2
Contents page
A. Key Messages 3
B. Impact Pathway and Intermediate Development Outcomes 4
C. Progress along the Impact Pathway 5
D. Gender Research Achievements 10
E. Partnership Building Achievements 11
F. Capacity Building 12
G. Risk Management 12
H. Lessons Learned 13
I. Financial report 13
Annex 1: CRP indicators of progress, with glossary and targets 14
Annex 2: Acronyms 25
Annex 3: MAIZE performance per Strategic Initiative in 2013 26
Annex 4a: Progress towards Impact (external reviews) 27
Annex 4b: Progress towards Impact (Impact Assessments) 28
Annex 5: Financial Report 32
3
A. KEY MESSAGES MAIZE is a highly collaborative program that contributes to 10 of the 11 Intermediate Development Outcomes (IDOs) of the CGIAR – productivity, food security, income, gender, capacity to innovate and adapt, environment, future options and climate. In 2013, MAIZE financed research with more than 150 partners
1, leveraged
investments, partnerships and 50,000 training events2 or field days in 130 bilateral projects
3, and collaborated
strongly with other CRPs. The sustainable intensification strategy in MAIZE addresses maize and maize-based
farming systems-related challenges through 75 innovation platforms and 13,500 study and survey sites4; serving
to enhance the capacity to innovate and capacity to adapt of participants. More than 50% of these platforms are shared with WHEAT, GRiSP, CCAFS, Grain Legumes, Livestock or Aquatic Systems. MAIZE germplasm research strategy annually sends new germplasm to around 100 collaborators
5 mostly in Africa, Asia and Latin America,
augments the capacity of 180 small- and medium-sized seed companies6 and 226 community-based seed
producers7 that reach out to disadvantaged farmers; contributing directly to Food Security, Productivity and
Income IDOs, and providing major inputs to A4NH, CCAFS and GCP. The post-harvest research strategy works with NGOs, local entrepreneurs and A4NH. As a result, over 1 million farmers, on 417,000 ha of land, are estimated to have benefited from MAIZE research outputs in 2013; contributing to Food Security, Productivity and Income IDOs. Many more are benefiting through maize germplasm that has been released by partners [map].
2013 MAIZE highlights include: (a) a collaborative effort among MAIZE, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), the International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) and the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA) to mitigate the expanding threat of Maize Lethal Necrosis (MLN) disease, including the establishment of a centralized MLN screening facility at Naivasha, Kenya; (b) in collaboration with the University of Hohenheim, the expansion of doubled haploid (DH) breeding technology to Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) – culminating in the opening of a Maize DH facility at Kiboko, Kenya – the first DH breeding facility in Africa for the benefit of both national agricultural research systems (NARS) and small- and medium-sized seed companies; (c) continued expansion of the “Take it to The Farmer” project in Mexico – now reaching over 200,000 farmers
8; (d) the expansion of the integrated control of Striga (Witch Weed) across
hotspot areas in East and West Africa; (e) the expansion of hermetic, low-cost grain storage in metal silos across East and Southern Africa; (f) championing commercial female-headed and socially inclusive and equitable seed businesses in Nepal; (g) new insights on dual-purpose maize (grain and stover production) in collaboration with the International Livestock Research Institute(ILRI); (h) an assessment of drivers of change and systems modeling for better targeting of project interventions undertaken in collaboration with Wageningen University; (i) completion of the MAIZE Gender Audit and major progress on gender mainstreaming, and; (j) exciting work to reduce drudgery, increase productivity and women’s empowerment through small-scale mechanization for sustainable intensification in SSA, aligned with similar efforts in South Asia. Major challenges to the CRP include, MLN reducing the demand for/sales by the fledgling seed sector in Africa, setting back scale-out capacities established in recent years; and inadequate opportunities to strategically analyze successes and challenges to the adoption of new technologies/innovations within the maize based systems work.
1. Partnership brings progress in fighting MLN in Eastern Africa
MAIZE is taking a leading role in research to fight this disease, which is devastating many maize-growing areas of East Africa. Working with partners such as KARI, the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA), the Seed Trade Association of Kenya (STAK), ASARECA and ICIPE, CIMMYT is spearheading efforts to identify sources
1 MAIZE Partners List CGIAR survey
2 Data provided by CIMMYT training office, available upon request
3 MAIZE sub grantees list, CIMMYT Project Management Unit (PMU), January 2014, available upon request
4 Information collected by scientists from bilateral and W1 & W2 projects and collated by CIMMYT GIS unit
5 Combined figures from the list of improved CIMMYT germplasm recipients from the Genebank as well as partner institutions receiving
materials under development in SSA, Latin America and Asia through our breeding locations (especially Kenya, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, India, Colombia and Mexico) 6 Nearly 110 seed companies are supported in SSA through DTMA, WEMA and IMAS projects especially. The other 70 partnering seed
companies are in Asia under IMIC-Asia (35 seed companies as members) and in Latin America (35 under MasAgro-IMIC). 7 Upadhyaya, H.K. et al 2014. Report of the External Evaluation, HMRP IV, Kathmandu, Nepal
8 MasAgro works through a network of government extension programs. This number represents the farmers reached with information,
services etc
4
of MLN resistance, and to replace existing MLN-susceptible varieties with MLN-resistant varieties. Several promising inbred lines and pre-commercial hybrids with MLN resistance have been identified and shared with public and private institutions in SSA. Intensive efforts are ongoing to rapidly develop and deploy MLN-resistant maize germplasm that can replace the existing MLN-vulnerable varieties commercialized by the East African seed industry. With funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and the Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture (SFSA), a dedicated MLN screening facility was opened at KARI’s facilities in Naivasha, Kenya, in September 2013 to support the identification of maize lines and breeding materials with MLN resistance.
2. Operational innovation hubs in the Indo-Gangetic Plains
Operating in rural “innovation hubs” in Bangladesh, India and Nepal, the Cereal Systems Initiative for South Asia (CSISA) project supported more than 185,000 farmers in India to implement sustainable intensification technologies in 2013. CSISA supported 750 mechanized service providers with technical and business skills training and accelerated work with women farmers on maize-based intercropping and small enterprise formation (http://csisa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/10/CSISA-Annual-Report-Nov-2013-final-v.2.pdf, p. 7-8). MAIZE, WHEAT and CCAFS contributed to the development of the Nutrient Expert® decision support tools for maize and wheat through a Competitive Grant Initiative (CGI) grant with the International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI). Nutrient Expert® was recognized by the Bihar Innovation Forum as the Best Innovation for Improving Rural Livelihood in Bihar, India. CSISA has developed ICT-based tools for site-specific nutrient management that will significantly increase farmer profitability while improving the environmental footprint of fertilizer use in South Asia. Tools for maize were released in Bangladesh in 2013 where CSISA also promoted and facilitated mechanized planting using strip-till planters and bed planters. In Nepal, CSISA facilitated access for women farmers to women-friendly, scale-appropriate machinery, including two-wheel tractors (2WT) and implemented maize trials with new hybrids and farm varieties to assess their performance under different management practices. Overall, more than 11,000 farmers received maize related training. MAIZE Funding in 2013 W1&W2 contributions to MAIZE varied significantly during the year 2013 with various versions of the CGIAR Finance Plan emerging. Budget insecurity made fiscal management difficult and was compounded by partner commitments made in 2012 not being recognized by the CGIAR Finance Plan, in spite of the PIA authorizing such commitments within approved budgets. MAIZE finalized its year with US$ 14.0 million (M) in W1&W2 funding. Total expenditures were US$ 59.6M. MAIZE results were also scaled out through supplementary projects valued at US$ 25.3M. Following approaches used by UNDP, MAIZE implemented the Gender DAC marker in its financial analysis, which estimated a MAIZE gender budget of 13% (including so far CIMMYT data only).
$mn Budget as per PIA Budget Actual Spend
Gender budget in % of total MAIZE budget
W 1 & 2 15.6 14.0 13.9 10%
W3 43.9
16.7 20%
Bilateral 29.0 11%
Total 59.5 59.6 13%
B. IMPACT PATHWAY AND INTERMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES (IDOS) MAIZE was launched on 1 July 2011, working on nine interrelated Strategic Initiatives that were clustered in 2013 into three research strategies in which each align with a distinct impact pathway and Theory of Change http://maize.org/theory-of-change/: 1) Sustainable Intensification and Income Opportunities for the Poor; 2) Maize varieties – Stress-Tolerant, Nutritious and Safe; and 3) Integrated Post-Harvest Management. These research strategies were further divided in five Flagship Projects with 21 Clusters of Activities. The reorganization is part of the CGIAR-wide realignment of CRPs and will be further reviewed and aligned with an outcome-based M&E framework as all CRPs move towards the 2015-2016 extension phase. Together, the five Flagship Projects contribute to the 10 intermediate development outcomes (IDOs) of the CGIAR, in particular productivity, food security, income, gender, capacity to innovate and adapt, environment, future options and climate. W1 and W2 funding provides 23% of MAIZE funding with the remainder coming from W3 and bilateral grants. They report towards a set of CRP Indicators and joint CGIAR Indicators (Annex 2).
5
C. PROGRESS ALONG THE IMPACT PATHWAY C.1 Progress towards outputs This Annual Report highlights achievements now aligned with the three research strategies. Progress towards the delivery of 2013 outputs was good, ranging from 84% in SI3 to 91% in SI5 (Annex 3). Percentage completion was less than 100% due to: a) over-ambitious work plans; b) budget insecurities experienced for W1&W2; and c) difficulties experienced by some MAIZE CGI partners in meeting the exacting schedules for contracted deliverables.
1) Sustainable Intensification and Income Opportunities for the Poor
Sustainable Intensification and Income Opportunities for the Poor is the first major impact pathway of MAIZE. It aims to pilot, scale-up and scale-out profitable, resource-efficient maize-based farming systems and value chain innovations to improve system productivity, resilience, sustainability and increase incomes of smallholders. This impact pathway is currently being spearheaded in three clusters of projects in Mexico (SAGARPA funded), East and Southern Africa (Australia, USAID and IFAD funded) and in South Asia (Australia, BMGF, USAID and IFAD funded). Most of these bilateral projects began in 2010. MAIZE W1&W2 funding is used to provide critical interventions and analyses in all three regions. For example, in 2012, MAIZE initiated investments to improve and enhance the success of project interventions, such as through the Agro-ecosystem Diversity, Trajectories and Trade-Offs for Intensification of Cereal-based systems (ATTIC) project, a collaboration between MAIZE and Wageningen University. ATTIC is studying the past and present trajectories of farming systems in three countries – Ethiopia, Mexico and Nepal – drawing on, and interchanging results and experiences with the MAIZE regional projects. Although presently revolving around three case studies, the ATTIC project is providing MAIZE with a conceptual and analytical framework to improve the design and implementation of projects under the sustainable intensification strategy.
The activities of the Sustainable intensification of maize-legume based cropping systems for food security in eastern and southern Africa (SIMLESA) project exemplifies the ways in which MAIZE facilitates the development of resilient and sustainable cropping systems. Innovation platforms (IPs) and partnerships are key to the success. In the case of SIMLESA, IPs have been established in six countries (Ethiopia – 10, Kenya – 8, Malawi – 6, Mozambique – 6, Rwanda – 4 and Tanzania – 6)
9. They foster innovation in maize-legume cropping systems and
post-harvest handling. They contribute to adapt and validate improved maize-legume technologies and are the point of origin for spontaneous scale out. In Malawi for example, large-scale adoption of sustainable intensification technologies has taken place through partnership with Total LandCare, a regional NGO, reaching more than 18,000 farmers to date (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378429012003826). Aligned with the germplasm strategies of MAIZE and the CRP on Grain Legumes, SIMLESA has contributed to the release of 40 maize varieties, including 24 hybrids and 16 open pollinated varieties (OPVs)
10. The IPs are also
used to better understand the constraints to farmer adoption and to identify and test potential solutions. IPs greatly facilitate our understanding of farmers’ decision-making, farmers’ perceptions, gender aspects of our technologies, profitability and viability of our interventions and the impact on farmers’ livelihoods. Using these platforms, obstacles in maize-legume related business transactions such as unregulated trans-border trade, poor market access and poor access to credit were eliminated. Partnerships with farmers, district and local leaders, processors, agro-dealers, seed producers, traders, NGOs, micro-finance institutions, insurance companies, media, researchers and extensionists articulate demand for new technologies and approaches, test and adapt new technologies and approaches and play a crucial role in out-scaling technologies and approaches. SIMLESA also plays a critical role in capacity development. More than 40,000 farmers, almost half of them women, have benefited from capacity building efforts through farmer field days and exchange programs. More than 3,000 agricultural scientists
11 and partners have been trained and mentored in various aspects of maize and legume
value chains. In total, 19 doctoral students have been enrolled in universities across Australia, Ethiopia, Kenya and South Africa. A further 40 students are pursuing Master of Science degrees at national universities in SIMLESA partner countries. Whilst this project began a couple of years before the MAIZE CRP was initiated, it has benefited substantially from the agricultural innovation systems analysis and capacity-building support provided by KIT and internal innovation specialists funded 100% by MAIZE CRP (Windows 1&2).
9 SIMLESA Program Semi-Annual Report: July 2013-December 2013,
http://repository.cimmyt.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10883/4018/98864.pdf?sequence=1 10
idem 11
idem + data provided by CIMMYT training office, available upon request
6
2) Maize varieties – Stress-Tolerant, Nutritious and Safe
Climate change scenarios show that agricultural production will largely be negatively affected and will impede the ability of many regions to achieve the necessary gains for future food security (Lobell et al. 2008). Maize germplasm with tolerance to drought, heat stress or flooding, as well as resistance to newly emerging pests and diseases will need to make a major contribution to climate adaptation strategies (Cairns et al. 2013).
In SSA, the Drought-Tolerant Maize for Africa (DTMA) project continued to make impressive progress: over 17,000 tons
12 13
of drought-tolerant maize seed was produced in 13 African countries (Angola, Benin, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe) by a network involving now more than 100 small and medium scale seed producers and companies. Recognizing the bottlenecks in the seed sector, CIMMYT and IITA have significantly strengthened investments in seed sector development, through capacity building of small seed companies, seed production research and the development of country- and company-specific “seed road maps.” In 2013 a joint working group was established with the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) that supports seed companies and agro-dealers, helping to ensure that they are able to stock enough seed and have good distribution networks to reach farmers across the continent. These achievements are in part derived from significant investments in DT maize development in Africa by bilateral (eg SDC, BMZ, UNDP, IFAD, USAID) and core donors (eg DfID) since 1996.
Similarly relevant for climate change adaptation were the investments by the Seeds of Discovery (SeeD) project, which begin with the launch of the MAIZE CRP. SeeD works on the interface between genetic resources and maize breeding, mining the CIMMYT gene bank collections for novel, high-value genetic variation which is not present in the germplasm of maize breeders, yet required as global agricultural production enters an arena of increasingly variable climates. In 2013 SeeD characterized 20,000 maize accessions
14 from CIMMYT's gene bank
using a novel genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) method that generates “population” level fingerprints which are most representative of maize accessions. Integrating theory with application, SeeD is advancing the analysis of the world’s most comprehensive association mapping panel and is discovering novel markers of high potential value to breeders, while in the field scientists have been applying the data to form six new, accession-based breeding synthetics for genomic selection applications and several bi-parental populations for marker assisted breeding. SeeD has produced the most comprehensive set ever of phenotypic and genotypic data on maize genetic resources, which will be released to the general scientific community through a Molecular Atlas starting in 2014.
Discovering new traits implies that they need to be incorporated into elite varieties in the most efficient manner, such as through molecular markers or the DH technology. In September 2013, KARI and CIMMYT jointly established the Maize DH Facility at KARI-Kiboko Experimental Station in Kenya, dedicated to accelerating breeding progress by African NARS and seed companies. The DH technology enables breeders to develop parental lines of maize hybrids in just 2-3 crop seasons, compared to 7-8 seasons with conventional breeding. While the DH technology is used routinely by multinational companies, the new facility, funded by BMGF, is making the technology available to public sector maize breeding programs, as well as SME African seed companies. It follows the development and release of the first tropically adapted DH inducer, jointly developed by CIMMYT and the University of Hohenheim. In the area of molecular markers, validation took place of SNP markers tagging meta-QTL for drought tolerance and of gene-specific markers for the reliable identification of genotypes that are suitable for DH induction. 896 inbreds, 155 landraces and 157 breeding populations
15 were
already successfully characterized for their suitability for DH induction. 2013 also brought the discovery of key genomic regions and promising haplotypes that confer resistance to MLN. To save time, validation and large-scale marker application for MLN resistance is now simultaneously taking place in 22 widely used and high-impact Africa-adapted CIMMYT maize lines. The expansion of DH work (using a mixture of bilateral and W1&2 funding) is based on initial bilaterally funded work funded since 2007.
12
Abate T, Menkir A, MacRobert JF, Tesfahun G, Abdoulaye T, Setimela P, Badu-Apraku B, Makumbi D, Magorokosho C, Tarekegne A (eds.).
2013. DTMA Highlights for 2012/13. http://repository.cimmyt.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10883/4017/98863.pdf?sequence=1 13
Note that MLN affected seed production for Kenya significantly in 2013; many companies could not sell their seed because of the disease
and did not want to produce more. Production in Zimbabwe was also very much affected by severe drought that occurred in the country 14
Reporte final, Descubriendo la Diversidad Genética de la Semilla (MasAgro-Biodiversidad), Meta 2.1: Caracterizar genéticamente
accesiones de maíz y realizar acciones de pre-mejoramiento, p.14. Available upon request
15 Based on a study undertaken by Vijay Chaikam (Maize DH Specialist based at CIMMYT-Mexico), Sudha Nair, Raman Babu and B.M.
Prasanna, during 2012-2013. Article to be submitted to “Theoretical and Applied Genetics”.
7
Another example of collaboration was a project funded as a MAIZE CGI between ILRI, Livestock and Fish CRP and CIMMYT on dual-purpose maize. This work builds on promising bilaterally-funded collaborative work between ILRI and CIMMYT since mid-2000. Maize production is rapidly increasing in India, largely due to the growing poultry industry, and is replacing crops such as rice, sorghum, legumes and wheat in some areas. Dual-purpose maize is needed to meet both the poultry industry demand for grain and the demand for good quality stover to feed cattle. Among the main findings are: maize stover can provide fodder quality similar to widely traded sorghum stover; significant variation in maize germplasm for stover fodder quality traits can be exploited without detriment to grain yield; and stover from a superior dual-purpose maize hybrid resulted in similar levels of milk production compared to sorghum stover.
3) Integrated Post-Harvest Management
The integrated post-harvest management pathway aims to reduce post-harvest losses and improve food safety and market opportunities through the commercial production and distribution of maize storage technologies and aflatoxin bio-control. The first step in the identification of potential fungal strains for biocontrol of aflatoxin contamination involves collections of Aspergillus flavus strains from major maize production zones. Using molecular analysis and mycological techniques produced in collaboration with USDA-ARS, a large number of country-specific isolates are being narrowed down currently for Ghana, Malawi, Tanzania and Zambia to identify the most competitive strains that are capable of outcompeting toxigenic strains. Two biocontrol products formulated from mixtures of four selected Zambian atoxigenic strains were used to conduct on-farm trials in Zambia to determine the adaptability of the selected strains to different agro-ecological zones and their efficacy in reducing aflatoxin contamination in the field. The efficacy trials were conducted with 36 women and 25 men farmers from the eastern and central provinces using a participatory approach. Maize samples collected from this trial had a low level of aflatoxin contamination during the 2012/2013 cropping season. Application of the biocontrol products significantly reduced aflatoxin levels by more than 65% in 87% of the treated fields. Microbiological analysis of the maize samples did not find significant differences in the total population of Aspergillus strains isolated from biocontrol-treated and non-treated maize grains. Application of Aflasafe significantly altered the Aspergillus strain profile, with the L-strains showing a 38% increase in treated maize grains. This work is based on a decade of bilaterally-funded pre-CRP work; predominantly in West Africa.
C.2 Progress towards the achievement of research outcomes and IDOs
Towards IDOs: productivity, food security, capacity to adapt – New MAIZE research is being conducted on Striga hermonthica, a noxious parasitic weed, which has infested approximately 2.4 million hectares (ha) of maize production areas in SSA, causing yield losses of 30% to 80%
16. Building on initial bilaterally-funded work by
CIMMYT on Imazapyr Resistant (IR), breeding and cropping systems/rotations work conducted by IITA, and push-pull work conducted by ICIPE, the Integrated Striga Management Project (ISMA), funded by BMGF with a broad range of partners, aims to improve the livelihoods of 15 million smallholder farmers in northern Nigeria and 10 million
17 in western Kenya. In on-station trials conducted in Nigeria, promising Striga-resistant maize OPVs and
hybrids produced up to 126%18
higher grain yields. A total of 65,000 farmers19
were reached through multiple pathways; enhancing productivity and food security. Among the technologies introduced to the farming communities, rotation of maize with soybean was the most preferred Striga management method, which was adopted by 32% of farmers
20 in northern Nigeria. The best Striga management options in demonstration trials in
western Kenya were the legumes Desmodium and groundnuts intercropped with IR-maize and Striga-resistant maize hybrids. Providing farmers with a wide range of options to combat striga endows them with a greater capacity to adapt.
Towards IDOs: productivity, income, capacity to innovate and adapt, policy, environment and climate – Funded by the Mexican government, and initiated at the same time as MAIZE, MasAgro works with 180 partners – research institutions, policymakers, farmers and private companies – to strengthen national food security
16
AATF 2006. Empowering African Farmers to Eradicate Striga from Maize Crop lands. ISBN 9966-775-02-01. - Ejeta, G. 2007. The Striga
scourge in Africa: a growing pandemic. Pages 3-16 in Ejeta and Gressel (ed): Integrating new technologies for Striga control: towards ending the witch hunt, World Scientific Publishers, Singapore. - Woomer, P.L., M. Bokanga, and G.D. Odhiambo. 2008. Striga management and the African farmer. Outlook on Agriculture 37: 247-252. 17
IITA 2011. Achieving sustainable Striga control for poor farmers in Africa. A proposal submitted to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. 18
Menkir, A. 2013. Progress on Maize Variety Improvement in Nigeria. In: Integrated Striga Management in Africa. Proceedings of the
Annual Review and Planning Meeting (Oluoch, M. Ed.) 4-7 June, 2013, Kisumu, Kenya. 19
IITA internal calculation 20
IITA socio-economic study, not yet published
8
through research, capacity building and technology transfer. For maize, partners test and promote adoption of conservation and precision agriculture technologies to increase yields (contributing to the productivity IDO), improve farm household incomes (contributing to the income IDO), reduce harmful environmental effects of agriculture and mitigate climate change (contributing to the environment IDO). In 2013, MasAgro increased the profitability of Mexico’s maize-based farming systems by US $105M
21, based on cost reductions and income
gains, reaching an estimated 150,000 farmers and benefitting more than 600,000 people22
. Maize farmers learn about, test and provide input for innovations by way of 41 experimental platforms for conservation agriculture (CA)-based technologies, 175 demonstration modules and 100 soil fertility experiments. In yet another innovative arrangement, the governments of 12 major agricultural states in Mexico have directly aligned their AR4D policies and programs with those of MasAgro. Data for the locations, farm holdings and cropping practices of participating maize farmers were uploaded to MasAgro electronic logbook and innovation network systems that allow greatly improved targeting and technical support for the farmers. A “train-the-trainer” program has enabled technical assistants to master the program’s innovation network system technology – applications for socioeconomic analysis and targeting within farm communities – and pass on this knowledge throughout the national extension system
23.
(http://repository.cimmyt.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10883/4019/98869.pdf?sequence=1) Towards IDOs: productivity, food security, income, nutrition, gender, capacity to adapt – DTMA works in diverse settings (Kassie et al. 2013) – and in 2013 focused some of its efforts on Ethiopia. The current yield is upwards of 3 metric tons (mt) per ha, second highest in SSA after South Africa. Yield has doubled in the 10 years between 2003 and 2012; growth in productivity and production were more rapid and consistent particularly since 2004. These achievements contribute to the productivity, food security and income IDOs). The Ethiopian NARS released 60 maize varieties between 1973 and September 2013; 38 (63%) of these were hybrids and 22 (37%) were OPVs. A total of 11 drought-tolerant maize varieties were released under the collaborative work of the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) and DTMA between 2007 and 2013. These included six hybrids and five OPVs. The new varieties have 20-30% yield advantage over the farmers’ varieties. In addition to being drought-tolerant, they have additional desirable traits such as resistance to major foliar diseases; three of the varieties are quality protein maize (QPM) (contributing to the nutrition IDO and gender IDO; as bio-fortified maize is a strongly female preferred trait). In Africa, 72 new DT varieties were in the variety release process in 2013. Several new varieties were released in 2013 – Ethiopia (4), Malawi (3), Uganda (3) and Zambia (3). (http://dtma.cimmyt.org/index.php/publications/doc_view/187-dt-maize-vol-2-no-4-december-2013)
Towards IDOs: productivity, income, capacity to innovate and adapt – In Mexico, the International Maize Improvement Consortium (IMIC), established under MasAgro and supported by the Mexican Government, reciprocates what DTMA is achieving in Africa, to develop maize varieties that will increase production in rainfed environments even as climates change. The IMIC collaboration has developed and narrowed down 270 maize hybrids suitable for tropical, subtropical and highland valley areas using data from over 600 highly diverse sites across the country. From the best 15 hybrids, 31 tons of pre-commercial seed has been delivered to 18 Mexican seed companies and two public sector collaborators, for further scale-up and sale. As in Africa, the companies receive seed business training in support of rapid scale-up of seed production
24. Further south, Bolivia and
Colombia each released two varieties in 2013. Collaboration with two seed companies has resulted in acid soil tolerant hybrids now accounting for 20% of the seed market in Colombia. The purchase and use of high yielding maize hybrids by small holder farmers contributes to increased productivity and income.
Towards IDOs: productivity, food security, income, gender, capacity to innovate – Seed production can also be successful with communities. Launched in 1999, the Hill Maize Research Project (HMRP) is in its fourth phase. The project focuses on improving the food security and income of resource-poor farm households in the hills of Nepal; through increased productivity of improved maize varieties. Through its Gender Equity and Social Inclusion (GESI) approach, the project targets farm families that are suffering from caste-, gender- and/or ethnicity-based discrimination and have food self-sufficiency for less than six months. HMRP’s targets are ambitious – 55% women and 65% disadvantaged groups (DAG) should be represented in community-based seed production (CBSP) groups and 60 percent women and 70 percent DAGs should be participating in other
21
Based on the total ha reached by the different government programs MasAgro works with, based on the average increases in yield and
reduction in costs as well as the extra revenue generated by income from workshops etc., selling and generating new machinery . The number is an estimate adding up all this information. 22
On average 1 farmer has 4 family members connected to and ‘benefitting from’ his enterprise (survey data from SEP) 23
MasAgro 2013 Annual Report to SAGARPA (The Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food in Mexico) 24
idem
9
participatory research and extension activities. Thus, women, whether of the dalit caste or Janajati (indigenous to Nepal) are the main beneficiaries of the project. This contributes to the gender IDO. According to the Outcome Monitoring Summary
25, the project reached these targets in June 2012. During a project visit (by the Royal
Tropical Institute, KIT) in February 2013, respondents said that the project had achieved more than was initially targeted. Work now covers 20 hill districts of Nepal and is jointly funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). About 50,000 households and 226 CBSP
26 (60% of CBSP members are women) groups have been participating in the project. The project began
multiplying seed of improved maize varieties through CBSP groups in 2000. That year, about 14 tons of improved maize seed were produced by seven CBSP groups. By 2011, more than 1,140 tons of improved maize seed were produced by 195 CBSP groups and, in 2012, 207 groups produced 1,036 tons. Seed production through CBSP groups has been a successful model in Nepal and has contributed to increasing the adoption of improved maize varieties and technologies. CBSPs help ensure the availability of improved maize seed in remote hill areas on time at lower prices. Organization of small holder farmers into CBSP groups contributes to the capacity to innovate IDO. The 2013 project phase initiated pre-sowing seed contracts for improved maize varieties, assisting and guiding CBSP groups and seed buyers/traders to sign formal agreements. As an example, one CBSP (Tillottama Agriculture Cooperative) signed a pre-sowing seed contract for 2 tons of improved maize seed with a local farming products retailer, Bhandari Agrovet. This contract is believed to be the first in the history of improved maize seed production in Nepal. Following this, the HMRP, in coordination with district agriculture development offices (DADOs) and the Seed Entrepreneurs’ Association of Nepal (SEAN), facilitated the signing of contracts for 207 tons of improved maize seed between 52 other CBSPs and 25 private buyers in the project area (http://blog.cimmyt.org/?p=11288, based on HMRP Annual Progress reports 2012-2013) Towards IDOs: food security, income, gender – Globally, around one-third of the food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted. In the developing world, a significant amount of maize waste occurs in storage due to rodents and insect pests, most prominently the larger grain borer (LGB) and maize weevil. The Effective Grain Storage Project (EGSP) supported by SDC’s Food Security Program combines research, training and scale out to ensure cost-effective grain storage solutions becomes available and makes a pronounced livelihood impact among smallholders in Kenya, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Based on inadequate success of similar projects in the past, research supported the project by carefully choosing the criteria for implementation success: high maize production activities, known LGB prevalence, year-round accessibility, high presence of non-maize cash incomes and reliable technology. The criteria influencing the geographic selection of target sites were quite different than previous selection of target sites. Districts and cluster sites within each district for the project were subsequently selected based on these criteria. On-station testing of metal silo and hermetic bags against storage insect pests was conducted in the four countries to determine their effectiveness, followed by farmer participatory assessment of the technologies with 68% women participation. A supply chain analysis of grain storage pesticides, and a review and analysis of agricultural policies and institutional arrangements was done in Zimbabwe to develop a case study for evidence- based policy discussions at national or regional level.
In parallel to laying out the framework for success (right technology, right target environment, supportive policy framework) the implementing component of the project assessed training needs. Training of local entrepreneurs in fabricating metal silos was followed by training of local partners on post-harvest management, including exchange visits to pioneering sites in Malawi and Kenya. Field days were organized for different segments of the community and various stakeholders (farmers, artisans, extension officers, cereal traders, community leaders). Relevant training materials were published and printed using simplified languages suited to the various target audiences. Boarding schools and HIV/AIDS support groups were recognized as important partners in scale out. At this stage, the project is gaining momentum. By 2011, 150 silos of various sizes had been constructed across two pilot countries (Kenya and Malawi), constructed but not yet demanded. By mid-July 2013 awareness about the approach had increased sufficiently so that 247 metal silos had been sold to farmers, schools and colleges in one of the five piloting districts alone, a good indicator that careful targeting matched with solid project implementation generates success. The goals set in the nine participating district are ambitious: a 30% reduction in post-harvest losses by 2015 and 50% by 2020; reduce household hunger gap by 30%; increase household incomes from sale of surplus grains by 20%; raise female participation from the current 20-30% to above 50%. In some districts of Kenya, this number is already being exceeded. This work contributes to the food
25
Outcome Monitoring Summary Report (2014), Hill Maize Research Project Phase IV, available upon request 26
Upadhyaya, H.K. et al (2014). Report of the External Evaluation HMRP IV, Kathmandu, Nepal
10
security IDO by enabling households to store grain safely throughout the whole year and contributes to the income IDO by reducing grain loses and enabling grain sales at time of year when prices are high. The increase in female participation contributes to the gender IDO.
C.3 Progress towards Impact
The impact analysis for Drought Tolerant Maize (DTM) was revisited in 2013. DTM investments and increasing adoption in SSA are estimated to generate US$ 362-590M in cumulative benefits to both producers and consumers by 2016. The considerable modeled ex ante benefits reflect both mean yield gains and increased yield stability, especially in high drought risk areas and potentially translate into poverty reductions of 0.01–4.29% by 2016 (Kostandini et al. 2013). Metal grain silos are having a large impact on the welfare and food security of farm households in Kenya – through savings of US$135 annually per household (reduced grain loss, less insecticide use), selling surplus maize after five months at better prices and reducing inadequate food provision by a month (Gitonga et al. 2013). CA has the potential to increase maize yields in SSA – but it has less impact on farm income (Corbeels et al. in press) which is quite different to results in Mexico where substantive reduction in labor and input costs were realized. In Ethiopia, adopters of sustainable intensification practices enhanced their agricultural productivity, food security and income, particularly when adopted in combination – although this also increased women’s workload (Teklewold et al. 2013). Insights such as these, and others, were a major reason for launching the Farm Mechanization and Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Intensification (FACASI) project with ACIAR funding in East Africa in 2013. Using South-South collaboration between Africa, India, China and Brazil, and tackling the core issues of low farm productivity and women drudgery, this joint initiative between MAIZE and WHEAT explores small-scale mechanization options and ensures that women and men are put in the driver’s seat of acceptance studies. D. GENDER RESEARCH ACHIEVEMENTS Several strategic gender research activities were executed in 2013 to inform the research agenda and increase the understanding of the role of gender in the MAIZE impact pathways. MAIZE co-initiated the conceptualization and design of the global, comparative, qualitative study on gender norms and agency in relation to agricultural and NRM innovation – a joint cross-CRP study under the CGIAR Gender and Agricultural Research Network. This contributes to SI 1, Output I. In Africa, gender research was initiated in the development and adoption of improved post-harvest storage technologies. This contributes to SI 6, Outputs II & III. In Africa and Asia, exciting research is seeking to empower the role of women in smallholder mechanization, challenging traditional gender roles. Several MAIZE publications (Beuchelt and Badstue 2013; Fisher and Kandiwa 2014; Kassie et al. 2014) were finalized in 2013, informing the maize research priority-setting on gender-related constraints in various settings. The MAIZE gender audit (GA) was completed in 2013, applying a participatory, interactive and iterative approach and involving staff at different levels from CIMMYT and IITA, project teams, partners and beneficiaries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The GA findings were discussed and validated in a collaborative workshop which included participation of CRP managers, senior management, gender experts and biophysical scientists. The comprehensive GA report provides a solid analytical tool for gender mainstreaming, strategic gender research and enhanced targeting and impact of maize R4D. The GA spurred strong interest in, and demand for gender analysis. Gender was a focal topic during CIMMYT’s bi-annual Science-Week in December 2013. This strategically important event included: a) a plenary presentation on the importance of integrating gender into research; b) three separate workshops on gender; and c) the systematic reflection on gender in all research strategy sessions. Overall, Science Week ensured exposure of all CIMMYT scientists, project leaders and managers to different reasons for integrating gender in maize R4D. This contributes to Output I. Other MAIZE gender mainstreaming in 2013 included:
Mainstreaming of sex-disaggregation in socio-economic surveys and participatory research activities. A compliance reporting mechanism was included as key performance indicator in the annual staff evaluations. This contributes to Output IV.
The number of MAIZE projects with gender integration increased from 4 in 2012 to 10 in 2013 addressing topics in the area of: a) crop improvement e.g. participatory varietal selection, on-farm trials and demonstrations; b) seed systems research, e.g. gender as customer attribute, community seed production by women and marginalized groups; c) post-harvest storage technology testing and diffusion; d) labor-saving technologies for reduced drudgery of women and children; e) use and diffusion of quality protein maize; f) innovation systems research for sustainable intensification, e.g. promoting market linkages and service provision to female and male farmers, whole family trainings. This contributes to Output V.
11
Explicit assessment of the gender dimension of partner proposal was incorporated as a standard requirement in the CGI application and processing procedure. This contributes to Output III.
A support tool for scientists and research teams on gender-aware research design was developed and launched through training of 35 CIMMYT scientists. This contributes to Output III.
In a total of 1,004 capacity-building events (formal courses, meetings, workshops, field days, study tours, traveling workshops)
27 for MAIZE in 27 countries, 30% of the 48,958 participants were women.
Bilateral projects were aligned with cluster of activities and flagship projects, enabling gender mainstreaming to take place through systematic implementation at a higher aggregate level.
A Gender DAC marker was introduced into the financial system, following a well-tested UNDP approach. Significant progress has been achieved in relation to mainstreaming gender into research and operational frameworks, and staff awareness increased. Challenges remain in the relation between scope-time-resources. At low proportion of W1&W2 funding within the overall CRP and with bilateral projects based on existing contracts, resources cannot simply be rearranged. Also even though priority was given to gender research in MAIZE CGIs, Consortium-promoted budgeting approaches for 2013 disregarded all partner grant commitments made in 2012 for 2013, severely curtailing investments in partner grants and options to invest in new gender research. The insecurity caused among scientists and partners was as devastating as the budget cuts. Gender performance self-assessment: approaching requirements.
E. PARTNERSHIP BUILDING ACHIEVEMENTS
In 2013, the CO commissioned a study on CRP partnerships which found that MAIZE was ranked either 1st or 2nd on 12 of 26 partnership criteria. Key priorities for partners were food security and capacity building.
In 2013, MAIZE had contractual research collaborations with more than 153 partners, sent germplasm to collaborators in 111 institutions and 36 countries, and worked and interacted with farmers at 13,500 study sites in 12 countries [map].
MAIZE collaborates with over 300 partners (NARS, universities, regional and international organizations, ARIs, private sector institutions, NGOs, CBOs and host countries), of whom 153 are funded/with formal agreements. MAIZE distinguishes itself by allocating funds to non-CGIAR researchers to fill MAIZE research gaps and capture a wider range of innovative ideas, by launching a call for competitive grants. In October 2013, more than 40 institutions have been awarded a MAIZE CGI to complement the work of MAIZE across Central America and Colombia, Africa and South Asia, addressing themes such as mechanization, gender empowerment, sustainable smallholder practices, climate change vulnerability and the management of MLN and Tar Spot Complex (TSC) diseases, in addition to testing new maize varieties with resistance to diseases, Striga and environmental stresses.
Public-private partnerships have emerged through the CGI. For example, the PPP with IPNI in South Asia which (supported by CCAFS, MAIZE and WHEAT) developed The Nutrient Expert decision support tools for maize and wheat, recognized by the Bihar Innovation Forum as the Best Innovation for Improving Rural Livelihood in Bihar, India.
In addition to current linkages with A4NH, Aquatic Systems, CCAFS, GRiSP, Grain Legumes, Livestock, WHEAT and GCP, linkages with several other CRPs are being explored and strengthened, in particular Humid Tropics, PIM and RTB.
Partnership was essential to the development and functioning of MLN and DH facilities in Kenya. This partnership included not only KARI and IITA, but also industry partners, NARS and small and medium-sized seed companies. Barring a few countries that are reasonably well-developed and have multinational seed companies with a substantive market share, the University of Hohenheim has given complete freedom for CIMMYT to offer DH production service to NARS and SME seed companies in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
The Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project is also a good example of a public-private partnership to develop and deploy drought-tolerant white maize varieties royalty-free in selected countries of Africa (Kenya, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda), and to increase maize yields and reduce risk
27
Data provided by CIMMYT training office, available upon request
12
under drought conditions through a combination of conventional breeding, marker-assisted breeding and transgenes. WEMA has conducted four confined field trials to date for genetically modified (GM) drought-tolerant maize variety MON87460 with promising results. It might take a few more years before farmers can plant the GM maize varieties, but significant progress has been achieved through conventional breeding. 15 drought-tolerant maize hybrids have been released under WEMA: in Kenya (10), Uganda (2) and Tanzania (3) and large number of hybrids were in first year national performance trials (NPT) testing in all countries.
To improve knowledge about partners’ key priorities, MAIZE conducted and analyzed a Partner Priorities Survey in 2013 that drew 67 responses. The two top priorities identified by partners were: food security (based on stable and affordable prices); and capacity building to create a new generation of scientists and other professionals.
F. CAPACITY BUILDING In 2013, a total of 1,004 MAIZE training events (field days, meetings, seminars, training courses and traveling workshops) took place, reaching over 50,000 people
28 in 27 countries. When gender information was collected
(84% of the time), an average of 30% of participants were female. In addition to those already mentioned in other parts of this report, examples of such capacity building included: As part of the efforts to share knowledge and experience on MLN, an intensive, three-week course took place in Kenya in 2013 for 37 young maize breeders – including 10 women – to provide them the knowledge and skills to use modern breeding methods efficiently in their maize programs. The course included participants from national programs and seed companies in 14 African countries. Emphasis was placed on breeding maize for abiotic stress tolerance. Presenters also focused on MLN, including background on the disease in Africa, efforts made to breed for MLN resistance in African germplasm and strategies to prevent the spread of the disease. Participants were sponsored through various projects, including DTMA, WEMA, IMAS, a USAID project, Harvest Plus and four local seed companies.
Collaboration between the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the Nutritious Maize for Ethiopia (NuME) project led to a QPM seed production course in Ethiopia, where 40 participants (including 5 women) were trained on QPM seed technology and informed about its role in food and nutrition security.
In order to improve the credibility of laboratory results among farmers, 14 senior laboratory technicians from Ghana and Nigeria have been trained on Good Laboratory Practices and Laboratory Information Management Systems (GLP-LIMS) for soil and plant analytical laboratories in Ibadan. The training was organized by AGRA in collaboration with IITA.
IITA also put emphasis on bioinformatics to manage and interpret the massive data generated by genomic research and where most researchers have the least expertise. To build the capacity of researchers in Tanzania, IITA, Inqaba Biotec and CLC-Bio organized a workshop to give participants a better understanding, through theory and hands-on practice, on common sequence analysis techniques in basic and advanced DNA sequence analyses. The training brought together 20 researchers from IITA but also from different institutions in Tanzania. See Annex 2.
G. RISK MANAGEMENT
The outbreak of MLN virus in East and Southern Africa shows just how essential an internationally available, highly diverse yet elite germplasm base is to food and income security among the most vulnerable. MAIZE resources were mobilized to bring in expertise and draw up a rapid action plan and ensure resources were available to address this massive threat. The outbreak also calls for more active monitoring of new biotic threats.
The CGIAR System remains an unduly high risk factor for the implementation of CRPs: Several Financial Plans forthcoming during 2013 projected significant changes in W1&W2 for MAIZE, varying between USD$ 18.6 M to 14.0 M, and this made planning very difficult. Bilateral donors are able to issue multiyear contracts; the CGIAR must be able to make firm multi-year budget commitments and buffer income variations. Far too many goal posts keep changing and create a higher inefficiency than what they intend to resolve.
28
Data provided by CIMMYT training office, available upon request
13
The small proportion of W1&W2 funds makes it difficult to sustain longer-term, mission-critical activities (e.g. plant breeding).
H. LESSONS LEARNED
Analysis of variance from what was planned:
i. Estimate the overall level of confidence/uncertainty of the indicators provided in Table 1.
-Confidence in 2013 presented indicators is reasonably robust (>90%) but in many instances incomplete due to unrealistic expectations. With programs the size of MAIZE, annual impact assessment across the entire scope of MAIZE is unrealistic. Confidence in future indicators is somewhat lower (2013 >80%, 2014: >65%) given funding uncertainties.
ii. Description, if relevant, of research avenues that did not produce expected results, and description of implications for the CRP, such as new research directions pursued instead and their expected outputs and outcomes.
-No new research directions were pursued.
iii. Lessons learned by the CRP from monitoring the indicators and from qualitative analyses of progress.
-The operationalization of CIMMYT’s new RMS has greatly improved the collection and storage of MAIZE performance indicators.
- Scientists in bilateral projects experience a double reporting, towards the CRP and the bilateral project.
-Under-resourcing of M&E and Learning given the size and complexity of the CRP – with a new position set to be filled in 2014.
-The Consortium Office science team needs to align its requirements with the financial and legal team, in terms of calendar and content.
I. CRP FINANCIAL REPORT
There are 9 financial reports:
1. Report L101 – Annual CRP Financial Summary – by CG Participant
2. Report L102 – Cumulative CRP Financial Summary – CG Participant
3. Report L111 – CRP Annual Finance Plan Summary (by Center, Windows 1 and 2)
4. Report L121 – CRP Expenditure by natural classification - by CG Center
5. Report L131 – CRP Expenditure by Theme/Flagship Project and by Cluster of activities29
6. Report XXX – CRP expenditure on gender research by Theme/Flagship Project and by Cluster of activities
30
7. Report L201 – CRP Bilateral Grants Summary - by CG Center
8. Report L211 – CRP Partnerships Report- by CG Center
9. Report L401 – CRP Funding Statement – Windows 1 and 2
29
An explanatory note for this item is forthcoming 30
An explanatory note for this item is being prepared
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 14
14
Annex 1: CRP indicators of progress, with glossary and targets
CRPs concerned by this indicator
Indicator Deviation narrative - MAIZE 2012 2013 2014
Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual
KNOWLEDGE, TOOLS, DATA
All 1. Number of flagship “products” produced by CRP
Glossary: These are frameworks and concepts that are significant and complete enough to have been highlighted on web pages, publicized through blog stories, press releases and/or policy briefs. They are significant in that they should be likely to change the way stakeholders along the impact pathway allocate resources and/or implement activities. They should be products that change the way these stakeholders think and act. Tools, decision-support tools, guidelines and/or training manuals are not included in this indicator.
SI1: Socioeconomic analyses SI2: Locally adapted approaches to maize-based systems intensification SI3: Sensor technologies for improved nutrient applications SI4: Stress tolerant maize SI5: International Maize Improvement Consortium SI6: Post harvest management technologies SI7: Nutritious maize SI8: Characterized genetic resources SI9: Tools for SMEs and NARS to accelerate breeding
9 9 9 9
All
2. % of flagship products produced that have explicit target of women farmers/NRM managers
Specify what type of products, from above glossary, you have included in the number indicated under 2013; if relevant specify geographic locations
"Include" not "have": SI1: Socioeconomic analyses SI2: Locally adapted approaches to maize-based systems intensification SI4: Stress tolerant maize SI5: International Maize Improvement Consortium SI6: Postharvest SI7: Nutritious maize
4 5 6 5
All
3. % of flagship products produced that have been assessed for likely
Glossary: The web pages, blog stories, press releases and policy briefs supporting indicator #1 must have an explicit focus on women farmers/NRM managers to be
Gender audit 9 9 with 2 more in-
depth
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 15
15
gender-disaggregated impact
counted Provide concrete examples of what you include in this indicator
All 4. Number of ”tools” produced by CRP
Glossary: These are significant decision-support tools, guidelines, and/or training manuals that are significant and complete enough to have been highlighted on web pages, publicized through blog stories, press releases and/or policy briefs. They are significant in that they should be likely to change the way stakeholders along the impact pathway allocate resources and/or implement activities Based on the glossary, describe the types of outputs you include in this indicator
Manuals and web-based applications
28 (16 co develope
d with other CRPs)
25
27 (17 co developed with other
CRPs)
25
All
5. % of tools that have an explicit target of women farmers
Glossary: The web pages, blog stories, press releases and policy briefs supporting indicator #4 must have an explicit focus on women farmers/NRM managers to be counted
Tools target men and women users equally
n/a
All
6. % of tools assessed for likely gender-disaggregated impact
Glossary: Reports/papers describing the products should include a focus on gender-disaggregated impacts if they are to be counted
Tools are not assessed individually but at flagship product level
55
All 7. Number of open access databases maintained by CRP
Indicate the type of data bases (e.g., socio-economic survey data; crop yields in field experiments…) you are reporting on in the following columns
IMIS 1 1 12 12
All 8. Total number of users of these open access databases
592 600 3370 4000
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 16
16
All
9. Number of publications in ISI journals produced by CRP
KPI indicator DB
84 (includin
g 18 jointly with other CRPs)
84 137 120
1,2,3, 4, 6
10. Number of strategic value chains analyzed by CRP
Clearly indicate the type of value chains you are reporting on in the next columns
From KPI database 27
1,5,6,7
11. Number of targeted agro-ecosystems analyzed/characterized by CRP
Specify the type of system, using its main products as descriptors (e.g., mixed crop, livestock system; monoculture of XX; agroforestry with maize, beans, etc.; mixed cropping with upland rice, cassava, etc.)by geographical location and agroecological zones (FAO typology)
1,5,6,7
12. Estimated population of above-mentioned agro-ecosystems
CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT AND INNOVATION PLATFORMS
All
13. Number of trainees in short-term programs facilitated by CRP (male)
Glossary: The number of individuals to whom significant knowledge or skills have been imparted through interactions that are intentional, structured, and purposed for imparting knowledge or skills should be counted. This includes farmers, ranchers, fishers, and other primary sector producers who receive training in a variety of best practices in productivity, post-harvest management, linking to markets, etc. It also includes rural entrepreneurs, processors, managers and traders receiving training in application of
From Training database
22,428 (15,144
with other CRPs)
20,000
36,588 (151 with
other CRPs)
20,000
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 17
17
new technologies, business management, linking to markets, etc., and training to extension specialists, researchers, policymakers and others who are engaged in the food, feed and fiber system and natural resources and water management. Include training on climate risk analysis, adaptation, mitigation, and vulnerability assessments, as it relates to agriculture. Training should include food security, water resources management/IWRM, sustainable agriculture, and climate change resilience Indicate, from the above list, the general subject matters in which training was provided
All
14. Number of trainees in short-term programs facilitated by CRP (female)
(see above, but for female)
From Training database: info on female participation was missing in 16% of all cases; average proportion in 2013 was 30%
5,941 (73 with
other CRPs) (IITA 15)
6,000 13,592 (73 with other
CRPs) 6,000
All
15. Number of trainees in long-term programs facilitated by CRP (male)
Glossary: The number of people who are currently enrolled in or graduated in the current fiscal year from a bachelor’s, master’s or Ph.D. program or are currently participating in or have completed in the current fiscal year a long term (degree-seeking) advanced training program such as a fellowship program or a post-doctoral studies program. A person completing one long term training program in the fiscal year and currently participating in another long term training program should be counted only once. Specify in this cell number of Master’s and number of PhD’s
MSc & PhDs & training longer than 90 days
37 (5 with other CRPs)
60 149 (7 with
other CRPs)
60
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 18
18
All
16.Number of trainees in long-term programs facilitated by CRP (female)
(see above, but for female) MSc & PhDs & training longer than 90 days
16 (1 shared other CRPs)
36 80 (4 with
other CRPs)
30
1,5,6,7
17. Number of multi-stakeholder R4D innovation platforms established for the targeted agro-ecosystems by the CRPs
Glossary: To be counted, a multi-stakeholder platform has to have a clear purpose, generally to manage some type of tradeoff/conflict among the different interests of different stakeholders in the targeted agro-ecosystems, and inclusive and clear governance mechanisms, leading to decisions to manage the variety of perspectives of stakeholders in a manner satisfactory to the whole platform. Indicate the focus of each platform in this cell, including geographical focus
75 75 87 80
TECHNOLOGIES/PRACTICES IN VARIOUS STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT
All
18. Number of technologies/NRM practices under research in the CRP (Phase I)
Glossary: Technologies to be counted here are agriculture-related and NRM-related technologies and innovations including those that address climate change adaptation and mitigation. Relevant technologies include but are not limited to:
Germplasm: 28,833 Agronomy: 1,300 From KPI database
32,300 30,000 30,122 30,000
• Mechanical and physical: New land preparation, harvesting, processing and product handling technologies, including biodegradable packaging
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 19
19
• Biological: New germplasm (varieties, breeds, etc.) that could be higher-yielding or higher in nutritional content and/or more resilient to climate impacts; affordable food-based nutritional supplementation such as vitamin A-rich sweet potatoes or rice, or high-protein maize, or improved livestock breeds; soil management practices that increase biotic activity and soil organic matter levels; and livestock health services and products such as vaccines;
• Chemical: Fertilizers, insecticides, and pesticides sustainably and environmentally applied, and soil amendments that increase fertilizer-use efficiencies;
• Management and cultural practices: sustainable water management; practices; sustainable land management practices; sustainable fishing practices; Information technology, improved/sustainable agricultural production and marketing practices, increased use of climate information for planning disaster risk strategies in place, climate change mitigation and energy efficiency, and natural resource management practices that increase productivity and/or resiliency to climate change. IPM, ISFM, and PHH as related to agriculture should all be included as improved technologies or management practices.
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 20
20
New technologies or management practices under research counted should be only those under research in the current reporting year. Any new technology or management practice under research in a previous year but not under research in the reporting year should not be included.
Clearly indicate, from the list above, the type of technology and geographical location that you are reporting on in next columns
All
19. % of technologies under research that have an explicit target of women farmers
The papers, web pages, blog stories, press releases and policy briefs supporting indicator #x must have an explicit focus on women farmers/NRM managers to be counted
Technologies are not targeted individually but at flagship product level
All
20. % of technologies under research that have been assessed for likely gender-disaggregated impact
Reports/papers describing the products should include a focus on gender-disaggregated impacts if they are to be counted
Technologies are not assessed individually but at flagship product level
55%
1,5,6,7
21 Number of agro-ecosystems for which CRP has identified feasible approaches for improving ecosystem services and for establishing positive incentives for farmers to improve ecosystem functions as per the CRP’s recommendations
Use the same classification of agro-ecosystem as for indicator 11 above, including geographical location and agro-ecological zone
3 5
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 21
21
1,5,6,7
22. Number of people who will potentially benefit from plans, once finalized, for the scaling up of strategies
Indicate the potential number of both women and men
All, except 2
23. Number of technologies /NRM practices field tested (phase II)
Glossary; Under “field testing” means that research has moved from focused development to broader testing (pilot project phase) and this testing is underway under conditions intended to duplicate those encountered by potential users of the new technology. This might be in the actual facilities (fields) of potential users, or it might be in a facility set up to duplicate those conditions. Clearly identify in this cell the type of technology and the geographical locations of the field testing/pilot projects reported in next columns
Germplasm: 1,433 Agronomy: 121 From KPI database
1,180 1,200 1,554 1,200
1,5,6,7
24. Number of agro-ecosystems for which innovations (technologies, policies, practices, integrative approaches) and options for improvement at system level have been developed and are being field tested (Phase II)
Clearly identify in this cell the type of technology and the geographical location of the field testing/pilot projects, and use the same classification of agroecosystem as for indicator 11, specifying the type of agroecosystems in which field testing is taking place
3 3 4 3
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 22
22
1,5,6,7
25. % of above innovations/approaches/options that are targeted at decreasing inequality between men and women
3 3 3
1,5,6,7
26. Number of published research outputs from CRP utilized in targeted agro-ecosystems
32
All, except 2
27.Number of technologies/NRM practices released by public and private sector partners globally (phase III)
Glossary: In the case of crop research that developed a new variety, e.g., the variety must have passed through any required approval process, and seed of the new variety should be available for multiplication. The technology should have proven benefits and be as ready for use as it can be as it emerges from the research and testing process. Technologies made available for transfer should be only those made available in the current reporting year. Any technology made available in a previous year should not be included. Clearly identify in this cell the technologies/practices thus released (scale up phase), the geographical areas concerned
Germplasm: 63 Agronomy: 13 From KPI database
48 53 77 50
POLICIES IN VARIOUS STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 23
23
All
28. Numbers of Policies/ Regulations/ Administrative Procedures
Number of agricultural enabling environment policies / regulations / administrative procedures in the areas of agricultural resource, food, market standards & regulation, public investment, natural resource or water management and climate change adaptation/mitigation as it relates to agriculture that underwent the first stage of the policy reform process i.e. analysis (review of existing policy / regulation / administrative procedure and/or proposal of new policy / regulations / administrative procedures).Please count the highest stage completed during the reporting year – don't double count for the same policy.
3 3 1 1 1
Analyzed (Stage 1)
Clearly identify in this cell the type of policy, regulations, etc. from the above list
All
29. Number of policies / regulations / administrative procedures drafted and presented for public/stakeholder consultation (Stage 2)
….. ……that underwent the second stage of the policy reform process. The second stage includes public debate and/or consultation with stakeholders on the proposed new or revised policy / regulation / administrative procedure.
1 1 1 1
Clearly identify in this cell the type of policy, regulations and so on, and the geographical location of the consultations
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 24
24
All
30. Number of policies / regulations / administrative procedures presented for legislation(Stage 3)
: … underwent the third stage of the policy reform process (policies were presented for legislation/decree to improve the policy environment for smallholder-based agriculture.)
0
Clearly identify in this cell the type of policy and the country/region concerned
All
31. Number of policies / regulations / administrative procedures prepared passed/approved (Stage 4)
: …underwent the fourth stage of the policy reform process (official approval (legislation/decree) of new or revised policy / regulation / administrative procedure by relevant authority).
0
Clearly identify in this cell the type of policy and the country/region concerned
All
32. Number of policies / regulations / administrative procedures passed for which implementation has begun (Stage 5)
: …completed the policy reform process (implementation of new or revised policy / regulation / administrative procedure by relevant authority) Clearly identify in this cell the type of policy and the country/region concerned
0
OUTCOMES ON THE GROUND
All
33. Number of hectares under improved technologies or management practices as a result of CRP research
Clearly identify in this cell the geographic locations where this is occurring and whether the application of technologies is on a new or continuing area
INCOMPLETE; use of germplasm by third parties has an additional impact
313,120 417,000 500,000
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 25
25
All
34. Number of farmers and others who have applied new technologies or management practices as a result of CRP research
Clearly identify in this cell the geographic location of these farmers and whether the application of technologies is on a new or continuing area and indicate: 34 (a) number of women farmers concerned 34(b) number of male farmers concerned
INCOMPLETE; use of germplasm by third parties has an additional impact
869,778 1,100,000 1,200,000
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 26
26
Annex 2: List of acronyms ACIAR: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
AGRA: Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa
ASARECA: Association for strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa
ATTIC: Agro-ecosystem Diversity, Trajectories and Trade-Offs for Intensification of Cereal-based
systems
BMGF: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
CBSP: Community Based Maize Seed Production
CCAFS: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security
CGI: Competitive Grants Initiative
CIMMYT: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
CSISA: Cereal Systems Initiative for South Asia
DH: Double-Haploid
DTMA: Drought-Tolerant Maize for Africa project
EGSP: Effective Grain Storage Project
EIAR: Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
FACASI: Farm Mechanization and Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Intensification
GBS: Genotyping-by-sequencing
GCP: Generation Challenge Programme
GRiSP: Global Rice Science Partnership
HMRP: Hill Maize Research Project
ICIPE: International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology
IFAD: International Fund for Agricultural Development
IITA: International Institute for Tropical Agriculture
ILRI: International Livestock Research Institute
IMAS: Improved Maize for African Soils
IMIC: International Maize Improvement Consortium (IMIC-Latin America)
IPNI: International Plant Nutrition Institute
ISMA: Integrated Striga Management Project
KARI: Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute
KIT: Royal Tropical Institute
MLN: Maize Lethal Necrotic Virus
PASS: Program for Africa’s Seed Systems
RTB: CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas
SAGARPA: Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación
SDC: Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
SeeD: Seeds of Discovery project
SFSA: Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture
SIMLESA: Sustainable Intensification of Maize-Legume cropping systems for food security in Eastern and
Southern Africa
STAK: Seed Trade Association of Kenya
USDA-ARS: United States Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Research Service
USAID: United States Agency for International Development
WEMA: Water Efficient Maize for Africa
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 27
27
Annex 3: MAIZE performance per Strategic Initiative in 2013 The traffic light indicator sums up the progress achieved of projects under MAIZE, per strategic initiatives in 2013, regardless of their funding (Windows 1& 2 or bilateral funded). It monitors the progress per SI output, per SI and for the CRP as a whole.
Overall MAIZE performance was 88% on annual milestones/deliverables associated with SI outputs based on projects reported. Despite a number of smaller delays, which are being tracked, no significant issues were reported.
STRATEGIC INITIATIVE- THEME
SI Performance (aggregation of
progress towards all SI outputs -weighted
average)
1-Socioeconomic and Policies for maize futures.
89.2
2-Sustainable intensification and income opportunities for the poor.
87.4
3- Smallholder precision agriculture. 84.3
4-Stress tolerant maize for the poorest. 86.6
5-Towards doubling maize productivity
91.2
6-Integrated postharvest management.
90.9
7-Nutritious maize.
85.8
8-Seeds of discovery. 93.6
9-New tools and methods for NARS and SMEs.
85.5
Progress per Output
Progress per SI (all SI outputs)
CRP MAIZE Progress (all SIs)
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 28
28
Annex 4a: Progress towards Impact (external reviews)
2008 1. Conservation Agriculture Research at CIMMYT (MAIZE SI2, SI3) 2. Drought tolerant maize for Africa (MAIZE SI4, bilateral)
2009 1. CGIAR Social Science Stripe Review (MAIZE SI1) 2. Hill maize research in Nepal (MAIZE SI4, bilateral) 3. CGIAR Harvest Plus Review (MAIZE SI7) 4. Genotyping at CIMMYT (MAIZE SI9)
2010 1. Water efficient maize for Africa (MAIZE SI4, bilateral) 2. Conservation Agriculture in Southern Africa (MAIZE SI2, bilateral)
2011 1. Cereal Systems Initiative South Asia (MAIZE SI2 &SI3, bilateral) 2. New Seed Initiative for Southern Africa (MAIZE SI4, bilateral) 3. Drought tolerant maize for Africa (MAIZE SI4, bilateral) 4. MycoRed (MAIZE SI6, bilateral)
2012 1. CA and smallholder farmers in E&S Africa-Leveraging institutional innovations and policies (MAIZE SI1, bilateral) 2. NRM research in the CGIAR (MAIZE SI2, SI3) 3. Maize-rice systems in Bangladesh (MAIZE SI2, SI3 bilateral) 4. Enhancing total farm productivity in smallholder CA based systems in Eastern Africa (MAIZE SI2, bilateral) 5. SIMLESA mid-term review (MAIZE SI2, bilateral) 6. Governance & Management of the Cereal Systems Initiative South Asia (MAIZE SI2 &SI3, bilateral) 7. Mechanization in Bangladesh (MAIZE SI2, bilateral) 8. Alignment of MAIZE SI2 with CRP1.2 (internal between two CRPs involved) 9. Water efficient maize for Africa (MAIZE SI4, bilateral) 10. Review of the integrated breeding platform (MAIZE, SI9, bilateral)
2013 1. Gender Audit of MAIZE (MAIZE) 2. Innovation system thinking for improved research impact (MAIZE SI2) 3. New Seed Initiative for Southern Africa (MAIZE SI4, bilateral) 4. International Maize Improvement Consortium (MAIZE SI5) 5. Transgenic strategy (MAIZE SI9) 6. Plant breeding support in the CGIAR (MAIZE SI4-9; BMGF) 7. Biotechnology research in the CGIAR (MAIZE SI4, SI8, SI9, ISPC)
2014 1. Review of Capacity building & Partnerships (MAIZE)
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 29
29
Annex 4b: Progress towards Impact (Impact Assessments)
2010 A meta-analysis of community-based studies on quality protein maize (MAIZE SI7)
Adoption and continued use of improved maize seeds: Case study of Central Ethiopia (MAIZE SI4, SI5)
Determinants of Agricultural Technology adoption: the Case of Improved Pigeonpea Varieties in Tanzania. (MAIZE SI2)
How cost-effective is Biofortification in combating micronutrient malnutrition? An Ex ante assessment (MAIZE SI7)
Potential for herbicide resistant maize seed for Striga control in Africa (MAIZE SI4)
Quality Protein Maize: progress, impact, and prospects (MAIZE SI7)
The effectiveness of quality protein maize in improving the nutritional status of young children in the Ethiopian highlands (MAIZE SI7)
DTMA ex ante analysis - Potential impact of investments in drought tolerant maize in Africa (MAIZE SI4)
2011 Agricultural technology adoption, seed access constraints and commercialization in Ethiopia (MAIZE SI4, SI5)
Agricultural Technology, Crop Income, and Poverty Alleviation in Uganda (MAIZE SI1)
Are soil conservation technologies "win-win?" A case study of Anjeni in the north-western Ethiopian highlands (MAIZE SI2)
Assessing the influence of neighbourhood effects on the adoption of improved agricultural technologies in developing agriculture (MAIZE)
Assessing the potential economic impact of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) maize in Kenya (MAIZE SI4)
Determinants of improved maize seed and fertilizer adoption in Kenya (MAIZE SI2)
2012 Adoption and impact of DT maize in Zimbabwe (MAIZE SI4)
Adoption of Agricultural Technologies in Kenya: How Does Gender Matter (MAIZE)
Adoption of bio-diversification, conservation tillage and modern seed: Welfare and environmental implications. (MAIZE SI1)
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 30
30
Adoption of interrelated sustainable agricultural practices in smallholder system: Evidence from rural Tanzania. Technological forecast and social change (MAIZE SI2))
Adoption of Multiple Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Rural Ethiopia (MAIZE SI2)
Analysis of Adoption and Diffusion of Improved maize Varieties in Ethiopia (MAIZE SI4, SI5)
Can Metal Silo Technology Offer Solution to Grain Storage and Food Security Problem in Developing Countries? An Impact Evaluation From Kenya (MAIZE SI6)
Could farmer interest in a diversity of seed attributes explain adoption plateaus for modern maize varieties in Malawi? (MAIZE SI4)
Estimating consumer willingness to pay for food quality with experimental auctions: the case of yellow versus fortified maize meal in Kenya (MAIZE SI7)
Identifying recommendation domains for targeting dual-purpose maize-based interventions in crop-livestock systems in East Africa (MAIZE SI1)
Impact of modern agricultural technologies on smallholder welfare: Evidence from Tanzania and Ethiopia (MAIZE SI1)
Improved Maize Technologies and Welfare Outcomes In Smallholder Systems: Evidence From Application of Parametric and Non-Parametric Approaches (MAIZE SI1)
Maize impact in Zambia (MAIZE SI4, SI5)
Poverty Reduction Effects of Agricultural Technology Adoption: A Micro-evidence from Rural Tanzania. MAIZE SI1)
The choice of spatial and temporal cropping systems diversification in Malawi: impacts on crop income and agro-chemicals use. (MAIZE SI2)
Welfare Effects of Agricultural Technology Adoption: The Case of Improved Groundnut Varieties in Rural Malawi. (MAIZE SI2)
Welfare impact of farm input subsidy and improved maize in Malawi (MAIZE SI1)
Welfare impacts of maize-pigeon pea intensification in Tanzania (MAIZE SI2)
What determines gender inequality in household food security in Kenya? Application of exogenous switching treatment regression. (MAIZE SI1)
2013 What Determines Gender Inequality in Household Food Security in Kenya? Application of Exogenous Switching Treatment Regression (MAIZE SI1)
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 31
31
What are the farm-level impacts of Malawi’s farm input subsidy program? A critical review (MAIZE SI1)
Food security as a gender issue: Why are female-headed households worse off compared to similar male-headed counterparts? (MAIZE SI1)
Household, community, and policy determinants of food insecurity in rural Malawi (MAIZE SI1)
Mapping the effect of market liberalisation policies on the maize seed systems in Kenya based on micro-evidence from 1992 to 2010 (MAIZE SI1)
Maize stover use and sustainable crop production in mixed crop–livestock systems in Mexico (MAIZE SI2)
Gender and Innovation in Agriculture: A Case Study of Farmers’ Varietal Preference of Drought Tolerant Maize in Southern Guinea Savannah Region of Nigeria (MAIZE
SI4)
On-farm evaluation of maize varieties in the transitional and savannah zones of Ghana: Determinants of farmer preferences (MAIZE SI4)
Potential impacts of increasing average yields and reducing maize yield variability in Africa (MAIZE SI4)
Smallholder Farmers’ Perceptions of Drought Risk and Adoption of Modern Maize in Southern Malawi (MAIZE SI4)
Economic Analysis of Modern Maize Varieties in Malawi (MAIZE SI4)
Maize for food and feed in East Africa—The farmers’ perspective (MAIZE SI7)
Potential for dual-purpose maize varieties to meet changing maize demands: Overview (MAIZE SI7)
Potential for dual-purpose maize varieties to meet changing maize demands: Synthesis (MAIZE SI7)
Assessing the potential of dual-purpose maize in southern Africa: A multi-level approach (MAIZE SI7)
Identifying recommendation domains for targeting dual-purpose maize-based interventions in crop-livestock systems in East Africa (MAIZE SI7)
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 32
32
Annex 5: Financial Reports
CRP : 3.2 CRP on MAIZE Cumulative Financial Summary
Period: 01/01/2013 - 12/31/2013 Amounts in USD (000's)
Report Description
Name of Report: Cumuative Financial Summary Frequency/Period: Annual
Deadline: Every April 15th
Summary Report - by CG Partners
(a) Total POWB budget since inception
(b) Actual cumulative Expenses
(c) Variance / Balance
Windows 1 & 2
Window 3
Bilateral Funding
Center funds
Total Funding
Windows 1 & 2
Window 3
Bilateral Funding
Center funds
Total Funding
Windows 1 & 2
Window 3
Bilateral Funding
Center funds
Total Funding
1. AFRICA RICE
-
-
-
- -
-
-
2. BIOVERSITY
-
-
-
- -
-
-
3. CIAT
-
-
-
- -
-
-
4. CIFOR
-
-
-
- -
-
-
5. CIMMYT
30,114
28,639
105,887
-
164,640
26,158
25,209
95,781
-
147,149
3,956
3,430 10,106
-
17,491
6. CIP
-
-
-
- -
-
-
7. ICARDA
3,880
5,229
11,047
-
20,156
3,906
3,770
7,588
-
15,264
(25)
1,459 3,459
-
4,892
8. ICRAF
-
-
-
- -
-
-
9. ICRISAT
-
-
-
- -
-
-
10. IFPRI
-
-
-
- -
-
-
11. IITA
-
-
-
- -
-
-
12. ILRI
-
-
-
- -
-
-
13. IRRI
-
-
-
- -
-
-
14. IWMI
-
-
-
- -
-
-
15. WORLDFISH
-
-
-
- -
-
-
Total for CRP 33,994
33,868
116,934
-
184,796
30,064
28,979
103,369
-
162,412
3,930 4,889
13,565 -
22,384
18% 18% 63% 0% 100%
19% 18% 64% 0% 100%
18% 22% 61% 0% 100%
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 33
33
CRP : 3.2 CRP on MAIZE
Annual Funding Summary
Period: 01/01/2013 - 12/31/2013 Amounts in USD (000's) Report Description
Name of Report: Annual Funding Summary
Frequency/Period: Annual
Deadline: Every April 15th
PART 1 - Annual FINANCE PLAN (Totals for Windows 1 and 2 combined)
Approved Level for Year - Initial Approval (as per PIA) Approved Level for Year - Final Amount
PART 2 - Funding Summary for Year
2013 Actual Funding
Windows 1&2 Window 3 Bilateral Funding Total Funding
1 CGIAR Fund
13,138
13,138
2 ACIAR
-
2,444
2,444
3 BMGF
11,595
3,278
14,873
4 CAAS China
99
1
99
5 Cornell
-
278
278
6 GCP
-
225
225
7 GIZ
-
514
514
8 IFAD
1,274
274
1,548
9 IITA
62
233
296
10 IRRI
-
446
446
11 SAGARPA
-
12,589
12,589
12 SDC
-
2,549
2,549
13 SFSA
-
1,757
1,757
14 USAID
1,962
993
2,955
15 CIMMYT
1,641
114
1,755
16 ADA
62
62
17 AFDB
1,840
1,840
18 African Wildlife Foundation
50
50
19 AGRA
357
357
20 CORAF
72
72
21 NIGERIA
477
477
22 Others < $50K
47
450
496
-
Total for CRP "X.X" 13,138 16,679 29,002 58,819
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 34
34
CRP : 3.2 CRP on MAIZE
Annual Financial Summary by Centers
Period: 01/01/2013 - 12/31/2013 Amounts in USD
(000's)
Report Description
Name of Report:
Annual Financial Summary by Centers & Other Participants
Frequency/Period:
Annual
Deadline: Every April 15th
Summary Report - by CG Partners
(a) CRP 2013 POWB approved budget
(b) CRP 2013 Expenditure
(c) Variance this Year
Windows 1 & 2
Window 3
Bilateral Funding
Center funds
Total Funding
Windows 1 & 2
Window 3
Bilateral Funding
Center funds
Total Funding
Windows 1 & 2
Window 3
Bilateral Funding
Center funds
Total Funding
1. AFRICA RICE
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2. BIOVERSITY
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3. CIAT
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4. CIFOR
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5. CIMMYT
12,509
18,472
26,884
-
57,865
11,611
14,773
24,564
-
50,949
898
3,699
2,320
-
6,917
6. CIP
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7. ICARDA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
8. ICRAF
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9. ICRISAT
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10. IFPRI
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11. IITA
1,501
1,934
4,959
-
8,394
1,527
1,906
4,438
-
7,871
(25)
28
521
-
523
12. ILRI
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
13. IRRI
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14. IWMI
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
15. WORLDFISH
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Total for CRP
14,010
20,406
31,843
-
66,259
13,138
16,679
29,002
- 58,819
872 3,727
2,841
- 7,440
21% 31% 48% 0% 100%
22% 28% 49% 0% 100%
12% 50% 38% 0% 100%
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 35
35
Annual Financial Summary by Natural Classification
CRP : 3.2 CRP on MAIZE Period: 01/01/2013 -
12/31/2013 Amounts in USD 000's
Report Description
Name of Report:
Financial Summary by Natural Classification lines
Frequency/Period:
Annual
Deadline:
Every April 15th
Windows 1 & 2
Window 3
Bilateral Funding
Center Funds
Total Funding
Windows 1 & 2
Window 3
Bilateral Funding
Center Funds
Total Funding
Windows
1 & 2
Window 3
Bilateral Funding
Center Funds
Total Funding
Total CRP"X.X"
POWB Approved Budget
Actual
Unspent/Variance
Personnel
4,073
5,413
11,420
-
20,906
3,654
3,988
8,630
-
16,272
420
1,425
2,790
-
4,635
Collaborators Costs - CGIAR Centers
115
3,074
320
-
3,510
83
2,606
200
-
2,889
32
468
121
-
621
Collaborator Costs - Partners
4,252
2,518
4,474
-
11,244
3,008
2,002
3,704
-
8,715
1,243
516
769
-
2,528
Supplies and services
2,838
3,985
8,417
-
15,240
3,912
3,969
9,641
-
17,522
(1,074)
16
(1,224)
-
(2,282)
Operational Travel
924
1,440
1,706
-
4,070
631
1,031
1,481
-
3,143
293
409
225
-
927
Depreciation
285
1,880
948
-
3,113
249
1,459
1,538
-
3,246
36
421
(591)
-
(133)
Sub-total of Direct Costs
12,487
18,311
27,284
-
58,083
11,537
15,057
25,194
-
51,787
951
3,254
2,091
-
6,296
Indirect Costs
1,523
2,095
4,558
-
8,177
1,601
1,623
3,808
-
7,032
(78)
472
750
-
1,144
Total - All Costs
14,010
20,406
31,843
-
66,259
13,138
16,679
29,002
-
58,819
872
3,727
2,841
-
7,440
LESS Coll Costs CGIAR Centers
(115.2)
(3,074)
(320)
-
(3,510)
(83)
(2,606)
(200)
-
(2,889)
(32)
(468)
(121)
-
(621)
Total Net Costs
13,895
17,332
31,523
-
62,750
13,055
14,073
28,803
-
55,930
840
3,259
2,720
-
6,819
Amounts for each participating center below:
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 36
36
CIMMYT
POWB Approved Budget Actual
Unspent/Variance
Personnel
3,437 4,570
9,825
17,832
2,753
3,187
7,498
- 13,438
684
1,383
2,327
- 4,394
Collaborators Costs - CGIAR Centers
115 3,074
320
3,510
83
2,606
200
- 2,889
32
468
121
- 621
Collaborator Costs - Partners
4,165 1,920
3,737
9,822
3,001
1,627
2,329
- 6,958
1,164
293
1,408
- 2,865
Supplies and services
2,429 3,777
6,997
13,203
3,587
3,606
8,600
- 15,794
(1,158)
171
(1,603)
- (2,591)
Operational Travel
806 1,316
1,124
3,245
541
831
1,058
- 2,431
264
484
65
- 814
Depreciation
228 1,878
781
2,887
241
1,457
1,355
- 3,054
(14)
421
(574)
- (166)
Sub-total of Direct Costs
11,180
16,535
22,784
-
50,500
10,207
13,316
21,040
-
44,563
973
3,220
1,744
- 5,937
Indirect Costs
1,329 1,937
4,099
7,366
1,404
1,458
3,524
- 6,386
(75)
479
576
- 980
Total - All Costs
12,509
18,472
26,884
-
57,865
11,611
14,773
24,564
-
50,949
898
3,699
2,320
- 6,917
LESS Coll Costs CGIAR Centers
(115.2)
(3,074)
(320)
-
(3,510)
(83)
(2,606)
(200)
-
(2,889)
(32)
(468)
(121)
- (621)
Total Net Costs
12,394
15,398
26,564
-
54,355
11,528
12,167
24,364
-
48,060
866
3,231
2,199
- 6,296
IITA
POWB Approved Budget Actual
Unspent/Variance
Personnel
636 843
1,595
-
3,075
901
802
1,132
- 2,834
(265)
42
463
- 241
Collaborators Costs - CGIAR Centers
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
-
- -
- -
Collaborator Costs - Partners
87 598
736
-
1,421
7
375
1,375
- 1,758
80
223
(639)
- (336)
Supplies and services
409 208
1,420
-
2,037
324
363
1,041
- 1,728
85
(154)
379
- 309
Operational Travel
118 124
582
-
825
90
200
423
- 712
29
(76)
160
- 112
Depreciation
57 2
166
-
225
7
2
183
- 192
50
0
(17)
- 33
Sub-total of Direct Costs
1,307
1,776
4,500
-
7,583
1,329
1,741
4,154
-
7,224
(22)
35
346
- 359
Indirect Costs
194 158
459
-
811
197
165
284
- 647
(3)
(7)
175
- 164
Total - All Costs
1,501
1,934
4,959
-
8,394
1,527
1,906
4,438
-
7,871
(25)
28
521
- 523
LESS Coll Costs CGIAR Centers
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
Total Net Costs
1,501
1,934
4,959
-
8,394
1,527
1,906
4,438
-
7,871
(25)
28
521
- 523
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 37
37
Annual Financial Summary by Themes
CRP : 3.2 CRP on MAIZE Period: 01/01/2013 - 12/31/2013 Amounts in USD 000's
Report Description
Name of Report:
Financial Summary by Themes Frequency/Period:
Annual
Deadline: Every April 15th
POWB Approved
Current Year Actual Expenditures
Unspent Budget
Summary Report - by Themes `
8,413
6,106
2,307
SI 2 Systems
9,857
8,383
1,474
SI 3 Yield gap
817
724
93
SI 4 Stress enviroments
14,520
13,814
705
SI 5 Double yield
6,551
7,560
(1,009)
SI 6 Postharvest
2,905
2,719
186
SI 7 Nutrition
770
761
9
SI 8 Seed of Discovery
7,039
5,267
1,772
SI 9 Tools
4,906
4,465
441
Gender Strategies
8,607
7,031
1,576
CRP Management/Coordination
1,874
1,989
(115)
Total - All Costs 66,259 58,819 7,440
CIMMYT SI 1 Socioeconomics
7,365
5,070
2,296
SI 2 Systems
5,920
4,805
1,115 SI 3 Yield gap
817
724
93
SI 4 Stress enviroments
12,894
12,232
662 SI 5 Double yield
6,111
7,142
(1,031)
SI 6 Postharvest
1,967
1,841
126 SI 7 Nutrition
515
501
13
SI 8 Seed of Discovery
7,039
5,267
1,772 SI 9 Tools
4,906
4,465
441
Gender Strategies
8,607
7,031
1,576 CRP Management/Coordination
1,725
1,872
(147)
Total - All Costs 57,865 50,949 6,917
IITA SI 1 Socioeconomics
1,048
1,037
11
SI 2 Systems
3,937
3,578
359 SI 3 Yield gap
-
-
-
SI 4 Stress enviroments
1,626
1,582
43 SI 5 Double yield
440
418
22
SI 6 Postharvest
938
878
60 SI 7 Nutrition
256
260
(4)
SI 8 Seed of Discovery
-
-
- SI 9 Tools
-
-
-
Gender Strategies
-
-
- CRP Management/Coordination
149
117
32
Total - All Costs 8,394 7,871 523
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 38
38
CRP : 3.2 CRP on MAIZE
CRP Partnership Report Period: 01/01/2013 -
12/31/2013 Amounts in USD 000's
Report Description
Name of Report: CRP Partnerships Report
Frequency/Period: Annual Deadline:
Every April 15th
TOTAL FOR CRP "X.X"
Actual Expenses - This Year
Item Institute Acronym
Institute Name Country
Windows 1 & 2
Window 3
Bilateral Center Funds
TOTAL
1 AQS Aminata Quality Seeds Ltd Tanzania
-
19
20
- 39
2 ARARI
AMHARA REGION AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE Ethiopia
-
32
-
- 32
3 ARC ARC Tanzania
-
27
27
- 54
4 AS
AGROBAL SERVICIOS S.P.R. DE R.L. Mexico
-
-
36
- 36
5 BARI
BANGLADESH AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE Bangladesh
23
2
3
- 27
6 BCAPRU
BUNDA COLLEGE AGRICULTURAL POLICY RESEARCH UNIT Malawi
108
-
-
- 108
7 BU BAYERO UNIVERSITY Nigeria
70
-
-
- 70
8 CB Charles Bett Ethiopia
-
28
-
- 28
9 CBI
CROP BREEDING INSTITUTE Zimbawe
70
-
-
- 70
10 CBIRF
Chemical Biological Incident Response Force Zimbawe
-
26
-
- 26
11 CBA Kshs CBA Kshs Kenya
59
-
-
- 59
12 Copmtroll Copmtroll India
-
43
-
- 43
13 CEFKF
Construction of Electric fence Kiboko farm Malawi
-
-
53
- 53
14 CIAT
CIAT - ANDEAN REGIONAL MAIZE PROGRAMME Colombia
-
-
30
- 30
15 CIEAIPN
CENTRO DE INVESTIGACION Y DE ESTUDIOS AVANZADOS DEL INSTITUTO POLITECNICO NACIONAL Mexico
-
-
94
- 94
16 CRES CRES Ethiopia
140
-
-
- 140
17 DAA
DOE AGRICULTURE ACCOUNT USA
15
-
15
- 30
18 DAT
DIVERSITY ARRAYS TECHNOLOGY, PTY LTD. Australia
-
-
419
- 419
19 DH David Hodson Nepal
17
24
-
- 41
20 DMMI
Deogratias Mwamba Muloy Ilunga Zimbawe
-
-
30
- 30
21 EIAR
ETHIOPIAN INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Zimbawe
53
20
19
- 92
22 ETB ETB Colombia
32
20
-
- 51
23 GKIL
GrainPro Kenya INC Limited Kenya
-
-
32
- 32
24 GM George Mahuku Zimbawe
2
9
35
- 46
25 GVART
Golden Valley Agricultural Research Trus zambia
4
63
18
- 84
26 IAICOA
INTER AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR COOPERATION ON AGRICULTURE Costa Rica
67
-
-
- 67
27 ICAR
INDIAN COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH India
40
5
46
- 91
28 ICIPE
INTERNATIONAL CENTER OF INSPECT PHYSIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY Kenya
38
-
-
- 38
29 ICRISAT ICRISAT India
-
-
58
- 58
30 IDE
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES Bangladesh
-
348
-
- 348
31 IFPRI
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE USA
-
189
-
- 189
32 IIAM
Institute of de invstigacao Agronom Mozambique Zimbawe
181
91
19
- 290
33 IITA
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TROPICAL Nigeria
28
1,863
146
- 2,036
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 39
39
AGRICULTURE
34 ILRI
INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE. Ethiopia
55
81
-
- 136
35 INIFAP
INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE INVESTIGACIONES FORESTALES AGRICOLAS Y PECUARIAS Mexico
-
-
240
- 240
36 IPNI
INTERNATIONAL PLANT NUTRITION INSTITUTE Canada
158
-
-
- 158
37 IRRI
International Livestock Research lnstitute Philippines
-
474
24
- 498
38 JC Jill Cairns Zimbawe
-
3
28
- 31
39 KARI
KENYA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE Kenya
63
30
75
- 168
40 KSC Kenya Seed Company Ltd Kenya
-
13
16
- 29
41 LGL LGC GENOMICS LTD UK
-
-
75
- 75
42 MATC Meru Agro Tours & Consul Kenya
15
17
48
- 79
43 MOAL
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND LIVESTOCK, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MECHANIZATION SECTION Zimbawe
-
-
104
- 104
44 NAARI NAARI Kenya
-
52
19
- 72
45 NMRI
NATIONAL MAIZE RESEARCH INSTITUTE (VIETNAM) Vietnam
-
-
48
- 48
46 NMRP
NATIONAL MAIZE RESEARCH PROGRAM Nepal
125
-
-
- 125
47 NULS
NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES Norway
275
-
-
- 275
48 OAU
OBAFEMI AWOLOWO UNIVERSITY Nigeria
80
-
-
- 80
49 other other (blank)
64
103
37
- 205
50 PS PROGENE SEEDS Zimbawe
-
-
28
- 28
51 PU PURDUE UNIVERSITY USA
-
120
-
- 120
52 RBM Ruth Bruno Madulu Ethiopia
-
42
-
- 42
53 RSA RSA Zimbawe
-
1
24
- 25
54 RTI
ROYAL TROPICAL INSTITUTE Holanda
576
-
-
- 576
55 SARI
SAVANNA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE Tanzania
20
32
7
- 59
56 SATG
SOMALI AGRICULTURAL TECHNICAL GROUP Kenya
29
-
-
- 29
57 SGD
Sika Gbegbelegbe Dofonsuo Kenya
1
31
6
- 37
58 STA Seed Trade Association Zimbawe
-
41
-
- 41
59 STI
SIDIMEX TECNOLOGIAS DE INFORMACION SA DE CV Mexico
-
-
36
- 36
60 TFH Trust Fund Holding Zimbawe
-
28
2
- 30
61 UACH
UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE CHIAPAS Chile
25
-
2
- 27
62 UAY
UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE YUCATAN Mexico
-
-
67
- 67
63 UH UNIVERSITAT HOHENHEIM Germany
-
151
65
- 216
64 UOB
UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA España
118
-
-
- 118
65 UOG UNIVERSITY OF GHANA GHANA
40
-
-
- 40
66 UOKN
UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU NATAL. South Africa
45
-
-
- 45
67 UON UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI Kenya
60
-
-
- 60
68 UOZ
UNIVERSITY OF ZIMBABWE Zimbawe
15
-
14
- 29
69 UR UAS RAICHUR India
-
27
-
- 27
70 USCG
UNIVERSIDAD DE SAN CARLOS DE GUATEMALA GUATEMALA
25
-
-
- 25
71 VUOT
VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Austria
121
-
-
- 121
78 WSCL
WESTERN SEED COMPANY LIMITED Kenya
3
3
40
- 45
79 WSU
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY USA
35
-
-
- 35
80 WU WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY Holanda
134
-
-
- 134
81 WVU WORLD VISION UGANDA USA
35
-
-
- 35
82 ZARI
ZAMBIA AGRICULTURE RESEARCH INSTITUTE Zimbawe
60
-
74
- 134
83 Others < $25 other (blank)
(35)
179
350
- 494
84 IFPRI
USA
-
-
518
- 518
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 40
40
85 CIMMYT
USA
-
6
180
- 186
86 AFRICARICE
USA
-
-
168
- 168
87 ICIPE
USA
-
-
160
- 160
88 IER
USA
-
80
27
- 107
89 FMARD
USA
-
-
76
- 76
90 IITA
USA
2
15
56
- 73
91 CRI
USA
-
31
41
- 72
92 INRAB
USA
-
64
0
- 64
93 IAR
USA
-
59
3
- 61
94 SARI
USA
-
51
7
- 58
96 Others < $25
(blank)
5
70
141
- 215
Total for CRP
3,091
4,609
3,904
- 11,604
1. AFRICA RICE
Actual Expenses - This Year
Item Institute Acronym
Institute Name Country
Windows 1 & 2
Window 3
Bilateral Center Funds
TOTAL
1
- 2
-
Total for CRP
-
-
-
- -
2. BIOVERSITY
Actual Expenses - This Year
Item Institute Acronym
Institute Name Country
Windows 1 & 2
Window 3
Bilateral Center Funds
TOTAL
1
- 2
-
3
- 4
-
5
- 6
-
7
- 8
-
9
- 10
-
11
- 12
-
13
- 14
-
15
- 16
-
17
- 18
-
Total for CRP
-
-
-
- -
3. CIAT
Actual Expenses - This Year
Item Institute Acronym
Institute Name Country
Windows 1 & 2
Window 3
Bilateral Center Funds
TOTAL
1
- 2
-
3
- 4
-
5
- 6
-
7
- 8
-
9
- 10
-
11
- 12
-
13
- 14
-
15
- 16
-
Total for CRP
-
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 41
41
- - - -
4. CIFOR
Actual Expenses - This Year
Item Institute Acronym
Institute Name Country
Windows 1 & 2
Window 3
Bilateral Center Funds
TOTAL
1 -
-
-
-
Total for CRP
-
-
-
- -
5. CIMMYT
Actual Expenses - This Year
Item Institute Acronym
Institute Name Country
Windows 1 & 2
Window 3
Bilateral Center Funds
TOTAL
1 AQS Aminata Quality Seeds Ltd Tanzania
-
19
20
- 39
2 ARARI
AMHARA REGION AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE Ethiopia
-
32
-
- 32
3 ARC ARC Tanzania
-
27
27
- 54
4 AS AGROBAL SERVICIOS S.P.R. DE R.L. Mexico
-
-
36
- 36
5 BARI
BANGLADESH AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE Bangladesh
23
2
3
- 27
6 BCAPRU
BUNDA COLLEGE AGRICULTURAL POLICY RESEARCH UNIT Malawi
108
-
-
- 108
7 BU BAYERO UNIVERSITY Nigeria
70
-
-
- 70
8 CB Charles Bett Ethiopia
-
28
-
- 28
9 CBI CROP BREEDING INSTITUTE Zimbawe
70
-
-
- 70
10 CBIRF Chemical Biological Incident Response Force Zimbawe
-
26
-
- 26
11 CBA Kshs CBA Kshs Kenya
59
-
-
- 59
12 Copmtroll Copmtroll India
-
43
-
- 43
13 CEFKF Construction of Electric fence Kiboko farm Malawi
-
-
53
- 53
14 CIAT CIAT - ANDEAN REGIONAL MAIZE PROGRAMME Colombia
-
-
30
- 30
15 CIEAIPN
CENTRO DE INVESTIGACION Y DE ESTUDIOS AVANZADOS DEL INSTITUTO POLITECNICO NACIONAL Mexico
-
-
94
- 94
16 CRES CRES Ethiopia
140
-
-
- 140
17 DAA DOE AGRICULTURE ACCOUNT USA
15
-
15
- 30
18 DAT DIVERSITY ARRAYS TECHNOLOGY, PTY LTD. Australia
-
-
419
- 419
19 DH David Hodson Nepal
17
24
-
- 41
20 DMMI Deogratias Mwamba Muloy Ilunga Zimbawe
-
-
30
- 30
21 EIAR ETHIOPIAN INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Zimbawe
53
20
19
- 92
22 ETB ETB Colombia
32
20
-
- 51
23 GKIL GrainPro Kenya INC Limited Kenya
-
-
32
- 32
24 GM George Mahuku Zimbawe
2
9
35
- 46
25 GVART Golden Valley Agricultural Research Trus zambia
4
63
18
- 84
26 IAICOA
INTER AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR COOPERATION ON AGRICULTURE Costa Rica
67
-
-
- 67
27 ICAR INDIAN COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH India
40
5
46
- 91
28 ICIPE
INTERNATIONAL CENTER OF INSPECT PHYSIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY Kenya
38
-
-
- 38
29 ICRISAT ICRISAT India
-
-
58
- 58
30 IDE
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES Bangladesh
-
348
-
- 348
31 IFPRI
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE USA
-
189
-
- 189
32 IIAM Institute of de invstigacao Agronom Mozambique Zimbawe
181
91
19
- 290
33 IITA
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TROPICAL AGRICULTURE Nigeria
28
1,863
146
- 2,036
34 ILRI INTERNATIONAL Ethiopia
136
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 42
42
LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE.
55 81 - -
35 INIFAP
INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE INVESTIGACIONES FORESTALES AGRICOLAS Y PECUARIAS Mexico
-
-
240
- 240
36 IPNI INTERNATIONAL PLANT NUTRITION INSTITUTE Canada
158
-
-
- 158
37 IRRI International Livestock Research lnstitute Philippines
-
474
24
- 498
38 JC Jill Cairns Zimbawe
-
3
28
- 31
39 KARI KENYA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE Kenya
63
30
75
- 168
40 KSC Kenya Seed Company Ltd Kenya
-
13
16
- 29
41 LGL LGC GENOMICS LTD UK
-
-
75
- 75
42 MATC Meru Agro Tours & Consul Kenya
15
17
48
- 79
43 MOAL
MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND LIVESTOCK, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MECHANIZATION SECTION Zimbawe
-
-
104
- 104
44 NAARI NAARI Kenya
-
52
19
- 72
45 NMRI
NATIONAL MAIZE RESEARCH INSTITUTE (VIETNAM) Vietnam
-
-
48
- 48
46 NMRP NATIONAL MAIZE RESEARCH PROGRAM Nepal
125
-
-
- 125
47 NULS NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES Norway
275
-
-
- 275
48 OAU OBAFEMI AWOLOWO UNIVERSITY Nigeria
80
-
-
- 80
49 other other (blank)
64
103
37
- 205
50 PS PROGENE SEEDS Zimbawe
-
-
28
- 28
51 PU PURDUE UNIVERSITY USA
-
120
-
- 120
52 RBM Ruth Bruno Madulu Ethiopia
-
42
-
- 42
53 RSA RSA Zimbawe
-
1
24
- 25
54 RTI ROYAL TROPICAL INSTITUTE Holanda
576
-
-
- 576
55 SARI SAVANNA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE Tanzania
20
32
7
- 59
56 SATG SOMALI AGRICULTURAL TECHNICAL GROUP Kenya
29
-
-
- 29
57 SGD Sika Gbegbelegbe Dofonsuo Kenya
1
31
6
- 37
58 STA Seed Trade Association Zimbawe
-
41
-
- 41
59 STI SIDIMEX TECNOLOGIAS DE INFORMACION SA DE CV Mexico
-
-
36
- 36
60 TFH Trust Fund Holding Zimbawe
-
28
2
- 30
61 UACH UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE CHIAPAS Chile
25
-
2
- 27
62 UAY UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE YUCATAN Mexico
-
-
67
- 67
63 UH UNIVERSITAT HOHENHEIM Germany
-
151
65
- 216
64 UOB UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA España
118
-
-
- 118
65 UOG UNIVERSITY OF GHANA GHANA
40
-
-
- 40
66 UOKN UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU NATAL. South Africa
45
-
-
- 45
67 UON UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI Kenya
60
-
-
- 60
68 UOZ UNIVERSITY OF ZIMBABWE Zimbawe
15
-
14
- 29
69 UR UAS RAICHUR India
-
27
-
- 27
70 USCG UNIVERSIDAD DE SAN CARLOS DE GUATEMALA GUATEMALA
25
-
-
- 25
71 VUOT VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Austria
121
-
-
- 121
72 WSCL WESTERN SEED COMPANY LIMITED Kenya
3
3
40
- 45
73 WSU WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY USA
35
-
-
- 35
74 WU WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY Holanda
134
-
-
- 134
75 WVU WORLD VISION UGANDA USA
35
-
-
- 35
76 ZARI ZAMBIA AGRICULTURE RESEARCH INSTITUTE Zimbawe
60
-
74
- 134
77 Others < $25 other (blank)
(35)
179
350
- 494
Total for CRP
3,084
4,234
2,528
- 9,847
Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 43
43
11. IITA
Actual Expenses - This Year
Item Institute Acronym
Institute Name Country
Windows 1 & 2
Window 3
Bilateral Center Funds
TOTAL
1 IFPRI
USA
-
-
518
518
2 CIMMYT
USA
-
6
180
186
3 AFRICARICE
USA
-
-
168
168
4 ICIPE
USA
-
-
160
160
5 IER
USA
-
80
27
107
6 FMARD
USA
-
-
76
76
7 IITA
USA
2
15
56
73
8 CRI
USA
-
31
41
72
9 INRAB
USA
-
64
0
64
10 IAR
USA
-
59
3
61
11 SARI
USA
-
51
7
58
12 Others < $25 other (blank)
5
70
141
215
Total for CRP
7
375
1,375
- 1,758