CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 1

Transcription

1 CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 1

2 Acknowledgments The development and submission of this proposal benefited from the contributions of Abdoul Aziz Niane (ICARDA), Alastair Orr (ICRISAT), Alpha Y. Kamara (IITA), Andrew Hall (CSIRO), Andrew Noble (ICARDA), Anthony Whitbread (ICRISAT), Arega Alene (IITA), Bussie Maziya Dixon (IITA), David Bergvinson (ICRISAT), Dave Harris (ICRAF), Devra Jarvis (Bioversity), Dietmar Stoian (Bioversity), Enrico Bonaiuti (CRP DS), Eric Manyasa (ICRISAT), Esther Njuguna-Mungai (ICRISAT), Fabrice de Clerck (Bioversity), Ian Makin (IWMI), Ingrid Oborn (ICRAF), Janila Pasupuleti (ICRISAT), Jennifer Kelly (CSIRO), Joanna Kane-Potaka (ICRISAT), Kai Mausch (ICRISAT), Karl Hughes (ICRAF), Kiran Sharma (ICRISAT), Manuele Tamo (IITA), Nedumaran S (ICRISAT), Ousmane Boukar (IITA), Patrick Okori (ICRISAT), Pauline Chivenge (ICRISAT), Peter Carberry (ICRISAT), Peter Thorne (ILRI), Pooran Gaur (ICRISAT), Quang Bao Le (CRP DS), Rajeev Gupta (ICRISAT), Rajesh Agrawal (ICRISAT), Ramesh PS Verma (ICARDA), Ram Dhulipala (ICRISAT), Ravi Kota (ICRISAT), Richard Thomas (CRP DS), Satish Nagaraji (CRPs DC, GL), Shiv Kumar Agrawal (ICARDA), Shoba Sivasankar (CRPs DC, GL), Sika Gbegbelegbe (IITA), Sridhar Ch. (ICRISAT), Stefania Grando (ICRISAT), Stephan Weise (Bioversity), Steve Beebe (CIAT), Tamo Manuele (IITA),Thomas Falk (ICRISAT), Uttam Kumar Deb, Victor Manyong (IITA), Vinay Nangia (ICARDA), Vincent Vadez (ICRISAT) and Yonnelle D Moukoumbi (IITA). Other CGIAR scientists and collaborators from partner organizations also contributed throughout. Dr Thomas Walker (independent researcher) contributed analyses used in the prioritization exercise. Consultants from ActKnowledge Inc. reviewed the development and finalization of the GLDC Theory of Change. The document also benefited from inputs provided by the DGs and DDGs of participating Centers in GLDC, the ICRISAT Governing Board, the Independent Steering Committees of CRPs DC, GL and DS, and the CGIAR System Management Office. Production was supported by the ICRISAT team of Amit Chakravarty, Anjana Anna John, Aruna V, Jemima Margaret, Meeravali SK, Murali Krishna Gumma, Shashikanth Reddy, Satish Nagaraji, Vengal Reddy CH and Vidya R. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 2

3 Table of Contents Acknowledgments... 2 Table of Contents... 3 CGIAR Research Program (CRP) - Phase II Grain Legumes & Dryland Cereals (GLDC) Rationale and Scope Goals, objectives, targets Impact pathway and Theory of Change Gender Youth Program structure and Flagship projects Cross CRP collaboration and site integration Partnerships and comparative advantage Evidence of demand and stakeholder commitment Capacity development Program management and governance Intellectual asset management Open access management Communication strategy Risk management CRP Budget Narrative Flagship-Level Uplift Budget Scenario SECTION 2: FLAGSHIPS FLAGSHIP PROGRAM 1 (FP1): PRIORITY SETTING & IMPACT ACCELERATION FP1.1 Rationale & Scope FP1.2 Objectives & Targets FP1.3 Impact pathway and Theory of Change FP1.4 Science quality FP1.5 Lessons learned and unintended consequences FP1.6 Clusters of Activities (CoA) FP1.7 Partnerships FP1.8 Climate change FP1.9 Gender FP1.10 Capacity development FP1.11 FP management FP1.12 Intellectual asset and open access management CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 3

4 FP1.13 Flagship Budget Narrative FLAGSHIP PROGAM 2 (FP2): FUNCTIONAL AGRIFOOD SYSTEMS FP2.1 Rationale and scope FP2.2 Objectives and targets FP2.3 Impact pathway and Theory of Change FP2.4 Science quality FP2.5 Lessons learnt and unintended consequences FP2.6 Clusters of Activity (CoA) FP2.7 Partnerships FP2.8 Climate change FP2.9 Gender FP2.10 Capacity development FP2.11 Intellectual asset and open access management FP2.12 FP management FP2.13 Flagship Budget Narrative FLAGSHIP PROGRAM 3 (FP3): INTEGRATED FARM AND HOUSEHOLD MANAGEMENT FP3.1 Rationale and scope FP3.2 Objectives and targets FP3.3 Impact pathway and Theory of Change FP3.4 Science quality FP3.5 Lessons learned and unintended consequences FP3.6 Clusters of Activities (CoA) FP3.7 Partnerships FP3.8 Climate change FP3.9 Gender FP3.10 Capacity development FP3.11 Intellectual asset and open access management FP3.12 FP management FLAGSHIP PROGRAM 4 (FP4): VARIETY & HYBRID DEVELOPMENT FP4.1 Rationale and Scope FP4.2 Objectives and targets FP4.3 Impact pathway and Theory of Change FP4.4 Science quality FP4.5 Lessons learned and unintended consequences: FP4.6 Clusters of Activities (CoA) FP4.7 Partnerships FP4.8 Climate change CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 4

5 FP4.9 Gender FP4.10 Capacity Development FP4.11 Intellectual Asset and Open Access Management FP4.12 FP Management FP4.13 Flagship Budget Narrative FLAGSHIP PROGRAM 5 (FP5): PRE-BREEDING & TRAIT DISCOVERY FP5.1 Rationale and scope FP5.2 Objectives and targets FP5.3 Impact pathway and Theory of Change FP5.4 Science quality FP5.5 Lessons learned and unintended consequences FP5.6 Clusters of Activities (CoA) FP5.7 Partnerships FP5.8 Climate Change FP5.9 Gender FP5.10 Capacity development FP5.11 Intellectual asset and open access management FP5.12 FP management FP5.13 Flagship Budget Narrative CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 5

6 CGIAR Research Program (CRP) - Phase II Grain Legumes & Dryland Cereals (GLDC) 1.1 Rationale and Scope Overview Let s turn agriculture into a business Dr Akinwumi Adesina, President Africa Development Bank 1 Turning agriculture into a business is easily said, difficult to do in the context of smallholder agrifood systems. The reality is that agriculture as a business is highly aspirational for many poor smallholder farmers because the agrifood systems in which they farm function poorly and the incentives for investment are low due to the high risks. In much of the smallholder agriculture in sub-saharan Africa and South Asia, agricultural production and food systems are underperforming; the livelihoods of over 300 million poor people who live in these regions are not improving; and the current and projected impacts of climate change are most acutely borne (ISPC, 2015). The overarching logic of the Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals (GLDC) CRP is that improved capacities of agrifood systems of key cereal and legume crops will enable coherent production, market and policy innovations that deliver resilience, inclusion, poverty reduction, nutritional security and economic growth. An agrifood system includes women and men farmers and their farming and livelihood system, businesses and markets, policy makers and policies including regulation and incentives, investments in infrastructure, education and research and organizational policies that shape how business, research and policy-making is practiced (Box 1). A high level organizing principle for GLDC is that targeted agrifood systems cover the full continuum from: a) Subsistence agriculture, where farmers produce and consume on farm, selling and buying locally in good and poor seasons; through to b) Commercial agriculture, where commodities are produced for specific end-markets. This coverage of agrifood systems allows GLDC research to deliver both resilience in food and nutritional security and opportunities for market-oriented development for smallholder farmers. Beyond the major global commodities of rice, wheat and maize, there are cereal and grain legume crops sorghum, pearl millet, barley, chickpea, common bean, cowpea, groundnut and pigeonpea that are important in the food systems of developing countries. These crops are found in shared, but also different, agro-ecologies and farming systems. However, in contrast to the major commodities, these important crops all share the same constraints of underdeveloped agrifood systems due to inadequate support and investment by the public and private sectors. They also share their multiple values in agrifood systems as nutritious and resilient food for local consumption and as traded commodities, or as feed and fodder for livestock, and in their particular importance for women farmers and consumers. 1 Opening keynote address to the 7 th Africa Agriculture Science Week and FARA General Assembly, Kigali, Rwanda, 13 th June CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 6

7 Grain legume and dryland cereal crops are critical to delivering on the Strategy and Results Framework (SRF ) and its objectives of reduced poverty and improved food security, nutritional security for health, and improved natural resource systems and ecosystems services. Technological advances in the form of new and better performing varieties, agronomy and farming system improvements and the development of novel value-added products could contribute significantly to livelihoods and farming systems. However, the key to unlocking this opportunity is the common set of institutional and policy issues that restrict the development of effective agrifood systems as a whole. While component technologies are an essential ingredient in progress, there is a wider system problem that needs addressing. This reframing of crop improvement and farming systems research opens up new research enquiries that explore and progress the functioning and dynamics of the agrifood system in ways that create the demand for technology and create the conditions for its adoption and use (Box 1). The arguments for the Phase I Grain Legume and Dryland Cereal CRPs were that there are real synergies in upstream science across the grain legumes and across the dryland cereals that enable efficiencies in variety development. This is likely so; but more importantly for Phase II GLDC, there are the real synergies in downstream demand-responsive research to find and develop the priorities, opportunities and niches for these crops to build functional agricultural value chains (Box 2). The linkage between the downstream demand-responsive research and the upstream science is common among these crops; success in one commodity can inform opportunities for the others (Box 3). Solutions for tackling poverty and increasing resilience through the CGIAR s traditional strengths of crop improvement science and farming systems research are likely to be found at the interface and in the dynamic interplay of production systems with the wider market and policy dimensions of the agrifood systems in which production is located. Framing research in this way offers the opportunity to link crop improvement-facing research with livelihood-, market- and policy development-facing research (now evident in GLDC Flagship Programs). The purposeful intent to make these linkages happen in agrifood systems based on priority grain legumes and dryland cereals represents the radical rethink demanded from Phase II CRPs. GLDC accepts Dr Adesina and the Africa Development Bank s challenging call 2 for partnership in supporting smallholder agriculture, based on priority grain legumes and dryland cereals, through more functional agrifood systems that improve the livelihoods of poor women, men and youth. We must put people at the very heart of development Dr Akinwumi Adesina 3 2 The AfDB strategy Feed Africa: Strategy for agricultural transformation in Africa can be sourced at _Strategy_for_Agricultural_Transformation_in_Africa_ pdf. 3 Extract from interview, 4 th Jan CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 7

8 Box 1: A definition of an Agrifood System and its relation to GLDC research Definitions: An Agrifood System represents the agricultural value chain as well as the broader environment in which it operates. The Agricultural Value Chain represents the activities from farming to consumption, including all inputs and outputs along the chain. The broader environment includes the social, political, environmental, economic, legal and technology factors at play. A prominent narrative for the CGIAR is to see increased productivity through effective use of genetic resources as a key pathway to poverty reduction (CGIAR SRF The Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals CRP, while certainly encompassing this pathway, starts at a different point-of-entry. For GLDC, the entry-points for research are the needs of targeted agrifood systems to overcome barriers to meeting market demands in the agrifood systems of key cereal and legume crops. In the diagram, the analyzed need of these agrifood systems, that drive research planning, is represented by the top orange quadrant (Flagship Program FP1). Through strategic partnerships, the requirements for Building Agribusinesses and Diversified Diets (blue quadrants) will provide sector intelligence and opportunities for innovation systems research interventions (FP2). These analyses and innovation systems engagements can inform and direct the more traditional commodity improvement (FP4, FP5) and farming systems (FP3) research that leads to Resilience and Sustainable Intensification outcomes (green quadrants). CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 8

9 Box 2: Agrifood systems of grain legumes and dryland cereals While the crops covered by GLDC are generally not considered highly commercial for farmers, they serve important roles in the farming portfolio as well as for the food and nutritional security of farming households (Gourichon, 2013; Larochelle et al., 2015; Katungi et al., 2016). A common driving force linked to the less commercial status of these crops remains the lack of output markets. The crops are grown in relatively risky and harsh environments by resourceconstrained farmers, without well-functioning mechanisms to facilitate the adoption of productivity-enhancing purchased inputs such as high quality improved seed, fertilizers or pesticides (Gourichon, 2013; Hamazakaza et al., 2015; Letaa et al., 2015; Larochelle et al., 2015; Yetagesu et al., forthcoming). Those regions or communities with high demand, with good market access and attractive prices for farm produce, have witnessed soaring adoption rates. This is the case for crop and country combinations like chickpea and common beans in Ethiopia (see Verkaart et al., 2014; Macharia et al., 2013; Katungi et al., 2011), pigeonpea and common beans in Tanzania (Dalton and Regier, 2013; Letaa et al., 2015; Larochelle et al., 2015), common beans in Rwanda and Uganda (Letaa et al., 2015; Larochelle et al., 2015), chickpea in India (Bantilan et al., 2014) and, though short-lived, sorghum in Kenya (Orr et al., 2014). The link to markets and the need to align to market and consumer demand is a key driver of success. The results for dryland cereal crops have highlighted the benefits of sharpening the focus of research interventions based on differences in demand across target countries (Cheng and Larochelle, 2016; Gierend and Orr, 2015). For instance, while the demand for sorghum across Ethiopia is steadily growing, Tanzania shows stagnant trends and the consumption is mainly satisfying food security targets. These contrasting cases point towards different research targets that must be considered in program development (Gierend and Orr, 2015). The change in focus to market demand has also highlighted the need to work closely with all stakeholders in the agrifood system due to their influence over the success or failure of the system as a whole. The lack of consumer demand for millets in India led to farmers facing relatively lower prices compared to other cereals. This situation offered little incentive to grow this healthier staple food option, with prices just covering production costs (Nagaraj et al., 2011). Reduced tax burdens for sorghum beer in Kenya promoted the industry and enabled farmers to benefit from increased demand; while the reversal of the policy a few years later had the opposite effect (Orr et al., 2014). African groundnut exports to European markets have suffered due to stringent quality standards. However, CGIAR support for national bodies and large-scale training programs have shown how to overcome this constraint and, consequently, Malawi has regained its position as a supplier of groundnut to Europe with higher prices paid to producers of good quality groundnuts (Tsusaka et al., 2016). Groundnut in India, considered an oilseed, faces challenges as the crushing industry has to remain competitive on the international market, the consequence of which is consistently low producer prices (Birthal et al., 2010). Policy makers have to strike a balance between the diverging interests of producers, processors and consumers (FAO, 2005). In Ethiopia, favourable export and market policies have encouraged adoption of productivity-enhancing management practices such as fertilizer, double-weeding and row planting for beans (Rubyogo et al., 2011). In contrast, value chains for sorghum in Nigeria are poorly developed as produce is mainly used for home consumption and international trade is often banned. However, sorghum is also considered a key crop in Nigeria s Agriculture Transformation Action Plan which will likely see it gaining policy support (Gourichon 2013). While the lack of market linkages or policy support are critical constraints, in some cases, low adoption of improved varieties may reflect lack of demand where improved varieties may be higher-yielding, but they do not meet farmers other trait preferences (Orr et al., 2015a; GFA, 2014; Katungi et al., 2015; Letaa et al., 2015). To accommodate what is happening in target agrifood systems, GLDC research must be driven by priority setting and demand analysis. Also by what is the current knowledge on what makes smallholder agriculture in the semi-arid tropics more profitable and resilient (Orr and Mausch, 2014). CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 9

10 Box 3: Example of research supporting market-led innovation pigeonpea in Tanzania. Improved varieties of pigeonpea adopted on 25,000 hectares in northern Tanzania have tripled yields and created a thriving export market, producing an additional 1.3 tons per hectare or 33,000 extra tons delivering approximately US$ 33 million in extra value to smallholder farmers. The increasing availability of improved varieties, along with institutional support, has enabled farmers to reduce the cost of product marketing, spurring commercialization of the crop (Dalton and Regier, 2013). Farmers traditionally grew small-seeded, longduration varieties that failed to meet market requirements. Also, the farmer-market linkages were underdeveloped. Demand was for cream-colored, large-seeded, disease-resistant varieties for export. Photo: Philemon Mushi, Farmers harvest bumper yields of pigeonpea in Tanzania. Research organizations worked on developing varieties demanded by the market while the extension system trained farmers in high quality seed multiplication. Recognizing the huge demand for improved seeds, local agro-dealers contracted trained farmers to multiply high quality seeds. Farmers have been organized into producer marketing groups through which the commercial produce is sold. Large traders are involved in buying grain for export to India and Europe, and in 2010 about 76,000 tons were exported. This collective action enabled smallholder farmers to sell quality grain at higher prices. The farm gate price of quality pigeonpea grain has increased from Tsh 20 per kg ($0.01) in 2000 to Tsh 800 per kg ($0.37) at present. The key scientific enabler for this breakthrough was development of high-yielding, slightly early-maturing, creamcolored, large-seeded and fusarium wilt-resistant varieties developed by Department of Research and Development under the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Tanzania in collaboration with ICRISAT. Investors: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation; USAID-Feed the Future and Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). Why these cereals and legumes? Throughout the formulation of this Phase II proposal, the focus was on more informative priority setting to select the priority crops from those 12 legume and cereal crops covered by the Phase I CRPs GL and DC namely, sorghum, pearl millet, finger millet, barley, chickpea, common bean, cowpea, fababean, groundnut, lentil, pigeonpea and soybean. Consequently, the determination of the composition of GLDC s proposed crop portfolio involved several dimensions and was guided by analyses led by Dr Thomas S Walker (now consultant; ex-icrisat economist). Firstly, the target countries for GLDC were selected based on (1) area, production, and productivity of the prioritized commodity crops, (2) poverty, (3) malnutrition, (4) drought probability, (5) better enabling environment, and (5) CGIAR site integration nominations (Hyman et al., 2016). Selected countries are divided into two tiers: (i) direct target countries and (ii) spill-over countries. Spill-overs are hubs for small groups of countries with shared agro-ecologies or enabling environment that provide a critical mass when combined for CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 10

11 delivering on the SLOs. The target countries for the program are presented in Table 1, with identification of countries for cross-cgiar site integration efforts, and they are shown in Figure 1. Table 1: GLDC Target and Spill-over Countries Target Countries Burkina Faso + Ethiopia ++ India + Spill-over Countries Benin Columbia* Eritrea Kenya + Ghana + Malawi + Mali + Morocco* Mozambique + Guatemala* Honduras Kazakhstan* Myanmar* Niger + Nepal + Nigeria ++ Nicaragua ++ Senegal Turkey* Sudan Rwanda + Tanzania ++ Vietnam* ++ Uganda + CGIAR Site Integration ++ and + counties; * not Low-Income Food-Deficit Country (LIFDC) Zimbabwe Zambia + The second step involved undertaking a simple congruence analysis on the economic importance of each of the 12 crops in the target and spill-over countries. Congruence is a normative criterion that says that research investment should be roughly proportional to the economic importance of the crop or activity to maximize the potential impact of research (Arndt and Ruttan, 1977). Departures from congruence reflect the importance of other criteria related to desirability or to technical feasibility (Alston et al. 1995; Walker and Collion, 1996). Several of those criteria will be thoroughly examined in 2017 when GLDC conducts a detailed priority-setting exercise patterned after CRP RTB s pioneering work in this area. However, it is worth noting that different criteria do not necessarily yield markedly different results in priority setting. For instance, economic congruence and poverty reduction criteria have given very similar crop-wise, research-resource allocations for small and medium-sized farm households in Mozambique (Walker et al., 2006). CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 11

12 Figure 1: Global map showing target and spill-over countries Table 2. Relative economic importance of the proposed GLDC crops in 2014 in the target countries of production Rank Crop No. of countries grown Value of production (US$ million) Percent share of value of production 1 Groundnut 10 10, Sorghum 8 9, Chickpea 6 7, Pearl Millet 8 7, Pigeonpea 6 3, Common Bean 6 3, Cowpea 8 2, Barley 3 1, Finger Millet 4 1, Lentil 3 1, Faba bean Cumulative 12 Soybean TOTAL 71 48, Across 71 crop by target country observations, chickpea in India was characterized by the highest value of production in Other observations that ranked in the top 10 were groundnut, pearl millet, pigeonpea, and sorghum in India, groundnut and sorghum in Nigeria, sorghum in the Sudan and Ethiopia, and pearl millet CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 12

13 in Niger (Table 2). This ranking among the highest valued observations was expected, but, somewhat surprisingly, groundnut s value of production was higher than any of the other 12 crops. It exceeded $10 billion in 2014 and was characterized by a value share of 22%. The importance of groundnut as the leading crop reinforces the need for an innovative and active seed program as scarce planting material can be a binding constraint to varietal change. Total value of production across the 12 crops is greater in sub-saharan Africa (54%) than in South Asia (44%). With 27% share each, value of production is evenly split between West and Central Africa and Eastern and Southern Africa. Value of production in the target crop by country observations approaches $50 billion. It is about eight times greater than the total for the 44 spill-over crop by country observations (Table 3). Seven crops account for 90% of the value of production in the countries of primary interest. Of the other five, barley warrants inclusion in the GLDC portfolio because of the sustained progress made in Ethiopia, the dominant target country of interest, and because its spill-over potential is larger than any other crop. Between 1998 and 2010, the use of improved varieties of barley in Ethiopia increased from 10 to 35%. Farmers have adopted both improved food and malting barleys. The inclusion of the four lowest ranking crops in GLDC is problematic. Strictly speaking, the estimates in Table 2 imply that about 93% of the potential for economic impact can be obtained with support for the top eightranking crops in the GLDC portfolio. Table 3: Relative economic importance of the proposed GLDC crops in 2014 in the spill-over counties of production Rank Crop No. of countries grown Value of production (US$ Million) 1 Barley Common Bean Percent Share Groundnut Chickpea Lentil Pigeonpea Sorghum Faba bean Pearl Millet Soybean Finger Millet Cowpea TOTAL CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 13

14 What drives the results of any congruence analysis of economic importance is the extent of the activity or the area of the crop. These results are no exception. The simple correlation coefficient between value of production and area harvested is Among the four lowest ranking crops in Table 3, only finger millet slightly exceeds an area of 2 million hectares; fababean is planted on only 0.7 million hectares. At the other end of the spectrum, sorghum, pearl millet, groundnut, chickpea, and cowpea are cultivated on more than 10 million ha with sorghum, at 25 million ha, being the most extensively grown crop. The prospects for area expansion of soybean in sub-saharan Africa seems brighter than for lentil, finger millet, or fababean in their respective target countries. The demand for lentil is strong, but Australia has emerged as a dominant international producer. Finger millet is characterized by a strong upward trend in productivity in India that has more than offset declining area. In Eastern and Southern Africa, finger millet is not internationally traded. The uptake of technology in fababean has been very slow in Ethiopia (Yigezu et al., 2015), the most important producer among the few target countries that cultivate the crop. In contrast, soybean s profile is more dynamic, punctuated by the rapid acceptance of improved, but increasingly old, varieties and increased plant populations. Most countries will continue to be net importers of soybean in the medium-term future which has fuelled the interest of national governments in the crop. Soybean s versatility underlies its expansion in almost all global regions where field crops are grown. Since the early 2000s, several countries have doubled and tripled area and production from a very small base (Smart and Hanlon, 2013), but surpassing a 2 million hectare milestone by 2022 is not guaranteed in sub-saharan Africa. This simple analysis of value of production also generates a few other minor implications. First, with the focus on eight crops, the congruence between the commodity and the farming systems portfolios in dryland agriculture improves marginally. For example, fababean production in the Sudan is located in the irrigated lowlands. About a third of soybean production in sub-saharan Africa takes place in the wet sub-humid tropics and sub-tropics (Walker, 2016). Secondly, the number of target countries declines from 15 to 14 because Zambia is not a priority country for any of the eight top-ranking crops in Table 1. Lastly, about a third of the spill-over crop by country observations do not have sufficient production (at least 15,000 tons) to maintain a viable crop improvement program (Brennan, 1992). Spill-overs are unlikely if size-of-program considerations do not warrant a sustained investment in crop improvement. Regional and ecological focus The CGIAR conducts research on the major food crops of the developing world, including the eight grain legume and dryland cereal crops identified through the GLDC prioritization process. The rationale for having these priority crops in one CRP is not due to their importance in a common agroecology or for keeping close species together for breeding synergies. The rationale for having coverage of prioritised crops is that they share the same institutional constraints in the search for functional agrifood systems that deliver both resilience in food security and opportunities for market-oriented development for smallholder farmers. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 14

15 Semi-arid, dryland ecologies are where most of these crops are grown and so these ecologies will be where much of GLDC research is implemented. However, attention on the drylands is a consequence, not a driver, of the objective to overcome institutional barriers to functional agrifood systems. That said, the dryland regions, and the women, men and youth who depend on the local agriculture, do represent the hot-spots calling out for the CGIAR and its partners to deliver on the aspirations of the SRF objectives of poverty reduction, food and nutritional security and resilient farming systems. Nowhere else are these grand challenges more acute than the dryland cereal-legume agrifood systems of sub-saharan Africa and South Asia. Drylands cover roughly 40% of the world s land area and are most extensive in Africa and Asia (FAO, 2008). They are home to 2 billion people, with 50% of this population living in poverty and 90% living in developing nations. Half of the inhabitants in the drylands depend directly on rainfed or irrigated farming and pastoralism. The semi-arid and sub-humid dryland regions include, respectively, 35% and 47% cultivated land, and 54% and 34% rangeland. Drylands thus provide much of the world s grain and livestock (ISPC, 2015). The primary challenges of the drylands of developing nations are widespread poverty, hunger and malnutrition occurring together with water scarcity, land degradation and gender inequality (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). The effects of climate change will lead to even more water scarcity and declining crop yields, leaving the people of these regions excessively vulnerable in the absence of appropriate risk management strategies. The extent and importance of drylands in relation to the SLOs are indicated in Table 4. Agricultural research efforts of the CGIAR have predominantly focused on the semi-arid and sub-humid regions that share the greatest proportion of the population, highest malnutrition rates and lowest levels of human well-being. The new SRF of the CGIAR recognizes the need for research investment in areas where the CGIAR has a competitive advantage in geographies which are poverty hotspots and upholds agrifood system research as an effective investment to end poverty and hunger (CGIAR, 2015). While the inherent complexity of the drylands requires an integrated systems approach, the immense diversity and magnitude of the issues and challenges call for a strategic approach with realistic prioritization for steady impact. The eight crops prioritized by GLDC, however, are not all grown exclusively in semi-arid dryland agriculture. Grain legumes are grown extensively in maize intercrops in the humid tropics of Africa and in rotation with rice in South Asia. Common bean, grown mostly in the humid-tropics, is the most important food legume in Eastern and Southern Africa and thus makes a major contribution to the SLO on food security and nutrition in this priority sub-region. Dryland and irrigated wheat producers also grow barley across a range of agroecosystems. Regardless, wherever these eight crops are produced and ultimately used within the priority regions for this CRP, they share the common constraints against and opportunities for entering relevant agricultural value chains. GLDC will conduct relevant and prioritised research to deliver on its ambition to improve the capacity of the agrifood systems of the selected cereal and legume crops to help deliver the SRF objectives of reduced poverty and improved food security, nutritional security for health, improved natural resource systems and ecosystems services. Grain legumes, particularly, are grown in a range of configurations and production systems and so, in terms of the full CRP portfolio, there is clearly close connections of GLDC to the on-farm research being undertaken in CRPs RICE, WHEAT, MAIZE, AND ROOTS, Tubers & Bananas. A guiding principle is that these CRPs have CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 15

16 responsibility for the farming systems research on how legumes are managed in combination with their dominant crops. This principle is an agreed arrangement with these CRPs. It is crucial, however, that breeding priorities for GLDC crops grown in these dominant systems are fed back into GLDC research priorities. Table 4: Global importance of the drylands (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) Dryland Type Aridity index * Share of global area (%) Share of global population (%) % Rangeland % Cultivated % Other (incl. urban) Hyper-arid < Arid Semi-arid Sub -humid Total *Aridity index is a measure of the ratio between average annual precipitation and total annual potential evapotranspiration Strategic and scientific rationale An overriding hypothesis for GLDC is the contention that poor women, men and young farmers in target regions can produce, consume and, critically, benefit from selling their cereal and legume commodities into increasingly functional, diverse and emerging agricultural value chains. Supporting this hypothesis, there are five research imperatives that provide feasible paths to impact for GLDC research investment. Critically, how to explicitly manage for the serious risks of smallholder agrifood systems is the essential first research imperative. These risks are not just climate-related and projected, although climate change will be unfavorable in most target ecologies, but are risks encountered in the everyday lives of people today. Real and perceived downside risks are the major disincentive to the investment required by farmers and value chain investors in the agrifood systems. These risks must be recognized, disaggregated into those that are manageable and unmanageable, and risk-mitigating practices, tools and policies made available along the full agrifood system. The CGIAR has a long and successful history of crop improvement for the main cereal and grain legume commodity crops. New varieties, with embedded resistance to biotic threats and increased tolerance to abiotic stresses, have led the increase in the attainable production (output-input) and efficiency (return-risk) frontiers of smallholder agriculture. The second differentiating, research imperative is to maintain increased technical change through the continued delivery of improved germplasm for current and emerging markets. Nutrient-rich dryland cereals and the grain legumes, in particular, are increasingly important with the recognition that both food and nutritional security are essential for development. Livestock (large and small ruminants, poultry, pigs, cavies) remain the livelihood backbone of risky smallholder agriculture. However, if smallholders are to intensify, they need to regard their livestock as more than a livelihood strategy and invest in livestock as an enterprise, with animals bred, fattened and sold into emerging agrifood value chains. Likewise, tree crops can be valuable components of dryland production systems, CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 16

17 especially if they are multi-purpose providing food, fodder, fuelwood and as potential fertilizers via nitrogen fixation and cycling. Integrated, mixed, multi-enterprise landuse systems are a distinguishing, risk-mitigation characteristic of smallholder agriculture and thus how to enhance grain legume and dryland cereal contributions to and interactions within smallholder livelihoods is a third differentiating, research imperative (Box 4). Box 4: Feeding the Sahel's livestock to meet West Africa's growing demand for meat The current and future accelerating demand growth for red meat in West Africa is evident now, although with warnings that the capacity of these value chains for ruminant livestock to respond is likely constrained by feed and forage resources (Hollinger and Staatz, 2015). Over 90 million smallholder farmers keep livestock in West Africa, 80% of whom are in the mixed crop-livestock / agropastoral systems that are, and will remain, the main producers of ruminant products to 2050 (Thornton, 2010). For smallholder farmers to capture the demand opportunity in West Africa, it is clear that the croplands must provide the feed resources to deliver the required increased livestock production. While farmers will not forsake their staple food production of millet, sorghum and cowpea, these same croplands of the Sahel/Sudan must also produce feed for market-oriented livestock enterprises e.g. residues of cereal and legume crops, bred specifically for high quality stover; intercropped dual-purpose cowpeas; excess sorghum and millet grain fed in feedlots. Meeting the market-pull opportunity for producing meat in West Africa is clearly a crop-livestock-markets-systems issue. Making this integration work is the comparative strength and contribution of the CGIAR and must be a priority for cross-crp linkages. Research on animal genetics, health and livestock value chains undertaken in CRP-Livestock must be integrated with the research in CRP-GLDC where the feed and forage attributes of grain legume and cereal varieties are bred and where the farming system integration of crops and livestock in the Sahel are managed. West Africa's growing demand for red meat can be met by better utilizing cropland resources and the available feed and forage technologies produced in the mixed crop-livestock systems of the Sahel/Sudan zone. In an agrifood system context, one cannot ignore the environmental, social, governance, institutional capacity, gender and alternative livelihood aspects addressed by systems research approaches. Systems research duly considers the full income-generating elements of production systems, investment opportunities, externalities and trade-offs, non-linearity and tipping points in the relationships among the social, natural, economic and production environments. These considerations are vital for vulnerable smallholder communities and must be addressed if the potential impacts of donor and government funding are to be delivered. Two pathways to improve livelihoods in the risky agrifood systems of Africa and South Asia can be envisaged: 1) for marginal, low resource-endowed areas, smallholders need to mitigate their vulnerability to risks and seek resilience in their agricultural investments; whereas 2) many smallholders do have the potential to sustainably intensify agricultural production. Hence, a fourth research imperative is to provide clear identification of how the two pathways of sustainable intensification and establishing resilience can lead to the SLOs. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 17

18 System Level Outcomes Reduced poverty; improved food, nutrition, health Box 5: A return-risk framing of the strategic and scientific rationale for GLDC agrifood system Grain legumes Dryland cereals Current smallholder systems livestock trees Risk Investment by smallholders, agribusiness, markets A return-risk framing draws on the economic field of decision-making under uncertainty (Anderson et al., 1977), and alternatively the framings of production functions (Dillon, 1977) or econometrics (O Donnell, 2010). For any system, expected outcomes or returns over a range of investment levels can be assessed against an estimate of their risk, commonly measured in terms of variability, variance or down-side risk (frequency of not achieving a livelihood requirement). This framing elicits an efficiency frontier of outermost points where expected returns can be maximized for any accepted level of risk. A return-risk framing provides a thematic representation of the strategic and scientific rationale of GLDC. The SLOs of reduced poverty, improved food, nutrition and health of the poor women, men and youth in farming communities, and improved natural resources of Africa and Asia are the expected returns from the research investment. Interventions to achieve these benefits must be assessed through a primary consideration of risk (research imperative #1). In the resultant return-risk space, most smallholder farmers are inefficient, situated well below the attainable efficiency frontiers that are continually being pushed outwards through innovation, and particularly through the improvement in adapted germplasm (research imperative #2). Mixed tree-livestock-cereallegume systems provide multiple enterprise-level efficiency frontiers and this diversification can help offset the associated risks (research imperative #3). Two paths are suggested for moving currently inefficient smallholder farmers closer to their attainable efficiency frontiers: through sustainable intensification (up and slightly right) or establishing resilience (slightly up and left) (research imperative #4). The to-be-tested hypothesis is that demand-driven innovations can establish new agrifood system services that enhance system efficiencies in this framing (research imperative #5). The GLDC hypothesis contends that agrifood value chains in the smallholder systems of Africa can be transformed from underperforming to functioning through research that breeds reliable, nutritious and marketable commodities, that provides risk-management practices and tools for all sectors of the value chain, that brokers relationships where women and youth are equitably included, and that delivers mutual benefits from investment in value chain services. Innovative delivery systems, connecting to market demand, CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 18

19 leveraging the ICT revolution and emerging public-private partnerships have re-kindled the prospects of this impact pathway for agrifood systems of Africa and South Asia. Establishing whether demand-driven innovations can be leveraged in creating new and inclusive agrifood system services and policies is the fifth and overarching research imperative of GLDC. While acknowledging that such services must be offered by the private sector the history of public-initiated services in agriculture is disappointing research can contribute through the offer of real-time quantification of production risks, contemporary forecasting tools, contextualized value chain models and prototype ICT applications which can enhance business plans and hopefully actualize viable private sector services. These five imperatives for research investment provide feasible paths to achieving purposeful changes that can improve the livelihoods of poor women, men and youth (Box 5). Box 6: Agricultural Innovation Systems Research The evolution of agricultural systems research has seen the purposeful shift from research stations onto farms (Farming Systems Research), has sought greater farmer involvement in research design and implementation (Farmer Participatory Research), has recognized farming families have multiple strategies for their investment (Livelihood Systems Research), while all along drawing from the broader systems thinking being developed in other activity systems such as the business (Soft Systems Research) and education (Action Research) domains. Agricultural Innovation Systems Research (Hall et al., 2003) is argued as being a useful evolutionary step in systems research because it shifts the prospect of innovation, that leads to beneficial change for farmer beneficiaries, from a focus on the farm to wherever in the agricultural value chain where new practices of economic and social gain can be augmented by formal research. Through engagement of stakeholders from context-specific value chains (e.g. through Innovation Platforms), mutual benefits may be sought amongst participants, whether on farm, in services, within markets and/or through policy regimes. The research role can encompass facilitation and brokering the engagements, in providing science knowledge/tools/models that stimulate options and quantify their consequences, in resourcing the trials of interest within the value chain, and in supporting learning from these research and scale-out investments. CGIAR comparative strengths The CGIAR has over 40 years of research experience for the major food crops of the developing world, including the eight grain legume and dryland cereal crops identified through GLDC s prioritisation process. The CGIAR is responsible for the genetic resources, pre-breeding and crop improvement for these crops and well supports national breeding programs world-wide. Research on crop improvement and farming systems is a traditional strength of the CGIAR and is well covered in the GLDC teams. The case for CRP GLDC argues that agrifood systems are currently fragmented, lacking coordination and coherence with ineffective markets and policies. An integrated change is needed across the agrifood system so that technical, institutional and policy innovation is more responsive to the changing needs of women and men farmers and markets and has an integrated approach to creating new opportunities for technological change, market development and policy change. Do the CGIAR and its partners have the requisite research capabilities to lead and undertake the innovation systems research approach (Box 6) called for in this CRP? If not, then GLDC must invest in these capabilities if CGIAR research is to stay contemporary in helping resolve the complex issues demanded in the SRF. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 19

20 CRP GLDC has an assembled CGIAR team that both recognizes the research agenda being advocated and contains researchers who lead innovation systems research projects mapped to the CRP. Drawing on complementary skills from partners (e.g. NARS, CIRAD, CSIRO, etc.) will be critical to ensure successful implementation of the research. Early CRP investment will be to ensure capability gaps are filled to enable the essential innovation systems research to be undertaken. Recruitment for a GLDC Director will contain this essential requirement in the section criteria. 1.2 Goals, objectives, targets CRP Goal The overall goal of the Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals CRP is to concurrently achieve the outcomes of: i. Expanded, resilient and inclusive production, value addition, trading and consumption of grain ii. legumes and dryland cereals in target countries; and Improved capacity and inclusivity of agrifood system stakeholders to collaboratively develop innovations that respond to the needs of women, men and youth in GLDC-based livelihoods and value chains. These two end-of-program outcomes will contribute positively to the higher-order SRF outcomes of reduced poverty and improved food security, nutritional security for health, and improved natural resource systems and ecosystems services. Critical to the GLDC goal are the organizing concepts that define GLDC as a purposefully designed Agrifood System CGIAR Research Program (Box 7). Box 7: Organizing concepts for GLDC CRP The overarching logic is that improved capacity of the agrifood systems of key cereal and legume crops will enable coherent production, market and policy innovations that deliver resilience, inclusion, poverty reduction, nutritional security and economic growth. The organizing principle is that targeted agrifood systems cover the full continuum from subsistence agriculture through to commercial agriculture. The rationale for CRP coverage of prioritized crops is that they share the same institutional constraints in the search for functional agrifood systems that deliver both resilience in food security and opportunities for market-oriented development for smallholder farmers An overriding hypothesis is the contention that poor women, men and young farmers in target regions can produce, consume and, critically, benefit from selling their cereal and legume commodities into increasingly functional, diverse and emerging agricultural value chains. The overarching research imperative is to establish whether demand-driven innovations can be leveraged in creating new and inclusive agrifood system services and policies. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 20

21 Targets The GLDC targets that contribute to the SRF are presented in Table 5. A valid question to be asked is why be confident about this CRP realizing its contribution towards the three SLOs? What has changed? What is to be done differently? Has past learning been applied to realize these goals? As articulated in the Theory of Change, the CRP fully recognizes that these important grain legume and dryland cereal crops have underperforming markets. We also recognize that institutional, market and cultural barriers, such as women s equitable access to productive assets, have impeded these crops, many of which are considered women s crops, from realizing their full productivity and market potential. The need for action and our confidence that we will succeed in assisting over 8.4 million farmers (half of whom are women) to exit poverty (Table 5) is underpinned by support of Heads of State like Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi calling for a doubling of farmer incomes by 2022 and his call for pulse self-sufficiency at the same time. It also comes from African leaders such as Dr Akinwumi Adesina (President, AfDB) calling for agriculture as a business and willing to make strategic investments and loans to support the adoption of modern crop production technologies and infrastructure to support market integration in SSA. ICT is also a driver of change on both continents in realizing these goals by empowering farmers, especially women, with appropriate knowledge, inputs and market opportunities. Past investments in the CGIAR show what can happen when policy, technology and partnerships converge to accelerate adoption of profitable technologies by farmers Stress Tolerant Rice for Africa and Asia (STRASA) is a relevant example. The same approach that was used to scale STRASA technologies is being applied in GLDC. A similar scenario now exists in India for pulses as India strives to realize pulse self-sufficiency to dampen price volatility. India is now providing a minimum support price for pulses that gives farmers the confidence to invest in cultivating pulses; seed shortages are now seen as a business opportunity for small seed companies; and aggregators realize the value of providing processing and storage facilities given recent price spikes. Taken together, the enabling environment is now created for the rapid adoption of improved pulse varieties with enhanced drought tolerance and market traits for farmers to mitigate against the two major risks in India: monsoons and markets. With this sense of urgency from Heads of State and Agencies to enhance rural incomes, Governments are reviewing policies to fast-track variety releases e.g. one year of multi-location data for national release for single trait introductions into popular commercial varieties, as was done for rice in India. Further, they are embarking on rapid plans for scaling up access to improved technology to make pulse production profitable for over 12 million chickpea and pigeonpea farmers in India alone and emerging export opportunities for 4 million pulse producers in target countries in Africa. Similar demand is evolving for new uses of pearl millet and sorghum varieties for fodder in Asia and sub-saharan Africa. In Ethiopia, there is strong support to increase barley production to reduce import costs and to realize foreign exchange earnings through the export of common bean to Europe. Examples like these illustrate emerging market opportunities for GLDC crops that give confidence to farmers to invest in productivity-enhancing technology and inputs. These indicators taken together with production traits, such as drought and heat tolerance, will be key levers in helping overcome CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 21

22 barriers that have impeded investments in the past due to market and production risks for GLDC crops and empower them to climb out of poverty. There is also confidence that with increased investments to modernize crop improvement programs outlined in FP4 and FP5 that genetic gains of 1.8% per year are possible. We see that in some specific countries such as Ethiopia (chickpea and common bean) that gains of 2% are possible but not common to all GLDC crops. Realizing these gains will involve the entire value chain from prioritizing marker development based anticipated productivity gains or market access through quality traits (food, feed, fodder, fuel) through to seed systems that leverage the strengthens of the formal and informal sectors to accelerate distribution through to market pull created by aggregators, processors and consumers. The nutritional goals of assisting over 10.3 million (over 50% women) will be met given both the high protein level of legumes and the high levels of iron, zinc and folate in dryland cereals and the livestock they support (please refer to Table 2, Appendix 3.9 for grain nutrition of GLDC crops). It is important to note that most of the legumes are considered women s crops which will favor their adoption, production and consumption by women and their families. The CRP contribution to SLO3 is more modest, but significant, as we increase the financial incentives for farmers to invest in inputs through market integration. A proven technology that has reached over 400,000 farmers in the Sahel of Africa is micro-dosing in dryland cereal cropping systems. The legumes as companion crops to all the cereals will further increase soil health through nitrogen fixation a distinguishing feature of GLDC within the agrifood system portfolio. GLDC will work with N2Africa and other large initiatives to further enhance nitrogen fixation. Conservative estimates over current annual levels of nitrogen fix in residues that remain in the system for GLDC target countries is 27,500 tons of N by 2022 (assumes 25kg N/ton of legume residue + 30% for roots) (Unkovich et al., 1997). We recognize that biomass productivity must increase in the dryland ecologies to reverse the trends of degraded soils which is particularly challenging given the demand for fodder. With strong and strategic investments in farming systems that are incentivized by markets, farmers will invest in inputs that increase biomass that will translate into nearly 1 million tons of additional carbon as input into soils to increase soil organic matter and in turn increase soil health for sustainable farms in SSA and SA, especially for dry ecologies where land degradation is most acute. Value for money Cost per beneficiary (see Table 6 of Appendix 3.9) has been estimated based on weighted contributions across the five GLDC flagships for each SLO target. In the case of HH s adopting improved varieties, the cost is $15 per HH from the investment made in the GLDC CRP. However, this does not include the investments made by NARS and private sector breeding programs and seed systems that will be critical for scaling seed production and distribution within each target country (priority plus spillover countries). In the case of improved varieties, the estimated return on investment (ROI) by 2022 is 10:1. This is based on a 15% increase in productivity and discount factors for each target country and crop. This intervention will translate into an increase in value of production of $1.3B USD by 2022 over a baseline productivity growth estimated at 0.75%. Over time, the ROI will increase as new varieties released in partnership under GLDC enjoy wider adoption given their climatesmart and market-preferred traits as articulated in the GLDC ToC. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 22

23 Table 5: Calculated GLDC targets as contributions to the SRF Aspirational CGIAR and Partners' Description of GLDC GLDC Targets development targets for 2022 and 2030 Target Measure to Targets 2022 Targets 2030 contribute to SLO SLO 1 Reduce Poverty Base Scenario Uplift Budget SLO million farm households have adopted improved varieties, breeds or trees, and/or improved management practices 30 million people, of which 50% are women, assisted to exit poverty 350 million farm households have adopted improved varieties, breeds or trees, and/or improved management practices 100 million people, of which 50% are women, assisted to exit poverty Improved food and Nutrition Security for Health 2.1 Improve the rate of yield increase for major food staples from current <1% to %/year 30 million more people, of which 50% are women 2.2 meeting minimum dietary energy requirements 150 million more people, of which 50% are women, without deficiencies of one 2.3 or more of the following essential micronutrients: iron, zinc, iodine, vitamin A, folate and Vitamin B12 Improve the rate of yield increase for major food staples from current <2% to 2.5%/year 150 million more people, of which 50% are women meeting minimum dietary energy requirements 500 million more people, of which 50% are women, without deficiencies of one or more of the following essential micronutrients: iron, zinc, iodine, vitamin A, folate and Vitamin B12 No. of farm households that have adopted improved GLDC varieties (million) No. of people assisted to exit poverty, 50% of whom are women (million) Rate of yield increase for GLDC crops (%) No. of people assisted to meet daily energy dietary requirements, 50% of whom are women (million) No. of people assisted to meet daily protein dietary requirements, 50% of whom are women (million) CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 23

24 2.4 10% reduction in women of reproductive age who are consuming less than the adequate number of food groups 33% reduction in women of reproductive age who are consuming less than the adequate number of food groups No. of women of reproductive age assisted to meet daily protein dietary requirements (million) SLO Improved Natural Resources Systems and Ecosystems services 5% increase in water and nutrient (inorganic, biological) use efficiency in agroecosystems, including through recycling and reuse 20% increase in water and nutrient (inorganic, biological) use efficiency in agroecosystems, including through recycling and reuse Cumulative carbon input to soils (from 2017) from increased GLDC productivity (million tons) SLO contributions Table 6 presents the nominated sub-idos addressed by GLDC. Table 6: The sub-idos addressed by GLDC. Reduced Poverty Improved food and SLO IDOs Sub-IDO Increased resilience of the poor to climate change and other shocks Enhanced smallholder market access Increased incomes and employment Increased productivity Improved diets for poor and vulnerable people Increased household coping capacity to cope with shocks GLDC Flagship Reduced production risk 1,2,3,4,5 Improved access to financial and other services Reduce Market Barriers 1 Diversified enterprise opportunities Increased livelihood opportunities 1,3 Increased value capture by producers 2 More efficient use of inputs Reduced pre- and -post production losses, including those caused by climate change Closed yield gaps through improved agronomic and animal husbandry practices 2,3,4,5 Enhanced genetic gain 4,5 Increased conservation and use of genetic resources Increased access to productive assets, including natural resources Increased availability of diverse nutrient-rich foods CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals ,4,5

25 nutrition security and health Improved natural resources systems and ecosystems services. Climate Change Gender and youth Policies and institutions Improved food safety Improved human and animal health through better agricultural practices Natural Capital enhanced and protected especially from climate change Enhanced benefit from ecosystem goods and services. More sustainably managed agroecosystems Mitigation and adaption achieved Equity and inclusion achieved Enabling environment improved Increased access to diverse nutrient-rich foods 1,2 Optimized consumption of diverse nutrient rich foods Reduced biological and chemical hazards in the food system Appropriate regulatory environment for food safety Improved water quality Reduced livestock and fish disease risks associated with intensification and climate change Increased safe use of inputs 3 Land, water and forest degradation (including deforestation) minimized and reversed Enhanced conservation of habitats and resources. Increased genetic diversity of agricultural and associated landscapes More productive and equitable management of natural resources Agricultural systems diversified and intensified in ways that protect soils and water Enrichment of plant and animal biodiversity for multiple goods and services Increased resilience of agro-ecosystems and communities, especially those including smallholders Enhanced adaptive capacity to climate risks Reduced net GHG emissions from agriculture, forests and others forms of land use Reduced net GHG emissions from agriculture, forests and others forms of land use Increased above and below ground biomass for carbon sequestration Improved forecasting of impacts of climate change and targeted technology development Enhanced capacity to deal with climate extremes 5 Enabled environment for climate resilience Gender-equitable control of productive assets and resources Technologies that reduce women's labour and energy expenditure developed and disseminated Improved capacity of women and young people to participate in decision-making Increased capacity of beneficiaries to adopt research outputs ,4 3 1,3 2,4 CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 25

26 Capacity development National partner and beneficiaries enabled Increased capacity of partner organizations, as evidenced by rates of investment in agricultural research Conducive agricultural policy environment 1,2 Conducive environment for managing shocks and vulnerability, as evidenced in rapid response mechanisms. Enhanced institutional capacity of partner research organizations Enhanced individual capacity in partner research organizations through training and exchange Increased capacity for innovation in partner research organizations Increased capacity for innovation in partner development organizations and in poor and vulnerable communities ,2 1.3 Impact Pathway and Theory of Change This CRP frames the development of solutions to GLDC-based livelihood and farming system resilience through an agrifood systems lens. This framing brings with it both a distinctive hypothesis and with that, a distinctive impact logic or theory of change. This is illustrated in Figure 2, accompanied by Tables 7 and 8. Central to the GLDC s theory of change is the assertion that household-level outcomes of food security, resilience and poverty reduction will not arise from the sole availability of component solutions technologies, policies and improved farming and food practices. Rather household level outcomes depend on the ability of the wider agrifood systems to respond to demands for solutions and to create the market incentives and public and private sector investments needed to make use of these solutions in farming, consumption and agribusiness settings. A related dimension is the assertion that institutional setting (rules, norms, tradition and practices) associated with critical organizations and processes (research, markets, policy-making and governance) often act as a hidden hand that locks farming and market systems into underperforming or counter-productive practices and impedes the creation, development and use of component solutions. Developing context-specific institutional solutions is therefore critical to enabling change in GLDC agrifood systems and the livelihoods of poor women, men and youth that depend on them. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 26

27 Figure 2. Impact Pathway and Theory of Change CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 27

28 Table 7: Impact Pathway underpinning assumptions Assumptions underpinning impact pathway logic SLOs IDOs CRP Outcomes Improved GLDC production and farming systems practices in target countries will reduce poverty and enhance food & nutrition security for women and men households Strengthened governance, stakeholder collaboration and improved public and private investment decisions strengthen the adaptive capacity of agrifood systems to respond to the evolving needs of women and men GLDC farmer (e.g. market access, productivity and income) Agrifood systems governance arrangements can be developed that align stakeholder investment towards food and nutritional security, poverty reduction and resilience Improved effectiveness of value chains through technical, institution and policy innovation creates incentives for farmer technology adoption and improves market access The coupling of technological, institutional and policy solutions will enable adoption of improved GDLC farming systems practices Capacity gaps within the GLDC agrifood system that inhibit responses to farmer and market demand and adoption of technological and institutional innovations can be identified and resolved Technological, institutional and policy solutions that respond to farmers needs can be prioritized and developed Table 8: Impact Pathway risks and mitigation Impact pathway Risks Mitigations IDOs Sub IDOs POLITICAL ECONOMY The existing political economy and patterns of vested interests at the market and policy interface are too deeply entrenched to progress meaningful agrifood systems development. TERMS OF TRADE Unexpected market shocks and dramatic shifts in global competition and/or trade rules and regulations, e.g. dramatic price drops in competing commodities. Detailed stakeholder analysis in target and spill-over countries to identify the constraints that can be addressed through engagement and constraints that must be worked within. Monitor global trends in real-time and in collaboration with relevant organisations (CRP-PIM, FAO). CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 28

29 Develop specific Country Strategies for agrifood systems that include market and trade scenario analysis and option planning to prepare and build capacity for unexpected shocks. CRP OUTCOMES FLAGSHIP OUTCOMES NATURAL DISASTERS AND POLITICAL SHOCKS Civil unrest and natural disasters interrupt CRP activities DECISION-MAKING SYSTEMS Program interventions supporting institutional and policy change fail to become embedded in decision-making systems. DECISION-MAKING STAKEHOLDERS Effective communication and engagement mechanism cannot be established with an appropriate set of decision-making stakeholders (technology, policy and institutional). INCLUSIVENESS Opportunities captured by stakeholders who exclude women, youth and poor farmers and value chain actors. BREEDING & TRAIT DISCOVERY Appropriate traits for agrifood system demands are undiscoverable, traits cannot be expressed within new varieties or trait discovery and development cannot be delivered within the program timeframe. PRODUCTION Farmers have access to sufficient resources to respond to market demands and manage farming systems sustainably. MARKET, POLICY AND INSTITUTIONS GLDC agrifood stakeholders unwilling to participate in prioritisation activities. Assess and monitor political and financial risks in countries to guide a balanced CRP portfolio across target countries and spillover countries. Undertake analysis of decision-making landscape and dynamics and invest in appropriate engagement strategies. Investment in strategic partnerships with agrifood system actors at the country level through development of specific Country Strategies and CRP Site Integration. Flagship interventions explicitly monitored and adjusted to improve inclusive performance. Trait Discovery and breeding program prioritised and portfolio developed in line with farm and market demand. Solutions designed that are appropriate to farmer resources. Identify and address institutional and other impediments for access to productive resources. Invest in engagement and consultation strategies and capability. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 29

30 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT Weak integration between Flagships and across CRPs. Development of cross Flagship outputs and outcomes tracked through monitoring and performance management. Investment in program coordination and integrated performance targets for Flagships. The overarching theory of change therefore has two related pathways. The first is that research will lead to household level outcomes by providing integrated technological, institutional and policy solutions. This is articulated in Figure 2 as a pathway leading to Expanded resilient production, value addition, utilization, trading and consumption of GDLC crops in target countries, on the left-hand side of the impact pathway diagram. The second pathway, on the right-hand side, is that this sort of integrated solution development can contribute to strengthening of a agrifood system as a whole; in adaptive capacity and therefore the ability to deliver solutions into the future in response to an evolving set of challenges and opportunities. This is articulated as a pathway leading to Improved capacity of agrifood system stakeholders to collaboratively develop innovations that respond to GLDC-based livelihoods and value chains. The critical assumptions that together underpinning these two pathways are: Improved GLDC production and farming systems practices in target countries will reduce poverty and enhance food & nutrition security for women and men household and the market actors. Strengthened governance, stakeholder collaboration and improved public and private investment decisions strengthen the adaptive capacity of agrifood systems to respond to the evolving needs of women and men GLDC farmer. Agrifood systems governance arrangements can be developed that align stakeholder investment towards food and nutritional security, poverty reduction and resilience. Improved effectiveness of value chains through technical, institution and policy innovation creates incentives for farmer technology adoption and improves market access. The coupling of technological, institutional and policy solutions will enable adoption of improved GDLC farming system practices. Capacity gaps within the GLDC agrifood system that inhibit responses to farmer and market demand and adoption of technological and institutional innovations can be identified and resolved. Technological, institutional and policy solutions that respond to farmers needs can be prioritized and developed. Looking at this in more detail, the logic of the first pathway is that research will lead to household outcomes if there is strong integration and iteration between research delivering component solutions with research that creates market, policy and institutional design solutions. This is an integrative solutions design logic that can deliver tangible household outcomes during the life of the CRP. For example, if trait discovery and variety CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 30

31 development respond to the needs of farmers and value chains, and if business and value chain innovations are developed to create the market incentives, farmers will adopt varieties. If at the same time policy incentives and consumer market signals are created through research, evidence and decision support, businesses will invest in value chain innovations. Closing this loop, if effective mechanisms and institutional innovations are developed by the CRP to ensure that trait discovery and breeding programs are responsive to new and emerging market and farmer demands, the virtuous cycle of solution development through research and farmer and market application and outcomes can be repeated and strengthened. Another aspect of this logic is that research delivering solutions in the integrated way described may also need institutional solutions to direct benefits to poor woman and youth. Hence, if market-led farming systems innovations are coupled to institutional design solutions, such as giving women access to productive resources (land, capital and information), the profile of impacts will be equitably distributed and targeted to the poorest. The second impact pathway is that research will lead to household impacts if it contributes to the capacity of the agrifood system to respond to the evolving needs of the farmers, value chains and society as a whole in a changing global context. This is a systemic change impact logic and sets the conditions needed for enduring sustainable outcomes from improved agrifood system performance in the long-term. Part of this logic is that research, experimentation and capacity building with stakeholders can help develop institutional and policy design with improved effectiveness in responding to stakeholders, delivering solutions and enabling the adoption of these (as in the first pathway designed above). However, the other part of this pathway is that, if research and allied activities are conducted through approaches that build linkages, partnerships, platforms and relationships across stakeholder groupings and across scales, then governance arrangements and systems capacities will emerge that can continue to channel innovation processes and policies towards poverty reduction, food and nutritional security and resilience. A further part of this logic is that if research can develop general principles on how to approach the strengthening of the capacity of agrifood systems, outcomes can be achieved by applying these principles in other contexts. These two pathways have different but related scaling logics, scaling timeframes and scaling assumptions. The scaling logic of the first pathway (the integrate solutions design logic) is that outcomes will be scaled through (i) market signals helping crowd in further business and farmer investments (ii) spread and copying of institutional innovations through stakeholder networks and other communication channels and (iii) adoption of effective public policy and investment that provide incentives and resources for improved farmer and value chain practices. Component solutions (varieties, farming systems practices, institutional and policy design) will scale to some extent through spill-overs into similar agrifood systems. However, integrated solutions will have a strong context-specific dimension where the transferable element will be the underpinning science platforms and approaches and research-derived insights into how these solutions were developed and implemented. Critical assumptions include (i) findings from research, coupled with engagement mechanisms, can help decisionmaking of key stakeholders and guide investment, and (ii) technical, institutional and policy solutions can be found to current and emerging challenges. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 31

32 The scaling logic of the second pathway (the systemic change logic) is that outcomes will be scaled by the pervasive effects beyond the life of the CRP as a result of a more responsive agrifood system aligned to the goals of food and nutritional security, resilience and poverty reduction. In particular, this scaling will occur through improved systems governance arrangements that guide the evolution and priorities of the system as a whole. The precise contours of this capacity will be very context-specific, limiting opportunities for spillovers. However, research-derived principles to guide how agrifood system capacity can be strengthen in different contexts will have wide applicability and high potential for spill-overs. Critical assumptions here are that (i) public and private sector investors are committed to and able to achieve a sufficient degree of alignment around food and nutritional security, resilience and poverty reduction as a driver of agrifood systems, and (ii) public and private stakeholder will continue to invest in the maintenance and development of the agrifood system in the long term. 1.4 Gender GLDC brings together the aspirations of two commodity Phase I CRP programs, DC and GL, together with the system component of DS with the intent of implementing a cohesive agrifood system program. Strong systems integration is envisioned to enhance development outcomes and impacts when anchored on the priority cereal and legume commodities. Structuring of this new program necessitates re-thinking of the Gender Strategy, with learning from the Phase I gender strategies of CRPs DC, GL and DS (Table 9) to create a platform of continued learning and improvement in gender research, analysis and intervention. The GLDC program management is committed to mainstreaming gender across its research to enhance equity and beneficial socio-economic impact among farmers and the rural population. Key Gender Concerns in the Dryland Regions Women are amongst the most marginalized groups in poor rural communities where resources are extremely scarce and competition for access to these resources is high. Recently, women have been increasingly taking responsibility to head households when men migrate to urban areas in search of employment (Lastarria- Cornhiel, 2008), and require support in these new roles. Within the GLDC priority regions, crop production is hampered by various biotic and abiotic stresses in the face of climate change. There are shrinking average farm sizes and inequitable land distribution patterns. Differential access to resources leads to gender gaps in production, crop yields and incomes. Reliance on crop farming as the main source of food and feed without giving due considerations to nutrient requirements, coupled with the low-input system of agriculture practiced, have resulted in decline of soil quality, especially nitrogen. Micro-dosing has the potential to greatly increase yields in SSA and stimulate fertilizer adoption by women and men farmers to curb this problem (Tabo et al., 2008). The main source of labor in dryland farming has been women labor, with needs for long hours of work each day (drudgery) as they have triple roles of production, reproduction and community service. Women provide a significant amount of unpaid labor in the seed management, field production, processing and distribution of dryland cereals and grain legumes. With responsibility for these labor intensive tasks, women experience chronic time-poverty [Eerdewijk and Danielsen, 2015]. This limits women s ability to take advantage of CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 32

33 opportunities outside of the home, e.g. opportunities for learning about new technologies, creating business opportunities, participation and wealth creation. Hiring of labor and using draft animals have been employed to reduce the smallholder on-farm labor burden. Mechanizing of tasks along the value chains would have the potential of boosting technology adoption, allowing women to participate in activities outside of the home, taking advantages of new opportunities provided by different interventions and accelerating impact. While mechanizing would be an attractive option to enhance women participation in value chains, the demand for mechanization may not be dependent on only the intensity of labor and drudgery. Intra-household power relations, and gendered patterns of labor allocation that result in differential net labor changes for different members of the household, are potential factors that need to be understood in terms of their effect on demands for mechanization. Women s participation and gainful engagement in GLDC priority agrifood systems, beyond the production level and without losing control in decision-making and benefits sharing, is an important research and development priority that would enhance gender equity. Drivers that hinder women s participation, e.g. limited mobility, triple burden of labor, social norms influencing women s acceptable behavior in engagement, will be considered and interventions generated in selected countries. The nutrition of women and children under five is currently a global challenge with high cases of anaemia, malnutrition, vitamin and mineral deficiencies being reported (Dewey, 2013). The Phase I CRP breeding programs have released dryland cereal and grain legume varieties that are nutrient-dense, with the natural contribution to protein diets combined with the high accumulation of iron, zinc and calcium. This is a paradox since most women who are growing these crops exhibit problems of anaemia while their children under the age of five are stunted or malnourished. Among other factors, this is due to a complex interaction between use of nutritious foods for income generation at the expense of household nutrition security in subsistence farming systems. Developing market-oriented value chains for the empowerment of women causes shifts in household power relations that sometimes do not benefit women. There are unique cultures, in GLDC target regions, whose norms and practices still limit the participation of women in public domains because of religious or social norms (Abdelali-Martini, 2011). These norms have hampered the extent to which women can interact with agents of change for support in agricultural capacity development, especially if they are male. Yet there are major benefits in involving women in varietydevelopment processes, as this opens up tremendous possibilities of targeting specific crop traits of crucial importance to them e.g. the fast-cooking beans trait that is influencing the adoption of beans and the design of the breeding program 20 ; the snapping trait in millets that has the potential to save women labor during harvesting; and specific morphological traits of pearl millet that indicate drought tolerance that have led to the development of modern varieties that are high yielding in good years with very stable yields under drought conditions 21. Advances in technology currently support plant breeding methodologies to respond to the needs of women through precision and efficiency of transferring specific genes, as well as the precision and scale with which specific traits can be observed. This offers a great opportunity for gender analysis to contribute to plant breeding that responds to the needs of women. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 33

34 Objective of the GLDC Gender Strategy Gender research is designed to support GLDC in ensuring inclusion and equity among female and male beneficiaries and stakeholders, and adapting capacities and strengthening institutions to ensure (i) a convincing evidence-base on strategic gender topics, (ii) mainstreaming gender analysis across GLDC research areas, (iii) enhancing gainful participation of women in GLDC value chains, and (iv) developing interventions that are responsive to gender and social inclusion interests. This ultimately ensures that positive gains accrue to the women, young people and vulnerable members of society who are actively engaged in GLDC agrifood systems. Table 9: Summary of gender research in DC, DS and GL Phase 1 and extension phases Activity 1. Market surveys/ Business development Main areas of gender concern 1. Analysis of food barley products in Morocco and Ethiopia 2. Training on business opportunities in sorghum and millet value chains (association of lady entrepreneurs of Andhra Pradesh) 2. Seed production involvement Training of women farmers research and extension groups in Wolmera District of Ethiopia 1. Understanding the women s time allocations and labor requirements in sorghum and millet production in Mali and Niger 3. Women s labor 2. Introduction of ferti-cum seed drills, weeders and threshers for pearl millets in Western India 3.Introduction of groundnut shellers in Malawi and Zambia to alleviate women drudgery 4. Planning for gender in bilateral projects 5. Gender capacity development 6. Analysis of Gender Gaps in legumes productivity Projects that have budgeted for FTE in gender research in 2014 to HOPE phase II 2. Tropical Legumes phase III Gender Integration workshops for biophysical scientists and gender scientists December 2013, Hyderabad, India March 2016, Addis, Ethiopia 3. May 2014, Dubai, UAE 1. Analysis of HOPE and Tropical legumes baseline data 2. Study of focus in Tropical legumes Phase III, from Study on gender norms 1. Cultural norms and practices influencing the Ethiopian women s participation in chickpea agricultural trainings and capacity development CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 34

35 2. Gennovate (Enabling gender equality in Agriculture and Natural resources management). Case studies implemented in Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, India, Tanzania and Ethiopia. 8. Gender in systems Research 1. Social ecological systems approach to understanding gender, food security and agricultural livelihoods. 9. Long term database 1. Village Dynamics in South Asia (database since 1975) Gender Research Focus in the Flagship Projects in GLDC Breeding and Impact Cycle In GLDC, the gender research agendas will be unique for each flagship and aligned to the key issues on the impact pathway. The issues are assumed to be distinct enough to allow for implementation of different activities in each flagship. The summary presented in Table 10 identifies the key areas of intervention for gender research and analysis across the five GLDC flagships, the anticipated outcomes, and consequent gender impacts in the target regions of the program. Beneficiaries of the GLDC Gender Strategy The program implementers in GLDC, at management or activity level, will use the strategy as a guide for integration of gender responsive approaches, from planning, to staffing, to budgeting, to operationalization of field activities, as well as integrating with the MEL framework. The needs, preferences, constraints and opportunities of various social classes (men, women, youth) will be the focus of the strategy at each stage. Other stakeholders in the GLDC agrifood system include policy makers, service and agro-input providers, private sector, seed merchants/companies, traders, NGOs and financiers who will benefit from the strategy as a reference document while they develop intervention programs. Linking Gender to GLDC Institutional MEL Framework Establishment of long-term databases with sex-disaggregated variables will be linked with the baseline datasets from the datasets of the Phase I programs DC, GL and DS, to establish a learning platform for continued improvement of processes and practices. Standardized sex-disaggregation in all levels of demographic data collection and analysis, will be coupled with emphasis on the need for recruitment of female enumerators for survey data-collection with female respondents. Sex-disaggregation as a standard survey practice will be included in the key Performance Indicators. Assessment of Capacity and Capacity Development The gender research team in GLDC will benefit from gender expertise of a team of scientists from DC, GL and DS (including a gender working group), as well as three postdocs in the programs facilitated through the CGIAR Gender Network. Learning from the MAIZE program, DS Gender Guidelines for Biophysical Researchers and on-line gender capacity building tools, GLDC will develop a gender competency framework that will require each project team to undergo a basic gender training to facilitate acquisition of minimum competencies, gender appropriate knowledge, attitudes and skills as they develop proposals and identify/implement key gender research questions. This is expected to harmonize, strengthen and improve the overall understanding of concepts and processes of gender analysis and integration of gender concerns in research in the flagship CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 35

36 projects. The GLDC gender research team will continue to engage with the Gender and Agriculture Research Network in addition to identifying opportunities for cross-crp collaboration in research and capacity strengthening. They will also participate in the gender postdoc fellowship program. Learning from the RTB program, GLDC will initiate a GLDC-University Partnership for Gender Research Development in which graduate students will be hosted in GLDC through the USAID Linkage Grants program to complement gender capacities, answer specific gender research questions and develop capacities for the future. GLDC Gender Budgets GLDC will follow the guidance of the Consortium Office and dedicate at least 10% of total program funds to gender capacity, research and development. This proportion will be sought from bilateral projects mapped to GLDC, which have significant and specific gender research components. 1.5 Youth The population of youth between 15 and 24 years in GLDC target and spill-over countries is 461 million, 330 million of which is in the primary target countries alone. Unemployment and underemployment of youth is high in these developing nations, more in rural areas than in urban areas. While small-scale agriculture is the biggest source of employment in developing nations, it is less enticing for rural youth due to reasons such as perceived lower earning power than urban employment and lack of pervasive innovative technologies such as ICT and mechanization. Reduced availability of and access to land is also a factor leading to youth migration to urban areas. The situation for women youth is even more difficult being governed by social norms than personal decisions. Harnessing the large potential of youth requires a multidimensional approach that combines education, strengthening and modernizing agricultural infrastructure, access to land and policies that support the more immediate employment opportunities in small-scale agriculture. GLDC will leverage the youth strategy of CRP DS, and will combine capacity development in agricultural research, productivity gains and income potential from agriculture, digital technologies for planning and decision making, and agriculture-related entrepreneurships through training, and access to venture capital. The Youth Strategy of GLDC (Annex 3.5), will be implemented in close coordination with the GLDC Gender Strategy for equitable benefits for women and men. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 36

37 Table 10. Areas of gender research in the five GLDC flagships

38 1.6 Program structure and Flagship projects The overarching logic for GLDC is that improved capacity of the agrifood systems of key cereal and legume crops will enable production, market and policy innovations that deliver resilience, poverty reduction, nutritional security and economic growth. The Flagship structure and narratives flow from this overarching logic. Consequently, this reframing of the CRP logically orders the Flagships in line with the entry point being identified priorities, leading to agrifood and farming system opportunities, that must inform varietal promotion and seed distribution, and finally through to prioritised traits that meet market and consumer signals. The overall GLDC goal is to achieve concurrently outcomes aligned with a technological pathway (expanded and more effective agrifood systems based on grain legumes and dryland cereals) and a systemic change pathway (improved capacity of agrifood system stakeholders to collaboratively develop innovations that improve the livelihoods of smallholder women and men farmer and consumer beneficiaries). Each of the five FPs of GLDC are developed to deliver into these two impact pathways. FP1: Priority setting & impact acceleration Goal: In target countries, GLDC innovations are accelerated through a balance of demand-driven, outcome-focused, inclusive & scalable impacts. FP1 has four CoAs: i. Foresight, climate change analysis & priority setting ii. GLDC value chains, markets & drivers of adoption iii. Empowering women & young people iv. Impact assessment, enabling environment & scaling FP2: Functional Agrifood Systems Goal: Agrifood system mechanisms are strengthened to respond and adapt to context-specific and evolving needs of women and men farmers, value chain and policy actors. FP2 has three CoAs: i. Testing, adaptation and validation of value chain options ii. Inclusive options for transforming GLDC agricultural value chains iii. Understanding and influencing Multi-Layer Governance Frameworks FP3: Integrated Farm and Household Management Goal: On farm technological and institutional innovations improve livelihoods through productivity and resilience of farming systems. FP3 has three CoAs: i. Cropping systems management and mechanization ii. Innovations for managing abiotic and biotic stresses iii. Testing, adaptation and validation of livelihood options for sustainable intensification and resilience FP4: Variety and Hybrid Development Goal: High-yielding, nutrient-dense and market-preferred GLDC varieties and hybrids are locally available and utilized by women, men and youth farmer and value chain actors. FP4 has four CoAs: i. Environmental classification and target population of environments CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 38

39 ii. iii. iv. Phenotyping priority grain legume and dryland cereal crops Variety and hybrid development of priority crops to meet priority traits Science of scaling seed technologies FP5: Pre-breeding and Trait Discovery Goal: For priority grain legumes and dryland cereals, crop improvement precision and efficiency improved through breeding programs that respond to agrifood market and farming system needs. FP5 has three CoAs: i. Pre-breeding GLDC crops ii. Trait discovery iii. Enabling technologies 1.7 Cross-CRP Collaboration and Site Integration GLDC must work together with the other Agrifood Systems CRPs and Global Integrating CRPs. Such synergy is essential to realize farmer and agrifood system benefits from crop intensification and diversification, especially through the companion cropping systems supported by CRPs MAIZE, RICE, RTB and WHEAT, or to leverage opportunities for income and diet diversification through feed and fodder, as in the case of FISH and LIVESTOCK. Such synergies are well acknowledged in the preceding section on the Regional and ecological focus of GLDC. GLDC focuses its work on 14 primary target countries and 15 spill-over countries. Of these 29 countries, 16 are identified as CGIAR site integration countries (Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam and Zambia). The synergies of GLDC with other AFS and Global Integrating Programs are described below. All of these collaboration efforts involve joint fundraising by the collaborating programs. PIM: Given that the overarching logic of GLDC is on improved capacity of agrifood systems, working in conjunction with PIM must happen. In doing so, GLDC will connect with PIM in much of what is undertaken, especially in GLDC FP1, FP2 and FP3 in diagnosing constraints to the enabling environment (markets, institutions and policies), in prioritizing those that matter most to GDCL agrifood systems and constituencies, in developing common approaches and tools for intervention and in quantifying the impacts from purposeful interventions. The Management of GDCL and PIM have agreed to these synergies and to integrate their social science and policy research to continue and expand the collaborations from Phase I. This collaboration will be manifest in shared projects and through the communities of practice for foresight modelling, prioritization of market-demand innovations, adoption and ex-post impact assessment of technology, value chain research and natural resource management. GLDC consulted with different CRP-PIM Flagship and Cluster leaders to identify complementarity and selectivity research topics to work jointly. Key topics (to be continuously updated) are: 1. GLDC and PIM will jointly develop foresight modelling tools to assess the impacts of demanddriven innovations related to GLDC-priority agrifood systems which includes research on CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 39

40 climate change impacts and adaptation technologies and management technologies at different scales of regional, farm and household level. 2. Jointly develop actionable policy recommendations on GLDC seed system reforms and innovate extension methods to increase the adoption of innovations around agrifood systems. 3. Jointly develop and test methods supporting technology adoption and impact of multiple crops and technologies at the farming system level. 4. Harmonizing methodologies for measuring postharvest losses of GLDC crops along the identified value chains. 5. Understand, determine, and develop in a participatory way governance options encouraging the adoption of innovations in GLDC priority agrifood systems. 6. Assessing interactions between sectoral governance mechanisms affecting GLDC priority agrifood systems. WLE: GLDC will work with WLE at the interface of farm and landscape; the former focusing on farmlevel interventions and the latter on landscape-level interventions. Collaboration will include research on technologies for improved water use efficiency in GLDC farming systems; interactions of cropping systems and land and water management practices; enhancing the role of agricultural water management including soil moisture and irrigation; developing the means for sustainable intensification of legume and cereal crops and crop-livestock systems; and understanding of water flows management through modelling and monitoring. With its revised sharper focus on agrifood systems, GLDC will not include the prior proposed CoA on Carbon Sequestration, Land Restoration and Land and Water Management. Of course, managing soil, water and nutrient resources are part of good agronomic practice in producing successful crops and must remain in GLDC. However, GLDC will not be proactive in addressing carbon sequestration or land restoration as primary objectives WLE has primacy on these issues and has agreed to accommodate what had been mapped to this CRP. That said, GLDC practices (e.g. growing legumes in cereal rotations) can lead to effects on natural resource sustainability and so can be tracked and documented as benefits aligned with SLO3. A4NH: There are three areas of collaboration with A4NH. Firstly, an existing priority is biofortification which will build on the superior ability of some of the target crops of GLDC to accumulate high levels of iron and zinc, the competitive advantage and track record of the relevant CGIAR Centers in the improvement of these crops through breeding and the track record of the HarvestPlus program. The collaboration will deliver biofortified pearl millet and sorghum with enhanced levels of iron and zinc in India and West and Central Africa, and biofortified common bean cultivars in India and East and Southern Africa. The joint focus of the collaborative effort will be on developing methods to reduce costs of breeding for biofortified varieties through marker-assisted selection and low-cost, highthroughput methods of measuring vitamin and mineral content. GLDC will focus on breeding highyielding, climate resilient varieties of these crops which will be screened for high micronutrient contents and out-scaled as part of the A4NH program. The pearl millet biofortification effort is already CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 40

41 a mature project with high-iron pearl millet varieties commercialized in India and efforts initiated in Niger for identification of superior biofortified germplasm. The second area of collaboration between GLDC and A4NH is in food safety, specifically, aflatoxin mitigation. This effort evaluates the use of farm-level mitigation technologies and practices that reduce aflatoxin in the produce and exposure of consumers. The third area of likely connection is through the GLDC FP2 research on functional agrifood systems, where food processing and other value chain interventions will be tested. This GLDC research area is only recently developed, subsequent to the A4NH design, but it will surely be of mutual interest and an area of collaboration. CCAFS: A central tenet shared by CCAFS and GLDC is the imperative for smallholders to better manage risks, particularly risks exacerbated by climate variability and change see Box 5. Given this focus, CCAFS and GLDC (with its priority crops) have much of their research targeted to the dryland agroecologies of sub-saharan Africa and South Asia. While GLDC will undertake research to support decision-making under uncertainty on farms (FP3) and in value chains (FP2), it will largely defer to and follow the lead of CCAFS in developing and delivering climate-risk management tools and information for the drylands. Most of the crops of focus in GLDC have important attributes of resistance to adverse climatic conditions including high temperatures and drought. The collaboration with CCAFS will develop and deliver improved varieties/hybrids and the associated climate-smart practices. It will focus on the incorporation of climate-smart varieties and associated climate-smart technologies and practices into climate-smart villages (CSVs) in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Mali, Niger and India. It will also address the scaling up of climate-smart technologies and practices through CSV approach in dryland systems of West Africa and South Asia. Some of this work is already ongoing in a complementary mode in Burkina Faso, Ghana, Niger, Mali, and will further be strengthened through the site integration efforts in Burkina Faso, India and Mali. The collaboration will build on previous work from the CRP-DS including Farm household characterization studies that included collation of existing datasets, rapid survey tools for characterization and M&E purposes, modelling tools and analyses across scales and articulated demands for specific climate-related analyses. GLDC will benefit from metrics, methods and participatory platforms of CCAFS to evaluate emerging technologies and practices, as well as from the evidence and business cases for promoting scaling out. MAIZE: Maize constitutes a major cropping system where GLDC crops are grown as companion crops in sub-saharan Africa and South Asia. In these farming systems, GLDC crops, especially legumes, provide possibilities for diversification and sustainable intensification of maize-based cropping systems, as in the case of the maize-pigeonpea intercropping and with common bean in various parts of East and Southern Africa. Mutual benefits of the two CRPs include insights on smallholder preferences to improve the match of technologies for various intercropping and rotation systems involving the target crops of each program. Critical is that the breeding priorities for GLDC crops are CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 41

42 informed by MAIZE systems demands. Collaboration efforts will be supported by joint resource mobilization. RICE: Rice fallows offer opportunities for the expansion of pulses in South Asia in lowland rice areas which are left fallow during the post-rainy or winter seasons due to inadequate soil moisture. Early maturing pulse varieties, such as short duration chickpea in India, are required to fit into the rice cropping season. Available varieties will be tested together with RICE. At the present time, ongoing breeding and adaptation research exists for chickpea and groundnut in rice fallows in South Asia, especially India. Though this is not in collaboration with RICE yet, opportunities will be sought for joint fundraising to focus and test rice-legume sustainable intensification in India. It is critical that the breeding priorities for GLDC crops are informed by RICE systems demands. RTB: Sorghum, millets and legumes occur in the cereal-root crop mixed systems in SSA, and legumes have an increasing presence in rotations involving root crops in South Asia, specifically India. GLDC plans to work with RTB in co-developing and testing options for sustainable intensification, with an initial focus in India. It is critical that the breeding priorities for GLDC crops match RTB systems requirements. WHEAT: Barley is the principal GLDC companion crop in wheat-based systems. The ICARDA mandate for both crops has so far presented a seamless integration of such work in systems where they occur together as in North Africa and India. In addition, collaboration with the WHEAT program will be sought to out scale sustainable intensification and diversification options with legumes for natural resource management, environmental benefits, risk management, improved nutrition and diet diversity. GLDC will use the precision phenotyping platform developed by WHEAT for physiological studies in barley and legumes. Critical is that the breeding priorities for barley are informed by WHEAT systems demands. LIVESTOCK: GLDC priority crops are important sources of feed, forage and fodder. Based on feed supply and demand scenarios assessed by LIVESTOCK for the crops of the program, GLDC will develop varieties and hybrids with dual-purpose use in food and feed/fodder that will be tested in animal feed trials by LIVESTOCK. Examples of ongoing collaboration efforts include, but are not limited to: Staygreen introgression and promotion of new dual-purpose sorghum varieties in India; phenotyping varieties for fodder/stover value of the residue; understanding the nutritional limitations of multi-cut sorghum and pearl millet forages; and in the nutritional characteristics of barley and legumes fodder. We will leverage LIVESTOCK expertise to add value and enhance benefits to farmers of improved varieties developed by GLDC. In addition, LIVESTOCK will also provide input into mitigation options for livestock-related environmental impacts at the farm level. The opportunities evident in jointly targeting agrifood system options for responding to the red meat demand from the Sahel's livestock in West Africa is clearly an urgent priority for both CRPs (Box 4). FISH: GLDC has already initiated discussions with FISH to test (1) grain for use as plant protein sources to support the movement towards reduced reliance of aquaculture on marine ingredients, and (2) CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 42

43 fermentation of by-products from processing industries dealing with GLDC crops for use in fish feed. An initial focus will be in Kenya where both GLDC and FISH operate. As part of the IFAD-supported project on Sorghum for multiple uses, grain from different sorghum varieties is being tested for use in fish feed, primarily tilapia and catfish. Collaborative research by FISH will assess the potential use of sorghum as a fish feed ingredient for tilapia farming and the use of Novacq TM technology to convert sorghum waste into a bioactive aquaculture feed ingredient. Potential scaling into fish farms in Kenya will be through ongoing ICRISAT projects and a partnership between WorldFish and Farm Africa for development of aquaculture in Kenya. Such collaborative efforts will use joint fund raising and will also operate under uplift budgets. FTA: GLDC and FTA will collaborate in the second phase to conduct the next steps in the options-bycontext approach co-developed by FTA and CRP-DS in the first phase. Tree-based options for sustainable intensification are in joint scope (Box 5). Research modelling for livelihood outcomes will be undertaken as a collaborative effort in West and Central Africa, specifically Mali, where treeassociated cropping of sorghum and pearl millet are common. The two programs already have joint bilateral projects through the previous Phase I programs. 1.8 Partnerships and comparative advantage The program, led by ICRISAT, will be implemented in joint partnership with five Tier 1 CGIAR (Bioversity, CIAT, ICARDA, ICRAF, IITA) and two Tier 2 CGIAR (ILRI, IWMI) partners and several strategic non-cgiar partners, including the NARS in the target countries, apex and sub-regional agricultural organizations. Commitments for partnership have been sought and positively received from the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR), IRD/IRD/CIRAD from France, three USAID Feed the Future Innovation Labs, both CSIRO Agriculture and the University of Queensland from Australia, and the Syngenta Foundation and DuPont Pioneer. Most importantly when expecting to deliver on an intent of enhancing the agrifood systems based on grain legumes and dryland cereal commodities, GLDC must partner with stakeholders in the private and public sectors. Hence, an important identified risk in GLDC s Theory of Change is if stakeholders in targeted agrifood systems are unwilling to participate in prioritization and proposed intervention activities (Table 8). This risk will be mitigated by GLDC investing in engagement and consultation strategies, especially in the co-development of Country Strategies for GLDC targeted countries and through alignment with the CGIAR Site Integration processes. Further mitigation can be sought through leveraging of existing private and public partnerships three of many relevant examples are: Bhoochetana: Commissioned by the State Government of Karnataka, India, a consortium of eight CGIAR centers, other international institutions (AVRDC), State Agricultural Universities, State Departments and private companies are working together to improve the livelihoods of millions of smallholder farmers in India. Pan-Africa Bean Research Alliance (PABRA): coordinated by CIAT, more than 350 partners and members across 30 countries are collaborating to increase the competitiveness of common CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 43

44 bean markets to provide consumers with better products and to contribute to the economic growth of smallholder agriculture. Manobi: a private company headquartered in Dakar Senegal and specializing in integrated GIS and web-mobile convergence, is partnering with ICRISAT to collaborate on Digital Agriculture solutions to help intensify smallholder agriculture and improve smallholder livelihoods in West and Central Africa. Collaborations for GLDC at its discovery-end include several Advanced Research Institutes and Universities. A non-exhaustive list of these are: BGI, China; IRD/CIRAD, France; UC Davis, Kansas State University, Iowa State University, University of North Dakota and others in the USA; University of Queensland, University of Western Australia, in Australia; Univ of Wageningen, and Univ of Hohenheim. GLDC will continue to collaborate with the African Orphan Crops Consortium (AOCC), and the USAID-supported Feed the Future Innovation Labs associated with Phase I CRPs DC and GL (Legume Innovation Lab, Peanut and Mycotoxin Innovation Lab, Sorghum and Millet Innovation Lab). Product development for crop improvement is done in partnership with the NARS in the target countries, including, ICAR, India; EIAR, Ethiopia; IER, Mali; INRA, Morocco; INERA, Burkina Faso; IAR, Nigeria; KALRO, Kenya; KazRICP, Kazakhstan and others. Sub-Regional Organizations in Africa, ASARECA, CORAF/WECARD and CCARDESA, are important as the lead agencies contributing to the vision of the Comprehensive Africa Agricultural Development Programme (CAADP). GFAR has been represented in the Independent Steering Committee of CRP-DS, while ASARECA and CORAF/WECARD have been represented in governance and/or management of CRPs DC and GL. Scaling of seed systems, will collaborate with current bilateral projects supported by BMGF and USAID, as well as with agencies such as AFSTA and AGRA. The Hybrid Parents Research Consortium (HPRC), established by ICRISAT in 2000, brings together a large number of private and public sector partners for the effective dissemination of improved research products to farmers in India. The HPRC constitutes an excellent example of how the CGIAR can continue to deliver international public goods (in this case seeds of improved varieties) leveraging the scaling capacity of the private sector. Specific collaborations with the private sector include Advanta, India; Nyirefarm, Tanzania; NileSun, Sudan; Unga Millers, Kenya; Faso Kaba, Mali; Dryland Seed Limited, Kenya. Dupont Pioneer continues to be part of the CRP-DC Independent Steering Committee and the Syngenta Foundation is represented on the Research Management Committee of CRP-DC. Partnerships with the other AFS programs and the Global Integrating CRPs, as also with the Genebanks, Genetic Gains and Big Data platforms are detailed in Annex Evidence of demand and stakeholder commitment Evidence of Demand Within the target countries of the program, target crops are either staple, constitute an important part of the diet or are used as feed and fodder. The selected target countries of the program are mostly Low Income Food Deficit countries in the drylands, where poverty and malnourishment rates are high. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 44

45 The crops of the program are especially noted for their nutritional value and/or for their resilience to extreme climates. Very few alternative suppliers exist for R4D in the agrifood systems based on these crops in the target countries beyond the CGIAR and NARS partners. Demand for priority GLDC crops is evident from analytical studies, surveys and focus group discussions (>7700 stakeholders) undertaken in Phase I CRPs DC and GL, reported in (1) periodic analysis of area, production and productivity trends, (2) ongoing socio-economic analyses (dryland cereals, grain legumes) of production, consumption, demand and constraints, and (3) geospatial analyses of crop coverage and land suitability specific reports are available on request. The area of these crops in the target countries has largely either remained stable, continued to grow or, in some cases, has declined (e.g. Orr and Mausch, 2015). Confirming demand for the GLDC priority crops was the subject of the priority-setting exercise undertaken in the proposal preparation (Section 1.1: Why these cereals and legumes?) and it will continue thereafter in ongoing GLDC priority-setting objectives (FP 1). As an example of demand for research, in East and Southern Africa, consumption of sorghum had outstripped that of maize during the period from 2000 to 2013, with per head consumption increasing by more than 50% (Gierend and Orr, 2015). Consumption of millets remained stable during this study period. Empirical results of a multi-country analysis of the potential welfare benefits of millets research indicated that the highest expected benefits to millets research could be generated when research is focused on production domains that are warm tropic dryland with growing duration of days (Nedumaran et al., 2014). In Asia, these production domains had the highest payoff of $ M expected benefits, while the expected benefits for the production domains for West and Central Africa and East Southern Africa (warm tropics drylands, days and warm tropics subhumid, >150 days) were $ MM and $15.06 MM respectively (Nedumaran et al., 2014). Ex-ante studies highlight the different approaches required for different crops based on their specific adaptability across environments. The potential benefits could reach up to $1,363 M for groundnut and $702 M for pigeonpea for the highest payoff target environments and would multiply when lifting adoption and adaptive capacity constraints (Bantilan et al., 2013). A study on Grain Legume Production, Consumption and Trade Trends in Developing Countries (Nedumaran et al., 2013) emphasized that production has not been able to meet demand, primarily as pulse production is confined to marginal rainfed areas causing variability in yields and producer prices. While developed countries have expanded production of food legumes in the case of fababean, chickpea, lentils and soybean thus leading to the export of these crops, developing countries have yet to keep pace even to meet current demand. Stakeholder Commitment Many of GLDC s key stakeholders participated in an initial planning meeting for Phase II, conducted by CRPs DC, DS and GL during the months of Mar-Apr Strategic partners are represented in the Governance and Management Committees of the three Phase I programs, and they have contributed to comments and reviews of the Phase II proposal during varying stages of its preparation. That said, CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 45

46 these stakeholders had limited time to comment on this final GLDC submission due to its revised focus confirmed just prior to the submission deadline. This Phase II CRP has participated in the CGIAR country-level consultations during 2015 and 2016, and forged or strengthened commitment for implementation towards common goals. Finally, recognizing both GLDC strengths (germplasm diversity, farming systems, national/regional networks) and limited capacities (modelling, high-throughput production facilities, big data management) partnerships are being established across public and private apex bodies and inter/multinational organizations, including FARA, UNCCD, DuPont Pioneer, Syngenta Foundation, Chromatin Inc., CSIRO and others Capacity development Capacity Development is one of the key pathways that will drive sustainable impact for GLDC and one of the key performance indicators for the program s success: ensuring the transfer from research outputs to development outcomes. The major share of the work of GLDC is directly or indirectly connected to capacity development. Any impact can be achieved only by developing the skills of various actors. As such, all Flagships contribute in different ways far beyond the ten percent budget target to developing various capacities of diverse stakeholders. Many activities either simultaneously achieve the capacity development SLO as well as other SLOs. GLDC will leverage the principles, established modes and networks for capacity development that prevailed in its predecessor programs, CRP-DC, DS and GL. It will further build on the concepts of the CGIAR capacity development framework. Special emphasis will be given to establishing multistakeholder innovation systems to co-ordinately identify, plan and implement strategic solutions for sustainable capacity development. The CGIAR site integration efforts and the Lead Center s country strategies will both enable and strengthen implementation of the GLDC capacity development strategy (Annex 3.3), as will the close ties with the CGIAR Capacity Development Community of Practice. GLDC adopts a comprehensive definition for capacity development in that it includes all efforts, interventions and interactions that lead to the sustained development of knowledge, expertise, infrastructure, enabling environment and governance that allow individual women and men, organizations and systems to perform at the best of their productive capacities to reach local, national and regional goals and to deliver impact. Along the lines of traditional capacity development in the CGIAR, CRP DC and GL had implemented scholarship programs that supported Master or PhD students, through joint administration with APAARI, RUFORUM and WACCI (in the case of DC) and the FtF Innovation Lab for Collaborative Research on Grain Legumes (in the case of GL). For GLDC, preference will be given to providing operating and active connections to funded projects rather than actual scholarships existing scholarships are readily available and will be leveraged. In addition, the Lead Center is a partner of the One Agriculture One Science international initiative involving universities and institutes of Africa, India and the USA, and that is aimed at revitalizing global agricultural education, capacity building and technology transfer. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 46

47 GLDC will implement capacity Development at levels beyond the traditional, and use multistakeholder platforms for partnered efforts to identify and implement capacity development that holistically address all component needs for development to enable sustainable impact. Innovative capacity Development examples already operating within GLDC include efforts of the Agribusiness and Innovation Platform that has enabled the establishment of several agribusiness incubation centers across India in consultation and at the request of the national government. The Platform also supports entrepreneurship through agribusiness incubation wherein it provides the necessary know-how, market analysis, technology development space/facilities and links to venture capitalists or banks for successful establishment of small enterprises. The capacity Development strategy of GLDC is coordinated within FP2, and will be implemented in close coordination with the various Clusters of Activities of FP2 as well as with the other FPs especially FP1. It will plan and implement its efforts in consultation and joint partnership with the GLDC gender strategy, housed within FP1, and the GLDC youth strategy. Implementation of the GLDC Capacity Development strategy will be supported with budgets from W1/W2 at the CRP level, and with the Capacity Development budgets within major bilateral projects mapped to the various Flagships of GLDC. A key initiative of GLDC will be the creation of an Innovation Fund that can provide resources and stimuli for capacity development aligned with GLDC objectives. Description and terms of the Innovation Fund essentially replacing the Strategic Competitive Research Grants in other CRPs is provided in the section on the CRP Budget Narrative Program management and governance The governance and management of GLDC follow the recommendations of the IEA (April 2014). A single, balanced governing body, the Independent Advisory Committee (ISC), reports directly to the Lead Center Governing Board on the performance of the program (Figure 3). The ISC shall have a maximum of 16 members, including eleven non-cgiar (partner) members and five CGIAR members, who are ex officio, and include the Director General (DG) of the Lead Center, ICRISAT, those of three partner Centers on a rotation basis, and the CRP Director. The ISC includes a sub-committee of the nine independent members, for independent advice to the CRP Management and the ISC. The Governing Board of the Lead Center has fiduciary and legal responsibility and accountability for implementation of GLDC. The CRP Director reports functionally to the ISC, and administratively to the Lead Center DG. The Chair of the ISC will be nominated and voted by the ISC membership, and will have a term of two years. The DGs of the participating Centers will also have a two-year rotation. In both cases, the last six months of the two years will overlap with the first six months of an incoming member. The CRP Director chairs the Research Management Committee (RMC) which has responsibility for implementation of the program. The RMC has 11 members, including five Flagship Leaders, the Senior Gender Scientist who is housed within FP1, four Center Focal Points and the CRP Director. Of the eight CGIAR Centers involved in GLDC, four have leadership of the Flagships: FP1 (ICRAF), FP2 (IITA), FP3 (ICARDA), FP4 (ICRISAT) and FP5 (ICRISAT). The remaining four Centers, namely, Bioversity, CIAT, ILRI CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 47

48 and IWMI, are represented in the RMC through Center Focal Points. In addition, the RMC will also include 3 non-cgiar resource persons representing the USAID FtF labs, IRD/CIRAD and CORAF/WECARD. The RMC is primarily responsible for the establishment, execution and monitoring of the CRP research portfolio, strategy, work plans and annual budgets. The Leaders of the various Clusters of Activities within each Flagship Project report functionally to the Leaders of the respective Flagship Programs. The CRP Director is supported by a Program Management Unit for routine administration of the program. This unit includes an Administrative Officer, a Program Manager, 2 Communications Managers and a part-time Finance expert. The Program Manager supports the Monitoring and Evaluation of the program with responsibility for the GLDC MEL database, and its inherent functions in planning and reporting. Figure 3: Governance and Management of GLDC ISC membership shall provide a balanced representation of diversity of expertise (cereals, legumes, social science, systems, industry), gender and nationalities. The non-cgiar members of GLDC ISC includes representation of apex bodies (e.g. FARA Executive Director, FAO), regional organizations (ASARECA), national research organizations/institutes (Agropolis Foundation, EIAR, ICAR), ARIs (Adelaide University, Cornell University, Univ. of Missouri) and the private sector (Dupont Pioneer). It is recognized that the proposed structure may require alterations during 2016, and during early Phase II implementation, in terms of both membership and responsibilities. The need will be continuously evaluated and changes implemented as required. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 48

49 To optimize resources, the ISC and RMC will meet twice a year, one of which will be a virtual meeting. In both cases the ISC meeting will follow the RMC meeting, and precede the meeting of the Lead Center Governing Board. One of these meetings will be held as a review and planning meeting, close to year end, and ahead of Center planning. A quorum for these committee meetings will be at least 50% of the voting members present. The ISC will provide a report at least once a year to the ICRISAT Governing Board. The Sub-committee for Independent Advice will provide its report to the ICRISAT Governing Board, the ISC and the RMC of GLDC, through the respective Chairs. The CRP will implement a joint resource mobilization strategy. Limitations to program efficacy due to existing governance and management structures and functionalities of the first and extension phases have been identified and recommendations have been provided by (1) the separate CRP Commissioned External Evaluations of Dryland Cereals, Dryland Systems and Grain Legumes, and (2) the CO Internal Audit of the three programs. The Lead Centers of these CRPs and the CRPs themselves have taken these recommendations on board and have developed policies and processes for governance and management, which are in the process of being implemented. The Terms of Reference for the CRP Director and guidelines for the governance and management of the program, including the proposed CRP governance and management structure, are based on some of the key lessons learned in Phase I CRPs: Lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities lead to reduced effectiveness, as does the lack of authority for the CRP Director to manage for accountability. The importance of results-based-management in positioning for program success has become very obvious, and the Monitoring & Evaluation platform of CRP-DS is being adapted for GLDC. Program success requires (1) seamless integration between flagships that are organized along a delivery pipeline, and (2) utilization of feedback loops in the Impact Pathway. Significant achievements remain unpublished, thus reducing visibility to the research and development accomplishments of participating Centers and partner institutions. At the same time the importance of science quality cannot be overemphasized. Increased attention to implementation focus and distributed responsibilities for practical implementation among partners can help manage workloads better and accelerate impact. The primary responsibilities of the CRP Director are (1) to develop a clear and shared vision for the CRP among partners and stakeholders and communicate this vision, (2) provide intellectual leadership to, and coordinate implementation of, the CRP, (3) develop strong partnerships among participating Centres, partners and other stakeholders, (4) represent the CRP in international fora to ensure visibility to the program, and strong supported from investors and stakeholders, (5) guide fundraising efforts for the CRP with the Centres and other partners, (6) ensure well-developed and articulated gender, youth and capacity development strategies, and mainstream these, (7) lead the preparation of the annual plan of work and budget, and annual reports, (8) ensure scientific excellence, rigor, efficiency and timeliness in implementing CRP activities, (9) review scientific publications arising from work supported by the CRP with the RMC, (10) manage budgets commensurate with the need in order CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 49

50 to reach program goals, (11) monitor program progress and implement course corrections where necessary, (12) conduct annual reviews of program progress, (13) ensure adherence to CGIAR s policies for Open Access and Intellectual Assets Management, and (14) approve all communicationrelated products including strategic communication and advocacy, information management, knowledge sharing and learning, marketing communication and website. These TORs are in agreement with the recent CRP Consolidated Report of the Internal Audit Unit of the Consortium Office Intellectual asset management The GLDC IA strategy aligns with, and abides by, the CGIAR Principles on the Management of Intellectual Assets (Annex 3.9). The primary outputs of the program are technologies that are International Public Goods, and that will be disseminated according to standard practices of the CGIAR for effective translation of research outputs to impacts. In emerging future scenarios where the intent is to amplify and accelerate impact, and where the required tools, structures and environments have been tested or established across multiple entities, new dimensions and challenges for IP management will emerge. These include: i. the use of patented technologies for practical applications, where assessment of Freedom to Operate (FTO) assumes significant relevance ii. public-private partnerships with in-kind exchanges that involve intellectual property iii. multi-stakeholder platforms including the public, academic and private sectors, where each has related but distinct end-goals iv. novel ways of supporting income generation and employment for rural women and youth through the support and spin-off of small enterprises There are emerging examples for the management of some of the above IP scenarios in the CGIAR, as with the multi-stakeholder public-private partnership of the Hybrid Parent Research Consortium (HPRC) and the Agribusiness and Innovation Platform, both with ICRISAT, the latter including Agribusiness Incubation. These constitute early examples of a new way of functioning for the CGIAR that utilizes its competitive advantage especially its germplasm base, and combines efforts with private-sector partnerships for the use of cutting-edge technology for rapid delivery of high impact. The associated call for more stringent IP management, streamlined FTO assessment, and imaginative ways of partnering for multi-stakeholder involvement and satisfaction will be addressed by the GLDC IA strategy Open access management GLDC will adhere to the CGIAR Open Access and Data Management Policy (2013) for timely and widespread dissemination of the results of its research and development activities for maximum impact (Annex 3.10). Towards this, GLDC will leverage the existing primary databases and platforms of its various participating Centers, and upgrade for coordinated use. At the same time, GLDC has recently developed the GLDC Atlas ( which is an interactive tool that places the GLDC crops on the world atlas within the context of an updated farming system analysis of Dixon et al. (2001), and connects these crops, crop combinations and regions with associated data CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 50

51 on crop performance, demographics, climate conditions and soil data. The GLDC Atlas, maintained at CIAT, will connect with the main database for experimental planning, analysis and reporting maintained at ICRISAT, namely, Dataverse ( In addition, the program will use other specialized and shared databases such as the Breeding Management System (BMS) of the Integrated Breeding Platform (IBP), Grin-Global, awhere, ESRI webgis platform, to make available its results to the global research and development community. Contrary to the previous phase, attempts will be made for the use of a few linked databases, together with coordinated standard operation protocols for experimental design, data curation, analysis, reporting and uploading of results. This will be made possible by the joint efforts of the team of Database managers across the participating Centers, who will establish best practices for data collection and reporting within GLDC, and train CGIAR and non-cgiar staff associated with the program who are the central contributors to the databases Communication strategy Communications will be integrated into the overall CRP strategy, and be undertaken to contribute towards four specific objectives: Uptake on new technologies; Building broader awareness of solutions; Resource mobilization; and Effective coordination among all partners. Contributing to uptake will require targeted communications, integrated as one of the component in uptake strategies. This will need to be achieved working closely with the researchers and contributing to the country strategies. Building broader awareness of solutions will require broad science communications of the successes of the work and lessons learnt. This should not be a replication of the Centers communications but instead be developed along with the communications head of each participating Center and the Flagship leaders. Communications for resource mobilization will require strategic communications focused on the higher level big issues that the CRP is addressing as well as promoting the value added by the CRP. Last but not least, effective communications among all partners will require internal communications tools and activities to be put in place. This will be important to ensure two-way engagement across the different disciplines, countries and organizations. The GLDC Integrated Communication Strategy will be implemented by two communication specialists. GLDC will request bilateral funds to build in communications into projects while GLDC will commit 10% of its W1/2 budget towards explicit communication activities, excluding salaries of its communication staff Risk management As a new CRP, GLDC is of a larger scale than the three phase I CRPs that are its primary progenitors, and the Management Team anticipates some risk from the scale of ambition and the complexity of the program. A major risk is that the CRP simply continues prior work rather than rethinking its strategy and seizing the opportunity to redirect work, complete mission-critical tasks and initiate new ones. A major step towards avoiding this risk is to capture or link extension phase activities to the CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 51

52 GLDC MEL platform to track continuation (or not) of previous work. The GLDC MEL platform will provide a robust management structure that assesses and evaluates proposals for work to be included in the POWB, and reviews their performance as an evaluation of the effectiveness of delivery. This is an internal risk and manageable. A second major risk concerns funding instability and scale. The project can adjust its ambition with respect to scale, but the variability of W1W2 funding experienced in the first and extension phases would seriously threaten the ability of the CRP to undertake its proposed work and to attempt to regain the confidence of its collaborators. This is an external threat and potentially very damaging. Mitigation of this risk is entirely dependent on establishing parallel and synergistic funding streams. An equally critical aspect is the important role of national and regional policies in the achievement of targets of the Intermediate Development Outcomes of the program. In almost all cases, such policy decisions are beyond the immediate sphere of influence of the program. Persistent and concerted effort, in partnership with key local, regional, national and international influencers, presents the best avenue towards success in these cases. The social and political volatility in some of our target countries interferes with the planned trajectory of the R4D pipeline in these countries. This either creates delays in execution or curtails research for a prolonged period of time. Recent examples include Syria, Mali, Burkina Faso and Mozambique. Continuation of the research in areas with similar agro-ecologies within other target or spill-over countries of the program, or in a new target country, until the resolution of existing strife can prevent delays in execution. Once conditions are conducive again, results can be transferred back to the original target country with minimal setbacks. Stability of the governance and management of the CRP, and its alignment with the principles of the CGIAR reform process are both important for the success of the program. Following the guidelines of the IEA review of CRP governance and review, and the recommendations of the internal audit of the CRPs by the Consortium Office are critical to overcome potential risks of reduced effectiveness of the program. The Phase I programs, DC, DS and GL, have already followed the IEA guidelines on merging the Steering Committee and the Independent Advisory Committee during their extension phases, and this mode of governance will continue into GLDC. The Phase I programs are also on their way to accepting and implementing the recommendations of the internal audit during In addition to these CRP-wide risks there are many risks at lower levels of organization. Consequently, each Flagship will compile a risk register that will be reviewed annually with respect to the level of risk and the capacity to implement the management, mitigation or coping strategy. The risk register will be reported upon annually to the Lead Centre Governing Board. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 52

53 1.16 CRP Budget Narrative General Information CRP Name CGIAR Research Program on Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals (GLDC) CRP Lead Center ICRISAT Summary The estimated budget for GLDC for 2017 is approx. $79 million and it is expected to reach a total of approx. $96 million in 2022 under the base budget scenario, providing a total six-year budget of approx. $522 million to deliver on the planned six-year targets of the program (Table 11). The annual budget includes $11.5 million from W1/W2. The budgets are developed for the period based on estimates of amounts needed to deliver the outcomes described in the Flagship narratives and Performance Indicator Matrix. While the guidance received during the meeting of the CRP Directors and Consortium entities in Rome in November 2015 suggested that a total amount of $630 million be considered for the CRP for the period and the same was also considered in the previous submission for the CRP; the total budget now stands amended to approx. $522 million. The reduction of US$108 million in overall budget is on account of a rigorous prioritization exercise which resulted in a reduction of the number of crops in the CRP from 12 to 8 crops. Further, GLDC has further focused by narrowing its scope and so removed research objectives around carbon sequestration and land restoration which has resulted in a shift of funds from FS3, hopefully to CRP- WLE. With the shift in focus from drylands agro-ecologies to an agrifood system focus on grains legumes and dryland cereals, ILRI W3 mapping was also reduced in FS3 and moved to CRP-Livestock, although ILRI remains a partner in GLDC, at Tier two level. A strong connection between the two CRPs remain. As a result of these changes, W3 and bilateral funding previously mapped to GLDC are no longer aligned. GLDC has a proposed total budget of $522 million for , with approximately $504 million for Flagships budgets and $18 million for Management and Support Costs and Strategic Competitive Research Grants. Out of the $522 million total budget, $69 million is proposed to be funded by W1/2 (based on Rome meeting estimates) representing approximately 13% of the overall budget. The balance amount of $453 million is to be funded by W3 and bilateral projects, and this represents approximately 87% of the total budget. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 53

54 Table 11: Total CRP budget by flagship (US$) Flagship Name Total FP1: Priority Setting and Impact Acceleration FP2: Functional Agrifood Systems FP3: Integrated Farm & Household Management FP4: Variety and Hybrid Development FP5: Pre-Breeding and Trait Discovery 11,026,749 10,875,991 11,347,701 11,917,987 12,013,049 12,609,109 69,790,586 13,211,409 13,505,654 14,029,171 14,675,775 15,646,625 16,367,902 87,436,535 17,187,678 17,523,955 18,202,040 19,036,143 20,200,903 21,123, ,274,456 23,078,189 23,866,334 24,850,515 25,983,021 27,067,134 28,304, ,150,135 11,899,064 12,702,762 13,231,567 13,861,742 14,019,612 14,681,540 80,396,288 Total 76,403,089 78,474,697 81,660,994 85,474,669 88,947,323 93,087, ,048,000 Management & Support Cost 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 12,000,000 Strategic Competitive Research Grant 500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 1,000, ,000 6,000,000 Grand Total 78,903,089 81,974,697 85,160,994 88,474,669 91,947,323 95,587, ,048,000 Figure 4: Total Flagship budget distribution over six years. Flagship Budgets - ( ) US $ Million FP1 FP2 FP3 FP4 FP5 CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 54

55 Table 14: Funding gap by sources of funding (US$) Funding Gap Over/(Under) W1+W2 (Required from SO) W3 (Required from FC Members) Bilateral (Fundraising) Other Sources (Fundraising) Total (391,642) (3,225,126) (6,367,322) (6,635,890) (6,940,529) (7,236,062) (30,796,569) (13,599,959) (27,404,828) (55,962,660) (65,302,762) (71,692,926) (75,085,401) (309,048,535) Total Funding Gap (13,991,600) (30,629,954) (62,329,982) (71,938,651) (78,633,454) (82,321,463) (339,845,104) - - CRP Funding Plan Table 12: Total needed CRP budget by sources of funding (US$) Sources of Funding Needed Total W1+W2 11,500,000 11,500,000 11,500,000 11,500,000 11,500,000 11,500,000 69,000,000 W3 27,813,785 24,774,963 15,565,088 11,465,656 8,706,295 9,001,828 97,327,613 Bilateral 39,589,304 45,699,734 58,095,906 65,509,013 71,741,028 75,085, ,720,387 Other Sources Total Funding Plan 78,903,089 81,974,697 85,160,994 88,474,669 91,947,323 95,587, ,048,000 Table 13: Total secured CRP budget by sources of funding (US$) Sources of Funding Secured Total W1+W2 (Assumed Secured) 11,500,000 11,500,000 11,500,000 11,500,000 11,500,000 11,500,000 69,000,000 W3 27,422,143 21,549,837 9,197,766 4,829,766 1,765,766 1,765,766 66,531,044 Bilateral 25,989,345 18,294,906 2,133, ,252 48,103-46,671,852 Other Sources Total Secured 64,911,488 51,344,743 22,831,012 16,536,018 13,313,869 13,265, ,202,896 CRP Management and Support Costs At the program level, GLDC intends to set apart $2M of the $11.5 million W1/W2 annually towards management and cross-cutting initiatives. This adds up to $12M for the period The details are given below in Table 14. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 55

56 Table 14: GLDC management and cross-cutting budget (US$) COST COMPONENT A. Basic components as were given in the guidance document A.1 Management fee charged by the Lead Center to handle CRP Finance and Administrative matters (Finance, accounting, reporting, contracts management, legal, HR, IT, communication-if handled by Lead Center) A.2 Combines three of the basic components to protect confidentiality of staff salaries the sum total of these three component should be reported as a single amount: CRP director including related cost benefits and on-cost if customary (computer, vehicle lease and office space) based on percentage time allocation Infrastructure and general and administrative charges if CRP leader is not located at the Lead Center Financial and administrative support based on time allocation A.3 Flagship leader and regional coordinators only if a significant percentage time (>50%) is dedicated to managerial activities. AMOUNT BUDGETED year Total 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 7,500, , , , , , ,000 1,950, , , , , , ,000 2,400, , , , , , , ,000 A.4 CRP Management Committee and related costs 100, , , , , , ,000 CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 56

57 A.5 Independent Steering Committee (or Science Committee) and related costs A.6 Communication activity related specifically to CRP communication and webpage (not if handled by Lead Center) A.7 CRP internal audit by the CGIAR Internal Audit Unit, or its future equivalent in the new System governance structure A.8 CRP internal and external reviews (e.g. CCEEs and other evaluations and reviews), as well as impact assessments B. CRP-level cross-cutting components not mentioned in the guidance document 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50, ,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50, ,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,000 4,500,000 B.1 CRP special events (e.g. CRP-wide program meetings) 100, , , , , , ,000 B.2 CRP leadership meetings (e.g. country coordinators, flagship leaders, cross-cutting coordinators) B.3 CRP M&E coordination and systems (not including external evaluations and impact assessments) 100, , , , , , ,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75, ,000 B.4 CRP communications, open access, IP assets, KMIS (including Lead Centre staff budgeted as direct costs not allowed under A.6 above) 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25, ,000 B.5 CRP capdev coordination 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 B.6 CRP gender and youth coordination B.7 CRP site integration support 350, , , , , ,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 B.8 Other: (specify) ,000 2,100, ,000 - CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 57

58 C. Funding source: MSC budget is assumed funded from W1/2. Some CRPs have been successful in mobilizing W3/bilateral funding to support CRP-level cross-cutting initiatives. These are listed below: (add rows as needed) C.1 Grant: (note name, donor; purpose in this cell) Strategic Competitive Research Grants (GLDC Innovation Fund) An average sum of $1 million per annum, out of the $11.5 million of W1/2 budget per annum, is planned for Strategic Competitive Research Grants, adding up to $6 million for the period This will be administered through a GLDC Innovation Fund. Agility and ability to respond to emerging opportunities is key for modern food systems in response to consumer needs. An Innovation Fund provides GLDC with a mechanism to seize emerging opportunities that will catalyze market development, especially in service of women farmers for whom GLDC crops are an important component of their farming system. GLDC will set aside an Innovation Fund of $1M per annum (~12% of the W1/W2 research budget) that is used to incentivize innovation to address key market and institutional barriers that women and men farmers face. Interventions can range from innovative seed systems, value addition, market integration through to domain-specific decision-support tools and delivery mechanisms. Innovations should cross more than one Flagship domain but preference will be given to farmer- and market-facing innovations that incentivise local partners to making farming GLDC crops a viable enterprise. Principles underpinning expenditure of these funds include: Support for GLDC to systematically engage with private and public sector, civil society and smallholder farmer actors in targeted value chains that underpin GLDC crops for nutritional security. Fund collaborative design, implementation and outreach of GLDC projects that focus on understanding and overcoming constraints on the path to impact identified by various stakeholders, especially private sector and producer associations. Invest in unanticipated opportunities that can build a strong business case for sustainable and equitable benefits for smallholder producers of GLDC crops. Ability to utilise these funds to enable unanticipated opportunities for critical capacity building activities that address key institutional barriers along GLDC value chains. Leveraging co-investment from private, NGO or public sector partners for proposed initiatives is highly desirable. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 58

59 A robust, transparent process will be implemented to ensure fund expenditure adheres to formal governance process. Approval of expenditure from the Innovation Fund must be supported by the Independent Steering Committee. CRP financial management principles GLDC will follow a transparent process of governance and financial management. The allocation of W1/W2 resources to the participating Centers will be decided by the Independent Steering Committee based upon recommendations of the CRP Director following a consultative process. Considerations will include strategic use of W1/W2 funds to leverage the W3 and bilateral funding, contributions by Centers in the flagships, performance of the Centers in achieving the stated goals of the CRP, ability to generate W3 and bilateral resources to support the CRP and other considerations that the Independent Steering Committee may deem appropriate to maximize the contributions of the CRP to the SLOs. A sum of $8.5 million of the annual total of $11.5 million from W1/W2 for GLDC is allocated to the five Flagships, in the proportion of 14%, 27%, 27%, 20% and 12% to FP1, FP2, FP3, FP4 and FP5 respectively. These proportions have been derived based on the recognition that there are strategic investments needed in farmer and market-facing components of the program to realize our Theory of Change, leading to a higher percentage going to FP2 and FP3. Additional W1/W2 investments will be made in 2017 for prioritization of interventions along the value chains of our commodities to prioritize investments that will reduce risk of production and increase profitability for farmers growing crops covered under GLDC. The Flagship Leaders shall have the authority, ratified by the CRP Director, to approve mapping of W3 and bilateral under agreed guidelines. Instances of conflict will be discussed in the Research Management Committee and resolved in the best interests of the CRP program. Flagship Leaders shall manage their budgets, with the authority to tract, report and revise as necessary. The MEL system used in CRP-DS, and currently being adapted for GLDC, will be an important tool that supports realtime tracking of projects and budget use by Flagship Leaders. GLDC Flagship Programs have identified some requirements for capital expenditure. With the current base W1/W2 allocation, if requests for capital expenditure emerge beyond that covered by W3/bilateral funds, they will be assessed by the Research Management Committee to ensure they are essential for achieving CRP outcomes. Budgeted costs for certain key activities The aggregated estimates for proposed expenditure on cross-crp priorities are provided in Table 15. These represent an initial estimation of the contributions from the W3/bilateral projects mapped to the CRP plus the specific minimal budgeting at the CRP-level from W1/W2 for cross-cutting activities. Hence, an estimated annual amount of $23.5 million, or a 6-year total of $141.3 million, is directly allocated to these initiatives approx. 27% of the total 6-year budget of the program. Further careful analysis of existing W3 and bilateral budgets will enable determination of the actual amount available CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 59

60 at least for 2017, enabling us to strategize our resource mobilization efforts in support of these crosscutting activities. While the estimates in Table 15 are explicitly targeted for these branded activities, their full expenditure is far higher, especially on the first four critical aspects of GLDC. For example, the practicefacing Flagships FP2 and FP3 must explicitly consider gender and youth in each and every intervention and engagement with beneficiaries and stakeholders. In this light, their full ~$30 million annual budget is in play on the issues of gender and youth. A similar argument can be made for each FP and for each of these cross-gldc initiatives. Table 15: Estimated annual average budget for select cross-gldc initiatives (US$) Annual cost (US$) Gender 8,000,000 Youth 6,000,000 Capacity development 8,000,000 Impact assessment 1,000,000 Intellectual asset management 25,000 Open access and data management 500,000 Communication 300,000 Note: FPs 2, 3 and 4 will largely support Impact Assessment. Table 16: M&E investments in GLDC (US$) M&E investments AMOUNT BUDGETED year Total M&E 250, , , , , ,000 1,500,000 Under the MSC budget 250, , , , , ,000 1,500,000 Under the Competitive Grants Fund Under flagship budgets Impact assessment 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 6,000,000 Under the MSC budget Under the Competitive Grants Fund Under flagship budgets 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 6,000, Flagship-Level Uplift Budget Scenario GLDC proposes a total uplift budget of $105 million for a six-year period towards meeting its 2022 targets. The current base budget is a total of $522 million over 6 years, including $69 million from W1/W2 and the remaining from W3/Bilateral. In line with the guidelines issued by the Consortium Office, limiting the W1/2 uplift budget to 30% of the W1/2 base budget, GLDC requests an uplift budget of $21 million from W1/2 for the period CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 60

61 The uplift budget, if approved and mobilized, will be used in line with the priorities identified by FP1 in its comprehensive targeting process (Box 1 in the FP1 narrative). Notwithstanding this process, the case can be well made now that the challenging research agenda proposed by GLDC i.e. research interventions in the agrifood systems of 8 priority crops in 14 target countries requires greater support than that currently available in W1/W2 funds. This issue was well recognized in the various ISPC commentaries on prior submissions. GLDC has planned its activities in line with the available W1/W2 and has limited its portfolio of crop x country x intervention cases in FP2 and FP3, and crop x country x trait priorities in FP4 and FP5. An uplift budget will enable expanded coverage of identified agrifood system cases across targeted countries. It will also enable the further filling of critical capability needs to tackle this challenging agenda recruitment and training innovation brokers, value chain modelers, agribusiness incubation specialists. Of course, GLDC will continue to raise bilateral and W3 funding to support these priority issues. In the special cases, where non-priority cereal or legume crops demonstrate particular alignment with GLDC s focus on overcoming constraints in agrifood systems and large impacts can be expected, then support from the uplift budget (and Innovation Fund) will be considered. Examples of the rapid expansion of soybean in sub-saharan Africa and the demand for lentil in India are cases of point. This uplift scenario offers the prospect of limited and focused consideration of important crops that were included in Phase I CRPs lentil, fababean, finger millet and soybean. Flagship-wise strategic research areas supported by the uplift budget: FP1: Holistic adoption studies and ex-post impact assessment (for ~40 years of CG research) in the target crops in the target countries. FP2: Development of solutions for post-harvest loss reduction in partnership with key stakeholders; strengthening of agribusiness and innovation platforms for value-chain integration across links and with stakeholders; recruitment and training innovation brokers, value chain modelers, agribusiness incubation specialists; increased allocation to the Innovation Fund; added case studies across more countries. FP3: Establishment of adaptive trial facilities across target population of environments to combine variety and agronomic package of recommendations for target crop mixtures/rotations; added case studies across more countries. FP4: Establishment of uniform field testing sites representative of the target population of environments for the GLDC targeted crops and their mixtures and/or rotations, with embedded rigor for statistically designed and analyzed experimentation; added crops. FP5: Establishment of a functional genomics facility that supports the discovery of gene-to-phenotype relationships for marker and transgenic discoveries using gene-editing and/or forward genetic approaches (TILLING, activation-tagging) at medium to high throughput; added crops. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 61

62 1.18 REFERENCES Abdelali-Martini, M., Empowering Women in the Rural Labor Force with a Focus on Agricultural Employment in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Anderson, J.R., J.L. Dillon and J.B. Hardaker Agricultural Decision Analysis. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, IA Alston, J.M., G.W. Norton and P.G. Pardey Science under Scarcity: Principles and Practice for Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Arndt, T. and V.W. Ruttan Valuing the Productivity of Agricultural Research: Problems and Issues. In Resource Allocation and Productivity in National and International Agricultural Research, eds. T. Arndt, D.G. Dalrymple, and V. M. Ruttan. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. Bantilan, C., Nedumaran, S., Mausch, K., Charyulu, D.K., Josey, K., Ndjeunga, J., Deb, U.K., Mazvimavi, K. and Davis, J. (2013), Impact Assessment Analysis to Support International Agricultural Research Funding Decisions: Historical Overview, Methods and Applications at ICRISAT. Report for: AARES Conference 2013 workshop on Impact Assessment Analysis to Support International Agricultural Research, 5-8 February 2013, Darling Harbour, New South Wales. Bantilan C, Kumara Charyulu D, Gaur PM, Shyam MD and Jeff D Short-Duration Chickpea Technology: Enabling Legumes Revolution in Andhra Pradesh, India Research Report no. 23. Patancheru Telangana, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. 208 pp.brennan, J.P Economic Criteria for Establishing Plant Breeding Programs. CIMMYT Economics Working Paper El Batan, Mexico: CIMMYT. Birthal PS, Parthasarathy Rao P, Nigam SN, Bantilan MCS and Bhagavatula S Groundnut and Soybean Economies in Asia: Facts, Trends and Outlook. Patancheru , Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. 92 pp. ISBN: CGIAR, Strategy and Results Framework Sourced at CGIAR-CABI Crop improvement, adoption and impact of improved varieties in food crops in sub- Saharan Africa. Eds, Walker TS, and Alwang J. Cheng, Z. and Larochelle, C. (2016), Estimating demand for millet and sorghum in Niger and Nigeria, ICRISAT Socioeconomics Discussion Paper Series #39. Dalton T and Regier G Assessment of the Impact of Improved Pigeonpea Development by ICRISAT in Northern Tanzania. Patancheru , Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 62

63 Dewey K.G., The Challenge of Meeting Nutrient Needs of Infants and Young Children during the Period of Complementary Feeding: An Evolutionary Perspective. The Journal of Nutrition Issues and Opinions. J. Nutr. 143: , 2013 Dillon, J.L An analysis of response in crop and livestock production (2nd edition), Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK Dixon J, Gulliver A and Gibbon D. (2001) Farming Systems and Poverty: Improving Farmer s Livelihoods in a Changing World. FAO and World Bank, Rome and Washington DC. FAO Policies for basic food commodities, Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization. 96 pp. FAO (2008) Drylands, People and Land use. Gierend A and Orr A. (2015) Consumer demand for sorghum and millets in eastern and southern Africa: Priorities for the CGIAR Research Programme on Dryland Cereals. Socioeconomics Discussion Paper Series 35. ICRISAT. Gierend, A. and Orr, A. (2015), Consumer demand for sorghum and millets in eastern and southern Africa: Priorities for the CGIAR Research Programme for Dryland Cereals, ICRISAT Socioeconomics Discussion Paper Series #35. GFA (2014) Innovation Transfer into Agriculture - Adaptation to Climate Change (ITAACC) Result B: Assessment of the Demand-supply Match for Agricultural Innovations ( K e n y a ), Final workshop report. Gourichon H., Analysis of incentives and disincentives for sorghum in Nigeria. Technical notes series, MAFAP, FAO, Rome. Hall, Andrew, et al From measuring impact to learning institutional lessons: an innovation systems perspective on improving the management of international agricultural research. Agricultural systems 78: Hamazakaza, P2, Katungi.E, Ryes, B, Maredia, M, Muimui, K. and Ojara, M Assessing access and adoption of common bean improved varieties in Zambia. Research Technical Report available on IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute Pulses Value Chain in Ethiopia: Constraints and opportunities for enhancing exports. Hollinger, F. and Staatz, J. M., Agricultural Growth in West Africa: Market and Policy Drivers. FAO; African Development Bank (AfDB); Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). 384 pp. Hyman, G., Barona, E., Biradar, C., Guevara, E., Dixon, J., Beebe, S., Castano, S.E., Alabi, T., Gumma, M.K., Sivasankar, S. and Rivera, O., Priority regions for research on dryland cereals and legumes. F1000 Research, 5(885), pp CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 63

64 ISPC, Background paper for FC13 session on Dryland Systems. Working Document. 9pp. Sourced at Irz, Xavier, Lin Lin, Colin Thirtle and Steve Wiggins. Agricultural Growth and Poverty Alleviation. Katungi, E., Horna, D., Gebeyehu, S and Sperling, L Market access, intensification and productivity of common bean in Ethiopia: A microeconomic analysis. African Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 6(2): DOI: /AJAR Katungi, E. Larochelle, C., Mugabo, J and Buruchara, R The Impact of Climbing bean adoption on welfare of Smallholder common bean Growers in Rwanda. A paper presented at the International Pulse Conference held on 29-2rd March, 2016 at Livingstone, Zambia. available at and under review in food security Journal. Larochelle, C., J. Alwang, G.W. Norton, E. Katungi, & R.A. Labarta "Impact of Adopting Improved Bean Varieties on Poverty and Food Security in Uganda and Rwanda". Book chapter 16 in Tomas Walker and Jeffrey Alwang (eds.), Crop Variety Improvement and Impacts of Agricultural Research in Africa. CABI Publishing Lastarria-Cornhiel, Susana (2008). Feminization of Agriculture: Trends and Driving Forces. Background paper for the World Development Report. Letaa, E., Kabungo, C., Katungi, E., Ojara, M and Ndunguru, A Farm level Adoption and Spatial Diffusion of Improved Common bean Varieties in Southern Highlands of Tanzania. African Crop Science Journal, Vol. 23 (3): Macharia I, Orr A, Simtowe F and Asfaw S Potential economic and poverty impact of improved chickpea technologies in Ethiopia. Socioeconomics Discussion Paper Series 9.Patancheru Telangana, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends assessment. Island Press: Washington, D.C., USA. Accessible at Nagaraj, N, G. Basavaraj, and P. Parthasarathy Rao (2011), Policy Brief on Future Outlook and Options for Target Crops: The Sorghum and Pearl millet economy of India, ICRISAT, India. Nedumaran S, Bantilan MCS, Gupta SK, Irshad A and Davis JS. (2014) Potential Welfare Benefits of Millets Improvement Research at ICRISAT: Multi-country economic surplus model approach. Socioeconomics Discussion Paper Series 15. ICRISAT. Nedumaran S, Abinaya P, Shraavya B, Parthasarathy Rao and Bantilan MCS. (2013) Grain Legumes Production, Consumption and Trade Trends in Developing Countries An Assessment and Synthesis. Socioeconomics Discussion Paper Series 3. ICRISAT. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 64

65 O Donnell, C. J Measuring and decomposing agricultural productivity and profitability change*. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 54(4), Orr, A. and Mausch, K. (2014), How can we make smallholder agriculture in the semi-arid tropics more profitable and resilient? A research perspective from ICRISAT-led CGIAR Research Programs, Working Paper Series No. 59. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, India, 32 pp. Orr, A., Mwema, C. and Mulinge W. (2014), The value chain for Sorghum beer in Kenya, ICRISAT Socioeconomics Discussion Paper Series #16. Orr, A., Kambobo, B., Harris, D. and Doyle, V, (2015a), adoption of integrated food-energy systems: improved cookstoves and pigeonpea in southern Malawi, Experimental Agriculture 51(02): Rubyogo, J.C.Gebeyehu, S., Tumsa, K., Negash, K., Habte, E., Katungi, E., Sperling, L and Wozemba, D Increased bean productivity through increased access to improved seeds and use of improved bean management techniques in Ethiopia. A paper presented at a conference in held in AddisAbaba in Available on: Smart, T., and J. Hanlon Chickens and Beer: A Recipe for Agricultural Growth in Mozambique. United Kingdom: The Open University. Tabo, R Proceedings of the Workshop on Increasing the Productivity and Sustainability of Rainfed Cropping Systems of Poor, Smallholder Farmers, Tamale, Ghana, September Available at D.pdf Thornton, P.K., Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554), pp Tsusaka, T., H. W. Msere, M. Siambi, K. Mazvimavi, P. Okori The Evolution and Impacts of Groundnut Research and Development in Malawi: An Ex-post Analysis, African Journal of Agricultural Research 11(3), Unkovich, M.J., Pate, J.S. and Sanford, P Nitrogen fixation by annual legumes in Australian Mediterranean agriculture, Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 48: pp Verkaart, S., Munyua, B. and Mausch, K. (2015), The impact of improved chickpea adoption on poverty reduction in Ethiopia, paper presented at PEGNet 2015, Berlin, Germany. Walker, T. Pitoro, R., Tomo, A., Sitoe, I., Salencia, C., Mahanzule, R., Donovan, C., and F. Mazuze Priority Setting for Public Sector Agricultural Research in Mozambique with National Agricultural Survey Data. Research Report No. 3E, Maputo: Mozambique: Institute of Agricultural Research. Walker, T., and M.H. Collion Priority Setting at CIP for the Medium Term Plan. Lima, Peru: International Potato Center. Unprocessed. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 65

66 Walker, T. with T. Hash, F. Rattunde, and E. Weltzien Improved Crop Productivity for Africa s Drylands. Background Paper prepared for: Confronting Drought in Africa's Drylands: Opportunities for Enhancing Resilience. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. 122 pps. Yetagesu A.T, Katungi E, Rubyogo J. C, Sserunkuuma D, Kidane T. (forthcoming). Analysis of the Economic Performance of Community Based Bean Seed Production and Marketing in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Paper under review in the African crop science journal Yigezu, Y.A., Yirga, C., and A. Aw-Hassan Varietal output and adoption in barley, chickpea, faba bean, field pea, and lentil in Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Sudan. Pps in Walker, T.S. and Alwang, J. (Eds.) Crop Improvement, Adoption, and Impact of Improved Varieties in Food Crops in sub-saharan Africa. Oxfordshire, U.K.: CABI International. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 66

67 SECTION 2: FLAGSHIPS CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 67

68 FLAGSHIP PROGRAM 1 (FP1): PRIORITY SETTING & IMPACT ACCELERATION FP1.1 Rationale & Scope The research in FP1 focuses on the grand challenge of underperforming agrifood systems for priority food crops for the developing world. The main concern is how to overcome institutional constraints in the search for functional agrifood systems that deliver both resilience in food and nutrition security and opportunities for inclusive market-oriented development for smallholder farmers. Underperforming agrifood systems are often characterized by a multitude of interrelated challenges. Poor market access and value chains, poorly functional social institutions, social inequity, high risks and degraded natural resources are some of the challenges. In addition, the agrifood systems targeted by GLDC are predominantly in drier areas (Harris, D. and Orr, A. 2014), where challenges related to heat and drought are frequent and exacerbated by climate change, including extreme weather events, high temperature and heat waves and low and irregular rainfall. Anticipation and learning are crucial social processes in the development of underperforming agrifood systems. The capacity to foresee and respond early to adverse events, and to learn from events that occur is critical. The learning equips stakeholders to recognize risks related to volatile markets, institutional and social conditions, as well as climate challenges, food scarcity and degradation of natural resources that are obstacles to agrifood system development. These issues are addressed by taking up livelihood improvement through value chain interventions, sustainable intensification and diversification of the production. Anticipation and learning are also important in understanding and mitigating these risks and in strengthening the contribution of market opportunities and agricultural interventions to increase resilience of end users through value chain development, farm management, seed supply systems and provision of better germplasm. There are a number of issues that pertain to the grand challenge of developing underperforming agrifood systems: The first is reconciling the seemingly conflicting objectives of resilience, sustainable intensification and commercialization. These concepts are part of the continuum from subsistence farming to commercial agriculture, and the challenge is, therefore, to bring these agendas together and reduce the trade-offs. This FP can make a difference here and will approach this through a collaborative multi-stakeholder effort. The second issue is the potential conflict between addressing global issues, such as weak market arrangements, changing consumption patterns, climate change, land and water degradation, on the one hand and local, urgent, and household and community level needs related to poverty on the other. How to resolve this tension, in general and specifically, is a major question for this FP. Finally, the challenges of neglect and remoteness (in terms of lack of attention from governments, private sector and other actors and poor infrastructure) constrains the adoption of agronomic techniques. This issue needs to be addressed as it hinders a greater role for market orientation and private enterprise in achieving better development outcomes (Hamazakaza et al., 2015; Letaa CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 68

69 et al., 2015; Larochelle et al., 2015; Yetagesu et al., forthcoming). Modern digital technologies have the potential to meet these challenges and contribute to better communication and learning. This will be explored with the aim to maximize impact and also to design appropriate scaling systems. Contributing to impact at scale in targeted underperforming agrifood systems through innovative research that delivers development outcomes is GLDC s primary ambition. The approach includes value chain innovations, improvements of mixed cereal-legume-tree-livestock farming systems and better seed and varieties delivery systems. FP1 will focus on priority-setting and impact acceleration of research to unlock the potential of underperforming agrifood systems. Emphasis will be laid on grain legume and dryland cereal value chains and smallholder producers for improving market access, agriculture and livelihoods in the target (and spill over) countries. FP1 will work to ensure that GLDC conducts inclusive, demand-driven research that is in line with household and smallholder farmer needs, market demand, local and national priorities, the CGIAR s Strategic Results Framework (SRF) and the SDGs. FP1 is designed to enhance GLDC s ability to focus its efforts and resources in order to deliver its outcome targets efficiently and cost-effectively. Figure 1 illustrates how this will be achieved in close collaboration with and interaction between FP1 CoAs and FPs 2-5. One of GLDC s primary objectives is to conduct research (discovery-phase) on new and innovative ways to address the grand challenge of underperforming agrifood systems described above. Agrifood systems will be transformed into high performers in terms of productivity and overall benefit by using market demand and linkages, value chain development and improved grain legume and dryland cereal technologies, FP1 s foresight and priority setting work will enhance and accelerate the achievement of this objective by ensuring that such efforts are strategically focused on tackling the most acute issues and trends in targeted agrifood systems that align with GLDC s comparative advantage. During the first two years, FP1 will lead an effort to prioritize the underperforming grain legumes and dryland cereals agrifood systems with a view to establishing the countries, crops [value chains] and traits as well as the institutional/policy frameworks that generate the highest and most inclusive gains for smallholder farmers in which the CRP can invest. The prioritization approach successfully used by CRP-RTB, the Roots, Tubers and Bananas ( will be adapted for GLDC (Box 1). This strategic prioritization support will extend to GLDC s option development work, where new value chain and livelihood innovations, management practices and varieties will be developed, piloted and scaled. FP1 will both assist the piloting process and assess the effectiveness of selected options at larger scales and across heterogeneous contexts in terms of market, institutional arrangements, value chains and smallholder categories (testing at scale), followed by iterative cycles of adaptation and refinement. This will enrich learning about not only what works but also where, for whom, how, and at what cost, and results will be fed back to inform research prioritization and CRP-level decision- CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 69

70 making. FP1 s final value-added role will be to support the scaling of those proven options, with the ultimate aim of generating impact at scale. This will involve efforts to (a) identify key actors and facilitate meaningful stakeholder engagement and ownership; (b) develop the capacity of key partners and stakeholder groups; (c) support efforts to bring about a more enabling environment for targeted agrifood systems; and (d) strategically communicate and disseminate key research findings both within and beyond GLDC stakeholders. Figure 1: The role of FP1 in GLDC through its cluster of activities (CoAs), the interaction between FP1 and other GLDC FPs and cross-cutting areas, and engagement with key stakeholders. Solid arrows indicate the research for development process, which flows from discovery and option development to option testing and scaling in order to contribute to impact at scale. The dotted arrows are feedback and learning loops to refine and further focus GLDC s research agenda. Stakeholder engagement (i.e. with public, private sector and other development actors) is crucial and increases through the research cycle process. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 70

71 Box 1. Longer term prioritization strategy for the underperforming agrifood systems targeted in GLDC GLDC will adopt a systematic priority-setting procedure involving constraint analysis, analysis of research and technology options, and the estimation of potential economic and poverty-reduction impacts starting from prioritized crops and countries. This corresponds to the following six major steps of which some have already been initiated during the proposal development: Agroecologies and targeting Constraints analysis Identify matching research options Quantify model parameters Estimation of research impacts Communicate findings Step 1: Agroecologies and targeting The first step involves defining agroecological zones and mapping of crop production for different geographic regions aimed at identifying target areas for GLDC research interventions. Best suited for research interventions are hot spots, which are defined as geographic regions and/or production systems characterized by a large number of small-scale producers and/or high dependency of poor consumers on the respective GLDC crop, the presence of major constraints or opportunities (suitable to be addressed by research) as well as high incidence of poverty and food insecurity. Overlays of different maps (e.g., crop production, biotic or abiotic constraints, and poverty and food security indicators) point to areas where targeted GLDC research can lead to high impact. Sex disaggregation data will be used where available. Step 2: Constraints analysis The second step involves a gender-responsive constraints analysis aimed at identifying major production and marketing constraints of the GLDC mandate crops and assessing the relative importance of these constraints to select high priority research interventions. As part of the constraint analysis and identification of priority research options, expert surveys will be carried out for each of the crops included in the GLDC priority assessment, with efforts to articulate constraints that are specific to men, women and the youth. One major purpose of the expert surveys is to engage the global scientific/stakeholder community in identifying research options to be included in a participatory way. Step 3: Identify matching research options The selection of the research options in Step 3 will depend largely on the expert survey results complemented by focus group discussions with selected experts for each of the crops. The data and parameter estimates for the quantitative assessment in the next step will be derived from international statistics or elicited from experts knowledge about specific research fields, regions, and crop agroecologies. Potential research impacts will be assessed in Step 5 using the economic surplus model, which has been used extensively to quantify expected economic impacts of technical change in agriculture (Alston et al. 1995). The model will be used to estimate the potential number of beneficiaries and poverty reduction effects. Cost-benefit analyses will be CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 71

72 undertaken to estimate the economic returns to potential investments in the development of each of the research options analyzed. The results also provide a regional breakdown of the benefits and potential adoption area. The effects of different assumptions regarding the pace and ceiling of adoption will be tested through a sensitivity analysis using two different adoption scenarios. The goal of the preceding steps is to produce for each crop a list of opportunities, production constraints and associated research options which serves as the basis for the formal evaluation of research. We define research options as a research activity or a set of potential research activities linked to a specific constraint to production or sector development with the objective of developing innovations that improve food security, nutrition and livelihoods. Research activities will be carried out within the GLDC CRP and must lead to adoptable technologies. We may consider pipeline research, leading to adoptable innovations in the short and medium term as well as basic research with the potential to lead to research outputs in the longer run. The identification of production constraints and of research options to address them starts with an identification of constraints from a global consultation with CGIAR and NARS scientists, private sector partners, and from secondary sources, such as the GLDC proposal, Center s research portfolios, and other documents. At the same time, research options to address these constraints are identified. Based on the resulting first list of constraints and research options, opinions of stakeholders such as researchers are solicited through a structured expert survey. These surveys already involve a prioritization of the research options and should allow the stakeholders to add further constraints and research options. The instruments to be developed will allow respondents to give their inputs focusing on the region and crop of their focus. From the consultations with scientists and partners and the review of secondary data sources and from the stakeholder consultations, a first extended list of combinations of production constraints and research options will be generated. Step 4: Quantify model parameters Step 4 involves the formal evaluation of combinations of research options for each of the constraints, and the potential benefits which accrue to producers and consumers following adoption of GLDC technologies. The activity consists of the evaluation of the prospects to successfully carry out the research and the estimation of expected on-farm effects (benefits). This exercise is expected to generate the main data required for the estimation of impacts of adoption in Step 5. The set of parameters to be estimated for the evaluation of research options depends on the methodologies and models to be applied in Step 5. With the economic surplus and related partial-equilibrium models currently envisaged, the parameters to be estimated for each research option are: (1) Expected changes in on-farm yields (% increase over current average yield); (2) Changes in production costs per hectare; (3) Total area affected by constraint (% of total crop area); (3) Time necessary to make technology available from research; (4) Expected adoption of the technology option as described below (% of the area affected by the constraint); and (5) Probability of research success. Additional socioeconomic and market-related data will be needed for the estimation of poverty reduction and food security impacts. The data will be obtained from secondary sources. The effects on yields and per-hectare production costs will be stochastic and estimated as triangular distributions, which provide a more rigorous approach to sensitivity analysis by introducing a more rigorous treatment of uncertainty. The evaluation will be carried out at the level of constraint-research option combinations. Teams of scientists who are knowledgeable about the respective constraints and research options will be formed to establish consensus on the values of each of the parameters for each research option. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 72

73 The constraints to technology dissemination will be assessed with the objective of providing estimates of the potential adoption of the technology options. It assumes a country level perspective and takes into account the particular conditions for technology dissemination in each of the target countries, e.g., identification of particular sector policies and institutions, strength of seed systems, and NARS capacity. It is kept separate from the evaluation of research options to avoid positive bias arising from asking scientists who develop a respective technology about the potential adoption of their technologies. The research team will elicit two estimates of adoption ceilings to be realized after a dissemination period of 15 years: one under current conditions for technology dissemination and a second one under enhanced conditions involving additional investments in dissemination. The latter would also include the identification of options to enhance technology dissemination in the different countries. Again, other approaches to sensitivity analysis may be conceivable, for example asking for estimates of minimum, maximum and most likely adoption to estimate triangular distributions. Step 5: Estimation of research impacts Step 5 involves the evaluation of impacts of adoption of a set of technology options for each constraint identified. The economic surplus model as well as related partial equilibrium models (e.g., IMPACT model) will be used to assess the impacts of alternative GLDC research and technology options that result in yield increases or yield loss reductions. Several impact studies of agricultural technologies have estimated aggregate economic benefits through extrapolation of farm-level yield or income gains using partial equilibrium simulation models such as the economic surplus model (Alston et al., 1995). The economic surplus method is the most widely used procedure for economic evaluation of benefits and costs of a technological change. Technological change due to research in agriculture increases the yield, reduces yield losses, or reduces the cost of production. If the new technology is yield increasing, the producer sells more of the good in the market and if demand is downward-sloping the price decreases as well. Technology adoption reduces the per-unit cost of production and hence shifts the supply function of the commodity down and to the right. The models require research-related data, market-related data, and additional information for the estimation of economic, poverty reduction, and food security impacts. Step 6: Communicate findings In this last step, the results of the preceding analyses will be shared with the wider scientific and stakeholder community and the feedback will be incorporated and, where necessary, parameter estimates and assumptions will be modified. The objective is to provide decision makers with the possibility to easily extract the essence of the exercise and enable them to integrate the information generated by the priority setting process into their decision making. Cross-crop technology options The approach described above does not easily accommodate very small initiatives or highly integrated large fuzzy technologies such as landscape watershed management. The approach should be flexible enough to address specific market-related opportunities and to encompass well-defined crop and land and water management technologies that may or may not be crop-specific, such as micro-dosing fertilizer, Courbes de niveau (ACN), ridge tillage, or contour bunding. What is important is to ensure that sufficient investment has been made and enough experience has accumulated to elicit reasonable perceptions. The challenge is to tease some of these well-defined, often multicomponent technologies out of FPs 3 and 4. Often such technologies are wrongly viewed as silver bullets but farmers rarely if ever accept integrated technologies which tend to be more location specific as the degree of integration increases. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 73

74 Demand-related considerations Although the Dryland Cereals and Grain Legume CRPs did not engage in formal priority setting in Phase 1, they supported many studies that contribute to impact assessment in general and priority setting in particular. A review of recent ICRISAT-related studies from the Hope and Tropical Legume projects (see 2.4) suggests several interesting and relevant findings that will contribute directly to priority setting especially in the identification of research options from the perspective of market demand. For example, sorghum in Ethiopia has negligible market demand and is still best viewed as a food security crop. On the other hand, pearl millet is characterized by several well-defined uses in the urban market. Urbanization is a force for sharply declining consumption in some crops and is a stimulus for consumption in other commodities and countries such as millet in Kenya. This information coupled with similar evidence from demand and value chain studies in Phase 2 will be incorporated into priority setting. The way forward Implementing the above priority setting approach will have the following tasks and timelines. By the end of 2016, the literature reviews on market demand and production constraints and on estimates of parameters for quantifying adoption and impact will be carried out. These are part of steps 2 and 4 in the process described above. About six months following the expected approval of GLDC, an international meeting of participating scientists and a few key stakeholders will be held to define a preliminary set of major technological options for analysis so that a baseline based on ongoing research can be fast-tracked. Six months should be acceptable as a waiting period before engaging in an initial priority-setting exercise. At the start of Phase 2, four crops will be the subjects of priority setting. The year after, four more crops will be targeted for priority setting. Thereafter the prioritization will continue with feedback loops from FPs 2, 3, 4 and 5. The scheduling of crops and technology options will be one of the tasks to be decided on at the workshop. By the end of Year 2 the first round of priority setting will be finalized for all target crops, and by the end of Phase 2 all major technological options will have received careful scrutiny under a lens of systematic priority setting. FP1.2 Objectives & Targets The overall objective of FP1 is to ensure that GLDC research is demand-driven, outcome-focused, inclusive and scalable with high potential for large impact contributing to the SRF and SLOs. Building on previous achievements, FP1 will compile and collate evidence and support learning on options with the largest development outcomes for various contexts. FP1 will facilitate these processes across all GLDC FPs and thereby achieve: Improved targeting and responsiveness of research to end-user demands for accelerated scaling and impact of research outputs More inclusive technologies and related innovations developed within the agrifood system and evidence disseminated to enable spill-over deployment The specific issues to be addressed by FP1 to move towards these outcomes with examples of overarching research questions are given below. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 74

75 Foresight, climate change analysis & priority setting CoA 1.1: Innovative approaches are required in order to better prioritize and design interventions and facilitate learning that take account of stakeholder engagement, e.g., envisioning desirable futures, the options to get there and the anticipated outcome of interventions. The rationale behind this thrust is that development has been characterized by far too many failures, many of which could have been avoided through inclusion of relevant actors and learning loops. Building on previous work and experiences, ways to develop and identify participatory, inclusive and better grounded interventions will be used. Climate change is one major driver of change to which continued attention must be paid. The fact that the underperforming agrifood systems in focus are predominantly in drier areas makes them particularly vulnerable. This requires analyses of the implications of climate change taking into account the characteristics and variability in targeted underperforming agrifood systems in order to reduce risks and shocks. - What are the desired (by different stakeholders) sustainable development outcomes in the target areas, and what are the plausible outcomes under different future scenarios? - Which set of interventions and new technologies would have the greatest impacts on food and nutrition security, poverty reduction and sustainable natural resources management under climate change? Value chains, markets & drivers of adoption CoA 1.2: Consumer demands for the portfolio crops span from rural subsistence households in developing countries to advanced urban health food markets in the developed world, including a wide range of expectations and demands for produce characteristics. These varying market demands, meeting rural household needs and developing the value chain that links both of them are of great importance for the target households. However, there are bottlenecks and hindering factors such as limited value chain development as a consequence of poor infrastructure and institutional barriers limiting market outlets and farmers access to inputs such as seed. Overall, understanding drivers of adoption and smallholder livelihood diversity is crucial to facilitate scaling of innovations and technologies and will add value to the analysis of adoption constraints in Phase 1 (see 2.5). The nutritious nature of the target crops, allied with growing demand for healthy food options by urban consumers, opens niche markets. In order to facilitate change, value chains that offer the best potential for inclusive growth and benefits to the target population need to be addressed. - What are the underlying preferences affecting demand for agricultural technologies and produce across the various target groups and how can these be used in technology development, dissemination and ultimately to enhance adoption? - Which value chains have the highest potential for better nutrition, economic growth and social inclusion? Accelerating impact for women and young people through inclusive innovation systems and learning CoA 1.3: Ensuring equitable inclusion and participation of women and young people in local and regional value chains within the underperforming agrifood systems, is crucial for accelerating impact. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 75

76 Gender research is designed to support GLDC in ensuring inclusion and equity among female and male beneficiaries and stakeholders, and adapting capacities and strengthening institutions to ensure (i) a convincing evidence base on strategic gender topics in each flagship, (ii) mainstreaming gender analysis across GLDC research areas, and (iii) developing interventions that are responsive to gender and social inclusion interests. Inclusive innovation systems and learning can form the vehicle for transformative change creating opportunities for women, youth and marginalized groups in the target grain legume and dryland cereals value chains. Our hypothesis is that, besides being a development goal in itself, empowering women and youth is a crucial leverage point for positive change and development of these agrifood systems and the targeted farming communities. - What can be the role of inclusive innovative learning and action systems in bringing gainful engagement of young people into the underperforming agrifood systems of grain legumes and dryland cereals? - Which are the bottlenecks and trade-offs in women s participation in local and regional value chains of the target crops, and which role can inclusive, innovative, learning and action systems play to leverage change? Enabling environments and scaling to accelerate impact CoA1.4: The policy environment as a key determinant of success has to take diversity into account by avoiding a uniform approach to development. By facilitating an improved match between end-user demands and new- or existing technology options, outcomes can be improved (income, employment opportunities, etc.) depending on the technologies characteristics. To support innovation development value chains and the uptake and adoption of technologies have to be assessed at the implementation sites to guide the research process. Aiming at impact at scale requires research (science of scaling), and the options need to be tested across a range of contexts in order to generate evidence of potential impacts at scale. - What are the policy processes and enabling factors underlying effective uptake of innovations and new technologies and how can these be supported efficiently and effectively? - What characteristics of underperforming agrifood systems are enabling or constraining market, policy, institutional and technological options and how do these relate to livelihoods and sustainability in different contexts? - What are the social structures (gender, age, wealth) that influence value chain and technology choices and uptake, resource use patterns and market access? FP1 will work closely with other FPs across the GLDC target areas, but especially with FP2 where action research is to be undertaken in specific value chains. In order to achieve its objective, GLDC will align its research with regional and national development priorities and market opportunities. Within GLDC, co-location and integration of research across FPs (and other CRPs) is crucial. Different value chains and rural household typologies (based on resource endowment, gender, age, location) and communities will be targeted based on specific challenges and opportunities. Women, young people and marginalized groups are the focus in all the work. The options x context paradigm applied for CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 76

77 option testing and scaling explores and utilizes the heterogeneity among stakeholders including market actors, farmers and communities (biophysical and socioeconomic site characteristics) in order to identify promising interventions and validate best fit options and technologies. Table 1 shows the IDOs and sub-idos targeted by FP1 and the level of investment. Table 1. The SRF sub-idos addressed by FP1 and budget Amount Needed for 6 yrs ($MM) Flagship 1 - Priority Setting & Impact Acceleration ID Sub-IDO B.1.3 C.1.3 D.1.1 D.1.4 Reduced production risk Reduce market barriers Increased livelihood opportunities Increased access to diverse nutrientrich foods Improved capacity of women and young people to participate in decision-making Conducive agricultural policy environment Enhanced institutional capacity of partner research organizations Increased capacity for innovation in partner development organizations and in poor and vulnerable communities W1+W2 (%) W1+W2 (Actual $) W3 (%) W3 (Actual $) Bilate ral (%) Bilateral (Actual $) , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , FP1 - TOTAL , , , CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 77

78 FP1.3 Impact pathway and Theory of Change The impact pathway and theory of change of FP1, presented in Figure 2, shows the research activities, outputs and outcomes of FP1 and how it will contribute to the overall GLDC SLO contributions. FP1 will contribute to outcomes of all FPs through priority setting and gender research as well as creating enabling environments and providing scaling-up support as described in Figure 2. FP1 has strong links to PIM, CCAFS and WLE (decision analysis) through shared staff. It also connects to A4NH where the links will be further developed. FP1 is hosting the strategic research of the cross-cutting theme on gender and is working closely with MEL unit to support a solid evidence base for learning and impact assessment and the capacity development theme. The first cluster of activity (CoA 1.1) on Foresight, Climate Change Analysis & Priority Setting, will undertake participatory, inclusive and systematic priority assessment involving stakeholder consultations and foresight and ex-ante impact assessment to inform GLDC s research priorities. This will be augmented by work carried out under CoA 1.2 on value chains, markets & drivers of adoption, so that GLDC s research efforts across FPs are informed by the realities of market demands and structure and household priorities and adoption processes, and to ensure scalability. Much of this research agenda will involve in-depth scientific investigation in collaboration with other FPs, with the ultimate aim of developing innovations for enhancing value chains and market linkages, sustainable intensification and resilience across the agrifood systems (option development) and ultimately generate higher incomes reduced market barriers and increased employment opportunities across the agrifood system. For instance, CoA 1.1 s foresight, stakeholder consultations, and decision and economic analysis work will, in collaboration with other FPs, help identify demand and best bets, i.e. options most likely to bring about high impact returns. In addition, CoAs 1.3 Accelerating impact for women and young people through inclusive innovations systems and learning and 1.4 Enabling environments and scaling to accelerate impact, together with the other CoAs and based on solid evidence, will support design, methods and approaches for inclusive innovation piloting across FPs. A key aim will be to ensure that the demands of various smallholder farmer typologies including women and young people are met (CoA 1.2 and 1.3), while simultaneously enhancing the resilience and sustainability of value chains and production systems (with FPs 2 and 3). Together with other FPs, FP1 will also undertake work with development partners and other stakeholders like policy makers (CoA 1.1 and CoA 1.4) and through inclusive innovation systems (CoA 1.3) to facilitate testing and scaling (CoA 1.4) of the performance of the initially devised options from GLDC. This will be done, where suitable, in collaboration with other CRPs such as Maize, Wheat, FTA, Livestock and RTB at a larger scale and across a wider range of conditions (testing at scale). The resulting learning will be fed back into the option development process across FPs, followed by iterative cycles of refinement and improvement. CoA 1.1 and 1.2 will specifically generate insights on climate change adaptation options and value chains (link to PIM, CCAFS, WLE, A4NH, FPs 2 and 3) that are well matched to the heterogeneous conditions of targeted agrifood systems (FPs 2 and 3). Finally, CoA 1.2 will interrogate the factors that drive adoption and diffusion of innovations across contexts and socioeconomic groups, with due emphasis on gender and youth. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 78

79 Fig. 2. Theory of change and impact pathway of FP1 Priority setting & impact acceleration. Full lines are illustrating direct impact pathways and dotted lines indirect pathways, feedback and learning. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 79

80 CoA 1.4 will, in collaboration with other FPs, further engage with partners to promote learning about what works, where, for whom, how, and at what cost. The partners will include private sector, development agencies and relevant decision-makers, enabling the second tier of the scaling-up process (impact at scale). This will be complemented by research activities on enabling environments and include policy engagement started during priority setting (CoA 1.1) to build on desired outcomes and create enabling conditions for the scaling to take place all through the research process (discovery, option development & testing to scaling). Innovation adoption will then be monitored (by the GLDC MEL) and analyzed, alongside the impact assessment data, to estimate GLDC s overall impact on improving value chains and livelihoods and the environmental conditions of cereal-legume-livestock systems particularly targeting areas in sub-saharan Africa and South Asia and identified target and spill over countries. FP1.4 Science quality The prioritization work for the underperforming agrifood systems to be carried out during the first years of GLDC (see section 2.1, Box 1) will use approaches and experiences from RTB documented in a number of working papers authored/co-authored by Arega Alene, the leader of CoA 1.1, and others ( (Pemsl DE et al. 2014; Alene A et al. 2014; Creamer B et al. 2014). Several methods have been devised and used to discuss the future with stakeholders, including end users, in a structured and scientifically organized way (Öborn I et al. 2013). With a set of possible future scenarios as the starting point, the preparedness and the ability to actively engage and contribute to shape the future will increase. In turn this will help researchers to formulate cuttingedge research questions based on knowledge gaps and demand, and guide policy makers and funding bodies to support future-oriented research (Öborn I et al. 2011). FP1 will build on this approach and also work closely with the PIM Foresight team and with CCAFS. A novel approach to be used for stakeholder engagement in priority setting and scaling is the Stakeholder Approach to Risk-informed and Evidence-based Decision-making [SHARED] (Neely C 2016) process, a demand driven, tailored and interactive engagement process for collaborative learning and co-negotiation of decisions to achieve mutually agreed development outcomes. Decision analysis models used for making probabilistic impact projections that consider a multitude of risks and uncertainties (Shepherd K et al. 2015) is one essential component, along with the geospatial resilience diagnostic tool (Vågen T-G et al. 2015). Other tools include the ones developed under the Global Futures and Strategic Foresight in PIM consisting of bio-economic modelling tools linking site-specific or geo-spatial crop modelling with economic modelling. These tools were successfully used to quantify impact of promising groundnuts, chickpeas and sorghum varieties under different climate change models (Singh P et al. 2014a; Singh P et al. 2014b; Singh P et al. 2014c) and assess the effects of weather extremes on regional food security (Chung U et al. 2014; Gbegbelegbe S et al. 2014). The approaches described above allow identifying key knowledge gaps, thus contributing to priority setting across GLDC as a continuous process. The potential synergies and conflicts between the objectives of profitability and resilience as simultaneous CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 80

81 targets have been demonstrated (Orr A and Mausch K 2015) and provide a basis to further analyze the timing of synergistic innovations and the channels which could facilitate approaches based on the simultaneous consideration of market demands and farmer preferences. The climate change impact analysis will make use of the body of CCAFS and partners work developed in recent years ( and household and community level baseline datasets (Van Wijk MT 2014). Several scientists in FP1 participated in the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA)-led project, Diffusion and Impact of Improved Varieties in Africa (DIIVA) (Walker T et al. 2014) and contributed to the widely recognized publications (Walker TS and Alwang J, eds. 2015) on the effectiveness of crop improvement, adoption, and impacts of improved varieties in food crops in sub-saharan Africa, and the work on the influence of increasingly diverse income structures on rural development. For impact acceleration, the research in development paradigm (Coe R et al. 2014) will be applied enabling colearning amongst research, development and private sector actors. It is a novel approach for testing options (best bets) for value chain development and on-farm at large scale (to capture heterogeneity in socio-economic and biophysical contexts) together with development partners. It embeds MEL in the research process and it is presently applied in mega-projects such as DRYDEV (see below). FP1 scientists have the experience, partnerships and networks, through the projects are engaged in or leading, to enrich GLDC and its delivery of quality science. Tropical Legumes III: The TL III project ( ) will develop and deliver legume cultivars, with market and agronomic traits preferred by smallholders. This means, for example, that the new cultivars should resist or be hardier in relation to the primary biotic and abiotic stresses in the target geographies. As proposed in FP1, the priorities were generated in close collaboration between economic and breeding objectives. In the TL III program, the CGIAR and NARS operate as equal partners. Complementary research and delivery pillars are proposed to deliver outcomes and also focus on a better understanding of household needs of food and nutritional security and income in order to establish sustainable seed delivery systems, especially for women farmers. Innovative approaches, such as the inclusion of a full DNA fingerprinting of planted materials as part of the impact assessments, will be undertaken to attribute yield to varieties but also to seed purity. This will add not only to priority setting through better quality estimates but also feed into more robust impact assessments for legumes specifically but will have wider implications. HOPE 2: The 2nd phase ( ) of Harnessing Opportunities for Productivity Enhancement of Sorghum and Millets in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia focuses on the production and distribution of improved seed, the adoption of improved varieties and crop management practices for sorghum and millets in six GLDC target countries. Closely aligned with FP1 research agenda, the project will take a systematic approach to adoption based on the Four A s Adoption Model Awareness and Access to create the enabling conditions that will drive adoption and Advantage and Affordability to provide feedback on what works and why, helping align research outputs with farmer demands. In line with GLDC it will evaluate the influence of gender norms on women s decision-making. Like CoA 1.2, socio- CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 81

82 economic research aims to deepen understanding of the process and drivers of adoption. The Four A s in the Adoption Model will be addressed simultaneously and in a coordinated manner with a specific focus on implications for women farmers. DRYDEV: The ICRAF-led Drylands Development Programme ( ) is designed to provide relevant, context appropriate support to over 227,000 smallholder farmers in selected areas of Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, Ethiopia, and Kenya. With support from the IFAD-financed project Restoration of degraded land for food security and poverty reduction in East Africa and the Sahel, efforts are being made to use existing data and evidence to tailor programmatic interventions to varying site conditions, coupled with famer-led field experiments (planned comparisons) to promote learning about which development options work where, for whom, how, and at what cost. Africa RISING: The Africa Research in Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation program is supported by USAID and comprises three projects led by IITA in West Africa and East and Southern Africa, and ILRI in the Ethiopian Highlands. IFPRI leads an associated project on monitoring, evaluation, and impact assessment. Africa RISING seeks to provide pathways out of hunger and poverty for smallholder families through sustainably intensified farming systems that sufficiently improve food, nutrition, and income security, particularly for women and children, and conserve or enhance the natural resource base. The research objectives are to identify and evaluate demand-driven options for sustainable intensification and to evaluate, document and share experiences with approaches for delivering and integrating innovation for sustainable intensification. Development objectives include (i) creating opportunities for smallholder farm households within Africa RISING action sites (Ghana, Mali, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, Ethiopia) to move out of poverty and improve their nutritional status and (ii) facilitate partner-led wider dissemination of integrated innovations for sustainable intensification. Treesilience: The role of trees in enhancing the resilience of livelihoods and economies in the dry areas of Eastern Africa was the focus of this UK-funded project (De Leeuw J et al., eds. 2014). It has contributed to the national and regional efforts to support actions to increase household assets needed to reduce vulnerabilities of affected communities. FP1.5 Lessons learned and unintended consequences Adoption studies have shown that the availability of information which has long been targeted as the main bottleneck to adoption cannot replace the need for farmers to test new technologies in their own fields before full adoption. This implies that the content of the information provided should be further fine-tuned and adjusted to the farmers requirements. While awareness and seed supply is a critical constraint, in some cases low adoption of improved varieties may reflect disconnect between farmer needs and variety characteristics. There remain knowledge gaps in understanding constraints to adoption for specific crops in specific countries, e.g., sorghum in Ethiopia, which have received little attention. Adoption studies repeatedly highlight that one key driver of adoption is access to output markets. Regions with high demand, good market access and attractive prices for produce have CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 82

83 witnessed soaring adoption rates, e.g., chickpea in Ethiopia (Verkaart S et al. under review). As shown in previous research, these trends can be heavily influenced by policies either hindering or supporting the process, e.g., sorghum beer in Kenya (Orr A et al. 2014) or groundnut export in Malawi (Tsusaka TW et al. 2016). The case of groundnut in Malawi highlights the critical need to pay attention to the demands of all parts of the value chain. After a drastic drop in exports due to newly introduced quality standards in foreign export markets, Malawi was able to recover its strong export production based on quality intervention along the whole value chain from farmer to export companies (Gierend A et al. 2014a). Given the critical importance of output markets, the analysis of consumer demand has been very useful and highlighted the huge potential in some countries/regions (Gierend A et al. 2014b; Gierend A et al. 2014c; Gierend A and Orr A 2015). For instance, demand for sorghum outstrips supply in Ethiopia and Uganda while in Kenya and Tanzania the consumer market is extremely small and alternative uses such as sorghum for feed and fodder offer better potential. In South Asia, rabi sorghum is increasingly valuable for fodder and half of kharif sorghum grain goes for non-food uses. Furthermore, while processors are willing to pay a quality premium, focusing purely on economic competitiveness is not appropriate in the dry areas with underperforming agrifood systems where farmers spread risk by growing a range of cereal, legume combined with keeping livestock. It is essential to keep a good balance between potential market outlets, value chain opportunities and technology characteristics demanded by farmers when promoting improved material. So far most CCAFS work has been targeting humid and sub-humid regions so results do not always address the specific characteristics of the drier areas. Hence, the collaboration between FP1 and CCAFS will focus on closing this gap and improving foresight modeling by including specific climate scenarios of relevance for GLDC target areas. This will result in more accurate estimations of the impact of climate change on food security in target areas and the identification of agricultural innovations that could counter the negative impact. Given current climate change scenarios, the demand-supply gap of grain legumes is predicted to widen which would affect the nutritional security of poor households. Foresight modelling suggests that varieties with multiple adaptive traits (drought, heat tolerance and high yield) are needed to meet this demand under changing climate. Thin markets for most of the GLDC target crops mean that increasing production can lead to market gluts and price collapse exposing farmers to uncertain income streams from their production. Commercialization or less labor intensive processing tools aiming at increased competitiveness and profitability of the production may disempower women if men take control over income from these crops which are mostly considered women s crops. At the same time, research has shown (Orr A et al. 2014) that this is not necessarily the case and even after commercialization women still feel in control of the crop and associated incomes even though men show increased interest in the production. Finally, the increase in fodder demands due to rising consumption of animal source food in many parts of the world leads to increasing use of crops for fodder (especially sorghum). If not CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 83

84 carefully considered in the research process, this competition for nutritious food grains could have adverse effects on the nutrition of the human target population who often cannot afford meat. FP1.6 Clusters of Activities (CoA) CoA 1.1 Foresight, climate change analysis & priority setting During the first year(s) of phase 2 the prioritization work for the underperforming agrifood systems will be carried out under the lead of CoA 1.1 using methods and approaches from RTB (see section 2.1, Box 1). Foresight analysis and ex-ante impact assessment will be undertaken in CoA 1.1 to inform priority setting in the context of market demand, climate change and other drivers of change such as population growth, urbanization, and changes in diets (strong links to PIM through shared staff). The cluster will engage with stakeholders in a participatory priority setting process that explores their goals, aspirations, barriers and constraints and reviews the likely outcomes of existing and alternative interventions. Special attention will be given to the operationalization of resilience frameworks in relation to climate variability. A gender-sensitive participatory approach will be adopted to identify key indicators that are meaningful to the local communities in terms of economic performance as well as food and nutritional security. Innovation and adaptation options identified in other FPs and clusters will be evaluated for their capacity to boost value chain development and market linkages and to increase the ability to recover from shocks at farm household level. To continue and widen the research undertaken in phase 1, quantitative foresight studies will also be carried out to quantify the potential benefits of GLDC innovations and technology options, i.e. value chain interventions (FP2), farm management options (FP3) and available and new technologies and breeding targets (FP4-5). The resulting evidence will guide priority setting and targeting of GLDC innovation and technology options based on their potential impacts on market barriers, enabling environments, livelihood opportunities, food and nutrition security, and poverty reduction, and ultimately the SRF. Climate change analysis will be carried out using rule-based decision modelling that goes beyond standard bio-economic optimization approaches (links with WLE), thus allowing for a more holistic assessment of possible future development pathways for underperforming agrifood systems and their communities, and understanding how adaptation options can help to deal with climate variability and change. A participatory approach will be adopted to identify key indicators that are meaningful to the local communities in terms of economic performance and food and nutritional security. Alternative adaptation options will be evaluated on their capacity to increase the buffering and recovery capacity at farm household level. In this regard, the cluster will collaborate intensively with CCAFS and will make use of the body of CCAFS work developed in recent years: especially the toolkit of productionoriented models, for example existing work on ex-ante impact assessment of climate smart agricultural (CSA) practices and portfolios; household and community level baseline datasets; the regional future scenario work; and the CGIAR presence in the climate smart villages will allow for a rapid start of the research. The production modelling will also build on climate, crop and livestock production data collation and analyses of the AGMIP project in which we partner, and will use their CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 84

85 standardized risk assessment tools and Representative Agricultural Pathways approach for scenarios development and application. CoA 1.1 will provide the evidence base for priority setting and targeting, and also CoAs will contribute to this effort. CoA 1.1 will thus serve as a platform for FP1 to provide a coordinated feedback to GLDC to guide priority setting in FPs 2-5 based not only on CoA 1.1 but also other CoAs. COA 1.2 Value chains, markets and drivers of adoption The target population of GLDC is typically engaged in subsistence production but also sells at least a share of their produce to various market outlets which integrate households into the cash economy. These markets are more distant markets that often offer higher prices but also local markets which are essential for rural households, their income and nutritional status. Thus this cluster combines the analysis of: local, regional and international market demands for products and their characteristics; input and output value chain effectiveness; and household preferences for new technologies and practices within their wider livelihood system. As households are engaged in various income generating activities including farming, livestock, wage employment, small businesses, remittances and others, the importance of their crop portfolio varies as do their cropping objectives (Tittonell, 2007). Thus farming, like most other businesses, involves a tension between risk and reward and can be constrained by willingness/ability to invest funds as well as labor but also by the ability to cope with risks once they materialize. The three major preconditions for successful technology dissemination are therefore: fit with the households livelihood system; acceptability by the enduser/consumer/market and accessibility by the farmer. We will carefully consider trade-offs and conflicting interests between the three major preconditions and analyze implications for GLDC research and delivery. This increased understanding of adoption, together with results from the other CoAs will contribute to GLDC reaching its aim of widespread improved wellbeing via the development, provision and finally adoption of effective technologies and practices. The GLDC portfolio covers crops that are often grown in remote regions with value chains being underdeveloped and their potential limited by poor infrastructure and institutional barriers, in addition to less favorable natural conditions. Value chain development here is further undermined by systemic investment risks, including natural shocks, price volatility, or opportunistic behavior by both sellers and buyers. Women face additional barriers to inclusion, related to cultural and social norms, as well as time constraints due to their productive and reproductive responsibilities. Nevertheless, households rely on various value chains to meet their need for cash income from sales of produce and to access critical farm inputs such as seeds and fertilizers. Value chain development offers great potential for inclusive growth, enhanced profitability and participation of the mostly poor, marginalized people in the target regions (e.g Tsusaka 2016, Dalton and Regier, 2013). Local market outlets are an important part of the rural economy and their demands and competitiveness have to be maintained as the major source of food and nutrition for the rural population. Additionally, growing demand for healthy food options by urban and peri-urban consumers will receive specific attention for its role as a profitable niche market but also as a driver for longer term changes in eating habits by CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 85

86 the whole population as experienced in more developed markets over the past decade (Orr and Mausch 2015). The value chain framework and the structure-conduct-performance approaches will be used to investigate the competitiveness and efficiency of the value chains and to identify key constraints and opportunities along the value chain aiming for increased competitiveness in production, marketing, and processing. The evaluation of market demand, the identification of entry points for improvements and assurance of a good fit of the products and technologies to the consumer demand, and access to required inputs will embed farming households solidly into markets. However, successful scaling of any technology also requires a detailed understanding of the drivers of, and constraints on, adoption at the household and farm level. A careful consideration of the often heterogeneous target group(s) and their livelihood systems is critically important. Adding to the analysis of target group segregation within the market- and subsistence-oriented farmers continuum (Orr and Mausch 2015, deepening our understanding of the end-user s demands for product and technology attributes and resulting benefits, and what makes an effective technology an attractive one for rural households are keys to successful scaling. Potential tensions and trade-offs between market demand and farmer needs will be investigated in the context of the underlying goals and objectives of households as well as their information requirements and corresponding dissemination channels. While we have established the importance of GLDC crops in the farm households cropping portfolio, understanding further dimensions of smallholder livelihood diversity is still lacking. Likewise, our analysis will disaggregate adoption patterns across plot managers and their status within the household and add consideration of intra-household dynamics to establish a deeper understanding of the adoption process. Because widespread adoption requires behavior change, we will use, in addition to classical adoption studies, methods from fields such as behavioral economics and psychology (e.g., choice experiments), marketing (consumer decision theories and market segmentation methodologies), communication and other fields that target the understanding of human behavior and decision making. To avoid a uniform, prescriptive dissemination approach, we will provide an in-depth picture of the characteristics of households (collaborating with FP2) and circumstances in which the benefits of various available technologies are likely to be realized. COA 1.3: Accelerating impact for women and young people through inclusive innovations systems and learning World development agents are increasingly being called upon to have the agenda of women and young people (19-24 years, UN) at the core of planning and implementation of research and development programs. Participation of beneficiaries in the process of innovation and technology development, thereby expressing their preferences, enabling policies and institutions, and access to innovation and technology products are important levers in the process of catalyzing development. When development agents engage with communities, it quickly becomes apparent that culture and social norms play a critical role in determining whose voice is heard in the expression of preferences, whether women, men or young people can participate and to what extent; as well as who has control of, or access to, what resources. Communities are organized around cultures and norms that lead to differentiated outcomes and, in some instances, interventions provide disservice to certain social CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 86

87 groups. In the underperforming agrifood systems of sub-saharan Africa and South Asia, where GLDC is focused, cultures are unique and diverse. What that means in terms of the place of women and youth in society and the potential of attaining positive outcomes from development is of interest to GLDC. This cluster of activity will therefore address the strategic gender analysis to understand and test participation of women and young people in grain legumes and dryland cereals value chains as well as in the delivery of technology/innovation products in innovation systems that lead to inclusion, empowerment and growth. The cluster will generate knowledge that will facilitate in understanding cultural gender norms and how these affect delivery of value chain and farm level innovations and technologies for income, food and nutrition security and sustainable natural resources management. The focus of research in CoA 1.3 will be on how communities are structured, gaps that emerge due to social roles and characteristics derived from community structures, which lead to empowerment/disempowerment of social groups, especially women and the young people. Adaptive models/agendas for inclusive innovation systems as learning and innovation platforms for women and youth in agriculture will be developed, tested and implemented together with national and development partners. The model will be based understanding the social cultural context of the targeted areas and integrating knowledge, practices and the best bet value chain or household/farm level innovations from other GLDC flagships. The agenda[s] for the inclusive innovation systems could be the same or different for the youth and for the women in a specific site. CoA 1.3 will address specific research questions including (i) how culture and norms intersect with GLDC agrifood systems, (ii) how to enhance women s participation in knowledge acquisition, value chain innovations and farm/household level technology development and access of products, especially among unique cultures, (iii) assessment models of how best to engage young people [science of delivery to the young people] in agriculture in the target agrifood systems and areas, and (iv) identification of models of gainful engagement of women and vulnerable groups in GLDC value chains in the target areas. The results from CoA 1.3, coupled with the mainstreamed gender activities across GLDC, will call for gender data collation, feedback loops, continuous monitoring and occasional evaluation. Accelerating impacts for women and youth leading to increase in their income, assets and resources; increase in agricultural productivity, enhanced food and nutrition security and improved natural resource management and ecosystem are expected outcomes. CoA 1.3 will contribute to creating opportunities for women, young people and marginalized groups by emphasizing behavior change that results in equitable access to resources, information and power in the GLDC agrifood system. COA 1.4 Enabling environments and scaling to accelerate impact The purpose of CoA 1.4 is to facilitate and support accelerated scaling for impact across GLDC. This will include research on strengthening enabling environments for underperforming agrifood systems, identifying cost effective scaling processes ( science of scaling ), stakeholder engagement processes through the research process, and assessing adaptation and impact of GLDC innovations and CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 87

88 interventions. To fulfill this purpose, CoA 1.4 will work closely with CoA and other FPs in the following across the CRP. Strengthening enabling environments for underperforming agrifood systems GLDC is intentionally seeking to improve the performance of underperforming agrifood systems for priority crops. Many of the reasons why these systems are underperforming relate to factors associated with the wider policy environment, for example, poor regulation of agricultural input marketing. As work is being spearheaded under CoA 1.1 to develop country strategies, CoA 1.4 will, together with FP2, support efforts to work with the participating stakeholders to identify and prioritize key policy constraints hindering the development of targeted GLDC value chains, coupled with the development and execution of strategies to overcome them. Given that key country-level decisionmakers will be involved in both identifying and devising the solutions, creating more enabling environments that support the flourishing of the targeted values will be much more likely. Identifying cost-effective scaling strategies (the science of scaling ) It is clear that both (a) stakeholder engagement and capacity development, and (b) identifying and addressing binding policy constraints are key to the successful translation of research products into outcomes and impacts. However, how to cost-effectively facilitate the more subtle nuances of the scaling process is not always self-evident in a given context. This aspect of CoA 1.4 s work will involve research on efficiency and effectiveness of scaling strategies and supporting GLDC country teams and partners to devise and experiment with different approaches to facilitate the widespread use of GLDCgenerated research outputs. Particular efforts will be made to evidence what works for scaling and under what conditions, so that this learning can be scaled out to other GLDC target and spill-over countries and beyond. For example, a widely used approach for promoting the adoption of improved management practices and/or crop varieties involves setting up of demonstration sites. However, there is little hard evidence that this is a cost-effective extension strategy and under what conditions it is likely to bring about the most success. A much more cost-effective approach is investing in understanding the local context, and developing and systematically comparing the performance of two or more potentially promising extension approaches. This can be followed by scaling up of the resulting learning. Experimenting with different interventions for overcoming key constraints affecting targeted GLDC value chains (e.g., contractual arrangements between producers and buyers) will be another key opportunity for both generating learning and facilitating scaling. Considerable progress has been made in recent years in the field of behavioral economics on how to incentivize or nudge behavior change. CoA 1.4 will work together with the other CoAs of FP1, as well as FP2 and FP3, to integrate this learning and the associated experimental approach. Stakeholder engagement, communications and capacity development for impact It is now widely recognized that research products are much more likely to be used (and, hence, have potential to generate impact) when end-users are meaningfully engaged throughout the entire research cycle. Key stakeholder groups for GLDC include: the targeted smallholder farmers themselves (including the organizations of which they are a part); value chain actors (e.g., traders and processors); CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 88

89 relevant NARS entities; national and sub-national agricultural ministries and departments; policy makers; and NGOs and other organizations working with the actors at these various levels. Much of this work will be linked to CoA 1.1 s priority setting efforts, where stakeholder engagement will play a key role in the development and implementation of GLDC s country strategies. This work also links to the CRP s cross-cutting capacity development efforts. There is a risk that innovations developed and validated technically will remain on the shelf and/or be confined to only a few farmers and/or locations, thereby failing to bring about impact at scale. Identifying, meaningfully engaging and communicating with, and developing the capacity of key partners and other stakeholders in each priority country is, therefore, essential for ensuring that GLDC s research outputs get used to generate outcomes and impacts at scale. Assessing adoption and impact While much of CoA 1.4 s work will focus on approaches to accelerate, intensify, and scale impact, in collaboration across the GLDC FPs, it will also support efforts to evidence this impact. This will be done in collaboration with GLDC s MEL team, regional and country scientific teams, and other partners, such as SPIA. The latter, in particular, has been instrumental in supporting rigorous adoption studies that employ DNA finger printing, and linkages will be forged accordingly to carry out this work under GLDC. Assessing more downstream impacts, such as those related to household consumption expenditure and nutritional status, are best done when the impact assessment s design is built into the research process at the onset, rather struggling to identify a credible estimation of the counterfactual after the fact. CoA 1.4 will, therefore, work closely with the GLDC MEL team, SPIA, universities, and leading organizations, such as the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), to identify, prioritize, and initiate and carry out credible impact assessments that will generate both evidence of GLDC s impacts and scalable lessons. These can then be used to inform wider policy and practice and, in turn, leverage further impact. The linkages between FP1 and other GLDC FPs are illustrated in Table 2. Table 2. Flagship 1 linkages with other GLDC Flagships. Cluster of Activities 1.1 Foresight, climate change analysis & priority setting Collaborating FP All FPs FP1 role Collaborating FP role Outputs; Added value By working closely with other FPs, FP1-CoA1.1 will contribute to this through foresight studies, scenario analyses, and stakeholder (e.g., farmers, policy makers, and development agencies) awareness and engagement processes to elucidate perspectives and desired outcomes, as well as context-specific assets, FP1 and other FPs will be working closely together in priority setting. Analysis of climate change and adaptation options will be carried out in collaboration with other FPs in order to guide the development of adaptive technologies and The results will be jointly used across FPs to guide GLDC research agenda. CoA1.1 will also contribute to the innovation development process by building on existing evidence and modelling of the likely outcomes of particular innovations and approaches. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 89

90 constraints and opportunities that influence decision making. CoA 1.1 will also contribute to increased understanding of potential impacts of climate change and variability and adaptation options to facilitate the development of interventions that reduce risks and shocks, improve food and nutrition security and reduce poverty in the target countries practices and test different options under different climate change scenarios and from a climate smart perspective 1.2 Value chains, markets & drivers of adoption All FPs, in particular FP 2 but also FPs 3 and 4 FP1-CoA 1.2 will identify value chains that have strong potential to benefit dryland farming households while ensuring social inclusion. To quantify consumer demand across different regions a synthesis of studies will be used to identify the most promising chains which are or could be accessible to farmers, and also identify the key demand. Furthermore, it will develop knowledge on drivers of adoption and mechanisms that facilitate scaling in the target areas FP1 and other FPs, in particular FPs 2 and 4, are working closely together in identifying value chains that have potential to benefit poor households and consumers ensuring social inclusion (see box to the left, FP1 role). The results will guide the research agenda across FPs. Analysis of information requirements, dissemination channels and enabling policies will provide feedback to other FPs and identify development partners that have the most appropriate skill set and institutional arrangements to facilitate dissemination and adoption at scale in the target locations and beyond. Enhanced market participation to reduce poverty. Strong marketing prospects for the product, scaling potential, representation of the various social groups and the number of poor people involved in the chain. Improved match between end-user demand, research supply and understanding and facilitating enabling environments will contribute to outcomes and impact, e.g., in terms of income generation. 1.3 Accelerating impacts for women and youth through inclusive All FPs, in particular 2,3 and 4 FP1-CoA1.3 will develop adaptive models/agendas for inclusive innovation systems as learning and innovation platforms for Inclusive innovation systems cut across and link to all other FPs. Also links to the gender Create opportunities for women, young people and marginalized groups in target communities by emphasizing equitable CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 90

91 innovation systems and learning women and youth in agriculture to be developed and implemented together with other FPs and national and development partners. GLDC cross-cutting work. access to resources, information and power in the livelihood systems 1.4 Accelerating, scaling and evidencing impact All FPs FP1-CoA1.4 will support innovation development, assessment and scaling processes across GLDC FPs, facilitate CRP-wide impact focused learning (MEL), and generate evidence of GLDC s impacts and its contribution to the IDOs and SLOs FP1 is working closely together with all other FPs, and in particular, 2.3 and 3.3) during the planning phase and throughout the CRP lifespan. FP1-CoA1.4 will facilitate the option development process through designing and carrying out, in close collaboration with other FPs and MEL, efficacy studies of the impacts of promising innovations on various outcomes, such as crop yields, household income, food and nutrition security, and empowerment (internal validity). To address the external validity challenge and as one key component of the scaling process, the performance of devised options from other FPs will be tested at larger scales and across heterogeneous conditions. The research-indevelopment and impact assessments will generate important evidence relevant to the scaling agenda which will take place with partners to influence key decision-makers to promote options developed and tested under other FPs in GLDC, and create policy and institutional conditions conducive for facilitating uptake. The final focus will be to estimate GLDC s overall impact by both critically assessing how it has influenced wider policy and practice, and monitoring the wider uptake of proven options and extrapolating the corresponding impact. FP1.7 Partnerships In order to deliver on FP1 s objectives, a wide range of partners will be involved in the implementation. This will range from high-end academic research partners at globally recognized institutions, to scaling partners in the development area, private sector partners to build strong business models for remote areas, and policy bodies that will be able to change unfavorable regulations or enable implementation of facilitating mechanisms. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 91

92 Links have been established and collaboration agreed with PIM and CCAFS, and also with WLE, A4NH and other AFS-CRPs (e.g., Livestock, FTA, MAIZE, RTB, WHEAT). Collaboration is being developed between FP1 and Priority Setting and Scaling FPs of other AFS-CRPs dealing with similar methods and approaches including gender and social inclusion. In addition to PIM, CoA 1.1 will also partner with the HarvestChoice initiative at the University of Minnesota which works on targeting and priority setting. While challenges are especially great in the often underperforming agrifood systems in focus, coordination with FTA, Livestock and other AFS-CRPs will create synergies and complementarities for the work under CoA1.2. PIM will be a valuable partner in the area of foresight and methodology development, ex-ante analysis and testing around the topic of adoption patterns, determinants and measurement. Additionally, PIM s methods and tools for research on collective marketing, the impact of commercialization on gender equity, and on upgrading strategies, will be tested using GLDC target crops. CoA 1.3 will participate in the CGIAR gender network and the Gennovate studies. Non-CGIAR Partners will be identified and selected based on identified gaps in competencies and experiences and build on existing well-functioning partnerships in relevant CRPs and W3/bilateral projects. Throughout FP1 but especially under CoA 1.4, partners influencing decision making and scaling will be identified and selected through a stakeholder mapping exercise in target countries. This will include national and local government, regional organizations (e.g., NEPAD, ECOWAS), farmer and consumer organizations, and development actors. Partners for grain legume related work include Michigan State, Penn State, Illinois, Missouri, Virginia Tech and Purdue universities. The Gender and Agriculture Network is partnering with Pennsylvania State University to support and train gender researchers and postdocs including the GLDC gender team. Further linkages to relevant international and national research institutions and UNWomen will be considered based on excellence, complementarity and anchorage in the target countries and regions. Building on past research and scaling efforts to leverage existing models, FP1 will closely collaborate with projects and programs targeting the scaling of innovations relevant for GLDC. These will include major projects (see 2.4) but also well-established platforms like Pan-African Bean Research Alliance (PABRA). This will not only enable GLDC to utilize existing networks to spread insights and lessons learned but also amplify policy messages aimed at generating commitment for scaling successful innovations across wider areas. Furthermore, FP1 will be able to learn from working models that facilitate scaling to enable GLDC to establish these where gaps are identified to reach wider impact. Comparative advantage the GLDC partners have long-standing experience working in the targeted agrifood systems and regions and will align its research for development impact with the regional and national development strategies and efforts. FP1 will serve GLDC to achieve innovative and demand driven research that accelerates delivering development outcomes at scale, while linking to the global CRPs (PIM, CCAFS, WLE, A4NH). Within GLDC, FP1 will serve as a vehicle for inclusive priority setting, creating synergies between research activities and accelerating the delivery of outputs (including IPGs). Through the insights generated it will also enable demand-driven outcomes of all FPs through rigorous prioritization and improved understanding of target groups that will ultimately contribute to CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 92

93 impacts at scale, with due attention to socio-economic (gender, age, culture, wealth), geographic and agro-ecological priorities and distributions. FP1.8 Climate change In FP1 CoA 1.1 has a strong climate change focus, and it will perform climate change impact analyses in targeted agrifood systems and agricultural regions. Different crop-based adaptation options will be prioritized on the basis of their potential to reduce market and production fluctuations and food and nutrition security risks, and to increase the resilience of these vulnerable smallholder farming systems. The research includes foresight and scenario analyses, ex-ante assessment of the potential impact of climate change and variability, and the role of value chain innovations and agricultural technologies in climate change adaptation. All this is combined with a strong participatory research line that ensures the realism and relevance of the analyses performed. Assessments will take place at farm household level, as well as providing national and regional estimates of possible scenarios of demand, supply and consequential market price developments of the targeted crops. These analyses are an important step in the evaluation, targeting and prioritization of different market and production intensification options and will result in spatially explicit estimates of business and crop production risk profiles of existing and new crop varieties. This information will be fed to the other FPs, thereby leading to improved focus on the interventions with the highest potentials for 1) adoption, 2) most efficient outscaling and 3) best returns for enterprise development, income generation, and food and nutrition security at farm household, national and regional levels, taking climate change, risks and shocks into account. FP1.9 Gender Gender analysis will be mainstreamed within the CoAs of this flagship. Methods of including scenarios for women in foresight modeling, ensuring targeted concerns on women s adaptive capacities in dealing with climate change and gender concerns/preferences being a factor in priority setting will be mainstreamed in CoA 1.1. Making value chains and markets work for women [and young people] will be a priority area of assessment under CoA 1.2, and also generational aspects will be covered. Furthermore, the drivers of household decisions to adopt will be analyzed while spending significant attention to intra-household dynamics of this decision making process and break adoption down to the plot level to ensure levels of disaggregation that allow specific gender questions to be answered. Furthermore, market demands and their relationship to the associated value chains will identify entry points for women and youth integration and highlight operational modalities that will ensure their continued or increased empowerment along the chain. On behalf of GLDC, FP1 will host the functions of gender research as a substantive cluster of activity (CoA 1.3). CoA 1.3 will have two distinct research tracks, one on gender issues oriented to women and vulnerable groups and the other oriented to young people. The research focus of the CoA 1.3 will be strategic, addressing overarching gender research questions. CoA 1.4 will focus on institutional and policy level factors that enable women and the youth to participate and gain from value chain and enterprise innovations in the targeted agrifood systems at scale. Although each CoA will have its definite area of gender analysis, cross CoA learning CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 93

94 will be supported and facilitated. For FP1, gender mainstreaming will ensure that prioritization of prospective research outputs are empowering women or, in cases where women are in control, do not undermine this position. FP1.10 Capacity development Capacity development in FP1 includes training of national- and international PhD students and postdocs conducting their research within GLDC and being jointly supervised by GLDC researchers and partner institutions. Other components will be training packages (short courses, summer schools, curricula development) to disseminate methods and tools designed with partners that are potential agents of change. Key gaps in the capacity of national and regional partner institutions are in the area of gender research and development strategies as well as the coordinated agrifood systems wide analysis and targeted stakeholder engagement strategies. These are ideally suited for training packages and will form the backbone of the development strategy for this group of partners. Capacity development of GLDC researchers and partners will be achieved during the process of CRP-wide, impact-focused learning and specific training in lessons learned from gender research. Partnerships with institutes of higher/advanced learning as well as mentoring relationships will be forged in different cutting edge areas under each CoA. Specifically, advances in foresight and priority modeling, gender analysis methodologies, innovative approaches to understanding the adoption decision, and approaches to the science of scaling and impact. Use of modern technologies, for example, computer assisted personal interviews, successfully tested in phase 1 and highly relevant for the data collection streamlining under CoA 1.4 will be expanded across GLDC and trainings will be organized where necessary. A community of practice exchanging ideas and providing a forum for trouble shooting is already established and will be broadened. FP1 will also engage in capacity development for the use of modern tools such as mass media (like the farmer TV program Shamba Shape up) which have already been used in phase 1 as (based on initial text message based feedback) efficient tool to transfer knowledge to a wide audience. Through detailed feedback on their efficiency in raising awareness and influencing adoption we will enable GLDC scientists to use them effectively to reach the targeted audience. These tools will also raise greater awareness amongst the wider stakeholders and consumers, which is critical for their engagement commitment under especially CoAs 1.1 and 1.4. Capacity development is required for these efforts to be expanded under GLDC. Capacity development will be embedded or emerge under the participatory process in CoA1.1, including the scenario analyses for priority setting, as well as in CoA 1.4 with the scaling for impact work. The ownership of these processes is in-build through the close inclusion of local stakeholders and will result in long term improvements of local, national and regional stakeholders capacity to facilitate change process and their understanding of the specific challenges of the target agrifood systems. FP1.11 FP management FP1 is led by Dr Ingrid Öborn, regional coordinator with ICRAF and Professor of Agricultural Cropping Systems, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU). She has presently a leading role in CRP CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 94

95 Humidtropics. Dr Arega Alene, agricultural economist with IITA, is leading CoA 1.1 and also actively carrying out research in PIM. CoA 1.2 is led by Dr Kai Mausch, an economist with ICRISAT actively working in PIM; Dr Esther Njuguna-Mungai, a social scientist with ICRISAT responsible for gender research in GLDC. CoA 1.4 is led by Dr Karl Hughes, head of the Monitoring, Evaluation and Impact Assessment unit of ICRAF and the DRYDEV program, and also engaged in FTA. The FP and CoA leaders will spend at least 40-50% of their time working on GLDC, including W3 and bilateral projects. It is essential that the scientists in leading positions combine the management and administrative responsibilities with active research and scientific leadership. The leadership of FP1 is carried out as team work including the CoA leaders and headed by the FP leader. Budgeting and reporting is done in a consultative and transparent manner. Overall FP management will be the responsibility of the FP leader. Periodic (quarterly) reviews of milestones and outputs will be carried out to ensure timely delivery from W1/W2, W3/bilaterally funded activities. The review will be conducted across all CoAs and assessed against FP1 milestones and means of verification as well as projected outputs and outcomes. The assessment will be carried out by the FP and CoA leaders together with the PIs of the W3/bilateral projects. Thereafter a systematic assessment of gaps will be undertaken in order to realign W1/W2 funding to parts of FP1 with funding gaps to meet the projected outputs. Additionally, systematic efforts will be made to jointly raise W3/bilateral funding to fill these gaps and to deliver essential parts of FP1 from W1/W2 funds and to enable the FP to undertake more strategic research with less certain outcomes but potential to generate higher returns. FP1.12 Intellectual asset and open access management For intellectual asset (IA) management, FP1 will follow the policy of GLDC which is committed to the effective and efficient management of intellectual assets to disseminate effectively research outputs and maximize their impact. As part of this, FP1 will strive to use models that are building on open source software. All GLDC outputs will be managed in line with the CGIAR Principles on the Management of Intellectual Assets (CGIAR s IA principles) and their Implementation Guidelines, as International Public Goods. FP1 will manage issues of intellectual property with integrity, fairness, equity, responsibility, and accountability wherever it operates. FP1 will follow the GLDC policy for open access and data management (OADM). All research data in GLDC will be maintained for public use following CGIAR s open access data management policy and FAIR principles. The monitoring, evaluation and learning platform encourages open access and is already being customized for use by GLDC. The Lead Centre, ICRISAT, and ICRAF as leader of FP1 maintain all their data products using different state-of-the-art data platforms/applications based on the type of data such as Dataverse and other platforms. Dataverse is the primary repository to share different types of data sets, and all data platforms and repositories used are compliant with the CGIAR s standard interoperability protocols and standards. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 95

96 FP1.13 Flagship Budget Narrative General Information CRP Name CRP Lead Center Flagship Name Center location of Flagship Leader GLDC ICRISAT FP1: Priority Setting & Impact Acceleration ICRAF Summary Total Flagship budget summary by sources of funding (USD) Funding Needed Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total W1+W2 1,800,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,275, , ,000 7,225,000 W3 4,252,670 4,311,604 3,134,084 2,871,338 2,210,604 2,321,135 19,101,435 Bilateral 4,974,079 5,364,387 7,013,617 7,771,649 8,952,445 9,387,974 43,464,151 Other Sources - 11,026,749 10,875,991 11,347,701 11,917,987 12,013,049 12,609,109 69,790,586 Funding Secured Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total W1+W2 (Assumed Secured) 1,800,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,275, , ,000 7,225,000 W3 4,252,670 3,462,890 1,129, ,000 9,610,560 Bilateral 6,774,078 4,300, ,074,971 Other Sources - 12,826,748 8,963,783 2,329,000 2,041, , ,000 27,910,531 Funding Gap Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total W1+W2 (Required from SO) W3 (Required from FC Members) - (848,713) (2,005,084) (2,105,338) (2,210,604) (2,321,135) (9,490,874) Bilateral (Fundraising) 1,799,999 (1,063,493) (7,013,617) (7,771,649) (8,952,445) (9,387,974) (32,389,179) Other Sources (Fundraising) ,799,999 (1,912,206) (9,018,701) (9,876,987) (11,163,049) (11,709,109) (41,880,053) Total Flagship budget by Natural Classifications (USD) CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 96

97 Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total Personnel 3,925,414 3,869,392 4,034,871 4,235,296 4,266,818 4,476,264 24,808,055 Travel 613, , , , , ,915 3,884,337 Capital Equipment 161, , , , , ,777 1,019,304 Other Supplies and Services 2,602,658 2,569,754 2,683,876 2,821,433 2,846,510 2,990,326 16,514,557 CGIAR collaborations 274, , , , , ,672 1,736,437 Non CGIAR Collaborations 1,976,347 1,949,063 2,033,335 2,135,259 2,152,037 2,258,562 12,504,603 Indirect Cost 1,472,911 1,452,833 1,515,904 1,592,147 1,604,903 1,684,593 9,323,293 11,026,749 10,875,991 11,347,700 11,917,987 12,013,048 12,609,109 69,790,586 Total Flagship budget by participating partners (signed PPAs) (USD) Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total ICRISAT 5,915,671 5,842,084 6,102,729 6,416,707 6,474,898 6,803,188 37,555,280 ICRAF 4,392,458 4,337,819 4,531,351 4,764,487 4,807,692 5,051,448 27,885,258 IITA 718, , , , , ,471 4,350,048 11,026,748 10,875,990 11,347,699 11,917,985 12,013,047 12,609,107 69,790,586 Additional explanations for certain accounting categories Benefits: The CRP is a partnership of eight Centers including the Lead Center, and benefit items and amounts vary across Centers. In general, IRS benefits include pension, housing allowance, transportation allowance, hardship allowance, shipping allowance, home-leave travel, school fees, education travel, medical examination and medical insurance. Other Supplies and Services: Includes experimental materials, research support, field costs, travel, services and communication cost. Other Sources of Funding for this Project The FP contingency plan if program funding does not become available: Immediate to short term: Leverage bilateral support at country to regional level to cover budget shortfalls Reprioritize further and focus activities CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 97

98 Leverage investments of non-cg partners to sustain planned activities Short to medium term: Maintain a strong resource mobilization strategy that target both traditional and new funding sources Discuss mutual accountability with donors, governments and partners at country level where most bilateral funds are appropriated Joint resource mobilization with partner CRPs Budgeted Costs for certain Key Activities** FP1. Proportion of total budget (w3/bilateral and w1/w2) being allocated to gender, capacity building etc. as an integrated part of the FP1 plan: Gender, CoA1.3 and mainstreamed across CoAs Youth, CoA1.3, Capacity development, all CoAs, Intellectual Asset Management, all CoAs, Impact assessment, mainly CoA1.4, Open access and data management, all CoAs, Communication, all CoAs, Estimate annual average cost (USD) Gender 3,550,000* Youth (only for those who have relevant set of activities in this area) 60,000* Capacity development 500,000 Impact assessment 100,000 Intellectual asset management 5,000 Open access and data management 75,000 Communication 25,000 * Gender and youth budget in FP1 is already covered in the CoA funding; **Budgets are based on current bilateral projects, and continuation at similar levels during entire program period depends on continued bilateral support. Flagship Uplift Budget Outcome Description Amount Needed W1 + W2 (%) W3 (%) Bilateral (%) Other (%) CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 98

99 More in-depth and high quality research, analysis and synthesis as compared to a base budget scenario. 2,000, Strengthening partnerships with national institutions to develop country strategies and implementation plans in GLDC in coordination with other CRPs. Total 10,500,000 8,500, REFERENCES Alene A, Oleke J, Rusike J, Abdoulaye T, Creamer B, Del Río M and Rodriguez JJ Strategic Assessment of Cassava Research Priorities, RTB Working Paper Alston JM, Norton GW, Pardey PG Science under Scarcity: Principles and Practice for Agricultural Evaluation and Priority Setting. New York: Cornell University Press. Chung U, Gbegbelegbe S, Shiferaw B, Robertson R, Yun JI, Tesfaye K, Hoogenboom G and Sonder K Modeling the effect of a heat wave on maize production in the USA and its implications on food security in the developing world. Weather and Climate Extremes Volumes 5-6. Retrieved July 2016 from Coe R, Sinclair F and Barrios E Scaling up agroforestry requires research in rather than for development. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 6: Creamer B, Rusike J, Gonzalez C, Rodriguez JJ, Abdoulaye T and Alene A Prioritization of options for Cassava research for development Results from a global expert survey. RTB Working Paper Dalton T and Regier G Assessment of the Impact of Improved Pigeonpea Development by ICRISAT in Northern Tanzania. Patancheru , Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. De Leeuw J, Njenga M, Wagner B and Iiyama M, eds Treesilience: An assessment of the resilience provided by trees in the drylands of Eastern Africa. Nairobi, Kenya: ICRAF. 166 pp. Retrieved July 2016 from CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 99

100 Gbegbelegbe S, Chung U, Shiferaw B, Msangi S and Tesfaye K Quantifying the impact of weather extremes on global food security: A spatial bio-economic approach. Weather and Climate Extremes 4: Gierend A, Ojulong H, Letayo E and Mgonja FM A Combined ex-post/ex-ante impact analysis for improved sorghum varieties in Tanzania, Socioeconomics Discussion Paper Series 20. Gierend A, Ojulong H and Wanyera N A combined ex-post/ex-ante impact analysis for improved sorghum and finger millet varieties in Uganda, Socioeconomics Discussion Paper Series Number 19. Gierend A and Orr A Consumer demand for sorghum and millets in eastern and southern Africa: Priorities for the CGIAR Research Programme for Dryland Cereals. Socioeconomics Discussion Paper Series 35. Gierend A, Tirfessa A, Abdi BB, Seboka B and Nega A A combined ex-post/ex-ante impact analysis for improved sorghum varieties in Ethiopia. Socioeconomics Discussion Paper Series Number 22. Hamazakaza P, Katungi E, Ryes B, Maredia M, Muimui K and Ojara M Assessing access and adoption of common bean improved varieties in Zambia. Research Technical Report available on IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute Pulses Value Chain in Ethiopia: Constraints and opportunities for enhancing exports. Harris D and Orr A Is rainfed agriculture really a pathway from poverty? Agricultural Systems, (123), Larochelle CJ, Alwang GW, Norton E, Katungi and Labarta RA Impact of Adopting Improved Bean Varieties on Poverty and Food Security in Uganda and Rwanda. Book chapter 16 in Tomas Walker and Jeffrey Alwang (eds.), Crop Variety Improvement and Impacts of Agricultural Research in Africa. CABI Publishing Letaa, E., Kabungo, C., Katungi, E., Ojara, M and Ndunguru, A Farm level Adoption and Spatial Diffusion of Improved Common bean Varieties in Southern Highlands of Tanzania. African Crop Science Journal, Vol. 23 (3): Neely C SHARED - Stakeholder Approach to Risk-informed and Evidence-based Decisionmaking. pdf Retrieved July 2016 CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 100

101 Öborn I, Bengtsson J, Hedenus F, Rydhmer L, Stenström M, Vrede K, Westin C and Magnusson U Scenario Development as a Basis for Formulating a Research Program on Future Agriculture: A Methodological Approach. Ambio 42: Öborn I, Magnusson U, Bengtsson J, Vrede K, Fahlbeck E, Jensen ES, Westin C, Jansson T, Hedenus F, Lindholm Schulz H, Stenström M, Jansson B and Rydhmer L Five Scenarios for 2050 Conditions for Agriculture and Land Use. Uppsala: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. ISBN: Orr A and Mausch K How can we make smallholder agriculture in the semi-arid tropics more profitable and resilient? ICRISAT Working Paper Series No. 59. Patancheru, India: ICRISAT. 32 pp. Orr A, Mwema C and Mulinge W The value chain for sorghum beer in Kenya. Socioeconomics Discussion Paper Series 16. Orr A, Tsusaka TW, Kee-Tui SH and Msere H What do we mean by women s crops? A mixed methods approach. Socioeconomics Discussion Paper Series Number 23. Pemsl DE, Staver C, Creamer B, Abdoulaye T, Alene A and Rusike J Results of a global online expert survey: Major constraints, opportunities and trends for banana production and marketing and priorities for future RTB banana research, RTB Working Paper Shepherd K, Hubbard D, Fenton N, Claxton K, Luedeling E and De Leeuw J Development goals should enable decision-making. Nature 523: Singh P, Nedumaran S, Traore PCS, Boote KJ, Rattunde HFW, Prasad PVV, Singh NP, Srinivas K and Bantilan MCS Quantifying potential benefits of drought and heat tolerance in rainy season sorghum for adapting to climate change. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 185: Singh P, Nedumaran S, Boote KJ, Gaur PM, Srinivas K and Bantilan MCS Climate change impacts and potential benefits of drought and heat tolerance in chickpea in South Asia and East Africa. European Journal of Agronomy 52: Singh P, Singh NP, Boote KJ, Nedumaran S, Srinivas K and Bantilan MCS Management options to increase groundnut productivity under climate change at selected sites in India. Journal of Agrometeorology 16: Tittonell P, van Wijk MT, Rufino MC, Vrugt JA, Giller KE Analysing trade-offs in resource and labor allocation by smallholder farmers using inverse modelling techniques: a case study from Kakamega district, western Kenya. Agricultural Systems 95, Tsusaka TW, Msere HW, Siambi M, Mazvimavi K and Okori P Evolution and impacts of groundnut research and development in Malawi: An ex-post analysis. African Journal of Agricultural Research11 (3): ISSN X Vågen T-G, Winowiecki L, Tondoh JE, Desta LT and Gumbricht T Mapping of soil properties and land degradation risk in Africa using MODIS reflectance. Geoderma 263: CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 101

102 Van Wijk MT From global economic modelling to household level analyses of food security and sustainability: how big is the gap and can we bridge it? Food Policy 49: Verkaart S, Munyua BG, Mausch K and Michler J. Welfare impacts of improved chickpea adoption: A pathway for rural development in Ethiopia? (under review) Walker T, Alene A, Ndjeunga J, Labarta R, Yigezu Y, Diagne A, Andrade R, Muthoni Andriatsitohaina R, De Groote H, Mausch K, Yirga C, Simtowe F, Katungi E, Jogo W, Jaleta M and Pandey S Measuring the Effectiveness of Crop Improvement Research in Sub-Saharan Africa from the Perspectives of Varietal Output, Adoption, and Change: 20 Crops, 30 Countries, and 1150 Cultivars in Farmers Fields. Report of the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA). Rome, Italy: CGIAR Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC) Secretariat. Walker TS and Alwang J, eds Crop Improvement, Adoption, and Impact of Improved Varieties in Food Crops in Sub-Saharan Africa, CGIAR CABI Wallingford, UK, ISBN: Yetagesu AT, Katungi E, Rubyogo JC, Sserunkuuma D and Kidane T. Analysis of the Economic Performance of Community Based Bean Seed Production and Marketing in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Paper under review in the African crop science journal CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 102

103 FLAGSHIP PROGAM 2 (FP2): FUNCTIONAL AGRIFOOD SYSTEMS FP2.1 Rationale and scope Agrifood systems are the interconnected and evolving activities of farmers, businesses and societywide stakeholders and the policies and institutional factors that shape and govern their individual and collective behavior. The nature and capacity of these systems determines patterns of agricultural production, value chain activities and practices, as well as consumption. These patterns underpin the ability of economies to achieve societal outcomes of resilience, food and nutrition security, poverty reduction, ecosystem services and inclusive economic development in a dynamic world. GLDC will facilitate innovations in targeted agrifood systems, based on grain legumes and dryland cereals, with these agrifood systems often considered as underdeveloped, possibly even dysfunctional to varying degrees. The result is missed opportunities and unintended consequences that both undermine the livelihoods of men and women farmers, reduce the sustainability of the resource base and impede market-led economic growth. In addition, the current capacity of agrifood system actors to adapt and respond to emerging challenges and opportunities is often limited. The nature of weakness in agrifood systems is both manifold and highly context-specific. For instance, many agri-businesses struggle to respond appropriately and in a timely manner to market signals due to real or perceived risks and inadequate mechanisms to cope with them. Clusters of policies are often incoherent and send inconsistent or redundant signals. Weak patterns of governance 4 at various levels, including public and private policy-making restrict the ability to negotiate priorities and strategies that consider the needs and trade-off between different stakeholder groups and wider societal imperatives and ambitions. Linkages between stakeholders, particularly between public and private sector and civil society actors in production and value chain environments across different scales, are poorly developed. Mapping out these and other challenges in GLDC-based agrifood systems identifies a number of entry points to act as perturbations to the system. The key research questions concern the design of institutions, policies and platforms, or business and livelihood options that will strengthen the capacity of the systems as a whole to respond to the evolving needs of farmers, businesses and society in a changing global context of climate, trade, and consumption. However, over and above the design question around the nature of a solution, a key question is, how can such system solutions be generated in a context-specific way and yet allow for broader, cross-context approaches? 4 In this context, governance refers to (community) norms and rules, customary and statutory laws and policies as well as the monitoring and enforcement of these institutions. It includes the governance actors as individuals and organizations, which formulate, maintain, transmit, monitor and enforce the aforementioned institutions. In line with North 1990, the term institution refers to the rules of the game.

104 FP 2 will add value to GLDC by mainstreaming institutional and system sustainability thinking (Liu et al. 2015) in the program. Strongly linking its work to the research conducted under CRP-PIM and CRP- WLE, FP 2 will study how different governance mechanisms 5 intervene or interfere in the context of targeted agrifood systems and seek how such systems can perform more effectively to improve production, resilience, inclusion and nutrition as well as sustainably to provide multiple ecosystem services and global sustainability functions. The flagship will specifically: 1) Develop the capacity of critical actors to assess how priority agrifood systems can contribute to achieving their objectives in different social-ecological settings; 2) Explore how value chain options can maximize the contribution of priority legume and cereal crops to achieving societal priority outcomes; 3) Explore and design together with critical governance actors options for modifying the enabling environment in favor of priority agrifood systems wherever they show a comparative advantage compared to alternative agrifood systems. 4) Enable actors to drive such processes independently in response to changing population demographics, markets, food preferences and nutritional needs, and climate; and 5) Test the sustainability at scale of interventions in response to impacts of aforementioned system changes at various scales. FP2 is a critical link between the GLDC CRP and the four Global Integrated CRPs. In collaboration with WLE, CCAFS, A4NH and PIM as well as the GLDC FPs 1 and 3, FP 2 will address the (potential) implications of GLDC agrifood systems on economic, social and biological systems at both larger and smaller scales. Moving towards a systems approach will help to improve the compatibility of the agricultural innovations generated by GLDC with the broader dimensions of household livelihood security, societal interests, and environmental sustainability (Rockstrom et al. 2016), as well as enhancing equity and creating favorable enabling environments. FP 2 will help to target the commodity-specific crop improvement, seed systems, and agronomic practices of FP 3, FP 4 and FP 5 to the contexts where they have the greatest capacity to leverage change. FP 2 will implement its research through a set of three interacting clusters, each of which prioritizes a particular dimension of strengthening agrifood systems: CoA 2.1: Assessment, validation and adaptation of value chain options. CoA 2.2: Inclusive options for transforming GLDC agricultural value chains. CoA 2.3: Understanding and influencing multi-layer governance frameworks. 5 Governance mechanisms refer to elements of the governance framework. An important typology of governance mechanisms distinguishes institutions that are based on market, state or hybrid/cooperationbased coordination amongst actors. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 104

105 FP2.2 Objectives and targets The goal of the flagship is to: Strengthen agrifood system mechanisms to respond and adapt to context specific and evolving needs of women & men farmers, value chain & governance actors This will allow achieving positive impacts on multiple SLOs by capitalizing on the synergies and managing trade-offs that exist in the wider contexts in which GLDC agrifood systems operate. In order to achieve these goals, the research conducted by the flagship will be directed at achieving the following objectives: Improving understanding and awareness of multiple economic, social, and ecological outcomes related to GLDC agrifood systems. The focus of the outcomes is strongly driven by the SLOs but will potentially be adjusted based on assessment of actors preferences. To facilitate the establishment of networks of change agents in GLDC agrifood systems. Develop the capacity of actors to assess the impact of agrifood system processes on multiple outcomes. Enabling value chain actors to develop GLDC-based value chain models taking into account broader societal need, such as generation and equitable sharing of added value, food and nutrition security, and environmental sustainability. Developing agribusiness models for supporting sustainable value chains. Identifying context specific governance options encouraging sustainable intensification related to GLDC agrifood systems. Enhancing the wider contexts for system change (market development, commercialization, landscape integrity, enabling and equitable policies and governance). Comparing agrifood system patterns across social ecological systems in order to identify key drivers determining system performance. The identification of key drivers enables governance actors to design adapted and adaptive enabling environments. The Flagship has a strong cross-cutting nature. Under the base budget scenario, FP2 will target initially at least six agrifood systems in the GLDC priority countries. The selection of agrifood systems and countries will be based both on the priority setting supported by FP1 and on obvious opportunities in the regions e.g. research investment to support smallholder farmers to capitalize on the burgeoning demand for red meat in West Africa; other quick win investments as highlighted in the case study boxes. The site selection will be informed by the CGIAR site integration strategy. Very strong efforts will be made to align any work with the work of the global integrated CRPs CCAFS, A4NH, PIM, and WLE. In each country, poor and vulnerable rural people will be considered, paying special attention to youth, women and children. FP2 will use participatory approaches to identify how differences between women and men of different ages can affect decisions in adopting innovation along the different nodes of GDLC value chains. FP2 will form partnerships playing a critical role in the delivery of activities on each of the clusters of activities. These considerations will determine the exact research locations within the primary target countries. The research will address, explicitly, the circumstances and needs of all key stakeholders such as farmers and their business organizations (e.g. cooperatives, CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 105

106 associations), input suppliers, service providers, commodity markets and industries. Special attention will be paid to providing livelihood opportunities to women and youth based on their capabilities/capacities and opportunities in different segments of and across value chains. FP2.3 Impact pathway and Theory of Change The flagship theory of change links the flagship outcomes resulting from the delivery of its research outputs to the system level sub-idos to illustrate the contribution that the Flagship will make to the overall theory of change for the GLDC program (Figure 1). The theory of change for FP2 is based on the broad premise that it is possible to create more conducive enabling environments for the innovation generated by FPs 3, 4 and 5 by explicitly addressing a set of research questions: What are the form and transmission effectiveness of signals that enable early and appropriate responses by producers and other value chain actors to react to existing and emerging market signals? In addition to direct market signals, addressing which outcomes related to GLDC agrifood systems will encourage critical governance actors to establish an enabling environment? What value chain interventions (e.g. in terms of processing, packaging, and labor-saving technologies) and institutional arrangements among value chain actors, and between them and external service providers, can drive fundamental changes in the agrifood system towards achieving the target SLOs? How can farmers, SMEs and large companies collaborate in the strengthening of GLDC commodity value chains and how can we effectively bring learning approaches and contextspecific solutions to scale in and across target geographies? How are multiple outcomes (e.g. gender and intergenerational equity, including women and youth empowerment, human nutrition) affected in the wider social-ecological system contexts (TEEB 2015) in which GLDC agrifood systems operate? How can governance actors be enabled to identify most effective (dis-)incentives for promoting the adoption of desirable agrifood system innovations? Based on the initial outputs of FP1 and through the MEL cycles throughout the life of the program these relatively generic questions will be refined to account for learning and allow to focus on key factors that limit or boost uptake and scaling. The emphasis on cross-program learning as an output of MEL activities will ensure that the research conducted under FP 2 is adaptable, and remains relevant as the impacts on sub-idos are achieved. The Flagship intends to impact at least six agrifood systems by facilitating systemic change and the development of integrated design solutions to address market gaps and enhance market opportunities. The Flagship envisions to positively impact beneficiaries across different segments of the value chain in the target countries. The various segments of the beneficiaries have been conservatively estimated to be in the range of: (i) Women & children benefitting from interventions resulting in households consuming nutritious food products 1,000,000 (ii) farm women labor benefitting from improved post-harvest technologies 400,000 (iii) households using improved postharvest handling and storage technologies 800,000 and traders 5000, (iv) benefits from CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 106

107 entrepreneurship development and diverse enterprise opportunities shall benefit SME entrepreneurs 1000 and scientific communities 40 (v) Youth & women trained on business development skills 10,000 (vii) Other value chain stakeholders benefitting due to linkage of processors to markets CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 107

108 Figure 1. Theory of change and impact pathway of FP2.

109 FP2.4 Science quality This flagship seeks to explore and address institutional and policy issues that will improve the functioning and sustainability of agrifood systems and the value chains that are embedded in these systems. Central to this are questions about how systems innovations can be designed and actioned to strengthen the ability of these systems to create the incentives, opportunities and governance mechanisms that will increase the likelihood of food and nutrition security, poverty reduction and resilience and sustainability outcomes and impacts. To frame this research, the flagship will take a broad-based view of innovation that recognizes the interconnectedness and dynamics of technological, institutional and policy change processes in agrifood systems and the different pathways these create for achieving outcomes for different stakeholders and society as a whole (Thompson & Scoones., 2009). The flagship research builds on the foundation of previous work of the CGIAR and others that explores these dynamics and pathways through a number of different analytical and conceptual lenses: e.g. socio-ecological systems (Foran et al., 2014, Ostrom 2007), innovation systems (Hall et al., 2003), political economy (Thomson and Scoons., 2009). Collectively these perspectives frame a number of critical hypothesis that will be explored by this research and that will guide the co-design of solutions through action research in collaboration with key stakeholders. These hypotheses will be a framework for creating coherence across a number of research inquiry streams. Hypothesis 1: Drivers of agrifood systems innovation include but go beyond market signals. FP2 recognizes the power and limitations of market signals as driver for agrifood system innovations. Past experiences across the targeted crops and countries will be carefully considered when designing interventions (e.g. chickpea and common beans in Ethiopia (Verkaart et al., 2014), pigeonpea and common beans in Tanzania (Larochelle et al., 2015), common beans in Rwanda and Uganda (Letaa et al., 2015), sorghum in Kenya (Orr et al., 2014), and groundnut in Malawi (Tsusaka et al., 2016)). The FP2 work will review evidences and analyze common principles to guide the testing of priority options. Hypothesis 2: Enhanced entrepreneurial activity creates a development pathway that incentivizes behavioral changes in farmers and consumers, and which shapes policy and institutional innovation of entrepreneurial activity to create inclusive, social and environmental outcomes. Entrepreneurship development has been successfully demonstrated to be an important intervention in agrifood systems towards bringing in sustainability and empowerment of farming communities. It has also been documented that innovation and a right environment for fostering innovations and appropriate service provision are very important for successful enterprises (Devaux et al., 2016). Globally, entrepreneurial activity is seen as one of the key pillars of economic growth that has helped in the development of many economies. An entrepreneurial venture generates employment and income into the local economy; this economic cycle and the generation of demand and supply from the local economy outward leads to more value creation, thus acting as a catalyst for bringing in structural changes, thereby supporting the economic growth and national competitiveness (GEM

110 2014). Entrepreneurship is acknowledged as a driver of sustainable economic growth since the entrepreneurs create new businesses, drive and shape innovation, speed-up structural changes in the economy, and introduce new competition thereby contributing to productivity. This also drives job creation, which contributes, to economic growth that is inclusive and reduces poverty. With young people being disproportionately affected by unemployment, policy makers and governments throughout Asia and Africa are ensuring that inhabitants have access to sustainable livelihoods. It is imperative that especially the youth and women become active participants in the future economic activity of sub-saharan Africa and South Asia (Bhorat & Naidoo, 2013; Schoof, 2006). Hypothesis 3: The current governance of agrifood systems creates negative social and environmental consequence and this can be addressed by building an architecture of multistakeholder processes that span farm to policy scales. The flagship will study interactions between governance mechanisms related to diverse agrifood components. So far, the enabling environment is largely looked at in an isolated sectoral way and interactions between action situations have not yet received sufficient attention (Cole et al. 2014). Research on the simultaneous occurrence of institutions suggests, however, that rules and norms can both supplement but also compete with each other (Cardenas et al., 2000, Falk et al. 2012). The enabling environment for adoption of innovations therefore needs to be studied across sectors. The situation becomes even more complex as the impacts of interactions vary between social-ecological systems (Ostrom, 2007). Southern standards emerging in agricultural value chains put into question those defined by the global North (Schouten and Bitzer, 2016), and the debate on the strengths and weaknesses of business-ngo partnerships in value chain development is inconclusive (Bitzer and Glasbergen, 2015). Hypothesis 4: Boundary objects can drive the co-design of new institutional arrangements in complex and contested system environments associated with agrifood systems Research related to the social-ecological systems framework highlighted that interactions and complexity need to be acknowledged when designing institutions and policies. For this insight to be useful in development, policy makers and implementing agents need innovative approaches to capture complexity in governance reforms. The flagship will contribute to the development of tools building on own work related to systems modelling (Carberry et al., 2002), role-play games (Falk et al. 2016), as well as similar advances made within ICRAF (Villamor, 2014). The game approaches and participatory modelling permit stakeholders to experiment with different institutional constellations at much lower costs and risks compared to real-life trial and error process of institutional change (Barreteau et al. 2001; Sterman, 2006). Game approaches are embedded in empirical research on actual behavior. Team members possess extensive experience in multi-layer governance research in particular in the African and South Asian context (Falk et al. 2009, Javaid & Falk 2015, Hinkel et al., 2015). Work of the flagship work on the experience of the CGIAR System-wide Program on Collective Action and Property CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 110

111 Rights (CAPRi) and longstanding research partnerships with key organizations and networks (such as the International Association for the Study of the Commons). FP2.5 Lessons learnt and unintended consequences Amongst the GLDC flagships, FP2 (alongside FP1) is where the identification and management of unintended consequences of agrifood interventions will be most strongly and explicitly addressed. The CoA2.1 (Testing, adaptation and validation of value chain options) focuses explicitly on multidimensional outcomes related to AFS practices. It pays special attention to ecosystem services provided by the AFS, which are often not captured in market signals and neglected in decision making (TEEB 2015; Rockstrom et al., 2016). CoA 2 (Inclusive options for transforming value chains) recognizes that producing more is not enough to ensure that the benefits anticipated in the CGIAR s SRF are realized. Creating awareness of individual benefits around sustainable nutrition helps to create stronger demand for agricultural products while risk reduction through strengthening the role of the profit-motive and reducing postharvest waste directly contribute to the avoidance of unintended consequences. Another lesson learnt from phase 1 CRPs is that the most effective way to make poverty-impact through sorghum utilization is not through improving the efficiency of small-scale agro-processing. The central message of the proposed research strategy is the need to focus on fodder and non-food utilization characteristics in crop improvement programs. A related component is the need for greater integration of industrial users of sorghum with public sector efforts to improve its utilization. CoA 3 (Multilayer Governance Framework) will identify and support higher-level innovation for creating environments (market and policy) that mitigate unintended impacts and in this way permit household livelihood innovations to improve overall social welfare at various scales. A lesson learnt from previous CRPs is that bridging the gap between technology developments in commodity oriented CRPs and enhancing the governance framework in integrated CRPs is challenging. Hence, GLDC intends to integrate governance related R4D most directly, and in this way creating a strong docking station to the global integrated CRPs A4NH, PIM, and WLE. This requires strong coordination in order to ensure that maximum synergies in terms of developing joint methodologies and sharing results are explored and duplication of work is avoided. FP2.6 Clusters of Activity (CoA) CoA 2.1 Testing, adaptation and validation of value chain options Integrated design outcome delivered: Investment decisions by GLDC value chain actors and intervention decisions by external service providers are informed by multi-dimensional assessments of value chain impacts. Systemic change outcome delivered: Collaborative assessment mechanisms and tools strengthen capacity of GLDC Agrifood system actors to assess and action multi-dimensional impacts. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 111

112 Adopting an action-research approach with collaborative learning cycles, and drawing on foresight modeling under FP1, CoA2.1 will assess (ex ante and ex post) integrate, adapt and validate the impact of GLDC agrifood system innovations from a value chain perspective and, based on the findings, adapt existing and design and test new innovations for higher impact. The approach will be demonstrably action research, where FP2 will engage within GLDC actual agrifood system stakeholders driving value chain innovations, with the purposeful intent to support beneficial change in response to broader societal innovation. Impact evaluation will focus on multidimensional impact assessments adding to the higher-level results of FP1 s to contextualize them. This work will be conducted in close collaboration with FP3 and its farmer livelihood framing, harmonizing approaches and ensuring optimal use of synergies, particularly the use of assessed impacts made on the farm and producer household level and tested at scale with WLE. FP2 will complement this work with studies on multidimensional impacts along the value chains drawing, among other things, on PIM value chain tools for assessing the impacts of value chain development at the level of producer households and the enterprises that link them with downstream value chain actors (Donovan & Stoian 2012) that are currently being adapted to look into gender-differentiated impacts. It will pay special attention to unintended consequences and trade-offs of adoption of interventions, and will seek to support AFS interventions capable of addressing the growing expectations of agricultural system contributions to climate mitigation, environmental sustainability, and nutritious diets. In addition to the socioeconomic impacts to be assessed with PIM value chain tools adapted to GLDC contexts, environmental impacts will be assessed taking into account the social-ecological system context (Ostrom, 2007). The research will specifically recognize the importance of the scale effects that amplify impacts, especially given that they strongly drive interferences by public and private governance actors who generally have a strong investment in the agricultural sector of developing countries. These interferences will strongly affect outcomes and thus can either completely reverse potential impacts or amplify these. Therefore, in collaboration with FP1, we will have a strong focus on stakeholder involvement from diverse value chain actors (farmers, food processors, retailers) and those representing the regulatory and enabling environment (local and to national governments, NGOs). A first step is to involve these stakeholders in the selection of the specific GLDC value chains agrifood systems in which this CoA will focus invest its action research on. Once identified, then it is will be critical to study empirically the outcome preferences of critical stakeholders in the targeted value chains with linkages to the broader agrifood system. It is expected that these outcomes include, can in addition to food production and security, also include nutritional aspects, equity, self-sufficiency and ecological sustainability. It will use multiple methods for this purpose pertaining to collaborative management research (CMR). This action research approach fosters collaborative learning in bringing together researchers and practitioners in the investigation of complex systems to generate rigorous, practical and policy-relevant interventions (Canterino et al., 2016). Methods include, but are not limited to, including multi-stakeholder consultations (business roundtables, communities of practice, and similar forms of Innovation Platforms), key informant, market and household surveys, and CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 112

113 experimental designs. A next step are ex ante and ex post assessments is research on how, and under which conditions, alternative value chain options influence high priority outcomes of agrifood system stakeholders as well as those of GLDC. Which opportunities are created by capitalizing on the specific attributes (e.g. high nutritional value) of legume and cereal commodities? How do alternatives in processing and distribution activities affect the quality of those outcomes and how are they perceived by traders and consumers? What externalities do these innovations imply? Special attention will be paid to outcomes that, which are not easily captured in market signals. Examples are nutritional aspects of food production, or global public goods such as biodiversity or climate stability. Multiple methods, particularly value chain modeling (Rich et al., 2011), focus group discussions, and choice experiments will allow to develop impact scenarios and to determine estimation of required (dis-) incentives for motivating value chain actors to choose pathways which are better aligned to diverse stakeholders preferences. The cluster outputs will be: Decision support tools and mechanisms for context-specific value chain options in relation to GLDC agrifood systems that materially and equitably enhance societal outcomes (as defined at sub-ido level) while minimizing negative externalities. Identification of opportunities for an enhanced role for women and youth in agricultural value chain activities and the attributes that support their contribution or barriers that hinder them. Ensuring a nutritional and food safety lens for prioritization of investments and interventions in targeted grain legume and cereal value chains, where these attributes are explicitly sought or ignored, to ultimately enhance nutrition of consumers. Environmental and social impacts of GLDC value chain innovations tested at scale to avoid unintended negative consequences, and amplifying synergies that contribute to poverty reduction, equitable access to value chain opportunities, and nutritional security. Improved understanding and stakeholder awareness of the trade-offs between the economic, social and environmental goals of GDLC value chain development, and the leverage points along the GLDC agrifood systems that help to minimize them and to maximize synergies between multiple goals. CoA 2.2 Inclusive options for transforming GLDC agricultural value chains Integrated design outcome delivered: Viable business establish and create market opportunities for GLDC men and women farmers and value chain actors. Systemic change outcome delivered: Business incubation processes prioritise & support enterprises that generate food security (including nutrition), poverty reduction and resilience outcomes. This CoA will target improvements in AFS value chains that will increase private sector investment in enterprises that help develop markets for GLDC crops while at the same time helping promote food and nutritional security, poverty reduction and resilience impacts across the agrifood system as a whole. This activity cluster will work with and strengthen existing value chain and agrifood system CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 113

114 dynamics and players, but will also help catalyze new dynamics and opportunities. There are five interlinked dimensions of this (i) Identifying existing and emerging businesses and market opportunities and supporting these through business incubation and capacity building; (ii) The development of new sources of consumer demand through sensation campaigns and influence of existing health and nutrition programs and interventions; (iii) The development of novel processed food products, novel industrial uses, and improved post-harvest handling for GLDC crops, and the incubation of pilot enterprises that action these technologies in the market; (iv) improving the nutrition value of traditional household processing and consumption of GDLC crops; and (v) development of stakeholder alliances, platforms and business incubation processes that better target and support market business opportunities that generate food and nutritional security, poverty reduction and resilience impacts in agrifood systems (i) Identifying and incubating new market opportunities. Based on inputs from CoA 2.1 on value chains targeted market research will be undertaken to identify gaps/demands to design solutions and interventions for addressing them. Stakeholder consultations involving the value chain actors in each country and for the respective crop value chain will be carried out. Creation of market demand for GLDC crops by developing innovative value added products based on assessment of the market needs will be undertaken, and further linked to promotion of sustainable agribusiness and food processing enterprises. Entrepreneurship development and providing ecosystems for fostering entrepreneurs shall be actively considered towards ensuring a sustainable and innovative GLDC-AFS value chain. It is obvious that a number of different agribusiness models encompassing activities and actors from farm to the consumer will be required for achieving the objectives proposed under FP2. Establishment of agribusiness incubators and accelerators shall be actively pursued to promote sustainable entrepreneurship. (ii) Development of new sources of consumer demand. A key intervention envisaged as part of the CoA 2.2 is on sensitizing the stakeholders on the need to link agriculture-nutrition-entrepreneurship towards providing sustainable models for addressing the problem of malnutrition as well as lifestyle diseases. Working with the local health authorities in each country to identify specific nutritional needs of the local communities, identifying locally grown crops, and the potential of locally grown crops in formulating cost-effective energy and nutrient dense foods (ENDFs), empowering the local women SHGs to locally produce the ENDF products etc. shall also be considered as part of the CoA 2.2 implementation strategy. (iii) Incubating enterprises that pilot the commercialization of novel products, processes and uses of GLDC crops. Technology development alone cannot lead to economic development unless the technologies are put to economic use by entrepreneurs. The role of entrepreneurship is to organize and put to use capital, labor and technology in the best possible manner for setting-up of sustainable enterprises. This shall be achieved by leveraging experience of the partners and stakeholders towards promoting entrepreneurship development in one or more target regions. Appropriate pilot projects towards strengthening and/or filling weak and missing links in the value chains in the target regions CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 114

115 shall be developed and implemented. It is proposed that an entrepreneurship development program (EDPs) be implemented in a pilot mode in identified target countries, leveraging on expertise of the Agribusiness and Innovation Platform (AIP) of ICRISAT. (iv) Improving the nutrition value of traditional household processing and consumption of GDLC crops Traditional post-harvest methods of processing such as threshing, winnowing, and pounding are not only inefficient but also labor-intensive. Therefore, the need for developing/adapting and introducing simple and efficient labor saving devices will be explored. In addition, CoA 2.2 will introduce/evaluate new or improved traditional processing methods that may result in products with enhanced nutritional and storage quality. Farmer-led producer/community organizations can be engaged in pilot-testing these outcomes. Improved business incubation processes that target broader agrifood systems priorities. The FP will work with and strengthen existing agribusiness incubation initiatives, public-private sector platforms, venture capital panels in the incubation and support of new enterprises As part of this process, action research and capacity building will be used to strength the capability of these mechanisms not only to identify opportunities that are both commercially viable and create a market for GLDC crops, but also have high potential for generating food and nutritional security, poverty reduction and resilience impacts in the agrifood system. The cluster outputs will be: New market opportunities for GLDC crops identified through improved understanding of market gaps/demands based on targeted market research. Value chains strengthened through appropriately designed solutions and interventions resulting in increased market share of products based on GLDC crops. Improved supply chain management, market-driven products and enhanced product quality leading to reduction in post-harvest losses. Post-harvest and commercial technologies for GLDC crops available in the market and linked to seed systems in FP3. New entrepreneurs with enhanced capacity to sustain their businesses through establishment of agribusiness incubators and accelerators, and consequent enhanced efficiency of public sector stakeholders in post-harvest management, agribusiness and food processing of GLDC crops. Product and nutritional quality of GLDC crop-based traditional household processed foods enhanced through improved post-harvest processing that also reduces drudgery (especially of women). Nutritional database of GLDC crops created for use by public and private sector through linkage with CRP A4NH. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 115

116 Nutritious and Innovative GLDC crop-based food products introduced based on market demand and further new sources of consumer demand created through nurturing of an innovation funnel based on GLDC crops. Policy level interventions to foster an ecosystem for promotion of an innovation based entrepreneurship leading to establishment of sustainable business enterprises and ultimately increased consumption of GLDC crop based products. Especially CoA 2.2 will work closely together with PIM FP3 in the identification of inclusive and efficient options for value chains innovations. In addition, there are strong links with the A4NH flagship on food systems (FP3) with regard to increased availability of diverse nutrient-rich food (as one critical outcome dimension). These links are prominent in the Theories of Change of the CRPs. CoA 2.3 Understanding and influencing multi-layer governance frameworks Integrated design outcome delivered: Agri-food system governance mechanisms respond with incentives that support sustainable GLDC markets. Systemic change outcome delivered: Agri-food system governance mechanisms promote sustainable investments by public & private agrifood system actors. This cluster will focus on analyzing interactions of governance mechanisms related to diverse AFS components. Institutions can provide incentives and dis-incentives affecting upon key system features that enable or constrain the proliferation of innovative AFS strategies. This cluster will identify, with critical actors, innovative governance mechanisms based on the assessments of multidimensional outcomes related to GLDC agrifood systems (CoA1) and the identification of innovative value chain options (CoA2). The identify governance mechanisms will support the adoption of AFS innovations by different social groups in order to improve welfare, resilience and equity. A broad assessment of community norms and rules, customary and statutory laws and policies being affecting agrifood systems in different social-ecological contexts will underpin the research undertaken by this cluster. This will include assessments of social dilemmas resulting in governance challenges related to alternative livelihood strategies and wider interactions amongst institutions across scales, domains and sectors. This enhanced knowledge will support the development of approaches for analyzing and facilitating context specific institutional and policy innovations supporting improved AFS strategies. The cluster purposely does not focus on specific governance mechanisms as it intends to be open for the creativity, which evolves in multi-stakeholder processes. In particular, the manifold interactions between market, state, and cooperation mechanisms can be the source of paradigm shifts in agrifood systems. Having said this, the cluster will embed its work directly into the activities of the CoAs 1 & 2 in order to ensure that the components of the flagship are well connected. The cluster outputs will be: CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 116

117 Analytical decision support tools developed for analyzing governance challenges related to GLDC agrifood systems related innovations; Impact tradeoffs as governance challenges related to GLDC agrifood systems are identified; Interactions between community norms and rules, customary and statutory laws and policies related to different sectors are well understood in different social-ecological system; Approaches and tools are handed over to government and non-government implementing agencies and policy makers supporting context specific institutional change towards innovative AFS strategies; Innovative governance approaches supporting innovative integrated AFS strategies are tested in cooperation with government and non-government implementing agencies. CoA 2.3 will be strongly embedded in a network of partners within and outside the CRP. It will take up topics of priority as identified under FP1 CoA1. Special attention will be paid to unintended impacts at various scales as identified under our own CoA1. Thera are strong links to PIM FP3 on inclusive and efficient value chains regarding the identification of appropriate governance and other arrangements for successful scaling. Approaches for the governance analyses will also be coordinated with the PIM FP 5 on Governance of Natural Resources. The results of the institutional analyses will be input for FP1 CoA4 and the Capacity Development component of the CRP. In a joint effort, institutions will be identified which enable or constrain innovative approaches for intensification and diversification of livelihood strategies. FP2 Linkages to other FPs Cluster of Activities Collaborating FP FP2 role Collaborating FP role Outputs; Added value FP1 Application of models across typologies to strengthen foresight studies Priority Setting Multi-scale evaluation of promising options CoA 2.1 Adaptation and Valuation of value chain options at Scale Complementary innovations that are required in the enabling environment to facilitate innovation and adoption Value chains, demand and constraints Complementary perspective on the role of markets in the enabling environment for intensification / diversification. Effective integrated, adapted and validated interventions in existing productions systems Impact analysis and strategies for adaptation Multi-scale evaluation of promising options CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 117

118 FP4 FP3 Application of models across typologies to strengthen foresight studies Effective integrated, adapted and validated interventions in existing productions systems Yield; food, feed and fodder quality; stress resistance Cropping pattern and sequence; Integrated soilcrop-water-nutrient management; mechanization of farm operations Systems level analyses based on sound scientific evidence from component research Value chain options tested in the context of wider societal issues FP1 Data describing outcomes and livelihood impacts of post-harvest options Foresight, visioning and combine pre/post harvest impact assessment Farm fork impact assessments. CoA 2.2 Inclusive options for transforming GLDC agricultural value chains FP4, FP5 FP3 Define broader contexts (nutrition, post-harvest characteristics/consumer preferred traits like rancidity & digestibility, business potential) in which varietal delivery operates. Complementary innovations that are required in the enabling environment to facilitate innovation and adoption Fine tuning of varietal delivery for different contexts Post-harvest value addition techniques, strategies and related policies, decision making factors within household Better adapted varieties for a wider range of situations. Integrated view of the contributions of production and post-production losses to farm gate productivity CoA 2.3 Multilayer FP1 Piloting up- and outscaling approaches; Adoption tracking and impact Integrated theoretical and CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 118

119 Governance Framework evaluating influence of system features on innovation adoption assessment; bestpractice dissemination mechanisms practical assessments of scaling processes and outcomes FP5 Assessments of interactions between institutions across scales, domains and sectors Research on seed systems Seed systems research embedded in wider input supply context Evaluation of the influence of system features on innovation adoption Scaling out seed and technologies Seed scaling informed by wider lessons about scaling opportunities and constraints FP2.7 Partnerships FP2 will capitalize on existing partnerships (examples of which are provided below) and seek to for new associations that will support meeting the flagships objectives and delivery against the sub-idos targeted. The table below illustrates the roles that partners will play in the flagships delivery along its impact pathway with an emphasis on joint research products and equitable scaling to sub-ido level. Partner type CGIAR CRPs Examples of partner organizations A4NH, PIM, WLE, MAIZE Role in flagship PIM: Joint development of tools and methods for value chain assessment considering multiple outcomes across value chains and identification of impactful governance and scaling models. Specific collaboration will be ensured regarding adaptation of generic value chain tools originating from PIM to the GLDC context, strengthening research on multi-layer governance frameworks through a strong private sector perspective (private policies and standards, smallholder business organization and management models, responsible investments) A4NH: Creatively explore linkages regarding improved diets (linked to whole diet approach) and enhanced enabling environment (better policies and institutions); dissemination of bio-fortified and nutritious dense food, safe food products, and lessons learned on diet change and integrated nutrition programs, CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 119

120 CGIAR Centers NARS ALI / ARI Develop ment partner Coinvestme nt partner Bioversity, ICARDA, ICRAF, ICRISAT, IITA, ILRI, IWMI ICAR-India, INRA- Morocco, NARO- Uganda, FARA, Univ. of Pretoria, WUR, CSIRO, UC Davis, UC Riverside, K-State University CRS, GIZ AGP (Ethiopia) Economics of Land Degradation Initiative (GIZ) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development; TEEB Agro Food WLE: Jointly developing approaches for ensuring environmental sustainability and sustainability of scaling. MAIZE: Joint development of approaches in storage technologies. Flagship and cluster research leadership. Lead design and establishment of research designs and protocols in collaboration with partners. Testing of system options Collaborating in ex ante impact assessments (including FP1 activities). Post harvest innovation & Agribusiness Collaborate in piloting and capacity development activities. Underwrite collaborative scaling initiatives arising out of DCL research Contribute to the justification in economic terms of the suggested interventions and a strategy for scaling out; developing linkages with the private sector Development of sustainability indicators and measurement of agricultural externalities. Within the GLDC target countries the flagship will work in a selection of the agrifood systems where partnerships have been established with other Agrifood system CRPs by FP1 but more importantly the global integrated CRPs; this will be particularly important for the PIM flagships Inclusive and Efficient Value Chains (FP3) as well as Natural Resource Governance (FP5). Docking of activities with MAIZE will be essential for instance regarding approaches to processing and storage options. The flagship will support through forums such as the India-African Forum Summit-II (IAFS-II) South-South collaborations and learning networks. The specific partners within the agrifood systems can only be identified after the selection of the target systems based on FP1 priority setting, site integration considerations and coordination with PIM and A4NH. The flagship follows a multi-stakeholder approach and acknowledges that sustainable impact can be achieved only if smallholder and larger commercial farmers, agrifood processors and marketing agents, public and private extension services, civil society organizations and international CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 120

121 development agents, as well as private, customary and statutory policy makers will all join hands. Specific partners will be selected on the basis of a stakeholder analyses with high priority given to actors who have significant power to influence the systems. FP2.8 Climate change FP2 aims to make a decisive contribution to the improvement of priority agrifood systems inter alia, increasing resilience in the face of climate change, more and nutritious food, income and options through diversification, intensification, value addition, and entrepreneurship development in agribusiness. Climate parameters will be included in the FP2 assessment of trade-offs and synergies at all levels of engagement (household, community, landscape, value chain). The flagship will pay attention to management options for mitigating the effects of climate change related to GLDC agrifood systems. While this is helping to achieve SLO A, it is instrumental for getting additional support from governance actors to promote GLDC agrifood systems. Besides, the GLDC agrifood systems can play a critical role in integrated climate change adaptation strategies. Incidentally, the FLDC crops, especially sorghum and millets are well endowed for rainfed conditions and can grow and yield under extreme water-limiting conditions. Hence, such crops can form an important component of the integrated climate change adaptation strategies. The priority crops are more drought and high temperature tolerant. They are an increasingly important option for climate change affected regions as they are the most nutrition rich crops which can be cultivated under harsh climatic conditions. Developing climate smart strategies which integrate GLDC agrifood systems will allow to access funds such as the Green Climate Fund in order to pilot and demonstrate innovative approaches at scale. Where necessary, basic life cycle analyses will be used to ensure climate neutral impacts across the flagship. In these processes the flagship will be in regular exchange with CRP CCAFS and WLE. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 121

122 FP2.9 Gender During Phase 1 the Gender Strategy for Dryland Cereals was developed and will be used to expand the institutional architecture of the integration of gender into FP2. An inventory of gender research to date is currently being developed. From this inventory, we will identify which populations have been targeted in the work of the flagship so far, in order to assess the impact of research on the target populations. The inventory will be used to identify other potential population targets like young men or women that may be invisible actors in the dryland-cereals value chain and who could benefit through inclusion and/or innovations. Collection of gender-disaggregated data will be undertaken. FP2 will facilitate interactive decision-making, incentives and innovation processes in agriculture that depend on tacit and intangible norms and values relating to the social roles of men and women in an agricultural livelihood system, and on the web of relations between social roles and actors within the system. To research these interrelations, gender-differentiated interdisciplinary research is required. The importance attached by the Flagship to viewing all potential outcomes through a gender lens is illustrated by the central position of sub-idos B1.1 and B1.3 in our theory of change (see Figure 1). The research will include ex ante gender-differentiated impact assessment using complementary gender-responsive system modeling, gender-differentiated household portfolios of activities and management practices of resources and biodiversity, the identification of options for female and male stakeholders to improve formal and informal institutions such as land tenure, the division of labor and decision making on use of income and social roles pertaining to gender and age. This will help better target development interventions in agricultural livelihood systems to ensure equitable access of women and men to options, resources and benefits in order to achieve a lasting and sustainable reduction of poverty and increase in food and nutrition security, health and social wellbeing. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 122

123 In collaboration with and guidance from CRP PIM (FP3 and FP6), approaches to gender-responsive M&E and measurement of gender dimensions of development outcomes will also be tested and applied. FP2.10 Capacity development The flagship will invest in the Organizational Capacity of NARS, government and non-government development partners. A permanent mutual learning environment will be created which will significantly improve outputs of the flagship and ensure that knowledge created will be used and scaled-out. Action Research approaches will be a critical tool in this process. Innovation platforms where actors in value chains enhance their skills and share knowledge will be implemented and monitored. The platforms will allow regular interactions with actors in agricultural value chains to disseminate efficient post-harvest technologies for reducing losses and enhancing the nutritive quality of agrifoods. The focus will also be on capacity building for adoption and scale-up facilitation. Enhance awareness of different stakeholders on the status of malnutrition existing in different rural communities and ways to addressing malnutrition. Innovative Learning Materials and Approaches will support these processes. Training materials (e.g. short courses, summer schools, curriculum development, skill and entrepreneurship development) will be designed to facilitate knowledge transfer amongst all partners. Phase I of the CRPs indicated the critical importance of Institutional Strengthening for achieving ambitious impact objectives. The three CoAs address this capacity gap by identifying multilevel governance mechanisms that take into account synergies and trade-offs among different components of farming and livelihood systems. Institutions that are harmonized across scales and sectors can increase adoption rates of innovations and reduce unintended consequences for overall social welfare, resilience, equity, food security, and environmental sustainability. These activities will be undertaken jointly with multiple stakeholders from different spheres and scales of policy making. Gender Sensitive Approaches will be embedded in all activities of the flagship. There will be special emphasis on increasing the participation of women and other under-capacitated groups in these activities. The flagship will also contribute to Develop Future Research Leaders through trainings of national and international undergraduate and graduate students and post-doctoral fellows. FP2.11 Intellectual asset and open access management CGIAR Principles on the Management of Intellectual Assets ( CGIAR IA Principles ) will govern all the intellectual assets generated under FP2. Other than research data, the key intellectual assets generated by FP2 are likely to be associated with facilitation of entrepreneurial activities and innovative concepts/products and technologies linked to CoA 2.2. Access to global public goods generated under FP2 will be provided to stakeholders by following the model of the Agribusiness and Innovation Platform (AIP). AIP is an initiative of ICRISAT and its partners (established in 2004) to enhance its public-private partnerships (PPP) as a model for technology transfer and fostering agrobusiness to bring R4D innovations to the market for faster adoption with wider-scale impact. The CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 123

124 Centers will provide prototype innovations, knowledge and expertise, training and co-location with researchers for close interaction. The interested entrepreneurs will fine-tune the prototypes as per demand and take them to market, including bearing the market risks and reaping the rewards involved. Management of open access data will confirm to the CGIAR Open Access and Data Management Policy. The CG centers will also comply with their institutional policy and CGIAR guidelines and standards for publication of research results and activity details. Database Custodianship Types of data held Access arrangements Various: research data collected under FP5 CRP GLDC Biophysical and socioeconomic (qualitative and quantitative). As per CGIAR policies. FP2.12 FP management FP2 will be led by Dr. Victor Manyong (IITA). Dr. Manyong is an agricultural economist with over 30 years experience at IITA in undertaking research, program implementation, capacity building and advisory work on adoption, impact, policy and market studies, especially in Africa. He is currently the director of the social science and agribusiness department and director for eastern Africa at IITA. He oversees IITA s contribution to the Global integrated CRP s PIM and A4NH. CoA 2.1 will be led by Dr Dietmar Stoian (Bioversity), CoA 2.2 by Dr Kiran Sharma (ICRISAT) and Dr Bussie Maziya Dixon (IITA), and CoA 2.3 by Dr Thomas Falk (ICRISAT). The diverse range of skills possessed by the management team is necessitated by the broad disciplinary range tacked by FP2 and may be reviewed in the submitted CVs for the flagship. It has to be emphasized that most team members are involved in different global integrated CRPs, which will be of strategic importance for ensuring close collaboration. The leadership roles will be carried out in accordance with the terms of reference for flagship and cluster leads, the draft of which is hyperlinked to section It is anticipated that cluster leadership will require a commitment of around 20% FTE (either sole or jointly) and the flagship lead approximately 50%. This will include the commitments that the leadership team make to their own research carried out under the flagship. The Flagship will allocate its W1 and W2 operational research funds through a competitive process based on internal and external peer review. Key criteria for funding under this mechanism will include science quality, strength / credibility of research team and partnerships, alignment with flagship objectives and potential to deliver impact at sub-ido level, potential to leverage or add value to W3 / bilateral investments. Flagship management will make use of the program level monitoring information to ensure timely delivery of reporting by sub-grantees and to allow quarterly milestone monitoring by the team at CoA and flagship levels. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 124

125 FP2.13 Flagship Budget Narrative General Information CRP Name: GLDC CRP Lead Center Flagship Name Center location of Flagship Leader ICRISAT FP 2: Functional Agrifood Systems IITA Summary Total Flagship budget summary by sources of funding (USD) Funding Needed Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total W1+W2 2,250,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,125,000 2,550,000 2,700,000 13,625,000 W3 3,631,972 3,882,904 3,625,560 1,965,934 2,032,115 2,077,370 17,215,855 Bilateral 7,329,436 7,622,750 8,403,611 10,584,841 11,064,510 11,590,532 56,595,680 Other Sources - 13,211,408 13,505,653 14,029,171 14,675,775 15,646,625 16,367,902 87,436,535 Funding Secured Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total W1+W2 (Assumed Secured) 2,250,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,125,000 2,550,000 2,700,000 13,625,000 W3 3,470,089 2,797,265 2,054, , , ,153 9,380,967 Bilateral 4,851,741 4,245, , ,487,561 Other Sources - 10,571,830 9,042,485 4,444,753 2,478,153 2,903,153 3,053,153 32,493,528 Funding Gap Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total W1+W2 (Required from SO) W3 (Required from FC Members) (161,883) (1,085,639) (1,571,407) (1,612,781) (1,678,962) (1,724,217) (7,834,888) Bilateral (Fundraising) (2,477,695) (3,377,530) (8,013,011) (10,584,841) (11,064,510) (11,590,532) (47,108,119) Other Sources (Fundraising) (2,639,578) (4,463,169) (9,584,418) (12,197,622) (12,743,472) (13,314,749) (54,943,007) CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 125

126 Total Flagship budget by Natural Classification (USD) Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total Personnel 5,171,846 5,267,809 5,457,898 5,698,143 6,063,620 6,331,719 33,991,035 Travel 889, , ,232 1,005,237 1,073,401 1,124,387 5,970,260 Capital Equipment 217, , , , , ,714 1,424,707 Other Supplies and Services 2,673,003 2,739,109 2,849,589 2,983,950 3,184,348 3,334,052 17,764,051 CGIAR collaborations 395, , , , , ,321 2,620,251 Non CGIAR Collaborations 2,135,057 2,186,801 2,275,647 2,384,611 2,546,584 2,668,272 14,196,972 Indirect Cost 1,729,576 1,769,618 1,839,579 1,925,662 2,054,385 2,150,436 11,469,259 13,211,408 13,505,654 14,029,170 14,675,775 15,646,624 16,367,901 87,436,535 Total Flagship budget by Participating Centers (singed PPAs) USD Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total ICRISAT 7,593,151 7,764,870 8,100,568 8,527,835 9,148,694 9,628,939 50,764,059 ICRAF 885, , , ,030 1,067,475 1,123,508 5,923,179 Bioversity International 925,088 1,033,046 1,108,495 1,165,200 1,246,231 1,305,827 6,783,889 CIAT 1,248,926 1,240,087 1,256,660 1,285,605 1,340,840 1,372,558 7,744,679 IITA 2,558,267 2,561,639 2,618,266 2,702,103 2,843,384 2,937,068 16,220,729 13,211,406 13,505,652 14,029,168 14,675,773 15,646,623 16,367,900 87,436,535 Additional explanations for certain accounting categories Benefits: The CRP is a partnership of eight Centers including the Lead Center, and benefit items and amounts vary across Centers. In general, IRS benefits include pension, housing allowance, transportation allowance, hardship allowance, shipping allowance, home-leave travel, school fees, education travel, medical examination and medical insurance. Other Supplies and Services: Includes experimental materials, research support, field costs, travel, services and communication cost. Other Sources of Funding for this Project The FP contingency plan if program funding does not become available: Immediate to short term: Leverage bilateral support at country to regional level to cover budget shortfalls Reprioritize further and focus activities Leverage investments of non-cg partners to sustain planned activities Short to medium term: Maintain a strong resource mobilization strategy that target both traditional and new funding sources CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 126

127 Discuss mutual accountability with donors, governments and partners at country level where most bilateral funds are appropriated Joint resource mobilization with partner CRPs Budgeted Costs for certain Key Activities** FP2. Proportion of total budget (w3/bilateral and w1/w2) being allocated to gender, capacity building etc. as an integrated part of the FP2 plan: Gender, CoA1.3 and mainstreamed across CoAs, 25% Youth, CoA1.3, 33% Capacity development, all CoAs, 13% Intellectual Asset Management, all CoAs, 25% Impact assessment, mainly CoA1.4, 20% Open access and data management, all CoAs, 38% Communication, all CoAs, 33% Estimate annual average cost (USD) Gender 2,000,000 Youth (only for those who have relevant set of activities in this area) 2,000,000 Capacity development 1,000,000 Impact assessment 250,000 Intellectual asset management 5,000 Open access and data management 75,000 Communication 100,000 **Budgets are based on current bilateral projects, and continuation at similar levels during entire program period depends on continued bilateral support Flagship Uplift Budget Outcome Description Amount Needed W1 + W2 (%) W3 (%) Bilateral (%) Other(%) Expand its work to additional target countries based on value of 26,250, CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 127

128 production and willingness of governments to partner. Total 26,250,000 REFERENCES Barreteau, O., F. Bousquet, and J. M. Attonaty.(2001). Role-playing games for opening the black box of multi-agent systems: method and lessons of its application to Senegal River valley irrigated systems. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulations 4(2): 5. Bhorat, H. and Naidoo, K. (2013). Africa s Job Challenge, DRPU, University of Cape Town. Carberry, P.S., Hochman, Z., McCown, R.L., Dalgliesh, N.P., Foale, M.A., Poulton, P.L., Hargreaves, J.N.G., Hargreaves, D.M.G., Cawthray, S., Hillcoat, N. and Robertson, M.J., (2002). The FARMSCAPE approach to decision support: Farmers, Advisers, Researchers Monitoring, Simulation, Communication, And Performance Evaluation. Agricultural Systems, 74: Cardenas, J.-C., J. Stranlund, and C. Willis. (2000). Local environmental control and institutional crowding-out. World Development 28(10): Cole, D. H., Epstein, G., & McGinnis, M. D. (2014). Digging deeper into Hardin's pasture: the complex institutional structure of the tragedy of the commons. Journal of Institutional Economics, 10(03), Dalton, T. and Regier, G. (2013). Assessment of the Impact of Improved Pigeonpea Development by ICRISAT in Northern Tanzania. Patancheru , Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. Falk, T., Bock B., and Kirk, M. (2009). Polycentrism and poverty: Experiences of rural water supply reform in Namibia. Water Alternatives 2 (1). Falk, T., Lohmann, D., Azebaze, N. (2016). Congruence of Appropriation and Provision in Collective Water Provision in Central Namibia. International Journal of The Commons 10 (1). Falk, T., Vollan, B., & Kirk, M. (2012). Analysis of material, social, and moral governance in natural resource management in southern Namibia. International Journal of The Commons, 6(2): Foran, T., Butler, J.R.A., Williams, L.J., Wanjura, W.J., Hall, A.J., Carter, L., Carberry, P.S. (2014). Taking complexity in food systems seriously: An interdisciplinary analysis. World Development 61: CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 128

129 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2014: Global Report (2014). (Last access March 11,2014) Hall, A., Sulaiman, V. R., Clark, N., & Yoganand, B. (2003). From measuring impact to learning institutional lessons: an innovation systems perspective on improving the management of international agricultural research. Agricultural systems, 78(2), Hall, A.J., Rasheed Sulaiman V., B.Yoganand, Clark, N.G (2003). Post-harvest innovation systems in South Asia: Research as capacity development and its prospects for pro-poor impact. Outlook on Agriculture Vol 32 No 2 pp Hall, A.J., and Yoganand, B. (eds) (2000). Sorghum utilisation and the livelihoods of the poor in India. 92pp. In: Summary proceedings of a workshop, ICRISAT, Patancheru, India. 4-5 February Socioeconomics and Policy programme, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Andhra Pradesh, India Hall, A.J., Yoganand B, Rasheed Sulaiman V., and N.G. Clark. (Eds.) (2003). Post-Harvest Innovations in Innovation: Reflections on Partnership and Learning. Crop Post-Harvest Programme, South Asia, Patancheru: India, and NRInternational, Aylesford: UK Hall, A.J. (2005). Public-private sector partnership for market-driven development: A view from the Innovation Systems Perspective. In World Bank (2005), Development of Research Systems to support the changing agricultural sector. World Bank, Washington DC. Hall, AJ. (2009) Challenges to Strengthening Agricultural Systems: Where Do We Go From Here?. in I.Scoones and J.Thompson, (eds), Farmer First Revisited: Innovation for Agricultural Research and Development, London : Practical Action. Hinkel, J., M. E. Cox, M. Schlüter, C. R. Binder and T. Falk. (2015). A diagnostic procedure for applying the social-ecological systems framework in diverse cases. Ecology and Society 20 (1): 32. Javaid, A., & Falk, T. (2015). Incorporating local institutions in irrigation experiments: evidence from rural communities in Pakistan. Ecology and Society, 20(2), 28. John Thompson Ian Scoones. (2009). Addressing the dynamics of agrifood systems: An emerging agenda for social science research Environmental Science and Policy. Katungi, E., Horna, D., Gebeyehu, S and Sperling, L. (2011). Market access, intensification and productivity of common bean in Ethiopia: A microeconomic analysis. African Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 6(2): DOI: /AJAR Larochelle, C., J. Alwang, G.W. Norton, E. Katungi, & R.A. Labarta. (2015). "Impact of Adopting Improved Bean Varieties on Poverty and Food Security in Uganda and Rwanda". Book chapter 16 in CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 129

130 Tomas Walker and Jeffrey Alwang (eds.), Crop Variety Improvement and Impacts of Agricultural Research in Africa. CABI Publishing Letaa, E., Kabungo, C., Katungi, E., Ojara, M and Ndunguru, A. (2015). Farm level Adoption and Spatial Diffusion of Improved Common bean Varieties in Southern Highlands of Tanzania. African Crop Science Journal, Vol. 23 (3): Liu, J., Mooney, H., Hull, V., Davis, S. J., Gaskell, J., Hertel, T.,... & Li, S. (2015). Systems integration for global sustainability. Science, 347(6225), Macharia, I., Orr, A., Simtowe, F. and Asfaw, S. (2013). Potential economic and poverty impact of improved chickpea technologies in Ethiopia. Socioeconomics Discussion Paper Series 9.Patancheru Telangana, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge university press. Orr, A., Mwema, C. and Mulinge W. (2014c), The value chain for Sorghum beer in Kenya, ICRISAT Socioeconomics Discussion Paper Series #16. Ostrom, E. (2007). A Diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 104(39): Rich, K.M., Ross, R.B., Baker, A.D. and Negassa, A., Quantifying value chain analysis in the context of livestock systems in developing countries. Food Policy, 36(2), pp Rockström, J. (2016). Future Earth. Science, 351(6271), Schoof, U. (2006), Stimulating Youth Entrepreneurship: Barriers and incentives to enterprise startups by young people, SEED Working Paper, No. 76, ILO, Geneva. Sterman, J. D Learning from Evidence in a Complex World. American Journal of Public Health 96: TEEB (2015) TEEB for Agriculture & Food: an interim report, United Nations Environment Programme, Geneva, Switzerland. Tsusaka, T., H. W. Msere, M. Siambi, K. Mazvimavi, P. Okori The Evolution and Impacts of Groundnut Research and Development in Malawi: An Ex-post Analysis, African Journal of Agricultural Research 11(3), Verkaart S, Munyua BG, Mausch K, Michler J (under review) Welfare impacts of improved chickpea adoption: A pathway for rural development in Ethiopia? CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 130

131 Villamor, G.B Gender, land use and role playing games. In: D. Catacutan, E. McGraw & MA Llanza (eds.): In equal measure: a user guide to gender analysis in agroforestry World Bank (2006). Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to go beyond the Strengthening of Research Systems. Economic Sector Work report. The World Bank: Washington DC pp. 149 CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 131

132 FLAGSHIP PROGRAM 3 (FP3): INTEGRATED FARM AND HOUSEHOLD MANAGEMENT FP3.1 Rationale and scope In the dryland rainfed, agro-pastoral and irrigated Agricultural Livelihood Systems (ALS) in the target countries where GLDC will focus, diverse and often integrated crop, tree and livestock systems dominate. There is an urgent need to improve the capacity of these systems to cope with a range of threats (climate change, land degradation, etc.) and opportunities (new market demand, new varieties and management systems) by building resilient and diverse agrifood systems that contribute to poverty reduction and ensure nutritional security. This however will need to occur within the context of continued urbanization, changing aspirations of men, women and youth affecting on-farm labor supply, water scarcity, land degradation and climate change. In addition, major driving forces have contributed to unsustainable resource use in many agro-ecologies that has resulted in alarming rates of depletion, inefficient use of natural resources and loss of production and biodiversity. New insect pests, diseases and invasive weeds have predisposed agrifood systems to a greater dependency on inputs including pesticides, herbicides and antibiotics (CGIAR Independent Science and Partnership Council 2012; Fraser EDG et al. 2011) and will be further exacerbated by climate change. These challenges require greater investments in building resilient and sustainable agrifood systems and in this respect the overriding hypothesis posited by this CRP is that functional, diverse and emerging agricultural production systems will generate the investments required to achieve sustainable and resilient production systems. Flagship 3 (FP3) will address crop and livestock management issues that are common to the drylands where the majority of the crops under GLDC are found. The flagship will focus on 7 of the 14 target countries of GLDC, namely, Ethiopia, Mali, India, Kenya, Nigeria, Morocco and Tanzania, and where more than one CGIAR Center operates in order to achieve synergies. A key attribute of grain legumes is their role in the diversification of major cereal, root and tuber cropping systems. Connections between GLDC through FP3 to on-farm research undertaken in the CRPs Rice, Wheat, Maize, and RTB has been discussed with the flagships that are responsible for systems research. A guiding principle is that these CRPs have the responsibility for the farming systems research on how legumes are managed in combination with their dominant crops. To this effect continual engagement with these CRPs and associated flagships will be sought. Furthermore the importance of livestock and associated production systems as an integral component in legume-cereals and dryland systems is recognized and hence linkages with CRP LIVESTOCK have been established. The activities of FP3 are integral to the CRP, and focuses on managing and maintaining the natural resource (NR) base; developing integrated crop and livestock management options; and required production inputs that would link to functional markets. The FP will also consider the roles of policies and institutions in existing and new management options and is connected to the policy agenda of the Genebank CRP. The flagship will use an integrated approach to promote the efficient use of the NR CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 132

133 base and production inputs for sustained and enhanced crop and livestock productivity. This will contribute to functional production systems that contribute to value chains, thereby improving the livelihoods of smallholders. FP3 will primarily focus on the micro-level of the scale continuum, namely, the field, farm and household levels. Different from its predecessor submissions (DCLAS preproposal; DCL proposal), FP3 integrates the on-farm systems management and household livelihood management into the one flagship concerned with decision-making of women, men and youth. Its strategy for out scaling to the landscape level and beyond is through collaboration with FP1 and FP2 on value chains, WLE, PIM, FTA, Genebank and CCAFS. FP4 together with FP2 and FP1 will analyze the biophysical and socioeconomic factors from a livelihoods perspective. FP3 will contribute to the SLOs on poverty reduction; improved natural resources and ecosystem services; and improved food and nutritional security. It will overlap with the GLDC cross-cutting themes on climate change, gender and youth, and address questions relevant to Big Data, ICT and capacity development. This can only be realized by adopting an innovative approach to researching and optimizing farming systems that function as a whole in response to farmers livelihoods and markets. FP3 will provide the platform to translate crop-specific research into tested, farmer-led cropping systems that improve overall system performance that includes not only production efficiency but also risk management, resilience, inclusion, profitability, acceptability and improved nutrition. The FP will also provide guidance and feedback into priority setting (FP1) for GLDC based on the identification of emerging problems at the farming systems level. Links to grand challenges Climate variability and change are major challenges facing agrifood systems, especially in rainfed production systems at the farm scale. This predisposes smallholder farmers to risks associated with household nutritional security and income generation. Efficient use of resources through the adoption of sustainable and resilient agricultural practices along with the inclusion of crop varieties and crop species with a diversified array of associated specific traits (i.e., drought resilience, heat tolerance, short growing season, adapted to unpredictable changes in the onset and period of rainfall) will enhance adaptation and contribute to mitigation (i.e., improved nitrogen use efficiency) of climate change. FP3 will be closely linked to FP4 in ensuring farmers have access to a diverse range of varieties of their preferred crops to manage increased unpredictability of rainfall and temperature due to climate change. FP3 will work with the integrating CRPs that include CCAFS to evaluate the impact of climate change on dryland agro-ecosystems and WLE to evaluate the interactions between farm-scale cropping systems and larger scale land and water management systems. Reducing risk by exploring crop and livestock diversification and intensification options of food, fodder and feed systems through rotations, intra-specific and intercrop diversity, sequential crops and improved short-season dryland cereals and grain legumes. This will be complemented by better management of abiotic and biotic stresses and safer use of agrochemicals for reduced adverse effects. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 133

134 Improving food and nutritional security through diversification and sustainable intensification of food, feed and forage/fodder production systems in smallholder farms. Combating land degradation, by moving to more resilient and resource conserving production systems, with locally adapted crop and livestock solutions this flagship will contribute to restoring degraded lands and efficient use of scarce water resources for sustainable and productive agro-ecosystems. FP3 will emphasize this via close connections with WLE sharing common land health surveillance and restoration monitoring tools and methods, and scaling up strategies for land restoration at farm to landscape scales. This FP will contribute to the global targets set for the GLDC and those that are proposed for a safe operating space through sustainable and diverse crop-tree-livestock systems that contribute to net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; reduced land degradation; improved water and nutrient use efficiency, increased agro-biodiversity, including reduced and safe use of agro-chemicals. FP3.2 Objectives and targets The goal of this flagship is to improve the productivity and sustainability of smallholder farming systems to ensure household nutritional security and enhanced income generation through innovation and the emergence of functional value chains and markets that promote integrated crop and livestock production systems, and the introduction and intensification of legumes and dryland cereals. Specific objectives: To design, model and test improved crop-livestock, crop variety mixes (from FP4) and management options in various production systems, at the household level and their interactions to optimize productivity and enhance resource use-efficiency. To increase the productivity and agro-biodiversity in farming systems and strengthen household livelihoods through improved nutrition and dietary diversity. To increase climate-resiliency of farming systems through integrated soil, crop, water and nutrient management approaches. To manage and conserve the natural resource base and close nutrient cycles to avoid excessive soil fertility losses. To consider (with FP1 and FP2) using innovation platform approaches to identify opportunities for value chain enhancement. FP3 will include and build on the ongoing ICRAF-mapped projects on enhanced food and water security for rural economic development ( ); the ICRISAT mapped-project on increasing agricultural productivity and incomes through bridging yield gaps in Bhoochetana, India ( ); the ICARDA mapped increasing food legume production by smallholder farmers to strengthen food and nutrition security through the adoption of improved technologies and governance within south-south CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 134

135 cooperation, India ( ); Enhancing food and nutritional security, and improved livelihoods through intensification of rice-fallow system with pulse crops in South Asia ( ); the Bioversity projects in Ethiopia, Uganda, Tanzania, India, Nepal, and Morocco to integrate crop genetic diversity into natural resource management; the IITA Integrated Pest Management (IPM) projects with the legume innovation lab, and cowpea scaling up; and the IWMI projects Sustainable Intensification of Key Farming Systems in the Sudano-Sahelian Zone of West Africa and Africa RISING-Research in Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation. For 2017 the estimated amount of W3/bilateral funds from these projects alone are $14.9 million from Bioversity, ICARDA, ICRAF, IITA, IWMI and ICRISAT. Geography and beneficiaries Of the 14 target and 15 spillover countries identified for GLDC, FP3 will continue to select with partners, key AFS CRPs and other FPs a limited number of research sites to implement an integrated system research approach coupled with an out scaling strategy. Building on the work of the Phase I CRPs, FP3 will focus on the following integrated research sites: Rainfed ALS Ethiopia, Morocco, India Sudan and Uganda; Agro-pastoral ALS Mali, Niger, Kenya, Tanzania and Nepal as a spill over country; Irrigated ALS Nigeria. These include nine primary target countries, one spill-over country and one research-hub country. Country-specific details are presented under Part I CRP Level Summary Narrative. The direct beneficiaries of the CRP will be male and female resource poor smallholder farmers, youth and other marginalized groups. Farmer associations, innovation platforms, NGOs, private-public partnerships, local and national governments will be assisted to take up, support and disseminate the newly integrated crop-livestock options in their policies, strategies and activities as part of a transformative process to sustainable intensification and diversification of agricultural production. NARS and local research and extension organizations will play important roles in adapting outputs to farmers conditions. FP3.3 Impact pathway and Theory of Change The FP3 ToC is the causal logic that links research activities to the desired changes in agrifood systems based on priority grain legumes and dryland cereals, to changes in the behavior and capacity of target beneficiaries as well as linkages and contribution to the overall CRP GLDC Theory of Change/Impact pathway and CGIAR s SRF. It describes the rationale for implementing the integrated crop-livestocktree management strategies necessary to achieve the desired changes, and outlines the key assumptions and risks explicit to the main hypothesized cause-effect relations. Figure 1 shows the impact pathway from flagship activities and outputs to CRP level outcomes. These outcomes then feed into the sub-ido level of the overall CRP theory of change and subsequent input into the IDOs and SLOs. FP3 seeks to improve the performance of farming systems and livelihoods through the deployment of contextually appropriate improved commodity germplasm and better management of land, soils, CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 135

136 water, crops, livestock, nutrients and other inputs in order to achieve the SRF-aligned goals of: Increased nutrition and food security in mixed dryland systems; reduced poverty and increased smallholder incomes for dryland farmers; and resilient and climate smart dryland livelihood systems. Better farm system performance is understood in terms of increased and sustainable yields, closed yield gaps, access to markets and also sustainable intensification and diversification of production that result in increased profitability, lower risks, better nutritive balance from the variety and commodity mixtures, natural resource conservation with reduced land degradation, greater resilience to stress and perturbations from inter alia, climate change. The assumptions in the ToC for all CoAs are that (i) there is a demand for improvements in farm performance; (ii) the options, innovations or interventions for priority agrifood systems (determined with FP1 and FP2) developed are profitable, sustainable and reliable, with management requirements and measures to protect the environment that are acceptable to the potential adopters; (iii) the innovations are culturally, socially acceptable, gender- and age-sensitive and compatible with other farm and non-farm livelihood activities; and (iv) there are appropriate institutional arrangements that link farmers to markets and enhance food value chains (with inputs from FP2). For upscaling, there will need to be recognition that some constraints may operate beyond the farm level, including accessibility to and knowledge to determine required inputs such as land, labor, capital, seeds, fertilizer, agro-chemicals and information on how to use them are available. Farmers will also require gender and age sensitive links and associated knowledge to make market decisions, as often the poorest are characterized by lack of access to markets and lack of information to make marketing decisions. For these open dialogues with decision makers, collective action initiatives with farming communities will be necessary. The achievement of synergistic crop variety mixtures and mechanization (preparation, planting, crop management and harvesting) in cropping system management (CoA 3.1) by male and female farmers will require risk minimization strategies, equitable access to inputs such as land and water, and greater dissemination of knowledge through learning processes at individual farm, village, cooperative, and innovation platform levels. This may require the introduction of risk sharing strategies such as crop or weather-related insurances. Farmer field schools and visits, farmer competitions, discourses with local government officials and other agencies such as NGOs will be used to inform land users and other actors of the options available and those that are being researched using participatory action research. Easily-understood models, ICT and hand-held devices will be used to illustrate benefits and costs of interventions. As in all CoAs, attention will be given to understanding the gender and age bottlenecks to uptake and adaptation of developed options both at the farm level and beyond (science of scaling). Beyond the scope of the farmer there will be a need to determine if there is an existing or likely demand and market capacity for the outputs from the options being tested and disseminated along with an enabling environment in terms of policies, organizational or institutional frameworks in place and operating successfully. This will be done with FP1 and FP2. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 136

137 CoA 3.2 assumes that different stakeholders will bring existing or new knowledge and technologies, institutions and processes into farm management practices to cope with biotic and abiotic stresses. This will require a behavioral change towards the deployment of combinations of existing or new knowledge rather than single interventions. Within CoA 3.2 the program will determine the market and non-market economic benefits of interventions through a cost/benefit analysis that includes efforts to derive the total value of land to the farmer and to society as part of the evidence-base for the uptake of the improved options and their effects (positive or negative) on the natural resource base. Capacity building of local and national government departments, NGOs and extension agents will ensure that the proposed options are well described in terms of costs and benefits. This work will be done in collaboration with WLE and PIM. CoA 3.3 assumes that portfolios of complementary GL, DC and livestock-based management options are appropriate for both the social and ecological contexts and that farmers and policy makers are less averse to changing farm production systems and components. Similarly, researchers and partners are aware of the need to consider social and ecological factors. Training of farmers in ecosystem services, market values of new options, land use planning and production capacities of land will be necessary. FP3.4 Science quality FP3 will contribute to the improvement of production system performance by producing information, knowledge, guidelines and new combinations of technologies and practices that contribute to increased nutritional security and income generation through functional, diverse and emerging agricultural value chains. Crop variety options from FP4 will be used in integrated production systems to produce climate-resilient technologies for the three agri-livelihood systems that GLDC targets. These interventions will include precision agriculture, improved land and water management, increased inter- and intra-crop diversity, closing nutrient cycles, IPM options to reduce the use of agrochemical inputs and reduce farmers production costs through the more efficient use of inputs, more efficient use of livestock feed resources and locally adapted and affordable gender and age sensitive machinery. The input use efficiencies are expected to be improved in terms of labor, particularly for women and youth, energy, fuel, soil fertility, nutrient and water use. Harnessing genotype x environment x management interactions (GxExM) for yield that have characterized CGIAR work to date, FP3, in collaboration with FP2 and FP4, will introduce an approach to better target interventions on land, water, crop and livestock diversity management via a focus on options x context = farming system performance. The approach requires deeper knowledge of the social and ecological context beyond farm scale, which provides stakeholders with a comprehensive picture of all system elements that need to be taken into account. This includes knowledge on the constraints, opportunities, who, where, what and how, to prioritize options that help increase overall performance of agrifood systems. System performance will be analyzed not only in terms of yield and quality gap reductions. Analysis will include how better land, water, crop and livestock diversity management can contribute to profitability and resilience to stress including climate change, changes in pest and pathogen biotypes. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 137

138 Figure 1. FP3 Impact Pathway and Theory of Change CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 138

139 Critical assessments of risk management and acceptability, where acceptability is key for any scaling up strategy, will be included. This will produce decision-making tools to support farmers, scientists, decision and policy makers, modelers and think tanks at various scales from farms/households to landscapes/populations in the design of better production systems and natural resource management options. This will involve links with the integrative CRPs that include WLE to upscale farm results to landscapes and PIM in terms of integrating the on-farm data into economic models. The options x context approach will require analyses of metadata from within and outside the CGIAR. FP3 intends to develop a community of practice on dryland agrifood system informatics that will contribute to the CGIAR s overall effort on Big Data. Details are found at Within the agro-ecologies of GLDC we will identify global patterns of spatio-temporal trends in land and water productivity including indicators and iteratively feed these back into the other GLDC flagships, especially FP1 for foresight analyses. A library of case studies of options x context data will be developed to support national and international policy decisions on the management of agrifood systems that are based on grain legumes and dryland cereals. A diversified approach is key in the CGIAR and is a sequence of steps that describes the interactions between a typical user and the information system to accomplish a particular goal. This will enable a specific user to find a typical case study that is similar to his/her need rapidly and at low cost. By linking with programs such as inter alia, the World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT) and other CRPs that include Maize, Rice and Wheat, the outputs will have global relevance. This community of practice will develop agroinformation system standards and best practices so that diverse pieces of sub-systems can complement each other. This will involve research on how to make interoperable geospatial datasets and modelling tools. An important component of these analyses will be the Earth Observation Systems and spatial big-data analytics to help identify and prioritize extrapolation domains. Much work has already been achieved in identifying the countries and cropping areas of interest to GLDC ( The agricultural performance across the spatio-temporal scales (primary productivity at landscape to farmlevel) will provide quantifiable and transformative information for smallholder communities. Scalable precision agri-informatics will help understand and quantify inter- and intra-field variability, current production status, potential expansion and intervention domains, their granularity, salient and relevant information through participatory, legitimate and equitable social-ecological processes to achieve the goals of the CRP. Near-real-time satellite remote sensing imaging coupled with climate and in-situ observations (met. stations and cell phone feedback) will allow stakeholders such as CGs, CRPs, ARIs, NARS, extension agents and farming communities and local government authorities to accelerate the rural advisory and early warning process to track the farm production dynamics in greater detail. Linking these informatics will help improve input use efficiency and more informed decisions on sustainable land, water, crop and management practices. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 139

140 FP3 recognizes that productivity increases through improved technologies (e.g., improved crop varieties, water and soil conservation techniques, livestock management, feed production and utilization) do not necessarily translate into livelihood improvements for the rural poor without proper consideration of socio-economic, policy and institutional contexts. Innovation systems approaches require the participation of multiple stakeholders for technology development, adoption and sustainable intensification of agricultural systems as linear approaches to agricultural research and development have had limited success, particularly in sub-saharan Africa. For example, many technologies have been generated through agricultural research in sub-saharan Africa and transferred by extension workers to farmers, but their adoption and impact on productivity and livelihoods of rural households have been sub-optimal. To enhance technology uptake and sustainable intensification of agricultural systems, it is essential to include all relevant stakeholders in the process of agricultural innovation. Interactions across scales should be carefully evaluated as intervention at farm scale can have consequences (desirable or undesirable) at landscape and vice versa. To ensure that productivity-enhancing technologies also deliver nutritional and environmental benefits, there has to be a combination of technical and social innovations developed using multi-disciplinary and integrated research approaches and methods. FP3 will produce the following IPGs: a. Climate-resilient efficient integrated management practices for enhancing the efficient productivity of improved crop, tree, livestock, water, land and nutrients to adapt to variable and changing climates and farming systems in dryland settings. b. Strategies facilitating smallholders use of appropriate gender- and age-sensitive mechanization and agri-informatics for precision agriculture and more efficient use of NRs, labor, inputs and energy at the farm scale. c. Diversification and intensification of the production systems through suitable expansion of crop/livestock systems and crop variety, livestock breed (with the Livestock CRP) and agronomic options. d. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies for economically strengthening host plant resistance and biological control of pests and diseases and plant parasitic-weeds, reducing chemical use in crops and antibiotic use in livestock, to improve productivity and ecosystem services. e. Insect, pest and disease risk analysis and assessments of the effectiveness of IPM technologies changes in host and natural enemies profiles and distribution under different climate change scenarios, and relating this to the expression of resistance genes or host diversity with respect to pests and pathogens under research in FP4 and FP5 f. Integrated assessment models for system-level analysis of targeted interventions. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 140

141 FP3.5 Lessons learned and unintended consequences Traditional agricultural research has studied the relationship between land and livelihoods mainly from the perspective of the production of agricultural goods along agrifood value chains. The challenges of climate change, resource degradation and human-ecosystem interactions raise the broader issue of how land can sustainably support livelihoods through approaches to landscape management where productivity is increased (or recovered) through (not in spite of) the preservation and enhancement of the ecosystem services. The limited capacity for valuing the land and the services it provides undermined the ability to perform trade-off analysis of the impacts of interventions. To address these constraints the notion of addressing underperforming agrifood systems to meet market and non-market demands would in itself contribute to behavioral change where investments in sustainable intensification and diversification will become the norm. To strengthen this ability requires improved knowledge, and better monitoring and evaluation of the ecosystem services provided by land and novel mechanisms to value and reward the production of these services for the benefit of the rural poor. As with all other attempts at systems work within the CGIAR, there remains a need to focus on appropriate and resource-efficient methodologies to tackle the holistic aspects of production and livelihood systems. Two science and implementation meetings organized by CRP DS revealed the need for new insights and capacity building. Hence DS was building on the options x context = farm performance approach as a progression on the GxExM approach described previously. This will be linked to WLE s efforts to develop tools that link farm level productivity and resilience to landscape productivity and resilience. Soil Water and Nutrient Management: Phase 1 work found that the portfolios of sustainable soil and water management (SWM) options and their adoption drivers are scale- and context- specific implying a need for a more circumspect analysis of what works where and when and for whom. For example to adequately capture environmental externalities (in terms of soil and water resources) of agricultural production requires assessments of the system s context-specificities and responsive performances. ICRISAT s work on micro-dosing reports on low adoption rates of this technically viable intervention that was inter alia explained by production risks, poor market and credit access and lack of awareness of profitable technologies 5,6. This research will inform the work on varieties/hybrids in FP4 and 5. Concurrently the livelihood context will be characterized at household-farm, village and landscape levels (within FP5 and with WLE). The context-specific portfolio of options includes technical, institutional/policy and market levers. IPM: IITA and partners will build on the findings of the application of neem oil in the emulsifiable form in Burkina Faso and Niger which can be mixed with other compatible bio-pesticides and applied by spin-disk sprayers to better control aphids, thrips and viruses. While building in resistance to chickpea leaf-miner it was found that lines were susceptible to Ascochyta blight thus efforts will continue to combine the resistance to these two major pests with research on how to build in cold tolerance. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 141

142 Bioversity will build on its work in Morocco, Uganda, Nepal and Ethiopia on the use of crop varietal mixtures, and diverse sets of crop varieties in respect to major pests and disease, for barley and common bean to significantly reduce infestations of bean fly, Angular Leafspot, and Anthracnose in common bean, and powdery mildew in barley. Communication and knowledge sharing are critical success factor for CRPs to deliver their impact in accordance with the CGIAR SRF. Communications contributes by: (1) Enabling achievements of CRP outcomes at different scales; and (2) by sharing program/flagship results to enhance visibility and demonstrate accountability. Communication activities can also help enhance, gender, capacity development, and monitoring and evaluation activities, at all stages of the CRP impact pathway. FP3 will explore the use of modern ITC including mobile and community media to scale out its outputs. This will include contextualized advisory notes on crop varieties, water, pest and disease management via mobile phones where real-time monitoring of land and water is now available. FP3.6 Clusters of Activities (CoA) CoA 3.1 Cropping systems management and mechanization Dryland cereals and legumes are largely grown in monocultures, yet diverse sets of crop varieties or rotations or intercrops or combinations of crop-tree-livestock systems optimize resource use efficiency. Choices of options are crucial decision-making tasks of the farmer from the perspectives of economic viability, ecological sustainability and improved human nutrition. Such management practices need to consider gender and age appropriate mechanization adapted to small farm agricultural operations to reduce drudgery. Small and medium scale low-cost mechanization especially for small seeded cereals and legumes, can reduce labor time for planting, crop management, harvesting, drying and processing of crops. This cluster will focus on options for crop and crop variety mixes, rotations and management to optimize productivity and enhance resource use-efficiency in the context of agro-biodiversity and soil quality and health. The CGIAR Centers will work closely with NARS, NGOs and small scale private industry to develop and mainstream mechanization adapted to smallholder farmers, including drying equipment, light plows better adapted for use by women and youth, and lighter small milling machines that can process diverse and small seeds. Questions to be addressed include: a) How do agro-ecological settings, enabling conditions, market opportunities and farming systems determine the options for NR management that will result in more resilient, profitable and nutritiously secure livelihoods? b) What simple and open access tools can smallholder farmers use to access real-time systems (e.g., earth observation system) to support mechanized low cost and energy-precision agriculture and to optimize on-farm cropping patterns/rotations and profitability without compromising the system sustainability? c) What patterns of land use optimize productivity while conserving the NR base? d) What are the farm-mechanization options that are self-sustaining, low cost, enable timely operations, improve productivity/efficiency and reduce drudgery particularly for women and youths in smallholder farms? e) What modalities can CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 142

143 be used to promote adoption of research outputs, including the role of the private sector and policies, and how can this be scaled out? Outputs: a) Suitable synergistic systems in rotation for crop intensification and diversification with intra- and intercrops/sequential crops based on the potential length of the growing period of the region assessed, b) Suitable dual purpose and disease-resistant cultivars to improve systems productivity and fodder availability, c) Assessment for inclusion of leguminous annuals and diverse locally adapted tree crops into dryland systems for enhanced ecosystem services, d) Assessments for gender and age-sensitive small-farm mechanization options to conserve scarce NR and crop management to save labor, time, and energy for enhanced productivity under dryland systems, e) Collective arrangements and business models to enhance access to low-cost farm mechanization. Expected outcomes: a) Sustainable cropping systems that would be economically viable and environmentally friendly tested at large scale in participating countries, b) Farmers in designated areas use cropping systems and rotations developed by the program for optimizing farming profitability and system sustainability, c) Stakeholders use results to promote diversified, profitable and sustainable crop-livestock systems, d) Proven improvements to soil health, agro-biodiversity, food and nutritional security under marginal dryland systems tested at large-scale pilot areas, e) Efficient farm operations promoted by NARS to improve productivity and reduce post-harvest losses, f) Appropriate framework used for labor-saving, gender- and age-sensitive farm mechanization options enabling timely operations, improved productivity/efficiency and employment opportunities to youth and reduced drudgery especially for women along the value chain, g) Stakeholders/ local governments use the developed framework/approach to promote farm mechanization for small-farm systems. CoA 3.2 Innovations for managing abiotic and biotic stresses The performance of farming systems is rarely improved through the introduction of a single technology as many interacting production factors need to be considered. An integrated management approach of both abiotic and biotic stresses is a more efficient way of meeting future nutritional security and market demand without degrading the agro-ecological systems. Abiotic stresses, especially temperature extremes and drought, require the understanding of soil, water, nutrients and other inputs and crop interactions to better adjust the crop and genotype selection and management options to specific local conditions. This cluster will focus on testing and modelling these interactions in order to make the system more climate-resilient, productive and sustainable. It will achieve this by developing and deploying integrated soil, crop, water and nutrient management approaches and by reducing risk through diversifying sets of crop varieties (from FP4 and 5). Biotic stresses such as insect pests, diseases and weeds threaten cereal and grain-legume crops, and will be an increasing threat to crop production and quality with climate changes. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) as an ecosystem approach will combine different management strategies and practices to grow healthy crops and minimize the use of pesticides. This CoA will assess the impact of climate change on biotic stresses, and evaluate IPM options in relation to resistant varieties, crop varietal mixtures and diversity of crop varieties (from FP3), application of crop-protection products, agronomic practices, ecological CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 143

144 engineering and use of beneficial organisms, biological control agents, bio-pesticides and host interactions. The CoA will be linked with the Genebank CRP to improve accessibility and use of diverse materials. Questions to be addressed include: For integrated soil, crop, water and nutrient management: a) How can soil-water-crop-nutrient modelling, coupled with geo-informatics and appropriate ICT applications, help identify entry points and address site-specific issues at the household level for improved decisions at the farm? b) How and where do conservation agriculture and diversity of crop varieties and livestock breeds contribute to NR conservation and sustainability? c) How will the use of crop and other residues for either soil improvement or livestock feed be considered as part of livelihood strategies and interacting value chains of crop and animal products? d) How can the benefits of biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) be increased? e) What information do farmers need to integrate the use of available inputs in order to improve farming system performance and close nutrient cycles? For IPM: a) What are the knowledge gaps with respect to biotic stresses and environment interactions as mediated by climate change? b) How can farmers make informed decisions about IPM options to be deployed to suit locally and regionally different agronomic and environmental conditions? c) What are the best gender and age sensitive options for integrating community-based organizations and the private sector for out scaling IPM? d) At what levels and scales can increasing the diversity of crop varieties and animal breeds reduce the dependence on chemical pesticides, fertilizer, hormones and antibiotics to combat pests, diseases and weeds? e) What are the IPM options that can be disseminated to control the pests without negative effects on the health of humans and ecosystems? f) Which cereal and legume crops and varieties in intra and inter-cropping or sequential cropping with allelopathic effects can be introduced to control diseases and suppress weed growth? g) What policies need to be in place to support the use of IPM? Outputs: For integrated soil, crop, water and nutrient management: a) Interventions, recommendations, models and sustainability indicators for efficient and balanced use of water and nutrients for increased production and to identify climate-resilient productive cultivars for use in intra- and inter-cropping (in collaboration with FP4/FP5 and WLE FP5) b) Synergies and trade-offs on a range of scenarios on technological interventions and resource constraints through modelling, c) Technical fact sheets for agro-inputs, including their efficacy, profitability and assessment by women and men farmers. For IPM: a) Information on the interactions and damage thresholds of insect pests, diseases and weeds, their distribution and population dynamics at regional and local scale, including effects of climate change, b) Tools to evaluate the amount and distribution of genetic variation within crops needed to limit pest and disease infestation over spatial and temporal time scales, c) Appropriate ICT tools for male and female farmers to access real-time information with regard to IPM innovations and applications, d) Efficient, economically profitable and socially acceptable crop protection products CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 144

145 validated, including new-generation synthetic pesticides, novel bio-pesticides, and endophytic organisms. Outcomes: For integrated soil, crop, water and nutrient management: a) NARS use research outputs for improvements at farm level in pilot areas, b) Male and female farmers are aware of and make use of new adapted crop varieties for enhancing crop and livestock productivity and ecosystem services, c) Improved decision-making capacity at community, regional and national level to increase water-soilcrop management options. For IPM: a) Women and men scientists and extension agents are better tooled to develop and deploy sustainable IPM options against insect pests, diseases and parasitic weeds, b) Farmers make better informed decisions for applying economically profitable, environmentally sustainable and socially acceptable IPM techniques against insect pests, diseases and parasitic weeds, c) Policy makers are better informed about IPM approaches and develop laws and policies that enable the development and deployment of IPM options, including biosecurity aspects. CoA 3.3 Testing, adaptation and validation of options This on-the-ground cluster of activities will integrate, adapt and validate the impact of GLDC innovations (e.g. based on ex ante impact assessments and evaluations conducted under FP1) at field, farm, and landscape scales and their contribution to CGIAR SLO s. The research conducted recognizes the importance of the scale effects that amplify or impede the impacts of adoption by individuals and households. Multi-stakeholder engagement will play an essential role in ensuring the viability and adoptability of the innovations so householder participation, development partnerships and the engagement of formal and informal multi-stakeholder platforms will be an imperative. Initial prioritization of interventions will be derived from the priority setting activities of FP1, with lessons learned under this CoA feeding back to strengthen on-going systems analysis and modeling. The cluster will link closely with the activities of CoA 3.1 and 3.2 on synergistic cropping systems, and efficient use of land, water and nutrients to improve crop and livestock productivity and farm income. The outputs of this flagship become the intervention scenarios to be tested in an integrative modeling environment with WLE and subsequently scaled. Steps to achieve these outputs include (1) aggregating sustainability metrics on individual interventions (e.g. UNEP s TEEB AgFood, AoC1 of WLE s ESA flagship); (2) analyzing the trade-off frontiers of farm scale options on these indicators using modeling approaches, such as Wageningen s FarmDesign; (3) Spatial analysis of the impacts of these interventions at the landscape level with spatially explicit models agro-environmental models (e.g., WLE s Mapping Ecosystem Services and Human Well-Being i, Wood and DeClerck 2015). The multiscalar focus permits improved ability to identify a priori potential pit-falls and opportunities. With the two other CoA in FP3, this CoA will facilitate a coordinated set of action research activities to elaborate effective integrated, interventions in existing productions systems. These interventions will include various combinations of crop, tree, livestock and resource management options that enhance CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 145

146 livelihood outcomes and resilience and contribute to supplying functional markets. These activities will also identify, in collaboration with CoA 2.1 (testing within value chains) and FP1 complementary innovations that are required in the enabling environment to facilitate innovation and adoption at the household and community scale. The impacts of livelihood enhancing interventions on ecosystem service delivery and flow across spatial and temporal scales will be assessed. Trade-off analyses will seek to identify optimum strategies for implementation explicitly testing emergent complementarities and conflicts at both household (GLDC) and landscape levels (WLE) and impact on achieving CGIAR IDO s. CoA collaboration with FP2 CoAs will identify co-benefits of harmonized technological and institutional interventions. Engaging with development and other partners will facilitate design and implement research in development programs that will clarify the activities and processes required to spread these portfolios over larger scaling domains. Monitoring data will be gathered, collated and interpreted using the indicator framework and sampling frames developed by FP1. Outputs: The following outputs are anticipated from this CoA: a) Portfolios of household activities, enterprises and management practices that materially and equitably enhance livelihoods (as defined at sub-ido level) while minimizing negative externalities, b) Evidence that household interventions can generate beneficial impacts on CGIAR sub-idos at scale, c) Improved understanding of the socialecological factors strongly affecting livelihood system impacts in GLDC target agro-ecologies, and d) Awareness created amongst key stakeholders for trade-offs and synergies at scale related to alternative livelihood strategies. Outcomes: Tested, adapted and validated options applied for sustainable intensification and livelihood diversification by farmers and strategies for mitigating negative impacts at scale identified. Table 2: Linkages to other FPs Cluster of Activities 3.1 Cropping systems mangement & mechanization 34.2 Innovations for managing abiotic & biotic stresses Collaborating FP All FPs FP4 and 5 FP3 role Assembly & testing of cereal and legume crop combinations in integrated Interventions, recommendati ons, models and sustainability indicators for efficient use of natural resources and Collaborating FP role FP4 and 5 for germplasm; FP1 for scenarios and priority setting; FP2 for socioeconomic and FP4 and 5. Provision of improved stress tolerant germplasm. Inputs into in scenario assessments FP 1 and FP 2 in responding to Outputs; Added value Combined work will result in better targeting and fitting of options to farm realities Integrated natural resource and nutrient management approaches that redcue risk and improve input use efficiency including agro- chemicals to meet functional CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 146

147 3.3 Testing, adaptation and validation of options at scale FP1 and 2 Complementar y innovations that are required in the enabling environment to facilitate innovation and adoption; effective integrated, adapted and validated FP1 and 2 value chains, demand and constraints; impact analysis and strategies for adaptation. Complementary perspective on the role of markets in the enabling environment for intensification / diversification; multiscale evaluation of promising options FP3.7 Partnerships Core CGIAR partners of FP3 are ICARDA, IWMI, ICRISAT, IITA, ICRAF and Bioversity. However other partners include WHEAT, where GLDC FP leader is a co-leader of the Wheat System FP, WLE, FTA, PIM, RICE, FAO, UNEP, USAID, USDA, GEF, IFAD, AFESD, GIZ and IFPRI. FP3 will continue to foster strong partnerships with national programs of the participating countries, as well as with SROs such as CORAF/WECARD in West Africa. FP3 will also maintain current partnerships with for example, with advanced research institutions, organizations and collaborative research programs such as the USAIDfunded Feed the Future Legume Innovation Lab. An example partnership is included as a Table below. Convener of the Partnership and their role Specific focus and objective Science Agenda Geographical focus / location Role of the CRP/FP in the partnership ICARDA. The leader of FP3 acts as the scientific coordinator of the global Economics of Land Degradation Initiative ( Its role as convener of the scientific aspects include organizing competitive research proposals, reports and publications. The goal of the initiative is to transform the global understanding of the value of land and to create awareness of the economic case for sustainable land management in preventing loss of natural capital and agricultural production, preserving ecosystem services, combating negative effects of climate change and land degradation and addressing food, energy and water security. Discovery activities include determining the total economic value of land going beyond yields of agricultural commodities to include ecosystem services. Methodological development is undertaken to refining evaluation of land. The studies will focus primarily on Africa, both Sub-Sahara and North Africa FP4 will coordinate the scientific studies of the initiative and establish countrybased case studies. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 147

148 Key CGIAR partner(s) and their (its) role(s) Key external partner(s) and their (its) role(s) Contribution to ToC and impact pathways All participating centers in DCL via specific studies in integrated research sites. Collaboration with the CRPs PIM and WLE in particular is expected, The initiative has over 30 institutions including the Stockholm Environment Institute, University of Wyoming, Australian National University, IUCN, UNDP and UNEP, Center for Development Research (ZEF). These provide case studies and methodological development. They also help raise the profile of the initiative at a global level, for example through the UNCCD This partnership will contribute mainly to CoA 4.3 on carbon sequestration, land restoration and land and water management. FP3.8 Climate change Options for improved land, water and crop management will be researched under the variable rainfall patterns expected in the targeted regions. Climate change impacts are expected to include more severe and frequent droughts and flooding requiring a broad span approach to water management including rainwater harvesting, storage, better targeted irrigations coupled with trials on adapted germplasm from FP4 and 5. This research will add to what farmers are already doing in terms of adapting to climate change via changing cultivation practices, sowing times and marketing arrangements. At a strategic level studies will be conducted on aspects such as the effects of climate change x land degradation interactions on soil moisture regimes 3, the use of different combinations of cereal and leguminous crop and woody species to access nutrients and water deeper in the soil profile 3. These will be combined with options to alter crop-livestock systems such as stocking rate and grazing systems, diet quality, different livestock breeds or species etc. that will be developed under FP5 and the Livestock CRP. Improved soil-water-crop management will increased the resilience of production systems to climate change and decrease their sensitivity to extreme events. FP3.9 Gender Different knowledge and interests of women and men, as well as the importance of ensuring equitable benefits from the Flagship outputs, requires not only that collected information be disaggregated by gender, but that training and management opportunities be equitably distributed. Roles and responsibilities of women in the target DCL countries are increasing because of increased male migration to urban areas and overseas in search of work. Outmigration of the male population has led to an increasing proportion of on-farm crop production and processing activities being carried out by women. This Flagship gives specific attention to the role of interventions in relieving the labor burden on women. Particular attention will be given to the impacts of mechanization and modernization, the increasing ability for women to gain incomes and to self-organize into groups such as water user associations and to protect family health through safe use of agro-chemicals. These approaches will be promoted through gender- and age-responsive information dissemination which CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 148

149 on the one hand builds on gendered indigenous technical knowledge and management practices, and on the other hand on modern information technologies (e.g. mobile phones). Cultural and social norms are taken into account, when women s and youth s opportunity to contribute to the development of agriculture and agri-business are enhanced, e.g. through the promotion of gendersensitive decision making and increased access to resources such as land, water and knowledge. FP3.10 Capacity development Capacity development goes hand in hand with knowledge management and for FP4 we recognize the need to integrate many types of knowledge including informal and formal, local and scientific, and building representative partnerships with national programs. These combinations will determine who requires capacity development and who should undertake it. Thus we will use farmer-to-farmer training, field schools, farmer competitions as well as formal training to build capacity. Conferences, workshops and seminars are critical important in sharing experiences, passing on knowledge and for adaptive management of activities and will be used at country, regional and cross regional levels. The multi-country structure of this Flagship offers invaluable opportunities for South-south cooperation for capacity building and for producing results with broad applicability and replicability. Key to the success of FP3 will be its interaction with other AFS CRPs (i.e. MAIZE, RICE and WHEAT) in which the introduction of the grain legumes and dryland cereals technologies would significant improve the resilience and profitability of these major commodities. Joint knowledge exchange will take place within the integrated research sites and through joint initiatives within target countries that are common to CRPs. This will occur through specific FP associated with systems and agronomy research in each of the aforementioned CRPs. FP3.11 Intellectual asset and open access management This will follow the DCL process. The monitoring, evaluation and learning platform ( developed by DS encourages open access and is already being customized for use by DCL. FP3 will work closely with and for local communities. All partners recognize the potential value and relevance of traditional knowledge. We will follow free prior informed consent (FPIC) guidelines for carrying out research with local communities to ensure that local communities are aware of and in agreement with the information collected and its use. This includes names of farmers and communities as authors on appropriate publications when they are part of the research team. FP3.12 FP management Overall FP leadership will be through ICARDA (RJ Thomas) with leadership of the CoAs spread amongst participating centers as follows: 3.1 Cropping systems management and mechanization CoA Name Institute Pauline Chivenge (cropping) Devra Jarvis (mechanization) ICRISAT Bioversity CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 149

150 3.2 Innovations for managing abiotic an biotic stresses 3.3 Testing, adaptation and validation of options Vinay Nangia ( abiotic) Manuel Tamo (biotic) Peter Thorne Quang Bao Le (integrated modelling and tools) ICARDA IITA ILRI ICARDA 2.3. Flagship Budget Narrative General Information CRP Name CRP Lead Center Flagship Name Center location of Flagship Leader GLDC ICRISAT FP3: Integrated Farm & Household Management ICARDA Summary Total Flagship budget summary by sources of funding (USD) Funding Needed Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total W1+W2 2,250,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,125,000 2,550,000 2,700,000 13,625,000 W3 4,905,923 3,912,516 1,660,443 1,541,864 1,618,959 1,699,906 15,339,611 Bilateral 10,031,755 11,611,439 14,541,597 15,369,279 16,031,944 16,723,830 84,309,844 Other Sources - 17,187,678 17,523,955 18,202,040 19,036,143 20,200,903 21,123, ,274,455 Funding Secured Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total W1+W2 (Assumed Secured) 2,250,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,125,000 2,550,000 2,700,000 13,625,000 W3 4,905,921 2,867, , ,965,551 Bilateral 6,001,730 4,082, , ,251 48,102-10,955,968 Other Sources ,157,651 8,950,267 2,837,245 2,303,251 2,598,102 2,700,000 32,546,519 Funding Gap Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total W1+W2 (Required from SO) W3 (Required from FC Members) (2) (1,044,886) (1,468,443) (1,541,864) (1,618,959) (1,699,906) (7,374,060) Bilateral (Fundraising) (4,030,025) (7,528,801) (13,896,351) (15,191,027) (15,983,842) (16,723,830) (73,353,876) Other Sources (Fundraising) (4,030,027) (8,573,687) (15,364,794) (16,732,891) (17,602,801) (18,423,736) (80,727,936) CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 150

151 Total Flagship budget by Natural Classification (USD) Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total Personnel 6,085,777 6,202,975 6,437,313 6,726,745 7,132,947 7,453,609 40,039,366 Travel 1,326,061 1,343,276 1,392,334 1,452,924 1,538,075 1,604,184 8,656,854 Capital Equipment 296, , , , , ,721 1,980,856 Other Supplies and Services 3,896,271 3,974,892 4,132,188 4,325,012 4,593,109 4,806,357 25,727,829 CGIAR collaborations 380, , , , , ,729 2,541,184 Non CGIAR Collaborations 2,901,904 2,961,362 3,078,303 3,221,754 3,421,354 3,580,165 19,164,842 Indirect Cost 2,300,609 2,345,717 2,436,573 2,548,318 2,704,335 2,827,971 15,163,524 17,187,678 17,523,955 18,202,040 19,036,142 20,200,903 21,123, ,274,455 Total Flagship budget by Participating Centers (singed PPAs) USD Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total ICRISAT 7,870,286 8,107,280 8,471,983 8,913,120 9,515,186 10,009,120 52,886,979 Bioversity International 3,161,502 3,129,330 3,213,534 3,320,947 3,478,840 3,588,390 19,892,544 ICARDA 2,047,763 2,109,428 2,204,321 2,319,101 2,475,750 2,604,267 13,760,632 ICRAF 2,029,945 2,091,072 2,185,139 2,298,920 2,454,206 2,581,603 13,640,887 IITA 1,530,391 1,543,801 1,580,732 1,630,459 1,707,468 1,762,917 9,755,771 ILRI 161, , , , , ,984 1,050,958 IWMI 385, , , , , ,451 2,286,684 17,187,675 17,523,951 18,202,038 19,036,139 20,200,899 21,123, ,274,455 Additional explanations for certain accounting categories Benefits: The CRP is a partnership of eight Centers including the Lead Center, and benefit items and amounts vary across Centers. In general, IRS benefits include pension, housing allowance, transportation allowance, hardship allowance, shipping allowance, home-leave travel, school fees, education travel, medical examination and medical insurance. Other Supplies and Services: CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 151

152 Includes experimental materials, research support, field costs, travel, services and communication cost. Other Sources of Funding for this Project The FP contingency plan if program funding does not become available: Immediate to short term: Leverage bilateral support at country to regional level to cover budget shortfalls Reprioritize further and focus activities Leverage investments of non-cg partners to sustain planned activities Short to medium term: Maintain a strong resource mobilization strategy that target both traditional and new funding sources Discuss mutual accountability with donors, governments and partners at country level where most bilateral funds are appropriated Joint resource mobilization with partner CRPs Budgeted Costs for certain Key Activities** FP3. Proportion of total budget (w3/bilateral and w1/w2) being allocated to gender, capacity building etc. as an integrated part of the FP3 plan: Gender, CoA1.3 and mainstreamed across CoAs, 25% Youth, CoA1.3, 33% Capacity development, all CoAs, 25% Intellectual Asset Management, all CoAs, 25% Impact assessment, mainly CoA1.4, 20% Open access and data management, all CoAs, 15% Communication, all CoAs, 33% Estimate annual average cost (USD) Gender 2,000,000 Youth (only for those who have relevant set of activities in this area) **Budgets are based on current bilateral projects, and continuation at similar levels during entire program period depends on continued bilateral support 2,000,000 Capacity development 2,000,000 Impact assessment 250,000 Intellectual asset management 5,000 Open access and data management 75,000 Communication 100,000 CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 152

153 Flagship Uplift Budget Outcome Description Deprioritized crops will be reconsidered for priority countries [finger millet, lentil, faba bean and soybean based on prioritization by FP1 and availability of bilateral resources to compliment W1/2.] Amount Needed W1 + W2 (%) W3 (%) Bilateral (%) Other(%) 20,000, Strong and successful partnerships that build off of Site Integration efforts in priority countries 6,250, Total 26,250,000 CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 153

154 REFERENCES CGIAR Independent Science and Partnership Council A Stripe Review of Natural Resources Management Research in the CGIAR. Rome, Italy: Independent Science and Partnership Council Secretariat. Fraser EDG, Dougill AJ, Hubacek K, Quinn CH, Sendzimir J and Termansen M Assessing vulnerability to climate change in dryland livelihood systems: conceptual challenges and interdisciplinary solutions. Ecology and Society 16(3): 3. Reed M and Stringer LC Impulse report: Climate change and desertification: Anticipating, assessing and adapting to future change in drylands. UNCCD 3 rd Scientific Conference 9-12 March ( Rockstrom J. et al., Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability. Ambio DOI /s Saweda L, Liverpool-Tasie O, Sanou A and Mazvimavi K How profitable is sustainable intensification? The case of fertilizer micro-dosing in Niger Agricultural & Applied Economics Association and Western Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA, July Sheahan M and Barrett CB Understanding the agricultural input landscape in Sub-Saharan Africa : recent plot, household, and community-level evidence (No. WPS7014) (pp. 1 87). The World Bank. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 154

155 FLAGSHIP PROGRAM 4 (FP4): VARIETY & HYBRID DEVELOPMENT FP4.1 Rationale and Scope Flagship Program 4 (FP4), GLDC s crop improvement framework, is focused on developing farmer- and market-preferred varieties that have resilience to key biotic and abiotic factors to reduce production risks and instill confidence in farmers to make additional investments to increase farm productivity. Adoption of these market-oriented, resilient varieties will improve growth of the agriculture and in turn the agrarian economies of priority and spillover countries under GLDC (Fuglie and Rada 2013). FP4 will deliver modern varieties and allied innovations of eight prioritized crops - sorghum, pearl millet, barley, chickpea, common bean, cowpea, groundnut and pigeonpea. Based on the value of production, the number of focus crops has been reduced from 12 to 8. FP4 will draw on the prioritization process of FP1 to be completed in 2017 as well as the feedback from value chain actors (FP2 through innovation platforms) and farmers (FP3 and 4 through Participatory Variety Selection) to prioritize breeding pipelines and to inform FP5 of the marker development priorities and pre-breeding efforts to focus on to deliver new seed-based technologies to smallholder farmers. The new resilient varieties will unlock inclusive production and livelihood opportunities for smallholder agriculture through market-oriented products and expand enterprise opportunities, especially in the formal and informal seed sector. Modern resilient varieties are essential for driving agriculture growth. However, the performance of GLDC agrifood systems are low but in the past decade pronounced gains have been realized for specific crops in several countries but this is not sufficient to keep pace with demand and climate change and attendant changes in pest and diseases of these crops (Jan de Graaff et al., 2011). For inclusive growth and poverty reduction, a new approach is needed in which GLDC is more responsive to national priorities to build good offices with policy makers, engaging with farmers and value chain actors to ensure the suite of traits required for driving adoption are integrated into new varieties and that modern breeding tools are used to integrate these traits efficiently and effectively. GLDC will not be scaling up these varieties on its own, three successful seed dissemination models (Hybrid Parent Research Consortium, Small Seed Packs, Revolving Fund) have been developed and more are evolving as CGIAR Centers engage with SME and Farmer s Organizations to develop innovative ways to scale up the production and distribution of quality seed at affordable prices. Problem statement Improving agricultural productivity is key for delivering the sustainable development goals (SDGs) 2, 3 and 5. Accordingly, the CGIAR SRF system level outcomes (SLO) - SLO 1: Improving food security, SLO 2: Improving nutrition and health, SLO 3: Reducing rural poverty; and AU- CAADP for SSA, as well as national agricultural development agenda of target countries, provide the framework for sciencesupported economic growth. Crop productivity improvements, a key part of agricultural growth, now and in the future will occur under complex and dynamic commodity supply-to-demand conditions, as impacted by climate change, water scarcity, demographics and technological opportunities (Dobbs et 155

156 al. 2015). The purpose of FP4 is to generate GLDC innovations that catalyze productivity and yield gains through modern varieties that enhance food and nutrition security, market competiveness and farming system resilience. Gender inclusion and needs of youth will be part of breeding and technology delivery systems to assure delivery of mutual benefits. Eight crops are prioritized based on existing data from the Phase I programs, DC and GL. FP4 has further prioritized three trait clusters, namely: 1) Productivity improvement targeting input and output traits (abiotic and biotic stresses); 2) Crop agronomy - focusing on reducing the cost of crop management and reducing drudgery; 3) Market integration- focusing on traits such as nutrition quality, post-harvest handling, value addition and processing. Prioritization will be continuously done using emerging evidence from FP1 and feedback from FP2, FP3. This will in turn prioritize trait discovery in FP5. Models for better access to improved seed and allied technologies will be studied and systematically improved for inclusivity and gender diversity as the seed enterprise is becoming increasingly attractive for women and youth as a viable business and service to their communities. Strategic and scientific rationale The targeted GLDC crops have specific significance to food, nutrition and income security, and livelihood options of smallholder farmers. Increasing their productivity to even half of their maximum yield potential has tremendous implications for food, nutrition and income security than productivity improvements for any other crop (Nelson and van der Mensbrugghe 2014; Searchinger et al. 2014). FP4 hypothesizes that improved varieties, their allied innovations and strengthened seed and knowledge delivery systems will significantly contribute to the CGIAR IDO targets. Specifically, FP4 will contribute to households adopting improved varieties by realizing the adoption of GLDC varieties developed with NARS and private sector partners that are adopted by over 10 million households. The traits and approach being taken to realize this goal is aligned to GCARD3 priorities to improve productivity through climate-smart varieties that diversify farming systems and increase farm profitability in a sustainable and equitable manner. Scope and concepts Over 60% agroecologies where GLDC crops are grown are impacted by climate change causing food shortages, price hikes and impacts, especially for the vulnerable (Table 1). Genetic improvement is the cornerstone for adapting to climate change, and developing resilient and productive varieties and allied innovations that carry both production (input traits) and market (output traits) traits is essential and in line with GLDC ToC. FP4 envisions a steady and deliberate transition over the first two years of the program from current breeding methodologies towards forward breeding to support the accelerated integration of productivity and market traits. Participatory feedback loops will offer quick validation of emerging varieties and inform future breeding priorities in an agile and demand-driven manner. Several large bilateral programs are already using this approach that has proven successful. Taken together with sharing best practice on seed systems, a realized genetic gain of 2% per year in farmer s fields can be achieved, especially given the low productivity base for most of these crops. 156

157 Table 1. Synopsis of GLDC investment imperatives SSA Farming systems GLDC crop Drought impact Agropastotal Mill/sorgh Stunting Cereal root crop mixed Pastoral ,5 Maize Mixed ,1 SA Rain fed ,6 Dry rainfed ,5 EECA Small scale cereal-livestock ,6 Extensive Cereal -livestock ,7 In environments with low rainfall, high temperatures and degraded soils, FP4 will integrate activities with FP2 and FP3 to develop options for narrowing yield gaps through improved site-specific management practices. FP4 will draw on the prioritized trait discovery and pre-breeding of FP5 to diversify the genetic base of varieties. Avenues to realize this are described in FP5 but prioritization will be crop-specific with emphasis being given to those traits that offer the highest increase in yield gain (or stability) and market value. FP5 contributions into FP4 include early generation pre-breeding populations for priority traits (e.g. drought, improved nutrition), deploy genetic engineering and molecular tools through the CGIAR Genetic Gains Platform and use high throughput phenotyping to accelerate variety development and doubled haploid technology for hybrid development. FP4 will prioritize classification of its target production systems based on existing weather patterns and soil types, through target population of environments (TPEs). TPE analysis identifies representative testing locations for precision yield testing selections. TPE also supports identification of spillover ecologies and shuttle-breeding locations for speeding -up breeding cycles. List of grand challenges addressed The key output of FP4 will be farmer- and consumer-preferred varieties with improved nutrition and resilience that fit into farming systems (FP3) that maximize profitability for farmers. Specifically FP4 provides solutions for (i) low productivity and profitability, and high-risk dryland agriculture, (ii) unlock value (nutrition, income and employment) in GLDC cereals and legumes for the growing rural and urban populations; and (iii) secure production systems against endemic and emergent challenges such as the climate-change effects of drought, heat, and associated biotic stresses, while underpinning the strategic positioning of production systems to secure livelihoods and economic development. 157

158 FP4.2 Objectives and targets GLDC farming systems are mostly found in agroecologies that are prone to climate-change effects of drought, temperature rise, with devastating effects on agriculture, the foundation of livelihoods in the regions where GLDC crops are cultivated. Climate change will intensify the incidence of extreme weather events exacerbating production shocks, aggravating poverty, food and nutrition insecurity. The GLDC priority countries have the fastest growing populations (Sub-Saharan Africa 2.74%, South Asia 1.36%), adding pressure on already limited natural resources. This represents a threat to food and nutrition security, and increases environmental pressure, and thus requires strong growth in crop productivity to meet current and future challenges and demand (Searchinger et al. 2014). GLDC cropping systems share common features justifying complementarity in the research to delivery process. The dryland cereals, sorghum, pearl millet, are the major sources of calories, while legumes such as cowpea, chickpea, groundnut, pigeonpea and common bean are the major sources of protein, calories and biological source of soil nitrogen and carbon. Most of these crops are considered women s crops as women farmers tend to cultivate these as a means to improve household nutrition. These crops restore degraded soils and the market opportunity offered by these crops is increasing with recent price increases. While these two crop classes are botanically different, they share common challenges around the need for drought tolerance and nutrient use efficiency and increasingly heat tolerance as well. Most of these crops also share institutional arrangements for example, the legumes are generally considered women s crops and depend on informal seed systems, providing scope for complementarity for investments and capacity building in seed systems. Accordingly, FP4 is a framework for breeding new varieties to underpin sustainable intensification and increased productivity in over 113 million ha or 63% of crop area of Sub Saharan Africa and South Asia. Production is linked to demand locally (domestic and commercial- urban or internationally with new varieties and allied innovations designed to meet the current strategic market demand from farm-tofork. GLDC crops are critical and healthy sources of calories (cereal) and protein (legumes), as well as essential nutrients such as Fe, Zn, and micronutrients especially for women and children. CGIARoriginated varieties have in the past accounted for 45% of annual yield gains: (0.21% to 0.57%) for millet, barley, sorghum, common bean, lentils (Renkow and Byerlee 2010). Indeed, without CGIAR varieties in developing economies, production would have been 7 8% less, food prices risen by 35-66%, food imports increased by 5%, caloric intake reduced by 4<7% (Evenson and Gollin 2003; Fuglie, and Rada 2013). FP4 has set the target to close the current yield gap by 30% in collaboration with FP3 by integrating improved varieties with best management practices (Nelson et al. 2014). Our past investments demonstrate this (Box 1). In order to meet this is the vision of success, FP4 will develop and deploy productive varieties that fit the target agrifood systems, working with NARS, private sector partners and civil society-especially farmer organizations. A demand driven breeding and deployment agenda that leverages the CGIAR legacy investments (Phase I of CRP and others) and other broader but critical agricultural technology and development delivery processes will be implemented. FP4 will also leverage the technologies, 158

159 expertise, partnerships and participatory research approaches established over the years to execute research to deliver high-quality products and services. Two sources of phenotype diversity (i) natural variations- from genebanks and in-situ conservation and (ii) genetic engineering will be reserved for areas where natural variation does not exist. Box 1. Selected outcomes of improved groundnut in Malawi In Malawi, modern groundnut varieties increased productivity by 50%, annually generating 42 million US$. 76% of smallholders who grow improved groundnut are food and nutrition secure and save 30 days of production. One modern variety generates US $6 million, supporting growth of processing and nutrition-based industry for local and export markets. FP4 breeding programs will have: 1. Faster breeding cycles and harness heterosis through hybrid programs (sorghum, pearl millet, pigeonpea) and doubled-haploid technologies, increase diversity and deploy shuttle breeding 2. Increased precision and efficiency of data generation and decision-making through optimal phenotyping, open data warehousing and digital solutions that allow seamless use of massive data 3. Undertake inclusive (gender and poverty) and efficient seed systems research that leverage agronomy and complementary knowledge and innovations. The above will be coordinated at the country level through country strategies that ensures FP4 will work in concert with FPs 1, 2, and 3, that in turn inform trait priorities in FP5 to generate technologies that underpin GLDC s response to the 21 st century grand challenges. FP4.3 Impact pathway and Theory of Change Impact Pathway Improved capacity of the agrifood systems of key GLDC crops will enable continuous production, market and policy innovations that deliver resilience, poverty reduction, nutritional security and economic growth. FP4 will contribute to GLDC s vision of success through crop improvement programs that are demand driven, whose products, knowledge and services catalyze improvement in performance of GLDC agrifood systems and compliment other crop production systems to increase farm and diet diversity. The demand of farmers, users and markets are therefore the core drivers of GLDC breeding programs. These modern varieties supported by relevant agronomy will guarantee: (i) 30% yield gap reduction; (ii) Reduced pre- and post-harvest losses by at least 10%; (iii) Increased availability of selected nutrient dense GLDC crops and; (iv) Assist in household capacity to cope with environmental shocks; (v) Unlock enterprise opportunity especially for formal and informal seed systems, especially for women and youth. The net impact being secured harvests, stabilized food supply and enterprise opportunities to improve rural incomes. FP4 will develop research to delivery approaches, techniques, platforms and strengthened R4D resources, product delivery models and partnerships for scaling as part of its capacity development for translating CGIAR produced global and 159

160 regional agricultural public goods to national level at scale. Prioritized and targeted capacity development interventions for researchers, development agencies, farmer and civil society will be implemented. Innovations platforms and other demand-side engagement forums will continuously be used to provide new and or emerging demands. This impact pathway is underpinned by the positive policies, complementary investments and agriculture development focus of GLDC agrifood systems. Theory of Change (ToC) The FP4 ToC is informed by the following evidence and key assumptions: i) GLDC crops are essential for livelihoods of farming communities in target countries based on their adaptability, nutritional value and multifunctional roles including income and employment provision; ii) without CGIAR varieties developed in partnership with NARS, production would have been 7 8% lower, food prices 35-66% higher, food imports 5% higher, and caloric intake 4 to 7% lower (Evenson and Gollin 2003; Fuglie and Rada 2013); and iii) agriculture in developing economies has grown by over 2% but it must improve to keep pace with growing populations and consumption patterns against the backdrop of climate change and resource degradation (Liu and Benin 2013). In response to these demands, FP4 will focus on new resilient, productive and profitable varieties to strengthen and broaden livelihood options via sub-idos (1.1.2, 1.4.1,1.4.2, 1.4.3, 2.1.1, 2.2.1, 3.3.1, B.1.1, C.1.1, D.1.3). FP4 leverages FP1 for overall foresight and priority setting; FP2 for institutions and markets programming and FP3 for testing scaling up, inclusivity (gender and diversity agenda refinement), impact delivery and acceleration; and FP5 for pre-breeding genetic gain technologies. FP4 works on 8 crop commodities and is designed to leverage: (i) demand prioritization that includes users and market opportunities and institutional arrangements around GLDC crops; (ii) technology commonalities and opportunities, such as common adaptability traits (biotic and abiotic stresses and production conditions), common biology and genetics, exploiting genomic synteny to share molecular tools and techniques; (iii) genetic engineering and double haploid for next-generation traits; and (iv) co-location in agroecologies for strengthening diverse value chains in the systems. These criteria ensure that a broader systems perspective is maintained from research to delivery. Must-have traits for all the crops such as drought and heat tolerance will be augmented with other prioritized input traits by crop, region and country. Pre-breeding material from FP5 will be used to generate farmer- and market-preferred varieties through CoA4.3. CoA4.1 and CoA4.2 which aim at improving phenotyping and selection efficiencies. Through CoA4.4 models for nursery and seed management work with the aim of informing the science of delivery with respect to seed systems and allied knowledge and technologies, through strategic partnerships. Seed and technology delivery models such as the CIAT-led Pan African Bean Research Alliance (PABRA), the Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)-led Scaling Seeds and Technologies Partnership in Africa (SSTP), and large bilateral investments, will be studied and leveraged for scaling up models under CoA4.4. FP4 will leverage two platforms Genetic Gains and Genebank, along with hybrid and doubled haploid technologies where heterosis has been demonstrated, for faster and more efficient breeding programs. Lessons and experiences from other 160

161 CRPs where advanced technologies have been used for crops such as maize, rice and wheat will be explored. This way, FP4 provides a framework to test: (i) Accelerated and targeted breeding characterized by genetic gain and superior varieties; (ii) Capacity development of collaborating NARS to use cutting-edge technologies, analytical platforms and breeding management systems for program management, variety testing, release and deployment; and (iii) Efficient models for deployment of improved varieties and crop management solutions in the target agrifood systems. FP4 will contribute to IDOs by generating technologies and knowledge, that when channeled through appropriate delivery systems, catalyze productivity increase with benefits to households, the environment and the economy. Regular inter-flagship learning (FP1, 2 & 3) will inform reprioritization and impact delivery, building a repertoire of partnerships, experiences and lessons, reprogramming, research and delivery at scale. This will annually increase yields of target crops with the aim of surpassing past reports of 11% in Africa and 35% in Asia; as well as improve access to modern varieties above current levels of 17% (Renkow and Byerleem 2010). FP4.4 Science quality Most of the GLDC breeding programs use processes that take 8-10 years from trait introgression to variety deployment. There is therefore a sense of urgency to improve targeting and fasttrack breeding pipelines and optimize seed systems to increase realized genetic gain in farmers fields to 2% per year. For SSA where limited availability of improved varieties has reduced performance of the crops subsector, breeding programs must escalate development and delivery of well-targeted varieties at scale. The development and testing of TPEs in FP4 using big data of climate, soil and farm typologies will allow FP4 work across crops and agroecologies improving environment targeting and informing scaling out investments. The CGIAR is the key source of genetic material for developing economies and for the target agroecologies it is important GLDC renews its commitments by addressing four strategic questions on how it can better target breeding and agronomic management interventions: 1) What are the new and strategic demands on GLDC crops that need to be addressed and how can these inform GLDC breeding programs? 2) What are the opportunities for fast tracking development of a new generation of demand informed improved resilient varieties in target geographies and how that can be harnessed at scale? 3) How can the CGIAR and other global knowledge centers harness their repertoire of high-end science innovations and improve NARS capability, to increase efficiency of breeding pipelines? 4) How can the CGIAR crop improvement programs develop and deliver a new generation of varieties and agronomy that will secure and stabilize harvests under increased weather variability associated with climate change? 5) How can access to improved innovations (seed and allied technologies) be augmented to complement improved varieties with benefits for food, nutrition and income security, while securing the natural resource base especially for smallholder agriculture? 161

162 In the short term, FP4 addresses the first research question through FPs 1-3. The second question is addressed by drawing on legacy CGIAR investments. Resilient and productive varieties developed under the Generation Challenge Program (GCP), Tropical Legumes, HOPE and other projects will be released and promoted in the next 2-3 years. Questions three and four are medium to longer-term issues for FP4 and FP5, and involve the exploitation of genomic and genetic resources (germplasm) to augment breeding programs. Examples include molecular markers for key traits (drought, nutrient use efficiency, heat tolerance, disease resistance), germplasm resources (reference sets or mini-core collections for cereals and legumes), male-sterile lines for hybrid seed production (sorghum, pearl millet, pigeonpea), introgression lines from wide hybridization (e.g., groundnuts). Hybrid technology especially for cereals will harness heterosis for yield stabilization in priority ecologies that builds on ICRISAT s successful model of HPRC with private sector partners in India using pearl millet, sorghum and pigeonpea. Hybrids to be tested are those directly needed by the food processing industry. This will drive demand for improved hybrid seed, given the strict requirements of the food industry. Research question 5 is a new area for the CGIAR, in which FP4 will partner with FP3 to clarify drivers and opportunities for delivering new varieties at scale and creating rural employment opportunities in the process. Strategies for increasing genetic gains FP4 aims to realize 2 % genetic gain for the selected crops based on modern varieties. In table 2 annual yield improvements of 10% have been demonstrated and form the legacy of FP4 supported by improved agronomy. In general, GLDC crops have not benefited from advances that enhance genetic gains compared to cereals such as rice and maize. FP4 will harness ongoing breeding pipelines to deliver new varieties in the short term; and refine emerging priorities through FPs 1-3 to inform new GLDC breeding reprogramming. GLDC has a strong commitment to move to the Breeding Management System and in parallel review the current breeding programs using the Breeding Program Analysis Tool (BPAT) with support of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to assess where GLDC breeding programs can be strengthened. Based on the BPAT analysis, FP4 will also improve experimental field conditions deploying cloud computing based data analysis and management as well as field plot management (mechanization, irrigation, better experimental design). ICRISAT has hired a Forward Breeder to support the integration of High Throughput Marker facilities offered by a commercial provider to support the integration of multiple traits into new varieties and increase the selection intensity to accelerate our progress in realized genetic gains. Markers for key traits from past investments (GCP, TL and HOPE and several bilaterals for climate smart traits Vadez et al. 2014, 2015; Kholova et al. 2014) are now being validated and applied for forward breeding in the fall of

163 Table 2. Annual productivity gains due to adoption of improved varieties in selected target countries Crop and Country Yield Yield Yield Chickpea Ethiopia India -Andhra Pradesh Pigeonpea Tanzania Malawi Groundnuts Malawi Tanzania Potential for innovation The agrifood systems in target ecologies and developing economies are largely smallholder based who exhibit both domestic and commercial consumption of farm produce. Increasing urban and youth population also present special opportunities. Technologies for unlocking overall productivity must invariably be demand driven. Accordingly, FP4 will: (1) Supply diverse materials for testing in TPEs and based on farmer and actors along GLDC value chains, accelerate the release process for promising varieties. West Africa s Sahel region will provide the first learning site for TPE having both semi-arid to tropical environments with commercial and subsistence farming. (2) Use prioritization data from FP1, and the management and scaling lessons from FP2 and FP3 to inform subsequent breeding priorities. (3) Genetic Gains platform will be implemented in 2016 with forward breeding and a strategy to accelerate the integration of genebank accessions will be tested based on the biology and needs of each GLDC crop. (4) Conduct scenario analysis to unravel entry and critical success factors for integrated seed systems based on past experiences of all five Centers engaged in seed systems. (5) Test improvements of seed delivery models and knowledge delivery approaches as informed by scenario analysis with input from FPs 1-3. FP4 will also leverage ICT to attract women and youth into the seed business. FP4.5 Lessons learned and unintended consequences: Lessons learned 1. Trait identification and prioritization. Breeding programs informed by demand from farm-to-fork, crop phenology, agroecological needs and suitable investment policies have higher opportunity to develop varieties that will expand production niches, while enhancing adoption and market penetration. This process will be supported by farmer participatory variety selection to strengthen ownership and prospects of variety adoption. 2. Capacity for R4D. NARS in target countries with target agrifood systems vary in capability to generate and deliver innovations, being weakest in West Africa and strongest in South Asia. 163

164 Mentorship is now being actively supported between junior and senior scientists. FP4 will develop leadership and technical skills needed to improve research from planning to execution and delivery. 3. R4D enablers. The gender studies on GLDC crops show that they are women s crops. We find that women- dominated self-help groups are closely associated with R&D processes for these crops. This improves access to vulnerable members of communities and builds meaningful and longlasting relationships with communities for R4D activities. 4. Technology delivery systems. Availability of modern varieties and product markets pose major constraints to adoption. A variety deployment agenda that focuses on regional release of modern varieties will secure volumes needed for large markets by attracting private sector investment for new varieties with wide coverage. In most GLDC countries, limited capacity to produce early generations of seed (foundation seed), weak market incentives and inadequate quality assurance result in weak seed delivery systems. Thus a combination of informal and formal seed systems is needed to improve access to modern varieties. However, the weaknesses and strengths associated with informal and formal seed systems require more studies to inform future investments in scaling out. Unintended consequences of FP4 FP4 will deliver new productivity enhancing varieties and hybrids and their management options that is oriented towards commercialization of these crops. Such a process will encourage a shift towards popularly traded varieties, with a medium-to long-term consequence of losing genetic diversity and its attendant food and nutrition security challenges. In order to minimize genetic erosion, a diverse array of breeding materials will be developed and progressively deployed as informed by scaling and delivery studies of FP4 and FPs 1, 2 & 3. FP4 and FP5 will intentionally draw on Genebank resources to counter this possible unintended consequence. FP4.6 Clusters of Activities (CoA) CoA 4.1: Environmental Classification and Target Population of Environments (TPEs): Major mechanistic crop models, will be used to prescribe the set of target locations and future production environments where varieties and hybrids developed by FP4 and NARS will be grown. This is referred to as TPE (Cooper and Byth 1996). Prediction of genotype performance in a TPE informs selection by predicting future performance, averaged over several farms and seasons (Basford et al. 2002). The use of TPE is critical for rain-fed and low resource-use agriculture, where seasonal weather variation, soil quality and depth, and management differences abound, causing GxExM interactions that hamper simultaneous genetic and agronomic progress toward improved system productivity and resilience. Yet phenotypic variation in target environments, genetic correlation and trait heritability in test and target environments determine selection efficiency and the size of realized genetic gain. 164

165 Initially, due to complexity and scale of GxExM work required for eight crops in diverse agroecologies and farming systems, CoA 4.1 will initially focus on groundnut because it is grown in West Africa, Eastern Africa, Southern Africa and South Asia. These initial trials will be used to gain experience with relevant databases and problems across regions before expanding to other prioritized crops. Therefore, using TPE, FP4 will define the domains where a variety will do well. Two mechanistic crops models [SSM (Simple-Simulation Model), APSIM, or SAMARA) will be used to (i) characterize different TPEs for GLDC crops or crop groups and (ii) within each TPE identify the genetics, agronomic practices, or their combination that improve system productivity and resilience. SSM uses a common model that can routinely simulate in legumes species and sorghum. APSIM is based on a common model that can routinely simulate in sorghum, pearl millet and maize. These two models have been extensively used in the last two to three decades, but it is only recently that efforts have been made to develop a common framework. So, data and case studies will be assembled in a systematic manner for GLDC crops and TPEs. Activities will include: 1. Systematic cataloging and public data repository of existing soil and weather information, and crop agronomic practices, for major crop production environments of West and Central, Africa and North Africa). 2. Characterization and classification of all production environments, identifying and defining separate or overlapping TPEs for the target crops. 3. Identification of genetic traits, or agronomic management alterations that enhance crop/system productivity/resilience/cash return and/or reduce risk, and design target plant ideotypes or crop agronomic packages, or cropping systems, for informing/feedback with FP5, FP3 or FP1. 4. Integration of modelling tools in decision-making by geneticists/breeders (FP4/FP5) and agronomists (FP3) as integrals of their work. 5. Integrating the use of modelling outputs by social scientists and economists (within GLDC or through PIM) for forecast modelling (e.g. global futures) or policy interventions. 6. Improving modelling capacity in cases where gaps exist (e.g. cowpea) and develop the capacity to improve system modelling. TPEs will initially start in West Africa with two strategic partnerships IAVAO (Innovation and plant breeding in West-Africa) and LAPSE (Joint laboratory on the adaptation of plant and associated microorganisms to environmental stresses) and aligned to regional initiatives of ECOWAS and World Bank funded WAAPP. In the humid tropics of Africa and Asia, FP4 will build on Tropical Legumes, HOPE, and other R&D research networks and investments and engage in the Site Integration Plans of CGIAR Centers in GLDC priority counties. CoA 4.2. Phenotyping Together with the use of simulation (CoA4.1) to increase selection efficiency, improving the quality of phenotyping is critical for increasing genetic gains. Three priorities include: (i) Focusing on traits of importance for crop productivity; (ii) Designing testing locations that are common across GLDC crops 165

166 and programs; (iii) Focusing testing of breeding / agronomic management packages for specific TPEs, based on outputs from CoA 4.1. Phenotyping has also a very different meaning for a breeder, an agronomist, a physiologist, or a geneticist. A physiologist or geneticist would need extremely precise information on some aspects of a plant/crop (cell/organ/plant level) in large populations, a breeder requires a set of testing sites in a given TPE to evaluate large numbers of breeding lines, and an agronomist needs to evaluate a genotype using several agronomic packages. We propose to combine: (i) Trait-based phenotyping focused on some of the key traits identified in the modelling outputs from CoA4.1, using specialized platforms (in close linkage with FP5), but also phenotyping on quality traits; (ii) Field-based phenotyping in target regions with a few well-equipped stations (close link to FP5), or more stations focused on agronomic assessments in good quality fields (FP3), and (iii) Testing environments representative of farming conditions within each TPE is where agronomic tests on best management and crop rotations will be tested (close link to FP3). So phenotyping is housed in CoA 4.2 but cuts across FP3 and 4 to ensure stronger integration and relevance for technology packages developed in GLDC. Phenotypic data generated in 4.2 will allow improvements in system modelling predictions in CoA 4.1. The major activities will be: 1. Based on CoA 4.1, an inventory of existing phenotyping capacity in the main production environments of GLDC will be made to identify and explore capacity, gaps and opportunity. 2. Establish at least one pilot managed-stress testing site for managed drought stress in a representative testing location of a major TPE; Pilot the feasibility of using spectral imaging for phenotyping disease and pest reactions, and of using remote-sensing for field phenotyping. 3. Systematically deploy optimal statistical design, metadata standards and new precise statistical methods that combine design information with spatial adjustment within and between trials. 4. Connect phenotyping nodes to cloud-based data warehousing and computing based on the Breeding Management System (BMS), where data collected in testing locations are availed across the network, fostering powerful meta-analysis. 5. Generate phenotypic information to improve system modelling toward better prediction of crop combination effects on system productivity/resilience. CoA 4.3: Variety and Hybrid Development Phase I DC and GL CRPs, were guided by crop-based outputs, prioritized as game changers to catalyze production and productivity increase, income and market opportunity, food and nutrition security, and sustainable intensification. In the first two years of GLDC, CoA 4.3 will build on DC and GL breeding lines and test on-farm for lines positioned for accelerated release and to inform breeders of farmer or value chain preferences so varieties released enjoy higher rates of adoption. This approach permits GLDC to review its trait priorities and reprogram as appropriate, starting in the first six months of project life. CoA 4.3 has three mutually reinforcing components namely: Variety/hybrid development, nursery management and variety/hybrid characterization. They are described briefly below. 166

167 Component 1. Breeding process: This component will develop a new generation of farmer-preferred varieties and hybrids, using conventional, molecular, and participatory plant breeding methods. It leverages Phase 1 outputs for the first two years of GLDC guided by CAADP country investment plans for Africa and strategic thrusts in South Asia for trait deployment. Forward breeding is now in the early stages of being implemented to strategically use markers to enhance selection intensity and integrate multi-pole traits. This will cause a fundamental shift in the breeding process over the next two years and breeders adjust population development, election and field management strategies to optimize resources and reduce variety development time. There will be an increase in costs as BPAT recommendations and requirements for forward breeding are implemented and staff are trained and incentivized to use these modern tools and approaches in crop improvement. Whereas breeding is crop specific, site coordination for phenotyping (CoA 4.2) and systematic testing of materials in TPEs (CoA 4.1) will focus on coordinating trait deployment and cross learning. TPEs will be used to identify spill over areas for new varieties, increasing demand and expanding opportunities for private-sector investment in seed businesses where enabling socio-economic and policy environments prevail. Component 2. Nursery research and management: Nursery Research and Management was not given enough attention in Phase I of DC and GL CRPs. In order to manage a complex breeding portfolio as proposed for FP4, availability of efficient systems, adequate infrastructure, skilled human resource and appropriate institutional arrangements are required. FP4 will improve nursery management to support multi-environment testing, pre-variety and variety release processes, as well as production of breeder seed and doubled haploids for selected crops. At selected sites, FP4 will deploy geoinformatics for data assembly and management, rehabilitate, and or establish facilities and equipment for quality seed production and processing of non-photoperiod sensitive and photoperiod sensitive crops. Standardized protocols will be developed for multi-location evaluation of international nurseries. Descriptors of all released and pipeline varieties and hybrid parents will be prepared in compliance with national and regional regulations. Capacity of partners will be enhanced in nursery management and seed production. Systematic provision of pedigrees and variety names for each crop at national/regional level (link with CoA 4.3), and curation of data and material sharing, and material transfer agreements will be addressed. BMS has been adopted for most GLDC crops and the remaining crops will migrate during The use of doubled haploids in sorghum for hybrid development will be explored testing a number of sources for haploid embryo induction at the CIMMYT Maize double haploid facility for Sub-Saharan Africa in Kenya or the private sector, such as the Multi-Crop Research Center of DuPont Pioneer in Hyderabad. Component 3. Adaptation testing and release: Outputs from CoA 4.1 will inform testing of prioritized varieties/hybrids across multiple environments for variety release in target countries. Multienvironment adaptation testing for yield and fodder will be used to assess spatial and temporal adaptation to different agroecological conditions across multiple seasons, and identifying the most adapted material for advancement. Adaptation trials for all target crops will be systematized in target crops and countries, and coupled to standardized processes for collection, collation, storage and management of data for immediate and future use in fundamental research, pre-release variety and 167

168 variety release. All participating NARS will use the BMS for centralized trial design, data assembly, repository and management. These operations will be managed through cloud and or stand-alone computing platforms, depending on Internet connectivity. As appropriate, capacity will be developed for BMS and phenotyping especially for NARS partners. Data to support variety pre-release and release applications will be assembled under CoA 4.1 and CoA 4.2 in shared facilities with FP5. Examples of data to be collected include: yield and its components, abiotic-stress tolerance, nutrition and grain quality and processing traits, disease and pest resistance, tolerance to noxious parasitic weeds, molecular markers and DNA fingerprints. FP4 partners will link with other crop improvement platforms such as The Alliance for a Green Revolution (AGRA)-led Scaling Seeds and Technologies Partnership (SSTP) to form a community of practice from regional to global level for development of resilient market-oriented productive varieties that naturally flows into CoA 3.4. Box 2. Imperatives for GLDC seed systems. 1. Rational: Recent gains in total factor productivity especially in Africa, is mainly due to gains in factor use efficiency rather than adoption of new technologies such as new varieties (Liu & Benin, 2011). 2. Capacity issues. Strong publicly funded NARS enabling rapid diffusion of GCIAR bred technologies. Legumes in Ethiopia is an example. 3. Major routing for GLDC. A small proportion of transactions ( %) of GLDC certified seed is routed by private sector (McGuire & Sperling, 2015). GLDC crops are sown to less than 1% of certified improved seed volumes sown. 4. CGIAR niche. A key constraint to private sector roll out of GLDC is the limited supply of early generation of NARS released varieties. In Malawi, the ICRISAT implemented Malawi Seed Industry Development Project produces breeder and foundation seed for legumes, unlocking opportunity for seed companies to access and scale out improved varieties. This model has expanded area under improved groundnut by 34% over 5 years and has been adopted in Zambia. CoA 3.4: Science of Scaling Seed Technologies Access to seed at scale remains a challenge for GLDC crops, being influenced by market factors (demand and supply), institution setting, policies and agroecological factors among others. Most GLDC crops are self-pollinated, with farmers mostly sowing saved seed or purchasing grain from local markets. This is a distinct disincentive for private sector investment. Box 1 below summarizes imperatives for GLDC seed systems. Moreover, most GLDC crops are released by NARS whose institutional limitations impede production of early seed generations (basic/ foundation seed) for bulking into certified seed by the private sector. A number of seed systems models have been tested to improve access to GLDC seed. (1) The CGIAR has partnered with NARS to produce basic seed of selected GLDCs for bulking into certified seed by the private sector (Box 2). The Hybrid Parent Research Consortium in India for sorghum, pearl millet and pigeonpea is another example of this model; (2) The CGIAR networks for market oriented breeding, seed systems and technology dissemination. The PABRA model is an example where, 13 million households have accessed new bean varieties from through approaches that support farmers to turn seed multiplication into a business, and packaging of seed into small affordable packets. PABRA facilitates also the development of 168

169 partnerships between farmers and farmer groups, the public and private sectors, and NGOs to address market constraints. Other PABRA components address nutrition, breeding and access to markets; (3) Private sector scaling out of modern varieties seeds mainly through large investments such as of AGRA s SSTP, HOPE, TLIII in Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Mozambique, Senegal and Tanzania. Informal systems for selected crops focusing on community seed production of Quality Declared Seed (QDS) have also been tested. Two sets of mutually reinforcing sub-clusters of activities will be conducted to gain insights into both formal and informal models, their seed flows and how they influence the pattern and dynamics of farmer s access, exchange and adoption of new varieties. The clusters of activities are: (1) Conduct an analysis of seed system scenarios of target GLDC seed value chains to gain insights into constraints that different actors face to produce and make available quality seed and to identify limitations that farmers face to acquire preferred and quality planting material at the right time (2) Modified existing models highlighted above for hybrid seed production by the private sector, small seed packs, seed revolving schemes and community-based seed models for crops with moderate seed multiplication rates (e.g., common bean, groundnut, chickpea) and identify incentives for private sector investment. These activities will initially focus on prioritized crops that represent unique combinations of cropping systems and technology delivery pathways in priority region (Sahel, Humid Tropics, South Asia). How the CoAs work together: FP4 is a plant-breeding and seed systems flagship for GLDC crops implemented by CGIAR, NARS, private sector and civil society (Figure 2). To enhance relevance and market targeting, FP4 research and delivery agenda is informed by inclusive demand and delivery options from production to markets, markets being the key driver through FPs 1, 2 & 3 and participatory R&D activities. Farmer-preferred varieties (CoA4.3) will be tested through targeted agrifood systems (CoA 4.2 under CoA4 3.1); and fast-tracked for release building and responding to the urgency of governments to offer solutions to the pressing issues facing smallholder farmers (COA4.3), and tested for delivery to farming systems under CoA

170 Figure 2. FP4 Research for development framework: Interactions within GLDC and with other partners. Product life cycle management Breeding, selection and evaluation Discovery FP5 Proof of concept FP5+FP4 Early Development FP4 Late development FP3+FP4 Pre-release FP4 +NARS +Seed sector Release & promotion FP4+FP3+NARS +Seed sector Discontinue FP4, FP1, FP2,FP3+NARS & Seed sector Priority setting FP1, FP2 and FP3 generated market and end-user priorities will be used to inform the development of new varieties that enhance productivity from farm-to-market. GxExM Product Knowledge, best agronomic systems fit. Initiation of international trials and engagement of NARSs Seed sector actors, breeders seed increase Preparing for release Regulatory approval to release. Market positioning, Deployment plans and seed forecast production plans guided science of delivery outcomes. Market priming through on-farm trials, performance in use vs released products Product Scale-up Expansion into additional/extende d TPE. Managing genetic & trait purity, validating yield assumptions. Monitoring performance vs old/ farmer preferred varieties Exit Strategy Discontinue Breeder s seed production and introduce new varieties. Discontinu e FP4, FP1, FP2,FP3+N ARS & Seed FP4.7 Partnerships FP4 is itself a mechanism for planning, designing, generating and delivering demanded modern varieties and allied knowledge to smallholder production systems of target agroecologies and countries. Strategic partnerships with CGIAR and global centers of knowledge will underpin genetic gains and pre-breeding activities. This strategy compensates for the weak science capacity but our country strategy will place emphasis on bringing NARS and local private sector partners along with CGIAR Centers both the farmer- and market-facing approach to priority setting and capacity development to make use of modern crop improvement tools and methodology. In partnership with NARS the CGIAR has contributed to annual improvements in yield of sorghum ( %), millets ( %), lentil ( %), and common bean ( %) in the past this is not enough. Recent studies show that 5.3 million households have benefited from CGIAR-bred common bean in East and Central Africa, with a net present value of nearly $200 million (Renkow and Byerlee 2010). In Malawi, CGIAR bred groundnut varieties doubled productivity from 350 kg/ha to kg/ha, annually infusing 42 million US dollars. A 30% increase in yield by CGIAR bred sorghum hybrids in Mali stabilized yields and reduced vulnerability. These examples demonstrate value addition of CGIAR crop improvement investments that can be realized in the target environments. 170

171 FP4 will use frontline actors, including public sector seed and extension agencies, private sector, civil society and farmer organizations for final packaging and delivery of varieties. These actors are critical for delivery at scale and essential to achieve GLDC outcomes. It is envisaged that each CoA will develop such partnerships within GLDC geographies and internationally. These partners may be drawn from global centers of knowledge and innovation in the south (South Africa, South America, Australia and Asia) or the north (Europe, USA and Canada). Policy institutions (continental and or country specific e.g., African Union s New Partnership for Africa s Development (NEPAD); the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA); Asia Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions amongst others will be engaged directly or through NARS partners. Such partnerships may be used for brokering new partnerships, joint resource mobilization, policy development and/or sharing facilities. FP4 will develop strategic alliances with a range of such like-minded organizations to support its strategic objectives. The non CGIAR Partners include ARI (Egypt), ARI (Sudan), BARI (Bangladesh), CIRAD (France), DARI (Iran), DRD (Tanzania), EIAR (Ethiopia), FAO, GDAR (Turkey), GRDC (Australia), IAEA, IAR (Nigeria), ICAR (India), IER (Mali), INRAN (Niger), ISRA/CERAAS (Senegal), INRA (Morocco), IIAM (Mozambique), KALRO (Kenya), Legume Innovation Lab, NARO (Uganda), NARC (Nepal), Peanut Innovation Lab, Sorghum and Millet Innovation Lab, Zamorano University (Honduras). Partner selection will be predicated on performance track record in variety development, leveraging local strengths such as EIAR in Ethiopia for legumes, ARI Sudan for cereals, and Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) (legumes and cereals). By focusing on outcomes as well as outputs, FP4 stands a high chance of attracting support from many partners including policy organs and communities. FP4.8 Climate change Climate change is one of the challenges unifying GLDC crops, especially for dryland ecologies. General Circulation Models (GCM) widely used to predict climate change scenarios, do not predict future rainfall well, but all consistently predict increases in temperature. Under a four-degree temperature rise scenario, food insecurity will increase (35% for SSA alone), crop yield of cereals will reduce by 13 23% with higher losses for legumes such as common bean (Thornton et al. 2011). Therefore, FP4 will mainly look into climate change from three major biological domains: (i) the effect of temperature rise on shortening of phenological stages; (ii) the effect of high temperature on reproductive biology; (iii) the effect of temperature on evaporative demand and plant water status. These domains will be investigated in the GLDC crops that are mostly drought hardy but not necessarily temperature insensitive. In relation to domains (i), phenotyping methods to measure flowering from remote sensing techniques will be needed. For instance, it is known that legume flowers have a specific spectral index that could be used to pinpoint flowering time. In relation to domain (ii), an inventory of methods and approaches is needed to compare efforts that have been made across crops to test the effect of high temperature, especially to avoid issues that confound temperature effects on the phenology and on the reproductive biology, and then possibly to design common methods across 171

172 GLDC crops. Domain (iii) will receive the most attention because high temperature and low relative humidity i.e. common constraints in GLDC agroecologies will likely become worse in the future. Work is already ongoing in different crops where transpiration response to increase vapor pressure deficit (VPD) is being studied in different crops (Pearl millet, Kholova et al. 2010; Sorghum, Gholipoor et al. 2011; Cowpea, Belko et al. 2012; Chickpea, Zaman-Allah et al. 2011) and even mapped (Kholova et al. 2012). High throughput method for doing so have recently been developed (Vadez et al and would be either promoted under the Genetic Gain platform or made available as a service to the CRP. FP4.9 Gender The population dynamics of the target geographies, require strategic investment and delivery in crop improvement to underpin gender equity. FP4 s value proposition is to increase production, accessibility and consumption of nutrient-dense cereals and legumes to supply essential minerals, such as iron, zinc, high protein quantity and quality, and nutrient bioavailability, for livelihood needs, especially for women and girls. Gender- focused priority-setting with input from FP1, 2 and 3 as well as FP4-commissioned gender studies will be done. These processes will clarify the emerging gender dynamics in technology, knowledge and information generation, access, utilization and power relations critical for success and impacts for target populations. In the interim, based on Phase I GL CRP gender studies (Njuguna 2014), FP4 has prioritized five tracks of gender activities: (i) engage women and other community members in participatory variety selection to improve targeting of their preferred traits i.e. production, utilization and market traits, in modern varieties; (ii) support domestic consumption and processing by tackling cooking and processing traits such as decortication in sorghum, hard-to-cook qualities in legumes, spinach from legume leaves, and high density of essential nutrients; (iii) improve the ease of pre- and post-harvest handling including the use of crop debris for livestock feeds and fuel to save time for women and other farmers for deployment in other economic activities and; (iv) leverage A4NH and other complementary CRP investments for the mitigation of agriculture-related diseases and support achievement of nutrition outcomes; (v) In order to leverage the youth dividend of emerging economies in Africa, FP4 will draw lessons from the IITA led youth agripreneurs 6 program. In this case FP4 engage youth interest in ICT and business to engage in agribusiness for rural employment via activities such as grower opportunities for seed production, contracted farm services, aggregation and value addition. This will underpin strengthening rural capacity for seed production, knowledge dissemination and market led growth. 6 Youth Agripreneurs create and develop promising collective enterprises, and operate in a democratic, transparent and gender-responsive manner that stimulates involvement of Youth in agribusinesses for the benefit of the larger rural community through employment, outgrower opportunities and income generation. Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) Africa Agriculture Status Report: Youth in Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa. Nairobi, Kenya. Issue No

173 FP4.10 Capacity Development This flagship is comprised of two mutually reinforcing elements: (1) breeding pipelines delivering modern varieties; and 2) product cycle management focusing on seed systems. FP4 is being implemented by the CGIAR and publicly funded NARS entities. These two elements currently have different capacity needs. Overall, there has been improvement in Full Time Equivalents (FTE) of research scientists available over the past decade in SSA and SA, a product of increased investments in higher education and public sector reforms. Nevertheless, for most target geographies in Africa, 30-60% FTE of scientists have a postgraduate education, the majority being holders of Masters degrees, 22% FTE being female researchers (Beintema and Rahija 2011). With the average number of researchers per million of economically active agricultural population being 68 or lower for most of SSA countries, the need to both increase personnel number and productivity is paramount. FP4 will work closely with university networks (see in postgraduate education and research. Targeted training of technical staff for NARS will be done parallel to the implementation of large bilateral programs and complimented with W1/2 funding where critical capacity gaps exist. FP4.11 Intellectual Asset and Open Access Management. Patent and proprietary issues will be an important part of FP4 to maximize the ability to deliver suitable technologies to farmers and recognize the critical role CGIAR plays in providing Global Public Goods. Intellectual Property (IP) issues will be managed through SMTA agreements to support access to germplasm by research partners around the globe. Most partners have their own institutional IP policies and in the case of CGIAR institutional policies for material transfer and acquisition and publications will apply. FP4 will also: (i) raise awareness and ability to address IP issues within the projects; (ii) ensure that research results and IP assets are identified systematically and protected if necessary; and (iii) ensure that third-party intellectual property is accessed and utilized in a fair and transparent way. To meet the above needs on IP management FP4 will develop within the overall GLDC IP policy a common framework of IP agreements for the implementing partners. As part of this process, FP4 will make an initial IP assessment and freedom to operate exercise for each of its projects. FP4 will also leverage ICRISAT s IP team and GLDC program management due to their expertise in IP issues in the region to form the basis of a new IP Management Committee for FP4. FP4.12 FP Management FP4 is led by Dr Patrick Okori, a plant breeder and principle scientist in charge of groundnut breeding in East and Southern Africa with ICRISAT. Dr Okori is currently a Product Line leader in the CRP on Grain Legumes. Dr Steve Beebe a plant breeder with CIAT will lead CoA 4.1. Dr Beebe has extensive experience in legume breeding and seed systems, from work in Africa and South America. CoA 4.2 is led by Dr Vincent Vadez a plant and crop-physiologist with ICRISAT. Dr Vadez has extensive experience in GLDC plant and crop physiology and phenotyping from his work in Africa, Asia and South America. CoA 4.3 is led by Dr Shiv Kumar Agrawal, a breeder with ICARDA. Dr Kumar has extensive experience on GLDC target crops from his work in Africa and South Asia. CoA 4.4 is led by Dr Alpha Kamara, a seed systems specialist with IITA. Dr Kamara draws experience from the Tropical Legumes project and other 173

174 large bilateral investments in West Africa. All CoA leaders who are product line leaders in the CRP on Grain Legumes are also members of its Research Management Committee and bring that experience to FP4. Dr Esther Njuguna-Mungai, a social scientist with ICRISAT will be responsible for gender research. The FP and CoA leaders comprise the FP4 management team that is responsible for oversight and management. Each partner center has a focal person to anchor the project. The team will also leverage GLDC CRP monitoring, evaluation and learning system and other GLDC FPs to inform prioritize, schedule and deploy FP4 products. FP4 management team will spend at least 20% of staff time working as a team, in budget oversight, competitive grant management, progress monitoring and implementation improvement, guided by lessons learnt against the set milestones. The team will be supported by PIs of mapped W3/bilateral projects as well as W1 and W2 projects who constitute its community of practice for annual budget review and resource mobilization. The team will manage for results through compliance monitoring, technical oversight, support and resource leverage from GLDC and complementary projects enabling it to strategically invest in areas with certain outcomes and higher returns to investments. FP4.13 Flagship Budget Narrative General Information CRP Name CRP Lead Center Flagship Name Center location of Flagship Leader GLDC ICRISAT FP4: Variety and Hybrid Development ICRISAT 174

175 Summary Total Flagship budget summary by sources of funding (USD) Funding Needed Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total W1+W2 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,800,000 10,200,000 W3 10,141,645 8,109,676 4,341,730 3,438,857 1,779,109 1,805,542 29,616,559 Bilateral 11,136,544 14,156,658 18,908,785 20,844,164 23,588,025 24,699, ,333,576 Other Sources - 23,078,189 23,866,334 24,850,515 25,983,021 27,067,134 28,304, ,150,135 Funding Secured Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total W1+W2 (Assumed Secured) 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,800,000 10,200,000 W3 10,141,645 8,109,676 3,494,883 2,567, , ,883 26,079,853 Bilateral 5,396,291 3,697, , ,844,674 Other Sources - 17,337,937 13,407,558 5,845,383 4,267,883 2,582,883 2,682,883 46,124,527 Funding Gap Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total W1+W2 (Required from SO) W3 (Required from FC Members) - - (846,847) (870,974) (896,226) (922,659) (3,536,705) Bilateral (Fundraising) (5,740,252) (10,458,776) (18,158,285) (20,844,164) (23,588,025) (24,699,400) (103,488,902) Other Sources (Fundraising) (5,740,252) (10,458,775) (19,005,131) (21,715,137) (24,484,251) (25,622,058) (107,025,608) Total Flagship budget by Natural Classification (USD) Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total Personnel 8,684,532 8,962,190 9,317,058 9,726,852 10,117,769 10,565,414 57,373,815 Travel 1,506,981 1,565,056 1,630,895 1,706,487 1,779,004 1,861,682 10,050,105 Capital Equipment 405, , , , , ,145 2,692,746 Other Supplies and Services 5,077,589 5,247,026 5,458,111 5,701,459 5,933,894 6,199,712 33,617,791 CGIAR collaborations 811, , , , ,836 1,013,975 5,434,724 Non CGIAR Collaborations 3,561,220 3,694,687 3,858,430 4,045,787 4,226,206 4,431,219 23,817,549 Indirect Cost 3,031,545 3,138,004 3,270,219 3,422,096 3,567,743 3,733,795 20,163,405 23,078,188 23,866,334 24,850,514 25,983,021 27,067,133 28,304, ,150,

176 Total Flagship budget by Participating Centers (singed PPAs) USD Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Total ICRISAT 17,618,885 18,282,938 19,142,608 20,122,149 21,069,193 22,141, ,377,010 Bioversity International 360, , , , , ,944 2,494,912 CIAT 2,658,309 2,673,399 2,713,907 2,767,096 2,811,479 2,868,200 16,492,392 ICARDA 526, , , , , ,720 3,537,853 IITA 1,913,817 1,947,736 2,001,254 2,065,553 2,124,765 2,194,841 12,247,968 23,078,187 23,866,333 24,850,512 25,983,019 27,067,131 28,304, ,150,135 Additional explanations for certain accounting categories Benefits: The CRP is a partnership of eight Centers including the Lead Center, and benefit items and amounts vary across Centers. In general, IRS benefits include pension, housing allowance, transportation allowance, hardship allowance, shipping allowance, home-leave travel, school fees, education travel, medical examination and medical insurance. Other Supplies and Services: Includes experimental materials, research support, field costs, travel, services and communication cost. Other Sources of Funding for this Project The FP contingency plan if program funding does not become available: Immediate to short term: Leverage bilateral support at country to regional level to cover budget shortfalls Reprioritize further and focus activities Leverage investments of non-cg partners to sustain planned activities Short to medium term: Maintain a strong resource mobilization strategy that target both traditional and new funding sources Discuss mutual accountability with donors, governments and partners at country level where most bilateral funds are appropriated Joint resource mobilization with partner CRPs Budgeted Costs for certain Key Activities** FP4. Proportion of total budget (w3/bilateral and w1/w2) being allocated to gender, capacity building etc. as an integrated part of the FP4 plan: 176

177 Gender, CoA1.3 and mainstreamed across CoAs, 50% Youth, CoA1.3, 33% Capacity development, all CoAs, 38% Intellectual Asset Management, all CoAs, 25% Impact assessment, mainly CoA1.4, 20% Open access and data management, all CoAs, 15% Communication, all CoAs, 17% Estimate annual average cost (USD) Gender 4,000,000 Youth (only for those who have relevant set of activities in this area) 2,000,000 Capacity development 3,000,000 Impact assessment 250,000 Intellectual asset management 5,000 Open access and data management 75,000 Communication 50,000 **Budgets are based on current bilateral projects, and continuation at similar levels during entire program period depends on continued bilateral support Flagship Uplift Budget Outcome Description Expand research and product development focused on market traits including quality, processing Amount Needed W1 + W2 (%) W3 (%) Bilateral (%) Other(%) 6,000, Crop improvement focused on mechanization to increase farmer profitability. 3,000,000 Reconsidering crops that are currently deprioritized 12,000, Total 21,000,

178 Annexure 1. FP4 Theory of change (for assumptions see table below) 178

179 FP4 Assumptions risks and mitigation strategies Assumptions and risks directly related to FP4 implemenbtation ToC link Key Assumptions Risk Rating Risk Mitigation Measures 1 GLDC crops are essential for livelihoods of target geographies based on their rusticity, nutritional value and multifunctional roles and thus of interest to stakeholders/partners and CRP scientists Low Leverage GLDC MEL to monitor both stakeholder engagement and CRP scientist behavior 2 Foresight work will indicate demand for prebreeding; relevant traits in place to meet current varietal demand and future cultivation areas Low Review together with FPs 1.2 & 3 during annual CRP management meetings 3 Positive NARS & private sector receptivity; prerequisite capacity & infrastructure exits that can be developed to underpin seed access and testing Medium FP4 MEL to periodically monitor and provide feedback to PMU 4 Significant research gaps exist pertaining to the science delivery options required for GLDC varieties Low In conjunction FP1, 2& 3 review options & imperatives for scaling Assumptions and risks related to FP4 and the GLDC CRP implemenbtation 5 Stakeholders/partners are committed to scaling GLDC-generated innovations and have capacity & resources to do Medium Leverage GLDC MEL to periodically assess and for PMU to review annually 6 New GLDC varieties are appropriately matched to farmer priorities and realities, so they find them attractive Medium Leverage GLDC MEL to monitor extent developed options are being contextually tailored 7 Smallholders find it worthwhile to invest in the complementary management practices & livelihood options Medium FP1 (CoA 4.2/4.4) to assess extent of practice & option uptake 8 Smallholders plant right GLDC varieties in the right ways in the right places with favorable weather/market conditions Medium FP1 (CoA 4.4) to support FP2/3 to assess during impact assessments & evaluations 9 Targeting is inclusive and appropriate; extension system tailors innovations to differing contexts and groups Medium FP1 (CoA 4.4) to support FP2/3 to assess during impact assessments & evaluations 10 Climatic and other shocks to which targeted dryland systems are subject are not exceptionally severe Medium- High PMU to review annually with country-level scientists 11 Food produced (or purchased with increased income) is of sufficient quantity and quality and is actually consumed Medium- High GLDC MEL to review & FP1 to evaluate during impact assessments 12 Additional income generated is significant and stable enough to bring smallholders out of poverty Medium- High FP1 to evaluate during impact assessments CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 179

180 13 Options to improve resilience and agro-ecosystem health are adopted and sufficiently efficacious in scaling context Medium- High FP1 to support FP2/3 to assess during impact assessments & evaluations 14 Policy makers convinced of GLDC s evidence informed recommendations & no perverse incentives blocking uptake Low- Medium GLDC MEL to periodically monitor and commission specialized evaluations REFERENCES Basford KE, Federer WT and DeLacy IH Mixed Model Formulations for Multi-Environment Trials. Agronomy Journal 96: Belko N, Zaman-Allah M, Diop NN, Cisse N, Ehlers JD, Ndoye O, Zombre G and Vadez V Lower soil moisture threshold for transpiration decline under water deficit correlates with lower canopy conductance and higher transpiration efficiency in drought tolerant cowpea. Functional Plant Biology 39: Cooper M and Byth DE Understanding plant adaptation to achieve systematic applied crop improvement A fundamental challenge. Pages 5 23 in Plant adaptation and crop improvement (Cooper M and Hammer GL, eds.). Wallingford. Evenson R and Gollin D Crop Variety Improvement and its Effect on Productivity: The Impact of International Agricultural Research. CABI Publishing. Fuglie, Keith O, and Nicholas E Rada Resources, Policies, and Agricultural Productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa, ERR-145, US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service - February Gholipoor M, Prasad PVV, Mutava RN and Sinclair TR Genetic variability of transpiration response to vapor pressure deficit among sorghum genotypes. Field Crops Research 119: Jan de Graaff, Kessler A and Nibbering WJ Agriculture and food security in selected countries in Sub- Saharan Africa: diversity in trends and opportunities. Food Security 3: Kholová J, Hash CT, Kumar LK, Yadav RS, Kocŏvá M and Vadez V Terminal drought tolerant pearl millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.] have high leaf ABA and limit transpiration at high vapor pressure deficit. Journal of Experimental Botany 61: Kholová J, Nepolean T, Hash CT, Supriya A, Rajaram V, Senthilvel S, Kakkera A, Yadav RS and Vadez V Water saving traits co-map with a major terminal drought tolerance quantitative trait locus in pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.) Molecular Breeding 30: CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 180

181 Kholová J, Tharanya McGuire SM, Kaliamoorthy S, Malayee S, Baddam R, Hammer GL, McLean G, Deshpande S, Hash CT, Craufurd PQ and Vadez V Modelling the effect of plant water use traits on yield and stay-green expression in sorghum. Functional Plant Biology 41: Liu and Benin, Options and Priorities for Raising and Maintaining High Agricultural Productivity in Africa. Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS), IFPRI, Issue Note 20. McGuire S and L Sperling Seed Systems Smallholder Farmers Use. Food security. In press. Nelson, GC and D van der Mensbrugghe Public-Sector Agricultural Research Priorities for Sustainable Food Security: Perspectives from Plausible Scenarios. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01339, Washington, DC. Njuguna E Adoption and commoditization of Groundnuts in Mlali, Kongwa district, Dodoma, Tanzania: GENNOVATE: Case studies in Mlali Village. Renkow M and Byerlee D The impacts of CGIAR research: A review of recent evidence. Food Policy, doi: / j.foodpol Searchinger T, Hanson C and Lacape JM Crop Breeding: Renewing the Global Commitment. Working Paper, Installment 7 of Creating a Sustainable Food Future. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available online at Thornton PK, Jones PG, Ericksen PJ and Challinor AJ Agriculture and food systems in sub-saharan Africa in a 4 C+ world. Philosophical transactions. Series A, Mathematical, physical and engineering sciences 369 (1934): doi: /rsta Vadez V, Kholova J, Hummel G, Zhokhavets U, Gupta SK and Hash CT LEASYSCAN: A NOVEL CONCEPT COMBINING 3D IMAGING AND Lacape JM LYSIMETRY FOR HIGH-THROUGHPUT PHENOTYPING OF TRAITS CONTROLLING PLANT WATER BUDGET. Journal of ExpChallinor AJerimental Botany 66: Vadez V, Kholova J, Medina S, Aparna K and Anderberg H Transpiration efficiency: New insights into an old story. Journal of Experimental Botany 64: World Bank Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4 C Warmer World Must be Avoided. A Report for the World Bank by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, November Zaman-Allah M, Jenkinson D and Vadez V Chickpea genotypes contrasting for seed yield under terminal drought stress in the field differ for traits related to the control of water use. Functional Plant Biology 38: CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 181

182 FLAGSHIP PROGRAM 5 (FP5): PRE-BREEDING & TRAIT DISCOVERY FP5.1 Rationale and scope Background analysis: In the last five decades, sub-saharan Africa (SSA) has recorded only ~25% increase in yield of cereals as compared to that of >300% in the developed countries (source: Major reasons are low investments, the slow adoption of modern technologies in crop improvement, and unavailability of varieties with traits required for market demand. Flagship 5 will focus on exploiting the largely untapped genetic resources and developing cutting-edge tools and techniques to address the trait discovery, characterization and development for accelerating the rate of realized genetic gains in GLDC target crops, which are concentrated in mixed cereal-legume-livestock farming systems of semi-arid and sub-humid regions in SSA and South Asia (SA). The majority of natural diversity and germplasm available in these crops are largely under-utilized for trait discovery and pre-breeding. This is mainly due to a lack of detailed characterization and evaluation of the germplasm resources for key traits in priority GLDC crops (Upadhyaya 2015). In addition, the GLDC target crops lack a long history of selective breeding and as a result most varieties are only a few generations removed from landraces. As a consequence, there exists huge potential to accelerate genetic gain in these crops. Further, recent technological advances in genomics, breeding, and rapid achievement of homozygosity in major cereals 2 provide an excellent opportunity to explore these modern tools and technologies in GLDC crops. FP5 focuses on trait discovery and pre-breeding by exploring and deploying natural and/or induced variations for prioritized traits in combination with modern genomics, phenomics and breeding tools to improve breeding precision and efficiency. This FP will work closely with other FPs in GLDC and with other AFS CRPs and global platforms such as Excellence in Breeding and Genebanks to achieve its goals. Problem statements: Increased agricultural productivity can contribute strongly to improved food and nutrition security and reduced poverty in the smallholder farming communities of Africa and Asia. The need for breeding for improved productivity, increased grain nutritional value and/or closing the yield gap varies with the location and prevailing conditions. Systematic breeding has had only a very brief history in GLDC crops, as a consequence of which much of the natural diversity remains underutilized. We have very little knowledge of the genetic and molecular control or of the nature of the diversity available of many key traits. There has been limited attention to the development of modern genomics and breeding tools for these crops in general. New genetic and genomic resources are just becoming available which allows breeding to be taken to the next level with high precision and efficiency. While the stagnant or low rate of productivity increases in these GLDC crops in the target ecologies is associated to a great extent with the lack of coupling with recommended agronomic practices, there exists significant potential for improving yields even under low-input agriculture through the implementation of systematic breeding, tapping into the available natural diversity and the use of modern tools and technologies. The current major constraints to enhance the genetic gains in GLDC crops are summarized in Table 1. Some of CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 182

183 these constraints are specific to either legumes and/or cereals and some of the major constraints will be addressed in the proposed FP5. Table FP5.1: Major current constraints to enhance genetic gains in GLDC crops Limited genetic variability in the germplasm for some important traits (e. g., Helicoverpa resistance in chickpea and pigeonpea, dry root rot resistance in chickpea) Barriers to interspecific hybridizations in chickpea, groundnut, pigeonpea and barley Lack of varieties with consumer preferred traits such as grain nutritional value, cooking quality, reduced post harvest losses for market demand Unavailability of high-throughput and low cost genotyping platform in most GLDC crops Unavailability of high-throughput diagnostic markers for key traits in most of GLDC crops Lack of high throughput & cutting edge genetic engineering platforms such as genome editing High throughput precision phenotyping platforms in most of the key traits for GLDC crops Strategic and Scientific Rationale: FP5 will build on past successes and lessons to contribute to yield enhancement and stability of the target crops of GLDC: Many of target crops now have reference genome sequences (e. g., Box FP5.1) Cross-crop comparisons revealed common drought resistance mechanisms Heat tolerance had received little prior attention but is well on its way toward mainstreaming Interspecific crosses have proven productive and offer new horizons for further improvement DNA markers associated with many desirable traits are available Increased feasibility of applications of modern tools and technologies in GLDC target crops Partners are engaged and networks are in place The target traits have been prioritized based on the prevailing needs of the smallholder-farming population in the rural areas as well as on the end-use preferences of existing or emerging local, regional, or global markets. Our primary focus will be on improved productivity, drought and heat tolerance, grain nutritional qualities and other consumer preferred characteristics of the target crops. In addition, we will focus on high priority agronomic (e.g. low P, N, early maturity), abiotic stress tolerance (drought, heat) and biotic stress tolerance (e. g., parasitic weeds such as Striga, diseases, pests) stresses, which are also of emphasis to farmers, and which are driven mostly by the major bilateral projects mapped to GLDC. Thirdly, traits that are important for GLDC crops grown in farming systems (e.g., residue feed quality; ability to withstand shading in intercrops) must be considered as important. A list of region and crop wise prioritized traits is provided in section 5.6 with no-regret traits marked which will be the focus especially in initial phase of CRP until a systematic prioritization exercise is complete by FP1 (Box1) to identify more traits. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 183

184 ENRICHMENT OF GENOMIC RESOURCES AND GENETIC GAIN Dryland Cereals and Grain Legumes fully utilize the modern genomics tools and technologies for accelerating genetic gain through the transition from traditional to molecular breeding. ICRISAT under the framework of Grain Legumes had led the decoding of chickpea draft genome sequence in Currently, along with ICARDA and NARS partners, ICRISAT is re-sequencing 3000 lines of chickpea, with a minimum of 10x coverage. The genome sequence for pigeon pea was decoded in 2011 by an international partnership led by ICRISAT. Recently, in 2016, the International Peanut Genome Initiative (IPGI) led by the University of Georgia has completed high-quality sequencing of the ancestral genomes of groundnut. ICRISAT is a member of the IPGI initiative. Similarly, ICRISAT, through Dryland Cereals, is currently coordinating the genome sequencing of two crops, namely, pearl millet (Tift 23D2B1-P5; close to completion) and finger millet (KNE796), along with re-sequencing of almost 1000 accessions of each. Box FP5.1 An effort to show linking genome sequence diversity with trait phenotype diversity through The 300 chickpea genome sequencing initiative Scope and concepts: Identifying, developing and deploying traits in breeding for climate-resilient and nutrientdense varieties/hybrids of GLDC crops are the primary foci of FP5 and FP4. FP5 constitutes the first half of the product delivery pipeline for varieties and hybrids, working in close association with FP4 for seamless continuity to product delivery. FP5 also dedicates activities to develop enabling and digitalization technologies for data generation, data capture and management of the program in association with the Excellence in Breeding and Big Data Platforms. List of grand challenges addressed: Research for productivity gains in the eight nutrient-rich and/or climateresilient target crops directly addresses the grand challenges of (1) competition for land, (2) climate change, (3) nutrition and diet diversity; and (4) maximizing whole-farm production (food/feed/fodder/fuel) from limited resources (water/nutrient/labor). Continuing utilization of novel genetic diversity, including interspecific or transgenic variability, for yield enhancement and yield stability under stress are essential components of our crop improvement research. Thus, this FP also addresses a fifth grand challenge: diminishing genetic resources. Finally, development of crop cultivars, especially legumes, with increased below-ground root mass, sometimes at the expense of harvest index, can contribute to increased organic matter and the reclamation of degraded land; carbon sequestration and nitrogen fixation are additional targets. FP5.2 Objectives and targets Strategic relevance: In general, GLDC agro-ecologies are highly prone to the negative impacts of climate change such as drought and rising temperatures, which have devastating effects on agriculture. Enhanced resilience to climate change and improved crop performance under biotic and abiotic stress are top priorities to the GLDC discovery and breeding programs. There exists significant potential for improving yields and yield stability in GLDC CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 184

185 crops even under low-input conditions through the implementation of systematic breeding, tapping into the available natural diversity and the use of modern tools and technologies. One example is the leveraging of heterosis in hybrids of pearl millet, pigeonpea and sorghum in SA and/or SSA. Micronutrient malnutrition has been designated as the most serious challenge to humanity as two-third of the world s population is at risk of deficiency in iron (Fe) and zinc (Zn) or in one or more of the other essential mineral elements (White and Broadley, 2009; Stein 2010). Between 60 and 70% of pre-school children, 50 to 60% of pregnant women and 40 to 50% of nonpregnant women, are iron-deficient in Africa and South-East Asia (Goudia and Hash CT, 2015; WHO 2008). The cereals and legumes, crops of GLDC, complement each other well by providing sources for energy and proteins, respectively, which provides a balanced diets in GLDC agro-ecologies. Large genetic variations identified for Fe and Zn contents in the germplasm of GLDC crops offer opportunity for developing varieties/hybrids with substantially higher contents of Fe and Zn. The consumer preferred and market pull traits such as improving shelf life of pearl millet flour, high oleic and aflatoxin free ground nut, grain nutrition quality traits such high Fe/Zn, protein quality are some of other targets. The detailed list of targets is provided in section 5.6. Objectives: Major overarching objectives of FP5 are 1) to enhance yield and yield stability under stress of GLDC crop by providing strategic varieties for enhancing dryland farming systems & promoting resilience and 2) to provide an extensive tool kit of multiple modern genomics and breeding tools deployed for high precision phenotyping and efficient breeding in GLDC crops. FP5 focuses on (1) understanding the genetic, molecular, biochemical and physiological bases of crop- and region-specific target traits, (2) the deployment of this knowledge through the development of tools and technologies for germplasm screening and selection, and (3) the utilization of these tools and technologies in collaboration with FP4 to support the production of varieties and hybrids that meet the requirements for local adaptation, end-use orientation, and tolerance or resistance to prevailing abiotic and biotic stresses. The overarching objective of FP5 is to produce high yielding, climate resilient and nutrient-dense (high Fe/Zn) varieties/hybrids of GLDC crops for targeted ecologies by working closely with other FPs of GLDC, AFS CRPs, GIP CRPs (A4NH on Fe and Zn bio-fortification) and global platforms. FP5 aims to improve the precision and efficiency of GLDC crop breeding programs so that the yield and yield stability under stress for the targeted traits can be substantially enhanced. By broadening the genetic base of the breeding populations and using integrated breeding approaches, the breeding programs will be equipped to rapidly develop superior varieties and hybrids suited to the target dryland systems. Key outputs from FP5 include: (1) Identified superior and/or novel sources of targeted traits from evaluation of germplasm and mutant populations (2) Introgressed desired traits from un-adapted germplasm base, including wild species, and generated materials which can be readily used by breeding programs (3) Understanding of genetic, physiological and/or biochemical mechanisms of the target traits (4) Identified molecular markers/candidate genes associated with desired traits CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 185

186 (5) Platforms and technologies for high-throughput genotyping, precision phenotyping, genome modification, genomic selection, and rapid homozygosity/rapid generation turnover (6) Breeding informatics tools and databases for improving efficiency of discovery and breeding programs (7) Increased capacity of the NARS partners in integrated crop breeding (8) Expanded network of partners and collaborators for efficient implementation of FP5 outcomes FP5.3 Impact pathway and Theory of Change FP5 will contribute to the CGIAR s SRF and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by making available locally adapted climate-resilient, high-yielding, nutrient-dense and consumer/market-preferred varieties and hybrids of GLDC crops to farmers through the research deliverables in FP4. The scientific information, technologies and products developed under FP5 will enable FP4 to enhance crop yield potential. FP5 will help to increase realized crop yields by (1) increasing genetic variation in the base germplasm through exploitation of genetic resources and induced mutant populations, (2) increasing the accuracy of selection through precision phenotyping and genomics-assisted breeding, and (3) achieving rapid homozygosity or rapid generation turnover. CoA 5.1 on Pre-breeding will exploit the genetic variability available in the germplasm of GLDC crops and enhance the genetic base for breeding populations. This CoA will benefit from the CGIAR Platform on Genebanks by identifying and utilizing superior and/or novel traits from the vast germplasm collections available in the CGIAR gene banks. In addition, induced diversity through mutant populations will provide an alternative approach for novel trait and allele creation. CoA 5.2 on Trait discovery and CoA 5.3 on Enabling Technologies will work closely with the CGIAR Platform on Excellence in Breeding and will provide novel breeding tools and technologies to the breeding programs, which will improve the precision and efficiency of breeding programs in combining desirable alleles and accurately selecting desired combinations. The target traits for pre-breeding and trait discovery were prioritized initially based on the large-scale surveys conducted in the Phase I programs, DC and GL, supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation projects, HOPE and Tropical Legumes. As described in earlier section, significant amounts of survey and consultation data have identified the importance of drought and heat tolerance, early maturity, high yields, grain nutritional value and prospects for mechanization. The discovery efforts in FP5 will include these traits, while ensuring maintenance or improvement of the naturally dense micronutrient and protein levels of the target crops and of their dual purpose value for livestock. As the program progresses, FP5 will rely more on updated consumer demands and constraints identified by FP1, from feedback information on value chains from FP2, and important traits for system-level agronomy from FP3. The availability of superior varieties and hybrids of GLDC crops will improve the income and nutritional security of farmers and their families, and the sustainability of GLDC targeted cropping systems. Economic studies indicate that there is much unsatisfied demand for legumes, and increased production will find ready markets and will lead to greater aggregate income. This will translate into enhanced nutrition due to greater ingestion of micronutrients CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 186

187 and a superior amino acid balance with cereals. In dryland environments, sources of carbon are limited and competition exists between soil improvement and animal nutrition. An increase in biomass production of GLDC crops will benefit both purposes. The work on quality improvement of grain and straw, primarily supported by collaborations with HarvestPlus (part of CRP A4NH) and by bilateral projects, is likely to satisfy the hidden hunger of micronutrients (Fe and Zn) and need for higher feed value for livestock. Grazing options with better quality forage with higher biomass will be important for small ruminants in the drylands of South Asia and Africa. The combination of cereals and legumes in mixtures or rotation will also ensure a balanced diet for human and livestock with respect to protein, carbohydrates and fiber. The cereal and legume crops under GLDC are a good combination for rotation for sustaining soil health and productivity of the system and for better management of weeds. The ToC and impact pathway with key assumptions, risks and risk mitigation measures are shown in the following Figure FP5.1 and Table FP5.2. FP5.4 Science quality FP5 includes three Clusters of Activities, namely, (1) Pre-Breeding, (2) Trait Discovery, and (3) Enabling Technologies. FP5 relies on the assumption that considerable natural and/or induced variation exists for the desired traits and this variation can be explored in combination with modern technologies and used to develop high yielding, climate resilient and nutrient-dense varieties/hybrids for the GLDC crops. Within the overarching agrifood systems context of the program, FP5 and FP4 are organized along a variety/hybrid development pipeline, similar to the organization of delivery pipelines in private seed companies, but with specific acknowledgement and incorporation of line-breeding (as opposed to trait breeding) processes where required. Guided by the successes and challenges of Phase I of the component programs of GLDC, the innovative concepts in Phase II for FP5 are: 1. Organization of the Clusters of Activities of FP5 and FP4 along four different stages with data-driven decisions for germplasm and project advancement from one stage to the next. 2. Emphasis on widespread implementation of genomics-assisted breeding, enhancing traditional breeding to accelerate the rate of genetic gains, leveraging breeding evaluation and information management tools such as the Breeding Management System (BMS), and the recently approved Global and Open Breeding Information Initiative (GOBII) supported by BMGF. 3. Specific to FP5, a Cluster of Activities, in close connection with the Excellence in Breeding platform, fully devoted to enabling technologies that address (a) (molecular) genetic, biochemical or physiological methodologies for high-throughput trait screening in the laboratory, controlled environment and the field, and (b) molecular and tissue-culture tools including a functional genomics platform for reverse genetics to establish gene-to-phenotype relationships. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 187

188 Figure FP5.1: Impact Pathway and Theory of Change of FP5 CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 188

189 Table 2: Key assumptions, risks and mitigation measures ToC link Key Assumptions Risk Rating Risk Mitigation Measures 1 2 The evaluation of germplasm leads to identification of desired alleles that can be introgressed in breeding materials bypassing barriers and linkage to negative traits Marker-trait associations are detected for the traits prioritized under this CRP. Low Medium Use precision phenotyping methods; use novel approaches to overcome barriers to wide hybridization; markerassisted section for selecting desired gene combinations. Use high throughput genotyping platforms and precision phenotyping platforms 3 Required level of funding available to develop these platforms and technologies Medium Several bilateral projects already exist and concerted efforts will be made to mobilize additional resources Crop breeders use the breeding materials developed from prebreeding Low Maintain discussion and engagement with the breeders. 4 Ensure breeding materials and associated information is made easily accessible to crop breeders 5 The breeding programs integrate genomics-assisted approaches in introgressing and combining desired traits Low Capacity building of crop breeders in integrated breeding 6 The platforms and technologies developed under FP5 are used by the crop breeders for accelerating genetic gains for targeted traits. Medium Capacity building of crop breeders in using high throughput phenotyping and technologies for rapid homozygosity/rapid generation turnover 7 The crop breeding programs use the information, technologies and breeding materials from FP5 to develop locally adapted and farmerand market-preferred cultivars Low Work closely with the crop breeders and improve their access to and skill of using modern crop breeding technologies. Research on crop improvement in the GLDC flagships FP5 and FP4 is organized along four stages from A to D, on a trait (drought, heat, earliness, nutritional quality etc.) basis, to address and track delivery of region-specific trait needs for the different crops (Figure FP5.2). Stage A constitutes the development of concepts and ideas together with other FPs, and includes activities such as crop simulation modelling to look at trait scenarios (such activities are currently housed in FP4-CoA4.1), the search of literature and patents for novel methodologies, and collaboration with the Genebanks CRP. Stage B establishes proof of concept through laboratory, controlled- CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 189

190 environment and field research, to validate superior performance of varieties and hybrids. It includes prebreeding activities such as germplasm development, expanding the germplasm pool through wide crosses, multi-parental populations, backcrossing and management of allele frequencies, trait phenotyping in partnership with FP4 (CoA4.2) and deconvolution of the genetics associated with a given phenotype. Field performance of the superior varieties and hybrids is established through two seasons of testing in limited testing locations, before they are advanced to Stage C. STAGE A IDEA CONCEPTION DECISIONS INFORMED STAGE B PROOF OF CONCEPT DECISIONS INFORMED STAGE C OPTIMIZATION DECISIONS INFORMED STAGE D DEPLOYMENT Figure 2: Stages and Flowchart of Discovery Pipeline In addition to the initial validation of germplasm performance, FP5 also includes the development of a prioritized set of enabling technologies and platforms that are critical to the establishment of proof of concept, expediting and enhancing the efficiency of the breeding cycle which are lacking or behind in these crops relative to major crops like maize, rice and wheat. The concept of the global platform of Excellence in Breeding across the AFS CRPs will be extremely useful to leverage the experiences in the more advanced crops. Tapping of the existing potential for genetic gain in these crops for either low-input or high-input agriculture required the assembly of critical tools for marker-assisted breeding, forward and reverse genetics (including TILLING), doubled haploidy, high-throughput genotyping/phenotyping, genome editing and genomic selection. The Clusters of Activities for the crop improvement flagships, FP5 and FP4, are trait-specific (and not cropspecific). Such trait-specific organization of COAs facilitate cross-utilization of fundamental expertise (entomology, pathology, genomics, phenotyping, bioinformatics), especially under limitations in human resources, and the application of emerging information across crops where similarities exist for gene-tophenotype associations. The establishment of common technology platforms that incorporate or utilize cropspecific platform ingredients, for example, molecular markers, contributes to economies of scale. FP5.5 Lessons learned and unintended consequences Lessons learned Results with interspecific crosses provides confidence that broad allelic variation exists in the species under consideration. The regeneration of interspecific hybrids that resulted in cultivated groundnuts (Arachis hypogea) opens the spectrum for accessing totally new genetic variability. Phaseolus species that can be crossed with common bean span ecologies from arid deserts to humid montane environments. Sister species of Cicer and of Cajanus offer resistance to insect pests (Deepak et al., 2012; Sharma et al. 2005). CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 190

191 Utilization of sources of abiotic stress tolerance, for example alleles contributing to drought tolerance, in barley is possible from Hordeum spontaneum. Currently, germplasm of barley at ICARDA contains alleles from H. spontaneum which contribute to wide climatic and agroecological adaptability. The recent development of guinea sorghum hybrids in West Africa, and the adaptation of hybrid pearl millet introduced to Tanzania from India, have each demonstrated up to 30% improved yield over local checks under low-input agriculture. Hybrids of pigeonpea have also been developed for the first time for release in India (Saxena et al., 2013). QTLs for Striga resistance in wild accessions have been introduced into three highly susceptible sorghum cultivars. Four lines with improved Striga resistance were released in Sudan. The core breeding program must operate in the Global integrating systems to assure effective and appropriate orientation and efficiency by providing varieties with location-based adaptation. Development and adoption of modern tools and technologies is a must to make a significant impact in GLDC targeted crops and agroecologies. Unintended consequences Breeding programs deal with target areas over long periods of time, as part of the testing and release procedures. Thus the system in place is designed to avoid surprises at the end of the product delivery process. That said, there may be a possible trade-off between markets and household nutrition, as farmers are tempted to sell more nutritious, high-value products and consume cheaper (carbohydrate rich) foods at home. This will be monitored with colleagues in other FP1 and FP3. The development of commercially viable varieties of GLDC crops will change their standing from home-produced foods of high nutritional value to commodities with a cash rather than nutritional return. This has potential negative consequences for gender-sensitive changes in the distribution of benefits, particularly considering folate, iron and protein in the diet. The availability of dual-purpose crops (green forage, and grain and straw feed from regenerated crop after grazing / or cut) may lead to industrial utilization by small-scale industry for marketing such cultivars and use for round-the-year supply of green forage in extremely dry areas through hydroponic barley. FP5.6 Clusters of Activities (CoA) In order to achieve the set outputs and targets, FP5 will divide the activities in three clusters focusing on the priority traits of drought, heat, climate resilience and nutritional value in target GLDC crops. The summary of COAs is provided in Table 3. Table 3: Clusters of Activities to achieve goals of FP5 CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 191

192 Cluster of activities 5.1 Pre-breeding 5.2 Trait discovery 5.3 Enabling technologies Major activity Use of natural or induced diversity available in key priority traits in GLDC crops Trait discovery, dissection and elucidation with molecular, biochemical and physiological tools to develop markers for use in forward breeding Modern enabling tools, technologies, and platforms to facilitate efficient trait discovery and breeding CoA 5.1 Pre-breeding Pre-breeding refers to all activities designed to utilize un-adapted germplasm, particularly wild species but also exotic cultivated landraces, which are not suited for use directly in breeding programs. The concept of use of primary, secondary and tertiary gene pools in pre-breeding and breeding in the traditional scheme is depicted in Figure FP5.3. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 192

193 Figure FP5.2: Pre-breeding flowchart Wild species are valuable sources of new genes and alleles, particularly for resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses. These have largely remained under-utilized due to crossability barriers and linkage drag due to negative alleles in regions flanking the desirable alleles, but there are some examples of successful introgression of genes into the cultivated species from their wild relatives, particularly from primary or secondary gene pools. For example, in barley, the wild progenitor Hordeum spontaneum has been used to transfer the drought tolerance, CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 193

194 cold tolerance and straw quality to the cultivated sub-species H. vulgare (Kosová et al., 2014). In chickpea, two closely related species, Cicer reticulatum and C. echinospermum, have been used for widening the genetic base introgressing genes for resistance/tolerance to Phytophthora root rot, cyst nematode (Heterodera ciceri), rootlesion nematode (Pratylenchus spp.), pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera), ascochyta blight, botrytis grey mould and low temperatures (Gaur et al., 2010). Wild Cajanus species have been effectively exploited in developing cytoplasmic male sterility (CMS) systems, which made commercial hybrids possible (Saxena, 2008; Saxena et al., 2013). In Phaseolus beans, the cultivated species of the secondary (P. coccineus and P. dumosus) and the tertiary (P. acutifolius) gene pools have been used for the improvement of common bean (P. vulgaris) (Porch et al., 2013). Pre-breeding will develop intermediate breeding materials that breeders can use further in developing new varieties. Breeders from across partner centres have consolidated their expert opinion and published reports by crop/country or the major productivity traits and quality traits required to address farmer and consumer demands. Traits where sufficient variation or source of resistance is not available are selected for pre-breeding by using the wild species. The key priority traits for pre-breeding in GLDC crops are summarized in Table 4. Table 4: Prioritized traits (high to low) for pre-breeding in GLDC crops Crop Priority traits for pre-breeding Chickpea Resistance to Helicoverpa and dry root rot Common bean Protein digestibility and heat tolerance Cowpea Resistance to flower thrips, pod sucking bugs and striga Groundnut Resistance to late leaf spot, Spodoptera, and leaf miner Pigeonpea Resistance to phytophthora blight, Helicoverpa and Maruca Barley Drought tolerance, foliar blights resistance, micronutrients content Pearl millet Striga and Blast resistance Sorghum Shootfly and stem borer resistance The key activities in this CoA will include: Evaluation and characterization of germplasm or wild introgressions in the background of elite cultivated lines, and identification of germplasm with superior and/or novel traits. Use of hybridization schemes to transfer desired traits from unadapted germplasm into the breeding materials, such as the reconstitution of the Arachis hypogea genome from its putative wild ancestors, and use of existing synthetic amphidiploids to develop backcross populations in the background of elite cultivars for Africa and Asia. Development of new sources of cytoplasmic male sterility in crops like pearl millet, sorghum and pigeonpea. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 194

195 Development, refining and use of techniques to overcome cross-ability barriers in wide crosses, such as bridge crosses, embryo and ovule cultures. Development of intermediate breeding materials with a broad genetic base and desired traits and making these available to breeders of CGIAR centres and NARS globally for the development of farmerand market-preferred varieties/hybrids (linked to FP4). Capacity development of NARS partners in the exploitation of un-adapted germplasm in breeding programs. The outputs from this CoA will include novel and diverse germplasm, techniques to utilize wild species, intermediate breeding materials with a broad genetic base and desired traits, and enhanced human capacity in exploiting genetic resources. CoA 5.2 Trait discovery Under this CoA, discovery will focus on traits prioritized based on the large volume of information from surveys and focus group discussions in the Phase I programs, DC and GL, and on newer priorities identified through studies in FP1, and feedback from FP2. CoA5.2 will focus on understanding the genetic, physiological and biochemical mechanisms of traits; identification of molecular markers and candidate genes associated with these traits; and development of novel breeding approaches for enhancing yield potential of GLDC crops. Breeders from across partner centers have consolidated their expert opinion and published reports by crop/country or the major productivity traits and quality traits required to address farmer and consumer demands. Some of the research areas (e.g., exploitation of the germplasm of cultivated species for pod borers resistance, herbicide tolerance, resistance to aflatoxin contamination, low P tolerance in legumes; cold tolerance in sorghum; salinity tolerance, smut and ergot resistance in pearl millet; lodging resistance in barley) have been deprioritized or discontinued from phase I of CRP-DC and CRP-GL because of limited genetic variability available and/or due to changed priorities. The focus will shift on other traits (such as Nutrient use efficiency for ESA, WCA) or options (e. g., transgenic, wild species) for these traits. In initial phase of CRP the research will be continued on no regret or key important traits (Table FP5.5). In the meantime a systematic trait prioritization exercise will be under taken by FP1 (details in FP1 Box1) which will enable FP5 to focus on more traits based on future market demand or pull. The summary of prioritized traits (with 'no regret traits') on top of yield enhancement as common traits for crops/regions is presented in table FP5.5. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 195

196 Table FP5.5: Prioritized Traits (high to low) for GLDC crops Crop Global Regional Chickpea Common bean Cowpea Drought and heat tolerance*, Helicoverpa resistance (transgenics)*, protein and micronutrient (Fe and Zn) content Drought & heat tolerance*, grain nutrition value, Low flatulence; fast cooking and industrial processing Drought tolerance*, aphid and Rhizoctonia resistance Ascochyta blight resistance* (ESA, CWANA), dry root rot resistance (SA), herbicide tolerance* (SA) salinity (ESA), NUE* Striga* (WCA); Alectra resistance (ESA) Groundnut Drought tolerance*, stem rot resistance, oil content, kernel micronutrient (Fe and Zn) content, Aflatoxin resistance* Resistance to rosette (WCA, ESA), Early leaf spot (ELS) resistance, fresh seed dormancy (SA) Pigeonpea Drought tolerance*, Helicoverpa resistance (transgenics)*, protein and micronutrient (Fe and Zn) content, high milling recovery Resistance to sterility mosaic disease* (SA) Barley Drought & cold tolerance*, aphid resistance, beta glucan and amylases activity, micronutrient (Fe and Zn) content Powdery mildew*, Scald, Hessian fly tolerance (EA, NA), Dual purpose barley (EA, NA), Salinity tolerance (SA) Pearl millet Sorghum Drought tolerance*, downy mildew resistance, Rancidity (flour shelf-life)*, nutritional quality (Fe, Zn) Drought tolerance* and nutritional quality (Fe, Zn) Blast resistance (SA), striga resistance* (WCA) Striga resistance* (WCA) Color key for traits: Abiotic stress, biotic stress, grain nutrition value and consumer preferred for market pull. * 'noregret' traits Agronomic traits: At a plant level, agronomic traits include grain yield, nutrient-use efficiency, nitrogen fixation, phenology, but at a crop and system level, traits such as plant architecture (for intercropping), residue quantity and quality (for livestock; contribution to soil cover and organic matter) and ability to establish in harsh environments (creating a good plant stand) are equally important. Yield enhancement will remain an important trait of focus as long as the untapped genetic potential of these crops offer opportunities, especially for yield CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 196

197 gains in low input situations. Research will also focus on early maturity, and short plant stature that allow possibilities for machine harvesting. Nitrogen fixation traits will be important for legumes while nutrient-use efficiency will be important for all GLDC crops. Quantification of the effects of abiotic stress on N fixation in common bean was carried out in Phase 1, and genotypes with improved symbiotic nitrogen fixation (SNF) under stress were identified. Further evaluation is proposed on the potential of legume germplasm for the capacity to fix N symbiotically, especially under conditions of water limitation or low soil P availability. Abiotic stress tolerance: The key abiotic stresses that adversely affect production of GLDC crops include drought and heat. This research will be closely linked to the use of crop simulation analysis (housed in FP4 CoA4.1) to guide the search of genetic alterations potentially contributing to increase crop performance under water limitation, and also potential trade-offs with some of these traits. The physiological mechanisms of drought tolerance in relation to water economy are also addressable with high-throughput phenotyping and wellcharacterized mapping populations (Vadez et al., 2013a; 2013b; 2014; Kholova et al., 2015). Testing, identifying and using molecular markers for drought and/or heat tolerance will be explored for six selected crops, namely, barley, chickpea, common bean, cowpea, pearl millet and sorghum: 1. Systematic collection of orthologous sequence information of candidate genes, reported to have a functional effect on tolerance or resistance to drought and heat in other plants 2. Evaluate genetic associations between traits potentially contributing to water limitations in specific regions (from FP4 CoA 4.1) and heat using genotyping by sequencing (GBS) or single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) information and phenotypic data 3. Identify markers for the traits and deploy them for high-throughput use in the breeding programs using a range of strategies including gene pyramiding Disease resistance: Disease research in GLDC is prioritized based on existing and new bilateral projects mapped in GLDC target countries, which in turn are driven by the severity of yield losses, extent of disease prevalence, resistance sources available and regional demands. This CoA supports better understanding of host plant resistance and diversity in resistance sources and the pathogens. Identification of the diverse sources of resistance to diseases will be organized through some scientific sampling procedures like Focused Identification of Germplasm Strategy (FIGS). Supported by bilateral funding, efforts will be made to enhance the understanding of the genetics of disease resistance and identify molecular markers/candidate genes associated with disease resistance. Resistance to insect-pests, weeds and herbicides: Insect pests of the target cereal crops include the aphids, shoot fly, stem-borer and midges. The pod-borers (Helicoverpa armigera and Maruca vitrata), leaf miners and aphids are the major insect-pests of legumes. Only low levels of resistance to pod borers exist in cultivated chickpea, cowpea and pigeonpea, so screening of and introgression from wild relatives will be undertaken and complemented by transgenic approaches. Bio-pesticides are being used in some cases, e. g., against pod borer in cowpea (Box FP5.2). Similar situation exists for barley with respect to aphid (Russian wheat aphid, Corn leaf CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 197

198 aphid etc.), where the resistance level is low and there are significant yield losses by aphid infestation with additional loss through viral diseases transmitted by these aphids like BYDV. COMBINING BIO-PESTICIDES FOR COWPEA PEST MANAGEMENT The bio-pesticide, neem oil, is usually sprayed as a bio-pesticide either as pure oil or mixed with lighter oils to facilitate its application by spin-disk sprayers. This method is not suited for crops with lower growth habit such as cowpea, because of the high losses due to drift, neither can neem oil alone keep under control the various insect pests attacking cowpea. Over the last few years, under the framework of Grain Legumes, IITA and partners have developed the application of neem oil in an emulsifiable form which can be mixed with other compatible biopesticides. The mixture of emulsifiable neem oil and the podborer specific Maruca vitrata Multiple Nucleopolyhedrovirus (MaviMNPV) from the World Vegetable Center (AVRDC) was first tested in the lab, with encouraging results, and subsequently in the field. The combined effect of the neem oil on aphids and thrips, and that of the virus on the pod borer, sometimes exceeded the control achieved by a standard chemical pesticide. Large field trials by national partners in Burkina Faso and Niger have confirmed these results. Box FP5.2 Maruca flower and pod damage in cowpea Yield losses from parasitic (Striga, Orobanche) and non-parasitic weeds are severe in both legumes and cereals. Breeding for resistance to Striga has been successful for sorghum and cowpea. For countries and regions where high-input agriculture is practiced, we will continue to explore the combination of herbicides and herbicidetolerant crop varieties through mutation breeding, as well as transgenic technologies for both insect and herbicide tolerance, using the efficient transformation-protocols available for some of our target crops amongst partners, both CGIAR and non-cgiar, as guided by the ISPC s strategy study on biotechnology (ISPC 2014). Quality traits: The GLDC crops are highly valued for their nutrient-dense nature, and FP5 endeavors to ensure that the nutritional quality of the target crops are maintained or enhanced during the development and deployment of other traits. The key quality traits include protein content in legumes and micronutrient contents (iron, zinc, calcium) in most of the crops. Existing collaborations with HarvestPlus in A4NH for micronutrients on pearl millet and sorghum, and the USAID Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Collaborative Research on Peanut Productivity and Mycotoxin Control and the University of Georgia for research on aflatoxin in groundnut will continue, provided they continue to attract bilateral funding. Fodder quality for all of the target crops will be considered in collaboration with CRP-Livestock, through the concept of Full-purpose crops, supported through joint resource mobilization. While exploration for molecular markers for these quality traits is already in progress, they will be investigated functionally using targeted analysis of specific pathways and regulatory genes. Collaboration with ILRI, and CRP-Livestock, will provide access to grain and fodder-quality screening facilities, such as Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS) and the X-Ray Fluorescence analyzer. The possibility of CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 198

199 developing and using field-based NIRS for high-throughput fodder-quality analysis can be explored and extend its application to grain quality. In addition, certain consumer preferred and market pull traits such as longer shelf-life of pearl millet flour (affected by rancidity), high oil and aflatoxin groundnut, beta glucan in barley etc. will also be addressed through various discovery approaches (Table FP5.5). CoA 5.3 Enabling technologies Development of modern tools and technologies platforms is the main objective of this CoA. We propose to institutionalize a Community of Practice (CoP) for these enabling technologies and platforms. The CoP will provide an effective mechanism for information- and experience-sharing, mutual learning and problem solving. The CoP members will map existing knowledge, identify gaps for proactive interventions, promote innovations by creating new knowledge, and develop new capabilities. This CoP will connect with other CoPs available with similar interests and also with individual experts who can be asset to the CoP. Thus, CoP will facilitate in development and efficient use of enabling technologies and platforms for trait discovery and improvement of GLDC crops. The current status and targets for some of major examples in each category of tools/technologies are summarized in Table 6. Table 6. Current status and targets for enabling technologies for GLDC crops Group of Tools & Technologies Examples of Enabling Tools and Technologies Current status Targets 2022 High throughput SNP markers genotyping Not available in most of GLDC crops HTP markers platform in 2 cereals and 2 legume Structural genomics Genomic selection (GS) Not available in most of GLDC crops GS implemented at least in 1 cereal and 1 legume Markers assisted forward breeding (FW) Not available in most of GLDC crops FW a routine in at least 3 cereal & 3 legumes Functional genomics TILLING or other systematic mutant populations Gain or loss of function transgenic platforms Systematic mutant populations not available in GLDC crops Low throughput transgenic platform available in some GLDC crops like sorghum, TILLING population in at least 1 cereal and 1 legume Tools for high throughput functional validation of candidate genes/traits will be established in at least CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 199

200 pigeonpea, chickpea etc. four GLDC crops or model plants. Genome editing platform Not available in available in most of GLDC crops Genome editing platform will be established for 2 GLDC crops. Biochemical platform Nutritional quality research lab Available in SA at ICRISAT-HQ in India Available at one center in ESA and one center in WCA Precision phenotyping in controlled environments Leasyscan, precision screening for abiotic stress (e. g., Leasyscan for WUE) and biotic stresses (glass house screens for diseases and pests) A lysimeter facility and a LeasyScan Phenotyping Platform available at ICRISAT-HQ in India for estimating water consumption and assessing canopy traits affecting water use These platforms will be standardized for use in at least five GLDC crops. Such platforms will be developed/upgraded for screening against other target key traits in GLDC crops such as diseases. Rapid achievement of homozygosity Doubled haploid (DH) technology increase # of generations/year or shuttle breeding DH not available in most GLDC crops Available In some GLDC crops (e. g., 3 generations of chickpea) DH technology will be available in at least 2 GLDC crops. Available in at least in 2 cereals and 2 legumes The following technologies and platforms, which are required for achieving the proposed outputs of FPs 5 and 4, will be strengthened or established under this CoA. This CoA will work in close association with the Excellence in Breeding and Big Data platforms. Structural-genomic technologies and platforms: These include genome sequencing and high-throughput marker platforms for facilitating application of genomic tools in FP5 and FP4. There are already some efforts in this direction, such as the BMGF supported GOBII project on sorghum and chickpea at ICRISAT. Identification, validation and deployment of a small set of diagnostic markers for prioritized traits in GLDC crops will also be deployed in forward breeding. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 200

201 Functional-genomic technologies and platforms: These platforms will enable development or confirmation of functional gene-to-phenotype association information through medium-throughput model systems or target crop transformation, and/or through reverse or forward breeding with mutant or activation-tagged populations. The transformation platforms will be based on gain of function or loss of function approaches including genome editing through CRISPR/Cas922 (Sander and Joung, 2014) to generate events for trait screening and functional genomics. The induced mutation breeding approach will include development and use of systematic mutant population(s) such as TILLING (McCallum et al., 2000; Cooper et al., 2008; Till et al., 2004) and other mutant populations. Discussions are in progress with Dr Brad Till of IAEA in Vienna for development of at least one TILLING population in one legume and one cereal crop. Biochemical platform for nutritional quality analysis: Two nutritional research labs, one in IITA and one in ICRISAT Zimbabwe will be utilized. These allow the study and screening of grain and stover for nutritional quality for human food, and for feed and fodder quality, in the two main regions of the continent, WCA and ESA. The food science and nutrition expertise available at IITA will be leveraged to develop and calibrate quality analyses that can be scaled for throughput and efficiency. The quality lab in barley at ICARDA, Morocco, is available for quality analysis for nutritional value and will cover the needs of ESA and South Asia in addition to Morocco. These facilities can be strengthened in the case of an uplift budget. High-throughput phenotyping platforms: Precision phenotyping for trait discovery and characterization is housed in FP4 CoA4.2, is structured in different connected layers (trait-based, field-based at different level of data-intensity ) and provides trait-based phenotyping activities to FP5. These facilities enable high-throughput screening of germplasm and other breeding materials in the lab, field or controlled environment for desired traits. During the initial part of Phase II, we will leverage the capacities of the existing screening facilities for abiotic stresses, primarily drought, and the existing biotic-stress screening facilities (insects and foliar diseases). High-throughput phenotyping platforms is another important strengthening area under the uplift budget scenario. Technologies for rapid achievement of homozygosity: Rapid achievement of homozygosity is one of the most effective approaches for an efficient breeding program through accelerating the breeding cycle by taking lines to fixation quickly. The technologies to be developed or refined for rapid achievement of homozygosity will include (1) doubled haploid (DH) (Maluszynski et. al., 2003) and (2) rapid generation turnover (RGT). DH technology (principle shown in Figure FP5.4) is already being utilized for several important crops but is currently not available for the target crops of GLDC except in barley, where it will be scaled in partnership with Institute of Genech, France, and others. This is the next area under the uplift budget scenario for FP5. In addition to another culture, kinetochore protein (CENH3) modifications will be explored for production of haploids (Ravi and Chan 2010). Recent advances in CENH3 research in combination with genome editing technologies could allow the generation of haploid inducer lines with single point mutations (Karimi-Ashtiyania CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 201

202 et al., 2015). RGT techniques (in vitro culture, photoperiod alterations, SSD, off-season planting/shuttle breeding, etc.) will be standardized for prioritized GLDC crops for taking three or more generations per year. Parent (Donor desired trait) Figure FP5.4: Haploid Production Accelerate Conventional Breeding F 2 F 3 F 4 F 5 F 6 F 7 F 8 X (99.2% homo) F 1 Parent (Elite) F 2 (Haploid) Doubled Haploid (100% homo) Breeding Informatics Tools and Databases: These activities funded by currently on-going bilateral grants are aimed at taking breeding informatics to the next level by making available modern bioinformatics tools and databases to breeders and genomics scientists. With the advent of the Breeding Management System (BMS), CGIAR plant breeders are able to handle nursery and research trials centrally. A recently multi-institute (Cornell, ICRISAT, IRRI, CMMYT) project funded by BMGF, GOBII, will develop a high performance Genotypic Data Management System which will be helpful to breeders and genomics experts in handling high-throughput molecular marker data and also in performing basic and advanced bioinformatics analysis such as Linkage Disequilibrium (LD), Genomic Selection (GS), Population Stratification (PCA, MDS etc.). These informatics tools will be made available to physiologists, breeders, genomics and other scientists through a high-performance computing infrastructure. In order to track the progress of various activities a list of intermediate indicators are summarized in Table 7 for categories of traits addressed by this FP. Table 7: Intermediate indicators of success for various groups of traits Group of Traits Abiotic stress tolerance Biotic stresses tolerance Intermediate indicators of success Drought QTLs fine mapped to identify gene responsible, HTP markers available and deployed in forward breeding, Transgenic events for insect resistance available in chickpea and pigeonpea. Validated HTP markers available for key abiotic stress tolerance traits in all crops. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 202

203 Improved grain nutritional quality Post-harvest losses/consumer-preferred traits HTP markers developed for protein content in chickpea and pigeonpea, oil content in groundnut and Fe and Zn content in at least four GLDC crops. Sources of resistance identified for rancidity in pear millet and aflatoxin contamination in groundnut. FP5.7 Partnerships Connections with other AFS CRPs and global platforms: A close working connection will be established with AFS CRPs (maize, rice wheat) and global platforms (Genebanks, Excellence in Breeding) to expedite the work in GLDC crops. Specific connections, as with A4NH for bio-fortification, will also be ensured. Special emphasis will be given to strong linkages with other AFS CRPs and global platforms to learn from their experiences which could be translated to the crops in GLDC. These linkages will also be extremely important to develop and deploy various activities in FP5 especially those in CoA5.3 (Enabling Technologies). The interactions of FP5 with other Flagships of GLDC are presented in Table 8 below: Table 8: FP5 linkages to other FPs Cluster of Activities 5.1: Prebreeding 5.2: Traits discovery Collaborating FP All FPs particularly FP1, FP4 All FPs, particularly FP1, FP4 FP5 role FP5-CoA5.1 will use the natural variation or wild relatives of GLDC crops for superior allele mining and introgress into prebreeding lines for prioritized traits such as drought tolerance, heat tolerance, nutritional enhancement and early maturity. FP5-CoA5.2 will work on trait discovery and development on prioritized traits in GLDC crops Collaborating FP role FP5 and FP1, FP4 will be working closely together in priority setting of traits for pre-breeding. FP5, FP4 and FP1 will work closely for trait prioritization. Outputs; Added value The results will be jointly used across FPs to guide GLDC research agenda. Trait prioritization, discovery and development will be in consultation with FP1 and FP4 on target traits with high priority. CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 203

204 5.3: Enabling technologies FP4 FP5-CoA5.3 will develop enabling technologies and platforms to expedite the trait discovery and deployment in breeding programs. FP5 and FP4 will work closely to prioritize the technologies needed for each crop to deploy the targeted traits in breeding programs for efficient variety and hybrid development. Identify the enabling technologies needed and to be developed to increase the breeding efficiency in GLDC crops. Non-CGIAR Partners: ARI-Egypt, ARI-Sudan, BARI, CIRAD, Cambridge University, Cornell University, DARI (Iran), EIAR, EMBRAPA, FAO, GDAR Turkey, GRDC Australia, IAEA, IAR (Nigeria), ICAR (India), IER, INRAN, ISRA/CERAAS, INRA (Morocco), IIAM (Mozambique), KALRO (Kenya), DRD (Tanzania), NIAB UK, NARO (Uganda), NARC-Nepal, NARS in various regions, NIPGR, India; various SAUs (India); SMIL, SLU Cambridge, UC Davis, UGA (University of Georgia), UC Riverside, University of Saskatoon, University of Queensland, USDA, and WSU-Pullman and GCDT. Private Partners: Various private companies are partner in HPRC (Hybrid Parents Research Consortium), a successful partnership, in pearl millet, sorghum, and pigeon pea in India. In FP5 we will work closely to develop partnerships with private companies such as DuPont Pioneer, especially to develop and deploy enabling technologies such as high-throughput markers, doubled haploids, genome editing etc. Strategy to select partners: These are of two types: Upstream partners who can deliver knowledge and expertise for the deployment of genetic resources in breeding (e.g. UC Davis or CIRAD) and those that can assist in the development and delivery of outputs to useful outcomes (NARS such as BARI, INRA or EIAR). Strategic partners with mutual interests will also be selected to support ongoing research and future fund raising/resource mobilization. FP5.8 Climate Change The agro-ecologies of GLDC are more prone to the negative impacts of climate change and variability. GLDC crops in general have relatively high tolerance to harsh weather conditions but there will still be dramatic effects both directly and indirectly such as rise in temperature, drought, and changes in insect pests etc. Climate change in combination with more frequent and unpredictable extreme weather events will result in shocks in agricultural production impacting directly on food prices and hence poverty, food and nutrition security, especially for small holder farmers in GLDC agro-ecologies. In addition, GLDC economies have some of the fastest growing populations ranging from ~1-3% which will require more food. The focus of FP5 will be on traits that are directly or indirectly related to climate change, especially tolerance to periodic drought, pest and disease resistance, and tolerance to higher temperatures. Most GLDC crops are already relatively tolerant to extreme weather conditions compared to maize, rice and wheat, but significant genetic diversity for stress tolerance remains yet to be tapped. Work is already in progress in some of GLDC crops in direction (e. g., Box CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 204

205 FP5.3). FP5 along with other FPs in GLDC CRP and other AFS CRPs will also facilitate diversified production systems that will enhance the resilience of vulnerable producers to climate and price shocks, and reduce seasonal food and income fluctuations. Techniques for identifying specific types of knowledge such as traits that will be needed in climate resilient varieties by users of the germplasm, will also be addressed. DISCOVERY OF BEANS THAT CAN BEAT THE HEAT Climate modelling suggests that by 2050, global warming could shrink the area suitable for growing beans by up to 50 percent. High temperatures on common bean inhibit the pollen fertility. The Grain Legumes researchers at CIAT evaluated more than 1000 materials under high temperatures and identified about 30 experimental breeding lines with superior production at high temperatures. Most of these lines were from interspecific crosses of common bean (P. vulgaris) with a sister species, the tepary bean (P. acutifolius), a little-known crop from the deserts of Mexico and the southwest USA. Some of these breeding lines maintain pollen viability with up to 5 o C higher night temperatures than those normally considered to be limiting (18 o C at night). These heat-tolerant breeding lines are projected to suffer little (< 5%) or no suitability loss by the same period. Farmers could potentially make up for that by using these beans to expand their production of the crop in countries like Nicaragua and Malawi, where beans are essential to survival. Box FP5.3 FP5.9 Gender A gender lens is critical at the initiation of a trait development/breeding pipeline, to ensure that traits that are of interest to women, or that represent opportunities for youth, are included from the start. The research on these traits will be supported by GLDC CRP and/or bilateral funding. Building on achievements under Phase I, FP5 will continue to address issues affecting women and youth in DS in the following ways: Participatory research: Continuously receive feedback from FP1 on traits that are important to women and children and prioritize these traits in specific research activities. Capacity building: Enhance equal participation of women and youth during trait discovery through training of women and youth within on-going pre-breeding activities. Product utilization: FP5 will continue to focus on discovery of traits that enhance the utilization of research products by women in DS including the reduction of rancidity in pearl millet flour and enhancing the quality of processed flour in cowpea. Nutrition quality: In collaboration with FP5, target the discovery of traits that will result in improved nutritional value of all focus crops, and continue to pyramid traits that enhance protein content (legumes), and high Fe and Zn in pearl millet. Left: Projected impact of climate change for control (no adaptation) simulations. Right: projected impact of climate change for adapted common beans. Read the full report at /61841/DEVELOPING_BEANS.pdf CRP Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals 205