is an important

part of this message, but a growing economic value driven by more effective markets will be the

most effective tool for this, combined with a more effective communication strategy.

Assumptions to attain change in capacity and behaviour

Dissemination with participation gives farmers exposure to new varieties with greater market

potential and leads to behaviour change following the IMOD strategy

(http://exploreit.icrisat.org/page/imod/649/123).

Farmers with modest-to-good capital and market access will adopt crop management techniques,

especially when the variety lends itself to higher technology.

Enhanced markets will attract the attention of farmers, the private sector, and policy makers, and

will raise the profile of all these actors

Fora that facilitate communication among multiple actors (researchers, seed producers, traders,

farmers, NGOs, CBOs, etc.) have the potential to evolve into innovation platforms that enhance

productivity and link farmers to markets.

Increased literacy of farmers as a result of implementation of compulsory schooling for over a

decade in all target regions will enhance knowledge uptake and use.

With the change in behaviour described above, support for legumes at all levels should be enhanced

and the enabling environment greatly facilitated.

Assumptions about the enabling environment

• At least some seed companies will be induced to distribute and sell small seed packs, while others

will eventually respond to the opportunity afforded by a more technical production system.

• Extension services, especially those sponsored by NGOs, will help reach the poorest of the poor.

• Increased attention to agriculture following the world food crisis of 2007-2008 has led to

increased investments in production and productivity enhancement to stem future crises.


20 of 32

• In sub- Saharan Africa, increased investments in agriculture through country led actions within

the framework of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) will

underpin growth in the agricultural sector.

• The increased shift from agricultural extension focusing on technology transfer, to agricultural

advisory services focusing on improvement in functionality of the value chains, enhances

adoption and realisation of benefits across a broad range of stakeholders.

The Generic Impact pathway for Grain Legumes is illustrated below:


21 of 32

Annex 2 Flagship Projects and Product Lines

Description of the extension phase at the level of research questions and output targets.

The structure of project is as illustrated below:

This restructuring follows from comments on the 2014 Plan of Work and Budget, and corresponds to

changing the description of the project in terms of the ‘Strategic Components’ (SC) of the original

project description rather than the ‘Product Lines’. A simple ‘rotation’ of the description leaves SC2

as approximately 60% of the project, so here it has been divided into three sub components, and

that required some slight modification to the description of the Output Targets, although their

content is substantially unaltered. (see Flagship Projects and Activities below)

Each activity has a set of output targets, and these address a specific research question. Many of

these are single Output Targets when viewed from the point of view of Product Lines, but have sub-

components distributed among Flagship Projects. These components have been designated

‘milestones’ and naturally address subsidiary questions.

For example OT 5.1.2 ‘Breeders have access to new sources of durable resistance to key insect pests

which can produce in average 30% more yield and need 50% less insecticide sprays’ addresses the

research question of whether durable insect pest resistance exists and is controlled genetically in

such a way that it can be manipulated in breeding programmes. This falls within a single Product Line

of ‘Insect smart production systems’ but is distributed among three Flagship Projects, that

correspond to the study of plant pest interactions in FP1, the analysis of genetic determinants of

these interactions in FP2 and the deployment of allelic variation in breeding programs within FP3.

Accordingly M 1.1.5.1 ‘New sources of durable resistance to key insect pests identified’ asks whether

variation for insect pest resistance exists in available germplasm. M 2.2.5.1 ‘Genetic mechanisms of

resistance to key insect pests identified’ asks the question ‘What is the genetic basis of pest


22 of 32

resistance?’ This can be answered at various levels, and for our purposes the identification of

genomic segments that confer significant proportions of the heritable variation for insect pest

resistance is sufficient, but the molecular basis may also be studied so that lessons can be learnt and

applied to other systems. M 3.2.5.1 ‘Breeders lines with new sources of durable resistance to key

insect pests’ asks the question of whether these genetic determinants can me introgressed into

agronomically favourable genetic backgrounds.

It is worth noting that OT 5.1.2 could fail to be reached at any of these three milestones: for M

1.1.5.1 there may be no available resistance, for M 2.2.5.1 the genetic mechanism may be highly

poly genic or the heritability might be very low and for M 3.2.5.1 a useful determinant of resistance

may be tightly linked in coupling to a severely detrimental agronomic trait, or may have pleiotropic

detrimental consequences. Separating the Output Target into these steps makes it clear where the

decision points on whether or not to progress with the project are made.

For clarity a brief description of Product Lines and Strategic components is given below.

See also (http://grainlegumes.cgiar.org/what-we-do/project-proposal/).

Product Lines

Product Lines Comment

PL1 Drought and edaphic

stress tolerance

Poor soils exacerbate losses due to drought. This product line aims

to mitigate the combined stress

PL2 Heat tolerance Heat stress, especially at seed set, is a major preventable

determinant of yield loss

PL3 Short-duration, drought

tolerant and aflatoxin-

free groundnut

Aflatoxin contamination of groundnut reduces its value and

potential for export. Contaminated products that cannot be sold

contribute to local health problems. Short duration will enhance

escape of critical infection points during end-of-season drought.

PL4 High nitrogen fixation N fixation is an environmental service of grain legumes, but

sometimes it is ineffective.

PL5 Insect smart production

systems

Control of insect pests would be a major benefit to grain legume

production.

PL6 Exploiting extra early

maturity

Extra early maturing grain legumes open the opportunity of greatly

expanded production in rice fallow systems

PL7 Labour saving traits

Labour costs are an increasing constraint for farmers. Reducing the

labour of weeding (through herbicide use – including control of

parasitic plants), and plant architectural characteristics that

facilitate mechanical harvesting will increase the attractiveness of

grain legumes for farmers.

PL8 Pigeonpea production

systems

Pigeonpea hybrid varieties are unique in grain legumes and this PL

seeks to improve their production and to support the single line

systems where hybrids are not yet adopted

http://grainlegumes.cgiar.org/what-we-do/project-proposal/


23 of 32

Strategic Components

Strategic Component Comment

SC1 Analysing demand and

setting research

priorities

Identify priority research and development needs ranging from

farmers, seed sellers, processors, and marketers to consumers and

policymakers.

SC2 Developing productive

varieties and

management practices

Accelerate the development of more productive and nutritious

legumes varieties and crop and pest management practices for

resilient cropping systems of smallholder farmers.

SC3 Facilitating legume seed

and technology delivery

systems

free groundnut

Develop and facilitate efficient legume seed production and

technology delivery systems for smallholder farmers.

SC4 Enhancing post-harvest

processing and market

opportunities

Enhance grain legumes value additions, and social and

environmental benefits captured by the poor worldwide, especially

women.

SC5 Fostering innovation

and managing

knowledge

Partnerships, capacities, and knowledge sharing to enhance grain

legume R4D impacts.


24 of 32

Flagship Projects and Activities

N

um

eric

al c

od

e

Activity Descriptions Budget IDO

1 In

crea

sed

an

d s

tab

le a

cces

s to

G

L

IDO

2Min

imiz

ed e

nvi

ron

men

tal

effe

cts

IDO

3In

crea

sed

an

d e

qu

itab

le

inco

me

IDO

4Im

pro

ved

sys

tem

pro

du

ctiv

ity

IDO

5 N

utr

itio

us

con

sum

pti

on

nu

mb

er o

f W

3-B

ilare

ral p

roje

cts

2015 2016 Estimated relative contribution

FP1 Managing productivity 10,177 11,352

1.1 Integrated Pest Management 3,290 3,670 0.00 0.33 0.10 0.57 0.00

1.1.5

Identifying new sources, including transgenics, of resistance to insect pests; development of IPM methods including biopesticides/biocontrol agents and their methods of production and delivery.

3,290 3,670

1.1 W3 & Bilateral Projects

6

1.2 Trait physiology 2,006 2,238 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.2.2 The physiological mechanisms of heat tolerance in grain legumes

2,006 2,238


4

1.3 The crop biome 4,236 4,725 0.16 0.10 0.13 0.61 0.00

1.3.4 The development of microbial strains and inoculants for the promotion of growth of grain legume crops

4,236 4,725


14

1.4 Agronomy 645 719 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.83 0.00


25 of 32

1.4.1 Integrated Crop Management 645 719


7

FP2 Trait determination 5,579 6,178

2.1 Allele discovery: Phenology 1,787 1,979 0.00 0.13 0.05 0.77 0.05

2.1.3 Identification of genetic resources contributing to low aflatoxin accumulation

249 276

2.1.6 Identification of genetic mechanisms controlling earliness in grain legume crops

796 881

2.1.7 Genetic markers and candidate genes, and transgenic lines for resistance to parasitic weeds, and herbicides

569 630

2.1.8

Identification of genes and markers associated with CMS and fertility restoration in pogeonpea. Identification of genetic and transgenic sources of resistance to fungal disesases and insect pests.

174 192


3

2.2 Allele discovery: Biotic interactions 392 434 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.90 0.00

2.2.4 Identification of genetic sources of improved responses to nitrogen fixing rhizobacteria and other plant growth promoting microbes.

327 362

2.2.5 Identification of genetic mechanisms of resistance to insect pests

65 72


10

2.3 Allele discovery: Abiotic Stress

2,345 2,597 0.14 0.00 0.09 0.50 0.00

2.3.1 Identification of genes and genetic mechanisms contributing to improved crop performance in low fertility soils, especially under water constraint.

1,649 1,825

2.3.2 Identification of genes and genetic mechanisms contributing to heat tolerance.

398 440


26 of 32

2.3.4 Identification of genetic sources of improved nitrogen assimilation under conditions of abiotic stress

219 242

2.3.6 Identification of early flowering lines with resistance to abiotic stresses

62 69

2.3.7 Identification of machine harvestable lines with resistance to abiotic stresses

18 20


9

2.4 Genetics platforms 1,055 1,168 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00

2.4.1 Although QTL analysis is specifically mentioned other gene identification strategies are employed or planned, eg: GWAS, comparative genomics, the use of systematic mutant populations

and transgenic approaches.

Identifying genes and QTL associated with efficient P assimilation especially under water constraint.

540 598

2.4.2 Identifying genes and QTL associated with heat tolerance

408 451

2.4.4 Identifying genes and QTL associated with improved N assimilation / BNF

107 119


6

FP3 Trait deployment 12,920 14,421

3.1 Allele deployment: Phenology 1,734 1,935 0.00 0.12 0.06 0.76 0.05

3.1.3 Breeding lines with high drought tolerance, better nutritional quality and low or nil aflatoxin

257 287

3.1.6 Breeding lines combining extra earliness with other desirable traits

554 619

3.1.7 Breeding lines with resistance to parasitic weeds and herbicides

569 635

3.1.8 Hybrid parent breeding lines established 353 394


2

3.2 Allele deployment: Biotic interactions 560 625 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.90 0.00

3.2.4 Breeding lines for grain legumes with improved BNF and/or nitrogen accumulation efficiency established

495 552

3.2.5 Breeding lines carrying resistance to insect pests established

65 73


27 of 32


3

3.3 Allele deployment: Abiotic Stress 2,964 3,308 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.63 0.00

3.3.1 Breeding lines with improved performance under P and water limitation

2,473 2,760

3.3.2 Breeding lines with improved heat tolerance 403 449

3.3.6 Extra early Breeding lines with tolerance to abiotic constraints

42 47

3.3.7 Lines suitable for mechanical harvesting with tolerance to abiotic constraints

46 51


8

3.4 Variety Development 7,663 8,553 0.06 0.13 0.14 0.62 0.04

3.4.1 Varieties with improved performance under P and water limitation

1,100 1,228

3.4.2 Varieties with improved heat tolerance 474 530

3.4.3 Varieties with improved drought tolerance and low aflatoxin accumulation

4,712 5,259

3.4.6 Extra early varieties with tolerance to abiotic constraints

278 310

3.4.7 Varieties suitable for mechanical harvesting with tolerance to abiotic constraints

973 1,086

3.4.8 Abiotic stress resistant pigeonpea hybrid varieties 126 141


34

FP4 Seed systems, post-harvest processing, markets and nutrition 8,032 8,900

4.1 Enhancing post-harvest processing and market opportunities 2,079 2,304 0.00 0.04 0.69 0.15 0.13

4.1.1 Market adaptability and nutritional quality of beans 559 620

4.1.3 Market acceptability and nutritional quality of groundnuts

381 422

4.1.5 Controlling post harvest insect damage 160 178

4.1.6 Identifying post harvest opportunities 173 192


28 of 32

4.1.8 Pigeonpea post harvest technologies 805 892


8

4.2 Facilitating legume seed and technology delivery systems 5,953 6,596 0.23 0.03 0.31 0.41 0.02

4.2.1 Enhancing seed systems (PL1) 1,433 1,588

4.2.2 Enhancing seed systems (PL2) 577 640


4.2.4 Enhancing seed systems (PL4) 978 1,084




4.2.8 Enhancing seed systems (PL8) 1,363 1,510


20

FP5 Capacity Building and Partnerships 5,646 6,840

5.1 Capacity Building with partners 5,646 6,840 0.44 0.04 0.16 0.36 0.00

5.1.1.1 Technical training 2,681 3,011

5.1.1.2 Interactions with NARS 1,661 1,865

5.1.1.3 Interactions with stakeholder groups 1,304 1,465


15

5.2 Studentship scheme (from management carry-over in 2013) 350 500

CC1 Knowledge, Impacts, Priorities, and Gender Organisation 6,618 7,374

CC1.1 Analyzing demand and setting research priorities 5,986 6,670 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 4 CC1.2 Cross cutting gender activities 500 557 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 1 CC1.3 Communications and dissemination 264 294 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 CC2 Tools and platforms for genotyping and bioinformatics 651 729 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 3 CC3 Management 1,626 1,945

CC3.1 Grants Scheme 2,000 2,393

Totals 53,250 60,131 0.14 0.09 0.17 0.54 0.05


29 of 32

Annex 3 Changes in the Research Management Committee

The existing Product Line Coordinators (PLCs) will remain as members of the RMC, but we intend to

make additions. One is to include FP coordinators and a coordinator of the crosscutting theme, the

latter will enhance the representation of social scientists on our Research Management Committee,

we also wish to encourage the addition of ‘secondary’ coordinators, who can act alongside the PLC.

In practice this has worked well where a PLC is outside the CGIAR or where a PLC has a heavy

administrative burden outside the CRP. We anticipate that this will broaden the representation of

women on the RMC and will also permit the inclusion of younger people and perhaps more people

from outside the CGIAR.

The Phase 1 Research Management Committee comprised the Product Line Coordinators (PLCs) and

the CRP Director and the Directors of the two USAID legume Feed the Future Labs (LIL and PMIL).

This structure will be maintained in the extension phase for several reasons. First we want to assure

continuity in the management of the project (this has been established very recently). Secondly the

Product Line focus of the project is an important organising principle that gives us an outcome focus.

The Product Lines will thus coordinate Activity Clusters across the Flagship Projects

However we want to make some adjustments to promote gender and disciplinary balance in the

Research Management Committee.

We propose:

1. The PLCs will share their role with second individual (Product Line Organizer) ideally of different

gender (in total 16 individuals).

2. The Flagship Projects (and Cross Cutting activities) will have FP Coordinators who will

complement the PLCs and have and integrating role across Product Lines. This will provide an

opportunity for broadening the disciplinary, organisational and regional representation on the

RMC (6 individuals).

3. We will extend an invitation as an observer to the other four Legume Innovation Labs (6

individuals).

These changes will increase the RMC membership from eleven to 29 individuals (including the

Director) which is excessively cumbersome. In proposal (3) there are four ‘observers’ (who could

represent the Feed the Future Labs if the two full members could not attend), so effectively this

means 25 members. We would expect that either the PLC or PLO would attend physical meetings

(and that this would not always be the same individual). This reduces the size to 17. If we permit

some PLC/Os to act also as FPCs we could conveniently reduce the size to 13. This remains

burdensome in terms of transaction costs, for travel and personnel time, so we will set the quorum

for the RMC to eight, with an aim to use electronic means as much as possible within these

meetings.

We propose to deal the costs implications (a) by requiring either of the two coordinators to be

present at RMC meetings and (b) reducing the time allocation of RMC members funded from the

management budget from 50% FTE to 25% FTE. Costs for travel of observers would not be met from

the CRP budget, but costs for two Feed the Future Lab representatives would be a CRP cost, so some

observers may attend as proxies.

The membership of the revised RMC will be proposed to the Steering Committee and implemented

upon its agreement.


30 of 32

Annex 4 Intellectual Property and Quality Assurance.

1. Intellectual Property issues are according to CGIAR rules internally for participating Centres and

these also govern issues between Centres.

2. Participating organisations undertake robust reviewing of manuscripts prior to publication, so

quality assurance is at the level of participating institutions.

3. All publications resulting from Grain Legumes support acknowledge this program.


31 of 32

Annex 5 Deliverable dates for Milestones and Output Targets

Explanation of numbering system:

O 1.4.1.2

O 1 4 1 2

Output Target FP 1 Activity number Product Line Task number

M 2.1.7.1

M 2 1 7 1

Milestone FP 2 Activity number Product Line Task number

O CC1.1.1.1

O CC1 1 1 1

Output Target Crosscutting area

1

Activity number Product Line Task number

Deliverable in 2015

O 1.4.1.2 At least 2 - 3 hybrids with 25 – 30% higher yield than the best available cultivars

developed and shared with NARS partners,

O 1.4.1.3 ICM technologies including seed treatment, spacing, fertilizer doses and need based

application of pesticides developed and promoted in different agroecologies

M 2.1.7.1 Molecular markers identified for parasitic weed tolerance in faba bean and lentil

M 2.1.7.5 Alleles of genes affecting plant architecture, suitable affecting for inclusion in

mechanically harvestable breeding lines of chickpea, faba bean and lentil identified

M 2.1.7.6 Lines combining herbicide tolerance and traits suitable for machine harvest

developed for chickpea, faba bean and lentil

M 2.1.8.2 Parents for mapping fertility restorers identified

M 2.1.8.3 Screening pigeonpea lines for resistance to wilt, Phytopthora and SMD

M 2.3.1.1 Genetic stocks with potential to improve yield under stress identified

M 2.4.1.1 QTL analysis for yield under severe stress

M 3.1.7.1 Validated molecular markers for parasitic weed tolerance in faba bean and lentil

made available

M 3.1.7.5 At least 15 breeding lines suitable for machine harvest developed each in chickpea,

faba bean and lentil

M 3.1.7.6 At least 10 breeding lines combining herbicide tolerance and traits suitable for

machine harvest developed each in chickpea, faba bean and lentil

M 3.1.8.2 mapping population for fertility restoration genes developed

M 3.1.8.4 At least 10 diverse hybrid parents A-, B-, R- lines of pigeonpea with resistance to wilt,

Phytopthora and SMD developed

M 3.3.1.1 Breeding lines with 40% higher yields under severe stress in experimental conditions

M 3.4.7.1 Faba bean and lentil Varieties developed with tolerance to parasitic weeds

M 3.4.7.4 Varieties suitable for machine harvesting developed in chickpea, faba bean and lentil

M 3.4.7.5 Varieties combining herbicide tolerance and traits suitable for machine harvest

developed for chickpea, faba bean and lentil

O 4.1.1.1 Production-and-marketing corridors in sub-optimal production regions are served by

innovation platforms including diverse actors.

O 4.1.8.1 At least 2 postharvest processing technologies made available to stakeholders

M 4.2.1.8 At least 4 NGOs/farmer groups facilitate the scaling-up of hybrid seed production

O CC1.1.1.7 A report on constraints and opportunities for expansion of extra-early chickpea and

lentil varieties in target areas and cropping systems made available.


32 of 32

Deliverable in 2016

M 4.2.1.5 Production of chickpea and lentil enhanced through adoption of improved varieties

M 2.1.7.2 Molecular markers identified for herbicide tolerance in chickpea, faba bean and

lentil

M 2.1.7.3 Molecular markers identified for parasitic weed tolerance in faba bean and lentil

M 2.1.8.4 Screening pigeonpea lines for resistance to pod borers

M 3.1.7.2 Candidate genes for herbicide tolerance validated in chickpea, faba bean and lentil

M 3.1.7.3 Candidate genes and molecular markers for parasitic weed tolerance validated in

chickpea, faba bean and lentil

M 3.4.7.2 Chickpea, faba bean and lentil varieties tolerant to herbicides developed.

M 3.4.8.1 Pigeonpea hybrids with resistance to pod borers identified and shared with the NARS

partners

O 4.1.1.2 Under-5’s benefit from locally produced nutritious legumes.

O 4.1.1.3 Legumes for industrial processing are marketed in at least 4 African countries

M 4.2.1.0 Varieties that yield under drought and poor edaphic conditions adopted by farmers

M 4.2.1.4 Farmers access information on seed production of improved varieties

M 4.2.1.9 Commercial hybrid cultivation production promoted in at least 100,000 ha

O CC1.1.1.1 Data on consumption patterns of women and children orient efforts to meet

nutritional needs of these groups

O CC1.1.1.2 Specific aspects of soil constraints pinpoint priority plant nutrients

O CC1.1.1.9 A report on scope and implications of the cultivation of herbicide tolerant legume

cultivars and mechanical harvesting of legumes, including potential impacts on farm

women, prepared.

giar research program on grain legumes: extension proposal ... · our idos, targets and related...

Documents