Foreword We are pleased to present our revised proposal for CGIAR Consortium Research Program – CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES. The revision has considered the valuable suggestions from the Consortium Board, and other reviewers. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES directly supports the four CGIAR System Level Outcomes and is highly complementary to other CRP targets. GRAIN LEGUMES complement the nutritional value of cereals and enable the sustainable intensification of farming systems through nitrogen fixation, extending land cover and nutrient utilization by fitting into a wide range of intercropping configurations. Grain legume cultivation directly benefits women because they are often the primary cultivators of these crops (especially in sub-Saharan Africa) as well as being employed in small-scale processing, preparation and marketing of foods derived from them. The partners in this global alliance for grain legumes include four CGIAR Centers (ICRISAT-lead, CIAT, ICARDA, and IITA), and six others who have complementary grain legume research-for-development (R4D) efforts (GCP, EMBRAPA, EIAR, ICAR, GDAR, and USA Dry Grain Pulses CRSP). Bringing these world-leading grain legume programs together enables us to learn much more effectively from each other than in the past, increasing our impact. We will share expertise, facilities and services that improve all partners’ capacities, efficiency and effectiveness. We will communicate more clearly and effectively with our stakeholders and with those whom we need to influence in order to achieve change on the ground. This proposal describes how we will deliver on that promise. William D Dar, Director General, ICRISAT Ruben G Echeverria, Director General, CIAT Mahmoud Solh, Director General, ICARDA Hartmann, Director General, IITA CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Foreword i Acknowledgments The ten core partner institutions of CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES wish to offer their sincere thanks to the more than one hundred scientists and external partners who have put large amounts of time and energy into this proposal. They crossed institutional boundaries to work as a united team. They gathered data and information, and brainstormed ideas in three global meetings and in many focused sub-meetings and workshops over the course of 2010 and 2011 in order to draft, revise and refine this proposal. The effort has been well worth it, clarifying our ideas and sparking new ones that will improve our focus and direction in the coming years. Apart from the scientists, many other staff in all the institutes (administration, finance, human resources and others) worked overtime to provide additional information and data, and to meet deadlines. Helpful suggestions have come from the members of ICRISAT’s Governing Board and the CGIAR Consortium Board as well as external experts. We thank all for making this a better proposal. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Acknowledgment ii Table of Contents FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................. I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................... II TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................... III ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................... IV 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 1 2. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................ 5 3. JUSTIFICATION ....................................................................................................................... 12 4. IMPACT PATHWAY .................................................................................................................. 27 5. GRAIN LEGUMES STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES ................................................................................. 32 5.1 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1: CONSERVING AND CHARACTERIZING GENETIC RESOURCES AND DEVELOPING NOVEL BREEDING METHODS/TOOLS FOR IMPROVING EFFICIENCY OF CROP IMPROVEMENT ............................................ 36 5.2 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 2: ACCELERATING THE DEVELOPMENT OF MORE PRODUCTIVE AND NUTRITIOUS CULTIVARS FOR RESILIENT CROPPING SYSTEMS OF SMALLHOLDER FARMERS ...................................................... 49 5.3 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 3: IDENTIFYING AND PROMOTING CROP AND PEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR SUSTAINABLE LEGUME PRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 64 5.4 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 4: DEVELOP AND FACILITATE EFFICIENT LEGUME SEED PRODUCTION AND DELIVERY SYSTEMS FOR SMALLHOLDER FARMERS ...................................................................................................... 75 5.5 STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 5: ENHANCE GRAIN LEGUMES VALUE CHAIN BENEFITS CAPTURED BY THE POOR, ESPECIALLY WOMEN .............................................................................................................................. 87 5.6. STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 6: PARTNERSHIPS, CAPACITIES, AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING TO ENHANCE GRAIN LEGUME R4D IMPACTS.......................................................................................................................... 98   6. PARTNERSHIPS AND NETWORKS .............................................................................................. 108 7. GENDER RESEARCH STRATEGY ................................................................................................. 118 8. INNOVATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 122 9. INTERACTIONS OF CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES WITH OTHER CRPS ................................................. 124 10. MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................. 130 11. TIME FRAME ..................................................................................................................... 135 12. MITIGATING RISKS .............................................................................................................. 136 13. MONITORING AND EVALUATION SYSTEM ................................................................................. 137 14. BUDGET ........................................................................................................................... 143 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 149 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES INITIAL PARTNERS: CAPACITIES AND PRIORITIES ....................................163 APPENDIX 2. BRIEF PROFILES OF CRP 3.5 TARGET CROPS.................................................................................169 APPENDIX 3. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES FOCUS REGIONS: BRIEF PROFILES ......................................................172 APPENDIX 4. GRAIN LEGUME DISTRIBUTION BY FARMING SYSTEMS AND REGION ....................................................179 APPENDIX 5. THE EX-ANTE ECONOMIC, NUTRITIONAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF LEGUME R4D ....................184 APPENDIX 6. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE AND YIELD LOSSES (%) DUE TO BIOTIC/ABIOTIC CONSTRAINTS IN GRAIN LEGUMES IN DIFFERENT REGIONS ........................................................................................................... 189 APPENDIX 7. GRAIN LEGUME REGIONAL R4D NETWORKS: BRIEF PROFILES ..........................................................192 APPENDIX 8. GLOBAL PARTNERS IN CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES ......................................................................195 APPENDIX 9. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES: CURRENT BILATERAL FUNDED R4D PROJECTS ......................................201  CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Table of Contents iii Acronyms & Abbreviations AGLN AICRP AID AIP AMDAAD ARI ASARECA ASR AVRDC BMGF BNF CAADP CBO CCRN CGIAR CIAT CIARD CLAN CMS COP CORAF CRSP CRPs CSO CWANA DARE EARS FOs ECABREN EIAR ELS EMBRAPA ESA FAO FIGS FPVS GBS GCP GCDT GDAR GIS GPG GWS HPRC IARC ICAR Asian Grain Legumes Network All India Coordinated Research Programs Analysis tracking ID Agri-business Innovation Platform Authority of Merowi Dam Area for Agricultural Development Advanced Research Institute Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa Asian soybean rust AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Biological Nitrogen Fixation The Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme Community-based Organizations Cooperative Cereals Research Network Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical Coherence of Information for Agriculture Research and Development Cereals and Legumes Asia Network Cytoplasmic-Nuclear Male Sterility System Communities of Practice Counseil Ouest et Centre Africain Pour la Recherche et le Developpement Agricoles Collaborative Research Support Programs CGIAR Research Programs Civil Society Organizations Central and West Asia and North Africa Department of Agricultural Research and Education (India) Ethiopian Agricultural Research System Farmer Organizations Eastern and Central Africa Bean Research Network Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research Early leaf spots The Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation Eastern and Southern Africa Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Focused Identification of Germplasm Strategy Farmer-participatory varietal selection Genotyping-by-sequencing Generation Challenge Program Global Crop Diversity Trust General Directorate of Agricultural Research Geographical Information Systems Global Public Goods Genome wide selection Hybrid Parents Research Consortium International Agricultural Research Centers Indian Council of Agricultural Research CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Acronyms & Abbreviations iv ICARDA ICIPE ICM ICT IDM IITA IP IPDN IPG IPM IPPPT IT ITC ITPGRFA KM KS LAC LIFDC LLS LPB M&E MABC MAP MARA MARKETS MARS MAS MaviMNPV NARES NARS NCBI NCDs NEPAD NFSM NGICA NGO NGS OILFED PABRA PAC PCCMCA PEDUNE PIA PPB PRGA PROFRIJOL PRONAF PRONAF-GIL International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology Integrated Crop Management Information and Communication Technology Integrated Disease Management International Institute of Tropical Agriculture Intellectual Property International Plant Diagnostic Network International Public Goods Integrated Pest Management Improved Pulse Production and Protection Technologies Information Technology Indian Tobacco Company International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Knowledge Management Knowledge Sharing Latin America and the Caribbean Low Income Food Deficit Countries Late leaf spot disease Legume pod borer Monitoring and Evaluation Marker-Assisted Backcrossing Modified atmosphere packaging Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Maximizing Agricultural Revenue and Key Enterprises in Targeted Sites Marker assisted recurrent selection Marker assisted selection Maruca vitrata nucleopolyhedrovirus National Agricultural Research and Extension Systems National Agricultural Research Systems National Centre for Biotechnology Information Non-communicable Diseases New Partnership for Africa’s Development National Food Security Mission (India) Network for the Genetic Improvement of Cowpea for Africa Non-government Organizations Next Generation Sequencing Oilseed Federation (India) Pan-African Bean Research Alliance Program Advisory Committee Programa Cooperativo Centroamericano para el Mejoramiento de Cultivos y Animales Protection ecologiquement durable du niebe Program Implementation Agreement Participatory Plant Breeding Participatory Research and Gender Analysis The Regional Collaborative Bean Program for Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean Projet Niebe pour I’Afrique Participatory Development, Diffusion and Adoption of Cowpea Technologies for Poverty Reduction and Sustainable livelihoods in West Africa CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Acronyms & Abbreviations v PRS PTTC PVS R&D R4D REMALA RENACO RFOs RIL RMT RRFL SaaS SABRN SADC-FANR SC SHGs SIMLESA SLOs SMTA SRF SROs SSA SSEA TILLING TL I TL II TUBITAK USA USDA VBSE WANA WASA WCA WECABREN Poverty Reduction Strategy Platform for Translational Research on Transgenic Crops Participatory Varietal Selection Research and Development Research for Development Recherche et Developmmement des Legumineuse Alimentaires Reseau de Recherche sur le Niebe pour I’Afrique de I’Ouest et du Centre Raffinose family oligosaccharides Recombinant inbred lines Research Management Team Rainfed Rice Fallow Land Software application as Services Southern Africa Bean Research Network South African Development Community – Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Steering Committee Self Help Groups Sustainable Intensification of Maize-Legume Cropping Systems for Food Security in Eastern and Southern Africa System Level Outcomes Standard Material Transfer Agreement Strategy and Results Framework Sub-regional organizations Sub-Saharan Africa South and Southeast Asia Targeting Induced Local Lesion in Genomes Tropical Legumes I (funded by Bill &Melinda Gates Foundation) Tropical Legumes II (funded by Bill &Melinda Gates Foundation) Turkish Scientific and Technological Council United States of America United States Department of Agriculture Village-Based Seed Enterprises West Asia & North Africa West Africa Seed Alliance West and Central Africa West and Central Africa Bean Network CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Acronyms & Abbreviations vi 1. Executive Summary The CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES partnership CGIAR Research Program 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES unites ten initial Principal Partners: four CGIAR centers (ICRISAT-lead center, CIAT, ICARDA and IITA), a CGIAR Challenge Program (Generation), four major national agricultural research systems (EIAR-Ethiopia, EMBRAPA-Brazil, GDAR-Turkey and ICAR-India) and the USA Dry Grain Pulses CRSP. All are leaders in complementary grain legume topics and regions. The development challenge addressed by CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will be to apply crop improvement and related high-priority value-chain interventions to maximize the benefits that grain legumes offer to smallholder farmers, especially women, by increasing their incomes, securing their food supplies, improving their nutrition and sustainably intensifying their farming systems. In short: leveraging legumes to benefit the poor. These partners will link with regional grain legume networks and value chain partners to translate research-for-development (R4D) innovations into locally-attuned impacts that benefit poor smallholders and consumers. By working together these partners will increase their collective effectiveness by:    Presenting an integrated, streamlined interface to partners in each focus region rather than the current multiple interfaces; Improving knowledge acquisition and sharing through comparison/contrast learning across target legume crops and systems in their distinctive regional settings; and Sharing R4D facilities and expertise to increase operational efficiency and effectiveness. Justification Grain legumes contribute in major ways towards all four of the CGIAR’s System Level Outcomes (SLOs): reducing poverty, improving food security, improving nutrition and health, and sustaining the natural resource base. They significantly increase income in farming systems by sustainably intensifying them as intercrops and rotation crops and through value-added post-harvest activities. Poor farmers grow them for both food and for cash, optimizing the balance between the two as needs and conditions warrant, providing crucial livelihood resilience. Grain legumes restore soil fertility through biological nitrogen fixation, by breaking pest, disease and weed cycles and by extending protective land cover. They make vital contributions to the human diet due to amino acid profiles that complement those of cereals, and through their provision of micronutrients and healthy oils. Grain legumes will continue to be most important to the poorest consumers who cannot afford to meet their protein needs from meat and dairy products. However grain legumes face serious challenges. They have received less policy support than other commodities, creating competitive pressures that have caused their cultivation to shift to less productive environments. This has restrained productivity increases and investments in enabling institutions, R4D and other drivers of progress. Such policy support and investments could have increased grain legumes’ productivity more rapidly, making them more affordable for the poor and expanding their environmental benefits. Concerned about production shortfalls, major grain legume producing countries such as Brazil, Ethiopia, India and Turkey are beginning to take steps to amend this situation. Seed systems are a particular bottleneck. The seed industry had been reluctant to invest heavily in grain legumes due to the lower seed volumes of a larger number of crops, limited policy support, CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Executive Summary 1 self-pollinated reproductive system, inadequate cultivar release mechanisms, and other constraints. Institutional innovations will be vigorously explored to overcome these obstacles. Running against these headwinds, CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES core partners have nonetheless achieved remarkable impacts in all regions. They have helped countries to increase grain legume yields, brought destructive diseases under control, made headway against the complex problems of drought, and connected grain legumes to export markets for higher incomes. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES partners foresee an acceleration of progress as they unite to improve their efficiency and effectiveness. CR 3.5 Grain Legumes Strategic Objectives The following six Strategic Objectives (SOs) illustrate CRP 3.5’s focus on crop improvement within a value chain framework, aimed at optimizing the benefits that can be obtained from the production system while overcoming obstacles elsewhere in the chain that may otherwise inhibit impact.       SO 1 – Genetic resources: Conserving and characterizing genetic resources and developing novel breeding methods/tools for improving efficiency of crop improvement SO 2 – Crop improvement: Accelerating the development of more productive and nutritious cultivars for resilient cropping systems of smallholder farmers SO 3 – Crop and pest management: Identifying and promoting crop and pest management practices for sustainable legume production SO 4 – Seed systems: Developing and facilitating efficient legume seed production and delivery systems for smallholder farmers SO 5 – Value chains: Enhancing grain legumes value chain benefits captured by the poor, especially women SO 6 – Partnerships: Partnerships, capacities, and knowledge sharing to enhance grain legume R4D impacts Impact pathways and monitoring and assessment, including gender issues CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will pursue the six Objectives through a unified, monitorable, impactoriented framework. Value associated with different core processes in these chains is measurable while also being a major motivator of decisions that result in development and impact. Women are especially prominent in grain legume value chains, particularly in Africa, and will receive particular attention both in research design and in impact assessment. Benefits to children, who are particularly dependent on women and especially vulnerable to malnutrition issues that grain legumes can help address, will also be carefully monitored and assessed. To achieve impact, CRP 3.5 regional teams will partner with relevant regional, national and local institutions from the public, NGO, private, and CSO sectors including women’s organizations, to effectively customize and deliver international public goods to meet local needs. Vision The CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES’ vision is to achieve R4D gains that contribute meaningfully to reducing poverty, hunger, malnutrition and environmental degradation for poor smallholders, particularly women in the developing world. A measurable indicator of success will be an increase in grain legume yields by an average of 20% on at least 20% of the planted area by 2020 in the five targeted regions (identified below), benefiting approximately 300 million people in smallholder farm households. Cumulative benefits of increased food production and nitrogen fertilizer saved are estimated to be worth US$ 3.0 billion over the decade, a six-fold return on investment, increasing CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Executive Summary 2 food supplies by 7.1 million tons and fixing an additional 402,000 tons of atmospheric nitrogen, plus additional value added at the post-harvest and pre-harvest stages of the value chains. Regional and crop foci CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will improve the major grain legume crops that are most important to the smallholder farmers in each of the five regions (listed in order of area of production by region and by crop):      South and Southeast Asia (SSEA) – Chickpea, groundnut, pigeonpea, lentil Western and Central Africa (WCA) – Cowpea, groundnut, common bean, soybean Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA) – Common bean, groundnut, soybean, faba bean, cowpea, pigeonpea, chickpea Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) – Common bean Central and Western Asia and North Africa (CWANA) – Chickpea, lentil, faba bean Innovation By bringing together major partners across crops, regions and institutions, CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will spark cross-learning that foments new and innovative ways of approaching the challenges outlined above. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES’ unified interface with partners is itself a major and strategic innovation that will increase mutual learning and improve communications. Research across the eight grain legume crops will generate innovative and important insights. These crops provide an unparalleled learning opportunity at the genetic and phenotypic levels. Cross-crop learning will improve the understanding of genetic and physiological mechanisms and control points for disease and pest resistance, drought and other stress adaptation, nutritional quality, biological nitrogen fixation, and other key traits. The sharing of facilities and testing environments will enable the partners to learn more about each crop and expand the range and impact of all these crops. The value chain perspective will provide an innovation framework for integrating social and economic analysis with traditional strengths in crop improvement. It brings additional attention to constraints that have hobbled impact in the past, such as insufficiencies in input supplies (e.g. seed and soil fertility inputs). It will also innovate gains in value capture by the poor through enlarged, higher-value and novel markets, creating particular opportunities for women who bring special strengths to post-harvest and marketing issues. Time frame CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES is projected to be launched in January 2012, with the outlined research program continuing until 2020. Milestones are presented in this proposal for 2012 to 2014. Management ICRISAT will be the Lead Center for CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES. Oversight will be provided by ICRISAT’s Governing Board and its Director General in consultation with a Steering Committee. A CRP Director will lead a Research Management Team including Strategic Objective Coordinators. The Research CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Executive Summary 3 Management Team will be responsible for the overall monitoring of research outputs. The Steering Committee and the Research Management Team will be assisted on a needs basis by an external R4D Advisory Panel. Budget Current commitments of the CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES partners amount to US$ 37.4 million in 2011. To capitalize on additional opportunities, CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will require US$ 47.3 million in 2012 and US$ 51.6 million in 2013. The total CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES budget for 2011-13 is US$ 136.3 million. The poor across the developing world relish grain legumes, consuming them in a diverse array of delicious forms:  Dhal, a split-grain porridge from chickpea, pigeonpea, lentil and other grain legumes, widely consumed by the poor in South Asia and worldwide; and sambar, a curry to accompany rice dishes in the region;  Beans, known as Maharagi in Swahili and Ibishyimbo in Kinyarwanda, are integrated into East African diets, e.g. githeri (boiled beans with maize) which is a staple dish often served in boarding schools in Kenya – students have been known to revolt if beans drop in proportion to maize;  Beans with rice or maize in Latin America and the Caribbean, with many variations such as gallo Pinto in Central America, moros y cristianos in Cuba, bandeja paisa in Colombia, and feijoada – a bean/pork stew in Brazil;  Nutritious pastes such as hommus in the Middle East and peanut (groundnut) butter consumed worldwide, notably including the life-saving famine-relief preparations based on peanut butter in Africa known as Plumpy’nut and fortified chickpea paste in Asia known as “wawa mum”;  Groundnut sauces in many variants are hallmarks of francophone West African and Thai cooking;  Hig-quality cooking oil from groundnut and soybean used globally;  Fritters such as moin-moin and akara from cowpea in Nigeria and falafel from chickpea and faba bean in the Middle East;  Roasted nuts from groundnut, chickpea, faba bean, and soybean eaten as snacks worldwide;  A range of soy products such as soy milk, yoghurt, tofu/cheese, and flour originating from Asia but spreading fast in African countries such as Nigeria (where the CGIAR played an important role);  Fresh or cooked pods in Africa and Asia with growing export markets;  Cowpea leaves consumed in stews in Eastern and Southern Africa. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Executive Summary 4 2. Statement of Objectives The overarching research-for-development challenge to be addressed by CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES is to apply crop improvement with related high-priority value-chain interventions to maximize the benefits that grain legumes offer to smallholder farmers, especially women, by increasing their incomes, securing their food supplies, improving their nutrition and sustainably intensifying their farming systems. In short: leveraging legumes to benefit the poor. By joining forces, the partners in CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will i) streamline and harmonize their interface with national and regional partners, ii) improve their knowledge-sharing, and iii) increase their operational efficiency and effectiveness by sharing facilities, expertise, locational presence and services. The convening partners are four CGIAR centers (ICRISAT-lead, CIAT, ICARDA, and IITA) together with major collaborating partners (GCP, EMBRAPA, EIAR, ICAR, GDAR, and USA Dry Grain Pulses CRSP) that are all leaders in complementary topics and regions on these crops. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES defines its six Strategic Objectives (SOs) as:       SO 1 – Genetic resources: Conserving and characterizing genetic resources and developing novel breeding methods/tools for improving efficiency of crop improvement SO 2 – Crop improvement: Accelerating the development of more productive and nutritious cultivars for resilient cropping systems of smallholder farmers SO 3 – Crop and pest management: Identifying and promoting crop and pest management practices for sustainable legume production SO 4 – Seed systems: Developing and facilitating efficient legume seed production and delivery systems for smallholder farmers SO 5 – Value chains: Enhancing grain legumes value chain benefits captured by the poor, especially women SO 6 – Partnerships: Partnerships, capacities, and knowledge sharing to enhance grain legume R4D impacts These six SOs directly contribute to the achievement of the four CGIAR System Level Objectives (alleviate hunger, poverty, malnutrition, and environmental degradation) by raising the stable and remunerative productivity of eight important staple grain legume food and oil crops of the poor in the focus CGIAR regions: groundnut, soybean, chickpea, cowpea, common bean, pigeonpea, lentil, and faba bean (regions and crops elaborated in more detail later in this Chapter, and in Chapter 3). This will be achieved through partnerships that increase the genetic resistance of these crops to important stresses, especially diseases, insects and climatic stress, while increasing yield potential and optimizing genotype x environment interactions specific to these crops that affect biological nitrogen fixation. CRP 3.5 will also ease bottlenecks in seed systems to more effectively disseminate and achieve impact from the improved germplasm. Because grain legumes are often inter- and rotation-cropped with non-nitrogen fixing crops, their increased productivity will also raise the productivity of other crops in the system in a highly sustainable manner. Additional major gains, particularly for women farmers will be sought through the systematic diagnosis and exploitation of key priority opportunities in the input, production and post-harvest stages of grain legume value chains. The contributions of these six SOs to the core competencies of the CGIAR that are identified in the CGIAR Strategy and Results Framework (SRF) are described in Chapter 5. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Statement of Objectives 5 Major opportunities in brief Below we briefly highlight some of the most exciting R4D opportunities that we foresee contributing to the SOs. Genetic resources and crop improvement Crop improvement and allied advances, built on more effective use of genetic diversity, will contribute importantly to the CGIAR System Level Objectives (SLOs). The impact opportunity is evidenced by numerous examples of rapid increases in grain legume production stimulated by improved varieties and management, driven by strong market and export demand: smallholder soybean in Nigeria (Yanguba 2009), cowpea in Nigeria (Coulibaly et al. 2010; Kristjanson et al. 2005), bush beans in Uganda (CIAT 2008; David et al. 2000), chickpea and faba bean in Ethiopia (Dar et al. 2010; ICARDA 2008), chickpea in southern India (ICRISAT 2010), pigeonpea in Tanzania (Shiferaw et al. 2007; Shiferaw et al. 2008a), short-duration pigeonpea in India (Bantilan and Parthasarathy 1999), groundnut in Malawi (Simtowe et al. 2010), and lentil in northern India (Aw-Hassan et al. 2009, Aw-Hassan et al. 2003, Materne and Reddy 2007). Disease resistance will be a prime target for further gains in CRP 3.5. Diseases are a major point of vulnerability for grain legumes, and large value gains have already been achieved through disease resistance against Fusarium wilt, Aschochyta blight, a range of foliar fungal and bacterial diseases, and several viruses (Bantilan and Joshi 1996; Gaur et al. 2007; Moyo et al. 2007; Singh et al. 1997). Yet much still remains to be achieved. Biotechnology will be particularly useful for combating diseases, particularly for diseases that lack sufficient levels of resistance in the cultivated species (e.g. the production of aflatoxins by the fungus Aspergillus flavus). Additional sources of resistance in germplasm collections will be made accessible by capitalizing on rapidly-improving, more affordable genetic and genomic tools. Many of the tools and lessons are applicable across crops, adding efficiency and effectiveness through a cross-crop innovation platform approach. Increasing yield is a central objective (Specht et al. 1999). Poor small-scale grain legume producers currently operate well below the yield levels that are obtainable with improved varieties and management. Yield under farmer field conditions is a result of numerous interacting traits, including genetic yield ‘potential’ (itself a complex of traits) as well as genetic adaptation to soil, climate, pest, disease, and other stresses and to management practices, all of which may change over time (Alene and Manyong 2007). Crop improvement integrates these attributes for a target production environment. Further yield gains are envisioned by genetically increasing the sink strength of reproductive organs as they develop. A tradeoff versus vegetative matter yield (‘haulm’ or stalk yield) may not be inevitable, since legumes can increase photosynthesis rate in response to increased sink demand (Kaschuk et al. 2009). Small amounts of nutrient amendments, water harvesting, improved symbiosis with Rhizobium under environmental stress and other small-scale appropriate management interventions that overcome binding constraints to biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) can trigger large productivity responses in a highly cost-efficient manner (Kumar Rao et al. 1995; Wani et al. 1995). The definition of heterotic groups and hybrids also holds enormous potential (~30-40% yield gains), and the CRP will build on recent breakthroughs in pigeonpea (Saxena and Nadarajan 2010) to also explore hybrid potential in faba bean and soybean. In addition to quantity of yield, CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will attend to the nutritional quality of that yield, especially increasing micronutrient content as well as protein and oil quantity/quality. In particular, the knowledge and methodology advances in increasing iron and zinc content in bean, enabled by the HarvestPlus Challenge Programme as part of CRP 4 will be leveraged to other grain legume species and regions, raising the returns on past R4D investments. Additional exploratory targets will be amino acid balance, vitamins and minerals. Vitamin A enhancement forms an interesting longer-term opportunity for grain legumes through both conventional breeding and genetic engineering approaches (Kotecha 2008; Stein 2006). Breeding for aflatoxin resistance has CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Statement of Objectives 6 made little headway to date, but the new tools of biotechnology may open new opportunities. Strategies other than breeding for reducing mycotoxin contamination will be led by CRP 4. Crop and pest management Grain legumes are strategically prominent in the CGIAR’s quest for sustainable intensification options, because of their capacity to biologically fix atmospheric nitrogen partially substituting for chemical fertilizer (Herridge et al. 2008). Opportunity in this arena will be exploited through partnership with the N2Africa project, which relies on CRP 3.5 and others to provide germplasm that it (N2Africa) assesses for ability to increase BNF in grain legumes across Africa (www.n2africa.org). R4D contributions by CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES such as increased stress resistance (drought, low soil P, and others) and adaptation to a wider range of Rhizobia will generate large impacts by stimulating nodulation and N fixation. These gains will trigger yet additional impacts in terms of yield increases of following non-legume crops (Adu-Gyamfi et al. 2007; Bado et al. 2006; Jeranyama et al. 2007). Increased productivity of grain legumes will spur their wider inclusion as intercrops, relay crops and rotation crops in non-leguminous cropping systems, sustainably intensifying those systems by increasing cropping intensity on existing farmland (Kimaro et al. 2009; Singh et al. 1996). Adaptation to environmental stress in the legume/rhizobial symbiosis is poorly understood and there is a strong need for detailed plant physiology research in this area to support breeding efforts to enhance BNF. – K. Giller (2009) Drought, heat and other types of environmental stress are major constraints within the grain legume systems of the poor, which are mostly rainfed with few soil-ameliorating inputs. Drought tolerance is best understood as the manifestation of optimized adaptation to particular environments rather than an isolated trait. Drought diminishes BNF, but potential has been identified to breed for higher BNF drought tolerance in soybean (Sinclair et al. 2007). End-of-season residual moisture niches are particularly important for grain legumes and increased rooting depth can be particularly effective in exploiting receding water tables (a common adaptive niche for grain legumes). Early maturity also avoids drought. Molecules associated with drought resistance such as aquaporins will be investigated including the gene expression level. Root research is costly and difficult, though CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES sees major opportunity in cross-learning and sharing costly screening facilities, genetic maps and biotechnology expertise across crops. For example, cowpea and chickpea are highly drought-tolerant and learning from the body of research and screening tools already developed for those crops can contribute to improving the drought tolerance of more drought-sensitive crops such as common bean and soybean. Heat tolerance at flowering is seen as a major opportunity for progress, and one especially important for climate change-proofing the grain legumes. Research on heat stress mitigation by application of nitrogen fertilizers (Upadhyaya et al. 2011) may have potential application in many legumes. Insects are major constraints for grain legumes, but development of insect resistant cultivars has been challenging. Wider use of genetic resources, accelerated and made more effective through the use of new molecular breeding methods could generate breakthroughs not foreseen at the present time. Genetic engineering to deploy Bt insect resistance genes holds enormous potential but faces formidable policy obstacles. The largest impact will likely be in the area of controlling pests of stored grains, because storage provides an opportunity for integrating improved storage management with genetic resistance. In the production stage, R4D will focus on pod-borer insects such as Helicoverpa that have proven difficult to contain through plant breeding. Integrated pest management advances hold considerable promise, but sustainable delivery systems for transmitting knowledge and new types of bio-pesticides are challenging (Grzywacz et al. 2005; Ranga Rao and Gopalakrishnan 2009). CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Statement of Objectives 7 Seed systems Improving seed systems is a major priority for CRP 3.5 and is therefore the subject of an in-depth box article at the end of this chapter. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES believes that seed system constraints can be significantly eased through several concrete strategies (see box article and Strategic Objective 4 in Chapter 5). Effort in these areas is especially strategic because once seed flows, the impacts of a whole range of genetic advances flow to farmers. Value chains A value chain perspective helps align crop improvement with farmer priorities and motivations. Farmers produce grain legumes because they perceive different kinds of value to be gained, such as food, fodder, income, and soil fertility enhancement among others. Identifying i) the value associated with these products, ii) how that value is created (processes within the value chain), and iii) the actions of institutions involved helps researchers identify and target the most impactful opportunities, as well as bottlenecks to achieving impact (Shiferaw et al. 2008b). Recognizing the importance of these dynamics, the CGIAR SRF states that “As a System Level Outcome, reducing rural poverty will require research to develop and validate specific agricultural investments… including improved value chains and markets.” (SRF para. 69). “Perhaps most exciting to me is an idea that Bill Gates, Howard Buffett and others have supported boldly. What if, instead of looking at the hungry as victims… we view them as the solution, as the value chain to fight hunger? When poor farmers are given a guaranteed market, their yields have gone up two-, threefour-fold. They figure it out.” Josette Sheeran, Executive Director, World Food Programme (http://www.ted.com/talks/josette_sheeran_ending_hunger_now) For example, AGRA states that “African farmers who sell surplus harvest routinely receive only 10-20 percent of the price of their products.” Women’s incomes in West Africa can be enhanced by improving cowpea flour processing, a target of CRP 3.5 principal partner Dry Grain Pulses CRSP (Lowenberg-DeBoer and Ibro 2008) which may also benefit from breeding for particular storage and milling characteristics in CRP 3.5. Additional overlooked opportunities may lie in areas such as soil fertility services (e.g. improving BNF for soil nitrogen enrichment) and livestock feed enhancement. Studies suggest that significant income gains await from breeding more nutritious haulms (stalks) to enrich cereal straw fodder in cowpea (Grings et al. 2012) and groundnut (Nigam and Blummel 2010; Thannamal 2011). By integrating socioeconomic with biophysical analysis of grain legume commodity systems, CRP 3.5 will utilize value chain analysis as an aid in assessing its priorities and likely impacts benefiting smallholder farm families, diagnosing constraints in impact pathways, and identifying new opportunities, particularly for women. By providing a better understanding of smallholder grain legume value chains it will complement, as well as benefit from the value chain learning that will emerge from the farming system and methodological investigations of CRPs 1 and 2. Value chains are by their nature ‘innovation systems’, i.e. partnerships to innovate and thus add value to the food economy. By stimulating novel partnerships with key value chain players, this Objective will also pioneer in relation to the SRF’s challenge that “…the linear view of the innovation process has been replaced with an innovation system view of the world, where a much more diversified and complex universe of public and private actors come into play… significantly expanding the demands that national and international institutions need to confront….” (SRF para. 33). Partnerships CRP 3.5 will catalyze major innovation in grain legume R4D partnerships. By bringing four CGIAR Centers together with six regional and global partners across eight crops, regional interfaces with partners will be greatly streamlined, improving communication, R4D efficiency and effectiveness. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Statement of Objectives 8 Regional networks for different crops will be harmonized and integrated where possible. Centers will explore and exploit opportunities to share facilities, operations and expertise for greater efficiency and economies of scale. As mentioned in the previous Objective, the value chain approach will reveal opportunities for more diverse innovation systems partnerships bringing unfamiliar but synergistic institutions together from the public, private and community sectors to add value to grain legume chains. Vision of success Our vision is to achieve R4D gains that contribute meaningfully to reducing poverty, hunger, malnutrition and environmental degradation for poor smallholders, particularly women in the developing world. A measurable indicator of success will be an increase in grain legume yields by an average of 20% by 2020 on at least 20% of the area sown to the focus grain legume crops over the targeted domain (the low-income food-deficit countries in five priority regions), benefiting approximately 300 million people in farming households. This yield increase will be achieved through both yield stability and yield level gains through improved disease and pest control, agroecosystem adaptation, responsiveness to modest inputs, and smallholder-appropriate soil fertility enhancement that especially increases biological nitrogen fixation. We estimate the cumulative benefits of this R4D gain from 2013 to 2020, including grain value and fertilizer substitution value across low income food deficit countries to be worth US$ 3.0 billion over the period, a six-fold return on investment (Chapter 3 and Appendix 5). In addition to this monetary value, we expect major benefits for the poor through improved food and nutritional security (an extra 7.1 million tons of grain, including 2.1 million tons of protein) and fixing an additional 402,000 tons of atmospheric nitrogen, plus additional value added at the post-harvest and pre-harvest stages of value chains. Target regions CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will target five priority regions that have been historically addressed by the CGIAR, namely (in order of grain legume hectareage) South and Southeast Asia (SSEA), West and Central Africa (WCA), Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA), Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), and Central and West Asia and North Africa (CWANA). The farming systems in which grain legumes are cultivated in these regions are described and quantified in Chapter 3. Within these five regions, CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will apply a second prioritization criterion, namely the FAO definition of low-income food deficit countries (LIFDCs) described in detail at http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/lifdc.asp. This criterion identifies the poorest, hungriest countries of the developing world most in need of the CGIAR’s help and least likely to have strong alternative suppliers of grain legume R4D. For example the large-scale commercial soybean and common bean producing areas found in Argentina, Brazil, China, the USA and other well-endowed and strongly emergent economies within the developing world lie outside the LIFDC. The LIFDC list currently includes 39 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, 12 in South and Southeast Asia, 6 in Central Asia and the Caucasus, 5 in Oceania, 4 in West Asia/North Africa, 3 in Latin America and the Caribbean, and 1 in Europe. As a third prioritization criterion, CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will not work in all LIFDCs but rather on select region x crop targets where the largest numbers of very poor people live and cultivate large areas of grain legumes. Where well justified, CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will also make a few case-bycase exceptions to extend beyond the LIFDC countries. Specific region x crop targets following these guidelines are identified in Chapter 3. While focusing on these geographic targets, CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will remain mindful of its comparative advantage as an international institution to ensure that its programs generate international public CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Statement of Objectives 9 goods that complement and reinforce, rather than duplicate the contributions of its partners at local, national and regional levels. Target crops CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will improve the grain legume crops that are the most widely grown by poor smallholders in each of the five focus regions’ LIFDCs. Analyses of FAO crop area data led CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES to identify eight highest-priority crops (in order of sown hectareage): groundnut, soybean, chickpea, cowpea, common bean, pigeonpea, lentil, and faba bean, as elaborated in more detail in Chapter 3. Detailed profiles of these crops are given in Appendix 2. SEEDS OF SUCCESS CRP 3.5 pursues a vision of adoption of improved varieties on 20% of the grain legume area by 2020. To achieve this we must overcome difficult challenges to adoption. Exemplifying the challenge, a 23% higher-yielding drought tolerant variety of groundnut, ICGV 91114 released in Andhra Pradesh, India in 2002 had spread to only 3.2% of the groundnut area in the Anantapur locality (the world’s largest concentrated area of groundnut production) by 2008-09 (Birthal et al. 2011). All improved groundnut varieties combined occupied only 6% of the total area. Similarly a study of the adoption and impact of improved pigeonpea varieties in Tanzania showed that about 16% of the farmers had fully adopted improved varieties, 9% cultivated both improved and local varieties, and 73% continued to plant only local varieties (Shiferaw et al. 2007). A survey of chickpea adoption in four districts of Ethiopia revealed that only 18% of farmers grew improved varieties (Dadi et al. 2005). And in lentil, improved varieties were adopted on 12% of the area in Bangladesh and 30% of the area in Pakistan (Aw-Hassan et al. 2003). Only 15% of the bean-producing households in Mozambique were reported to have adopted improved bean cultivars (Lopes 2010). Seed system bottlenecks are the major immediate constraint in raising the adoption of improved grain legume varieties (Bishaw et al. 2009, Phiri et al. 2000, Sperling et al. 1996). There are several reasons for this: (i) numerous, diverse species each requiring separate seed production and handling systems for lower volumes of sale; (ii) insufficient policy incentives – grain legumes compete for the attention of seed companies against crops that receive stronger policy support; (iii) institutional constraints – public institutions for varietal release and seed multiplication often lack the capacity to efficiently test, release and multiply new varieties of large numbers of crops, and consequently give priority to the fewest high-volume crops; (iv) self-pollinated reproductive system of most grain legumes (except pigeonpea, faba bean) enables farmers to re-use their own or their neighbor’s seed instead of buying fresh seed each year, reducing incentives for the private seed sector; (v) low seed-to-seed multiplication ratio and rapid loss of viability in a few legume crops, particularly groundnut and chickpea; and (vi) insufficient farmer awareness of the benefits of new varieties. For example on items i-iii, Bishaw et al. (2009) surveyed six CWANA countries and found that the volume of formalsector grain legume seed production amounted to only 1% of the volume of cereal seed produced. Public-sector seed production has not been able to meet the demand for new varieties and for initial quantities of high-quality seed. On item vi, farmers’ knowledge of improved varieties was found to be strongly correlated with adoption rate for pigeonpea in Tanzania (Shiferaw et al. 2007) and for improved chickpea in Ethiopia (Dadi et al. 2005). Imaginative approaches are making headway against these obstacles. The PABRA, Tropical Legumes II and USAID Seeds projects have supported in-depth baseline studies to understand the constraints in different grain legume crops/regions and innovations to overcome them (e.g. Coulibaly et al. 2010 and others at www.icrisat.org/impi-tl-2, www.icrisat.org/tropicallegumesII/ and www.icrisat.cgiar.org/icrisat-rrp2-wasa-wca). CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will accelerate the adoption of improved grain by enhancing farmers’ awareness through a range of strategies. Involving farmer groups in participatory varietal selection (PVS) will enable them to assess the performance of improved varieties in their fields and growing conditions and choose the varieties that they prefer; this approach is being applied in the Tropical Legumes II project (www.icrisat.org/tropicallegumesII/). CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will also organize field days, farmers’ fairs, and training programs and will use electronic and print media to spread the word. Efficient and sustainable seed systems will be established by building capacities in the public seed sector, by working with the private seed sector to overcome constraints to their engagement in legume seed production, and by fostering linkages between formal and informal (farmer/traditional) seed systems. Successful approaches identified though Tropical Legumes II and WASA will be scaled out to additional crops/regions. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Statement of Objectives 10 In sub-Saharan Africa… Novel seed distribution mechanisms offer promise against this bottleneck. CIAT initiated studies of local seed systems more than 20 years ago in Rwanda. They found that farmers, particularly women were willing to purchase small seed packets of 100-200 grams each to experiment in small plots on their own farms. This small pack model was further explored and systematized in the Tropical Legumes II project, involving national programs and the private sector. It has been quite successful in Malawi (Phiri et al. 2000, Chirwa et al. 2007) and Kenya. In the Kenya case the national seed program of KARI connected with Leldet Seed Company and CIAT/PABRA to test the marketing of the small packs. A company pickup truck traveled to villages on market days and announced the sale of samples of new varieties from the back of the truck with a loudspeaker. The truck was often mobbed by enthusiastic farmers seeking access to the new varieties, many of whom were women. Leldet became convinced that this was a significant market opportunity. The cost charged per gram of seed for these small packs is in fact higher than for conventional large bags so profitability is maintained, yet the absolute cost of the seed pack is well within reach of poor women (less than US$0.13/ 100 g) and provides enough seed for a homestead cultivation area. As improved varieties become known through this mechanism, the company hopes that this will stimulate further demand. Four more PABRA countries are now experimenting with the small-pack approach. A second approach pursued with KARI (Kenya) is the revolving seed loan program. Local agencies receive initial seed through purchases or grants and together with the farming community identify farmers to be loaned that seed. After harvest farmers return one to three times the amount of seeds to the service providers/organizations. Upon receiving the returned amount the service providers identify additional beneficiaries on a similar loan arrangement. The revolving loan continues for three to four seasons until the variety becomes widespread. A related model is to revolve cash earned from sales of the seed, rather than revolving the seed itself. Donors put up the initial cash to establish the seed multiplication capacity, and that cash revolves back following seed sales. ICRISAT is catalyzing this nonprofit model for groundnut and pigeonpea in Malawi in close partnership with NASFAM. Community-based seed systems offer yet another opportunity. From 2007 to 2010 such a system was established in the Dosso region in Niger, enabled by the Tropical Legumes II project. Farmers and small-scale seed producers were trained in seed production and small-scale business management and marketing. The national research program INRAN was tasked to supply breeder seed to the community-based organizations (CBOs). This was very successful. After 4 years, CBOs produce about 65% of the total certified seed produced in Niger (Republic of Niger 2011). Seed from smallholder farmers is now in demand by many NGOs. FAO also purchases seed stocks for emergency reserve. Another CBO success occurred in disseminating root rot resistant beans in the highlands of southwestern Uganda (Opio 1999). Bean-dependent communities were going hungry due to losses from this disease complex, but the narrow ecological niche occupied by this farming system generated insufficient seed volume to interest the formal seed sector. The Nyamabale Bean Seed Producers (one of the farmer groups that had evaluated the root rot tolerant lines) stepped in to fill the gap, registering as a community-based seed producer with support from NARO and the National Agricultural Advisory (NAADS). By 2009 this CBO was producing 15 tons of seed annually of resistant varieties that had been released just three years earlier. In South/Southeast Asia… The Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth (PDKV) model originating from Punjabrao Deshmukh Agriculture University at Akola, Maharashtra in India overcomes the seed bottleneck by helping farmers to grow their own. This capitalizes on the fact that most grain legumes are strongly self-pollinating, so outcrossing is not an issue even on small plots. Farmers are provided with free starter seed and production guidelines. Starting with 2 kg of groundnut, a farmer multiplies enough to cover 1 ha in three years. For example in Namakkal district in Tamil Nadu where most farmers save their own groundnut seed for the next cropping season this model is vigorously being followed to achieve the rapid spread of newly-identified groundnut variety ICGV 87846. Initiated for this crop by Punjab Agricultural University in 2003, enough seed is distributed to sow 0.4 ha for 270 farmers in 30 villages. For crops like pigeonpea where outcrossing risk requires larger seed production fields in isolation, village-level seed growers’ cooperative societies have been formed. These societies are linked to the formal seed sector. A ‘One Variety-One Village’ concept is followed in order to maintain the required minimum isolation distance of 300-500 m between varieties. In Central/West Asia and North Africa… Fostered by ICARDA, village-based seed enterprises (VBSEs) are owned and managed by farmers in Afghanistan, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Iraq, and Pakistan. Village farmers are provided with essential facilities (mobile cleaners, storage facilities and others) and trained in seed production and business management. They are linked to formal sector institutions (e.g. R4D and seed companies). They are monitored and evaluated for their profitability and sustainability. VBSEs form a network at provincial levels for facilitating flow of information for seed marketing and experience sharing. In Afghanistan over 2003-2006 VBSEs earned a net profit of US$3.1 million from cereal and grain legume seed provided to about 154,000 farmers. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Statement of Objectives 11 3. Justification Why Grain Legumes Matter? In early 2011, the CGIAR approved a new Strategy and Results Framework (SRF) that identified four apex System Level Outcomes (SLOs) to serve as guiding principles to steer the objectives and activities of the Consortium Research Programs (CRPs). Therefore we begin this Justification with a brief overview of how grain legumes are relevant and important to achieving the SLOs. These characteristics provide the platform that CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will exploit by harnessing and enhancing many of these SLO-relevant characteristics of grain legumes, in ways that were introduced in Chapter 2 and are described in more detail in Chapter 5. Reducing rural poverty: Farmers both consume and sell grain legume crop products, granting them flexibility to optimize their livelihood strategy according to household food needs and market conditions (Shiferaw 2007; Lowenberg-DeBoer and Ibro 2008). Grain legume crops deliver povertyfighting income by yielding premium-valued grains, oil, pods, peas, leaves, haulm, and press-cake that are in high demand locally, in urban centers and in export markets for human food and for livestock fodder and feed. A wide range of processed products from these raw materials add further value and generate important income-earning opportunities for poor people, especially women. Securing food supplies: Grain legumes are often fitted into underutilized niches in farming systems and thus increase total food production per unit land area for land-constrained smallholders. By increasing crop diversity they reduce food supply risks from environmental shocks and hazards. For example, later-sown legumes often escape drought or disease that occurs at times that devastate other crops, rescuing the farm family’s food supply. The use of legume haulms to improve fodder quality contributes to the productivity of the animals that provide the poor with draft power, milk, meat and money. Nutritious, safe food: Grain legumes are rich in protein, oil and micronutrients such as iron and zinc. Their amino acid profiles complement those of cereals, such that consuming them together raises the nutritional effectiveness of both. High iron and zinc content is especially beneficial for women and children at risk of anemia; genetic elevation of mineral content in beans has been shown to improve child health (Haas et al. 2011). Due to high nutrient content and palatability, pastes made from a base of groundnut (Plumpy’nut by Nutriset and others in Africa) and chickpea (the World Food Programme’s “wawa mum” in Asia) are distributed by famine relief agencies for the emergency feeding of severely malnourished or starving children. Legumes also contain bioactive compounds that show some evidence of helping to combat cancer, diabetes and heart disease. Sustainable intensification: Grain legumes are well adapted to inter-, relay-, double- and rotationcrop niches in farming systems, intensifying land productivity in a sustainable way. They biologically fix nitrogen, thus: i) meeting much of their own N requirement while ii) also leaving significant amounts of N in the soil for following crops and iii) reducing fertilizer costs for cash-poor smallholders while further iv) reducing fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions by substituting for chemical N fertilizer. By moderating N flushes through the gradual release of N from decaying root biomass they can improve overall N use efficiency in farming systems compared to chemical N-only strategies (Crews and Peoples 2005; Nyiraneza and Snapp 2007). They also break weed and disease cycles in rotations, and extend the duration of protective land cover (vegetation protecting the soil from erosion). They further increase the effective capture, productive use and recycling of water and nutrients, such as end-of-season residual moisture and fallow moisture in rice-wheat systems. Their fodder also enriches nitrogen-limited livestock diets, enhancing the sustainability benefits of croplivestock mixed farming systems. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Justification 12 Area, production, yield, value While the benefits of grain legume cultivation and consumption are congruent with the SLOs, are they large enough to matter? ‘Value’ may more accurately reflect the importance of a crop than the more commonly-cited gravimetric weight of production, because value is an integrative indicator reflecting the sum total of the attributes that people seek from a crop, and compensates for differing gravimetric densities of nutrients and energy (which are high in grain legumes). Value also indicates the scale of investment by the marketplace into a commodity, including investment in the poor farm households that cultivate these crops. Taken collectively, the dry grains of the eight prioritized crops of CRP 3.5 attract US$24 billion in market value at the farm gate per annum in the LIFDCs, on a par with maize or wheat (Table 3.1). Total area of production of the eight focus grain legumes also exceeds that of maize or wheat. However production by gravimetric weight (tons) is less, because the average grain yields of grain legumes are only about one-third to one half those of the cereals (except for faba bean). The reasons for these yield differences are discussed later in this chapter. As mentioned above, from a development strategy point of view, value and nutritional yield may be more relevant than gravimetric yield. For example, the protein content of the pulses (grain legumes eaten mainly as human food) is two to three times higher, and for the oilseeds (soybean, groundnut) is three to four times higher than in the cereals (Kimaro et al. 2009; Messina 1999). Table 3.1. Area, production, yield and value of grain legumes in Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs, as per FAO1) Crop Groundnut (in shell) Soybean Chickpea Cowpea Common bean Pigeonpea Lentil Faba bean TOTAL Maize Wheat Rice 1 Area (million ha) 17.0 11.6 9.2 11.7 6.5 4.3 1.9 0.7 62.8 45.1 50.0 90.4 Production (million tons) 18.3 12.3 6.7 5.5 4.5 3.5 1.2 1.2 53.2 99.4 131.9 328.9 Yield (t/ha) 1.01 1.06 0.73 0.47 0.69 0.81 0.64 1.63 Producer price (US$/ton) 450 305 585 403 624 592 548 500 Value of production (US$ billion) 8.2 3.7 3.9 2.2 2.8 2.1 0.7 0.6 24.2 2.20 1.32 3.29 210 213 236 20.9 28.1 77.6 Source: FAOStat. For production data, 2008 values are shown; for price data the 2000-2008 average is shown. FAO definition and listing of Low Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs) is at www.fao.org/countryprofiles/lifdc.asp. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Justification 13 Demand trends Akibode and Maredia (2011) provide a recent comprehensive overview of production, trade and consumption trends of seven of the eight grain legume crops that are the focus of CRP 3.5 (except groundnut) based on FAO data. Per capita net availability of grain legumes across the developing world (a proxy measure for per capita consumption) climbed from 7.30 to 7.94 kg between 1995 and 2007, a 9% increase. Akibode and Maredia (2011) suggest that long-term (multi-decadal) global per capita consumption of grain legumes (and also of cereals) will probably decline as wealth and urbanization enable people to consume costlier livestock-based protein and convenience foods. However, as indicated in the SRF and SLOs, the target beneficiary group of the CGIAR is the poor of the developing world, rather than the global population as a whole. Those developing-world poor who are unable to afford livestock products will remain dependent on grain legumes for a significant portion of their dietary protein and other nutrients. Akibode and Maredia (2011) conclude that grain legumes will remain crucially important as a “poor person’s meat.” Thus the benefits of grain legume R4D will naturally accrue to the poorest peoples who are the prime target of the CGIAR SLOs. FAOStat data are unfortunately not stratified by income class, which would aid in delineating consumption trends of the poor – the CGIAR’s prime target. A rough approximation is to compare poorer vs. less-poor countries. Many of the poorest countries in the world derive the highest proportion of their total dietary protein from grain legumes (10-20% or more), such as (in descending order): Burundi (55%); Rwanda (38%); Uganda and Kenya (20%); Comoros, Haiti and Eritrea (18%); Nicaragua and Cuba (16%); Niger, Ethiopia, Malawi, Angola, Tanzania (14-15%); Mauritania, Sierra Leone, India, Brazil, Trinidad and Tobago, Mozambique, Cameroon (12-13%); and Dem. Rep. of Korea, Guatemala, Mexico, Togo, Belize, Paraguay and Botswana (10-11%). On average across the entire developing world grain legumes provide 7.5% of total protein intake, versus 2.5% in the developed world. Income-stratified consumption data are available in India, the world’s largest pulse consumer and producer, from the National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO). They reveal that caloric contribution of pulses to the diet of the very poor increased by 6% during 1993-2004, whereas it decreased for the less-poor and non-poor strata (Akibode and Maredia 2011). The poorest strata in India spend more on grain legumes than on meat and animal products, while the reverse is true for the less-poor strata. Demand for human consumption of grain legumes in India is expected to further strengthen over the current decade (Parthasarathy Rao et al. 2010; Birthal et al. 2010; Kumar et al. 2009). Using food characteristic demand system (FCDS) methodology to analyze NSSO household level consumption data from 2004-05, Kumar et al. (2009) found that income elasticity for grain legumes is solidly positive for all income classes, clearly outpacing cereals, indicating that the poor would purchase relatively more grain legumes if extra income were available to them (Kumar et al. 2009). They projected per capita grain legume consumption by the rural population for the period 2011 to 2022 to increase by 9%, compared to no increase in cereal consumption. Recently (16 July 2011, Foundation Day Lecture) the Director General of the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) projected an annual demand growth of 3.1% for pulses for the 2011-2027 period, far outpacing the 1.3% demand growth expected for cereals (Ayyappan 2011). “That the consumption of milk, eggs, meat and fish for the lowest income distribution group is still very low in India implies that next to cereals, pulses still remain the main source of protein for the poorest segment of both rural and urban India. This observation is applicable to many other countries in the world.” - Akibode and Maredia (2011) CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Justification 14 Supply trends Akibode and Maredia (2011) note a rebound in grain legume production and consumption since the mid-1990s, with production gains outstripping population growth (1.8% vs. 1.3%). In the developing world, area sown increased by 10%, yields by 12% and production by 24% since that time. More than half of the increase in production in the developing world occurred in sub-Saharan Africa. Yet this progress has still not been sufficient to meet growing demand, so developing countries are compelled to import an increasing proportion of their grain legume requirement. As a result of these production shortfalls, Clansey (2009) foresees continuing increases in imports to fill the grain legumes supply-demand gap globally, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa due to that region’s rapid population growth. Akibode and Maredia (2011) estimate that even if area sown to grain legumes continues to increase at the same rate as in the past decade (0.37%/year), yields will still need to grow at a rate 50% faster than the current 0.4% per annum average in order to meet projected demand growth to 2020. In India, Reddy (2004; 2009) and Reddy et al. (2010) forecast that the domestic supply will lag behind demand by 9%-26% depending on scenario outcomes. Concerned about demand continuing to outstrip supply, India is taking steps to foster increased grain legume production, such as raising minimum support prices and launching the Accelerated Pulses Production Programme (A3P). Another consequence of supply falling short of demand for pulses has been increasing prices in recent years (Akibode and Maredia 2011). Grain legumes attract approximately two to three times higher prices than cereals on a worldwide average basis (2000-08 average data, Table 3.1). High prices limit the ability of the poor to buy the quantities that they desire (as indicated by income elasticity data discussed earlier). By constraining consumption high prices can risk shifting the diets of the poor towards less nutritious configurations – a caution issued from a recent international conference on “Leveraging Agriculture for Improving Nutrition and Health” (IFPRI 2011). High prices are attributable to high cost per unit of production, which in turn relates back again to the dearth of policy and subsidy support for grain legumes compared to other commodities as described earlier. Because farmers cultivate grain legumes on marginal lands, use fewer inputs (especially seed, fertilizer, irrigation), and have less access to enabling services and infrastructure (Joshi 1998), output is low relative to inputs of land and labor, i.e. their unit costs of production are high. As mentioned earlier, global average yields of grain legumes are one-third to one-half as large as those of cereals, and are increasing at a slower rate (0.4% per annum, compared to 1.5% for cereals since the mid-1990s). Akibode and Maredia (2011), Joshi (1998) and Rao et al. (2010) indicate four reasons for the slower yield growth in grain legumes: (i) low input use; (ii) shift into marginal growing areas; (iii) less policy support than other commodities; and (iv) limited R4D and dissemination of improved technology. They note that only 25% of the grain legume crop area in the developing world is high input/irrigated, compared to 60% of the cereal area. Only 6% of fertilizer in sub-Saharan Africa is used on grain legumes, compared to 26% for maize and 11% for wheat/barley (Bumb et al. 2011). Adapting to this reality, the priority assigned to stress resistance breeding (drought, heat, insects, diseases, nutrient-depleted soils, short-season niches) has been relatively high in grain legumes since the Green Revolution. Breeding for maximum yield potential has been less relevant since the expression of high yield potential is constrained by these stresses. In summary, the slow pace of growth in production and yield of grain legumes over recent decades can largely be attributed to lesser policy and institutional support compared to other commodities, causing a shift of cultivation to (and the design of germplasm for) less productive environments and lower use of inputs such as fertilizer, water and improved seed. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Justification 15 Priority setting among grain legume regions, crops, and farming systems Priority regions As mentioned in Chapter 2, CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will place its greatest emphasis on regions containing the largest numbers of poor and malnourished grain legume producers and consumers. As guided by the CGIAR SRF and as reflected in the data of Table 3.2, highest priority will be assigned to South and Southeast Asia (SSEA) and sub-Saharan Africa, the latter consisting of two regions: West and Central Africa (WCA) and Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA). Two additional regions will be addressed: Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and Central and West Asia/ North Africa (CWANA). While the poverty/hunger indicators in these two regions are lower, they contain important pockets of poverty along with well-established CGIAR capacities and are located in important centers of grain legume genetic diversity. Table 3.2. Population and poverty indicators by region Indicator Rural population (millions) Urban population (millions) Number of poor (2000 markers developed for CP, CW, GN, PP, and CB (2013) Diagnostic markers linked to key traits identified in CB, CP, CW, LN, FB (2014) Cross-legume genomic studies of gene expression to identify genes involved in the transition from vegetative to reproductive phase completed (CB, CP) (2014) Key trait-linked markers validated and converted to cost-effective platforms for implementation in breeding programs of CB, CP, CW, LN, FB (2012-2014) Protocols for development of double haploids validated in CP, PP and GN (2013)       CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 1 46 5.1.7.4: Novel genes/traits accessed/mobilized/incorporated through wide hybridization/genetic engineering to broaden the genetic base of grain legumes. Description Legume production requires substantial progress in developing new varieties possessing the qualities for adaptation under different cropping systems and newer niches. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that by 2100 the temperature will rise in the range of 1.1 to 6.4oC due to global warming, which will have serious consequences to global agricultural and food production (IPCC 2007, Lobell et al. 2008). It is well known that domestication of legumes was accompanied by bottlenecks that reduced genetic diversity (Tanksley and McCouch 1997, Mallikarjuna et al. 2011). This restricts crop improvement by limiting the range of traits available for breeding. Wild relatives of legumes are important sources to widen the genetic base (Mallikarjuna et al. 2010). The development of pre-breeding lines has long been advocated as a means to facilitate the transfer of genes from wild species and broaden their genetic base. Resistance to storage weevil (Zabrotes subfasciates) has been successfully transferred into common bean, and progenies display better agronomic traits, such as early maturity, high grain yield, large-seed weight, and some with high seed mineral content (Kornegay et al. 1993; Acosta-Gallegos et al. 2007). Recent advances in the synthesis of exotic genetic libraries, such as introgression lines (ILs), near isogenic lines (NILs) and advanced backcross lines has made the use of alien genomes more precise and efficient. This set of pre-breeding activities would involve crossing between elite cultivars and known testers and wild forms of the primary genepool on the one hand, and with wild species of the secondary genepool on the other hand. This could be done with specific characteristics to transfer, considering that novel variation can be expected due to complementarity of alleles or epistasis. Any mutant, even if with deleterious effects, particularly those related to plant architecture, will be carefully kept as it might bring explanation on how genes work in food legumes. Recent successes in genetic engineering of legumes with efficient protocols for their genetic transformation are available for routine applications (Khatib et al. 2011; Sharma and Ortiz 2000, Sharma et al. 2005). This can be a pipeline approach for developing transgenic events of grain legumes (GN, PP, CP, CW, LN) for addressing major biotic and abiotic constraints. This is especially true for the constraints for which the durable high-level of resistance sources are not available in the existing germplasm (such as Helicoverpa pod borer resistance in chickpea and pigeonpea). While effective phenotyping of the developed transgenic events will be a key factor in the successful use of this technology, translating these technologies into breeding lines/varieties will be an important activity following their biosafety assessment. The Platform for Translational Research on Transgenic Crops (PTTC) facility at ICRISAT can play a lead role in validation of transgenic product concepts followed by their translation in to commercially viable products involving public and private sector partners. Methodology Wide hybridization and genetic engineering tools and platforms will be established for unraveling the underlying resistance mechanisms for various biotic and abiotic stresses in the primary as well as secondary and tertiary gene pool of grain legumes. In cases where the wild species represent a possible source of high-levels of such resistance, introgression of desired traits/genes from wild species into improved cultivars will be undertaken. In case of groundnut, the progenitor diploid species A. duranensis (A genome) and A. ipaensis (B genome), and other A and B genome species from section Arachis will be used to produce alloploids (Mallikarjuna et al. 2010) to access novel alleles that may have been lost during evolution. Similarly, Phaseolus coccineus and P. acutifolius will be tapped for genes to improve the common bean for climate extremes including excessive rainfall, drought and heat (Singh and Schwartz 2010; Butare et al. 2011). In many legumes (e.g., pigeonpea), secondary and tertiary gene pool species are sources of resistance to many biotic and abiotic constraints (Mallikarjuna et al. 2011b). Attempts will be made to tap these sources with the help of appropriate molecular tools. One or two backcrosses with cultivated parents will be used to recover more of the cultivated genome using markers. Since the success of wide hybridization in CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 1 47 food legumes has often been limited due to lack of information on crossability (lack of taxonomic knowledge) and appropriate ecologies for the parents and offspring from the crosses. Hence, when relevant, a molecular phylogeny using the plastid DNA or ITS sequencing will be established to know the closest relatives of the food legumes considered. GIS tools will be used to predict the ecology of the different species involved so that better conditions for blooming and pod setting will be obtained, and similarly for the congruity backcrossing. Breeders will be continuously involved directly or through web imagery to see the outcomes of the crossing experiments, so that novel variation or promising materials can be directly included into regular crossing programs. Mutants or exceptional segregants will be included into the collections of genetic stocks handled by the respective genebanks and/or interested institutions. If crosses are planned for harsh environments (e.g. drought or extreme temperatures), the offspring will be shared with the breeders/ physiologists in the Centers or partners in order to make better use of these rare materials. However, in the absence desired genes/traits in different gene pools, potential alternative sources of resistance will be tapped by harnessing genetic engineering and RNAi technology platforms for developing such resistance. This involves developing a large number of transgenic events for individual crop/trait combination so as to maximize the chances of obtaining optimal phenotypes (without any yield penalty) for further characterization and validation under greenhouse, contained and confined field trials. The multidisciplinary teams will be involved in extensive phenotyping of the generated transgenic events of individual traits as a pre-breeding component. Notable amongst these will be Helicoverpa pod borer resistance in PP and CP, Maruca pod borer resistance in CW, pests and herbicide resistance in LN and drought tolerance in GN (Bhatnagar-Mathur et al. 2007), CP and CB. For traits involving nutritional enrichment, special emphasis will be on establishing activities on nutrient profiling and bioavailability in GN and PP. The advanced transgenic events will undergo comprehensive biosafety assessment prior to making them available for plant breeding activities on variety development. This will involve establishing translational research protocols and practices involving multiple partners, and facilities such as the Platform for Translational Research on Transgenic Crops (PTTC) at ICRISAT will play a significant role. Key milestones  Key traits not available in cultivated germplasm such as pod borer/bruchid resistance (CP, PP), leaf spots and aflatoxin (GN), stone weevil and Orobanche (LN) will be introgressed from wild relatives from different gene pools (2013) Broaden the genetic base of legumes (GN, CP, PP, CB, LN) utilizing wild and cultivated relatives from different gene pools (2013) Pre-breeding materials incorporating favorable alleles from wild species used as parents in MABC and MARS activities (2013) Doubled haploid systems for grain legumes developed (CP, PP) to fast track generation time and reduce the time for elite cultivar development (2014) Transgenic events for biotic constraints including pod borer (CP, CW, and PP), viral diseases (GN) and fungal pathogens (GN, CP, and PP) developed and characterized (2013). Transgenic events for tolerance to abiotic constraints including drought (GN and CP), developed and characterized (2013) RNAi technology based on marker-free transgenic technology made available for at least one trait each in groundnut and pigeonpea (2013) Resistance associated genes/proteins for complex combinational traits (e.g. aflatoxinresistance and drought tolerance) in groundnut identified (2014)        CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 1 48 5.2 Strategic Objective 2: Accelerating the development of more productive and nutritious cultivars for resilient cropping systems of smallholder farmers 5.2.1 Rationale The goal of Strategic Objective 2 is to develop improved legume varieties with higher and stable yield and increased nutritional and commercial value by exploiting genetic and genomic resources/tools developed in Strategic Objective 1. The average farm yield of legumes is very low, and wide yield gap exists between current on-farm yield and the yield obtained at research stations and well-managed farmers’ fields (Bhatia et al. 2006; Singh et al. 2001, 2009). The global average yield of CP, CB, CW, GN, LN and PP is less than 1.0 t/ha (FAOStat 2009), which is not even half of their realizable yields recorded in experimental fields. The expansion of area under grain legumes in the last 14 years is at the annual growth rate of 0.37%. At this rate, the projected global demand for grain legumes (10% in the coming decade and 23% from current level by the year 2030) can only be met by an increase in average yields of grain legumes (Akibode and Maredia, 2011). Farmers cultivate legumes as sole crops or as intercrops with cereals, oilseeds, and other staples; fit them into the short-season windows between cereal crops; or as relay crops (Amede and Kirkby, 2004). Food legumes are excellent crops in agro-pastoral areas to exploit rainfall suitable for short season crop production. Legumes are critical components in food systems, offering dietary diversity in cereal-based systems, and supplying protein, minerals and vitamins. However, with cereal production expected to double over the next 30 years (Specht et al. 1999), cereals will continue to occupy and expand in more favorable environments available to farmers while legume crops will gravitate to marginal areas characterized by poor soils, fragile ecosystems and comparatively short growing periods where the intensity and occurrence of adverse events such as drought and temperature extremes are more frequent and intense. While insect pests, diseases and extreme climatic events are seasonal, when coupled with edaphic constraints lead to low and unstable yields. Studies show that legumes contribute more than 20 million tons (MT) of atmospheric N2 to agriculture each year (Herridge et al. 2008) but much higher levels of N2 fixation are possible. For example, N2 fixation with soybeans can easily exceed 300 kg per ha per year. In Brazil, soybeans provide up to 94% of total plant N and represent an estimated saving to the economy of up to US$6.6 billion per year (Hungria et al. 2006). In northern Tanzania, studies showed that pigeonpea provided 100% of its N requirement and left behind about 40 kg of N/ha to the systems (Adu-Gyamfi et al. 2007). Legumes can also improve the phosphorus availability in cropping systems. In low-input cropping systems farmers usually do not apply phosphorus fertilizers to their crops, making it one of the limiting macro-nutrient for crop production. Legumes, such as chickpea (Li et al. 2004) and pigeonpea (Noriharu et al. 1990), can solubilize phosphorus and make it available to companion crops. Grain legumes are remarkably diverse in their range of adaptation (Hall, 2004). CRP 3.5 will exploit the diversity of legume species, to confront the challenges of climatic, edaphic and biotic constraints, through a strategic combination of both increased productivity and resilience to bridge the yield gaps and to exploit new niches like short-season windows of the existing cropping systems. Researchers of CRP 3.5 Grain Legumes will seek efficiencies through sharing facilities; joint testing of improved germplasm in new niches; screening for abiotic and biotic stresses in target environments and controlled conditions; and exploiting genomic resources across species. 5.2.2 Priority setting The priority regions for CRP 3.5 Grain Legumes are given in Chapter 3 on Justification. However, we will focus research in primary countries where the expected impacts are high, and it is expected that a few secondary countries (Appendix 3) will also benefit from this research, apart from spill-over benefits to many other countries in the region and globally. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 2 49 Yield of grain legume is constrained by several abiotic and biotic stresses. Appendix 6 has details of relative yield losses caused by the abiotic and biotic constraints in the target crops in the different regions. Based on the yield losses we have prioritized the key constraints that we will be addressing in Strategic Objective 2 (Table 5.2.1). Table 5.2.1. Priority grain legumes abiotic and biotic constraints for genetic enhancement Trait Abiotic Stresses Drought High/low temperatures Salinity Diseases Angular leaf spot/Anthracnose Ascochyta blight/Botrytis grey mold/Stemphylium Early/late leaf spot Bacterial blight Rust/Chocolate spot Wilt/root rots Viral (mosaic/sterility mosaic/rosette/bud necrosis) Insect Pests Aphids/Leaf hoppers Defoliators/leaf miners/cut worms Helicoverpa/Maruca Pod fly/bean fly/flower thrips/Apion Pod sucking bugs Sitona weevil White grubs/termites Parasitic weeds BNF *** *** *** *** *** *** ** ** *** *** *** *** ** ** *** ** ** ** ** *** ** *** *** ** ** ** ** *** *** *** ** *** ** ** *** ** *** *** ** ** ** *** *** *** ** *** ** *** *** *** ** ** *** *** ** ** *** *** *** *** *** CB CP CW FB GN LN PP SB ** = medium priority (yield losses of 6-10%); *** = high priority (yield losses of >10%) Note: The priorities are based on yield losses. See Annexure 6 for Relative yield losses due to abiotic and biotic constraints in target legumes in different regions. In addition to resistance/tolerance to abiotic and biotic stresses listed above, emphasis will also be on development of cultivars with suitable phenology to match the available length of crop season in the target environments. This includes development of early to extra-early maturing cultivars in CB, CP, PP, LN, GN, CW and SB. The priority traits for improvement of nutritional quality include enhancing micronutrient (iron and zinc) and protein contents in CP, CW, FB, PP, GN, and LN; and oil content and quality in GN. The end-user and market preferred traits include physical appearance of seed (size, shape and color) in all legumes, split (Dhal) making quality in CP, LN and PP and cooking quality in CB, CP, CW, FB, LN and PP. The cooking quality is an important trait for women as it can save considerable time and energy spent on cooking. Mechanization of legumes cultivation is CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 2 50 desired for reducing cost of cultivation and reducing drudgery on farm-women. Development of cultivars suitable for mechanical harvesting will be a priority in CP and LN and herbicide tolerant cultivars in CP, GN and LN. The other priority traits include improving biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) efficiency of in CB, CP, CW, FB, GN, and SB; and phosphorus use efficiency in CB, FB, GN, LN, CW and SB. 5.2.3 Impact Pathway Grain legumes are generally cultivated in marginal environments and are affected by several abiotic, biotic and edaphic constraints (see above). The outputs of Strategic Objective 1 (genetic resources and novel breeding tools/methods) will contribute significantly to the outputs and impacts of Strategic Objective 2 by providing useful genetic resources for important traits and novel breeding tools/methods. The outputs of SO2 will be elite breeding lines and cultivars with enhanced yield potential, greater yield stability due to improved resistance to stresses and enhanced nutritional and commercial value. These will be shared with partners both in public and private sectors who will evaluate these for local adaptation. The selected lines will be evaluated at multi-locations within the target region and the best performing lines will be released as varieties by the partners in different countries through their national systems. Farmers and end-users will be involved in participatory varietal selections, so that the selected lines would have better acceptance when released commercially. This will be the input from this objective to Strategic Objective 4 on Seed Systems. Inadequate availability of quality seed is a major bottleneck in legumes for spread of new cultivars. Availability of seed and enhanced awareness of farmers about improved cultivars and production technologies will help in enhancing adoption of improved cultivars technologies, which will not only reduce the yield gap and yield variability but also lower production costs and risks. The impacts at farm level will include changes in terms of income, asset accumulation; human capital, food consumption, nutrition and health (Figure 5.2.1). The research findings including methodologies developed will be shared with the researchers in the national system thorough publications and presentations at various forums. These will help partners in improving efficiency of their legume improvement programs. They would be better equipped to respond to the future needs of cultivars and develop these more rapidly. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 2 51 5 Impact pathway for Strategic Objective 2 Figure 5.2.1. 5.2.4 Ke ey partners and a their role e Strategic c Objective 5.2 will wo ork closely w with CRP 1.1 1 and CRP 1.2 (dryland d and humid d tropics production systems) for developing and tes sting improv ved legume cultivars in different production ity of legume es adaptatio on to varied ecological ni iches make t them valuab ble assets systems. The diversi for these CRPs. Colla aboration with CRP 7 (cllimate chang ge) will ident tify key regio ons for targe eting the development of resi ilient legume e varieties fo or changing climatic conditions. We will work wi ith CRP 4 to exten nd successes s with beans s to other le egumes with h enhanced nutritional c composition. . We will work clo osely with th he other CRP P 3s (especia ally maize, wheat, w rice, dryland cerea als, and root ts, tubers and bananas) for eff fective and in ntegrated cr ropping syste ems; and CRP P 2 for policy y and impact t studies. Our inte ention is to leverage ca apacity and resources from f within the CGIAR,, the larger national CRP 3.5 G GRAIN LEGUM MES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strate egic Objective 2 52 research and development programs, and advanced research institutions (ARIs) in an effort to increase the capacity of smaller, under-funded national programs. Major legume programs beyond the CGIAR are found in Brazil, Turkey, Canada, India, Mexico, Ethiopia, Australia, and the United States. Several of these countries are centers of diversity of important legumes, and can offer important insights on the exploitation of genetic diversity in crop improvement. Partnership with these programs and networks, like Dry Grain Pulse Collaborative Research Support Program (Pulse CRSP), will support in sharing the resources and expertise for developing greater national capacities and help to facilitate germplasm and information exchange. Many ARIs have expressed their interest to collaborate with CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES and negotiations for collaborative efforts are well under-way. Research will be carried out in close collaboration with national research programs, ARIs, universities, and the private sector. The ARIs will mainly be involved in upstream research, but with a shared interest in applying this to practical plant breeding, while location specific technologies will be developed in partnership with NARS. The partners for developmental activities will include NARS, and various governments and NGOs involved in developmental activities. Roles and responsibilities of partners are dealt in detail in Chapter 6 on Partnerships. 5.2.5 Gender Strategy Traits that benefit women e.g., fast cooking and micronutrient-rich grains; varieties suitable for mechanically harvest, and herbicide tolerant varieties to reduce drudgery for women (Badiger et al. 2004), will be given prominence in varietal development. Women and children (the most vulnerable groups nutritionally) will be the primary clients of nutritionally improved legumes. Women play a critical role in any nutrition education component, both for their own health, and their role as care givers and homemakers (including food preparation). The most likely role of legumes is in improving maternal health, especially during pregnancy, which in turn impacts on infant health. The IFPRI Conference on Leveraging Agriculture for Health and Nutrition (10-12 Feb 2011, New Delhi, India; http://2020conference.ifpri.info/tag/day-2/) identified women as key enablers in the integration of the three sectors: Agriculture, Health and Nutrition and their active involvement in the breeding process will be vital. Farmers’ participatory varietal selection (FPVS) approach currently in use across centers will continue to actively involve both men and women farmers of different social classes to increase their influence on the breeding criteria. Plant varieties chosen by women will not be limited to yield or disease resistance, but may also relate to peaks in labor requirements during the crop cycle. Specific targeting of various women groups (from richer households, vulnerable etc.) will be emphasized during the selection of varieties where potential trade-offs between traits (i.e. micronutrients, commercial value, drudgery) exist to ensure that the program does not stray from their concerns, or is able to adjust to any changes in these concerns. Legume cultivars with such women-preferred traits would thus enable closing of gender gap in agriculture that would generate significant gains to the society. Qualitative assessment of trait preferences will be complemented with quantitative assessment of trait trade-offs for each gender group to ensure that gender targeting is achieved while maximizing welfare gains. A participatory monitoring and evaluation system will integrate local- and gender-specific indicators for monitoring outcomes. Gender disaggregated data and analysis will provide feedback lessons to draw from for improving the mainstreaming of gender into the activities of this objective. Views, perceptions and knowledge of rural women will be fully captured and incorporated into the research process. The capacity of implementers at various to mainstream gender in the program activities will be enhanced through training and mentoring by gender experts. Problem solving approaches of men and women researchers are often different, thus drawing on both men's and women's knowledge base can add significantly to the quality of research methodology and results.The program will aim for a balanced staff structure where the participation of women researchers and students will be encouraged. Women researchers will be attracted to CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 2 53 legume improvement early in their career while they are undergraduate students through three to six months attachment in research stations so that they will be exposed to hands on experience on legumes. 5.2.6 Lessons learned and research questions to be addressed The average farm yields of grain legumes are low and wide gaps exist between the yields realized at the research stations and at the farmers’ fields, as grain legumes are largely grown rainfed in marginal environments with sub-optimal inputs and are prone to several biotic and abiotic stresses. The adoption of improved cultivars and technologies is low as compared to staple cereals and other high value crops. The crop cultivars available have narrow genetic base and most of the breeding programs are not using novel breeding methods that can improve precision and efficiency of breeding programs. Key R4D questions to be addressed include:      How much can yield and yield stability be increased given the stressful, short-season environments that grain legumes typically face? Can drought and low phosphorus tolerance in roots increase BNF and therefore grain yield under stress? Are any yield tradeoffs involved in breeding for nutritional qualities (minerals, protein, oil, vitamins, and reduced antinutritionals)? What breeding targets might contribute to more efficient and robust seed systems? How can breeding targets for climate change-proofing grain legumes be made robust despite the uncertainty and wide range of climate change scenarios and forecasts? The research approaches to address these questions are described under methodologies section. Strategic Objective 2 will set priorities for Strategic Objective 1 to develop molecular tools, novel breeding methods, phenotyping assays and trait specific germplasm. Objective 2 will use these products and services of Integrated Breeding Platform for increasing efficiency of breeding programs in speedy development and delivery of improved cultivars. Yield potential of the cultivars will be enhanced by improving the plant type, enhancing BNF and nutrient use efficiency, and maximizing the remobilization of photosynthates from vegetative structures to grain. The genetic variability in the breeding materials will be enhanced and novel traits introduced through interspecific gene transfers and transgenic technologies to develop cultivars with enhanced resistance/tolerance to stresses. The existing and introduced genetic variability will be exploited in developing cultivars with enhanced nutritional quality and other end-user preferred traits. Varieties will be developed which are amenable to mechanization for bringing down cost of cultivation. The participatory varietal selection approach will be used and seed systems will be strengthened (under SO4) to enhance adoption of preferred varieties by the farmers and end-users. 5.2.7 Outputs 5.2.7.1: Elite lines/cultivars with at least 25% higher yield potential than the best available cultivars developed for different production systems. Description Global grain legume yield data provide an impression of yield stagnation; however, an increasing trend is noted in the average production and yield of grain legumes since 1990 with stabilized or modest increased trend in per capita consumption in the developing countries in the last 14 years (Akibode and Maredia, 2011). However, the average yield of grain legumes in developing countries still remains less than 1 ton/ha. While cereal yields received a boost from nitrogen fertilizers, legumes are physiologically more complex with regard to N metabolism and its relation to photosynthesis. In the past relatively less emphasis has been given to enhance yield potential, compared to resistance breeding. We seek to improve yield from the present level of 800 kg/ha to at CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 2 54 least 1200 kg/ha, by replacing existing local varieties with improved varieties, and adoption of improved crop management technologies. In the medium to long term, the yield potential of legumes requires substantial improvement within different cropping systems. High yield potential in legumes can be achieved either by improving biomass and its favorable partitioning to grain, or by breeding cultivars responsive to inputs (fertilizer and irrigation). Over the next decade, legume breeding programs will likely reorient their objectives to develop higher yielding cultivars with appropriate phenology and plant type for mixed crop with cereals, or fit within the short-season windows available between cereal crops. This output is set to develop and test high yielding elite lines/cultivars in partnership with NARS and through on-farm participatory research, to ensure the results fit the target production environments and meet requirements of smallholder farmers and end users. Methodology Interdisciplinary breeding teams, integrated across CG centers and NARS partners sharing critical facilities and learning from each other will identify and define productivity enhancing traits and ideotypes for different production environments, and adapted to varied future cropping systems. Approaches such as crop simulation modeling will be used for identification of yield enhancing traits. The combination of conventional and advanced molecular tools for parental and pedigree selection and better understanding of the genetics of agronomic traits should lead to more efficient breeding programs that make optimal use of the available resources including genetic/genomic resources. Strategic research will be carried out by Centers involved in collaboration with ARI and NARS partners on varietal improvement and advanced breeding methodologies. Multilocation evaluation across Africa, Asia, and Latin America will be accelerated, in partnership with regional networks, as a driver for germplasm enhancement, exchange and variety testing in different target environments. Attempts have been made to define ideotypes of grain legumes for different growing conditions (Sedgley et al. 1990; Lather 2000). Spontaneous and induced brachytic mutants with short internodes and compact growth habit have been used in ideotype breeding in CP and promising progenies with compact growth habit and which can be grown at high plant density have been obtained (Lather, 2000; Gaur et al. 2008). Phenological adaptation to the growing environment is critical when grain legumes move to new areas due to changes in climate and farming systems. The most important stage is the transition from vegetative growth into the reproductive phase or “flowering”. In the last ten years, major advances in understanding of the flowering process have been achieved in model species Arabidopsis thaliana and rice (Salomé et al. 2011), and in garden pea (Pisum sativum) (Wenden and Rameau 2009). Recent progress in Medicago truncatula has enabled comparative mapping across major grain legumes. CRP GRAIN LEGUMES will seek to translate the knowledge on flowering time in Arabidopsis, using current information available in pea and Medicago, to improve breeding efficiency in target legume crops. Dissecting genes triggering the shift from vegetative to reproductive development could play a key role in maximizing the remobilization of photosynthates from vegetative structures to grain (Rao et al. 2009; Beebe et al. 2011). During grain filling, the major factor limiting the quantity of grain produced is nitrogen (and then next probably phosphorus). Therefore, every possible increase in the N nutrition of legumes, and especially a boost in its BNF capacity will increase the pool of available N toward grain filling (Sinclair and Vadez 2002). In beans improved plant efficiency in remobilization has been associated both with yield potential and with earlier maturity (Beebe et al. 2008). Enhanced harvest index will favor yield if it is combined with adequate biomass accumulation during the vegetative phase of growth. Genes that enhance this shift to the reproductive phase should be identified and employed in breeding programs in combination with both root and shoot traits that contribute for greater biomass production and N accumulation during vegetative phase. Wild species or cultivated related species could bring additional variability in essential physiological traits. The yield of some legumes (PP, FB) will be significantly improved by focusing on hybrid vigor and heterosis. The nuclearcytoplasmic male sterility system (CMS) is well established in PP (Saxena et al. 2005; Saxena and CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 2 55 Nadarajan 2010) and is under exploration in the case of FB. This will require the use of elite breeding materials, but also the introgression of crop wild relatives to diversify the nuclear as well as the cytoplasm of the lines (A, B, R) involved in the CMS system (Bohra et al. 2011). The use of molecular breeding strategies developed in Strategic Objective 1 will bring precision and accelerate the breeding processes and will become an integral part of cultivar development. These strategies include Marker-Assisted Selection (MAS) which targets the selection of specific alleles for traits conditioned by a few loci; Marker-Assisted Backcrossing (MABC) which is used to transfer a limited number of loci from one genetic background to another; and Marker-assisted Recurrent Selection (MARS) that deals with the identification and selection of several genomic regions involved in the expression of complex traits within a single population. For certain crops like CB, CP, CW, GN the use of these strategies under the current Tropical Legumes I project has been initiated (Varshney et al. 2010), and we plan to include other crops in due course. Key milestones      Ten elite lines with at least 25% higher yield than the best available cultivars developed across target legumes and shared with NARS partners (2013-2014) At least five hybrids/ parental lines (A-,B-, R-lines) of PP made available to partners (2013) Prototype of ideal plant type for various production zones conceptualized and shared with national partners in targeted legumes (2014). Inter-specific derivatives evaluated for enhancing yield related traits in CB, CP, GN, PP, and LN (2015) Traits for enhanced photosynthetic remobilization to grain identified for at least one grain legume (2013) 5.2.7.2: Elite lines/cultivars with enhanced resistance/tolerance to key biotic and abiotic stresses and resilience to climate change developed. Description Breeding efforts using conventional and molecular methods have produced a few cultivars that are resistant to key biotic and abiotic stresses, thus stabilizing productivity to some extent. However, in the face of global climate variability and change, there is an urgent need to improve resistances and tolerance to multiple stress factors by pyramiding useful genes. It is forecast that some areas will be getting drier while others will become wetter (Yadav et al. 2011). The impact from increased heat and moisture stress would be significant on overall production of grain legumes (Cutforth et al. 2007). Heat and drought can occur together and have some added effect on similar processes, including those involving reproductive processes. Reproductive processes are indeed damaged when stress occurs at critical developmental stages, reducing seed set (Wahid et al. 2007; Bourgault and Smith, 2010; Upadhyaya et al. 2011; Zaman-Allah et al. 2011). In addition, heat increases the rate of development processes, shortening the crop season and, while this is desirable in environment that are severely water-limited, this can bring a yield penalty in better endowed environments with regards to water. Several traits like earliness and deep-rooting trait are being used to develop drought-tolerant varieties with potential to escape drought and extract water from deeper soil layers. Similarly, rising temperatures and changes in moisture are predicted to alter the pest spectrum and dynamics, particularly their distribution, virulence/aggressiveness of pathogens, and emergence of new pathotypes/races/ biotypes affecting these crops (Beebe et al. 2011; Vadez et al. 2011; Yadav et al. 2011). Breeding for resistance offers the most environmentally sustainable approach to pest and disease control, allowing farmers to reduce pesticide applications and increase profit margins. Given the pace with which climate change is occurring, and because it takes 10-12 years or more to achieve impacts in farmers’ fields, the research agenda of this output must be geared to deliver through a well-coordinated and multidisciplinary approach for developing CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 2 56 improved germplasm for combating these production constraints and avoid crop failures in the target regions. As mentioned above, legumes are attractive to pest and diseases and these are major yield limiting factors. In addition, legume species are often exposed to a combination of possible disease. Therefore, modern breeding offer here an opportunity to develop improved cultivars having several beneficial genes for resistance to different diseases. In this, the output from SO1 will also be critical, first to exploit the best of available germplasm toward breeding, but also to include wild relatives of legume cultigens which often harbor higher levels of resistance to certain diseases. Methodology Existing lines will be improved for resistance/tolerance to key biotic and abiotic stresses. Accessions from the germplasm collections both cultivated and cross-compatible wild relatives, with desirable traits will be used as parents in both conventional and molecular breeding approaches. For example, within the genus Phaseolus, P. coccineus and P. dumosus are adapted to moist environments and are resistant to many pathogens of CB. At the other ecological extreme, P. acutifolius is adapted to hot and dry conditions of the American southwest and northern Mexico. These species may serve as physiological and genetic models of adaptation, and/or sources of genes to overcome the effects of climate change. This, along with known contrasting lines within each species, will also contribute to the understanding of critical adaptation mechanisms and traits; whether those are either constitutive or stress inducible. Since several abiotic stresses involve constraints at the level of soil (drought, soil fertility, aluminum toxicity, reduced soil organic matter due to accelerated mineralization, etc.), adapting to these stresses will involve in part fitting the right root system to the specific soil environment. This is a particular challenge, and root biology should play a significant role in defining a target phenotype, in identifying the source materials for breeding programs, and in defining selection criteria (Lynch 2011). Methods that can address these dual constraints are available through collection of much more precise and dynamic data on the contribution of root systems (Zaman-Allah et al. 2011; Vadez et al. 2008). Progress has been made in identifying major QTLs associated with yield under drought stress in chickpea (Imtiaz 2010). Near-isogenic lines (NILs) possessing drought-tolerance QTLs will be analyzed physiologically to unveil mechanisms involved in tolerance and the interaction between these QTLs and facilitate their effective use in breeding. Crop simulation efforts will also contribute to an important step of testing the effect of specific traits or mechanisms across a large range of environments and weather conditions. Efforts are already underway in CP and CW to transfer drought tolerant QTLs into sensitive genotypes which are otherwise high yielding and adapted to areas of production. Phenotyping methodologies for these stresses will be standardized to establish and share platforms for large-scale evaluation under managed stress conditions to facilitate precise measurements of stress related traits including grain yield. Environments representative of future production conditions of heat and drought will be identified through GIS/remote sensing analysis in cooperation with CRP 7. This will permit identification of currently available germplasm for wider testing, in preparation for the future (20-50 years) as well as extreme climatic events that could occur even in the next few years. Diseases, insect pests and parasitic weeds will be monitored in order to know their spatial and temporal distributions using GIS/remote sensing (Dionissios et al. 2010) for better targeting of the breeding programs to develop pest resistant/tolerant cultivars. The data will be used to develop pest and disease distribution maps to monitor their spread over time as food legumes are introduced into new niches. The breeding lines will be tested under hot spot areas in Africa and South Asia and also under controlled conditions for their resistance/tolerance to aggressive pest populations. Insect, parasitic weed and pathogen diversities will be studied using conventional and modern techniques to expose the breeding materials against aggressive populations. Evaluation of multiple resistance/tolerance to pests will be done through international and regional nurseries. Genetic transformation efforts will be strengthened particularly for difficult traits, for example, cowpea with CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 2 57 Bt gene for resistance to Maruca pod borer, and Bt chickpea and pigeonpea for resistance to Helicoverpa pod borer. Key milestones       At least 100 breeding lines with improved resistance to key diseases and insect pests developed across all target legumes (2013) 20 breeding lines with improved drought/heat tolerance in CP, CW, CB, GN, FB and LN developed and shared with partners (2014) At least 15 elite lines with combined resistance to key biotic and abiotic stresses per year across legumes developed and shared with partners (2012-2013) At least 6 breeding lines with improved water-logging tolerance developed in CW and PP and shared with partners (2013) About 20 breeding lines with better adaptation to problematic soils (salinity, acidity) developed/identified (CB, CP,) (2014) Better understanding of the mechanisms and genetics of resistance/tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses (CB, CP,GN, LN) (2014) 5.2.7.3: Improved germplasm better targeted to smallholder niches using GIS and other novel methods Description Legumes typically present narrower adaptation ranges than cereals and are sometimes referred to as niche crops. Targeting of materials to niches has two broad dimensions: one is biophysical, and the other is social and includes farmer and consumer preferences. Biophysical targeting can be supported by GIS analysis of crop data across environments, to classify production regions into clusters with similar crop response. In the early days of the CGIAR centers, international nurseries were planted widely, and data from these trials permitted studies of adaptation and classification of environments. As budgetary limitations reduced systematic international testing, such broad based databases were no longer generated, and most targeting in recent years has been based on experience and empirical knowledge. Meanwhile, new genotypes with wider adaptation and specific adaptive traits have been developed. It is likely that the adaptive pattern of newer materials is different than those in past, and updating environmental classifications based on currently available germplasm would facilitate targeting. For example, CIMMYT revised its mega-environment system for wheat and maize breeding as genetic advances was registered and these have been used to assist with priority setting and targeting of germplasm (Setimela et al. 2005; Hodson and White, 2007). International centers can develop gene pools with traits of high yield potential, resilience under climate change etc. but such traits must be deployed in varieties with local adaptation, and with specific farmer and consumer preferences. Varieties are increasingly being developed by national partners, either by selection within such gene pools, or within populations created specifically for their own purposes. More dynamic and productive breeding programs will result when the strengths of both IARCs and NARS are brought to bear on breeding challenges, especially when bolstered by inputs from farmers, traders and stakeholders. This output is designed to focus on better targeting of improved germplasm through improved methods such as applications of GIS, simulation models, global dissemination of improved germplasm, selection of farmer and end-user preferred cultivars, data curation and providing easy and open access of databases to the global research and development agencies. Methodology Germplasm dissemination: Information based on performance of the materials at multiple locations will be centralized and used to predict adaptation of the germplasm to areas having similar agro- CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 2 58 ecological conditions. Nurseries of germplasm with unique adaptive traits will be evaluated for yield across the range of production environments, to study the adaptive patterns of modern germplasm and the classification of environments based on crop response, including those that simulate future stressful environments. Accompanying physiological analysis will relate yield response to adaptive traits. Application of predictive programs such as Homologue (www.gisweb.ciat.cgiar.org/ homologue/) will extend results to other environments and serve to highlight best environments for phenotypic selection. This will indicate potential adaptation even across continents where work on a given crop is limited. Predictions of climatic effects (especially heat stress) will be refined with CRP 7. Fitting germplasm to environments requires systematic and accessible databases. Data management for breeding programs will be streamlined in accord with efforts spearheaded by the GCP. Data will include phenotypic and genotypic data but also climatic and soil parameters, and farmer preferred traits. Crop ontologies will facilitate standard annotation of legume traits. Data management systems (software) will support all steps in the breeding process (inventory of seed, experimental design, preparation of field books, field planting plans, data collection, data analysis, selection of materials). Commercial (e.g., AGROBASE) and publicly developed platforms (Integrated Breeding Platform) will be used in combination with electronic field books. As molecular breeding becomes a regular practice, molecular-marker data will be integrated into the breeding software to more efficiently estimate the value of genotypes and potential parents in breeding populations. Data and germplasm will be made available to NARS breeding programs for the development of segregating populations tailored to local needs. Crosses will be planned and selected jointly with partners to bring together strengths of the centers and national breeders knowledgeable of local preferences. The final word in targeting germplasm lies with farmers. Participatory variety selection (PVS) will document farmers’ needs and preferred traits in legume cultivars, and farmer preferences will be registered in the database. PVS complements the efforts of traditional on-farm trials which give limited choice of varieties that were preselected by breeders. PVS is now widely applied in many breeding programs in Africa, CWANA and Asia and its use will continue. Key milestones         Database on MET generated and made available to national partners (2013) Climate change effects on grain legumes assessed with CRP 7 (2013) Data management Centre for target grain legumes established and publicly available (2013) Methodological framework for the analysis of a crop yield gap developed (2014) Trait specific germplasm is tested over multiple sites to develop crop response clusters for at least four crops (2014) Suitability of new legume crops in different environments evaluated by crop simulation modelling (2014) At least two regional/international nursery of improved germplasm in each grain legume constituted and distributed to partners annually (2013, 2014) 2-3 farmer and end-user preferred varieties identified for each grain legume in each target region through PVS (2013) 5.2.7.4: Elite lines/cultivars with enhanced nutritional composition and end-user preferred traits developed. Description Legume crops play important roles in the diets of the poor, especially of vegetarians around the world. Grain legumes, when combined with cereals provide a nutritionally balanced amino acid composition. Regular consumption of grain legumes is now recommended by most health organizations (Leterme, 2002; USDA, 2010). In addition to their role as high-protein food crops, they are good sources of micronutrients like iron and zinc, and in some cases vitamin A. The SRF identifies CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 2 59 addressing micronutrient deficiencies as a priority for nutritional work of the CGIAR. Iron deficiency is the most common nutritional deficiency, affecting as many as 4 billion individuals worldwide (ACC/SCN, 2004). Severe iron deficiency leads to low levels of haemoglobin (anemia). An estimated 329 million women in the Americas, Africa and south Asia are anemic, together with 221 million preschool age children (WHO, 2008). Several success stories have demonstrated the feasibility of using plant breeding to address nutritional problems. Currently, the HarvestPlus Challenge program under CRP 4 is developing crops, including CB, which carry higher levels of iron, zinc and/or betacarotene. When biofortified CB were compared to normal CB, consuming biofortified CB improved iron status of school children in Mexico when transferrin receptor was used as an indicator of iron status (Haas et al. 2010). Soybeans have also been shown to supply bioavailable iron to legume consumers in significant quantities (Murray-Kolb et al. 2003). HarvestPlus has taken the lead in demonstrating the potential for genetic improvement of CB for iron and zinc concentration (Beebe et al. 2000). However, HarvestPlus focuses work on CB in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (CRP 4). We would broaden the scope of this work to other countries in Africa in the case of CB, and to other legumes and countries that are not researched under CRP 4. Levels of anemia and the potential to address micronutrient malnutrition among populations that traditionally consume legumes justify this effort. Both agronomic and quality traits such as seed characteristics (size, shape and color) influence market price and farmers’ decisions of what to plant. For example, the large seed size in kabuli CP and GN fetches a price premium in the market. CRP 3.5 will focus on combining nutritional quality with farmer-, consumer- and market-preferred traits, to create gene pools that can be employed readily for the creation of nutritionally enhanced varieties with other market preferred traits such as large seed size, and less cooking time. Methodology Biofortification: We will work closely with CRP 4 in identifying research gaps for grain legumes in relation to nutritional quality. Nutritional status of the population is a primary criterion, although practically all countries in South Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and in Latin America present moderate (2039%) to severe (>40%) levels of anemia in women and children (WHO, 2008). The lower social strata are likely present even higher levels. The CRP 4 lays out the criteria for establishing a breeding program for biofortified crops:  Can plant breeding and modern agricultural biotechnology techniques increase the nutrient density of food staples to target levels that can potentially have a measurable and significant impact on human nutritional status? When consumed under controlled conditions, will these extra nutrients be bioavailable and absorbed at sufficient levels to improve the nutrient status in target populations? Will farmers adopt the biofortified varieties?    Will consumers purchase/eat the biofortified varieties? Among the edible grain legumes, research on biofortification of CB is most advanced and experience in CB can orient the development of breeding activities in other crops, to respond to the four issues above. The evaluation of a core collection of CB addressed point 1 above, and was a useful tool in the identification of high iron sources (Beebe et al. 2000). Lines or accessions derived from wide inter-gene pool crosses often gave the highest levels of iron, and interspecific crosses contributed additional genetic gain. Broad based germplasm collections for CP, PP, CW, GN, LN, such as those developed under the GCP, together with related species and materials derived from wide crosses, will be evaluated for micronutrient concentration, following procedures of HarvestPlus (Stangoulis and Sison, 2008). Mineral analysis will be carried out using atomic absorption in the first stages, followed by confirmation with ICP. Carotenoid measurement of LN, CP, and PP will be adapted to the use of NIRs (in partnership with CRP 4). Issues of bioavailability (point 2 above) can only be resolved experimentally, and this has formed part of the HarvestPlus program, but to date results with beans are promising (Tako et al. 2009). Haas et al. (2010) found a beneficial effect of high iron CB in school CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 2 60 children with lower levels of consumption than had been assumed necessary for a significant health outcome, suggesting that bioavailability could be higher than expected. It will be necessary to combine the high micronutrient trait together with agronomic traits to promote adoption by farmers (point 3). No resistance from consumers is expected to eating legumes biofortified with minerals since this is an invisible trait, but consumer acceptance of legumes with high carotene cotyledons may require acceptability studies if deployed in regions where these are not customary. In contrast to the efforts with CB which sought to create biofortified varieties with all necessary traits in the short run, high micronutrient gene pools will be created whereby the nutritional trait(s) will be combined with one or two agronomic and/or acceptability traits, to create parental material for further genetic combinations in a second cycle of crosses. We deem that this will be more efficient and simpler genetically, and may not delay the ultimate product in the long run. Transgenics are being developed for enhanced beta-carotene contents in GN and PP at ICRISAT and the selected events will be evaluated further. Trypsin inhibitors will be assayed in soybean to reduce this anti-nutrient. NIRS will also be calibrated for the evaluation of protein concentration in grains of CP, CW, PP, GN and LN, and in both grain and stover of GN and CW. The relationship between nutritional traits and/or anti-nutritional factors with productivity and resistance to diseases and/or insect pests will also be established. Key milestones   Genetic variability determined and a baseline is established for relevant nutrients, antinutritional and/or biochemical factors in CP, CW, GN, LN, PP, FB and SB (2013) Information on relationships between anti-nutritional factors and resistances to insect pest and diseases, and between nutritional traits and productivity available and shared with partners (CB) (2013) High iron CB tested in another five countries in Africa outside of Rwanda and D.R. Congo (2013) Stability of nutritional trait expression determined over environments (CB, CP, CW, GN, LN, PP, FB, SB) (2014) At least 20 breeding lines with high protein and/or micronutrient content developed/identified in CP, CW, FB, PP, GN, and LN and shared with partners (2014) At least 5 breeding lines with high oil content/oil quality developed/identified in GN (2014) At least 20 breeding lines with market-preferred seed traits, such as large seed size in CB, GN and kabuli CP, developed (2014) At least 15 breeding lines with faster-cooking quality developed in CB, CP, CW, FB, LN and PP (2014)       5.2.7.5: Elite lines/cultivars with enhanced nutrient use efficiency, high N2 fixation potential and other traits for system efficiency developed. Description Excessive use and inefficient management of nutrients like N and P threatens the environment and increases crop production costs, thereby reducing profitability and increasing the risk associated with crop production. Though there are several definitions of nutrient use efficiency, a widely acceptable one is based on minimizing the intensive use of fertilizers along with genotypes that are able to mobilize the limiting nutrient in greater amounts, particularly in marginal areas where farmers do not apply adequate amounts of fertilizers (Keneni and Imtiaz, 2010; Lynch 2011). Fertilizers are not affordable and/or available for farmers in developing countries. Sasakawa Global 2000 conducted well over 600,000 on-farm demonstrations in 12 SSA countries where they showed excellent response to fertilizer applications (Quinones et al. 1997). Studies have revealed that the CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 2 61 average fertilizer application in SSA is approximately 9 kg/ha/yr compared to 86–142 kg/ha/yr in Latin America or South East Asia (Crawford et al. 2006, Bekunda et al. 1997). Development of nutrient efficient genotypes (FAO 1995) and BNF efficient cultivars in legumes along with effective rhizobial and mycorrhizal association and the synergistic relations have been suggested (FAO 1995; Clark et al. 1988; McKnight Foundation 2008). Nevertheless, little effort has been made to genetically improve adaptation of legume crops to nutrient deficient marginal soils despite the technical possibilities (Keneni and Imtiaz, 2010). In addition, to improve system efficiency, N2 fixation in grain legumes by plant breeding needs to be enhanced. Similarly, legumes compete poorly with weeds leading to significant yield reduction. For example in CP yield reductions of 23–87% due to competition from weeds have been shown to occur (Yenish 2007). Furthermore, most grain legumes are susceptible to post-emergence herbicide and this is another area neglected in the past. Therefore the research agenda for this output of the CRP 3.5 Grain Legumes will be geared to achieving system efficiency through provision of resilient, water- and nutrient-use efficient, herbicide tolerant and high BNF capacity legume germplasm for deployment in breeding programs. Methodology High N2 fixation legumes: One approach to be followed will be breeding for promiscuous nodulation. Promiscuous legume genotypes fix atmospheric N with the available rhizobium in the soil whereas non-promiscuous types require specific rhizobium to fix N. Typically soybean requires specific inoculants but lines have been bred to nodulate promiscuously (Gwata et al. 2004; Gwata et al. 2005). Promiscuity is a heritable trait and cultivars were developed by introgressing promiscuity into non-promiscuous genotypes with superior agronomic performance (Giller and Dashiell, 2006). Generally, cultivars bred for promiscuous nodulation with the indigenous rhizobia were thought to increase production of legumes in tropical Africa with minimum cost affordable to smallholder farmers (Zengeni and Giller 2007). Selection for enhanced nodulation in promiscuous soybeans has resulted in improved gain for this trait in SSA (Tefera 2011). This approach will be followed to develop promiscuous lines with high BNF. The second approach to be followed in breeding for high BNF is optimizing the numbers and effectiveness of rhizobia in the rooting zone through strain selection and inoculation techniques (Herridge and Danso 1995). The BNF potential of legumes will be enhanced through specific rhizobial strain by legume cultivar interaction. Selection of legume lines under no N fertilization condition but inoculated with effective Bradyrhizobium or Rhizobium strains will be employed. The success of BNF in Brazil has been based on this principle (Alves et al. 2003). Germplasm lines with high BNF potentials under stressful environments such as low P and drought will also be identified following approaches and methods previously used (Vadez et al. 1999; Sinclair et al. 2000). Tall and erect to semi-erect cultivars suited to mechanical harvesting will be developed in CP and LN to reduce cost of cultivation and drudgery to women. Similarly, herbicide tolerant cultivars will be developed to reduce yield losses from weeds, and reduce drudgery to women from manual weeding. Several herbicide-tolerant crops have been developed and commercialized from herbicide-tolerant mutants obtained through chemical mutagenesis followed by herbicide selection or direct herbicide selection of spontaneous mutations (Tan and Bowe 2009). Commercial herbicide-tolerant crops developed from herbicide-tolerant mutants include imidazolinone-tolerant maize, rice, wheat, oilseed rape, sunflower, and lentil; sulfonylurea tolerant soybean and sunflower; cyclohexanedione-tolerant maize; and triazine-tolerant oilseed rape (Duke 2005). Among the chemical mutagens, EMS was the most popular one. We will focus on developing simple and efficient herbicide tolerance screening techniques and identification of novel source of herbicide tolerance in target legumes from the germplasm and also inducing through chemical mutagenesis. These will then be used in breeding programs for introgressing herbicide tolerance in the selected popular cultivars. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will collaborate with ARIs working on herbicide tolerance in legumes. Nutrient imbalances such as P and Zn deficiency and Fe and Al toxicity are widespread in most production areas in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Root traits have been shown to play critical roles in P efficiency in crops (Ramaekers et al. 2010; Lynch 2011). Identification of the quantitative trait loci (QTLs) conferring superior root systems could significantly CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 2 62 enhance genetic improvement in legumes P efficiency (Quan et al. 2010). Other traits contribute to more grain production per unit of nutrient absorbed by the plant (Rao, 2002). Studies of root morphology and architecture to determine optimal rooting patterns for efficiency in nutrient uptake and fertilizer efficiency and testing of germplasm with enhanced tolerance to drought and low P availability, to determine if such traits influence BNF positively will also be a focus of this CRP. Donor parents for tolerance to these soil problems will be identified and physiologically and genetically characterized, and molecular approaches (markers or major QTLs) used in breeding programs to develop nutrient efficient legume cultivars. Key milestones       At least 15 early to extra-early breeding lines for short-window cropping seasons developed in CB, CP, PP, LN, GN, CW, SB and made available to partners (2012) At least 4 breeding lines suitable for mechanical harvesting to reduce manual harvesting, especially by women, identified/developed in CP and LN (2013) At least 10 breeding lines with high BNF capacity in CB, CP, CW, FB, GN, and SB developed/identified and tested under a wide range of environments (2013) At least 10 P efficient breeding lines developed/identified in CB, FB, GN, LN, CW and SB (2014) At least 5 breeding lines with improved herbicide tolerance to reduce manual weeding by women in CP, GN, LN developed/identified (2014) Genetic basis of interaction of drought and low P with BNF understood (2014) CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 2 63 5.3 Strategic Objective 3: Identifying and promoting crop and pest management practices for sustainable legume production 5.3.1 Rationale This Strategic Objective aims at developing crop and pest management options that allow optimization of production of legumes and sustainability of the farming systems, in collaboration with the system level work undertaken in CRP 1.1, CRP 1.2, and CRP 5. Grain legumes play an important role in sustainability of farming systems through nutrient input into the soil, and nutritious food for human beings and livestock (Graham and Vance, 2003; Serraj, 2004). They possess an enormously valuable trait, the ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen (N) through biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) into plant-available N forms. They effectively make their own N and also leave significant amounts of N in the soil that benefits the subsequent crops (Serraj, 2004; Bado et al. 2006; Kumar Rao et al. 1998; Goergen et al. 2009; Lupwayi et al. 2011). Nevertheless, they are also risky crops because they attract several insect pests and diseases (due to their rich nutrient content), and the process of BNF is extremely sensitive to major climatic (drought) and edaphic (P deficiency) constraints (Serraj and Sinclair, 1998; Vadez et al. 1999). In addition, the nitrogen coming from legume residue may not be released in a timely manner to the subsequent crop that it is supposed to benefit and may then be leached out. Therefore, crop management options that optimize the fitness of legume-cereals rotation to maximize the recovery of N from legume residues to the cereal are required. Food security requires sustainable increases in land productivity. Yet soil health is degrading fast due to intensification of production systems. For example, total factor productivity has declined significantly in the intensive rice-wheat cropping system in the Indo-Gangetic Plains of South Asia despite increase in fertilizer use (Joshi, 1998). For most resource-poor farmers in the developing countries, fertilizer use for legume production at adequate levels is not an option, and the soil is being mined of nutrients through crop production. Estimates of soil nutrient depletion in SubSaharan Africa, Asia and Latin America suggest a current net removal of 20-70 kg/ha of N from agricultural land each year. Replacing soil nutrients in sub-Saharan Africa alone is estimated to cost at least US$4 billion annually (Sanchez, 2002). The proportion of total N in legume plants sourced from BNF varies widely (0-95%) depending on crop species, availability of soil soluble N, suitable rhizobia, and suitability of soil conditions for productive symbiosis. Studies have shown that grain legumes contribute more than 20 million tons of fixed N to agricultural crops each year (Herridge et al. 2008). However, BNF is very sensitive to abiotic stresses such as drought (Sinclair and Serraj, 1995; Serraj et al. 1999), which reduces legume yields and their potential benefit in crop rotations. Therefore, special effort is required to identify legumes and rhizobium strains that are better adapted to drought stress. In addition, legumes that are efficient in acquiring phosphorus (P) from high fixing soils are needed to increase the benefits from BNF (Li et al. 2004; Noriharu et al. 1990). Use of legume varieties that are efficient at acquiring P from less available sources would also benefit subsequent cereal crops through increased BNF. Micronutrient availability in the soil also plays an important role in improving BNF capacity and productivity of grain legumes. Drought and P that constrain the BNF potential are a major research priority to capitalize on the benefits of BNF by grain legumes. Understanding the genetic factors underlying genotypic differences in BNF could make a major contribution to increase the overall contribution of legumes in crop production. Past research on legume BNF has largely been driven by a commodity based approach, despite increasing realization that natural resource management has to be tackled at the system scale (Serraj, 2004). Farmer-led evaluations of suites of promising N2fixing legume-based technologies will lead to rapid adoption of different legumes in different agroeco-systems. Due to their high nutritional value, legumes are as attractive to insect pests and diseases, as they are to humans and livestock. Although breeding has overcome some of these problems, pesticides are CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 3 64 still needed to manage many key pests such as Helicoverpa and Maruca to improve legume productivity (Sharma et al. 2010; Chen et al. 2010). At the production level, it is essential to expand pest and disease management options to include integrated pest management (IPM) approaches, especially host plant resistance, biopesticides, natural enemies and rational use of synthetic pesticides – particularly those that have wider application across legumes, and are less disruptive to the ecosystem and human health. Crop rotation and intercropping practices using grain legumes also tend to reduce the intensity of weeds, diseases and insect pests that are increasing in severity due to climate change, and changes in farming systems. Efficient integrated pest management (IPM) in climate resilient cereal-legume cropping systems will result in more stable crop production, and reduce vulnerability in areas threatened by climate change. Our vision is to increase productivity and sustainability of smallholder agriculture in the face of climate change by increased cultivation of grain legumes in cereal based cropping systems, and croplivestock systems. Our objective is to gain a better understanding of the genetic and environmental constraints on BNF, and insect pests and disease – plant host – environment interactions across grain legumes. Our aim is to identify cropping systems, varieties, and pest management practices to increase the productivity of farming systems involving grain legumes, where it is most likely to reduce poverty and environmental degradation. Land degradation and nutrient depletion are very severe in sub Saharan Africa, particularly in arid areas in the Sahel, and over populated areas such as the great lakes region of East Africa. We will conduct these research activities in partnership with CRP 1.1, CRP 1.2 and CRP 5. 5.3.2 Priority setting The priority regions for specific legumes are described in the chapter on Justification. Priority for tackling different biotic and abiotic constraints in different crops is based on yield gap analysis as described in the below paragraph and given in Table 5.3.1. Yield gap analysis, the loss in yield in different legumes due to insect pests, diseases, drought/water management, biological nitrogen fixation, weeds, etc., was estimated as a proportion of the total yield gap between realizable yield (average yield that farmers can plausibly obtain in their fields using optimum but achievable through crop management) minus actual yield (average yield actually harvested by the farmers across regions (FAOStat 2009). Proportional loss in yield due to different stresses was based on the contribution of a trait/factor to the total yield gap. Plausible closure of yield gap was based on the yields which could be realized by overcoming various yield reducing constraints over the next 10 years through R4D. The average realizable yield gap in grain legumes has been estimated to be 65% (61% in lentil to 71% in groundnut). Major constraints responsible for yield loss (Appendix 6) are: poor soil fertility, drought and water management, diseases, pests, and weeds. Hence, substantial yield gain is possible with better soil, water, crop and pest management practices, in addition to improved cultivars. The overall priority will be to develop integrated crop and pest management strategies that address key biotic and abiotic constraints (BNF, insect, weed, and disease management, and integrated crop and soil nutrient management, in partnership with CRP 1.1, CRP 1.2 and CRP 5) in grain legume based production systems. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 3 65 Table 5.3.1. Yield gap and plausible closure of yield gap (PCYG) for grain legumes across priority target regions Actual production (m t) 21.12 17.52 11.07 5.29 6.85 3.95 2.03 1.49 69.31 0.908 2.63 65.2 35.1 PCYG through R4D4 (%) 38.6 35.9 33.6 35.1 32.0 38.3 36.4 30.7 Grain Legume Groundnut (in shell) Soybean Chickpea Cowpea Common bean Pigeonpea Lentil Faba bean Total Mean 1 Area1 (m ha) 20.9 14.3 12.6 10.1 9.5 5.1 2.6 1.1 76.2 Actual yield1 (t/ha) 1.011 1.225 0.878 0.523 0.721 0.774 0.779 1.353 Realizable yield2 (t/ha) 3.5 3.5 2.5 1.5 2.0 2.5 2.0 3.5 Yield gap3 (%) 71.1 65.0 64.9 65.1 63.9 69.1 61.0 61.4 Area and actual yield (the average yield harvested by the farmers) are across regions from FAOStat 2009. 2 Realizable yield is the average yield that can be obtained in most of the areas by adoption of improved cultivars and optimum crop management. 3 Yield gap = [(Realizable yield – actual yield)/realizable yield] x 100. 4 Plausible closure of yield gap (PCYG) is the gain in yield that can be realized by overcoming the stresses, optimum crop management, and adoption of high yielding cultivars over the next 10 to 15 years through R4D. There are exciting opportunities across grain legumes for comparative studies that will contribute to identification of some common mechanisms of tolerance of BNF to major abiotic stress factors and development of some basic principles and concepts of integrated crop and pest management in legume-based cropping systems. These will include: (i) BNF adaptation to poor soil and marginal environments and capitalizing on BNF to reduce use of N fertilizers; (ii) benefits of grain legumes to soil health and cropping system productivity; (iii) use of cultivars with resistance/tolerance to pathogens and insect pests in IPM; (iv) biosafety of pesticides and transgenic crops to the environment, and reduction of pesticide residues; (v) understanding the influence of legume rootmicrobial and endo-symbiont interactions on crop tolerance to pathogens and insect pests; and (vi) expansion of legume cultivation in cereal-based cropping systems and new niches to improve sustainability of the farming systems. 5.3.3 Impact Pathways Figure 5.3.1 presents the impact pathways for integrated crop and pest management demonstrating the available avenues through which the research outputs translate into research and development outcomes and impacts. Increasing commercialization of agriculture is causing degradation of natural resources (soil health, and water and air quality), which ultimately impair human and animal health and their productivity. It is also causing the farmers to drift away from legumes, which are considered more risky than the cereals, although the legumes are an essential component of the farming systems. The impact pathways will need to be those leading to the improvement of the farming system (soil fertility, BNF contribution, pest management, and sustainable production systems), before being economical. This objective will focus on: enhancing the availability of inoculum of rhizobia and other beneficial microorganisms and natural enemies through networks, private industry and NGOs; dissemination of information on the benefits of BNF, IPM, and nutrient management through web based information, training courses, farmers field schools, print and CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 3 66 audio-visual and print media to promote environment-friendly pest and crop management technologies for legumes production; reduce pesticide use without causing any adverse effect on crop yields; and promoting grain legumes for increasing system productivity and sustainability. The main indicators of impact at the farm-level will include: changes in fertilizers and pesticide use, changes in crop yields, changes in cost of production, farm incomes, and human and animal health. These changes will progressively lead to reduced vulnerability, higher production, improved food security, increased marketed surpluses, higher incomes, and improvements in sustainability of the agro-ecosystems. Farmers may encounter many constraints in adoption of improved technologies, especially pest and nutrient management practices, which are knowledge-intensive. These will be documented to draw lessons for future research. A database on economic and environmental indicators will be developed and used to scale up benefits of BNF and crop and pest management technologies. The major clients of this initiative will be legume breeders and agronomists, NARS, policy analysts, governments, NGOs, private sector, and the farmers. The initiative will enhance the client orientation and impact of legume R&D, helping development partners, governments and local actors to translate outcomes into concrete progress toward MDGs. 5.3.4 Key partners and their role Research will be carried out by CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES partners in close collaboration with national research programs, advanced research institutes (ARIs), universities, and the private sector. This objective will work closely with BMGF funded N2Africa Project in target countries. Many CRP Grain Legumes research activities will be in partnership with CRP 1.1, CRP 1.2, CRP 5 and CRP 7. The ARIs will be mainly involved in upstream research, while all location-specific technologies will be developed and tested in partnership with the NARS. The work on rhizobia biodiversity and genomics will be carried out in partnership with NARS and ARIs. Efficient production and delivery systems for Rhizobium inoculum and other beneficial microorganisms will be done with Rhizobium manufacturing public and private industries, N2Africa Project and NGOs. The work on integrated crop and pest management and their components, policy advocacy and capacity building will be done in partnership with NARS institutes and NGOs (see more details in Chapter 6 on Partnerships). CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 3 67 5 Impact pathway for Strategic Objective 3 Figure 5.3.1. ender Strateg gy 5.3.5 Ge Technologies relate ed to Rhizo obium, bioco ontrol, IPM, and overall system intensification have environm mental and societal imp plications, th hough they are a gender neutral. n How wever, weeding is an activity mainly unde ertaken by women w and c children. Gen nder analysis and mains streaming wi ill enable identific cation of pot tential equit table opport tunities for women w and the youth t to ensure su uccessful uptake o of efficient intervention i s that will in ncrease family income and enhance e the liveliho oods. The opportu unities to build upon the e advantage es of women n’s participat tion in techn nology deve elopment and valu ue chains of f legumes with effective e access to input and pr roduct mark kets because e of their crucial r role in house ehold econo omies and w welfare will be b enhanced. This will b e facilitated through CRP 3.5 G GRAIN LEGUM MES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strate egic Objective 3 68 identification and involvement of women extension agents, and their training, wherever needed in gender mainstreaming, and organized focused group meetings and workshops to ensure that gender mainstreaming is internalized by partners. Other participatory techniques at the community level will be used to promote appreciation and understanding of the importance of gender roles, and thus help communities develop strategies to enhance their livelihoods through increased participation of women. It is recognized that in some communities, the religious and cultural contexts require that separate male and female groups work on such issues; while in others, joint participation will be possible. Equity will be promoted at the community level, while encouraging individual, community, and group initiatives to take ownership and responsibility for implementation of activities (see also Chapter 7 on Gender Research Strategy). 5.3.6 Lessons learned and research questions to be addressed   Grain legumes not only fix the atmospheric nitrogen, but also improve the soil structure through addition of organic matter from roots and leaf fall. Resistant cultivar have been deployed effectively as a component of pest and disease management, while the levels of resistance to a few pests such as pod borers are low to moderate, and need to be managed through IPM approaches, including rational application of synthetic pesticides. Short-duration legume cultivars can be grown effectively in crop rotations in cereal based cropping systems, as catch crops in the summer season, or in crop windows between crops. Legumes such as chickpea and lentil can be grown profitably in rice-fallows in South and South East Asia.    Biopesticides can be used as alternatives to synthetic insecticides, but there is a need to improve their efficacy, and stability of the formulations. Key R4D questions to be addressed are:  In view of the interdependency of pest – host plant – environment interactions, what R4D approaches are most likely to generate robust, reliable, smallholder-affordable IPM technologies? How can the notoriously high level of g x e interaction for BNF be moderated in order to achieve reliably higher BNF across locations? How can the recovery of N from legume residues by subsequent crops be maximized? What selectable traits and/or agronomic practices could increase P uptake, and therefore BNF (which is often P-constrained) in low-P environments typical of smallholder farms? What agronomic practices and genetic traits would optimize the productivity of grain legumes in the short fallow periods available between rice-rice and rice-wheat crops?     5.3.7 Outputs 5.3.7.1 Strategies to optimize Biological Nitrogen Fixation by legumes developed and promoted Description Grain legumes with their hallmark trait of BNF, provide an important alternative means of maintaining or increasing soil N levels as compared to N fertilizers, which are beyond the financial reach of smallholder farmers. Grain legumes also leave considerable amounts of organic matter in the soil through leaf fall, and the root mass in the rhizosphere. Species and varieties vary in the amount of N they provide to following crops. Herridge et al. (2008) estimated that 50% of N fixed by a chickpea crop remains underground; 33% for soybean; and 30% for other grain legumes. Greater gains may be possible from crops or varieties of longer duration such as multi-purpose soybeans selected for vegetative growth, climbing beans, indeterminate cowpea, faba bean and long-duration pigeonpea. This objective will focus on the effect of drought and poor soil nutrient availability CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 3 69 (especially P) on N fixation, develop and use protocols for effective manipulation of BNF efficiency, and understand the biodiversity of rhizobia and other beneficial microorganisms for increasing productivity of grain legumes. In addition, there is a need to develop production and delivery systems for quality products of rhizobia and other beneficial micro-organisms. Methodology High nodulating and nitrogen fixing strains will be isolated from various legume crops, in addition to already available strains. These strains will be further characterized for their efficiency under greenhouse conditions following standardized procedures. The efficient Rhizobium strains selected from the greenhouse studies will be tested further in on-station field studies under drought stress and low P availability. The most promising strains identified from the field studies (conducted in partnership with NARS) will be mass produced and supplied to NARS and private sector partners for further scaling up. The importance of inoculation with good quality Rhizobium will be promoted by capacity building of technicians involved in Rhizobium inoculum production. Also, Rhizobium inoculants available in the market will be monitored for their quality control. Efficient cultivars with high nitrogen fixation capacity will be selected, evaluated on-station and made available to partners. The efficient and cost effective carriers that support Rhizobium for longer periods will also be identified and shared with the partners. The most promising Rhizobium strains for different legume crops will be characterized by molecular means and further identified by 16s ribosomal DNA analysis, preserved and made available to partners (Elboutahiri et al. 2009; Bazzicalupo and Fani, 1995; Pandey et al. 2005; Alschul et al. 1990; Thompson et al. 1997; Saitou and Nei, 1987). Methods are available to test the effect of drought on the BNF by legumes, and these have been used to select and use germplasm of soybean with a capacity to maintain high BNF potential in low soil moisture (Serraj and Sinclair, 1996; Sinclair et al. 2003, 2010; Vadez and Sinclair, 2001). These methods have recently been used to identify germplasm of groundnut with high BNF under drought (Devi et al. 2010). Similar work needs to be carried out in other legumes in different regions. Work in common bean has also allowed the identification of germplasm with a capacity for high efficiency of BNF under low P availability (Vadez et al. 1996, 1999), and there are significant differences among legumes in how P is partitioned to the nodules under low soil P conditions, with cowpea allocating more P to the nodules than bean, and having higher N return from BNF under low P (Gomez et al. 2002). These approaches will be used to select high yielding varieties with a capacity to acquire P and maintain high levels of BNF under low soil P and/or drought conditions. Key Milestones      Protocols to select grain legumes for efficient BNF in CB and CW developed under drought and low P conditions (2013) Efficient strains of Rhizobium and other beneficial soil/plant health micro-organisms identified and made available to public/private sector partners (2013) Technologies for mass production of Rhizobium and other beneficial micro-organisms developed and made available to public/private sector partners (2014) Determine interaction of genotype x rhizobium x environment under drought and low P at least in two legumes (2014) Interaction of BNF with other microbes (Mycorrhiza, Pseudomonas, and inducers of secondary metabolites conferring resistance to pests) documented (2014) CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 3 70 5.3.7.2 Methods to increase legume productivity and profitability through increased resource use efficiency developed, tested and promoted. Description The intensification of agricultural production systems through crop management practices such as high yielding crop varieties, fertilizers and pesticides has led to serious problems of land and environmental degradation. Due to increasing pressure on land, area under traditional fallow systems has declined, resulting in significant losses of soil fertility and biodiversity. Soil productivity continues to decline, and the current farming systems have become unproductive and unsustainable. Rising concerns over possible negative environmental effects of chemical fertilizers and pesticides has necessitated the need to expand the use of alternative technologies that offer the greatest environmental and economic benefits for resource poor farmers. Integrated approaches are needed that recognize the centrality of smallholder farmers and adequately address issues of the environment and the need for integrated soil health and crop management options. Methodology Double-cropping improves the capture and efficient use of annual precipitation and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) in comparison to single cereal and legume crops (Caviglia et al. 2004). Therefore, we intend to evaluate short-duration cowpea, chickpea, pigeonpea, and soybean varieties, which can be relay cropped with early-maturing cereals and/or used in crop rotations to allow for double cropping in the same or different cropping seasons, and thereby, allowing for efficient resource use for crop production (collaborative research with CRP 1.1, CRP 1.2 and CRP 5, conducted at common test locations, where possible). Short-duration pigeonpea cultivars have been found to be advantageous in the cereal based intercropping systems (Pande et al. 2006). Availability and adoption of more drought- and heat-tolerant varieties of legumes, particularly pigeonpea and chickpea, are expected to extend the cultivation of legumes to rice based cropping systems in the Indo-Gangetic plains and in central India. Partnering with CRP 5, water balance models will be used to identify cultivars of appropriate phenology to take full advantage of soil water as well as the crop growing duration. GIS and the spatial information (from CRP 7) will be used for diversifying legume-based cropping systems (joint studies with CRP 1.1 and CRP 1.2). Influence of crop varieties and root exudates to suppress the weed population will also be assessed, and legume varieties that are more efficient in suppression of parasitic and non-parasitic weeds will be identified for use in different cropping systems. Cultivar differences in improved BNF activity and P-use efficiency (kg of grain produced per kg of shoot P uptake) will be assessed by using field or controlled environment experiments involving a number of improved cultivars. Efforts will also be made to optimize water and nutrient inputs to maintain soil health and sustainability of production system. Key Milestones     Legume varieties for crop intensification in cereal based systems/rice fallows identified and promoted (2014) New niches (both current and under climate change scenarios) for grain legumes identified using crop models and GIS spatial technologies (2013) Nutrient and water-use efficient varieties (two to three in each legume) for increasing legume productivity identified (2014) Appropriate legume production packages developed, demonstrated, and promoted (involving at least 50% women farmers) to enhance legume productivity in different regions (2014) CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 3 71 5.3.7.3 Tools and protocols for more effective insect pests, disease and weed management developed, tested and promoted Description Insect pests, diseases, and parasitic and non-parasitic weeds cause significant pre- and post-harvest losses in grain legumes. Crop losses due to insect pests and diseases increase the vulnerability and risk of growing grain legumes for smallholder farmers. Insect pests alone cause an estimated loss of over US$ 16 billion annually (Sharma et al. 2008). However, extent of losses (quantity and quality) due to insect pests, diseases and weeds are not well documented. In cowpeas, yield losses can be as high as 80% under high pest pressure (Singh et al. 1990). Synthetic insecticides, where and when available, can reduce pest damage considerably. However, insecticide use is uneconomic under subsistence farming conditions, and there is lack of access to recommended quality pesticides (Coulibaly et al. 2002). As a result, farmers resort to inappropriate and hazardous practices when applying pesticides, such as the non-use of protective equipment and noncompliance with standard dosage and application intervals. Moreover, the lack of cash pushes the farmers to opt for lower cost subsidized insecticides with obvious environmental and human health hazards (Sharma 2006). Some of the insects have also developed resistance to commonly used insecticides, particularly pod borers, Helicoverpa armigera (Sharma, 2005) and Maruca vitrata (Ekesi, 1999; Sharma, 1997). Therefore, there is a need for rational use of synthetic pesticides, which should be integrated with both preventive and curative measures such as host plant resistance, biopesticides, natural plant products, and biological control in a more comprehensive IPM approach. While the private sector is largely involved in research and development of synthetic pesticides, the development of pestresistant cultivars, biopesticides, and biological control agents is the central feature of CRP 3.5. A good understanding of the pest and pathogen distribution, biology and host-pathogen interactions is essential to develop science-based pest management practices (Sharma 2006). Rust can reduce soybean yields by up to 80% in Africa if not controlled, and the geographical range of this disease has expanded rapidly in the past 10 years. The pathogen is highly variable and therefore understanding the nature and distribution (Twizeyimana et al. 2010, 2011) and epidemiology is essential for the development of cultivars with durable resistance (Paul et al. 2010). Weeds are a serious problem across grain legumes. Parasitic weeds Striga, Alectra and Orobanche can cause complete losses in some grain legumes. Combinations of control options are needed to effectively control weeds in grain legumes. An enabling policy environment is critical to sensitize policy makers and researchers to the importance of investments in input support systems for beneficial bio-control agents, biopesticides, and pest resistant cultivars for pest management. Opportunities for introduction and expansion of legume-based technologies will largely be influenced by the ability of the farmers to reduce the losses due to insect pests and diseases through rational use of pesticides, and improved the capacity to use beneficial microorganisms for crop protection. The adoption of IPM-based technologies will not only improve environmental health, but also help in enhancing the socioeconomic resilience of smallholder farmers by improving the sustainability of legume production and stability of the cropping systems. Methodology Conventional and advanced tools such as remote sensing and GIS will be used to quantify the distribution of and losses due to important and emerging insect pests and pathogens across cropping systems (Christian et al. 2010). Culture independent methods such as DGGE, ELISA, and DNA barcodes will also be used to identify crop pests and their natural enemies. Pest-resistant cultivars derived through expression of toxin genes from the bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis and RNAi technology will also be used as a component of pest management (via Strategic Objectives 1 and 2), as and when these become available commercially (Meister and Tuschl 2004; Sharma, 2009)). Emerging genomic and information technologies (IT) will also be used for developing robust IPM systems (Ba et al. 2009). Application of IT in IPM will involve the use of information and communications technologies, both to collect critical information on pest populations, and to deploy CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 3 72 practical IPM solutions through decision support systems (Agunbiade et al. 2011). Application of modern biotechnological approaches for pest management requires that these be evaluated for their biosafety to the environment (Sharma and Ortiz, 2000). Standardized protocols will be followed for evaluating the biosafety of insect-resistant transgenic plants for pest management (Sharma et al. 2008; Sharma 2009). For biological control, our approach is ‘discovery-to-deployment’ pipeline. Using the example of the pod borer, M. vitrata, regional and international partners will team up to identify better adapted natural enemies against this pest (Srinivasan et al. 2007). At the same time, efficient system for rearing of the natural enemies will be developed for each of the promising candidates, together with innovative ways of sensitizing the farmers about the new approaches by disseminating the information through cell-phone ready animation videos. In addition to their conventional application, we will investigate the application of microbial endophytes for pest management (Vega et al. 2008) to enhance plant defenses to insect pests and pathogens. Crop and region specific IPM modules will be designed using prevention-based systems, and intervention approaches which pose the lowest environmental, human and animal health risks. To expand the use of biological control, business models for commercialization will be developed and private sector partners involved in commercial production of biocontrol agents. We will also work on enabling policy and institutional issues (e.g. awareness, regulations, etc.) for enhancing adoption of biocontrol for pest management. Key Milestones       Biosafety of pesticides and transgenic crops to the environment assessed in CP, PP, and CW, and resistance management strategies developed (2014) Management options for parasitic weeds demonstrated in WANA region (2014) Diagnostic kits for key pests like viruses developed in CB, CP, CW, PP, and GN (2014) Inoculation methods for endophytes in CP, CB, and PP developed and defense enhancement tested (2014) Information on distribution, severity, and extent of losses due to insect pests, diseases, and weeds documented and shared with NARS (2014) IPM technologies, including the use of biopesticides for key pests tested, validated and promoted (involving at least 50% women) in farmers’ fields (2014) 5.3.7.4. Potential strategies for increasing legume production in response to climate change identified and tested. Description It is assumed that climate variability and change will have both positive and negative effects on legume production, and on the incidence and severity of biotic and abiotic production constraints (Sharma et al. 2010; Beebe et al. 2011). Therefore, to develop potential strategies for farmers to adapt management of legumes in response to climate change, we will endear to create facilities and develop methodologies to study the effect of climate change variables such as temperature, heat, drought, erratic rainfall, flooding, and elevated CO2 on production and productivity of grain legumes, as well as on the effectiveness of IPM technologies for pest management. The on-going research on climate change has indicated that heat/drought stress, foliar and pod infesting pests, and soil borne diseases will be the focus of R4D (Vadez et al. 2011b). Climate change will also affect BNF in grain legumes. In this context, strategies that will result in development of legume varieties suitable for different cropping systems adapted to a changed environment will be of top priority. Key areas of research focus will be adaptation of grain legumes to drought and heat stress, changes in distribution and severity of insect pests and diseases, and ‘introduction’ of legumes into new geographical areas. Because of their evolutionary advantage, legumes are better adapted than other major food crops (rice, maize, wheat, etc.) to such stresses. Integrated crop and pest management CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 3 73 technologies are needed to improve sustainability of smallholder agriculture as a result of climate change. Methodology The relative abundance and geographical distribution of major insect-pests and emerging new pests/pathogens will be mapped using GIS and GPS tools (partnering with CRP 5 and CRP 7 using data sets from common test sites). In addition, insect-pest and pathogen trap nurseries will be evaluated at hot-spot locations to monitor the change in insect-pest and pathogen populations, and changes in expression of resistance to the target pests. Using historical weather and pest/disease incidence/population data, efforts will be made to predict the incidence of major pests (Trivedi et al. 2005), and form the basis for simulation modeling to develop effective weather based disease/pest forecasting and or early warning systems for effective management of diseases and insect pests. Similar crop simulation efforts will also be used to test the effect of climate change on certain plant traits, and eventually on yield (Sinclair et al. 2010). Specifically, R4D will focus on determining the dynamics of insect-pests and soil borne diseases (wilts, root rots, and nematodes) and insect transmitted viral diseases of importance in grain legumes. Research on effect of climate change will also be conducted (collaborating with CRP 7) on survival, activity and abundance of natural enemies of crop pests, which will have a major bearing on population dynamics and severity of damage (Sharma et al. 2010). The multi-faceted interactions of biophysical factors with legumes and the biotic and abiotic stresses are threatening the durability of pest-resistant cultivars. For example, wiltresistant chickpea varieties infected with nematodes are likely to be susceptible to these constraints. In collaboration with CRP 7, efforts will be made to understand the effects of climate change variables on expression of resistance in grain legumes against key pests, and identify varieties that are stable across environments. Key Milestones   Changes in relative abundance and geographical distribution of major insect pests and pathogens mapped (2014) Better understanding of grain legume phenotypic/physiological responses to climate change (CC) and use of crop simulation modelling to better target critical traits needed for adaptation to CC (2014) Better understanding of the effect of climate change variables on expression of resistance to insect pests/pathogens (2014) Varieties with better resilience to climate change identified (mainly for increased temperature and CO2) (2015) Strategies to mitigate the effects of climate change on production of grain legumes developed and disseminated to NARS partners (2015)    CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 3 74 5.4 Strategic Objective 4: Develop and facilitate efficient legume seed production and delivery systems for smallholder farmers 5.4.1 Rationale Improved crop varieties can make a difference in smallholder agriculture in developing countries. They are an economical and non-intrusive means of improving the livelihoods of poor farming households. For instance the adoption studies in several African countries showed that improved bean varieties give yield increases of 30-50% above local varieties (Kalyebara and Andima 2008) and also similar results were reported in chickpea in CWANA (Mazid et al. 2009). It takes over US$ 1 million to develop a successful bean variety (W. Janssen, personal communication, November 28, 2006) and not rendering it accessible, (i.e. leaving it on the shelf), represents a significant waste of public resources (international and national research systems). Worse yet, this denies farmers access to better income, food security and other benefits. Despite a long list of released legume varieties, their impact has not yet been fully realized by the resource-poor farmers in the many areas of Africa, Asia and Latin and Central America due to inefficient and inadequate seed systems (Teshale et al. 2006; Aw-Hassan et al. 2003). The seed accessibility to smallholder farmers is constrained by both inadequate demand creation and limited supply. This situation is also compounded by unfavorable and inadequate policy support and regulatory frameworks, inadequate institutional and organizational arrangements, and deficiencies in production and supply infrastructure and farmers’ socio-economic situation (Rubyogo et al. 2007). On the seed supply side, grain legume seed business generally does not attract large seed companies since profit margins are low. The supply of certified seeds are less than 5% in major grain legume producing countries such as Ethiopia (0.1-1.5%), Morocco (1-5%), Iran (none), Syria (2.2%) and Turkey (1-2%) (Bishaw et al. 2008). Even Kenya, with more than 65 seed companies including multinationals, the annual supply of certified beans is 1.9% of seed requirement (KEPHIS, 2006). More than 95% of lentil seed in India (the leading global lentil producer) comes from the informal sector (Materne and Reddy, in Yadav et al. 2007). The situation with respect to other legumes in India is similar. The seed replacement rate in India varies from 14% in chickpea to 35% in soybean (www.seednet.gov.in), thus indicating that a majority of the farmers still use their own saved seed. This situation is due to several factors including: the low seed multiplication rate of legumes; the reuse of grains from previous harvest as seeds and; often demand for specific varieties adapted to more narrow agro-ecologies and consumers’ needs. Currently, majority of the farmers use their own seeds or get seeds of improved varieties from local supply (from other farmers or local market). Furthermore, when seed production takes place, it is often in higher potential areas, with seed stores being concentrated in zones of higher population density or those with better infrastructure (i.e. not the remote, stress-prone areas) and seed is sold in large packs which are only affordable to the well-off farmers. One of the effective ways of introducing and disseminating improved varieties in the local seed systems of small holders systems is through the Participatory Variety Selection (PVS). The approach has greatly contributed to wider dissemination of climbing beans in Rwanda and Uganda especially when farmers were organized into groups (Sperling and Scheidegger, 1995; Nasirumbi et al. 2008). Almekinders et al. (2007) also reported that bean genotypes identified through PVS rapidly diffused in neighboring communities especially if researchers went beyond and established linkages with other service providers who support local seed production and supply by enhancing farmers’ knowledge and skills in PVS and crop management. This approach was also successfully used in BMGF-funded Tropical Legumes II project where it has been instrumental in disseminating preferred new legume varieties among participating farmers particularly women who are the majority in the farmer groups (Tropical Legumes II 2011). CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 4 75 Starting from 2007, under the Tropical Legume II project, several grain legume production and delivery models have been tested (see Table 5.4.1). Table 5.4.1. Seed production and supply approaches tested in Tropical Legumes II project Foundation/certified seed production  Direct production- NARS  Direct production- NARS seed unit with contract farmers  Private seed companies  Farmer cooperatives Decentralized seed production  District/government extension services supporting individual farmers  NGOs supporting individual farmers  Farmer Cooperatives/Unions  Community-based seed production     Delivery approaches Small pack sales: open markets Small pack sales: country stores Small pack sales agro-dealers Small pack sales: seed/grain traders  Seed exchange through local seed systems (seed fairs, women networks etc.)  Direct farmer to farmer diffusion Though large seed companies are slowly getting interested in legumes, small and medium companies seem to find legume seed as niche market, especially introducing new varieties using small packs sold through open market and agro-input shops. Follow-ups showed that women were as likely to purchase as men. Further, sale of small packs was expanding business opportunities for seed companies including large ones. During 2009/10 crop season, in Ethiopia, the use of small seed packs ranging between 250 and 1,000 g was credited to allow 65,000 farmers, including those in remote areas, to access seed of multiple new bean varieties at affordable prices and test them with minimum risks (Tropical Legumes II 2011). The magnitude and effectiveness of local seed market (local market, seed loans and seed fairs) has also been a surprise. For instance, in western Kenya alone, it was possible to access bean seeds of drought tolerant bean varieties to 90,000 farmers (in three seasons) by community identified decentralized seed entrepreneurs who market seed locally. A follow-up study indicated that on average one farmer can sell/exchange seed to other five farmers in one season. As small and medium seed companies are emerging and gaining interest, they are also creating effective demand for grain legume seed (Tropical Legumes II 2011). However their capacities are still limited by the inadequate and discontinuous access to foundation seed, inadequate capital investment, and lack of appropriate marketing strategies including delivery systems targeting remote and small scale farmers (Rubyogo et al. 2011). It was established that a public and private partnership would be the best approach to increase the availability of foundation seed need for subsequent seed classes. Several policy, regulatory, institutional, technical and socio-economic constraints are also affecting the legume seed industry (Bishaw et al., in Kharkwal 2008). Grain legumes are mainly grown by subsistence farmers, predominantly women, in developing countries across Africa and Asia who grow more than one legume crop with limited use of improved technologies and without reliable output market. This situation confines these crops to be considered by policy makers as orphan crops thus attracting less interest and government support. For instance, inadequate consideration of grain legume breeding patterns has led to enactment of seed policies across various countries that impose maize seed certification conditions on grain legumes, though their breeding systems are different. This renders the legume seed certification ineffective in many countries. This situation led actors in the seeds arena to support an informal bean seed system that is not recognized in the official seed system because it falls short on the criteria for certified seed, though it produces acceptable quality seeds (Rubyogo et al. 2009; FAO, 2006). CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 4 76 While cross-border seed trade is a reality for maize in Africa (MacRobert, 2009), it is still not practical for grain legumes despite the fact that some bean, pigeonpea and groundnut varieties are released in more than one country, and ideally this should make seed trade across countries easier under the Regional Economic Communities Technical agreement on the harmonization of seed regulation across regions (e.g., SADC, ASARECA, COMESA, CORAF, AARINENA). These opportunities to move volumes of seeds of grain legumes across borders remain untapped due to limited knowledge by the seed traders on the cross border seed trade requirements and procedures (FANRPAN, 2011). Given the diversity of grain legume crops, complexity of production environments and farming systems and more localized grain preferences which result in limited seed markets, developing one model of seed delivery system for grain legumes to serve the smallholder farmers (such as the hybrid maize seed systems) is impractical. Therefore, the challenge is to get seed of the improved and preferred varieties (immediately after their release) in the hands of the farming community in a sustainable manner (at the right time, and in a quantity affordable to small scale farmers), permitting both decentralized-farm based (local) seed producers and large seed producers to access seeds of improved varieties of their choice. Based on lessons learned and identified constraints, CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will focus on the integrated seed systems aiming at supporting both decentralized seed enterprises and emerging small and medium seed companies. The decentralized seed enterprise will be supported to produce and supply acceptable quality seeds of preferred varieties identified through the PVS processes. These entrepreneurs will be members of farmer groups who will manage the PVS sites. This will encourage women entrepreneurs (majority in the farmer groups) to undertake seed production as business. Small and medium companies will be supported to produce certified seeds and encourage sell seed using affordable packs. This will be developed in partnership with various grain legumes value chain actors such as NGOs, community based organizations (CBOs), farmer organizations (FOs), emerging private sector actors (e.g. beans and pigeonpea in Africa and hybrid  varieties  and  seeds  of pigeonpea in India are holding promise) and  also with government seed policy makers, national seed services and regional bodies to appreciate and support the complexity of grain legumes seed systems. Using this approach, bean program in Ethiopia have been noteworthy and the achievements were remarkable (Assefa et al. 2006, Rubyogo et al. 2010). It was interesting to observe that about 65% of Ethiopian farmers that were reached within three years of innovative seed delivery, had never had access to new bean planting materials before (Katungi and Gebeyehu, 2011). Note that while the Ethiopian program was catalyzed by ‘outside funding’—it is now completely owned by the bean value chain actors (Rubyogo et al. 2010). The proposed legume seed systems will depend on a combination of factors that range from the development of preferred and well-adapted varieties to the creation of effective multi-partnership seed systems that reach the majority of farmers. 5.4.2 Priority setting Strategic Objective 4 on Seed Systems is complementary to Strategic Objective 2 on Crop Improvement and thus the priority regions and the legumes within each region for this Strategic Objective will be similar for those for Strategic Objective 2 (described in 5.2). The priority countries within each region will also be the same as given Appendix 3. The major focus of this Strategic Objective is to enhance seed availability of farmer-preferred cultivars to smallholder farmers at the local level. Both formal (public/private seed sectors) and informal (individual farmers and farmers’ groups) seed systems will be targeted for their greater involvement in seed production and distribution of the targeted grain legumes. 5.4.3 Impact pathways The adoption of cultivars developed under Strategic Objective 2 will be enhanced by developing efficient seed production and delivery systems. Developing sustainable legume-seed systems CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 4 77 involves s conducting g research to o solve bott lenecks and seeking sol lutions to cr reate impact ts across legumes s. Legume se eed systems will link scie entific and de evelopment objectives th hrough trans slation of technica al informatio on and tech hnological o utputs gene erated throu ugh scientifiic interventions into informat tion and practices which are acc cessible to developmen nt partners (national and a local governm ments, NGOs s and CBOs, private sect tor operator rs and farme ers). Interact tive and con nsultative meeting gs and work kshops will be used as tools to st trengthen linkages and to share skills s and knowled dge between n scientists and a developm ment partne ers during th he planning, implementa ation and reviews. . This involv ves embark king on inte egrated seed d systems (formal ( and informal) engaging e numerous market and a non-market actors in a coordin nated divisio on of labor iin a set of activities spanning seed multiiplication, marketing, g legume production, p m and a promot tion/informa ation (as describe ed in section 5.4.3 and Figure 5.4.1). Figure 5.4.1. Integ grated grain le egume seed sy ystem oduction and supply Grain Le egumes seed d systems will w mainstrea am the use of appropriate seed pro channels aiming at wider w uptake e and reduc ing time lag between re elease, accep ptance and adoption. a Develop pment and adoption a of integrated s seed system ms (informal and formall) will fast track and speed u up the use of o promising g and prove n systems carried c out by b national and regiona al efforts across A Africa, Asia and LAC. Wel ll-tested see d system mo odels, such as a decentraliized seed production systems and innovat tive marketing of certifie ed and labeled seeds using the smal l seed pack (250 ( g to 10 kg) approach will l be enhance ed. As a resu ult of created d seed demand of impro oved legume varieties through this CRP, the demand of f breeder/fo oundation/ce ertified seeds s will increas se. Strengthe ening the capacity y of NARS to o produce ad dequate am mounts of breeder/found dation seeds s and supporting the development of alte ernative mea ans of produ ucing these classes c of see ed would briing efficiency y in seed production chain. This effort wi ill be linked to the BMG GF supported d TL-II projec ct achievements and other ef fforts (such as a AGRA/PAS SS) in addres sing the bott tlenecks of seed supply. Once the varieties are a accepted, the grain le egumes seed d systems will also contriibute to the increase roductivity through impr roved natura al resource managemen nt and cataly yzing the of grain legumes pr use of c complementary and imp proved farmiing managem ment practic ces. This willl be done with users along th he supply an nd demand chain throu ugh the prom motion of In nnovation Pllatforms (IPs) across CRP 3.5 G GRAIN LEGUM MES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strate egic Objective 4 78 legumes s owned by local actors s (Rubyogo et al. 2010). This parti icipatory ap proach will improve technolo ogy uptake and a provide opportunitie es to farmer rs to interact t with other r actors (mem mbers of IPs) along the legu ume value chain such as supplier rs of other complemen ntary inputs/services ers extension n services, traders etc.). T The increase ed seed acce ess of preferr red varieties s coupled (fertilize with the e use of imp proved crop managemen nt practices will lead to increased p productivity. This will lead to i improved nu utrition and food and inc come securit ty at househ hold level an nd increased national and regi ional econom mic outputs (Figure ( 5.4.2 2). Figure 5.4.2. 5 Impact pathway for Strategic Objective 4 5.4.4 Ke ey Partners and a their role e The seed systems re esearch for developmen d nt will be car rried out alo ong the value e chain by catalyzing ships for imp pact. These include natiional policy makers and national/reg partners gional seed services, public/p private seed sector, civi il society (N NGOs and pr roducers org ganizations),, farmers an nd other CRP 3.5 G GRAIN LEGUM MES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strate egic Objective 4 79 stakeholders such as grain traders and exporters. National seed services and agricultural policy bodies will create conducive environment for multi-seed seed trade (including cross-border trade). The CGIAR and other ARI partners will facilitate development of innovative seed system approaches, including efficient and productive seed multiplication techniques (Rubyogo et al. 2010). These institutes and the NARS partners will provide training in seed production and business skills. The production of nucleus/breeder/foundation seed of improved varieties will be mainly through NARS partners. The public seed sector (e.g. NSC, SFCI and State Seed Corporations in India; ESE, TOSCI, KEPHIS, National seed services of Mozambique, etc.) and the private seed sector (e.g. Krishidhan Seeds Ltd, Nimbkar Seeds Pvt Ltd in India; Kenya Seeds, Leldet Seeds Ltd, NASECO Seeds, Victoria seeds in Kenya; Zenobia Seeds, Tanseed International, Krishna Seeds, Miombo Esate in Tanzania, etc.) will be involved in foundation and certified seed production. The public and private formal seed sectors are the key for foundation seed production (Tripp, 2006; Tropical Legumes 2011) that is the major bottleneck in grain legumes seed systems. The private grain trade sector has to be engaged to stimulate grain market that will drive seed production through grain market, and market chain development for a range of products of grain legumes. The farmers’ groups will also be involved in production of certified seeds. The informal seed system (production of uncertified seed; truthfully labeled seed) will be promoted through individual farmers and farmers’ groups. Agriculture Departments and Extension Agencies (e.g. Myanmar Agriculture Service; State Agriculture Departments in India), NGOs (e.g. CARE, World Vision, CRS, Africare, Techno serve, IKURU, CLUSA), community-based organizations, farmers’ cooperatives, private entrepreneurs will help further to multiply, market and diffuse seed in decentralized zones of actions – where the target communities reside. They will also be major players in knowledge empowerment of farmers. More on the role of partners is given in Chapter 6. 5.4.5. Gender strategy Varietal characteristics especially associated with women include early maturity (food security, especially during the hunger gap), fast cooking (to save firewood, labor and water) and market – preferred traits (seed color, size, etc.). In several regions women take lead roles as seed multipliers, seed and grain sellers. To a certain extent, income from the sale of grain legumes is still controlled (or at least accessed) by women (PABRA, 2008). Therefore, grain legumes are wonderful ‘pro-gender crops’. In terms of seed storage options, women are in the forefront of adaptive research – and they often make the hard decision of what to use for seed, and what to use as food to feed their children. This may be important especially for decentralized seed enterprises. Since gender-linked goals should be both to maximize positive benefits as well as to lessen the negative consequences of commercialization, which often comes with a shift in control of the finance, from women over to men. Thus the understanding gender relations at household and community levels followed by gender equity and sensitization trainings for both men and women, and exploration of alternative income generating activities. Seed production and delivery approaches and tools that capture priorities from both male and female participants as well as giving them equal opportunities for participation will be emphasized. Joint gender analysis with CRP 2 will help in identifying the specific nature of support (and where it will be need) for women as equal participants in these initiatives. However deliberate support will be extended to potential women to undertake decentralized seed production/supply enterprises of improved varieties in hard-to-reach areas where farmer-to-famer seed exchange and market grain/seed acquisition are still the most prevalent seed supply channels and being carried out by women (Bishaw and van Gastel, 2008). A gender considerate skills and knowledge enhancement in areas of seed systems will facilitate an equitable participation of men and women. Considering that a certain number of farmers have limited literacy, information systems and communication strategies will be established to enable equitable access information about varieties and seed quality to both illiterate and literate. These strategies include decentralized demonstration/field days, study tours, variety posters and integration of traditional information systems CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 4 80 5.4.6. Lessons learned and research questions to be addressed Surveys have clearly shown that non-availability of quality seed is a major constraint for adoption of improved legume varieties. Many farmers and extension service providers are not aware of new varieties, their potential advantages such as agronomic and utilization characteristics or where to access them (IFPRI, 2010; Tripp, 2006). Information and awareness creation is essential to serve the poor (particularly illiterate women) farmers in remote areas, policy makers and extension service providers, and supply chain actors for sustainable grain legume seed system development. Efforts to engage policy makers in Ethiopia yielded a better government support toward grain legume crops (beans and chickpea) production and marketing (Personal Communication: Setegn Gebeheyu, Coordinator, Bean Program, EIAR, Ethiopia). This led to increased productivity and better returns to supply chain actors including farmers (CSA, 2010). Many seed production and delivery models have been tested in the BMGF-funded TL II project (Table 5.4.1), and some have been found effective. Among these, the decentralized seed system model and sale of small seed packs have been found effective in many areas. Considering these lessons learned, this objective attempts to address the following R4D questions:      How can farmer-participatory varietal selection (PVS) achieve sufficient scale and effectiveness through decentralized seed production systems? How can the formal and informal seed sectors be connected and harmonized to ensure sustainably-effective seed systems? What strategies and business models would motivate small and medium seed companies to enter the legume seed business? How can initial successes with small seed packs be up- and out-scaled across grain legume species? How can we engage regional and national policymakers to strengthen supportive seed policies? 5.4.7. Outputs To establish efficient seed systems in small holding systems requires research which entails solve bottlenecks in seed production, accessibility, information systems and related policies. This involves a wide range of issues such as institutional arrangement to produce various seed grades, linking decentralized seed production of locally preferred varieties identified through Participatory Variety Selection (PVS), advocacy for policies that stimulate private-public partnership, implementation of harmonized regulatory frameworks to create wider national and regional seed markets targeting multiple country released varieties; strengthening of capacity for seed production and marketing for maintenance of seed quality (with adequate equipment and facilities) and for human resource development to provide effective leadership in enterprise development and management. 5.4.7.1: Decentralized seed systems enhanced through systematic diagnosis and implementation of appropriate models Description In the developing countries, particularly for grain legumes, the formal seed sector is still young or highly subsidized and evolving at different stages of development. In some countries, it is almost non-existent. The informal seed sector is and will remain the dominant player in legumes. In recent past, development partners and researchers have realized the importance and significance of quality seed in agriculture and several projects have been implemented or are in progress in developing countries to improve seed availability of improved farmer-preferred varieties to farmers. The first step in resolving access to quality seed would be a thorough understanding and critical assessment of the status of existing seed sector (both formal and informal), their bottlenecks and comparative advantages and complementarity. Several on-going and concluded projects will provide lessons to CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 4 81 build up a new framework which will enhance a speedy use of improved and preferred varieties through sustainable seed availability and accessibility (quality, quantity and timeliness). In addition, other innovative models across decentralized legumes seed production enterprises owned by farmers (individual or groups particularly women) will be established in impact zones including in remote isolated/stress prone areas with poor infrastructure, via organizations which are potentially sustainable and which can be scaled up. These include (1) private entrepreneurs (small, medium and large scale) and (2) NGOs with seed expertise which can facilitate scaling up by local producers. These enterprises are: participatory – to mobilize and involve small farmers in target environments; decentralized – to multiply locally adapted and farmer preferred varieties; business oriented – to link seed production to demand from communities; cost effective – to minimize transaction costs, thus reducing seed prices; using relevant quality – to adopt seed quality appropriate to farmer requirements; employing appropriate technology – to use low-cost mobile cleaner/treater to improve seed quality; and sustainable – to empower farmers particularly to take leadership in decentralized seed business (Bishaw and van Gastel, 2008). Methodology Assessing existing seed production and supply models and deepening their understanding will be carried out through a systematic analysis such as the cost-benefit analysis (financial and social), institutional viability, the type of farmers reached and their numbers/gender and wealth, the quality of seed supplied by each model and risks associated. The evaluation will also include the type of germplasm and speed with which the varieties move will be evaluated. The complementary and comparative advantages of the informal and formal will also be assessed. Promising model or combination of different models will be mainstreamed for wider uptake and utilization of released varieties. A range of seed producers will be supported to access these parent material to produce certified and quality declared seed (QDS)/farmer accepted quality seed (Rubyogo et al. 2009b). Based on critical need assessment, the emerging seed entrepreneurs particularly women operating in hard-to-reach areas will get support for improving their capacity. These farmer seed enterprises will be established through a multi-stakeholder process involving different institutions and will be provided with key facilities (e.g. mobile cleaners, storage facilities), trained in technical aspects and business management, and linked to formal sector institutions (e.g. for source seed etc.). Innovative seed marketing approaches such as affordable small packs (especially to women) will be tested and mainstreamed where appropriate. Under the TL-II project, the small pack approach has reached several thousands of farmers. The monitoring shows that women are just as likely as men to purchase small seed packs (Rubyogo et al. 2009a; Tropical Legumes 2011). From the private sector point of view, the small packs are opening up novel and sustainable business opportunities (Rubyogo et al. 2011). Thousands of farmers particularly women were actually buying certified seed. These seed production and supply units will be monitored and evaluated for their profitability and sustainability. Factors contributing to their success or/and failure will be investigated. Key Milestones  Cost and benefits of major seed production/delivery models in each participating country determined (across legumes crops), documented and findings widely shared to GL community, seed policy makers (national and regional/continental) (2012) Implication and effects of gender relations toward grain legumes seed systems at household and community levels better understood (2012) At least 2 entrepreneurs per participating country produce and sell acceptable quality seed of at least one grain legume (2012) At least 4 NGOs/farmer groups/farmer unions in each participating country facilitate the scaling up of seed production with at least 20 decentralized seed producers (50% being women) per each grain legume crop (2014)    CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 4 82   Diversified decentralized partners produce at least 500 Tons per participating country per season per each grain legume crop (2014) At least one seed entrepreneurs’ association established across legumes in each country (2014) 5.4.7.2: Capacity of public and private sector in legume seed systems strengthened Description One of the major bottlenecks in the grain legume seed sector is related to inadequate knowledge and capacities along the seed value chain. In most countries, the number of scientists working on grain legumes is low and in some cases with inadequate training. In addition, government seed policies and regulations are biased towards major cereals. All these have resulted in insufficient legume seed production and poor market networks. Several public-private/civil society organizations partnership models for seed sector development have emerged in recent years (Tripp and Rohrbach, 2001). Partnerships are forged between public organizations (NARS and National Seed Agencies) and private operators (small, medium and large) in areas of seed production, supply and information flow to adequately respond to seed supply chain actors’ demand. The project will focus on capacity enhancement of partners involved in seed systems for both degree and non-degree courses. This will ensure that there are better linkages between participatory variety selection (PVS) trials (identification of end user preferred varieties), release process, immediate seed production and dissemination of selected grain legumes varieties. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will reinforce interactions to enable partners and participating communities to build skills, knowledge and experiences through community of practice. Capacity building will be a continuous process through technical backstopping and capacity building of training of trainers in key areas that could have impact on end users. Part of the initiative will include the continuous assessment of internal constraints or emerging bottlenecks that will require urgent solutions for the development/promotion of improved varieties of grain legumes technologies. Methodology Skills and knowledge of implementers and supply chain actors through training will be in partnership with development partners and private sector. Efforts will be made to enhance linkages and interactions with seed producers and seed market as well as improving farmers marketing skills. Multi-media information channels for both literate and illiterate farmers will be used to support and promote improved varieties and complementary technologies. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will support research degree courses in fields related to seed systems bottlenecks and project outputs. Efforts will be made to sensitize and educate seed supply chain actors in the value of integrated seed systems (formal and decentralized) including national and regional seed services. Resource manuals will be developed or adapted including translation in local languages to avail the information in a user friendly package for wider use among the clients. Support will be provided to maintain seed quality and increase the availability of foundation seed. Training of trainers on seed production and business management will be conducted for seed producers for each partner country. Training in seed production and business management will be conducted in partnership with continental and regional seed bodies including Regional Economic Communities (RECs) and Africa Seed Trade Association (AFSTA). Seed production and innovative training manuals, variety information (brochures, leaflets and posters) and mass awareness creation instruments (demonstration, radio and TV messages) will be developed and disseminated to targeted audiences. Students pursuing degrees in seed system related topics will be supported and guided by scientists in CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 4 83 Key Milestones  Capacity at NARS research stations to meet the demand of Nucleus/Breeder/Basic seed of legumes strengthened to produce at least 20 tons of foundation seed per season for each grain legume in each participating country (2013) Knowledge and skills of seed producers (informal and formal) on seed production, postharvest handling, marketing and seed rules/regulation enhanced (at least 20 seed producers per country) across legume crops (2013) At least one radio/ TV/ video program across legumes in each participating country presented to promote improved grain legumes varieties and agronomic practices (2013) 5000 copies of resource manuals developed and disseminated to users in each participating country per crop (2013) Public/Private seed producers are facilitated to produce at least 20 tons of foundation seeds per season for each grain legume in each participating country (2014) Cost and -benefits of major information channels and types determined (across legumes crops) in each participating country (2014) At least seven students (at least 50% women) completed their degree courses (MSc and PhD) in areas of seed systems (2015)       5.4.7.3: Enabling seed policies for legume seed systems based on thorough analysis of current arrangements Description Traditionally, the private seed companies avoid marketing seeds of self-pollinated crops like grain legumes due to several reasons including limited profitability and unreliable seed market. The supply mainly remains through informal seed system. However, there is a limited support and integration of the informal seed sector in the seed policy establishment, leading to limited availability of quality seed of improved varieties to farmers. This situation has led many development actors (projects/donors) to support an informal seed system that is not recognized as assured source of seed, though it produces acceptable quality seeds (Rubyogo et al. 2009b). CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES facilitate the certification, institutional and policy systems to allow seed certification from different models. Rationalizing and harmonizing of policy and regulatory frameworks pertaining to variety release mechanism, IPR, seed certification scheme and phytosanitary measures would facilitate cross border movement of seed. This will introduce competition and create opportunities for private sector (domestic and foreign seed companies) to enter the regional seed market in favorable, commercial and hard to reach areas. Efforts should be made to build on already existing initiatives in sub-Saharan Africa (ECA, SADC, COMESA and CORAF) and CWANA (ECO) regions and international bodies such as seed trade associations across the three continents. This will provide more choices for farmers by accelerating varietal release and access to seeds. In addition, infrastructure and policy must be improved to strengthen the capacity of the public and emerging private sectors including farmer-based seed production and marketing units to enter into seed business which enhances the seed availability, access and use of seed of new legume varieties at the farm level. Methodology The legume seed supply chain actors including the national seed agencies (certification agencies and seed policy makers) will be facilitated to carry out situation analysis of existing seed policies and their effects on equitable accessibility of improved legume varieties to farmers (women and the poor). The results will be widely shared with users. This will guide better informed decisions by national governments and contribute to the establishment of efficient seed systems. Seed actors’ awareness will be enhanced in the areas of national and regional seed policies (regional variety release, phytosanitary issues, etc.) and facilitate cross-border movement of safe seed within the CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 4 84 regions. The CRP will facilitate the establishment of national and regional databases (variety catalogues and seed sector actors) and other activities for information and knowledge dissemination on new seed policies and regulations, and newly released and commercialized varieties. Streamlined variety release procedures supported by a thorough review of variety maintenance and adequate breeder-seed production will ensure subsequent seed multiplication and reduction of the time lag between the variety release and the use. Key Milestones      A policy analysis (national and regional) with regard to legumes participating country (2012) carried out in each At least two policy briefs developed on a) the value of certification and b) seed quality/risks associated by various modes of seed production and supply (2013) Number of policy makers and seed supply actors sensitized in each of the participating country (2014) National and regional cross legume seed policies supporting the integrated grain legumes seed systems enacted in five countries (2015) Increased seed volumes traded in cross border trades in different regional blocks (2015) 5.4.7.4: Framework for national seed security for vulnerable regions and households (poor and women) developed Description Grain legumes are increasingly being grown by subsistence farmers in higher stress and marginal areas which are located in fragile ecosystems. Many regional and national partner countries are experiencing disasters of various degrees (man-made and/or natural) on a relatively regular basis. For instance, intensive use of land (season after season) is leading to build up of diseases and pests. Since the formal seed sector tends to perform poorly in those areas, the majority of famers in these agro-ecosystems acquire seeds through local seed supply systems (farmer to farmer) which are women operated (David and Sperling 1999). It is important to mobilize, organize and support the farmers themselves for producing and marketing quality seed within their communities and beyond. For instance local seed systems using seed loan and seed fairs approaches organized by local NGOs in remote parts of western Kenya under BMGF funded TLII project has accelerated the access of drought tolerant beans in the many part of western Kenya (Tropical Legumes 2011). Research on alternative seed delivery in remote and disaster prone areas can build on these local self-help initiatives, local institutions and on the knowledge, skills and experience of farming communities, particularly women. Methodology At the local level, activities will be carried out to access stress tolerant and locally preferred varieties obtained through PVS to women farmers who will be playing a major role in the variety selection. Partnerships will be enhanced with development partners (government, donors, private sector and civil society) to devise strategies aiming at designing technically sound and efficient seed systems to supply quality seeds to vulnerable regions and households (particularly women and poor). These strategies include judicious and self-targeted use of public support and marketing of affordable seed packs in the proximity of farmers (Rubyogo et al. 2011). Four areas will be emphasized:  To support the decentralized seed systems (market and non-market access) to accelerate the access of stress tolerant varieties in the vicinity and to fit in the agro-ecology niches CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 4 85    To engage partners operating in stress areas and supporting vulnerable communities e.g. judicious and self-targeted seed support operations A policy sensitization workshop will be carried to educate agricultural policy makers on how to increase the grain legumes productivities in stress areas; and Devise cost-effective and less public-sector dependent partnerships with private- public-civil society organizations to supply seeds of improved varieties to vulnerable farmers, e.g., small packs. At least two cost effective seed systems models to accelerate the access of improved varieties in vulnerable environments across legume crops (2013) 500 tons of seeds supplied through different seed system models per each vulnerable impact zone (2014) 500,000 vulnerable farmer households (65% being women) accessed quality seeds of improved varieties of their choice (across legumes) in selected participating countries (2014) One cost benefit analysis of different seed systems across legumes to access quality seeds of improved varieties to vulnerable farmers (2014) Key Milestones     CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 4 86 5.5 Strategic Objective 5: Enhance grain legumes value chain benefits captured by the poor, especially women 5.5.1. Rationale Value chain analysis is an essential methodology for understanding market-oriented development and how to improve its processes in favor of the poor, especially women. In recent years, leading voices in international development have been urging increased attention to market-oriented development to achieve poverty escape (the goal of SLO1). Among these voices are the World Bank (World Development Report 2008), NEPAD’s Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) (built on a vision of “Dynamic agricultural markets within and between countries and regions in Africa”), The Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA, with its highlevel Specific Objective of “Broad-based agricultural productivity, competitiveness and markets sustainably improved in Africa”, carried out through value-chain approaches in the subSaharan Africa Challenge Program), The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (through a top-level investment focus on “Access and Market Systems” (www.gatesfoundation.org/ agriculturaldevelopment/Documents/agricultural-development-strategy-overview.pdf), The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)’s Market Access Program (www.agra-alliance.org/section/work/markets1), and the World Food Program’s “Purchase for Progress” initiative to include smallholders in value chains to source its food aid (www.wfp.org/purchase-progress). The CGIAR’s SRF also flags the opportunity inherent in harnessing markets, indicating that the “depth and distribution of rural poverty often leads to arguments that agricultural growth based on commercializing smallholder production is essential…” Value chain analysis has long been standard operating procedure in large-scale commodity industries. Surprisingly, value chain analysis has rarely been applied to staple crops of the poor in the developing world, and to grain legumes in particular. Occasional references are found, e.g. a recent conference on Transforming African Economies for Sustained Growth, Poverty Reduction (IFPRI 2011) concluded that “Without broad-based agricultural growth, including in pulses [our emphasis] and alternative cash crops, poverty reduction in Malawi will be difficult.” Women’s participation in and benefits received from value chains have been particularly neglected. A notable exception is USAID’s Dry Grain Pulses Collaborative Research Support Program (Dry Grain Pulses CRSP - www.pulsecrsp.msu.edu) that declares one of its four top-level Technical Themes as “Strengthening Pulse Value Chains” in concert with a market-oriented development strategy (Bernsten et al. 2009; Mazur et al. 2009). Illustrating the potency of this approach to deliver particular benefits to women, their value chain research has identified cowpea flour as a critical bottleneck in the sustainability of women’s small-scale enterprise in the postharvest preparation and sale of products such as moin-moin in Nigeria (Lowenberg-DeBoer and Ibro 2008). The Dry Pulse CRSP will be an important partner in CRP 3.5 Grain Legumes. A number of countries and institutions are increasing their efforts identifying promising agricultural value chains for investment, as in Kenya (Value Chain Finance Center 2009), Nigeria (UNIDO, 2010) and Malawi (USAID Feed the Future). Major inefficiencies exist in smallholder-scale grain legume value chains, posing opportunities for CRP 3.5 impact. Net value gained by smallholders is diminished by the relatively high prices that they must pay for essential inputs such as fertilizer and improved seed; and/or (more often) much value is foregone through low yields when farmers cannot access or afford enough of those inputs. Smallholders are especially disadvantaged because they have limited access to markets and often sell immediately after harvest, when prices are lowest. Smallholders usually sell their produce in a relatively poor condition with high content of shriveled, discolored and (in the case of groundnut) even mycotoxin-affected grains due to poor post-harvest handling and especially storage conditions. Processing losses are high due to inefficient (or no) machinery. Farmers have little access to information on prices and supply and demand conditions. They sell to middlemen who pay them the CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 5 87 lowest possible price. Women tend to be marginalized from the higher-income generating processes of the value chain. Success cases of post-harvest value addition in grain legumes illustrate the potential (see Our Track Record section). By formulating grain legume improvement more deliberately in a value chain context, this Objective will expand and increase such impacts across crops, regions and at more intervention points along these value chains. Trade-driven value chain examples include the export of pigeonpea and chickpea from East Africa to India (Jones et al. 2002; Simtowe et al. 2010), haricot bean export from Ethiopia (Ferris and Kaganzi 2008), and regional West African cowpea trade (Langyintuo 2003). Considerable effort is being made to improve the domestic cowpea value chain in Nigeria, including the development of new commercial food enterprises (Lowenberg-DeBoer and Ibro, 2008). Value chain understanding also contributes importantly to the development of new and innovative partnerships to increase impact. Many key actors along the value chain are not the traditional partners of the CGIAR, such as entities involved in the manufacture and transport of inputs, collective action of women, postharvest processors and wholesalers, retailers and others that influence value chains. SRF states that “…the linear view of the innovation process has been replaced with an innovation system view of the world, where a much more diversified and complex universe of public and private actors come into play… significantly expanding the demands that national and international institutions need to confront….” (SRF, para. 33) This Objective will identify and highlight the roles and dynamics of these actors and thus will provide valuable insight to sister Objectives to help them form more effective partnerships for impact. Sister CRPs 1 and 2 also intend to engage in value chain analysis at farming systems and macroeconomic levels, but not focused on grain legume crops. CRP Grain Legumes’ value chain analysis will focus on selected, specific grain legume crop/production systems of high strategic importance (see Priority Setting section below). It will generate concrete knowledge on how to improve the functioning of these value chains through specific R4D interventions in particular places and crop market channels. By so doing it will provide crucial ground-level information to complement and reinforce the broader conceptual and methodological approaches of its sister CRPs. Conversely, Grain Legumes will benefit from and apply the knowledge and methodologies on value chains that are generated by those sister CRPs. For example, the CGIAR’s focus on poor smallholder families would require that the value not only of commercial markets but also of on-farm and home use of grain legume products be included in the value chain perspective. 5.5.2 Priority setting Based on high volume and value of production (Chapter 3), scope of regional and inter-regional trade, importance to women, and special attributes that provide unique and important opportunities for R4D learning (elaborated below), CRP GRAIN LEGUMES will place priority on the following five crop/system/market domains for value chain analysis:  Cowpea in WCA – Important lessons on trade-off between grain vs. haulm value enhancement and markets with focus on the poorest subsistence-oriented farmers/women in risky dryland agro-pastoral economies Soybean in Nigeria – Important lessons on harnessing a high-potential and new crop to drive emergent market-oriented development in a dynamic agricultural economy with strong involvement of women in postharvest value addition Bean in ESA – Most important grain legume for local production and consumption in this region; high importance in local economy and diets and for exports Groundnut in SSEA compare/contrasted with WCA and ESA – Valuable opportunity for South-South learning through value-added opportunities for a crop of high importance in both regions; groundnut is of special importance to women in WCA and ESA 88    CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 5  Chickpea in SSEA compare/contrasted with CWANA and Ethiopia – Valuable opportunity bridging CGIAR Centers for inter-regional learning based on a crop of high importance in three regions with particularly interesting trade dynamics (both import and export) 5.5.3. Impact pathways Knowledge about value chains gained in this Objective will impact CRP 3.5 itself by:     Improving R4D planning and priority-setting; Identifying new/underestimated impactful R4D opportunities along the chain; CatalyzingR4D on such new opportunities as they are identified; and Highlighting needs/opportunities for new partnerships along the value chain to overcome obstacles and exploit opportunities. The creation of these impacts requires close collaboration between actors in relevant positions along the value chain. Well-functioning seed systems (SO 4) producing and distributing seeds of high quality and in regular quantities are critical in making crop value chains successful. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will work closely with partners to understand how the relevant crop commodity value chains function, where the obstacles lie, and to test the feasibility and tradeoffs of potential interventions. Value chain partners will be asked to pilot-test them within their domains. They are likely to be willing to do so because of the benefit streams that will flow if the innovation is truly successful. The research outputs from this objective will better inform breeders regarding market preferred traits and enhance the uptake of the varieties developed under Strategic Objective 2. Further, the platform / dialogue that is created under Strategic Objective 6 will enhance the flow of information among stakeholders and strengthen capacity across all stakeholders. The pathway for these impacts on CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will be through the CRP’s own management processes that are directly responsible for oversight and adjustment of the R4D agenda over time (Figure 5.5.1). CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 5 89 5 Impact pathway for Strategic Objective 5 Figure 5.5.1. ey partners and a their rol le 5.5.4. Ke Strategic c Objective 5 will work k closely wit th value cha ain agencies s and enable ers in the course c of mapping g and discu ussing the implications i of its R4D D findings. They T includ de partners such as governm ment food te echnology and food pol icy agencies s, legume tra ader associa ations, major r legume product manufactur rers, supermarket chains s, health-orie ented NGOs, community y-based organizations CRP 3.5 G GRAIN LEGUM MES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strate egic Objective 5 90 such as women’s self-help groups and cooperatives, and others as relevant to the chain under study. The processing methods for perishable fresh products will be developed in partnership with NARS, NGOs and local processing industries. Innovations in dry seed processing appropriate to the poor will involve partnerships with grain processors and exporters, the international grain legumes trading association, farmer cooperatives and NARS. High value animal feeds will be developed in partnership with CRP 3.7 – especially in relation to the fish and dairy sectors, the fodder trade, NGOs, CRP 1.1 and CRP 1.2, and CRP2. Small-scale mechanization of crop production and processing will be done in partnership with input suppliers including equipment manufacturers, NGOs, CBOs, and NARS. We will provide the necessary policy information to governments that will foster value addition (see details in Chapter 6 on Partnerships). 5.5.5. Gender Strategy Women will play a central role as value chain actors and suppliers of services needed to support the legume chain. Adapting the value chains for legume crops can have significant gender effects, and this needs to be carefully considered in the design of any interventions to add value. Who will benefit most from new products and processing? Regional and ethnic domains also differ significantly for gender roles. While men tend to dominate cereal production in many societies, women are more likely to take a major role in the growing of legumes, especially in Africa. Women carry out weeding and harvesting, so interventions to make these activities less arduous can particularly benefit them. While men tend to dominate the marketing of dry grains, women are more likely to dominate the marketing of perishable and value-added products. Women are also more involved with small-scale processing, food preparation for home use or local sale, so the introduction of simple processing technologies can directly benefit them and the households if carefully introduced. It is expected that the increased and focused participation of women in the value chain could increase their involvement in higher level economic activities like marketing, managing end-product enterprises and decision making. Innovations to increase the profitability of crops that were formerly of little economic value or for home use can improve the incomes of women, but this can also pose new challenges. Women groups and associations of women groups will continue to be targeted for building their capacity to organize, produce, and market collectively to different markets. Product development and identification of agro-enterprises is to be done by gender to ensure that products that are more accessible to women are developed with them in a participatory process. Past experiences have shown that men often take over such enterprises after they become profitable. Social organization helps to protect women’s interests. GRAIN LEGUMES will forge partnerships with gender interest groups to advocate to changes that favor women interests while ensuring that interventions not create community conflicts (see also Chapter 7 on Gender Research Strategy). 5.5.6 Lessons learned and research questions to be addressed   Reputation, communication and trust are important elements of successful linkages between farmers and industry both in formal (written agreement) and informal contracts (verbal). Innovation is possible when all stakeholders in the value chain are fully aware of the benefits of new technology/product in a clear and transparent manner, i.e., not couched in scientific jargon. Value addition to produce starting with simple innovations like processing can reduce postharvest losses at the farm level and can go a long way to improve farm productivity. Studies such as that of Ph Action (Global Postharvest Forum) suggest a systems approach to address post-harvest losses that should include analysis of post-harvest systems and the impact of these systems on food security, food quality, and value-addition as a contribution to rural livelihoods. Thus there is a need to document, integrate, implement and asses the   CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 5 91 best post-harvest technologies and practices to benefit the grain legume farmers especially women.  Very few processers are involved in processing activities targeted to the consumer-ready market. Besides lack of secondary and advanced processing, the current technologies and capacities of primary processing at the farm-level needs to be upgraded. Very little efforts have been made to understand and develop effective technologies that can reduce drudgery of women involved in pulse production activities as compared to other crops. Effective mechanization has been successfully adopted in the small-scale maize milling sector. The adoptability of the hammer mill for maize milling was supported by clear benefits for women, as it reduced drudgery and increased time available for other productive activities. Similar interventions, at various stages of pulse production that reduce drudgery for women, offering more time to pursue productive activities. Key R4D questions include:   What adjustments to conventional value chain analysis are required to delineate the roles of and benefits received by the poor, especially women? What are the current monetary and other values associated with the major products from grain legumes, i.e. grain, prepared foods eaten at home or sold, fresh pods, fresh leaves, haulms, and nitrogen fertilizer saved? What are the monetary and other values associated with current and prospective innovations in the chain? Which high-profit processes in grain legume value chains are appropriate for increased smallholder involvement, and through what institutional (formal or informal) mechanisms? How can value chain findings contribute to CRP 3.5 priority setting processes?     5.5.7 Outputs 5.5.7.1 Enhancing grain legume value chains for the poor, especially women. Description To develop the value chain perspective, a much better understanding of smallholder grain legume value chain core processes and dynamics is required. To achieve this, value chain models will be formulated that help researchers understand where and how much value is gained along the chain, by whom, and dependent on what actions, infrastructure, capacities, partnerships, and other key determinants, along the chain of processes from input supply through production and culminating in postharvest handling and marketing. Such understanding will reveal opportunities for increased impact from R4D innovations. In areas of high poverty there are many constraints that CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES partners will help overcome through a better understanding of value chains and innovations that unleash their potential. Value chains vary across crops and regions and the processes involved in bringing the different actors in the value chain on a common platform. However, value chains do not necessarily benefit the poor because they often lack the power to negotiate favorable terms and conditions for themselves. Vested interests can skew the benefits accruing to different participants in the chain. Also, the economic efficiency of different value chains will vary and the costs/ margins at every stage of the chain may not commensurate with value addition. Women involved in agriculture play an important role particularly in simple value addition activities like winnowing, grading etc. but are not compensated adequately. Their role needs to be institutionalized so they can reap the benefits of value addition and become equal partners in the value chain cycle. Women’s participation is also constrained by the lack of machinery that leads to drudgery and loss of valuable time. There is thus a need to introduce small-scale equipment (to be identified under 5.5.4) that promotes women’s participation in value chains in a timely manner. Despite a plethora of value added products not all CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 5 92 may be economical due to lack of sufficient demand or supply side bottlenecks and hence need to be prioritized before being introduced even on a pilot basis. Poor farmers and women also lack skills to effectively participate in value chains and hence reap the benefits of value addition. Capacity building related to participation in value chains thus becomes pertinent if the poor have to benefit from existing or emerging chains. Methodology Participatory market chain analysis will be used to map the value chains for the priority crops/region/market domains listed earlier. Market mapping involves four components:    Core processes of the chain (e.g. input supplies, production stages, postharvest and marketing stages specific to those crops); Enabling environment (infrastructure and policies, institutions and processes that shape the market environment and regulate the chain); Value chain actors (identifying the chain actors, what they do, when and how, where and how the poor participate and benefit, the flows of products in the chain, their volumes, values, and value addition at each step, the relationships, linkages, feedback loops and other dynamics among chain processes, information and knowledge flows along the chain); and Service providers (the business development or extension services that support the value chains’ operations and required for the chain’s effective functioning (i.e. input supplies e.g. seeds, fertilizers, aflatoxin control technologies), market information (e.g. prices, trends, buyers, suppliers), financial services (e.g. credit, savings or insurance), transport services (e.g. for grain purchasing), and quality assurance - monitoring and accreditation. Analysis of legume value chains will be done in 8 steps. First, qualitative and quantitative methods will be used to prioritize value chains to be analyzed. Once value chains have been selected, the next step will be to map them. This involves mapping the core processes, the main actors involved in the processes, the flows of products, knowledge and information, volume products, number of actors and jobs, geographical flow of the product and services, values at different levels of the chain, relationship and linkages between actors, business services that support value chain actors. The third step is to map governance, i.e. coordination, regulation and control using qualitative tools. In the fourth step, relationships, linkages and trust between actors in the value chain must be assessed. Then options for upgrading, knowledge, skills, technology and support services are analyzed in step 5. This is followed by analysis of transaction costs targeting actors along the value chain using quantitative tools in step 6. Data will be collected on costs and revenues in each node of the value chains to assess the returns in each segment and/or the entire chain. Equity implications in the distribution of income and employment will be finally examined in steps 7 and 8. This is to ensure that the poor and particularly women benefit from the interventions as well (M4P, 2008). The relative value addition from different R4D options will be compared using structured criteria comparisons following Value Chain Finance Centre (2009) methodology. Sophisticated modeling methods will be explored in partnership with CRPs 1 and 2. In order to ensure proper choice of counterfactuals and proper attribution of value chain interventions, pilot experiments will utilize a random selection of participants and non-participants for the core processes/dynamics under study. Key Milestones    Initial value chain map of core processes, actors (gender-differentiated) and dynamics for the priority crop x regions (2013) Value chain investment opportunities identified that maximize benefits for the poor, especially women (2013) At least 2 new or existing legume products within each selected market that are most likely to benefit women and improve health and incomes prioritized (2013) 93  CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 5   Technologies and capacity building measures needed for expansion of these opportunities for value addition identified feedback to other outputs provided (2014) Policy evidence to inform policymakers and development planners provided (2014) 5.5.7.2 Institutional innovations to engage poor farmers with input and product markets identified and piloted. Description Farmers require inputs in smaller quantities that are uneconomical to buy individually. Group ordering through collective action in purchasing inputs will generate economics of scale, reducing the cost of inputs. Models that link farmers to input suppliers, and are appropriate to the region, will be pilot tested or existing models already operating in the region will be assessed. Likewise, farmers are constrained by capital. Linking farmers to financial institutions is essential for the success of value chain development. Numerous models have been tested and could be assessed. Owing to small-scale production, poor farmers are unable to sell in the markets or sell at unremunerative prices. The bargaining power of smallholders will be limited if they are unorganized, have few assets and scarce alternative income opportunities (Key and Runsten, 1999; Patrick, 2003). To increase their bargaining capacity and empower them, several innovation models of linking farmers to markets/end-users have been tried. For example, contract farming, bulk marketing, collective and cooperative marketing, direct marketing, linking to major international supermarket outlets such as Tesco, Heritage, Reliance, Spencer’s and others. While these models have succeeded in some crops in some regions they have been unsuccessful in several instances. The contract farming models have worked well for perishable commodities like vegetables, fruits, and niche products. They have also been successful for dry seed crops like maize, wheat, etc. particularly involving industrial users or export markets. For example, brined and pickled cowpea is a high value exportable product, but to develop this an integrated value chain model is required which will start from research, farms to markets by involving various stakeholders – researchers, farmers, aggregators, processors, exporters, skilled workers and bankers. Such value chain innovations can become local economic drivers. We have seen successful models in the pickling industry (gherkins, vegetables, onions and cowpeas) for example. Access to market intelligence would be strengthened by forming farmers associations. Warning and Key (2000) found that Senegalese smallholders who participated in a peanut contract farming program received higher income from their participation and that the program structure allows the participation of poor smallholders. Aligning dry grain legumes to commodity exchanges is one promising value chain innovation. India and Ethiopia have experienced evolution of commodity exchanges that are ensuring price discovery and produce marketing options to smallholders. A well-adapted process with strong private sector involvement exists today. Similar innovations can be adapted to dry grain legumes from other regions particularly SSA. Partnership models involving commodity exchanges, local Government and private sector partners (traders and exporters) can assure smallholder farmer place to store the grains and plan products based on market trends. Methodology Success stories of various models linking farmers to spot, future and financial markets will be identified from secondary sources and adapted to legume crops and regions as appropriate. For example, contract farming models with pre-determined price, quality based pricing, models with intermediaries, formal and informal contractual agreements etc. will be considered. In India, a selfhelp group (SHG) is a village-based group usually composed of between 10-20 local women with common objective of improving income and livelihoods for their families with collective action is presently functioning effectively in several Indian villages, especially with micro finance activities. This model can be replicated and tested for collective purchase of inputs and sale of outputs. The CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 5 94 pilot tested models will be assessed for economic viability and financial feasibility using budgeting methods and benefit cost analysis (Hubert Schmitz, 2005). Key Milestones    Region/crop attuned models developed and pilot-tested for organizing women to sell grain legumes into commercial markets, significantly raising legume-sourced incomes (2012) Collective purchasing mechanisms devised and pilot-tested that significantly reduces costs of fertilizer and other grain legume inputs for smallholders, especially women (2013) Business models developed with commercial and rural banks and micro-finance institutions (2014) 5.5.7.3. Post-harvest technologies/practices and value-added products benefiting women identified and promoted Description Thriving urban, industrial and export markets exist for a wide array of grain legume-derived specialty foods such as peanut butter, fresh and cooked beans for breakfast and for salads, and a range of fermented and other soy products. Grain legume haulm (vegetative tissue), mainly of groundnut, cowpea and chickpea added to cereal stover substantially increases the feeding quality of the resultant fodder; increased nitrogen supply to rumen microbes improves the digestion of stover, increasing weight gain in livestock (Grings et al. 2012). Income from haulm is often as much as that from the grain crop (Erskine et al. 1990). The marketplace rewards higher haulm quality of the improved groundnut variety ICV 9114 with a 25% price premium in Anantapur, India (Thannamal, 2011). In a study of 850 genetically-diverse groundnut advanced breeding lines, Nigam and Blummel (2010) found significant genetic variation and high heritability for fodder quality traits (crude protein, in vitro digestibility and in vitro metabolizable energy content). They found no negative correlations between fodder and grain yield and quality traits, indicating that haulm and grain can be improved simultaneously without tradeoffs. Postharvest enrichment of fodders with soybean and groundnut presscake (the residue following oil extraction) also improve feeding quality. Pulses are key protein foods for the poor and substitute for costly animal proteins (Chapter 3). Postharvest losses during traditional harvest, drying and storage are high due to pod shattering in the field, poor drying systems, insect infestation that normally starts in the field and proceeds into storage, and storage losses to insects and mold. Smallholder incomes particularly for women can be significantly enhanced by improving post-harvest and processing technologies (Lowenberg-DeBoer and Ibro, 2008; Yanguba, 2009). Fresh leaves, pod or green seeds of many legumes can also be used as a vegetable, in addition to the mature seeds. The processing and marketing of such perishable food products involves different actors than that for mature seeds. Women usually dominate the fresh food processing and marketing of fresh foods such as legume leaves. Because of the perishable nature of these products, transportation, hygiene and handling, and quality assurance issues can also be different from those for dry seed products. This work will be done in conjunction with universities, NARS, NGOs, and local processing industries. Legumes are also primarily grown for their dry seed, and as a relatively durable product it is more easily traded over long distances than fresh legume products. Larger trading and processing industries can be involved in handling legumes as bulk commodities for international trading, but there are also opportunities for small-scale value adding for local sale. In addition opportunities exist for exploiting the nutritional and functional properties of legumes using appropriate food processing technologies to develop and commercialize various food products at the industrial scale. This work will be done in conjunction with grain processors and exporters, CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 5 95 NARS with postharvest and gender expertise, and NGOs interested in small-scale machinery innovation. Legume haulms can provide high quality animal feed and legume seed can be an important source of protein and other nutrients for feed rations. Oilcake from groundnut and soybean are major sources of animal feed and used extensively in feed mixes. This work will be done in conjunction with CRP 3.7 – especially in relation to fish and dairy sectors, the fodder trade, NGOs, CRP 1.1 and CRP 1.2, and CRP 2. Methodology Post-harvest interventions for each of the legumes shall be identified after detailing each step of the post-harvest operations. Understanding the characteristics and post-harvest behavior of each legume is key to identifying the appropriate protocols for harvesting, transportation, drying, storage and primary processing. Maturity and harvesting of food legumes is key factor in post-harvest management of legumes. Factors that directly influence grain quality such as moisture content of the grain, temperature, presence of micro flora (fungi, bacteria, etc.) in the grain, insect damage, physical state of the grain, and amount of oxygen-carbon dioxide ratio in the storage environment shall form the basis to arrive at strategies to reduce post-harvest losses for each legume. Use of PICS (Purdue Improved Cowpea Storage) bags to improve storability of legume seeds and grain will be explored. Socio economic factors, such as availability of labor, gender roles, access to credit, and access to markets shall be evaluated in order to develop appropriate post-harvest intervention models for each legume. Profiling of varieties of each legume, for specific application traits, leading to diverse uses of legumes in food and feed applications shall form an important basis for breeding of legumes. In addition to nutritional properties, which are of utmost importance in order to provide nutritional security, the functional properties play an important role during preparation, processing, and storage thereby altering the sensory characteristics of food. Functional properties (foaming, emulsification, texture, gelation, water and oil absorption capacity, and viscosity, etc.) shall be evaluated in order to identify varieties of legumes for various industrial applications. In addition the possibility of the utilizing by-products of the legume milling industry based on their nutritional and functional profiling will also be investigated. Recent studies have shown that hydrothermal pre-treatment method improves functional properties of pigeonpea flour and decreases cooking time of de-hulled splits (dhal) without affecting nutritional composition of pigeonpea (Tiwari et al. 2008). Similar approaches shall be looked into in order to identify appropriate processing techniques that can lead to enhanced utilization of legumes at both household as well as industrial level. Product development activities shall focus on improving traditional processes and products with enhanced nutritional profile and sensory attributes as well as explore new innovative processes such as enzymatic pre-treatments, extrusion and extraction to develop value-added products based on legumes. Key Milestones   Post-harvest processing technologies benefitting women documented and prioritized based on social gains (2013) At least two post-harvest and processing technologies and associated practices, particularly suitable for farm level use or small-scale household operations documented, and strategies developed to identify new markets and scale-up the most suitable technologies (2013) Structure, conduct and performance of major animal feed markets for legumes assessed (2013) Appropriate strategies to manage aflatoxin contamination, assessed and the relative benefits to smallholders for supplying to these markets determined (2013) Post-harvest technologies for reducing losses due to pest and diseases in key legumes identified/adapted/developed and scaling up assessed (2014)    CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 5 96  At least two varieties of each legume, with specific industry defined traits, for use in food and feed industry, identified based on nutritional, functional and organoleptic profiling and options for breeding assessed (2014) 5.5.7.4. Drudgery and cost-saving small-scale machinery for grain legume processing identified or developed Description Efforts to reduce human drudgery in handling and processing of legumes at all stages of legume production are critical. Implementation of small-scale mechanization at the farm level shall result in saving valuable time for the farm households. Small-scale mechanization allows timely operations and hence aims to increase the profitability of growing a crop by reducing production costs, but also to allow the development of new legume products and markets. The problem of pod shattering in legume crops is severe. Laborious, time-consuming hand-picking must be carried out on certain varieties of edible legumes that mature unevenly. Such areas of legume production need to explore small-scale mechanization. Weeds are another major problem for smallholders; mechanical control is frequently impractical, but hoe-weeding is arduous. Herbicides are a possible alternative, but it is important to apply herbicides, particularly residual herbicides, at the correct rate (linked to outputs in SO 2 and SO 3 on herbicide tolerance). Animaldrawn herbicide applicators for smallholder farmers should therefore not only be robust, simple and cheap, but also ground-wheel monitored (Fowler, 2000). Women are heavily involved in weeding, threshing, cleaning and grading of grain legumes and these operations are mostly done manually. Suitable mechanization of such operations will relieve women of drudgery and free up their time to carry out other vital activities. However, before undertaking mechanization it is also important to assess the actual benefits that would be obtained, particularly that it does not result in reduction of employment opportunities to women. Methodology Simple tools such as tillage equipment, hoes and weeders will be explored for each legume crop. A simple animal-drawn cutter bar is available in the market for use in the harvesting of soybean and common beans. Field level shellers or decorticators will be evaluated so that shelling operations can happen at the farm, thus reducing the drudgery of carrying bulk produce to storage. Simultaneously work will be initiated closely with local machine manufacturers in order to develop cost effective tools and equipment. Appropriate capacity building programs will be undertaken along with the machine manufacturers in order to impart necessary training to develop skills for handling these equipment and thus reducing drudgery. Mechanisms will be explored in order to secure finance for procuring these tools by the farmers. Key Milestones    Labor demand in smallholder legume production assessed and the potential of increased mechanization to improve profitability documented (2012) Weed control methods in legumes, by smallholders identified and their relative impacts on women assessed (2012) Options for smallholder threshing or harvesting to improve legume profitability assessed, with particular reference to uses across legume species (2013) CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 5 97 5.6. Strategic Objective 6: Partnerships, capacities, and knowledge sharing to enhance grain legume R4D impacts 5.6.1. Rationale Partnerships are central to the work of all research institutions, especially for legume research, since the communities of legume researchers tend to be relatively small and in need of cooperation and interactions. Capacity strengthening interventions have evolved along with the broadening of the scope from mere research to research-for-development. There is a shift from a relatively narrow focus on training for food production through extension systems to the current more systemic approaches that focus on rural innovation systems through multi-stakeholder platforms. This evolution towards research for development, aptly exemplified by refocusing of the CGIAR on the four SLOs, raises many issues around the need to effectively reach the multiple end-users. Reflections on the lack of impact led social scientists to seriously question the pipeline approach used to resolve the “farmer’s problems” with scientifically proven technologies. Several participatory approaches have been developed and researched to convert the technology transfer pipeline into a learning cycle where next and end users of research processes learn together, support partnerships and stakeholder engagement and therefore, increase the chances of research being put into use. The participatory learning mode, where responsibilities are shared and all actors contribute, makes for a system that is less dependent on one individual or institution, and potentially more sustainable. The involvement of a wide range of actors required the creation of a shared context (Snowden, 2002) where advances in information and communication technologies (ICTs) that make technologies truly participatory can contribute to the way we communicate, share knowledge and solve problems together. These interventions strengthen both individual and organizational capacity. 5.6.2. Key partners and their role Operational partnerships are part and parcel of the CGIAR mandate. The CGIAR Strategy and Results Framework states that partnerships at all levels are increasingly recognized as strategic approaches to pool complementary assets such as intellectual property, genetic resources and research tools that facilitate the exploitation of economies of scale and scope, ease and improve technology transfer through arrangements with private input distributors, promote better integrated value chains, and foster mechanisms to express consumer and farmer demands for technology and product traits (CGIAR, 2011). Traditionally these partners were NARES, Advanced Research Institutes, and Universities but it is now being realized that while such partnerships are evolving, they must bring in new partners, especially in the private sector, as well as NGOs and CBOs. The drivers are multiple, including the need to connect to upstream partners with advanced research institutes, the hope to reduce costs, or to deploy new technologies (Spielmann et al. 2007).Therefore, in making such evolving partnerships functional, agile, bureaucracy-light, and mutually satisfying, it tends to include participatory learning principles and methods. As Horton et al. (2009) argues, “in the context of international agricultural research for development, partnership is defined as a sustained multi-organizational relationship with mutually agreed objectives and an exchange or sharing of resources or knowledge for the purpose of generating research outputs (new knowledge or technology) or fostering innovation (use of new ideas or technology) for practical ends.” This definition implies that partnerships involve different types and multiple actors and can cover informal and formal arrangements, shared responsibilities and decision making. It also stresses the fact that partnerships can cover a range of objectives, from CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 6 98 the pure delivery of a research product to the creation of a shared context for innovation and joint learning. More recent approaches consider partnerships in the context of Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) where, beyond the delivery of research products and development of tools and methods, the partnership evolves in terms of knowledge, attitudes and skills (KAS). A partnership model with an explicitly dynamic dimension is the Learning Alliance, which relies on an iterative learning process jointly undertaken among multiple stakeholders with a common interest or goal. Typically, stakeholders might include research organizations, development and cooperation agencies, universities, policy makers and private businesses. The learning alliance approach is made up of four interrelated learning strategies:     Capacity strengthening; Targeted action research that responds to specific knowledge gaps identified with partner agencies; Connectivity and knowledge management; and Evidence-based decision-making in partner organizations, public sector entities, cooperation agencies and private sector firms. Specific roles of CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES partners are illustrated in Chapter 6 on Partnerships and Networks. 5.6.3 Impact pathways In the area of partnering, capacity strengthening, and information sharing, some outputs are discrete such as training of personnel through fellowships or the establishment of technical information platforms. Other outputs are more process focused, where the concept of an impact pathway is rather different than in the delivery of a tangible product such as seed. The challenge here is to create systems, often informal, of continuing education and mutual learning among all participants (including scientists from the international center). An impact pathway often takes the form of implementation of a process. Experience shows that these systems can find implementation on a regional basis with external funding, while low cost systems can draw partners together on a national level. In the former case an international center is normally the entity to convene the network, while the Sub-Regional Organizations (SROs) such as those in Africa are increasingly taking this role. Such networks function well within certain institutional, disciplinary, or commodity boundaries. In the experience of the subSaharan Africa Challenge Program, the challenge has been to identify a mid-level entity that can coordinate across disciplines of agricultural production, agro-industry, and marketing. The impact pathway to implement such higher order networks remains a challenge to be resolved, although, there are tools such as Outcome Mapping or Participatory Impact Pathway Analysis (Douthwaite et al. 2007) that allow a systematic ex-ante, qualitative, and participatory planning of project goals in connection with the required evolution of partnerships to achieve those goals. Such stakeholder analysis that include social network analysis approaches are relevant as the partner’s degree of influence towards next- and end-users has to be known and taken into consideration as a potential multiplier effect and factor for impact. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) is a systematic learning and capacity strengthening process that involves all relevant stakeholders (FIDA, 2001), and is a central issue of these learning systems. M&E is an action-oriented management tool and an organizational process for generating knowledge to improve decisions on policies, programs and organizations (Horton & Macay, 2003). In any case, the impact pathway for successful partnering requires a conscious and planned institutionalization of spaces – physical and/or virtual – for the periodic interchange of ideas and CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 6 99 informat tion (Figure 5.6.1). This is often with hin an action n research mode, m and w with common n goals of innovati ion, where plans p and pro ogress are re eviewed, rev vised and sho ort terms pla ans are developed. In the form mation of suc ch systems or o communit ties, conscious effort mu ust be exerciised for the inclusion of women, and to avoid a that these becom me (quite lite erally) the proverbial “o ld boys’ club”. Once establish hed and consolidated, it will be diffic cult to alter the gender balance - su ch that this needs to be addre essed from the t outset. Figure 5.6.1. 5 Impact pathway for Strategic Objective 6 CRP 3.5 G GRAIN LEGUM MES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strate egic Objective 6 100 5.6.4. Capacity strengthening Capacity is both individual and institutional, and efforts have been and continue to be directed toward fortifying these capacities. Institutional capacity strengthening takes the form of facilitating investments in ICT infrastructure, training in the use of online content or facilitating changes in organizational priorities and culture. Individual capacity building is often posed in the context of higher degree training. All centers have given active support to degree training through fund raising and through support of thesis research, in collaboration with universities in-country and abroad. Other prominent actors include the US Collaborative Research Support Programs (CRSP) and AGRA/PASS. Experience with degree training in Europe, North America, and Australia shows that many trainees do not return to their country and institution of origin. This has led to a tendency to train scientists in local or regional universities. CGIAR centers should play an even more active role with universities in Africa, Asia and Latin America, to enhance the capacity of local and regional universities in specialized areas of agriculture, through sandwich programs, whereby thesis research is carried out in collaboration of a center with a university. An even more significant contribution of the international centers to individual capacity is in the continuing accompaniment of partners in the field of service. While often referred to as mentoring, this is in fact a co-learning experience. Other capacity building being done by the four CGIAR centers working on food legumes are through headquarter-based and in-country tailored trainings in different areas of legume improvement (biotechnology, breeding methods, IPM, biometrics, etc.) to improve the skill of young researchers in many partner countries. Another scheme called long-term training permits young scientists to be attached to CGIAR scientists during the cropping season to gain experiences in crop improvement and agronomic management to employ in their respective countries. The impact of short-term training in promoting better research for development has not been well documented. An impact study of such projects would be warranted. Additionally, in-service training can be achieved with the support of e-learning materials. Several initiatives including GCP have generated some that are relevant to CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES. A third type of capacity is that of the community, which is less structured and often less tangible but that bolsters both the individual and the institutional capacity. Communities of practice have the advantage of enjoying low overhead and transaction costs, while facilitating communication, cooperation, and the exchange of information, germplasm or other tangible goods. Communities of practice may have some supporting “infrastructure” such as a webpage, but by and large are maintained by goodwill, trust, and mutual interest. The regional networks that several IARCs have facilitated, while initiating as formal externally funded projects, have often evolved into communities of practice maintained by long association. 5.6.5. Gender strategy Legumes are women’s crops. A corollary of this statement is that women should play a prominent role and be full-fledged partners in the efforts of planning, partnering, capacity building, and information sharing. While gender balance in center staffing is a CGIAR policy, it plays a substantive role when science must be articulated to women farmers, and when women farmers must have complete freedom to articulate their own needs and perspectives to scientists. The Consortium Level Gender and Diversity Strategy states that “research quality increases when women are better represented on the staff of research institutions....” In this regard, there is a special urgency in incorporating more women into the CRP staffing. In the case of farmer involvement in processes, to the extent that these are long-term learning experiences and not one-off surveys or demonstration plots, the issue of gender takes on a dimension of time and process facilitation. Beyond eliciting an accurate response on a questionnaire or communicating a technical result, participation of women in ongoing group dynamics will require CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 6 101 additional sensitivity to assure equitable opportunity. The CRP will be attentive to the development of a ‘Gender and Diversity Network’ under the leadership of the Consortium Board, and considers that the CRP GRAIN LEGUMES should play an active role. 5.6.6 Lessons learned and research questions to be addressed In the recent past, there has been a paradigm shift in partnerships to include not only public and private sector, but also NGOs, CSOs, Farmers Organizations and farmers, especially women and other disadvantaged groups. Learning in this area is reflected in the emergence of numerous studies on the subject of partnership studies (Snowden, 2002; Horton et al. 2009). Relevant examples of partnership are the Tropical Legumes I and II projects among three international centers (ICRISAT, CIAT and IITA), the respective partners in ARIs and national programs, and the PABRA common bean network in eastern, southern and western Africa. The experience of PABRA shows that broad-based partnerships involving researchers, extensionists, seeds persons, regulatory agents, and users of technology can vastly expand the reach of research outputs, and the consultations facilitated by an IARC but convened by national partners have the potential to consolidate in an innovation platform. Partner capacities vary considerably, and hence strategies for capacity building should be tailored to the needs of the specific partner groups. Capacity strengthening can also be at various levels – from farmers training in PVS to advanced and sophisticated research techniques for scientists. For example, training of field technicians has been especially effective in implementing simple skills for drought studies. Technicians often remain in their positions in the long-term, while scientists move into administrative positions, and honing their skills can create more sustainable research programs. Technician training should receive more attention in the future. There is greater recognition of the role of women--as receiver and provider of capacity strengthening skills. Recent developments in ICT have changed the way people acquire and share information and technologies. Several innovation platforms for data and knowledge sharing are becoming available globally and there is need to establish public repositories for legume research and uses. Key R4D questions that SO 6 will address are:      How can the cross-crop, cross-center alliance of CRP 3.5 best be configured to add value to all partners’ efforts? How can that alliance become a true innovation platform and not just another transaction cost? How can we work with partners to establish clear protocols for enhancing women's participation in partnerships and capacity building? How can we enhance the use of existing ICT (mobile phone, radio, TV, internet, etc.) to further exchange and sharing of information and knowledge among rural communities? How can nutritionists, health-care professionals and food scientists be engaged with CRP 3.5 agriculturalists to enhance mutual learning on nutritional issues of grain legumes? 5.6.7. Outputs 5.6.7.1. Partnership models to enhance grain legume R4D impacts identified and implemented. Description In CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES, agricultural research for development (AR4D) will be predicated on the notion of establishing innovation platforms, both physical and virtual, through which different actors communicate, cooperate and interact to set priorities, develop concepts and promote agricultural productivity and profitability (Hall et al. 2004). This effort requires building a common vision and purpose and developing realistic goals and transparency about resources and responsibility sharing to build trust and commitment. Work with innovation systems and multi-stakeholder partnerships shows that effective communication among the diverse actors is critical to success. For example, in Africa, the Pan-African Bean Research Alliance (PABRA) follows this model to coordinate the CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 6 102 collaboration among 28 national programs regionally. Similarly, in the Nile Valley and Sub-Saharan African countries (Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Eritrea) there is an established platform of national and regional traveling workshops where researchers and other stakeholders are involved in a learning platform; and recently identified benchmark sites addressing different farming systems in the four countries. Partnerships can grow spontaneously out of information exchange when common interests emerge (Output 3 below). In the context of international agricultural research, the intent is to leverage the capacity housed in many of the larger and more advanced national systems: ICAR in India, EMBRAPA in Brazil, EIAR in Ethiopia, and the General Directorate of Agricultural Research of Turkey in West Asia. IARCs are in a position to be a communication facilitator between NARES, major or minor, or between the public and private sectors. Methodology An inventory of global partnerships and developing learning modules among core IARCs and partners will reveal the state of the art in networking and partnering, clarifying the most important motivators for membership and organizational expectations. Partnership development processes will be planned and executed to build on existing partnerships and obtain the tools, social processes and skills needed to develop and sustain it. These must include the institutionalization of periodic revision of progress, reflection, and planning (normally once a year) as part of a participatory M&E process that generates ownership, consolidates a common vision, and maintains trust. Under the BMGF funded TL-II project, a trial mode of interacting with IARCs will be tested, whereby cross legume meetings will be a venue for coordinating with several centers within the country/region. These meetings draw together not only NARIs and IARCs, but actors all along the value chain who are interested in technology innovation, including seedsmen and farmers’ associations. Partnering with farmers usually means partnering with women, but this relationship will be far more productive with gender balance on the researcher side. For example, in Central America, this coordination function has been carried out during the regional agronomy meetings of the PCCMCA (Programa Cooperativo Centroamericano de Mejoramiento de Cultivos y Animales), attended by all national programs of the region. Such meetings will be promoted on a national level and will coordinate all legume research in the country. This will be a natural process for the national researchers since many national programs are organized in this fashion where attending to several international centers in a single meeting will be far more efficient for the national coordinators. In CWANA, national and regional coordination meetings are organized by NARIs and/or ICARDA and research programs are reviewed before the season starts and this experience will continue in the future. The Cereals and Legumes Asia Network (CLAN) helps facilitate national and regional legumes R&D activities, and is coordinated by ICRISAT, ICARDA and AVRDC. In India, both ICRISAT and ICARDA participate in the annual All India Coordinated Research Program meetings. In future, synergies will be further enhanced and duplication of R4D efforts reduced. Meetings of this nature include researchers, representatives of regulatory agencies, extensionists, CG Centers regional/country representatives, formal and informal seed producers and other input suppliers, NGO’s and occasionally farmers, and serve as a seedbed for an incipient innovation platform. As a result of such meetings, memoranda of understanding between suppliers and users of technology have often resulted. Another case in point is the Hybrid Parents Research Consortium (HPRC) of ICRISAT that was formed with the basic objective of increasing the scope of accessibility to better hybrids by the smallholder farmer through effective public-private partnerships. In this partnership, the recognition of the private sector as a valuable research for development partner led to the formation of a consortium comprising of private sector companies for more than one crop (pigeonpea, sorghum and pearl millet). A significant aspect of this initiative was that the products and information generated from consortia grants remain in the domain of international public good that are freely available to the public sector organizations around the world (Kavitha et al. 2009) CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 6 103 Key Milestones       The Central American bean network re-established (2012) The Cereals and Legumes Asia Network (CLAN) reinvigorated (2012) Cross crop legume meetings established in at least four countries in Africa and South Asia (2012) The food legumes networks in the Nile valley and sub-Saharan Africa re-established (2013) Effective multi-institutional and multidisciplinary teams work with farmers and other stakeholders to deliver integrated legume research results in at least five countries (2013) Private sector engaged to assume a major role in the production of seed of hybrid pigeonpea (2013) 5.6.7.2. Enhancing capacities of women and men for grain legume R4D innovation. Description Many national program scientists have received or are receiving higher degrees, especially in plant breeding, biotechnology and crop protection. Other disciplines are not receiving equivalent attention. While both men and women will continue to be trained, bringing this line of work to bear on women requires actively recruiting women for training in degree programs. In Africa, many women study agricultural sciences, while in Latin America women in science tend to gravitate toward associated sciences such as nutrition or biotechnology. While gender balance in research will be sought, it will be especially important to engage women in the social sciences, to better communicate with women clients, thereby enhancing attention to women’s needs and the delivery of outputs that are targeted to women. Methodology A gender census will be carried out to document the gender balance at all levels of research, and to identify critical gaps in the participation of women (as a part of GRAIN LEGUMES gender strategy). This will be updated periodically to facilitate the monitoring and evaluation, and reporting to the Consortium Board. Faculties of social sciences (rural sociology, economics, etc.) and food technology will be canvassed to identify fellowship opportunities for women, especially for African women due to the preponderant role that women play in legume production. Consultations with institutional partners (NARES and SROs) will investigate the interest of directors in strengthening social science and food technology with the purpose of creating additional positions for women in these fields. Women currently involved in legume science will be encouraged to participate in the AWARD program to broaden their horizons and leadership capacities. On the technical side, a consortium of IARCs, ARIs and NARES organizations working under GRAIN LEGUMES will offer focused short-term courses in real time with extended online mentoring and advice. In addition, it is anticipated that this CRP will play a lead role in helping to change the culture of information documentation, sharing and usage among the GRAIN LEGUMES partners. This will not only involve physical improvements such as the building of advanced online data and information services, but, more importantly, the strengthening of the information capacities of stakeholders at the production end of the value chain. In many cases, this will require greater efforts to build the ‘softer’ human skills of networking, learning and using information to innovate. Cultural change is needed for people and organizations to work comfortably in virtual alliances and networks, freely share information and make use of it in new ways. This will be initiated by GCP through its communities of practice that will be established for most of TLI and TLII crops (CB, CP, CW, GN and SB) and will be reinforced under CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES. For other crops such as FB, LN and PP, networks will be established. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 6 104 Such partnership-based experiments would feature blended use of new online tools and approaches and also more traditional information channels such as community radio. The practice of creating and validating learning materials such as re-usable granules (Re-usable Learning Objects or RLOs) will be tested. Strong partnerships with ICT players from the private sector, NGOs and ARIs will also be needed to achieve this goal. For example, the Dry Grains Pulse CRSP is experimenting with these technologies for dissemination of IPM techniques in West Africa. Actions to achieve this output include:    Training CRP and NARES partners to build and maintain online networks; Reinforcing and complementing online repositories of re-usable, adaptable learning materials; and Strengthening the skills for successful gender-sensitive, interdisciplinary, inter-institutional and multiple-stakeholder problem solving. IT infrastructure strengthened in national programs to connect breeders, IPM groups and agronomists to the Integrated Breeding Platform (2012) At least five women legume scientists are in degree programs in social science and food technology disciplines (2012) At least 20 refereed journal articles co-published between national legume researchers and IARC scientists per year, thereby reflecting joint research and co-learning (2012, 2013) Degree program or trained dedicated staff on knowledge management (2013) Institutional capacity in partnering and M&E strengthened as evidenced by regular attendance of researchers, seed sector, NGOs and farmer groups in yearly inter-institutional meetings in five countries (2013) Key Milestones      5.6.7.3. Knowledge sharing platforms for grain legumes crops strengthened. Description Knowledge sharing is an area where learning by doing and collective reflection and innovation are at the core (Hall, 2006). The purpose of a knowledge-sharing platform is to facilitate the connections between multi-stakeholders innovation and “make it possible for staff to act as the managers of their knowledge” (Wenger, 2004). It is frequently observed that in the absence of a proper knowledge sharing mechanism, large quantities of fragmented data and information with the potential to support the mission lie untapped. Hence, it is important to mobilize this information in formal, but easily accessible ways. This knowledge sharing platform will enhance awareness of stakeholders including researchers in ARIs and end users (consumers and farmers) thus enhancing grain legume R4D impacts in terms of opening up of new research areas, leading to health and nutritional benefits. Diet-related chronic diseases are reaching epidemic proportions in the developed world, and increasingly in some urban areas of the developing countries (Burslem, 2004; Tanumihardjo et al. 2007). Studies show that legumes can contribute to lower risk of diabetes due to low glycemic index (Foster-Powell et al. 2002); of certain types of cancer (Thompson et al. 2008); and of cardio-vascular disease (Kabagambe et al. 2005). The SRF states that “over the coming decades, the focus of under-nutrition will shift to the urban poor and a very different problem of calorie-rich but nutrient poor diets that contribute to chronic cardiovascular and other diseases could emerge”. The USDA now recommends increased consumption of legumes as an important part of a diet-based strategy to combat chronic obesity and chronic diseases as a high priority. Although, the CRP 4 recognizes importance of chronic diseases, it does not foresee any immediate action in this area. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 6 105 The SRF notes that efforts in “nutrition, infection and chronic disease” require “separate institutional arrangements with these health research communities”. Our intervention would not involve research that would duplicate efforts in CRP 4, but will be focused on sharing current information about legume consumption with various stakeholders, such as policy makers and those involved in consumer education, to raise consciousness about the dietary role of legumes. On the other hand, we seek to leverage efforts of colleagues in ARIs who are currently exploring the effects of legume consumption on health, and encouraging them to consider further research on legume crops for which there has been little or no study, and that do not yet form a part of their research agenda. Several of these colleagues have already expressed interest in future collaborations. In addition to this, the data generated by various partners in CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES are one of the most important resources for research, and later will become a part of knowledge bank for legumes research and decision-making. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES partners will conduct a series of field, farm and laboratory experiments that in turn will produce a large amount of data of various types including phenotypic, genotypic, genome sequences, socio-economic, climatic, agronomic, on farm trial, and GIS, among others. Hence, a state of the art, focused and strong data acquisition, storage, archiving, curating and management system will be required in collaboration with IBP. At this stage, crop ontologies or trait dictionaries will be necessary to establish uniform data formats. Work on ontology for at least four crops (bean, chickpea, cowpea, and groundnut) has already been completed under the auspices of TL-I project of the Generation Challenge Program and needs to be developed for other crops. To the extent possible, comparable data systems will be employed to facilitate the communication of information on multiple crops. The soybean community has already completed this step, thereby offering opportunities to develop linkages under GRAIN LEGUMES. Often, it is observed that the collaborators are hesitant about data submission, as many experimenters are not comfortable with online submission tools. Also, most of these data repositories do not offer much to users, apart from archiving data, where the added value of participating in data compilation is not obvious. Hence, there will be enhanced emphasis in terms of online biometrical analysis, easier and user-friendly web interfaces with additional outputs, reports and summaries to collaborators and stakeholders. This will be achieved by adding reporting modules, maintaining enhanced interaction between stakeholders, keeping a strong component of training and capacity building of IARCs and NARES collaborators in use of data management system. Collaborators will also be trained in the publication of curated data to other appropriate public databases (like NCBI) with a link to central database with the necessary metadata. The Generation Challenge Program is promoting databases within crop-based communities of practice to give access to genotypic and phenotypic data. These efforts will provide the ‘infostructure’ that will give the partnership and networking platforms the necessary content needed to function as described in Output 1. Such novel arrangements should also help to establish linkages with ongoing initiatives such as AG Commons that have strong GIS components. This platform will also be complemented by several ongoing initiatives in agricultural information management such as the CIARD (Coherence of Information for Agriculture Research and Development), Agropedia and aWhere, a Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s broad-based model to offer input to and access to a geo-referenced database using a private sector initiative that would link users at all levels including farmers. New media tools innovations involving web-to-mobile telephone information exchanges have been tested extensively in India and Kenya. Lessons learn from these efforts should prove helpful in assisting other partners to design systems that make use of this emerging technology, and contribute to novel, evolving impact pathways. We anticipate that such efforts will also help to identify research overlaps and avoid duplication. The problems associated with making best use of these materials include inadequate capabilities, lack of training, lack of metadata to assist in organizing information and inadequate channels for supporting multidirectional information flows will also be taken care of. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 6 106 Methodology Legume datasets and grey literature on legume research, uses and nutritional data will be inventoried, curated and digitized. Under the CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES, the generation of this knowledge sharing mechanism will be implemented by establishing open repositories of information and data and their re-use across the networks by using web 2.0. Additionally, information about approaches, methods and policies that work in different places, cultural contexts, and times (as well as those that do not), and the reasons for success or failure will also be shared through multiple virtual networks. Plant breeders and data managers in IARCs and NARES will be trained in the use of this knowledge sharing platform and information repositories. Models and action-support tools will be investigated to effect scaling-out and scaling-up using innovative web interfaces and possibly mobile telephones. Blends of online (web)-offline (desktop/mobile/voice telephony, community radio) prototypes will be investigated and their effectiveness tested in developing locally relevant advisory services. To strengthen linkages between stakeholders, platforms will provide space for communication and informal information sharing and offer learning and training to improve communication and information sharing within the network under Web 2.0. We will cooperate with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation initiative to deploy the aWhere model, including a seamless system for data input to aWhere. In addition to this, a data management platform will also identify suitable statistical analysis to be used with data submitted, and will offer the user a choice of basic analysis tools via software application as services (SaaS) for analysis and visualization of data with downloadable results and reports. On request, the system may also generate an Analysis tracking ID (AID) that can facilitate further summarization, checking and more detailed analysis or status of desired analysis from concerned biometricians that in-turn will further enhance the overall system efficiency. Finally, on a more mundane level, IARCs are in the position to inform partners in their traditional regions of operation about the availability of improved germplasm from other Centers. In each of the regions, besides the major legumes in each region that will receive attention in this CRP, other legumes are important locally. For example, cowpeas are the primary legume on the north coast of South America, and common beans are important in the foothills of the Himalayas. IARCs can be channels of information about legumes for smaller niches outside of the main cropping systems where research will be focused, with no added research investment outside of the costs of seed shipment. Key Milestones  A workshop to acquaint legume researchers with results of research on chronic diseases, and to introduce nutritionists to research opportunities in legumes in the developing world held (2012) 6th International Conference on Legume Genetics and Genomics organized (2012) Legume information, genomic-phenomic databases established for four legumes under the GCP and selective data flow to aWhere ensured (2013) Online biometric analysis module developed and tested (2013) Links to the soybean community strengthened through integration of databases (2013) Legume data incorporated into the Gates initiative using aWhere (2013) IARCs serve as clearing houses for information of niche legumes (2013) Farmer access to aWhere tested in two countries in Africa (2014)        CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Strategic Objective 6 107 6. Partnerships and Networks As elaborated in the earlier chapters, partnerships are critical to CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES, as one of the roles of Centers is to facilitate the R4D activities among a wide array of partners. CRP 3.5 will generate IPGs (international public goods) that will be customized to meet local needs and conditions by the partners. To connect global intent to local action, CRP 3.5 will harness a few of the well-established regional networks. Regional networks are highly effective for accelerating impact and strengthening capacities. However, the focus of these networks in the past has largely been limited to exchange germplasm and technologies. CRP 3.5 will work with the regional networks to widen their scope and impact along the legumes value chain. 6.1 Role of Networks We give below the available network resources on grain legumes in the regions (fuller expositions on each are given in Appendix 7): Sub-Saharan Africa  PABRA (Pan-Africa Bean Research Alliance) is a consortium of sub-regional bean networks: ECABREN (Eastern and Central Africa), SABRN (Southern Africa) and WECABREN (West and Central Africa). PRONAF (ProjetNiebe pour l’Afrique) on cowpea in West Africa. NGICA (Network for the Genetic Improvement of Cowpea for Africa) an informal, but progressive international network applying modern ICT and biotechnology. Amongst these, PABRA is quite large, with 350 direct and indirect partners from NARS, IARCs, donors, NGOs, sub-regional organizations (ASARECA, SADC-FANR, and CORAF), community-based organizations, seed producers, traders and the commercial private sector. We plan to initiate discussions with PABRA to possibly expand it to other legumes and make the network pan-legumes across Sub-Saharan Africa. Latin America and the Caribbean   PROFRIJOL (bean network - funding expired but minimal activities continue) AgroSalud (regional bio-fortification project including bean)   PCCMA (Central America regional network including bean) CRP GRAIN LEGUMES will work with all the three networks, based on the need and nature of R4D projects. Central and West Asia and North Africa   WANA Regional Seed Network Nile Valley Regional Food Legume Network includes three sub-networks: on wilt and root rot diseases (Ethiopia coordinating), integrated control of aphids and viruses (Egypt coordinating), and socio-economic studies (Egypt coordinating). Mahgreb Food Legumes Network (currently dormant) CRP GRAIN LEGUMES will possibly work with all networks, depending on expertise needed. However, efforts will be made to bring together like-minded networks for effectiveness, over the long-term. South and Southeast Asia  AICRPs (All India Coordinated Research Programs) guide and coordinate research (agronomy, crop improvement, crop protection, soil and nutrient management, and postharvest technologies) on chickpea, lentil, pigeonpea, and groundnut in India. 108  CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Partnerships and Networks Cereals and Legumes Asia Network (CLAN) is endorsed by the regional organization APAARI and co-facilitated by ICARDA, ICRISAT and AVRDC. CRP GRAIN LEGUMES will work closely with CLAN, as it has a well-established and working framework. In India, we will need to establish close alliance with AICRPs. These networks are all regionally-based, which (desirably) places them close to the socio-economic and biophysical context in which adoption and impact occurs. Additional value will be gained by extending that learning across regions/crops through CRP 3.5 R4D activities. These networks will also act as the ‘eyes and ears’ of CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will feed back regional knowledge on grain legume issues, trends, priorities, and expectations. Among the key functions that networks will perform under CRP 3.5 are:     Sharing evidence, best practices, innovative ideas and problem-solving expertise across crops and regions; Sharing facilities and services among those best equipped to carry out different tasks; Coordinating and fostering inter-disciplinary and cross-crop project collaboration; Mentoring and training of young scientists and providing them opportunities for professional development; and   Creating scientific consensus of opinion to informed policy-making. Unfortunately, a number of the networks have become dormant or are at low-level of activity in the past decade due to lack of resources. Several have made adjustments, and continue to contribute to the extent possible, functioning at a very basic level without special support. Opportunistic physical meetings are enabled by single-event and often problem-focused support, and/or as side meetings at other events, rather than through long-term core network support. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will attempt to support the historical trend, because that strategy has worked well in the past, and exploit the new opportunities that the trend provides. 6.2 Role of Partners other than the Centers Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), Ethiopia EIAR is responsible for the running of federal agriculture research centers. Currently, the EIAR comprise 55 research centers and sites located across various agro-ecological zones. Some of the research centers and sites have one or more sub-centers and testing sites. As an apex body, EIAR provides strong leadership in coordinating research, by taking a leading role in influencing agricultural policy development.   Ethiopia has the second largest (second only to Nigeria) number of staff for agricultural research and development in the SSA region. The country has registered significant successes with value chain approach for legumes (mainly chickpea, common bean and lentil). Productivity and production have increased and export earnings have gone up significantly. Large network of research stations to conduct both on station and on-farm trials and disseminate improved technologies. It is a secondary center of some of the legumes and would provide unique germplasm for crop improvement   The Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA), Brazil EMBRAPA serves Brazilian society through the 38 Research Centers, 3 Service Centers and 13 Central Divisions distributed in different states of Brazil. EMBRAPA coordinates the National Agricultural Research System, which includes most public and private entities involved in agricultural research in CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Partnerships and Networks 109 the country. EMBRAPA has an extensive network of research stations throughout Brazil, with a center dedicated to research on rice and beans. In general Brazil has long experience in the management of tropical soils that can be of use to several crops of the CRP, and possibly broader.      Soybean, bean and groundnut are EMBRAPA’s priority grain legumes can strengthen CRP 3.5. Strong human resource base can help the region in capacity building in Grain Legume research. Established bio- control facilities can be a model for CG as well as NARS partners. EMBRAPA could take the lead in exploiting the potential of transgenic beans for developing countries. EMBRAPA has the potential to carry out studies on heat tolerance. The Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) GCP mission is to use genetic diversity and advanced plant science to improve crops by adding value to breeding for drought-prone and harsh environments. This is achieved through a network of more than 200 partners drawn from CGIAR Centers, academia, regional and national research programs, and capacity enhancement to assist developing world researchers to tap into a broader and richer pool of plant genetic diversity.     Assist in the establishment of strategic research platforms. Facilitate capacity building in addressing new breeding tools. Trait specific germplasm to be utilized by NARS. Good opportunity to utilize the well-established network of with NARS and CG centers. General Directorate of Agricultural Research (GDAR), Turkey GDAR is the apex body to administer agricultural research in Turkey. Under the administration of GDAR, there are 7 Central, 9 Regional, 32 subject-specific and 12 Soil and Water Research Institutes are in operation throughout the country.     GDAR has good research base on crop as well as natural resources (soil & water). Knowledge on biodiversity with ample experience on various crops and livestocks and biosafety. Has a center of excellence in drought research with good facilities which could be shared for CRP 3.5 research. Can be a resource centre with capabilities to organize two-way collaboration between NARS and CG centers. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), India The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) is one of large NARS system among the developing countries. ICAR has 97 ICAR institutes and 47 agricultural universities across the country, with a wellestablished network on research institutions, supported by several State Agriculture Universities (SAUs).   ICAR has a large human resource base to assist other NARS partners in building their capacities. It has extensive collaboration with several CGIAR centres, which can assist in two way interaction. Both ICARDA and ICRISAT participate in ICAR collaborative research programs on Grain Legumes. The National network on a number of crops and other disciplines can be utilized for CRP research effectively and can be models for other countries. 110  CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Partnerships and Networks   Well established upstream advanced research labs and downstream research and extension networks that can strengthen other CRP partners. Has capacity for leadership in farm machinery, mechanization, post-harvest technologies, and development of novel legume products. The Dry Grain Pulses Collaborative Research Support Program (Pulse CRSP), USA Pulse CRSP supports many of research efforts of the NARS’ bean and cowpea programs in SSA and LAC. Pulses CRSP has sought to strengthen ties and collaborations with the CGIAR on grain legumes research and to coordinate future research activities. The CRSP has greatly contributed to the training of scientists within the NARS in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America.      Identify new genetic sources of resistance to abiotic and edaphic stress factors (including more effective root systems) and breed improved varieties. Develop, implement and manage a comprehensive integrated bio-control program for insect pests on cowpea. Improve BNF and grain yields of grain legumes through the development and promotion of the use of superior seed inoculants. Develop and validate sustainable community-based seed multiplication and dissemination systems for grain legumes. Enhance the nutritional value and health-promoting qualities of grain legumes and strengthen grain legume value chains that directly benefit women and children. 6.3 CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES as a platform for innovation and learning CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES sees these networks collectively as an international innovation platform (Hall and Yoganand 2004) for grain legumes. This platform will be the base from which targeted innovation partnerships are launched. Innovation partnerships will focus on specific problems/opportunities. All partners are responsible carry out the entire R4D cycle, from idea generation to fundraising, project execution, and monitoring and evaluation. CRP 3.5 will coordinate and advocate these innovation partnerships to investors and other stakeholders, and provide other core services such as catalytic and advisory support, quality monitoring, and public awareness services, all aimed at maintaining high credibility and visibility. Table 6.1 depicts in brief some of the main partnerships that will be essential to innovations in different core processes of the legumes R4D continuum. The core partners in CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES (ICRISAT, CIAT, ICARDA, IITA, GCP, ICAR, EIAR, EMBRAPA, GDAR, and Pulses CRSP) believe that a wide range of partners across the five regions are important to implement the R4D activities envisaged. These include both the traditional partners and many new partners, as we plan to initiate research in areas that were not on Centers’ R4D agenda previously. These partners include the Advanced Research Institutes (ARI) in both developed and developing countries; several national agricultural research systems (NARS) institutes, including universities, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), farmers organizations, private sector, and other CGIAR centers. Table 6.1 provides details of activities that the partners are expected to contribute to CRP GRAIN LEGUMES R4D efforts. Complete list of global partners is given in Appendix 8. Stakeholder support Innovation partnership proposals will be marketed to coalitions of traditional and new development investors – those who hold stakes in grain legume R4D, but have been largely overlooked in the past. For example, wholesalers and processors hold stakes in grain harvests that are more consistent in volume and quality; seed companies hold stakes in more profitable and efficient seed systems; and CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Partnerships and Networks 111 retailers hold stakes in the improved quality and diversity of final products. The poor, and especially women are stakeholders of prime interest to CRP 3.5, and the road to success must be in finding win-win innovations, both for the commercial stakeholders and the smallholder farmers. R4D avenues will be pursued that increase the value of their stakes so that all are motivated to adopt them. Realistically, new windows of support from stakeholders will be modest in the beginning. Support will be through both cash and in-kind support to projects (expertise, facilities, testing services, etc.) Beyond support, the active involvement of value chain stakeholders will increase the relevance of R4D and accelerate its impact, including the traditional development investor support, which is especially crucial for activities that benefit the poor and women in particular. But including these stakeholders represents a significant new way of doing business. Initially, even modest support will demonstrate commitment to the CRP 3.5 partnership by stakeholders. Overtime, as returns-oninvestment become tangible, we expect that the quantity of this new support will grow. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will proactively market innovation partnerships by having a dialogue with stakeholders about the mutual benefits that all can obtain through legumes R4D, taking their ideas and suggestions onboard to increase the relevance and effectiveness of project design. A number of recent institutional innovations in this direction bear testimony to the viability of this approach, e.g. the Hybrid Parents Research Consortium (involving IARCs and seed companies) and the Agri-Business Incubation platform fostering agri-entrepreneurship catalyzed by ICRISAT in India (and moving to Sub-Saharan Africa). ICT for efficient networking Addressing the decline in general network support for essential core functions such as coordination and communication, CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will capitalize on ever-richer ICT capabilities such as virtual meeting technology, web-enabled community-of-practice and professional networking applications, tele- and video-conferencing, online sharing of rich interactive databases, geospatial applications, and genetic maps. Bandwidth and user sophistication are steadily increasing across the developing world, and such tools are continuously emerging and improving at ever-lower cost. They enable both broad sharing of information/expertise at regional and global levels as well as focused problem-solving teamwork (e.g. virtual team formation for proposal development and execution). Targeted event funding will also be sought to ensure periodic physical meetings that are required to sustain mutual trust, understanding and coherence. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Partnerships and Networks 112 Table 6.1. Roles of partners in CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES (organized by Strategic Objective and Output) Output NARS in ESA, WCA, SSEA, CWANA, LA&C ARIs Private Sector NGOs, Farmers Organizations CGIAR Centers Strategic Objective 1:Conserving and characterizing genetic resources and developing novel breeding methods/tools for improving efficiency of crop improvement Carry out explorations based on Develop best practices for grain Use selected germplasm in Assist in germplasm collection Output 1.1 Grain legumes eco-geographic information, legume gene bank developing high yielding, broad and sharing indigenous genetic resources collected, and historical data from high management (GIS, FIGS); based cultivars knowledge conserved and made available to researchers globally priority areas; and analysis of data historical acquiring/exchange germplasm records for establishing collections based on the priorities and germplasm available passport data. collection/acquisition. Output 1.2 Genetic resources characterized, evaluated and documented for unique traits/genes…. Evaluate germplasm sets (core, mini core, reference, TILLING population and FIGS subsets) for key traits in hot spot areas and select useful lines. Develop new tools, methods and approaches to identify trait specific germplasm, mechanisms and component traits; assist in capacity building Use new tools/techniques, and selected germplasm for developing high yielding cultivars with wide adaptation On farm testing and adoption of selected germplasm and high yielding broad based cultivars Identify gaps in existing collections; collection, conservation and distribution of genetic resources Sharing facilities for costeffective regeneration of unadapted germplasm; upgrading skills/training, and safety backup. Development of germplasm sub sets, precise characterization and evaluation of the germplasm collections, documentation, and knowledge sharing Output 1.3 Novel and efficient breeding methods/tools for cultivar development established and shared Use new germplasm lines and modern methods in breeding programs to enhance efficiency and delivery of products and associated training activities Technological support for developing new tools and training in development and use of modern technologies Provide/co-develop costeffective and high-throughput genomics technologies for the legume R4D community; utilizing new tools and technologies for product development Participation in product development and deployment of transgenic crop varieties Promoting and enhancing adoption of new cultivars Output 1.4 Novel genes/traits accessed/mobilized/ incorporated through wide hybridization /genetic engineering …. Participate in assessing research gaps on grain legume production, nutrition and safety; develop and deploy transgenic legumes for specific traits Provide tools and technologies for use in wide hybridization and genetic engineering research on grain legumes Create awareness about the improved technologies and varieties, and promote their adoption among stakeholders Identification/development and use of new genetic and genomic resources, , molecular markers ,and modern breeding methodologies to broaden the genetic base for improvement of legumes and capacity building of partners Develop, evaluate and share improved legume crop improvement technologies to address various crop production constraints and capacity building of partners CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Partnerships and Networks 113 Output NARS in ESA, WCA, SSEA, CWANA, LA&C ARIs Private Sector NGOs, Farmers Organizations CGIAR Centers Strategic Objective 2: Accelerating the development of more productive and nutritious cultivars for resilient cropping systems of small-holder farmers Co-develop, evaluate and Capacity building (including Development and Promotion of superior varieties Output 2.1 Elite lines/cultivars disseminate high yielding graduate students) in use of commercialization of superior and hybrids (e.g. pigeonpea) with at least 25% higher yield cultivars and hybrids potential than the best legume varieties and hybrids in modern breeding available cultivars developed various production systems methodologies for different production systems. Assistance in developing and Commercialization of the Promotion and adoption of Development, evaluation and Output 2.2 Elite lines/cultivars capacity building of highproven technologies and climate resilient varieties selection of improved climate with enhanced resilient varieties under key throughput phenotyping and superior resilient varieties with resistance/tolerance to key genotyping platforms yield stabilizing traits biotic and abiotic stresses biotic and abiotic stresses and resilience to climate change developed Generate information on Assistance in developing GIS Up and out-scaling farmer and Output 2.3 Improved methods for targeting improved farmer and market- preferred tools and simulation models market preferred varieties. traits, climatic variables, and germplasm to small holder niches biotic and abiotic stresses Output 2.4 Elite lines/cultivars Evaluation and development of Generate information on Commercialize nutritious and with enhanced nutritional biofortified and high value nutritional quality, effect on farmer preferred varieties market-preferred elite lines and chronic diseases, and antisuitable for niche markets composition and end-user preferred traits developed. cultivars nutritional and toxic factors. Output 2.5 Elite lines/cultivars Evaluate, select and adopt elite Assistance in developing highDevelopment and with enhanced nutrient use lines/ varieties with high throughput phenotyping commercialization of nutrientefficiency, high nodulation N2 nutrient use and BNF efficiency platforms for breeding purpose use and BNF- efficient varieties fixation potential… in target environments Strategic Objective 3: Identifying and promoting crop and pest management practices for sustainable legume production Output 3.1 Strategies to Develop data base on local Development and Large scale multiplication of optimize Biological Nitrogen rhizobia and other beneficial characterization of more selected rhizobial strains and Fixation by legumes developed organisms, and participate in efficient strains of rhizobia and beneficial microorganisms and and promoted BNF research in legumes other beneficial their commercialization microorganisms and technologies Selection of farmer-preferred varieties through participatory approaches (PVS) Creating awareness about nutritional value of legumes and disseminating knowledge to target communities Promoting nutrient-use efficient varieties in areas with poor soils Development of improved legume varieties with a broad genetic base for different production systems; capacity building for partners Development of improved germplasm with a broad genetic base, and sharing testing sites for the key biotic and abiotic stresses for developing climate resilient varieties Development and implementation of GIS and modeling tools and sharing with partners Genetic improvement of legume varieties with specific nutritional and other consumer preferred traits. Production of high nitrogen fixing, nutrient-use efficient and herbicide tolerant germplasm Promotion and utilization of effective Rhizobium inoculums to increase grain legume production Rhizobial collections, evaluation, and promotion in different cropping systems CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Partnerships and Networks 114 Output Output 3.2 Methods to increase legume productivity and profitability through increased resource use efficiency… NARS in ESA, WCA, SSEA, CWANA, LA&C ARIs Private Sector NGOs, Farmers Organizations Facilitate promotion and implementation of efficient cropping systems and providing the feed back CGIAR Centers Evaluation and integration of potential legume based cropping systems and associated capacity building Identification of components Promotion and Identify constraints and commercialization of suitable for enhancing resource use opportunities for the intensification of legume efficiency and their crop management technologies management (e.g. components cropping systems, and promotion of suitable related to P use efficiency, micro dosing, etc.) technologies Development of new IPM/IDM Commercialization of products Output 3.3 Tools and protocols Identify and prioritize various constraints for developing technologies/modules and services to enhance crop for more effective pest & disease management integrated crop management protection and crop production developed, tested and (ICM) practices for legume crop promoted intensification Output 3.4 Potential strategies Evaluation and dissemination of Develop crop simulation Commercialize and promote for farmers to adapt improved climate resilient models/protocols to facilitate climate resilient varieties and management of legumes in varieties and management climate change research proven technologies response to climate change… strategies Strategic Objective 4: Farmers have better access to seed through more efficient seed production and delivery systems Identify efficient formal and Sharing relevant models and Feasibility studies on strategic Output 4.1 Decentralized seed systems enhanced through informal seed systems for assist in developing innovative investments in seed systems systematic diagnosis and preferred legume crops and seed delivery models and feedback implementation of appropriate varieties suitable for the region Promote seed business models incubation systems Output 4.2 Capacity of public Participation in capacity Share success stories of Establishing better and private sector in legume building of legume seed efficient models for effective infrastructure and developing seed systems strengthened production, processing and implementation newer markets for marketing to strengthen seed strengthening the seed systems systems Output 4.3 Enabling seed Prioritize and document various Assist in developing efficient Adopt new policies and provide policies for legume seed gaps in the existing seed strategies to improve existing feedback systems, based on thorough seed policies systems and coerce policy analysis of current makers in implementing the arrangements new policy Output 4.4 Framework for Identify and document Sharing the successful models, Assured seed supply in national seed security for vulnerable zones besides and lessons vulnerable zones vulnerable regions developed facilitating the implementation of risk mitigation strategies Encourage and promote best bet technologies Develop, evaluate and share best bet ICM technologies Promoting the proven technologies and adoption of climate resilient varieties Develop and evaluate efficient genetic and management strategies to overcome climatic variability/change Development and sharing seeds of high yielding varieties for strengthening the village seed systems. Assisting in capacity building of NARS/NGO’s and private sectors Facilitate seed business incubation systems Implementation and feedback Linking farmers with technology facilitators for developing efficient seed systems Assist in creating awareness and adoption of the new seed policies and provide feedback Assistance in development and advocacy of policies for improving existing seed systems Evolving appropriate strategies and solutions for risk mitigation for vulnerable regions/groups Link knowledge providers and farmers and encourage adoption of efficient strategies. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Partnerships and Networks 115 Output NARS in ESA, WCA, SSEA, CWANA, LA&C ARIs Private Sector NGOs, Farmers Organizations CGIAR Centers Strategic Objective 5: Improving grain legumes value-chains, strengthening market linkages and promoting postharvest technologies for enhanced livelihood outcomes of smallholder farmers Value chain interventions Output 5.1 Enhancing grain Assist with methodologies, Identification and development Enhance the value chain Assist in identifying, and legume value chains for the benefiting small holders and technologies, and gender of key legume allied products through effective developing high value grain poor, especially women women for local legumes and perspectives. for capturing markets and implementation at community legume products, innovations, allied products identified and mainstreaming through level and capacity building of developed. forward and backward linkages partners through inclusive approaches Output 5.2 Institutional Evaluate, advocate and adopt Assist with policy formulation, Promote value chain based Promotion and adoption of Develop appropriate sustainable policies to promote and capacity building agribusiness ventures inclusive market oriented innovations and practices for innovations to engage poor grain legume products, and systems sustainable institutional farmers with input and product markets …. benefit stakeholders systems Assess available technologies, Adopt post-harvest Create awareness on improved Identifying of pro-women postDevelopment of post-harvest Output 5.3 Post-harvest harvest and value addition develop prototypes and and value-addition technologies technologies and promote food post-harvest technologies for technologies/practices and promote value-added products and document changes in business ventures legumes and value-added technologies and processes, value-added products benefiting women… nutritional and safety products and implement the and providing capacity building parameters value-chain of partners Output 5.4 Drudgery/costsaving small scale machinery for grain legume processing identified or developed Evaluate pre- and post-harvest Provide assistance and support Commercialize appropriate technologies suitable for small for appropriate technologies technologies for small scale scale farm mechanization of and help maximizing user mechanization grain legumes pre- and postoutreach harvest. Strategic Objective 6: Partnerships, capacities, and knowledge sharing to enhance grain legume R4D impacts Provide platform for carrying Participate in development, Output 6.1 Partnership models Develop partnership to enhance grain legume R4D opportunities to enhance grain out research and development commercialization and scale up impacts identified and legume R4D, and up scaling of with the identified partners of developed technologies. implemented grain legumes and allied product adoption by small holders. Output 6.2 Enhancing capacities of women and men for grain legume R4D innovation Impart training in skills required to deliver the innovations identified as part of the grain legume R4D initiatives Capacity building of stakeholders and beneficiaries on R4D innovations Business orientation of R4D innovations by providing internship opportunities and support for capacity building Creating awareness and skill development in the use of improved farm machinery Evaluate and assess available technologies and models for small-scale mechanization and reducing drudgery Linking various partners to farmers and other stakeholders as well as creating awareness among farmers Create awareness as well as link the farmers to technology providers, trainers and the private sector Provide mentoring for development of different partnership models that improve grain legumes adoption by leveraging knowledge base of other CG centers and partners. Assess the needs of capacity building among various stake holders and carry out impact assessment of the capacity building programs CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Partnerships and Networks 116 Output Output 6.3 Knowledge sharing platforms for grain legumes crops strengthened NARS in ESA, WCA, SSEA, CWANA, LA&C Identify technologies, and partners, and domains for developing various knowledge sharing platforms for implementation ARIs Develop and provide crop and other domain-specific knowledge/information Private Sector Technology platforms to disseminate knowledge of the identified technologies NGOs, Farmers Organizations Create awareness among farmers about various knowledge sharing platforms available, and facilitate implementation of appropriate knowledge sharing technologies CGIAR Centers Anchor various knowledge sharing platforms, validate information, content and promote technologies across geographies CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Partnerships and Networks 117 7. Gender Research Strategy Gender issues in legume production systems In the legume production systems, men, women and the youth have different and unequal access to production inputs and technologies. Similarly, ownership of resources for production and marketing of legumes and decision making on the production systems are also different with gender groups. However, the division of labor is distinct, but not rigid and depends on the specific socio-economic context. Various reports (Kumar, 1985; FAO, 2007a,b) have indicated that although rural women are the main producers of the world’s staple crops—rice, wheat, and maize—which provide up to 90% of the food consumed in the rural area, their contribution to growing secondary crops such as legumes and vegetables is even greater. In parts of Africa where legumes are purely subsistent and semi-subsistence crops, women are more visible in the production roles, marketing of perishable products like leaves as vegetables, and seed and small scale processing (e.g. groundnuts for home and local sale), while men tend to dominate in the marketing of grain up in the value chain (Bationo et al. 2011). Men also dominate in the legume value chains (integrating production and marketing) in the few highly commercialized production contexts like the common bean in the central rift valley of Ethiopia and low lands of northern Tanzania. In Asia, women integrate the production, processing, and marketing activities of chickpea, groundnut and pigeonpea. The gender division of labor in Asia appears to be changing in response to changing economic opportunities in urban areas. One reason is that when men leave agricultural communities in search of employment opportunities; women assume many tasks that were earlier done by men. Women are also increasingly getting involved in soybean processing and product development, including, akara (fried fritter), dan dawa, moin-moin (soybread), soy-cake, soy-milk, and soy-cheese, implying that women are also the direct beneficiaries of economic gains from soya bean value chain enhancement (FAO, 2007b). Most of the men and women involved in legume production and marketing come from asset-poor farming households, but women face more extreme challenges in accessing farm inputs: land, seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, farming knowledge, post-harvest techniques, and market organization. This is because men tend to take most of the household decisions that affect women’s access to land for production, income from marketed surplus and occasionally household labor (Kumar, 1985). Past experiences have shown that men often take over women enterprises after they become profitable. There are also examples of women being given poor lands to cultivate crops. Once the lands become fertile (say after growing legumes for a few years), the men take them over for growing high value crops. Limited access to credits is disproportionately high among women because they lack control over land that is usually demanded as collateral. Gender differences in technology choice have also have been reported in participatory legume variety studies (e.g. Kolli and Bantilan, 1997). Past and ongoing efforts to address gender issues in legume improvement interventions The critical importance of women in legume production and the fact that their access to necessary resources and appropriate technologies is often constrained by gender barriers is now a recognized fact across participating CGIAR centers. This recognition has stimulated the centers to incorporate gender issues in legume research and development, and efforts to overcome the gender barriers have been growing since then. For example, CIAT has for many years hosted the Participatory Research and Gender Analysis (PRGA) Program, and its work on beans over the last decade has had a strong focus on empowering rural women to manage their natural resources and access to markets. In technology development across centers, both men and women’s concerns are continually being integrated in breeding criteria through participatory plant breeding (PPB) and participatory variety selection (PVS).This has enabled breeders to not only develop well adapted and acceptable varieties, CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Gender Research Strategy 118 but also achieve the desired varieties faster. For example, Sperling et al. (1993) observed that the participation of women in bean variety development led to a faster identification and adoption of improved bean varieties suited to small production niches in Rwanda. Other gender related efforts have been focused on gender characterization and improvement of policy, community development projects and capacity building among partners. Building capacity included but not limited to, training and change of research approach to multi-disciplinarity to engage other players such as gender experts in research. Feldstein (1998) has given a more detailed inventory of gender related research across specific centers. Use of gender analysis tools has also been growing across centers, but with some variations in intensity and frequency. A strategy to address gender issues in CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES recognizes that women have accumulated a wealth of legume specific knowledge and expertise that should be tapped into legume research and development, to enhance the efficiency and performance of the CRP. Lessons learnt from previous legume interventions and elsewhere also indicate that positive and negative gender-specific impacts are possible, and if not monitored and timely addressed, could undermine the ultimate goal of improving socio-economic welfare of the poor. A few examples from the past bean and groundnut evaluation research elaborate on this. Adoption of fast cooking bean varieties in Tanzania has reduced the workload on women in terms of time spent in search of firewood, cooking, and foraging for wild vegetables during the dry seasons (David and Sperling, 1999), and general consumption of annual firewood reduced by about 10% (Nkonya et al, 1998). On the other hand, the negative impacts were observed in the form of increased workload on women from adoption of soil improvement technologies, such as planting and incorporating green manure alongside varieties. In other communities, new high yielding varieties attracted more men in production, with diverse consequences that varied from antagonistic and competitive to complementary situations, depending on the context. ICRISAT’s study also shows that increase in groundnut production resulting from new varieties and technologies led to increases in household incomes, but a greater workload for women in shelling the increased production (Feldstien, 1998). These and other examples indicate that overall genderspecific effects could be negative or positive especially on women, depending on which outcome is stronger. These examples clearly point to the importance of incorporating gender research and analysis, and other gender-related issues at all levels of planning and interventions that will steer efforts towards achieving reduced gender disparities and increased gender-equitable impacts. The following outlines the proposed strategies for mainstreaming gender in CRP 3.5 interventions to ensure gender equitable benefits. The proposed strategy builds on ideas from the on-going initiatives across centers while proposing new aspects that will strengthen the ongoing efforts. Baseline studies to support gender specific targeting Baselines have been established in many on-going bilateral projects, such as BMGF funded Tropical Legumes II Project CRP 3.5 will conduct joint socio-economic studies (as and when needed) with other CRPs, (especially CRP 1.1, 1.2 & 2) during the first phase (2011-2013) to analyze specific contributions of men and women to socio-economic processes of legume cultivation and processing, differential access to and control over resources, and the rewards they gain from these contributions in the target production contexts. Such gender analysis will generate a deeper understanding of the gender issues, and strategic gender interests for change in the division of labor, access and control of resources, constraints, and opportunities for their full participation in the production pathways as well as post-harvest value addition processes upstream. The results will inform the development of strategies to address gender inequalities in access to and control over resources and services. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Gender Research Strategy 119 Active participation of men and women farmers in technology development process Multi-stakeholder participatory action research will continue to be an important component of technology development through which men and women stakeholders along the legume value chains will be systematically consulted to identify their own priorities, varietal preferences, success stories, lessons learned, tools and mechanisms. The methods and tools for actively involving men and women farmers in participatory plant breeding and variety selection to incorporate user preferences in the breeding criteria have evolved overtime and are relatively well developed. Data is always gender disaggregated, which has enabled the gender specific analysis of preferences and incorporation of that analysis in the future breeding strategies. This practice will be encouraged to continue. In addition to this approach, specific targeting of women to involve them in the selection of varieties that suit both their food security and nutrition and market needs will be emphasized and given priority in breeding for improved nutrition. These efforts will be complemented with a body of in-depth gender-related research strategically designed to clearly document whether key technologies developed are (or are not) benefitting women to the degree expected, so as to constantly inform the nature of technology development in CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES. Capacity building among implementers It has been observed that while awareness of the role and importance of gender in agriculture has improved greatly, the actual incorporation of gender into agriculture research has been uneven across centers (Poats, 1991). One of the major handicaps to integration of gender into research and development activities is the lack of necessary capacity and skills. Lessons from past efforts show that training of researchers in gender issues result in substantial impacts on gender analysis among the researchers that were trained (Feldstein, 1998). Such efforts in training will need to be scaled up and out to realize even higher achievements. Training of staff in IARCs, NARS and private sector partners in the basics of gender analysis and mainstreaming will continue to be supported and expanded to cover a wider scope of participants, both within and across institutions. Equal opportunities will be provided to women and young research staff to improve their knowledge, tools and skills in gender mainstreaming.Women and young adult farmers and traders will be mobilized and supported to actively participate in organized training meetings on gender mainstreaming. Training will also focus on the existing staff and stakeholders and implemented through various arrangements that include workshops to encourage interactions among the participants, knowledge sharing platform and mentoring. Shared positions for experts in gender issues to mentor staff in gender analysis and audit progress will be promoted and supported across centers at sub-regional levels (i.e. ESA, WCA, SSEA, CWANA, and LAC). Lessons from past work in individual centers also suggest that capacity gaps at institutional level still exist even in areas where training was conducted, implying that training alone is not enough. For example, a study conducted by PABRA in 2008 to evaluate the benefits of their capacity building program among PABRA partners between 1995 and2004 indicated that skills were gained at individual levels and were being used to enhance gender analysis in the respective organizations. The same study also found out that the staff turnover was high after training as new skills enhanced the competitiveness of those individuals in a wider job market, resulting in loss of capacity of that organization. These lessons led to recommendations that in order to build and maintain capacity for gender in these organizations, there is need to focus on institutionalization of gender capacity building. A gender mainstreaming policy and guideline for organizations are some of the tools that were suggested by partners as motivators for the institutionalization of capacity building for gender analysis and mainstreaming. The box article shows an example of a policy to articulate and implement the gender efforts in PABRA work under its ongoing Phase (2009-2013). CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Gender Research Strategy 120 It is therefore, proposed that a gender mainstreaming policy be developed together with partners in NARS and private sector in consultation with gender experts while borrowing from the capacity building policies already in use in some of the centers. Such a policy would promote ‘accountability’ for gender mainstreaming. CRP 3.5 will also work with gender experts to develop tools to guide implementers on ‘how to mainstream gender in the legume R4D thematic priorities’. For gender equality and advocacy at a wider community, CRP 3.5 will partner with relevant gender interest groups to support advocacy for establishment of formal gender equality where this does not exist and help bridge any gap between the formal situation and the actual enjoyment of equal rights and well-being. Gender mainstreaming policy developed by and for PABRA research and development interventions  All PABRA sub-projects should integrate gender in a strategic manner  Gender has to be included as a criterion for the approval and funding of PABRA activities and PABRA related projects  The network Steering Committees and other governance bodies of PABRA should have more than 30% representation of qualified women  That country partners and staff are accountable in relation to gender mainstreaming, and requires them to report on certain aspects, reward those that perform significantly, and institute sharing mechanisms that promote gender  The performance implementation framework has to show gendered outcomes, outputs and indicators and that these are reflected in the M&E framework beyond counting of numbers of men and women reached.  Sufficient finances and other resources are directed to facilitate gender targeting and mainstreaming including capacity building. Source: PABRA, 2009 Gender-explicit monitoring and evaluation Monitoring should focus not only on equality of treatment for men and women, but also to ensure that the intervention outcomes provide benefits for both men and women in an equal way. To ensure this, all data from intervention activities, and M&E processes should be disaggregated by gender and analyzed to feedback lessons for better mainstreaming of gender into the CRP 3.5 programming and implementation process as well as inform policy. It is also proposed that the participatory M&E system in each center be guided by a performance measurement framework that integrates local and gender specific indicators for monitoring project outcomes. This will ensure that these are measured both with technical indicators as well as local men and women generated indicators. Outcomes and outputs will be monitored for the extent to which they have affected both men and women. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will work jointly with other relevant CRPs while consulting with gender experts in adapting the performance measurement framework to identify and integrate gender specific monitorable indicators relevant for legume research and development interventions. Annual reviews by stakeholders and gender specific audits will be periodically organized to review the progress toward gender mainstreaming and evaluate gender specific social impact on well-being. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Gender Research Strategy 121 8. Innovations CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES constitutes a major innovation in partnership. It overcomes institutional and disciplinary barriers, enhancing cross-institution, cross-region and cross-crop learning. It streamlines the CGIAR and other partners’ interface with grain legume clients in each region. It also presents an opportunity to share facilities and operations and gain a critical mass of scientists and research competencies described in Chapter 3 (see Why a Consortium Research Program on Grain Legumes?). Ultimately, these improvements will accelerate progress against important and difficult challenges such as seed system bottlenecks, diseases, insect pests, drought, low soil fertility, and climate change variability. Biotechnology cross-crop learning will have a particularly strategic role to play: following the principle of gene synteny, it can reveal the genetic and functional control of traits in one crop that can provide valuable lessons for application in another grain legume species. Furthermore, the integration of biotechnology knowledge management systems with field breeding systems across crops will create a more efficient, powerful platform for progress. Crop and agro-ecosystem modeling is another area ripe for cross-learning. ICARDA’s application of the Focused Identification of Germplasm Strategy (FIGS) system and ICRISAT’s mini-core collections system for example help to identify useful material in vast germplasm banks or even in the field. CIAT has a strong geospatial capability that will help all the CRP 3.5 Grain Legumes partners to more effectively diagnose grain legume systems and trends. The value chain perspective (Objective 5) will be another point of innovation. It will convey a systems perspective to CRP 3.5 that will provide a stronger basis for opportunity identification and priority setting. By seeking to understand how perceptions of value influence the adoption of new technology, especially for women, it will enhance the effectiveness of impact pathway analysis as well. Innovative R4D initiatives Much innovation is embedded in the Outputs described in Chapter 5. So that they do not lose visibility, we compile some of the most innovative areas here:          Identify photoperiod insensitivity gene(s) to develop grain legume cultivars with wider adaptation. Model plant attributes to help determine trait arrays most useful for adaptation to different environments. Model seed systems to identify obstacles in advance. Explore the potential consequences of distributing natural enemies of insect pests (parasitoids and entomopathogens) across continents for biological control. Genetically map genes for resistance to diseases that attack several grain legume species to identify alleles that might be able to be ‘awakened’ in susceptible crops. Apply learnings gained from cowpea and chickpea drought tolerance to increase drought tolerance in common bean and soybean. Identify mechanisms of reproductive stage stress tolerance for drought, heat and salinity across crops. Utilize bio-economic modelling to understand the climate resilience potential of heat and drought tolerance. Assess the potential of legumes to provide certain ultra-high value industrial or pharmaceutical products such as those currently sourced from soybean. 122 CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Innovations     Improve physiological understanding of soybean to improve BNF and yield of other grain legumes. Induce mutations for herbicide tolerance to facilitate no-till and conservation farming, and reduce drudgery to women. Develop dryland-adapted soybean, possibly using cowpea as a model crop. Induce haploids by manipulating a single centromere protein (the centromere-specific histone CENH3) to enable doubled haploid transgenic technology in grain legumes (reduces average breeding cycle time by 40%). Understand the functional roles of anti-nutritional factors of grain legumes in plant physiological terms, and means for reducing them  CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Innovations 123 9. Interactions of CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES with other CRPs CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES strives to complement other CRPs, and will be working with: CRP 1.1 – Integrated Agriculture Production Systems for the Dry Areas; CRP 1.2 – Integrated Systems for the Humid Tropics; CRP 2 – Policies, Institutions, and Markets to Strengthen Assets and Income for the poor; CRP 3.1 – WHEAT; CRP 3.2 – MAIZE, CRP 3.3 – GRiSP; A Global Rice Science Partnership; CRP 3.6 – DRYLAND CEREALS; CRP 3.7 – Sustainable Staple Productivity Increases for Global Food Security: Livestock and Fish; CRP 4 – Agriculture for improved Nutrition and Health; CRP 5 – Durable Solutions for Water Scarcity and Land Degradation; and CRP 7 – Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (Figure 9.1). CRP 1.1: CRP 1.1 will work on five common legumes (CP, GN, CB, CW and FB) in various agroecological regions of Asia, ESA, and WCA that are common with CRP 3.5. The new improved varieties coming from CRP 3.5 will plug into CRP 1.1 as inputs. The feedback loops from CRP 1.1 will enable the researchers of Strategic Objectives 1 & 2 of CRP 3.5 to prioritize the traits for crop improvement. CRP 3.5 will conduct joint research with CRP 1.1 to accomplish strategic objective 3 on Identifying and promoting crop and pest management practices for sustainable legume production, possibly using common test locations. Farming-system level value chain R4D in CRP 1.1 and 1.2 will complement the grain legume-focused analyses of CRP 3.5. CRP 1.2: CRP 3.5 will contribute strategic knowledge, technologies and research tools, for exampleimproved legume varieties and crop management practices (such as IPM/IDM) for different cropping systems and niches in CRP 1.2. Improved legume varieties from CRP 3.5 will be tested plug in CR P1.2 at common test locations. Learning gained from CRP1.2 on testing of legume varieties will help CRP 3.5 revise and improve the relevance of its work. Knowledge sharing and capacity building will be an important activity integrated with CRP 1.2. CRP 2: CRP 3.5 Grain Legumes will contribute in-depth practical understanding of grain legume value chains to complement the global and methodological value chain work of CRP2. CRP 3.5 will also inform CRP2 on relevant legume-specific dimensions of policy, institutional, and market access work. CRP 3.5 will establish and maintain regular interaction with CRP2’s strategic activities such as constraint identification, evaluation, feedback to enhance priority setting at the CGIAR System level. Knowledge on research methods, models and data on crop productivity, value chain analysis and policy advocacy for identification of new market opportunities for grain legumes will be an important input for CRP2 to develop policy advocacy and promote conducive markets for more profitable grain legume production systems. We will work with CRP 2 for ex-ante priority setting, input-output market linkages for reducing transactions costs, agricultural policies and regulations, and impact assessment. CRP 3.1: Breeding methodologies and genomics are major areas of collaboration between the two CRPs. Joint activities with CRP 3.1 WHEAT would include development of wheat- legume cropping systems in poverty hot spots where wheat is a dominant crop. CRP3.2: Considering that legumes are intercropped or rotated with maize, CRP 3.5 will work with CRP 3.2 MAIZE to test improved legume varieties for varied MAIZE ecosystems, where possible at common test locations/sites. Feedback from MAIZE in terms of crop duration will help CRP 3.5 to tailor legume varieties to fit maize crop cycle and vice-versa. Breeding methods and genomic tools from MAIZE will also be helpful for grain legume research. CRP 3.3: CRP 3.5 will benefit from GRiSP with enhanced knowledge base through newer tools, techniques for genetic enhancement and phenotyping for drought and waterlogging. Grain legumes are a major component in diversification of rice based cropping systems for improving productivity and sustainability. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will test improved legume cultivars and production technologies suitable for rice-legume cropping systems, at GRiSP test locations. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Interactions with other CRPs 124 CRP 3.6: Dryland cereals and the grain legumes are intercropped in many regions of the semi- arid tropics. CRP 3.5 will test improved legume varieties for intercropping and vice-versa at common test sites. Advances in genomics and molecular breeding, hybrid seed technology, crop modeling and feed quality analysis in many of these crops can benefit similar developments in grain legumes. CRP 3.7: Legume Fodder is an important component of mixed crop livestock farming. Legumes with high protein content, low anti-nutritional factors, tannins, etc. can increase livestock production and thereby improve the living standard of the resource poor. CRP 3.5 will provide dual-purpose legume varieties for evaluation in crop-livestock systems. Supplementing cereals with legume crop residues has high synergistic effects on livestock productivity. CRP 4: Common bean is the only legume crop to be researched extensively in CRP 4. CRP 3.5 will take experiences of HarvestPlus (housed in CRP 4) and extend to other legumes. CRP 3.5 works within the criteria set by CRP 4/HarvestPlus in other legumes, and in the case of common bean, in other geographic regions that are in need of nutritional improvement. Studies on nutritional impact are not foreseen in CRP 3.5, but we may be jointly engaged with ARIs and CRP 4, based on need. CRP 5: CRP 5 on Water and Land will complement much of the farm-scale work being done on production systems in grain legumes and provides required inputs such as information on water, land, ecosystems and soil fertility management practices. CRP 3.5 will test durable legume-based solutions for addressing water scarcity and land degradation and focuses on developing region specific legume varieties, which improve soil health as well as best bet management practices for different grain legume production systems, using common test locations where feasible. CRP 7: Interaction of CRP 7 CCAFS and CRP 3.5 will be through testing of climate resilient varieties and technologies as inputs fitting into climate change adaptive strategies. Identification of key target areas and traits for future challenges of climate change (through modeling) will feed into CRP 3.5 to prioritize the legume traits for breeding. Research on effects of elevated CO2 on legume physiology and growth will be carried out in collaboration with CRP 7. Thus, the exchange of information and learning between these two CRPs is very important. More detailed description of specific interactions of CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES with other CRPs is given in Table 9.1. CRP 3 Other Crops CRP 2 Markets & policies Policy support, market linkages, R4D priorities Genomics, bioinformatics, Improved phenotyping varieties CRP 4 Health & nutrition Value chains Varieties for cropping systems CRP 3.5 Grain Legumes Priorities, human nutrition, biofortification WUE, NUE*, soil health Climate change ready crops CRP 1 Systems Feed back on system needs Forecasting, simulation models Ecosystem needs assessment CRP 5 Land & Water CRP 7 Climate change * WUE-Water use efficiency; NUE-Nutrient-use efficiency Figure 9.1. Linkages with other CRPs CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Interactions with other CRPs 125 Table 9.1. Interactions of CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES with other CRPs CGIAR Research Program CRP 1.1 Integrated Agricultural Production Systems for the Dry Areas Outputs from CRP 3.5 Two agro-ecosystems of CRP 1.1, namely, mixed crop-livestock system in South Asia, and rainfed agro-ecosystem of North Africa, and West and Central Asia would benefit from the improved varieties of legumes of CRP 3.5. For example, early maturing legumes for short-window cropping season, nutrient efficient varieties, and varieties with resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses. Improved legume varieties and crop management practices including methodologies, technologies and research tools for different cropping systems and niches Inputs to CRP 3.5 Feedback from CRP 1.1 will enable prioritizing the traits and /or including new traits in legume breeding. Joint Actions with other CRPs  Joint meetings to identify and prioritize the traits in legume crops suitable for target dry land agro-ecosystems of Asia, ESA and WC  Joint research to develop production technologies for legumes in target agro-ecosystems of Asia, ESA and WCA, possibly at common research sites  Evaluate and disseminate integrated crop management strategies in legumes in target ecosystems of Asia, ESA and WCA CRP 1.2 Integrated Systems for Humid Tropics Feedback on technologies that fit into different systems and research needs for better adaption/use of grain legumes  Joint planning meetings to identify suitable cropping systems, technologies and implications for system integration in target humid tropics, using common research sites  Evaluate best bet technologies for growing grain legumes in target ecosystems  Joint workshops for knowledge sharing and capacity building on best bet technologies that fit into different cropping systems CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Interactions with other CRPs 126 CGIAR Research Program CRP 2 Policies, Institutions, and Markets to Strengthen Assets and Agricultural Incomes for the Poor Outputs from CRP 3.5 Identification of improved grain legume cultivars, information on productivity, value chains, market access, and gender issues related to grain legumes-based production and processing technologies. Knowledge on research methods, models and data for value chain analysis and policy advocacy for identification of new market opportunities for grain legumes Inputs to CRP 3.5 Policy advocacy and promoting conducive markets for more profitable grain legume production systems Methods for value chain analysis, and tools for impact assessment Predict market demand for legumes and their products Conduct periodic strategic analyses from a focused regional, commodity or systems perspective Joint Actions with other CRPs  Work together with CRP2on policies, institutions, and market access that integrate producers of key commodities and devise efficient value chain system  Developing policy briefs that promote farmer-friendly, particularly women, marketing infrastructure and protocols for enhancing value of grain legumes  Promoting the interface between food processors and legume growers and train stakeholders along the value chain  Jointly identifying policy interventions for ensuring availability of quality seed of legume varieties to farmers at affordable price  Promoting institutional arrangements for enhancing production and utilization of grain legumes through networking, including women self-help groups  Joint research on wheat-legume systems in developing countries  Joint strategy for developing and disseminating resourceconserving technologies in cereal and legume systems  Evaluating legumes in the maize-based systems in southern and eastern Africa, S and S E Asia and in Central and South America at MAIZE testing sites/locations  Improved integrated crop management practices for ensuring high quality of legumes, and promote safe storage practices at farm level for legumes  Adoption of improved legume varieties and agronomic practices for improved soil fertility in maize-based systems, using MAIZE test sites/locations CRP 3.1 WHEAT Information and feedback on performance of wheat varieties in legume based cropping systems Legume varieties and production technologies suitable for maizelegume intercropping, and crop rotations Information on wheat genomics, molecular breeding, and bioinformatics. Maize varieties and production technologies suitable for maizelegume and crop-livestock production systems CRP 3.2 MAIZE CRP 3.3 GRiSP: A Global Rice Science Partnership Improved and region specific legume cultivars for rice based cropping systems to improve sustainability Cutting edge science and biotechnological applications that are part of rice genome initiative  Development and testing of legumes for sustainability of the ricelegume cropping system, in South Asia, Indo-Gangetic plains and other eco-systems, preferably using GRiSP test sites CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Interactions with other CRPs 127 CGIAR Research Program CRP 3.6 Dryland Cereals Outputs from CRP 3.5 Performance of dryland cereals in legume based cropping systems Inputs to CRP 3.5 Suitable dryland cereals that can be intercropped in target areas. Advances in genomics, gene synteny, and molecular breeding. Feed and stover quality management Feedback on desired fodder quality traits, eg., legumes with higher forage nitrogen content to maximize livestock productivity Joint Actions with other CRPs  Establishment of molecular breeding platform.  Hybrid seed technology  Exchange of information on phenotyping and genotyping and breeding methodologies  Joint research on cereal – legume systems for fodder/feed for small holder farmers, using common research sites  Providing improved dual purpose legume varieties with better fodder quality traits, and promote safe storage practices at farm level for legume fodder  Development of legumes with higher forage nitrogen content  Dual purpose legumes that give both grain yield and fodder and ameliorate the soil for system sustainability CRP 3.7 Livestock and Fish High yielding legumes with low tannins and anti-nutritional factors CRP 4 Agriculture for Improved Nutrition and Health Nutritionally enhanced grain legume cultivars and legume food products for improved health and nutrition Promotion of nutritionally enhanced grain legumes and products, and interaction of gender, nutrition, and health. Creation value chains and demand for nutritionally safer foods would become an important input to CRP 3.5  Participate in meetings to prepare joint workplans on role of legumes in nutrition and health  Collating information on consumer demand and nutrition and health benefits of nutritious/ biofortified legumes  Developing new products and processing methods in partnership with stakeholders for enhanced nutritional value of legumes, especially for women and children  Studying the effects of legume communicable diseases (NCDs) consumption on non-  Advocating the consumption of nutritious legumes and their value added products for nutrition and health CRP 5 Water, Land, and Ecosystems Improved cultivars best-bet management practices with better water and nutrient use efficiencies for different grain legume production systems Information on water, land, and ecosystems for promoting legumes intensification in different production systems. Access to water and land policies at national and global levels  Evaluating improved legume varieties with better water and nutrient use efficiency for water and nutrient conservation at common test sites  Exploiting productive legume varieties with better N-fixing abilities for reducing demand for chemical N  Participation in annual work plan meetings CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Interactions with other CRPs 128 CGIAR Research Program CRP 7 Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security Outputs from CRP 3.5 Climate resilient legume varieties and production technology that fit into climate change adaptive strategies Inputs to CRP 3.5 Feedback on strategic foresight on the potential impact of climate change on patterns of biotic and abiotic stresses to prioritize traits for strategic objectives2, 3, & 4 of CRP 3.5 Joint Actions with other CRPs  Joint meetings to prioritize the legume traits for climate change effects based on the above learning  Training of CRP 3.5 researches about the future potential impacts of climate change,  Joint activities to help disseminate appropriate climate-ready varieties and management practices; and minimizing the effects of climate variability on grain legume productivity  Conduct joint research using common test locations   CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Interactions with other CRPs 129 10. M Managem ment Arrangem ments fo or Imple ementa ation The gov vernance and d manageme ent of CRP 3 .5 GRAIN LEGUMES are based on th he principles outlined in the CGIAR Strat tegy and Results R Fram mework (SRF F). Effective manageme ent of rese earch for development will require r a sig gnificant inv vestment of f time by all partners, especially by b those appointe ed as the CR RP Director and a Strategic c Objective Coordinators. Therefore e, we have chosen to maintain n a minimal l Research Managemen M t will have the ability t to interact often o for t Team that effective e manageme ent of research progress s, especially during the initial few y years of the CRP. We tructure (Fig recogniz ze that the proposed p management st gure 10.1) may require a lterations as s the CRP develops, both in terms of membership m and respon nsibilities, hence h such possibilities s will be monitor red, evaluate ed and chang ges made as required. Figure 10.1 1. CRP 3.5 Gov vernance and d Managemen nt Structure Roles and Respons sibilities As with all CRPs, the t Lead Ce enter (in th is case, ICR RISAT) will sign s a Progr ram Implem mentation Agreeme ent (PIA) with w the Consortium C of Interna ational Agric cultural Res search Centers for impleme entation of the CRP. Th he Lead Cen nter, represe ented by its s Governing Board and Director General, , will be res sponsible for the overa ll performan nce of the CRP C by prov viding a clea ar vision, direction n, priorities and focus through a n inclusive, consultativ ve and tran nsparent par rtnership will be signed with all key partic process. . Participant t Program Agreements A cipants acco ording to Consortium procedu ures and policies. verning Board of ICRISA AT will have the fiduciar ry and legal responsibilit ty and accou untability The Gov for the i implementat tion of CRP 3.5 GRAIN L LEGUMES. It will appropr riately monit tor the management and imp plementation n of the CRP, , including th he performance of the CRP Director,, Steering Co ommittee and Res search Management Te eam. The g overnance and/or a man nagement en ntities of th he other Principal Partners will w be expected to pr rovide similar oversight t of their r respective in nstitute’s involvem ment in CRP P 3.5. This would w includ de ensuring that their institution’s policies, vision and mission are in agreement with th he CRP, that t CRP 3.5 is appropriately y included in their strateg gic plans, and tha at their inst titution assu umes fiducia ary and leg gal responsibilities and accountabilities for impleme enting the ag greed resear rch agenda o of CRP 3.5. CRP 3.5 G GRAIN LEGUM MES – 15 AUG 2011 – Mana agement 130 The Director General of ICRISAT and other CGIAR Partner Directors General will work together to assure the success of CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES. Specifically, they will:    Ensure full implementation of the CRP, including the effective integration of existing and new bilateral projects, Assign required staff to the CRP management committees/teams, Appoint and empower Strategic Objective Coordinators and provide required support, and  Ensure the performance contracts are successfully managed, including management of risks. Overall guidance of CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will be by a Steering Committee (SC) that will be chaired initially by the Director General (or designate) of the Lead Center. During the third year of the CRP, the SC will determine how to select future Chairs. Membership of the SC will include the Directors General (or designates) of all Principal Partners, and selected representation from other partners (e.g., regional/sub-regional organizations, IARCs, NARS, ARIs and private sector) participating in CRP 3.5. The aim is for the SC to limit its total membership to no more than 12 individuals. The CRP Director will serve as the secretary to the SC. The SC will be responsible for:      Overall strategic direction of the CRP; Monitoring overall progress across the CRP; Advising on mechanisms to enhance the operations of the CRP; Enhancing strategic alliances with partners; Deciding upon suggested resource allocations across CRP research programs and partners; and  Establishing guidelines for conflict resolution. It is expected that the SC will meet in person at least once per year, with at least one additional meeting conducted electronically. It would be desirable if all decisions reflect a consensus among the SC members, but if necessary a simple majority vote will be followed. For effective management of CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES, a Research Management Team (RMT) will be chaired by the CRP Director and will include the six Strategic Objective Coordinators (see below) plus appropriate research directors from all Principal Partners who are not represented by a Strategic Objective Coordinator. The RMT will be primarily responsible for the overall monitoring of research outputs, human resources and finances of the CRP. In the spirit of streamlining management, we propose to maintain the RMT at an initial minimal level of membership, but allow the RMT to request other CRP staff to participate in its meetings as required. We believe the RMT will require at least bi-monthly meetings during this initial phase of the CRP. Many of these will be conducted electronically, but the RMT would plan to meet in person at least quarterly. The RMT will develop annual research plans and other planning tools as requested by the SC, for the SC's review and approval. The RMT will also request and receive advice from the members of a R4D Advisory Panel. All such interactions will be properly recorded and made available to the SC. The CRP Director will be internationally recruited by the Lead Center in consensus with the SC. The Director will lead the CRP’s research-for-development agenda in consultation with the SC Chair and the RMT. This position will require a full-time commitment and be compensated accordingly; she/he will be covered by the policies of the Lead Center. The SC Chair will oversee the recruitment, approve the Terms of Reference for, and annually evaluate the performance of the CRP Director, all in consensus with the SC. The Director will lead the CRP’s resource mobilization efforts, partner/donor relations, and ensure timely and high-quality reporting of program activities and progress to the SC and the Consortium Board, through the SC Chair. The Director will also serve as the public representative of CRP 3.5, working closely with the SC Chair to ensure that the CRP maintains a high and positive profile with investors and the public. The Director will organize SC, CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Management 131 RMT and other meetings and reviews, chairing such meetings where required. The Lead Center will provide an appropriate level of administrative staff to support the functions of the Director. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES is structured in to six Strategic Objectives, each of which will be coordinated by a Strategic Objective Coordinator, who will be at least a quarter-time appointment of a scientist and will continue to be affiliated with their home institution, with the agreement of the institution. It is expected that CIAT, ICARDA, ICRISAT and IITA will host at least one coordinator each, with efforts made to have partner and regional representation across the Strategic Objective Coordinators. The Principal Partners will nominate the coordinators, with appointments being made by consensus of the SC. The coordinators will ensure that the activities for delivering the agreed outputs within each regional program are effectively implemented, coordinated, delivered and monitored/assessed. The coordinators will also maintain strong and positive relationships with the CRP Director, participating in all RMT meetings, as well as with the other coordinators, relevant partners, donors and stakeholders involved in the CRP. A R4D Advisory Panel will provide a channel for input and advice on CRP strategic and implementation issues. The panel will interact primarily with the RMT, but will also have opportunities to provide input/feedback directly to the SC. Given the complex and evolving nature of CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES, we propose to appoint a “pool” of scientific and development advisors from a range of institutions/organizations and with a range of expertise. Nominations will be received from all GRAIN LEGUMES Stakeholders by the RMT, who make a recommendation to the SC for a consensus approval. These experts will be assembled to provide independent guidance on strategic planning, new R4D opportunities and research progress across the CRP agenda. We expect to appoint an initial pool of 6-10 advisors on 1 to 3 year appointments. Because of the difficulty to organize for all advisors to attend all CRP meetings, we will seek to have at least two advisors present at all physical meetings of the RMT and CRP. One or more advisors may also be requested to participate in the semi-annual (electronically) and/or annual SC meetings. All such interactions will be formally recorded and responses documented by the SC or RMT. Dispute resolution among CRP partners or with external parties will be handled according to policies established by the RMT if it is within the domain of research-for-development (including partnerships). If disputes fall in the domain of institutional and legal responsibilities, the SC will resolve them in accordance with the principles established in the Consortium Constitution. In any cases when the RMT cannot agree for resolving any dispute, the matter will be referred to the SC, who will prevail and the respective party will take necessary action. Management of Intellectual Property CRP intellectual property (IP) management is based on the overall CGIAR Consortium Guiding Principles on the Management of Intellectual Property, which are driven by the mission of the CGIAR and the imperative that the products of the Centers' research should be international public goods. As the CRP will work with a wide range of partners, including national agricultural research systems (NARS), advanced research institutes (ARIs), civil society organizations, private sector companies, and regional and international intergovernmental organizations, the CRP will develop an IPR regime that allows all partners to honor their own IP policies without compromising the CGIAR principles. Ultimately, the Centers must produce, manage and provide access to the products of their research for use by, and for the benefit of the poor, especially farmers in developing countries. Centers hold their in-trust collections of germplasm for the benefit of the world community, in accordance with agreements signed by Centers and the Governing Body of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA). All such germplasm exchanges will be conducted using the Standard Material Transfer Agreement (SMTA). All other material transfers CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Management 132 will be done under an appropriate MTA that follows the guidelines of the Consortium’s Policy on Intellectual Property. Knowledge Sharing and Communications Knowledge sharing (KS) involves a variety of strategies and practices used to identify, create, represent, distribute, and enable adoption of insights and experiences with a wide range of stakeholders. IARCs have developed a number of innovative methods and practices over the last decade using the power of ICT. Many non-profit organizations dedicate significant resources to knowledge sharing, often as a part of their fundamental business plan. Internally focused KS typically concentrates on management-related objectives, such as improved organizational performance, clarity about competitive advantages and innovations, and the sharing of lessons learned. In the context of CRP 3.5, KM efforts will overlap with Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) and will both reinforce and draw on M&E efforts. Given the organizational complexity of CRP 3.5, we must be willing to invest time and effort to help partners obtain and share valuable insights, reduce redundancies (increasingly rely on task specialization), increase the efficiency of R4D activities and capacity strengthening efforts, retain intellectual capital, adapt to rapidly changing operational environments and take advantage of new opportunities. However, to be effective and oriented towards impact, KS systems require to be aligned towards the users furthest in the knowledge value chain- the smallholder farmers. The range of information producers typically is not small in agriculture R4D. A careful analysis and expert advice is needed in the design and development of viable KM systems. Over the past few decades, rapid developments in genomic and other molecular research technologies, as well as brisk advancements in information technologies, have combined to produce and enable the effective management of vast amounts of information related to molecular biology. Bioinformatics tools and geo-spatial mapping will be critical components of CRP 3.5’s knowledge sharing efforts, but even these high-end information technologies will be oriented towards resolving practical problems arising from the management and analysis of very large amounts of agro-biological data and information. Agricultural R4D communication is also undergoing a transformation that is driven by the spread of high-speed Internet connectivity; the advent of digital media; the development of new tools, platforms and methodologies; and changes in the ways the world accesses and uses information. We, thus have an opportunity to implement a rapid, highly targeted and efficient transfer of research results into practice and policy – while simultaneously capturing them in peer-reviewed journals and publications. The CRP Director will have general responsibility for communicating on behalf of CRP partners to a wide variety of audiences, and will help establish and monitor (in concert with the CRP Steering Committee and Strategic Objective Coordinators) the CRP’s communication action plan. Implementation of that plan will occur at all levels and will be carried out by many of those involved in the R4D work, but regardless of their organizational affiliation, their communication efforts will rest on the strategic needs, interests and achievements of CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES. Communications will be made an integral part of the R4D process, and not be just a by-product of it. CRP GRAIN LEGUMES will invest in developing the communication skills of key individuals and partners – especially their ability to interact effectively with the media, particularly the internet– enabled social media. The communications work will be periodically evaluated to ensure optimum impact. As noted earlier, advocacy on behalf of increased investments in legumes AR4D (and in markets and other needed rural infrastructure) is seen as a vital activity for CRP 3.5. Such advocacy must be based CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Management 133 on the best information available, and capitalize on the most effective communications technologies and pathways. This advocacy role will be fully integrated in the Knowledge Sharing and Communication plan that will be developed in the early days of implementing CRP 3.5.  CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Management 134 11. Time Frame CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES initiated the proposal development process in 2010 during a brainstorming session with scientists from the major core partner centers. We began with visioning of what we would like to achieve by 2020, especially looking at the impacts that we envisage in the smallholder farmers’ fields. We have outlined milestones (through 2014 as we will most likely start CRP activities in January 2012). Each year, the partners will conduct an extensive analysis of progress achieved relative to projected milestones and in the context of our initial priorities. Based on the results of those annual reviews, we may modify our priorities, planned activities and anticipated milestones as we go, creating a rolling three-year action plan. CRP 3.5 will continue the extensive discussions that have already been held among the initial partners and, at the same time, bring other key partners on board to help map out specific work plans for first three years of the initiative. In developing this proposal, the current partners identified general areas where they believe collaboration can be more effective. Our focus during the first six months will be elaborating and clarifying relative roles and responsibilities of those involved in order to effectively implement collaborative efforts and more fully realize the potential efficiencies we see, and hopefully identify others. Thus, in the first six months, a detailed business plan will be developed – one that reflects our plans for mainstreaming important gender dimensions of CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES R4D, capacity strengthening, and details regarding different R4D activities, technologies to be developed and/or promoted, and the relative roles of different partners and their contribution to achieving the objectives of CRP 3.5. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Timeframe 135 12. Mitigating Risks CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES is innovative in a number of areas so it is likely that there will be some risks involved. The learning curve associated with doing business in new ways involving more diverse partners may slow our progress (at least initially). A streamlined management structure and careful selection of partners involved in CRP 3.5, however, should help mitigate this risk, as will the goodwill and enlightened self-interest that we anticipate all partners will bring to the table. Related to this is the need to accentuate accountability and promote ownership of CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES. As many activities related to impact are beyond the expertise and control of our research staff, we must also emphasize the inclusion of development agencies and extension services, NGOs, the private sector companies and processors and traders, and farming communities in planning and implementation. Doing so may increase transaction costs, but should help to mitigate the risk of limited impact on the ground. As alluded to in other CRPs, the main risks to all CRPs are global in nature, i.e., such things as continued global financial challenges and the resulting political pressure to cut aid financing, especially to agriculture R&D. Strong monitoring and evaluation, broad-based expert advice, and an emphasis on consensus decision-making and conflict resolution should help to ameliorate management-related risks. Legume production systems in many developing countries are often located in areas that experience high social and political volatility, and these could affect the implementation of R&D efforts, especially adoption of interventions in targeted areas. In such countries, CRP 3.5 will emphasize ownership by local partners to minimize this risk. While legume production systems have always been characterized by risk, many of these risks are changing and in some cases increasing. At the same time, the capacity to manage risk has declined as a result of restricted access to resources, lack of information, land degradation and land tenure insecurity faced by the smallholder farmers. Resource conflicts characterize developing country cropping systems and could be severe in some cases (e.g. the availability and control of water resources in Central Asia). Mitigating such risks will be difficult, and will depend on the wise counsel and full participation in activities at the community level, with priorities being driven locally. Continued government policy bias against the support of smallholder farmers in marginal areas, even in the face of growing evidence of the value and importance of their enterprises, is also an important risk factor. Efforts to speak with a unified voice to policymakers and other influential leaders should help reduce this risk, but policy decisions are usually not made on the basis of wellreasoned arguments or even solid scientific evidence. CRP 3.5 partners will therefore need to identify local, regional and even international ‘champions’ who have the ear of key policymakers and who might, over time, influence the course of political decisions that limit legume production, processing and marketing. Finally, important risks to longer-term sustainability of CRP 3.5 Grain Legumes could include insufficient interest on the part of private sector organizations needed to push commercialization of new technologies, as well as insufficient capacity on the part of national AR4D institutions to sustain the initiative. By including public and private organizations during the early stages of research planning and implementation, we believe that sustainability risks will be diminished due to a stronger sense of ownership and accountability for success. Finally, there are risks associated with climate – erratic rainfall, prolonged droughts or floods, can affect the success of CRP efforts in the target areas, both R4D activities and adoption of technologies by smallholder farmers. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Mitigating Risk 136 13. Monitoring and Evaluation System Introduction Monitoring and Evaluation for CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will conform to the CGIAR consortium guidelines on ‘Monitoring and Evaluation System’ that will be developed in the near future. Monitoring tracks key indicators of progress over the course of CRP implementation as a basis to evaluate outcomes of the interventions. Operational evaluation examines how effectively programs were implemented and whether there are gaps between planned and realized outcomes. Impact evaluation tells us whether the changes in the well-being of the beneficiaries are indeed due to the CRP interventions. M&E in the context of international agricultural research Evaluation is a periodic assessment of the relevance, performance efficiency and impact (both expected and unexpected) of the project in relation to stated objectives. The monitoring and evaluation play complementary roles. The donors and the research leaders are interested in the contributions of research according to the CRP committed goals, so as to make key decisions on prioritizing the research products. Accordingly, information on impact is highly demanded by the donors to know the value additions to their investments. In the private sector, there is a welldefined mechanism to capture this. However, in public sector, market feedback channels are limited. As a result, it is imperative that agricultural research evaluation needs to be oriented towards outcomes and impact evaluation. Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES As indicated earlier, the overall monitoring and evaluation system of CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES will be fully aligned with the monitoring principles of the CGIAR consortium. CRP 3.5 will generate a number of diverse outputs, including genetic and genomic resources, improved crop varieties, crop management technologies, information exchange, capacity building tools, and value added products along the value chain. These outputs, which are detailed in previous sections, should result in desired outcomes that ultimately lead to the intended impacts of reducing poverty and malnutrition, enhancing livelihood security, and reducing environmental degradation. A recent study of impact of legumes research in CGIAR (Tripp, 2011) has documented some of the major impacts of legume research by the centers, and will guide future impact studies. Our priorities are based on suggestions in the CGIAR Strategy and Results Framework. Each partner will conduct their own internal M&E of agreed research activities. The Research Management Team (RMT) will have responsibility for ensuring that proposed outputs are delivered and that expected outcomes are successful. This will require formal, annual project evaluations, as well as mid-term and end-of-program reviews by independent experts including evaluation by end users (farmers) and consumers. We also expect that the proposed R4D Advisory Panel (Chapter 10) will conduct focused short-term reviews and provide feedback. Given the breadth and scope of the CRP, additional experts will be commissioned to provide inputs into specific activities. These will be considered by the RMT and required adjustments will be made as needed in our research planning. Some of the major indicators to be used for M&E include:  Enhanced use of genetic resources and new sources of resistance to abiotic and biotic stresses, improved nutritional quality and productivity, and enhanced product quality including palatability and consumer acceptance available as international public goods. 137 CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Monitoring and Evaluation System       Cutting-edge scientific knowledge on genetics and genomics of legume crops published. Cultivars derived from IARC germplasm released by NARS and grown on a large-scale using recommended crop management practices. Efficient private sector and informal seed production and delivery systems/models operating in target countries, supported by harmonized national and regional regulatory frameworks. Crop and region specific post-harvest technologies utilized in project regions to increase profitability. Novel and innovative value added products identified and pilot tested that increase the value capture by smallholder farmers; Capacity-building and technology delivery frameworks enhanced to facilitate farmers’ access to validated technology such as quality seed of improved crop cultivars, crop management practices and other farm inputs. Farmer and consumer acceptance of final products; and   Publication of peer reviewed research articles, curated data sets and learning materials in granulated form to support use in multiple contexts by the partners and stakeholders. In addition, CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES intends to incorporate into our evaluation learning processes tools that provide feedback loops so that lessons learned can be quickly adopted and incorporated in our research planning. M&E, while vital to our enterprise, is not an end in itself, but rather a part of a larger effort to help set realistic priorities that ultimately lead to impact in the field. Relating M&E to the value chain framework connects it to development drivers that can help reveal key bottlenecks to the uptake and impact of innovations. The impact pathway for the CRP Grain Legume (Figure 4.1) provides a simplified diagram of how CRP Grain Legume research objectives are expected to produce the outputs that will lead to desired outcomes on intended stakeholders (both immediate and final users) leading to impacts at the farm level and finally to regional and national level impacts. The monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework is given in Table 13.1. Measurable Results/Outputs Some examples of measurable results are:        An increase in profitability over the existing level (20%); Improvement in protein intake in diet or reduction in mal-nutrition (5-10%); Improvement in crop productivity (20%); Reduction in cost of production due to synergy effect such as atmospheric nitrogen fixation IPM, etc.; Increasing seed replacement ratio (5-20%); Improvement in support services like credit, market and others; and Capacity building in production technology, post-harvest management and value addition 1500 households per target country). CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Monitoring and Evaluation System 138 Table 13.1. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) framework (process and performance indicators) M&E Indicators Enhanced use of genetic resources and new sources of resistance to abiotic and biotic stresses and improved nutritional and product quality, and productivity Type of output  Well characterized germplasm  Seed material Measurement  No. of accessions screened and characterized  Core and mini core sets  Crop productivity and nutritional composition  Consumer acceptance of product quality  Cultivars/varieties released at the regional and national level,  Performance over time  No. of scientific articles published books, reports, monographs.  Website hits/downloads Method of M&E  Field and laboratory inspection  Collection of production data from test fields and research stations  • Feedback surveys of improved seed material recipients such as seed companies  Review meetings with project scientist  Analysis of data on performance of crop variety at different locations.  Peer reviewed articles.  Classification of publications by type, author, collaborator, citation index Implementing Agency IARC NARS ARIs Private Sector Frequency Seasonal & Annually M&E Agency Implementing, Executing, & Independent Leading edge scientific knowledge on genetics and genomics published  Publications  Genomic databases  Genetic maps IARC NARS ARIs Annually Implementing & Executing CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Monitoring and Evaluation System 139 M&E Indicators Cultivars derived from IARC germplasm released by NARS and grown on a large scale along with recommended crop management practices Type of output  Cultivar seeds Crop management technology Measurement  No. of improved cultivars released  Effectiveness and cost of crop management practices/technolo gies recommended  Productivity and returns per ha  BC ratio  Area covered and % of farmers adopting technologies Method of M&E  Visits to field trails, farmers’ field days and demonstration plots  Focused farmers’ group discussion  GIS maps to track adoption based on data generated from adoption studies  Baseline surveys in target regions  Cost of cultivation surveys in target sites  Initial adoption surveys  Surveys/ FGD with farmers to gauge the adoption of crop management technologies Implementing Agency IARC NARS NGOs Frequency Quarterly M&E Agency Implementing & Executing CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Monitoring and Evaluation System 140 M&E Indicators Efficient private sector and informal seed production and delivery systems/ models established and operating in each target country, supported by nationally reformed and regionally harmonized regulatory frameworks Type of output  Availability of breeder, foundation and certified seed Measurement  Quantity of seed produced and distributed at right time, place, and at affordable price  Increased seed replacement ratio  Reduced transaction cost of seed distribution at agency and farmer levels Method of M&E  Field visits and inspection  Certification/Quality accreditation  Seed market surveys, number of dealer/agencies involved in seed supply  Surveys of informal seed systems in target sites  Common platform (workshops/ ground discussion) with multiple stakeholders regarding farmer perceptions and policy issues  Review of capacity building activities  Interactive workshops/ meetings/opinion survey of beneficiaries  Survey of participants on knowledge gained through capacity building and its implementation on the ground. Implementing Agency Private Sector CSOs NGOs NARS IARC Frequency SemiAnnually M&E Agency Implementing, Executing & Independent Capacity building and technology delivery frameworks and options enhanced to facilitate farmers’ access to validated technology such as quality seed of improved crop cultivars, crop management approaches and other farm inputs  Enhanced capacity of human resources  Increased gender participation  No. of trainings organized  No. of partners/ collaborators/ clients trained  Dissemination of gained knowledge  Gender wise receptivity  Impact on farmers’ fields due to capacity building IARC NARS NGOs CSOs Annually Implementing, Executing & Independent CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Monitoring and Evaluation System 141 M&E Indicators Post-harvest technologies developed to increase the quality of grain Type of output  Post-harvest technology (threshing, cleaning, storing, etc.) Measurement  Impact on farmers’ incomes  Reduction in postharvest losses Method of M&E  Field visits and inspection  Survey of existing postharvest technologies used  Baseline surveys  Estimates of reduction of post-harvest losses  Mapping of pilot scale value chains  Consumer surveys Implementing Agency IARC NARS NGOs CSOs Frequency Project Start & End M&E Agency Implementing & Executing Nutritious and novel value added products developed and promoted using innovative institutional linkages Publication of peer reviewed research articles, curated data sets and learning materials in highly granulated form to support use in multiple contexts by the partners and stakeholders Impact analysis of new technology released  Niche and novel products identified  Pilot scale value chains operating in project regions  Publications  Data sets  Learning materials  Impact on farmers’ incomes  Impact on nutrition of target consumers  No. of peer reviewed articles, books, reports, monographs, policy briefs  No. of users of curated datasets/ learning material  Impact analysis using primary and secondary data  Sustainability of technology released IARC NARS NGOs CSOs Project Start & End Implementing & Executing  Peer review  Classification of publications by type, author, collaborator  Citation index, and segregation by institution IARC NARS ARIs Annually Implementing & Executing  Data on impacts  Reports on impacts  Economic impact analysis at farmer/ primary level IARC NARS NGOs Project End Implementing & Executing CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Monitoring and Evaluation System 142 14. Budget The CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES budget for 2011 to 2013 has been developed following guidelines from the Consortium in terms of Window 1 and 2 funding and based on existing bilateral project funding for CIAT, ICARDA, ICRISAT, IITA and the GCP. Bilateral project activities and corresponding budgets were first allocated across the CRP outputs. Additional funding from Windows 1 and 2 were then allocated based on priorities and projected expenses for each output (for each crop in each region). Each output budget represents the requirements for CIAT, ICARDA, ICRISAT, IITA and the GCP and partners to be initially funded by CRP 3.5. CRP 3.5 is projecting a budget of US$ 136.8 million for the initial three-year period of 2011-2013 (Table 14.1). We are requesting that US$ 59.3 million (43%) be provided from CGIAR Windows 1 and 2 (US $57.0 million for research and US$ 2.4 million for CRP management). The 2011 Window 1 and 2 funding is based on the guidelines received at the time of the initiation of the CRP process. Window 1 and 2 funding in 2012 and 2013, is based on a 5% increase over the previous year budget level. Additional funding will come from already secured bilateral projects (US$ 44.0 million; 32%; see Appendix 9 for a list of the major bilateral projects included in the CRP). This leaves a current funding gap of US$ 33.5 million (25%). The funding gap could be met by additional funds being allocated by the Fund Council through the Consortium to Windows 1 and 2, or by the CRP Centers seeking additional bilateral projects if such Window funding is not available. Note that the Generation Challenge Program (GCP) is not requesting financial support through the CRP but will continue to receive funds directly from CGIAR donors until 2013, as indicated in the GCP transition strategy, to ensure a smooth transition of its ongoing research activities and contractual obligations. GCP's financial support to CGIAR Centers is reported under their respective budget as secured bilateral funding and resources reported under GCP indicates funds allocated to non-CGIAR Center partners. The CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES research budget (including gender research) represents 98% of the expenses and is based on projected research costs for each Strategic Objective Output (Table 14.2). The costs for each output represent the collective costs for CIAT, ICARDA, ICRISAT, IITA and the GCP. Note that funding for the genebank core activities described under Strategic Objective 21, Output 1.1 are provide from funds approved in the Genebank Funding proposal for CIAT, ICARDA, ICRISAT and IITA. A separate budget for gender research and analysis is indicated and more details provided below. For completeness, we have included the CRP management budget in the table. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Budget 143 Table 14.1. GRAIN LEGUMES Funding Budget (USD '000s) Funding Source CIAT CGIAR Window 1 & 2: Research Bilateral Funding (secured)* Funding Gap Totals * includes Other Center Income 2011 3,600 4,663 8,263 2012 3,780 2,511 5,878 12,169 2013 3,969 2,364 7,661 13,994 2011-2013 11,349 10,697 13,539 34,426 33% 28% 39% 100% ICARDA CGIAR Window 1 & 2: Research Bilateral Funding (secured)* Funding Gap Totals * includes Other Center Income 3,330 1,081 1,059 5,470 3,496 570 1,112 5,178 3,671 550 1,168 5,389 10,497 2,201 3,338 16,037 65% 14% 21% 100% ICRISAT CGIAR Window 1 & 2: Research Bilateral Funding (secured)* Funding Gap Totals * includes Other Center Income 4,422 8,429 12,851 4,643 6,920 5,873 17,436 4,875 3,843 10,792 19,510 13,940 19,192 16,665 49,797 28% 39% 33% 100% IITA CGIAR Window 1 & 2: Research Bilateral Funding (secured)* Funding Gap Totals * includes Other Center Income 6,342 3,433 9,775 7,051 3,598 10,649 7,806 3,260 11,066 21,199 10,291 31,490 67% 33% 100% Generation Challenge Program CGIAR Window 1 & 2: Research Bilateral Funding (secured)* Funding Gap Totals * includes Other Center Income 1,020 1,020 1,029 1,029 691 691 2,740 2,740 100% 100% TOTAL CGIAR Window 1 & 2: Research CGIAR Window 1 & 2: CRP Management Total CGIAR Window 1 & 2 Bilateral Funding (secured)* Funding Gap Totals * includes Other Center Income 17,694 17,694 18,626 1,059 37,379 18,970 1,140 20,110 14,628 12,863 47,601 20,321 1,215 21,536 10,708 19,620 51,865 56,986 2,355 59,341 43,962 33,542 136,845 42% 2% 43% 32% 25% 100% CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Budget 144 Table 14.2. Budget by Strategic Objective (USD '000s) 2011 SO1 Genetic resources and novel breeding methods/tools 1.1 Genetic resources collected, conserved and made available 1.2 Genetic resources characterized and documented 1.3 Novel and efficient breeding methods/tools 1.4 Novel genes/traits accessed/mobilized Total Strategic Objective 1 SO2 More productive and nutritious cultivars 2.1 Lines with higher yield potential 2.2 Lines with enhanced biotic and abiotic resistance 2.3 Methods for targeting germplasm to niches 2.4 Lines with enhanced nutritional composition 2.5 Lines with enhanced nutrient use efficiency Total Strategic Objective 2 SO3 Crop and pest management practices 3.1 Strategies to optimize Biological Nitrogen Fixation 3.2 Methods to increase productivity and profitability 3.3 Tools and protocols for pest & disease management 3.4 Strategies to adapt to climate change Total Strategic Objective 3 SO4 Better access to seed 4.1 Decentralized seed systems 4.2 Capacity of public and private sector 4.3 Enabling seed policies 4.4 Framework for national seed security Total Strategic Objective 4 SO5 Increasing value quality and capture 5.1 Enhancing grain legume value chains 5.2 Institutional innovations 5.3 Value-adding products 5.4 Drudgery/cost-saving small scale machinery Total Strategic Objective 5 SO6 Partnerships, capacities and knowledge-sharing 6.1 Partnership models 6.2 Enhancing women’s’ and others’ capacities 6.3 Knowledge-sharing platforms Total Strategic Objective 6 Total Strategic Objectives Gender Research & Analysis CRP Management Total Budget 1,824 1,418 1,203 4,446 36,234 1,145 37,379 2,467 1,993 1,755 6,215 45,103 1,358 1,140 47,601 2,763 2,213 2,193 7,170 49,209 1,442 1,215 51,865 7,054 5,624 5,152 17,830 130,546 3,946 2,355 136,845 5% 4% 4% 13% 95% 3% 2% 100% 1,207 631 676 722 3,236 1,479 695 830 881 3,885 1,649 765 904 960 4,278 4,336 2,091 2,409 2,563 11,399 3% 2% 2% 2% 8% 2,818 1,101 701 794 5,413 3,813 1,397 861 993 7,064 4,103 1,673 940 1,090 7,806 10,734 4,171 2,502 2,877 20,283 8% 3% 2% 2% 15% 851 836 1,864 1,214 4,765 980 995 2,289 1,458 5,721 1,047 1,077 2,398 1,726 6,249 2,878 2,909 6,551 4,398 16,736 2% 2% 5% 3% 12% 2,670 5,161 1,464 1,630 1,877 12,803 3,187 6,309 1,769 2,023 2,266 15,554 3,438 6,534 1,790 2,230 2,662 16,654 9,295 18,005 5,024 5,883 6,805 45,011 7% 13% 4% 4% 5% 33% 324 1,427 1,884 1,937 5,571 349 1,655 2,358 2,302 6,664 363 1,734 2,550 2,405 7,051 1,036 4,816 6,791 6,643 19,287 1% 4% 5% 5% 14% 2012 2013 2011-13 Each Strategic Objective and Output is based on projected research costs for each crop in each region. Table 14.3 presents the total expense budget by region and crop. Largest budget expenditure is targeted for bean in ESA, although significant funding for beans in LAC; chickpea, groundnut and pigeonpea in SSEA; cowpea and groundnut in WCA; and soybean in ESA is proposed. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Budget 145 Table 14.3. Total 2011-2013 CRP Budget by Region and Crop (USD '000s) Strategic Objective SO1 Genetic resources and methods/tools SO2 More productive and nutritious cultivars SO3 Crop and pest management practices SO4 Better access to seed SO5 Increasing value quality and capture SO6 Partnerships, capacities and knowledge-sharing Total Strategic Objectives Gender Research & Analysis CRP Management Total Budget 8,362 6% 3,161 2% 1,849 1% 2,442 2% 12,086 9% 7,470 6% 2,213 2% 9,959 7% LAC Bean Chickpea CWANA Faba Bean Lentil Chickpea SSEA Groundnut Lentil Pigeonpea 2,722 3,289 1,377 344 618 8,350 12 692 1,519 402 264 92 122 3,091 70 355 838 305 134 55 92 1,779 70 495 1,112 366 219 79 101 2,372 70 1,586 4,176 1,230 2,117 1,016 1,541 11,667 419 859 2,242 748 1,493 748 1,119 7,209 261 448 1,194 281 136 32 50 2,142 70 1,145 2,987 996 1,992 996 1,494 9,610 349 Strategic Objective SO1 Genetic resources breeding methods/tools SO2 More productive and nutritious cultivars SO3 Crop and pest management practices SO4 Better access to seed SO5 Increasing value quality and capture SO6 Partnerships, capacities and knowledge-sharing Total Strategic Objectives Gender Research & Analysis CRP Management Total Budget WCA Bean Cowpea Groundnut Soybean Bean Cowpea Chickpea ESA Faba Bean Groundnut Pigeonpea Soybean 72 1,309 140 492 2,013 8 2,021 2% 2,888 2,897 1,889 1,417 1,102 1,021 11,215 706 11,921 9% 994 2,377 748 1,493 748 1,134 7,494 276 7,770 6% 1,260 1,260 1,260 945 630 630 5,983 315 6,298 5% 1,008 9,762 1,926 4,048 2,575 5,503 24,822 20 24,842 18% 315 1,260 1,260 945 630 630 5,038 315 5,353 4% 917 2,403 866 1,141 544 794 6,665 244 6,909 5% 447 1,143 366 183 50 55 2,245 70 2,315 2% 621 1,545 500 997 500 748 4,911 180 5,091 4% 572 1,495 500 997 500 742 4,806 174 4,980 4% 146 1,889 2,204 1,575 1,417 1,102 945 9,132 315 9,447 7% CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Budget Partners are critical for the success of CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES and a total of US$ 20.8 million (15%) of the three-year budget has been allocated for them (Table 14.4). The budget for the Generation Challenge Program (GCP) is entirely designated for partners (non-CGIAR Centers). Several partners, especially EIAR, EMBRAPA, GDAR, ICAR and the USA Dry Grain Pulse CRSP will also make significant inkind contributions to GRAIN LEGUMES. These institutes and/or programs have their own source of funding to support infrastructure, salaries and operational expenses. Through better coordination of efforts under the CRP, these opportunities will be tapped to greatly enhance the progress towards the goals of GRAIN LEGUMES. We will also work with each partner to help identify additional funding resources to support the work of partners in the CRP. Table 14.4. Budget by Partner (USD '000s) Partner CIAT ICARDA ICRISAT IITA GCP Partners Center Partners CRP Management Total Budget 2011 6,499 5,055 11,145 8,411 1,020 5,249 0 37,379 2012 10,229 4,786 15,122 9,163 1,029 6,132 1,140 47,601 2013 11,860 4,980 16,920 9,522 691 6,676 1,215 51,865 2011-13 28,588 14,822 43,187 27,096 2,740 18,057 2,355 136,845 21% 11% 32% 20% 2% 13% 2% 100% Personnel costs (scientific and technical salaries and supporting costs) represent the largest percentage of the budget (38%). Institutional management has been kept at 16%, while the CRP management is only 2% of total CRP costs (Table 14.5). Table 14.5. Budget by Category (USD '000s) Research Personnel Costs Supplies and Services Travel Workshops/Conferences/Training Capital Expenditures Partners Institutional Management CRP Management Total Budget 2011 14,186 6,594 2,567 799 1,107 6,269 5,860 0 37,379 2012 17,717 9,066 3,012 884 1,308 7,161 7,311 1,140 47,601 2013 19,345 10,020 3,273 1,195 1,420 7,367 8,030 1,215 51,865 2011-13 51,248 25,679 8,852 2,878 3,836 20,797 21,200 2,355 136,845 38% 19% 6% 2% 3% 15% 16% 2% 100% CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Budget 147 Costs for gender research and analysis are budgeted separately and include scientists’ time and operating expenses across the partners (Table 14.6). Approximately 3% (US$ 3.9 million) of the total first three-year budget has been specifically allocated for gender-related research. ICRISAT and ICARDA have gender specialists who will devote approximately 35% time to GRAIN LEGUMES researching gender aspects of targeting, planning, design and implementation. Table 14.6. Gender Research & Analysis Budget (USD '000s) Partner CIAT ICARDA ICRISAT IITA GCP Total Gender Research Budget 2011 0 156 449 489 51 1,145 2012 0 164 611 532 51 1,358 2013 0 172 682 553 35 1,442 2011-13 0 492 1,742 1,575 137 3,946 Given the need to effectively manage the CRP across all partners, including a number of non-CGIAR partners, a specific budget for CRP Management is proposed (Table 14.7). Expenses are expected to start only in 2012 given the late 2011 approval expected for the CRP. The budget includes costs for the CRP Director and Objective Coordinators (1.0 FTE for Director, and 0.25 FTE each for six Coordinators for 2012 and 2013), global coordination meetings involving partners to be held at least twice each year, Research Management Team meetings twice each year, the Steering Committee to meet once physically each year and once virtually, and the travel and honoraria costs for Scientific Advisory Panel members. The total CRP management budget is 2% of the total CRP budget for 2011-2013. Efforts will be made to maintain, if not reduce, the costs of CRP management, but it will be critical to allocate funds to management during the first phase to enable the required staffing, communications and meetings. Table 14.7. CRP Management Budget (USD '000s) 2011 CRP Leadership (Director, Coordinators) Global & Regional Coordination Meetings Research Management Team Steering Committee Scientific Advisory Panel Total CRP Management Budget 2012 665 350 50 50 20 1,140 2013 700 375 55 60 25 1,215 2011-2013 1,365 725 105 115 45 2,355 58% 31% 4% 5% 2% 100% CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Budget 148 List of References ACC/SCN. 2004. Fifth report on the World Nutrition Situation. Nutrition for improved development outcomes. United Nations Standing Committee on Nutrition. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy. Acosta-Gallego JA, Kelly JD and Gepts P. 2007. Prebreeding in common bean and uses of genetic diversity from wild germplasm. Crop Science 47(S3): S44-S59. Adrian Montanez. 2000. Overview and case studies on biological nitrogen fixation: Perspectives and Limitations: Work prepared for FAO. Available at http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/agll/soilbiod/cases/caseB1.pdf downloaded on 9th July 2011. Adu-Gyamfi JJ, Myaka FA, Sakala WD, Odgaard R, Vesterager JM and Hogh-Jensen H. 2007. Biological nitrogen fixation and phosphorus budgets in farmer-managed intercrops of maize-pigeonpea in semi-arid southern and eastern Africa. Plant and Soil 295: 127-136. Agunbiade T, Steele L, Coates B, Gassmann A, Margam V, Ba M, Dabiré-Binso C, BaouaI, Bello-BravoJ, Seufferheld F, Sun W, Tamò M and Pittendrigh B. 2011. IPM-Omics: from genomics to extension for integrated pest management of cowpea. Paper presented at the 5th world cowpea fonference, 26 Sep-2 Oct 2010, Saly, Dakar, Senegal. Akibode S. and Maredia M. 2011. Global and regional trends in production, trade and consumption of food legume crops. Report Submitted to CGIAR Special Panel on Impact Assessment, 27 March 2011. 83 pp. http://impact.cgiar.org/sites/default/files/images/Legumetrendsv2.pdf Alene A and Manyong V. 2007. Gains from high yielding varieties with and without complimentary technology: The case of improved cowpea in northern Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural and Food Economics 2: 1-14. Alene, A.D., V.M. Manyong, E. Tollens, and S. Abele. 2009. Efficiency–equity tradeoffs and the scope for resource reallocation in agricultural research: evidence from Nigeria. Agricultural Economics 40:1–14. Almekinders CJ.M, Thiele G and Danial LD. 2007. Can cultivars from participatory plant breeding improve seed provision to small-scale farmers? Euphytica 153: 363-372. Alschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW and Lipman DJ. 1990. Basic local alignment search tool. Journal of Molecular Biology 215: 403-410. Alston JM, Norton GW and Pardey PG. 1995. Science under scarcity: principles and practice for agricultural evaluation and priority setting. Cornell University Press, New York. Alves BJR, Boddy RM and Urquiaga S. 2003. The success of BNF in soybean in Brazil. Plant and Soil 252: 1-9. AmedeT and Kirkby R. 2004. Guidelines for Integration of legumes into the farming systems of East African Highlands. pages 43-64 in Managing nutrient cycles to sustain soil fertility in Sub-Saharan Africa (Bationo A ed.). Academic Science Publishers. Ampire E, Karia S and Njuki J. 2008. PABRA capacity assessment report. Unpublished research report. Aw-Hassan A, Regassa S, Islam Q and Sarker A. 2009. The impact of improvement research. The case of Bangladesh and Ethiopia. In: The Lentil. Botany Production and Uses (Erskine W, Muehlbauer F, Sarker A and Sharma B. eds.), Wallingford, UK: CABI. Aw-Hassan A, Shideed K, Sarker A, Tutwiler R and Erskine W. 2003. Economic impact of international and national lentil improvement research in developing countries. Pages 275-291 in Crop variety improvement and its effect on productivity: The impact of international agricultural research (Evenson RE and Gollin D. eds.). CABI, Wallingford, UK. 522 pp. Ayappan S. 2011. Slide #56 at http://www.icar.org.in/files/Dg-Presentation-83rd-ICAR-Foundation-Day.pdf Ba NM, Margam VM, Dabire-Binso CL, Sanon A, McNeil J, Murdock LL and Pittendrigh BR. 2009. Seasonal and regional distribution of the cowpea pod borer, Maruca vitrata Fabricius (Lepidoptera: Crambidae), in Burkina Faso. International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 29(3): 109-113. Badiger C, Hasalkar S and Huilgol S. 2004. Drudgery of farm women in agriculture and animal husbandry operations. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences 17: 787-790. Bado BV, Bationo A and Cescas MP. 2006. Assessment of cowpea and groundnut contributions to soil fertility and succeeding sorghum yields in the Guinean savannah zone of Burkina Faso (West Africa). Biology and Fertility of Soils 43: 171–176. Bantilan MCS and Joshi PK 1996. Returns to research and diffusion investments on wilt resistance in pigeonpea. Impact Series No. 1. Hyderabad, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). 30 pp. Bantilan M and Parthasarathy D. 1999. Efficiency and sustainability gains from adoption of short-duration pigeonpea in nonlegume-based cropping systems, Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India: ICRISAT. Bationo A, Waswa B, Okeyo JM, Maina F, Kihara J and Mokwunye U (eds.). 2011. Fighting poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa: The multiple roles of legumes in integrated soil fertility management. 1st Edition. 350 pp. Bayuelo-Jiménez JS, Debouck DG and Lynch JP. 2002. Salinity tolerance in Phaseolus species during early vegetative growth. Crop Science 42: 2184-2192. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – References 149 Bazzicalupo M and Fani R. 1995. The use of RAPD for generating specific DNA probes for microorganisms. Pages 112-124 in Methods in molecular biology, species diagnostic protocols: PCR and other nucleic acid methods (Clap JP. ed.). Humana Press Inc, Totowa NJ, USA. Beebe S, Gonzalez AV and Rengifo J. 2000. Research on trace minerals in the common bean. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 21: 387-391. Beebe S, Lynch J, Galwey N, Tohme J and Ochoa I. 1997. A geographical approach to identify phosphorus-efficient genotypes among landraces and wild ancestors of common bean. Euphytica 95: 325-336. Beebe S, Ramirez J, Jarvis A, Rao IM, Mosquera G, Bueno GM and Blair M. 2011. Genetic improvement of common beans and the challenges of climate change. Pages 356-369 in Crop adaptation to climate change (Yadav SS, Redden RJ, Hatfield JL, Lotze-Campen H and Hall AE. eds.). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Richmond, Australia. Beebe SE, Rao IM, Cajiao C and Grajales M. 2008. Selection for drought resistance in common bean also improves yield in phosphorus limited and favorable environments. Crop Science 48: 582-592. Bekunda MA, Bationo A and Sali H. 1997. Soil fertility management in Africa. A review of selected research trials. Pages 63-80 in Replenishing soil fertility in Africa (Buresh RJ, Sanchez PA and Calhoun F. eds.). Soil Science Society of America Special Publication No. 51. Madison, Wisconsin, USA. Bernsten RH, Donovan C, Kiala D, Mazuze F and Rosas JC. 2009. Expanding pulse supply and demand in Africa and Latin America: Identifying constraints and new strategies. Pages 31-36 in Dry Grain Pulses Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP) 2009 Technical Highlights. East Lansing: Michigan State University. http://www.pulsecrsp.msu.edu/Publications/FY2009TechnicalReports/ tabid/139/Default.aspx. Bhatia VS, Singh P, Wani SP, Kesava Rao AVR and Srinivas K. 2006. Yield gap analysis of soybean, groundnut, pigeonpea and chickpea in India using simulation modeling. Global Theme on Agro-ecosystems, report no. 31. Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). 156 pp. Bhatnagar-Mathur P, Devi J, Lavanya M, Vadez V, Serraj R, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K and Sharma KK. 2007. Stress-inducible expression of At DREB1A in transgenic peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) increases transpiration efficiency under water-limiting conditions. Plant Cell Reports 26: 2071-2082. Bhullar NK, Street K, Mackay M, Yahiaoui N and Keller B. 2009. Unlocking wheat genetic resources for the molecular identification of previously undescribed functional alleles at the Pm3 resistance locus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106: 9519-9524. Birthal PS, Nigam, SN, Narayanan AV and Kareem KA. 2011. An economic assessment of the potential benefits of breeding for drought tolerance in Crops: A case of groundnut in India. Research Bulletin no. 25, ICRISAT, Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India. Birthal PS, Parthasarathy Rao P, Nigam SN, Bantilan MCS and Bhagavatula S. 2010. Groundnut and soybean Economics in Asia: Facts, Trends and Outlook, ICRISAT, Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India: 92 pp. Bishaw Z and van Gastel AJG. 2008. ICARDA’s approach to seed delivery in less favorable areas through village-based seed enterprises: conceptual and organizational issues. Journal of New Seeds 9: 68-88. Bishaw Z, Makkawi M and Niane A. 2009. Seed quality and alternative seed delivery systems. In Erskine W, Muehlbauer F, Sarker A and Sharma B. (eds.). The Lentil. Botany Production and Uses, Wallingford, UK: CABI. Bishaw Zewdie, van Gastel AJ and Bill R Gregg. 2008. Sustainable Seed Production of Cool Season Food Legumes in CWANA Region. Pages 231-257 in Proceedings of the fourth International Food Legumes Research Conference (IFLRC-IV), (Kharkwal MC. ed.). 18-22 October 2005, New Delhi, India, ISGPB, New Delhi, India. Bohra A, Mallikarjuna N, Saxena KB, Upadhyaya H, Vales MI and Varshney R. 2011. Harnessing the potential of crop wild relatives through genomics tools for pigeonpea improvement. Journal of Plant Biology 37: 83-98. Bond DA, Lawes DA, Hawtin GC, Saxena MC and Stephens JS. 1985. Faba Bean (Vicia faba L.). Pages 199-265 in Grain legume crops (Summerfield RJ and Roberts EH. eds.). William Collins Sons Co. Ltd. 8 Grafton Street, London, WIX 3LA, UK. Bongaarts, J. 2001. Household size and composition in the developing world in the 1990s. Population Studies 55: 263-279. Bourgault M and Smith DL. 2010. Comparative study of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) response to seven watering regimes in a controlled environment. Crop and Pasture Science 11: 918. Broughton WJ, Hernandez G, Blair MW, Beebe SE, Gepts P and Vanderleyden J. 2003. Beans (Phaseolus spp.) – Model Food Legumes. Plant and Soil 252: 55-128. Bumb BL, Johnson M and Fuentes PA. 2011. Policy options for improving regional fertilizer markets in West Africa. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01084, May 2011. Table 3.1. Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. 73 pp. Burslem C. 2004. Obesity in Developing Countries: People are overweight but still not well nourished. http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/newsletters/ifpriforum/if200410.htm. Butare L, Rao IM, Lepoivre P, Polania J, Cajiao C, Cuasquer JB and Beebe S. 2011. New sources of resistance in Phaseolus species to individual and combined aluminium toxicity and progressive soil drying stresses. Euphytica DOI 10.10007/s10681-011-0468-0. (In press). CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – References 150 Caviglia OP, Sadras VO and Andrade FH. 2004. Intensification of agriculture in the Southeastern Pampas. In Capture and efficiency in the use of water and radiation in double-cropped wheat-soybean. Field Crops Research 87: 117-129. Central Statistics Agency (CSA) /MoARD-Ethiopia. 2010. Agricultural Sample Survey Reports on Farm Management Practices for various years: 2003-2010. CGIAR. 2011. A Strategy and Results Framework for the CGIAR. 180 pp. http://consortium.cgxchange.org/home/strategy-andresults-framework Chen W, Sharma, HC and Muehlbauer F (eds.). 2011. Chickpea and lentil crop protection compendium. American Phytopathological Society, St Paul, Minnesota, USA.164 pp. Chirwa RM, Aggarwal VD, Mar P and Are M. 2007. Experiences in implementing the bean seed strategy in Malawi. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 29: 43-69. Christian H, Schweizer A, Kuhnhold V and Sikora RA. 2010. Remote sensing for the detection of soil-borne plant parasitic nematodes and fungal pathogens. In: Precision crop protection- the challenge and use of heterogeneity (Oerke EC et al. eds.). Springer Science + Business Media, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. CIAT. 2008. The impact of improved bush bean varieties in Uganda. Highlights. CIAT in Africa, no. 43. Kampala: CIAT. Clansey B. 2009. World Pulse Outlook: Report to the Saskatchewan Pulse Growers. Stat Publishing, September 2009. Clark KW, Brockwell J and Thompson JA. 1988. Role of inoculants in improving nitrogen fixation in legumes. In: Collaborative maize breeding strategies in the subcontinent. Euphytica 145: 123-132. Coulibaly O, Alene AD, Abdoulaye T, Chianu C, Manyong V, Aitchedji C, Fatokun D, Kamara A, Ousmane B, Tefera H and Boahen S. 2010. Baseline assessment of cowpea breeding and seed delivery efforts to enhance poverty impacts in subSaharan Africa. In collaboration with NARS from Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Tanzania, Malawi, Kenya and Mozambique. Tropical Legumes II Project report at http://www.icrisat.org/what-we-do/impi/projects/tl2-publications/research-reports/rr-cwpsbean.pdf. Coulibaly O, Mbila D, Sonwa DJ, Adesina A and Bakala J. 2002.Responding to economics crisis in Sub-Saharan Africa: new farmer developed pest management strategies in cocoa-based plantation in Southern Cameroon. Integrated Pest Management Reviews 7: 165-172. Crawford Eric W, Jayne TS and Valerie A Kelly. 2006. Alternative approaches for promoting fertilizer use in Africa: Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper 22. World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. Crews TE and Peoples MB. 2005. Can the synchrony of nitrogen supply and crop demand be improved in legume and fertilizerbased agroecosystems?: A review. Nutrient Cycling Agroecosystems 72: 101–120. Cubero JI. 1974. On the evolution of Vicia faba L. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 45: 47-51. Cutforth HW, McGinn SM, McPhee KE and Miller PR. 2007. Adaptation of pulse crops to the changing climate of the Northern Great Plains. Agronomy Journal 99: 1684–1699. Dadi L, Regassa S, Fikre A, Mitiku D, Gaur P, Gowda C and Bantilan M. 2005. Adoption studies on improved chickpea varieties in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa and Patancheru: EIAR and ICRISAT. Dar WD, Winslow M, Abate T and Mgonja M. 2010. Food vs. cash crops—what should be the balance? Paper presented at The Nippon Foundation Borlaug Symposium, UN Conference Centre, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, July 13-14, 2010. http://www.nippon-foundation.or.jp/eng/speeches/ 20100713BorlaugSymposium.html Paper available from ICRISAT, Patancheru, India. 6 pp. David S and Sperling L. 1999. Improving technology delivery mechanisms: lessons from bean seed systems research in Eastern and Central Africa. Agriculture and Human Values 6: 381-388. David S, Kirkby R. and Kasozi S. 2000. Assessing the impact of bush bean varieties on poverty reduction in sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from Uganda. Network on Bean Research in Africa, Occasional Publications Series No. 31. Kampala, Uganda: CIAT. 31 pp. Delannay X, McLaren G and Ribaut JM. 2011. Fostering molecular breeding in developing countries. Molecular Breeding DOI 10.1007/s11032-011-9611-9. Devi JM, Sinclair TR and Vadez V. 2010. Genotypic variability among peanut (Arachis hypogea L.). In: Sensitivity of nitrogen fixation to soil drying. Plant and Soil 330: 139-148. Dionissios P Kalivas, GarifaliaEconomou and Christos E Vlachos. 2010. Using geographic information systems to map the prevalent weeds at an early stage of the cotton crop in relation to abiotic factors. Phytoparasitica 38: 299-312. Dixon J and Gulliver A.2001. Farming systems and poverty: improving farmers’ livelihoods in a changing world Rome: FAO. ISBN: 9251046271. Douthwaite B, Alvarez BS, Cook S, Davies R, George P, Howell J, Mackay R and Rubiano J. 2007. Participatory impact pathways analysis: a practical application of program theory in research-for development. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation 22: 127-159. Duke SO. 2005. Taking stock of herbicide-resistant crops ten years after introduction. Pest Management Science 61: 211-218. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – References 151 Dwivedi SL, Jambunathan R, Nigam SN, Raghunath K, Shankar KR and Nagabhushanam GVS. 1990. Relationship of seed mass to oil and protein contents in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Peanut Science 17(2): 48-52. Ehlers JD and Hall AE. 1997. Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp). Field Crops Res. 53: 187-204. Ekesi S. 1999. Insecticide resistance in field populations of the legume pod-borer, M. vitrata, Fabricius (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), on cowpea, Vigna unguiculata (L.), Walp in Nigeria. International Journal of Pest Management 45: 57-59. El-Bouhssini M, Street K, Amri A, Mackay M, Ogbonnaya FC, Omran A, Abdalla O, Baum M, Dabbous A and Rihawi F. 2010. Sources of resistance in bread wheat to Russian wheat aphid (Diuraphis noxia) in Syria identified using the Focused Identification of Germplasm Strategy (FIGS). Plant Breeding 130: 96-97. El-Bouhssini M, Street K, Joubi A, Ibrahim Z and Rihawi F. 2009. Sources of wheat resistance to Sunn pest, Eurygaster integriceps Puton, in Syria. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 56: 1065-1069. Elboutahiri N, Thami-Alami I, Zaïd E and Udupa SM. 2009. Genotypic characterization of indigenous Sinorhizobium meliloti and Rhizobium sullae by rep- PCR, RAPD and ARDRA analyses. African Journal of Biotechnology 8: 979-985. Erskine W, Muehlbauer F, Sarkar A and Sharma G. 2009. The lentil: botany, production and uses. Cambridge, Mass. CABI. Erskine W, Rihaw S and Capper BS. 1990. Variation in lentil straw quality. Animal Feed Science and Technology 28: 61-69. FAO. 1995. Sustainable dry land cropping in relation to soil productivity–FAO soils bulletin, vol 72. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy. FAO. 2005. Food and Agriculture http://faostat.fao.org/default.htm. Organization of the United Nations. FAO Stat statistical database. FAO. 2006. Quality Declared Seed. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 185. PP243. Publishing Management Service, Information Division, FAO,Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy. FAO. 2007a. Gender and food security. Synthesis Report of Regional Documents: Africa, Asia and Pacific, Europe, Near East, Latin America. FAO, Rome, Italy. FAO. 2007b. Women and Food Security. FAO, Rome, Italy. FAO. 2008. State of food insecurity in the world. High food prices and food security – threats and opportunities. FAO. 2009. FAOStat database, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy, http://faostat.fao.org. FAO. 2010. FAOStat database, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy, http://faostat.fao.org FAOStat, 2008. Feldstein 1998. An inventory of gender-related research and training in the consultative group on international agricultural research (CGIAR) centers 1996-1998. At htpp://www.PRGA POGRAM.ORG accessed on 20 July 2011. Ferris S and Kaganzi E. 2008.Evaluating market opportunities for haricot beans in Ethiopia. IPMS (Improving Marketing Success) of Ethiopian Farmers Project Working Paper 7. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. 68 pp. FIDA. 2001. Reflexiones Metodológicas sobre Seguimiento y Evaluación de Proyectos. Unidad de Publicación del FIDA. 164 páginas. Food Agriculture and Natural Resource Policy Analysis Network. 2011. Harmonized Seed Security Project. 2010 Annual report Pg. 6 – Pretoria, South Africa. Foster-Powell K, Holt SHA and Brand-Miller JC. 2002. International table of glycemic index and glycemic load values. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 76: 5-56. Fowler RM. 2000. Animal-drawn herbicide applicators for use in small-scale farmer weed control systems. In Animal power for weed control: A resource book of the Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA), (Starkey P and Simalenga T. eds.). Wageningen, The Netherlands; Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA). ISBN 929081-136-6. http://www.atnesa.org. Frankel OH. 1984. Genetic perspective of germplasm conservation. Pages 161-170 in Genetic manipulations: impact on man and society (Arber W, Limensee K, Peacock WJ and Stralinger P. eds.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Funk C, Dettinger MD, Michaelsen JC, Verdin JP, Brown ME, Barlow M and Hoell A. 2008. Warming of the Indian Ocean threatens eastern and southern African food security but could be mitigated by agricultural development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105: 11081-11086. Gaur PM, Gour VK and Srinivasan S. 2008. An induced brachytic mutant of chickpea and its possible use in ideotype breeding. Euphytica 159: 35-41. Gaur PM, Gowda CLL, Knights EJ, Warkentin TD, Acikgoz N, Yadav SS and Kumar J. 2007. Chapter 19: Breeding Achievements. Pages 391-416 in Chickpea Breeding and Management (Yadav SS, Redden B, Chen W and Sharma B, eds.), CABI, UK. Gepts P. 2006. Plant genetic resources conservation and utilization: the accomplishments and future of a societal insurance policy. Crop Science 46: 2278-2292. Giller KE. 2001. Nitrogen fixation in tropical cropping systems. CAB Intentional, Wallingford, U.K. pp. 56-92. Giller, K. 2009. Putting nitrogen fixation to work for smallholder farmers in Africa (N2fixAfrica). Proposal to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen University. 68 pp. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – References 152 Giller KE and Dashiell KE. 2006. Glycine max (L.) Merr. In: Plant Resources of Tropical Africa 1. Cereals and Pulses (Brink M and Belay G. ed.)., 76-82, PROTA Foundation, Wageningen, Netherlands/ Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, Netherlands/CTA, Wageningen, Netherlands. Glaszmann JC, Kilian G, Upadhyaya HD and Varshney RK. 2010. Accessing genetic diversity for crop improvement. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 13: 167-173. Goergen E, Chambers JC and Blank R. 2009. Effects of water and nitrogen availability on nitrogen contribution by the legume, Lupinus argentsus Pursh. Applied Soil Ecology 42: 200-208. Gómez LA, Vadez V, Hernández G, Sánchez T, Toscano V and Sánchez M. 2002. Evaluación de la Tolerancia al estrés de fósforo en caupí (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) en Cuba. I. Cultivo en Solución Nutritiva. Agronomía Mesoamericana 13: 59-65. Gopalan C, Rama Sastri BV and Balasubramanian SC. 2004. Nutritive value of Indian foods. National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India. Graham PH and Vance CP. 2003. Legumes: Importance and constraints to greater utilization. Plant Physiology 131: 872-877. Grichar WJ, Besler BA and Jaks AJ. 1998. Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) cultivar response to leaf spot disease development under four disease management programs. Peanut Science 25: 35-39. Grings EE, Tarawali SA, Blummel M, Musa A, Fatokun C, Hearne S and Boukar O. 2012. Cowpea in evolving livestock systems. In: Improving livelihoods in the cowpea value chain through advancement in science. Proceedings of 5th World Cowpea Research Conference 2010, Saly, Senegal. Grzywacz D, Richards A, Rabindra RJ, Saxena H and Rupela OP 2005. Efficacy of biopesticides on natural plant products on Heliothis/Helicoverpa control. Pages 371-389 in Heliothis/ Helicoverpa management-emerging trends and strategies for future research (Sharma HC. ed.). New Delhi, Oxford &IBH. Gwata ET, Wofford DS, Boote KJ, Blount AR and Pfahler PL. 2005. Inheritance of promiscuous nodulation in soybean. Crop Science 45: 635-638. Gwata ET, Wofford DS, Pfahler PL and Boote KJ. 2004. Genetics of promiscuous nodulation in soybean: Nodule dry weight and leaf color score. Journal of Heredity 95: 154-157. Haas JD, Villalpando S, Beebe S, Glahn R, Shamah T and Boy E. 2011. The effect of consuming biofortified beans on the iron status of Mexican school children. FASEB J. 25:96.6. Hall A. 2006. New insights into promoting rural innovation: Learning from civil society organisations about the effective use of innovation in development. Maastricht: UNU-MERIT. http://www.research4development.info/SearchResearchDatabase.asp?OutputID=172912 Hall AE, Thiaw S, Ismail AM and Ehlers JD. 1997. Water-use efficiency and drought adaptation of cowpea. Pages 87-98 in Advances in cowpea research (Singh BB, Mohan Raj DR, Dashiell KE and Jackai LEN. eds.). Nigeria, Ibadan: IITA. Hall AE. 2004. Comparative ecophysiology of cowpea, common bean, and peanut. Pages 271-325 in Physiology and Biotechnology Integration for Plant Breeding (Nguyen HT and Blum A, eds.). Marcel Dekker Inc, New York, USA. Hall AJ and Yoganand B. 2004. New institutional arrangements in agricultural research and development in Africa: Concepts and case studies. Pages 105-131 in Innovations in innovation: reflections on partnership, institutions and learning (Hall AJ, Yoganand B, Sulaiman RV, Raina RS, Prasad CS, Naik GC and Clark NG. eds.). Crop Postharvest Research Programme/ICRISAT/National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research. New Delhi and Andhra Pradesh, India. Hall AJ, Yoganand B, Crouch JH and Clark NG. 2004. The Evolving Culture of Science in the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research: Concepts for Building a New Architecture of Innovation in Agri-biotechnology. Pages 135-62 in Innovations in Innovation: Reflections on Partnership, Institutions and Learning (Hall AJ, Yoganand B, Sulaiman RV, RajeswariRaina S, Prasad CS, Guru C Naik and Clark NG. eds.). Andhra Pradesh, India: CPHP, ICRISAT and NCAP. Hammer GL. 2006. Pathways to prosperity: breaking the yield barrier in sorghum. Agricultural Science 19: 16-22. Herridge DF and Danso SKA. 1995. Enhancing crop legume N2 fixation through selection and breeding. Plant and Soil 174: 5182. Herridge DF, Peoples MB and Boddey RM. 2008. Global inputs of biological nitrogen fixation in agricultural systems. Plant and Soil 311: 1-8. Hodson DP and White JW. 2007. Use of spatial analyses for global characterization of wheat based production systems. Journal of Agricultural Science 145: 115-125. Horton D and Mackay R. 2003. Special issue learning for the future: Innovative Approaches for evaluating agricultural research and development. Agricultural Systems 78: 119-336. Horton D, Prain G and Thiele G. 2009. Perspectives on partnership: A literature review. International Potato Center (CIP), Lima, Peru. Working Paper 2009-3.111 pp. http://www.cgiar-ilac.org/files/workshops/Partnership/Resources/ Horton_Perspectives.pdf Hubert Schmitz. 2005. Value Chain Analysis for Policy-Makers and Practitioners Geneva, International Labour Office, 2005. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – References 153 Hungria M, Franchini JC, Campo RJ, Crispino CC, Moraes JZ, Sibaldelli RNR, Mendes IC and Arihara J. 2006. Nitrogen nutrition of soybean in Brazil: Contributions of biological N2 fixation and N fertilizer to grain yield. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 86: 927-939. ICARDA 2008. Food, income and livelihoods: Impact of new agricultural technologies in Africa. ICARDA Impact Brief 3. Aleppo, Syria: International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas. ICRISAT. 2010. A “C-Change” in Southern India. Pages 8-9 in ICRISAT Annual Report 2010: Inclusive Market-Oriented Development. Patancheru, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. Published in 2011. IFPRI. 2010. Cooperatives for staple crop marketing evidence from Ethiopia. Research Monograph. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 164. http://dx.doi.org/10.2499/9780896291751RR164 IFPRI. 2010. Pulse value chain in Ethiopia: Constraints and opportunities for enhancing exports- Working Paper. IFPRI. 2011a. The way forward. Preliminary conclusions of an international conference on “Leveraging agriculture for improving nutrition and health”, February 10–12, 2011, New Delhi, India. Washington DC. http://2020conference.ifpri.info/files/2011/02/2020anh_wayforward.pdf. IFPRI. 2011b. Country fact sheets: Key facts and findings from the conference on Transforming African Economies for Sustained Growth, Poverty Reduction, Accra, Ghana, 10 May 2011. http://www.ifpri.org/pressroom/briefing/transformingeconomies-promote-sustained-growth-poverty-reduction. Imtiaz MA. 2010. Quantitative genetics approach to drought tolerance in chickpea. ASA, CSSA and SSSA International Annual Meetings.31 Oct-4 Nov, Long Beach, California, USA. IPCC. 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4). Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml. James Clive. 2010. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2010. ISAAA Brief No. 42. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY, USA. Jeranyama, P., Waddington, S.R., Hesterman, O.B. and Harwood R.R. 2007. Nitrogen effects on maize yield following groundnut in rotation on smallholder farms in sub-humid Zimbabwe. African J. Biotechnol. 6:1503-1508. Jones P, Beebe S, Tohme J and Galwey N. 1997. The use of geographical information system in biodiversity exploration and conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 6: 947-958. Jones RB, Freeman HA and Lo Monaco G. 2002. Improving the access of small farmers in Eastern and Southern Africa.Agricultural Research and Extension Network (AgREN) Paper No.120. In: http://www.odi.org.uk/agren/papers/ agrenpaper 120.pdf. Joshi PK, Parthasaraty Rao P, Gowda CLL, Jones RB, Silim SN, Saxena KB and Kumar J. 2001. The world chickpea and pigeonpea economies: Facts, trends, and outlook. Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). 62 pp. Joshi PK. 1998. Performance of grain legumes in the Indo-Gangetic Plain. Pages 207-225 in Residual effects of legumes in rice and wheat cropping systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plain (Kumar Rao JVDK, Johansen C and Rego TJ. eds.). Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics; New Delhi, India: Oxford and IBH. Kabagambe EK, Baylin A, Ruiz-Narvarez E, Siles X and Campos H. 2005. Decreased consumption of dried mature beans is positively associated with urbanization and nonfatal acute myocardial infarction. Journal of Nutrition 135: 1770-1775. Kalyebara R, Andima D, Kirkby R and Buruchara R. 2008. Improved Bean Varieties and Cultivation in East and Central AfricaEconomic and Social Benefits. PABRA-CIAT Kampala. Kaschuk G, Kuyper TW, Leffelaar PA, Hungria M and Giller KE. 2009. Are the rates of photosynthesis stimulated by the carbon sink strength of rhizobial and arbuscular mycorrhizal symbioses? Soil Biology & Biochemistry 41: 1233-1244. Katungi E and Gebeyehu S. 2011. Enhanced seed accessibility and adoption of improved common bean varieties in Ethiopia: Monitoring early adoption of improved varieties, unpublished TL2 project report. Kavitha K, Padmaja R, Deepthi H, Anand Babu P, Mula RP and Bantilan MCS. 2009. Strategic Partnership @ ICRISAT: Global Partnerships for Strategic Impact. ICRISAT, Patancheru, 502 324. Andhra Pradesh, India. Keneni G and Imtiaz M. 2010. Demand-driven breeding of food legumes for plant-nutrient relations in the tropics and the subtropics: Serving the farmers; not the crops! Euphytica 175: 267-282. Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS). Annual Report 2006. KEPHIS: Nairobi, Kenya. Key N and Runsten D. 1999. Contract farming, smallholders, and rural development in Latin America: the organization of agroprocessing firms and the scale of outgrower production. World Development 27: 381-401. Kharkwal MC. 2008. Food legumes for nutritional security and sustainable agriculture. Proceedings of the fourth International Food Legumes Research Conference (IFLRC-IV), (Kharkwal MC. ed.). 18-22 October 2005, New Delhi, India, ISGPB, New Delhi, India. 967 pp. Khatib F, AntoniosMakris, Kasuko Yamaguchi-Shinozakic, Shiv Kumar, Sarker A, William Erskine and Michael Baum. 2011. Expression of DREB1A gene in lentil (lens culinaris Medik. culinaris) transformed with the Agrobacterium system. Crop & Pasture Science 62: 488-495. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – References 154 Kholová J, Hash CT, Kocﬞva M and Vadez V. 2010b. Constitutive water conserving mechanisms are correlated with the terminal drought tolerance of pearl millet (Pennisetum americanum L.). Journal of Experimental Botany 61: 369-377. Kholová J, Hash CT, Kumar LK, Yadav RS, Kocﬞvá M and Vadez V. 2010a. 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: 1431-1440. Kimaro A, Timmer V, Chamshama S, Ngaga Y and Kimaro D. 2009. Competition between maize and pigeonpea in semi-arid Tanzania: Effect on yields and nutrition of crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 134: 115-125. Kolli RD and Bantilan MCS. 1997. Gender-related impacts of improved agricultural technologies: Identification of indicators from a case study. Gender, Technology and Development 1: 371-393. Kornegay J, Cardona C and Posso CE. 1993. Inheritance of resistance to Mexican bean weevil in common bean, determined by bioassay and biochemical tests. Crop Science 33: 589-594. Kotecha PV. 2008. Micronutrient malnutrition in India: Let us say "no" to it now. Indian Journal of Community Medicine 33: 910. Kristjanson P, Okike O, Tarawali S, Singh B and Manyong V. 2005. Farmers’ perceptions of benefits and factors affecting the adoption of improved dual- purpose cowpea in the dry savannas of Nigeria. Agricultural Economics 32: 195- 210. Kristjanson P, Tarawali S, Okike I, Singh BB, Thornton PK, Manyong VM, Kruska RL and Hoogenboom G. 2002. Genetically improved dual-purpose cowpea: Assessment of adoption and impact in the dry savanna region of West Africa. ILRI Impact Assessment Series No. 9. ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya. Kumar P, Joshi PK and Birthal PS. 2009. Demand projections for food grains in India. Agricultural Economics Research Review 22: 237-243. Kumar Rao JVDK, Johansen C and Mu K. 1995. Nitrogen requirements at different growth stages of short-duration pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L. Millsp.). Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 175: 15-28. Kumar Rao JVDK, Johansen C and Rego TJ (eds.). 1998. Residual effects of legumes in rice and wheat cropping systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plain. ICRISAT, Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India,and New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. Kumar SK. 1985. Women's Role and Agricultural Technology. A chapter in The Users’ Perspective. A seminar sponsored by the International Service for National Agricultural Research and the Rockefeller Foundation, Bellagio, Italy, March 1985. Ladizinsky G. 1985. Founder effect in crop-plant evolution. Economic Botany 39: 191-199. Langyintuo AS. 2003. Cowpea trade in west and central Africa: A spatial and temporal analysis. Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University. Lather VS. 2000. Promising chickpea ideotype for higher plant density. International Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newsletter 7: 2627. Leterme P. 2002. Recommendations by health organizations for pulse consumption. British Journal of Nutrition 88: S239-S242. Li SM, Li L, Zhang FS and Tang C. 2004. Acid phosphatase role in chickpea/maize intercropping. Annals of Botany 94: 297-303. Liener IE. 1994. Implications of antinutritional components in soybean foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 34: 31-67. Litzenberger SC. 1973. The improvement of food legumes as a contribution to improved human nutrition. In papers presented at the international symposium on the potential of field beans and other legumes in Latin America, Cali, Colombia. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, CIAT, 1975. Cited in Edje OT, Mughogho LK, Rao YP and Msuku WAB. 1980. Bean production in Malawi. In potential of field beans and other legumes in Eastern Africa. Proceedings of a Regional Workshop, 9-14 Mar 1980, Lilongwe, Malawi. Lobell DB, Marshall BB, Tebaldi C, Mastrandrea MD, Falcon WP and Naylor RL. 2008. Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030. Science 319: 607-610. Lopes H. 2010. Adoption of improved maize and common bean varieties in Mozambique. Graduate Research Masters Degree Plan B Papers 97838, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics. López CE, Acosta IF, Jara C, Pedraza F, Gaitán-Solís E, Gallego G, Beebe S and Tohme J. 2003. Identifying resistance gene analogs associated with resistance to different pathogens in common bean. Phytopathology 93: 88-95. Lowenberg-DeBoer J and Ibro G. 2008. A study of the cowpea value chain In Kano State, Nigeria from a pro-poor and gender perspective. Washington, DC: USAID, Nigeria, GATE Project, http://www.nigeriamarkets.org/files/GATE_Cowpeas_Final%5B1%5D.pdf Lupwayi NZ, Kennedy AC and Chirwa RM. 2011. Grain legume impacts on soil biological processes in sub-Saharan Africa. African Journal of Plant Science 5: 1-7. Lynch JP. 2011. Root phenes for enhanced soil exploration and phosphorus acquisition: Tools for future crops. Plant Physiology 156: 1041-1049. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – References 155 M4P. 2008. Making Value Chain work for the poor: a toolbox for Practitioners of Value Chain Analysis, Version 3. Making Markets Work Better for the Poor (M4P) Project, UK Department for International Development (DFID). Agricultural Development International: Phnom Penh, Cambodia. MacRobert F John. 2009. Seed Business Management in Africa. Harare Zimbabwe CIMMYT, 233 pp. Mahalakshmi V, Ng Q, Lawson M and Ortiz R. 2007. Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) core collection defined by geographical, agronomical and botanical descriptors. Plant Genetic Resources: Characterization and Utilization 5: 113-117. Malhotra RS. 2009. The CWANA countries have two well defined seasons, namely winter and spring, and chickpea is traditionally grown in the spring season (on conserved soil moisture) as most of the local land races grown in these countries are highly susceptible to Ascochyta blight and cold/frost which are the main constraints in the winter (Malhotra et al. 2009). Mallikarjuna N, Clarice Coyne, Seungho Cho, Sheri Rynearson, Rajesh PN, Deepak R Jadhav and Fred J Muehlbauer. 2011. Cicer. In Wild Crop Relatives: Genomic and Breeding Resources, Legume Crops and Forages (Kole C. ed). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg (DOI:10.1007/978-3-642-14387-8_4.). Mallikarjuna N, Senthilvel S and Hoisington D. 2010. Development of new sources of tetraploid Arachis to broaden the genetic base of cultivated groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution (DOI: 10.1007/s10722-010-96278). Mallikarjuna N, Senthilvel S, Jadhav DR, Saxena KB, Sharma HC, Upadhyaya HD, Rathore A and Varshney RK. 2011. Progress in the utilization of Cajanus platycarpus (Benth.) Maesen in pigeonpea improvement. Plant Breeding doi:10.1111/j.14390523.2011.01870.x Materne M and Reddy AA. 2007. Commercial cultivation and profitability of lentil. Pages 173-186 in Lentil: An ancient crop for modern times (Yadav SS, McNeil D and Stevenson PC. eds.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Mazid A, Amegbeto K, Shideed K and Malhotra R. 2009. Impact of crop improvement and management: winter-sown chickpea in Syria. ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria. Mazur R, Nakimbugwe D, Ugen M, Musoke H and Vasanthakaalam H. 2009. Enhancing nutritional value and marketability of beans through research and strengthening key value chain stakeholders in Uganda and Rwanda. Pages 14-23 in Dry Grain Pulses Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP) 2009 Technical Highlights. East Lansing: Michigan State University. http://www.pulsecrsp.msu.edu/Publications/FY2009TechnicalReports/tabid/139/Default.aspx McKnight Foundation. 2008. Increasing phosphorus efficiency and production of grain legumes in China and Africa. http:// mcknight.ccrp.cornell.edu/program_docs/project_documents/SAF_05-780_plegumes/05780_plegumes_yr7_0708_vweb.pdf; http://mcknight.ccrp.cornell.edu/projects/saf_cop/SAF_ legumes/plegumes_project.html. Meister G and Tuschl T. 2004. Mechanisms of gene silencing by double-stranded RNA. Nature 431: 343-349. Messina M. 1999. Legumes and soybeans: overview of their nutritional profiles and health effects. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 70 (Suppl.): 439S-450S. Miklas PN, Kelly JD, Beebe SE and Blair MW. 2006. Common bean breeding for resistance against biotic and abiotic stresses: from classical to MAS breeding. Euphytica 147: 105-131. Moyo S, Norton G, Alwang J, Rhinehart I and Deom C. 2007. Peanut research and poverty reduction: Impacts of variety research to control peanut viruses in Uganda. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89: 448-460. Muehlbauer FJ and Chen W. 2007. Resistance to Ascochyta blights of cool season food legumes. European Journal of Plant Pathology 119: 135-141. Murray-Kolb LE, Welch R, Theil EC and Beard JL. 2003. Women with low iron stores absorb iron from soybeans. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 77: 180-184. Nanda BBKS, Rao BTS and Moorthy LSB. 1994. Oil, protein, yield and seed characters of some groundnut cultivars grown in rice fallows in Orissa, India. International Arachis Newsletter 14: 19-20. Nasirumbi L, Rubyogo JC, Ugen M, Namayanja A and Luyima G. 2008. Reaching farmers in remote areas with improved bean varieties: lessons from Uganda. Pages 113-118 in Farmers, seeds and varieties: supporting informal seed supply in Ethiopia (Thijssen M, Bishaw Z, Beshir A and de Boef WS. Eds.). Wageningen International, Programme for Capacity Development and Institutional Change, Wageningen University and Research Centre. PO Box 88, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands. Nigam SN and Blummel, M. 2010. Cultivar-dependent variation in food-feed-traits in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L). Animal Nutrition and Feed Technology 10S: 39-48. Nkonya E, Ndakidemi P, Mushi C and Normman D. 1998. Adoption and environmental impact of an improved bean variety in Northern Tanzania. A paper submitted for presentation at the AFSRE Symposium, Pretoria, South Africa, 30 Nov–4 Dec 1998. Noriharu A, Arihara J, Okada K, Yoshihara T and Johansen C. 1990. Phosphorus Uptake by pigeonpea and Its role in cropping systems of the Indian Subcontinent. Science 248: 477-480. Nyiraneza J and Snapp S. 2007. Integrated management of inorganic and organic nitrogen and efficiency in potato systems. Soil Science Society of America 71(5): 1508-1515. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – References 156 Olorunju PE, Kuhn CW, Demski JW, Misari SM and Ansa OA. 1992. Inheritance of resistance in peanut to mixed infections of groundnut rosette virus (GRV) and groundnut rosette assistor virus and a single infection of GRV. Plant Disease 76: 95-100. Opio F. 1999. Management of bean root rot in Uganda. A Technical Report of sub-project funded by African Highland Initiative. Ososki AL and Kennelly EJ. 2003. Phytoestrogens: a review of the present state of research. Phytotherapy Research 17: 845869. PABRA. 2008. Pan Africa Bean Research Alliance Annual Report 2008. Kampala, Uganda. 32 pp. PABRA. 2009. http://dapa.ciat.cgiar.org/pabra-climate-change-symposium/ Pande S, Gupta R, Dahiya SS, Chauhan YS, Singh S, Singh UP, Jat ML, Singh SS, Sharma HC, Rao JN and Chandna PC. 2006. Identification, Adoption and Expansion of Extra Short Duration Pigeonpea Variety ICPL 88039 in Rice and Wheat Cropping Systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plains of India. Technical Bulletin Series No. 8. New Delhi, India: Rice-Wheat Consortium, International Wheat and Maize Research Center (CIMMYT). 48 pp. Pandey P, Kang SC and Maheswari DK. 2005. Isolation of endophytic plant growth-promoting Burkholderia spp. MSSP from root nodules of Mimosa pudica. Current Science 89: 177-180. Parra-Quijano M, Iriondo JM, de la Cruz M and Torres E. 2011. Strategies for the development of core collections based on ecogeographical data. Crop Science 51: 656-666. Parthasarathy Rao P, Birthal PS, Bhagavatula S and Bantilan MCS. 2010. Chickpea and pigeonpea Economics in Asia: Facts, Trends and Outlook. ICRISAT, Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India. 76 pp. ISBN: 978-92-9066-530-4. Order code: BOE 049. Patrick I. 2003. Contract Farming in Indonesia: Smallholders and Agribusiness Working Together. ACIAR Technical Reports No. 54. Canberra, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. Paul C, Bowen CR, BandyopadhyayR, Tefera H, Adeleke R, Sikora E, Pegues MD and Hartman GL. 2010. Registration of three soybean germplasm lines resistant to Phakopsora pachyrhizi (soybean rust). Journal of Plant Registrations 4: 244-248. Phiri M, Chirwa R, Kandoole S and Tripp R. 2000. Introducing new bean varieties with small seed packs: Experience from Malawi. CIAT, Kampala, Uganda Network on Bean Research in Africa: Occasional Publications Series No. 32. Pimentel D and Patzek T. 2008. Ethanol production using corn, switchgrass and wood; Biodiesel production using soybean. Chapter 15. Pages 375-396 in Biofuels, solar and wind as renewable energy systems: Benefits and risks (Pimentel D. ed.). Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Poats S. 1991. The role of gender in agriculture development. Issues in Agriculture Research No.3.The Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research, CGIAR Library, J4-034. Quan Liang, Xiaohui Cheng, Mantong Mei, Xiaolong Yan and Hong Liao. 2010. QTL analysis of root traits as related to phosphorus efficiency in soybean. Annals of Botany 106: 223-234. Quiñones MA, Borlaug NE and Dowsell CR. 1997. A fertilizer-based green revolution for Africa. Pages 81-96 in Replenishing soil fertility in Africa (Buresh RJ and Sanchez PA. eds.). SSSA Special Publication 51.SSSA, Madison, WI, USA. Ramaekers L, Remans R, Rao IM, Blair MW and Vanderleyden J. 2010. Strategies for improving phosphorus acquisition efficiency of crop plants. Field Crops Research 117: 169-175. Ramírez-Villegas J, Khoury C, Jarvis A, Debouck DG and Guarino L. 2010. A gap analysis methodology for collecting crop genepools: a case study with Phaseolus beans. PLos ONE Biology 5: 1-18. Ranga Rao GV and Gopalakrishnan S. 2009. Bio-pesticides research at ICRISAT: A consortium model. In Proceedings of Expert Consultation on Biopesticides and Biofertilizers for Sustainable Agriculture, Organized by Asia-Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions (APAARI) & Council of Agriculture, Taipei (COA), Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute, Taichung, 27-29 October 2009. 17 pp. Rao IM. 2002. Role of physiology in improving crop adaptation to abiotic stresses in the tropics: The case of common bean and tropical forages. Pages 585-613 in Handbook of Plant and Crop Physiology (Pessarakli M. ed.). Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, USA. Reddy AA and Reddy GP. 2010. Supply side constraints in production of pulses in India: Case study of lentils. Agricultural Economics Research Review 23: 129-136. Reddy AA. 2004. Consumption pattern, trade and production potential of pulses. Economic and Political Weekly 39(44): 48544860. Reddy AA. 2009. Pulses production technology: Status and way forward. Economic and Political Weekly 44(52): 73-80. Reddy MV, Nene YL, Raju TN, Sheila VK, Nandita Sarkar, Remanandan P and Amin KS. 1990. Disease debris field inoculation technique for phytophthora blight of pigeonpea. International Pigeonpea Newsletter 12: 25-26. Republic of Niger 2011. Directory on the availability of improved seed. Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock. Ribaut JM, de Vicente MC and Delannay X. 2010. Molecular breeding in developing Countries: challenges and perspectives. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 13: 213-218. Rubyogo JC, Dickinson M, Mayes S and Assefa T. 2009b.Seed-health assessment of different bean seed grades and sources from Ethiopia using molecular tools. Journal of New Seeds 10: 293-310. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – References 157 Rubyogo JC, Magreta R, Kambewa D, Chirwa R and Mazuma E. 2011. Private Public Partnership in Bean Seed Delivery: Experience from Malawi. African Crop Science Journal (in press). Rubyogo JC, Sperling L and Assefa T. 2007. A new Approach for facilitating farmers access to bean seed. LEISA Magazine 23: 2729. Rubyogo JC, Sperling L, Karanja DR, Seward P and Leakey J. 2009a. Public-Private Sector Partnerships: the power of small seed packs for reaching 100,000s of Kenyan bean farmers. Poster presented during CIAT Annual Review Meeting in CaliColombia. Rubyogo JC, Sperling L, Muthoni R and Robin Buruchara. 2010. Bean seed delivery for small farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa: The power of partnerships. Society and Natural Resources 23: 285-302. Rysavy A, Dumet D, Sonder K and Sauerborn J. 2009. GIS based gap analysis as a tool for biodiversity conservation optimisation: The IITA Cowpea Collection. In Proceeding of Biophysical and Socio-economic Frame Conditions for the Sustainable Management of Natural Resources: International research on food security, natural resource management and rural development (Eric Tielkes. ed.), Tropentag, 6-8 October 2009, Hamburg, Germany. Saitou N and Nei M. 1987. The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Molecular Biology and Evolution 4: 406-425. Sakai T and Kogiso M. 2008. Soy isoflavones and immunity. Journal of Investigative Medicine 55(3-4): 167-173. Salomé PA, Bomblies K, Laitinen RAE, Yant L, Mott R and Weigel D. 2011. Genetic architecture of flowering time variation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Genetics 188: 421-433. Sanchez PE. 2002. Soil fertility and hunger in Africa. Science 295: 2019-2020. Saxena KB and Nadarajan N. 2010. Prospects of pigeonpea hybrids in Indian agriculture. Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding 1(4): 1107-1117. Saxena KB, Kumar RV and Sultana R. 2010. Quality nutrition through pigeonpea—a review. Health 2(11): 1335-1344. Saxena KB, Kumar RV, Srivastava N and Shiying B. 2005. A cytoplasmic-nuclear male-sterility system derived from a cross between Cajanus cajanifolius and Cajanus cajan. Euphytica 145:291-296. Sedgley RH, Siddique KHM and Walton GH. 1990. Chickpea ideotypes for Mediterranean environments. Pages 87-91 in Chickpea in the nineties: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Chickpea Improvement (van Rheenen HA, Saxena MC, Walby BJ and Hall SD. eds.). ICRISAT, Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India. Serraj R (ed.). 2004. Symbiotic nitrogen fixation. Prospects for enhanced application in tropical agriculture. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. 367 pp. Serraj R and Sinclair TR. 1996. Processes contributing to N2-fixation insensitivity to drought in the soybean cultivar Jackson. Crop Science 36: 961-968. Serraj R and Sinclair TR. 1998. N2 fixation response to drought in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L). Annals of Botany 82: 229-234. Serraj R, Sinclair TR and Purcell LC. 1999. Symbiotic N2 fixation response to drought. Journal of Experimental Botany 50: 143155. Setimela P, Chitalu Z, Jonazi J, Mambo A, Hodson D and Bänziger M. 2005. Environmental classification of maize-testing sites in the SADC region and its implication for collaborative maize breeding strategies in the subcontinent. Euphytica145: 123-132. Sharma HC (ed.). 2005. Heliothis/Helicoverpa Management: Emerging Trends and Strategies for Future Research. New Delhi, India: Oxford & IBH, and Science Publishers, USA. 469 pp. Sharma HC and Ortiz R. 2000. Transgenics, pest management, and the environment. Current Science 79: 421-437. Sharma HC, Dhillon MK and Arora R. 2008. Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis δ-endotoxin fed Helicoverpaarmigeraon the survival and development of the parasitoid Campoletis chlorideae. Entomologia. Experimentaliset Applicata 126: 1-8. Sharma HC, Srivastava CP, Durairaj C and Gowda CLL. 2010. Pest management in grain legumes and climate change. Pages 115140 in Climate Change and Management of Cool Season Grain Legume Crops (Yadav SS, McNeil DL, Redden R and Patil SA. eds.). Springer Science + Business Media, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Sharma HC. 1997. Biology, host plant resistance, and management of the legume pod borer, Marucavitrata-A review. Crop Protection 17: 373-386. Sharma HC. 2006. Integrated Pest Management Research at ICRISAT: Present Status and Future Priorities. ICRISAT, Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India. 43 pp. Sharma HC. 2009. Biotechnological Approaches for Pest Management and Ecological Sustainability. CRC Press/Taylor and Francis, New York, USA.526 pp. Sharma KK and Lavanya M. 2002. Recent developments in transgenics for abiotic stress in legumes of the semi-arid tropics. Pages 61–73 in Genetic engineering of crop plants for abiotic stress (Ivanaga M. ed.). Working Report 23. JIRCAS, Tsukuba, Japan. Sharma KK and Ortiz R. 2000. Program for the application of genetic transformation for crop improvement in the semi-arid tropics. In Vitro Cellular and Developmental Biology of Plants 36: 83-92. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – References 158 Sharma KK, Bhatnagar-Mathur P and Thorpe TA. 2005. Genetic transformation technology: status and problems. In Vitro Cellular and Developmental Biology of Plants 41: 102-112. Shiferaw B, Kebede T and You L. 2008a. Technology adoption under seed access constraints and the economic impacts of improved pigeonpea varieties in Tanzania. Agricultural Economics 39: 309-323. Shiferaw B, Okello J, Muricho G, Omiti J, Silim S and Jones R. 2008b. Unlocking the potential of high-value legumes in the semiarid regions. Analyses of the Pigeonpea Value Chain in Kenya, Nairobi: ICRISAT. Shiferaw B, Silim S, Muricho G, Audi P, Mligo J, Lyimo S, You L and Christiansen JL. 2007. Assessment of the adoption and impact of improved pigeonpea varieties in Tanzania. Journal of SAT Agricultural Research 3(1): 1-27. Simtowe F, Asfaw S, Diagne A and Shiferaw B. 2010. Determinants of agricultural technology adoption: the case of improved groundnut varieties in Malawi. Contributed paper at the meeting of African Association of Agricultural Economists, Capetown, September 2010. Simtowe F, Shiferaw B, Kassie M, Abate T, Silim S, Siambi M, Madzonga O, Muricho G and Kananji G. 2010. Assessment of the current situation and future outlooks for the pigeonpea sub-sector in Malawi. Nairobi: ICRISAT. 52 pp. Sinclair TR and Serraj R. 1995. Legume nitrogen fixation and drought. Nature 378: 344. Sinclair TR and Vadez V. 2002. Physiological traits for crop yield improvement in low N and P environments. Plant and Soil 245: 1-15. Sinclair TR, Messina CD, Beatty A and Samples M. 2010. Assessment across the United States of the benefits of altered soybean drought traits. Agronomy Journal 102: 475–482. Sinclair TR, Purcell LC, Vadez V, Serraj R, King CA and Nelson R. 2000. Identification of soybean genotypes with N2 fixation tolerance to water deficits. Crop Science 40: 1803-1809. Sinclair T.R., Purcell L.C., King A., Sneller C.H., Chen P. and Vadez V. 2007. Drought tolerance and yield increase of soybean resulting from improved symbiotic N2 fixation. Field Crops Research 101:68-71. Sinclair TR, Vadez V and Chenu K. 2003.Ureide Accumulation in response to Mn nutrition by eight soybean genotypes with N2 fixation tolerance to soil drying. Crop Science 43: 592–597. Singh K, Malhotra R, Saxena M and Bejiga G. 1997. Superiority of winter sowing over traditional spring sowing of chickpea in the Mediterranean region. Agronomy Journal 89: 112-118. Singh P, Aggarwal PK, Bahatia VS, Murty MVR, Pala M, Oweis T, Benli B, Rao KPC and Wani SP. 2009. Yield gap analysis: Modeling of achievable yields at farm level. Pages 81-123 in Unlocking the potential. Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture (Wani SP, Rockstrom J and Oweis T. eds.). London, UK: CABI Publishing. Singh P, Vijaya D, Chinh NT, AroonPongkanjana, Prasad KS, Srinivas K and Wani SP. 2001. Potential productivity and yield gap of selected crops in the rainfed regions of India, Thailand, and Vietnam. Natural Resource Management Program Report no. 5. ICRISAT, Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India. 50 pp. Singh SK, Nene YL and Reddy MV. 1990. Influence of cropping system on Macrophomina phaseolina population in soil. Plant Diseases 74: 812-814. Singh SP and Schwartz HF. 2010. Breeding common bean for resistance to diseases: a review. Crop Science 50: 2199-2223. Singh Y, Chaudhary DC, Singh SP, Bhardwaj AK and Singh D. 1996. Sustainability of rice (Oryza sativa)-wheat (Triticum aestivum) sequential cropping through introduction of legume crops and green manure crop in the system. Indian Journal of Agronomy 41: 510-514. Snowden D. 2002. Complex acts of knowing: Paradox and descriptive self- awareness. Journal of Knowledge Management 6: 100-111. Sonnante G, Stockton T, Nodari RO, Becerra Velásquez VL and Gepts P. 1994. Evolution of genetic diversity during the domestication of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Theoretical and Applied Genetics 89: 629-635. Specht JE, Hume DJ and Kumudini SV. 1999. Soybean yield potential – a genetic and physiological perspective. Crop Science 39: 1560-1570. Sperling L and Scheidegger U. 1995. Participatory selection of beans in Rwanda: Results, methods and institutional issues. International Institute for Environment and Development. Gatekeeper Series No. 51. IIED, London. Sperling L, Loevinsohn ME and Ntabomvura B. 1993. Rethinking the farmer’s role in plant breeding: Local bean experts and onstation selection in Rwanda. Experimental Agriculture 29: 509-519. Sperling L. Scheidegger U and Buruchara R. 1996. Designing seed systems with small farmers: principles derived from bean research in the Great Lakes Region of Africa. London: Overseas Development Institute Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension) Network Paper No. 60. Spielman D, Hartwich F and von Grebmer K. 2007. Sharing science, building bridges, and enhancing impact: Public-private partnerships in the CGIAR. IFPRI Discussion Paper 708. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Srinivasan R, Tamo M, Ooi PAC and Easdown W. 2007. IPM for Maruca vitrata on food legumes in Asia and Africa. Biocontrol News and Information 28: 34N-37N. Stangoulis J and Sison C. 2008. Crop sampling protocols for micronutrient analysis. HarvestPlus Technical Monograph Series #7. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – References 159 Stein AJ. 2006. Micronutrient malnutrition and the impact of modern plant breeding on public health in India: How costeffective is bio-fortification? Göttingen: Cuvillier Verlag. ISBN: 3865379478. Tako E, MoisesLaparra J, Glahn RP, Welch RM, Lei XG, Beebe S and Miller DD. 2009. Biofortified black beans in a maize and bean diet provide more bioavailable iron to piglets than standard black beans. Journal of Nutrition 139: 1-5. Tan S and Bowe SJ. 2009. Developing herbicide-tolerant crops from mutations. Page(s) 315 in Induced Plant Mutations in the Genomics Era (Shu QY, ed.). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Tanammal R. 2011. MSc. Thesis, University of Hohenheim, Germany. In preparation. Tanksley SD and McCouch SR. 1997. Seed banks and molecular maps: Unlocking genetic potential from the wild. Science 277: 1063-1066. Tanumihardjo SA, Anderson C, Kaufer, Horwitz M, Bode L, Emenaker NJ, Haqq AM, Satia JA, Silver HJ and Stadler DD. 2007. Poverty, Obesity and Malnutrition: An international perspective recognizing the paradox. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 107: 1966-1972. Tefera H. 2011. Breeding for Promiscuous Soybeans at IITA. Pages 147-162 in Soybean-Molecular Aspects of Breeding (Aleksandra Sudaric ed.)., ISBN: 978-953-307-240-1, InTech, Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/breeding-for-promiscuous-soybeans-at-IITA Teshale A, Rubyogo JC, Sperling L, Amsalu B, Abate T, Deressa A, Reda F, Kirkby R and Buruchara R. 2006. Creating partnerships for enhanced impact; bean variety delivery in Ethiopia. Journal of Crop science society of Ethiopia 12: 1-19. Thompson JD, Gibsom TJ, Plewniak F, Jeanmougin F and Higgins DG. 1997. The clustalX windows interface: flexible strategies for multiple sequence alignment aided by quality analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Research 24: 4876-4882. Thompson MD, Thompson HJ, Brick MA, McGinley JN, Jiang W, Zhu Z and Wolfe P. 2008. Mechanisms associated with dosedependent inhibition of rat mammary carcinogenesis by dry bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Journal of Nutrition 138: 20912097. Timko MP, Ehlers JD and Roberts PA. 2007. Cowpea. Pages 49-67 in Pulses, sugar and tuber crops, genome mapping and molecular breeding in plants (Kole C. ed.), Volume 3. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg. Tiwari BK, Tiwari U, Jagan Mohan R and Alagusundaram K. 2008. Effect of various pre-treatments on functional, physiochemical, and cooking properties of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L). Food Science and Technology International 14: 487-495. TLII Project Annual Report 2010. Proceedings of the TLII (Tropical Legumes II Project) annual report 2010. Presented during the annual review meeting, 22-25 May 2011, Lilongwe, Malawi. Published in 2011. Tohme J, Jones P, Beebe S and Iwanaga M. 1995. The combined use of agroecological and characterization data to establish the CIAT Phaseolus vulgaris core collection. Pages 95-107 in Core collections of plant genetic resources (Hodgkin T, Brown AHD, van Hintum Th JL and Morales EAV. eds.). J. Wiley and Sons; Chichester, UK. Tripp R and Rohrbach D. 2001. Policies for African seed enterprise development. Food Policy 26: 147-161. Tripp R. 2011. The impacts of food legume research in the CGIAR. A scoping study for the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment (SPIA) of the CGIAR Independent Science & Partnership Council. 43 pp. http://impact.cgiar.org/ sites/default/files/images/LegumeScoping2011.pdf. Tripp Robert. 2006. The Case for Foundation Seed Enterprises in Sub-Saharan Africa. Overseas Development Institute, 111 Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7JD, UK. 30 pp. Trivedi TP, Yadav CP, Vishwadhar, Srivastava CP, Dhandapani A, Das DK and Singh J. 2005. Monitoring and forecasting of Heliothis/Helicoverpa populations. Pages 119-140 in Heliothis/ Helicoverpa Management: Emerging Trends and Strategies for Future Research (Sharma HC. ed.). New Delhi, India: Oxford & IBH, and Science Publishers, USA. Twizeyimana M, Ojiambo PS, Hartman GL and Bandyopadhyay R. 2010.Dynamics of soybean rust epidemics on an early and late maturing soybean cultivar. Plant Disease 95: 43-50. Twizeyimana M, Ojiambo PS, Haudenshield JS, Caetano-Anollés G, Pedley KF, Bandyopadhyay R and Hartman GL. 2011. Genetic structure and diversity of Phakopsora pachyrhizi isolates from soybean. Plant Pathology 60: 719-729. Upadhyaya HD and Gowda CLL. 2009. Managing and enhancing use of germplasm- strategies and methodologies. Technical Manual no 10, ICRISAT, Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India. 236 pp. Upadhyaya HD and Ortiz R. 2001. A mini core collection for capturing diversity and promoting utilization of chickpea genetic resources in crop improvement. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 102: 1292-1298. Upadhyaya HD, Bramel PJ, Ortiz R and Singh S. 2002. Developing a mini core of peanut for utilization of genetic resources. Crop Science 42: 2150-2156. Upadhyaya HD, Dronavalli N, Gowda CLL and Sube Singh. 2011. Identification and evaluation of chickpea germplasm for tolerance to heat stress. Crop Science 51:2079-94. Upadhyaya HD, Dwivedi SL, Baum M, Varshney RK, Udupa SM, Gowda CLL, Hoisington D and Singh S. 2008. Genetic structure, diversity and allelic richness in composite collection and reference set in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). BMC Plant Biology 8: 106. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2229/8/106. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – References 160 Upadhyaya HD, Gowda CLL, Buhariwalla HK and Crouch JH. 2006. Efficient use of crop germplasm resources: identifying useful germplasm for crop improvement through core and mini core collections and molecular marker approaches. Plant Genetic Resources 4: 25-35. Upadhyaya HD, Pundir RPS, Dwivedi SL and Gowda CLL. 2009. Mini core collections for efficient utilization of plant genetic resources in crop improvement programs. Information Bulletin no 78, ICRISAT, Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India. 52 pp. ISBN 978-92-9066-519-9 Order code IBE 078. Upadhyaya HD, Reddy KN, Sharma S, Varshney RK, Bhattacharjee R, Singh S and Gowda CLL. 2011. Pigeonpea composite collection for enhanced utilization of germplasm in crop improvement programs. Plant Genetic Resources: Characterization and Utilization 9: 97-108. Upadhyaya HD, Reddy LJ, Gowda CLL, Reddy KN and Singh S. 2006. Development of a mini core subset for enhanced and diversified utilization of Pigeonpea germplasm resources. Crop Science 46: 2127-2132. Upadhyaya HD. 2008. Crop germplasm and wild relatives: a source of novel variation for crop improvement. Korean Journal of Crop Science 53: 12-17. USDA. 2010. http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2010/PolicyDoc/ Chapter4.pdf Vadez V and Sinclair TR. 2001. Leaf ureide degradation and N2 fixation tolerance to water deficit in soybean. Journal of Experimental Botany 52: 153-159. Vadez V, Deshpande SP, Kholova J, Hammer GL, Borrell AK, Talwar HS and Hash CT. 2011a. Staygreen QTL effects on water extraction and transpiration efficiency in a lysimetric system: Influence of genetic background. Functional Plant Biology 38: 553-566. Vadez V, Lasso JH, Beck DP and Drevon JJ. 1999. Variability of N2-fixation in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) under Pdeficiency is related to P use efficiency. Euphytica 106(3): 231-242. Vadez V, Rao S, Kholova J, Krishnamurthy L, Kashiwagi J, Ratnakumar P, Sharma KK, Bhatnagar-Mathur P and Basu PS. 2008. Roots research for legume tolerance to drought: Quo vadis? Journal of Food Legumes 21: 77-85. Vadez V, Rodier F, Payre H and Drevon JJ. 1996. Nodule permeability to O2 and nitrogenase-linked respiration in bean genotypes varying in the tolerance of N2 fixation to P deficiency. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 34: 871-878. Vadez V, Warkentin T, Asseng S, Ratnakumar P, Rao KPC, Gaur PM, Munier-Jolain N, Larmure A, Voisin AS, Sharma HC, Krishnamurthy L and Zaman-Allah M. 2011b. Adapting grain legumes to climatic changes: A review. Agronomy for sustainable development. DOI:10.1007/s13593-011-0020-6. Value Chain Finance Centre. 2009. Agricultural value chain financing in Kenya: Assessment of potential opportunities for growth. Nairobi. 81 pp. van Emden HF, Ball SL and Rao MR. 1988. Pest, disease and weed problems in pea lentil faba bean and chickpea. Pages 519-534 in World Crops: Cool season food legumes (Summerfield RJ. ed.). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Varshney RK, Close TJ, Singh NK, Hoisington DA and Cook DR. 2009a. Orphan legume crops enter the genomics era! Current Opinion in Plant Biology 12: 202-210. Varshney RK, Glaszmann JC, Leung H and Ribaut JM. 2010. More genomic resources for less-studied crops. Trends in Biotechnology 28: 452-460. Varshney RK, Nayak SN, May GD and Jackson SA. 2009b. Next-generation sequencing technologies and their implications for crop genetics and breeding. Trends in Biotechnology 27: 522-530. Vega FE, Posada F, Aime MC, Pava-Ripoll M, Infante F and Rehner SA. 2008. Entomopathogenic fungal endophytes. Biological Control 46: 72-82. Wahid A, Gelani S, Ashraf M and Foolad MR. 2007. Heat tolerance in plants: An overview. Environmental and Experimental Botany 61: 199-223. Waliyar F. 1991. Yield losses of groundnut due to foliar diseases in West Africa. Proc. 2nd Reg. Groundnut Workshop, Niamey, Niger, ICRISAT, Patancheru, India. Wani SP, Rupela OP and Lee KK. 1995. Sustainable agriculture in the semi-arid tropics through biological nitrogen fixation in grain legumes. Plant Soil 174: 29-49. Warning M and Key N. 2000. The social performance and distributional impact of contract farming: The Arachide de Bouche Program in Senegal. Working paper 00-3.Department of Economics, University of Puget Sound. http://www.ups.edu/faculty/mwarning/papers.htm. Wenden B and Rameau C. 2009. Systems biology for plant breeding: the example of flowering time in pea. Comptes Rendus Biologies 332: 998-1006. Wenger E. 1994. Knowledge management as a doughnut: Shaping your knowledge strategy through communities of practice. Ivey Business Journal. Wood JA and Grusak MA. 2007. Nutritional value of chickpea. Pages 101-142 in Chickpea breeding and management (Yadav SS, Redden RJ, Chen W and Sharma B. eds.). Oxfordshire, UK: CAB International. World Bank 2008. World Development Report. Agriculture for Development. Washington DC: The World Bank, USA. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – References 161 Worldwide prevalence of anaemia 1993-2005.WHO Global Database on Anaemia Geneva, World Health Organization, 2008. Wortmann CS, Kirkby RA, Elude CA and Allen DJ. 1998. Atlas of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) production in Africa. CIAT Publication No.297. 133 pp. Yadav SS, McNeil DL and Stevenson PC (eds.). 2007. Lentil: an Ancient Crop for Modern Times. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Yadav SS, Redden R, Hatfield JL, Lotze-Campen H and Hall A. 2011. Crop adaptation to climate change. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (In press). Yanguba AJ. 2009. Adoption and social impact assessment of soybean production and utilization in southern Borno State, Northern Nigeria. Maiduguri: Promoting Sustainable Agriculture in Borno State (PROSAB) project report. 125 pp. Yayock JY, Rossel HW and Harkness C. 1976. A review of the 1975 groundnut rosette epidemic in Nigeria. Samaru Conference Paper 9. Institute for Agricultural Research (Samaru). Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, Nigeria. 12 pp. Yenish JP. 2007. Weed Management in Chickpea. Pages 233-245 in Chickpea Breeding and Management (Yadav SS, Redden RJ, Chen W and Sharma B. eds.). CAB International, Oxfordshire, UK. ISBN 1-84593-213-7. Zaman-Allah M, Jenkinson D and Vadez V. 2011. A conservative pattern of water use, rather than deep or profuse rooting, is critical for the terminal drought tolerance of chickpea. Journal of Experimental Botany doi: 10.1093/jxb/err139. Zaman-Allah M, Jenkinson D and Vadez V. 2011. 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: 270-281. Zengeni R and Giller KE. 2007. Effectiveness of indigenous soybean rhizobial isolates to fix nitrogen under field conditions of Zimbabwe. Symbiosis 43: 129-135. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – References 162 Appendix 1. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES Initial Partners: Capacities and Priorities CIAT: The International Center for Tropical Agriculture, Colombia CIAT, headquartered in Cali, Colombia holds a mandate for research on Phaseolus beans. The Phaseolus genus is of neotropical origin and CIAT is located in the center of diversity of the crop. Five cultivated species of Phaseolus are conserved in the Genetic Resources Unit (almost 40,000 accessions), although most research is directed towards Phaseolus vulgaris, the common bean. The ecologies in which Phaseolus species evolved range from arid to tropical rainforests, so the genus offers a unique perspective on adaptations across extremes of environmental conditions – especially relevant to looming climate change. The species with which the common bean may be hybridized cover most of this range, and represent a unique reservoir of genetic diversity. CIAT’s historical strength has been in genetic improvement. More than 300 varieties have been released by countries in Latin America and more than 170 in Africa. On both continents disease-resistant varieties have been the primary product. In Latin America varieties with resistance to Gemini viruses have been the hallmarks, while in Africa root rot resistant varieties have sustained bean production in western Kenya and neighboring countries. The most dramatic impact has resulted from the introduction of improved climbing bean varieties in central and eastern Africa, first in Rwanda where they tripled yields, and subsequently spreading to Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. Thirty years ago Rwanda was a net importer of beans; today that country exports beans to its neighbors. CIAT has long emphasized participatory research and farmer involvement in the selection of new varieties. CIAT also pioneered the establishment of functional regional research networks, first in Central America, followed by East-Central Africa and the Andean zone. Today the Pan-African Bean Research Alliance (PABRA) is a model for partnership and has served to jump start the Wider Impact Program – a platform for interaction among actors along the research-to-development continuum that nurtures impact pathways by facilitating communication between those who supply and those who demand new technology. To CRP 3.5, CIAT contributes a headquarters team of two breeders, a molecular biologist, a pathologist, an entomologist and a plant nutritionist is supported by shared-time contributions from agricultural geographers, a human nutritionist, a biometrician and statisticians. In Africa (Uganda and Malawi) CIAT contributes breeders, a pathologist, an agricultural economist, a geographer, a marketing specialist, and a seed systems specialist. Looking ahead, climate change will bring particular challenges to bean cultivation. Central America and Mexico have always suffered periodic droughts, and meteorologists predict that the region will become progressively drier. However, beans are even more sensitive to excess moisture, and eastern Africa and the Andean zone may suffer greater average rainfall with accompanying disease pressure of root rots and other fungi. Soil fertility continues to be the biggest single constraint on bean yields, and climate change will likely accelerate the mineralization of organic matter, making such constraints even more acute. Adapting beans to problem soils will be the biggest challenge of all for increasing bean yields, and forms a major activity in CIAT’s current research agenda. EIAR: Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Ethiopia Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), formerly known as the Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (EARO), is part of Ethiopian Agricultural Research System (EARS), and is the largest NARS institution which is responsible for the running of federal agriculture research centers. It is head quartered at Addis Ababa and is run under the aegis of Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. In addition to conducting research at its federal centers, EIAR is charged with the CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 1 163 responsibility for providing the overall coordination of agricultural research countrywide, and advising Government on agricultural research policy formulation. Currently, the EARS comprise 55 research centers and sites located across various agro-ecological zones. The research centers vary in their experience, human, facility, and other resources capacities. Some of the research centers and sites have one or more sub-centers and testing sites. EIAR’s mission is to conduct research that will provide market competitive agricultural technologies that will contribute to increased agricultural productivity and nutrition quality, sustainable food security, economic development, and conservation of the integrity of natural resources and the environment. As an apex body, EIAR provides strong leadership in coordinating research within the EARS, by taking a leading role in influencing agricultural policy development. Core Mandates of EIAR include: Supply of improved agricultural technologies  Popularization of improved technologies  Coordination the national agricultural Researches  Capacity building of Researchers The grain legume priorities of EIAR’s research include chickpea, lentil, pea, horse bean, mung bean and haricot bean. EMBRAPA: The Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, Brazil The Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA) located in Distrito Federal, serves Brazilian society through the 38 Research Centers, 3 Service Centers and 13 Central Divisions distributed in different states of Brazil. There are 8,275 employees of which 2,113 are researchers. EMBRAPA coordinates the National Agricultural Research System, which includes most public and private entities involved in agricultural research in the country. EMBRAPA maintains projects in international cooperation in order to perfect knowledge of technical and scientific activities or to share knowledge and technology with other countries. EMBRAPA has generated and recommended more than 9000 technologies for Brazilian agriculture, reduced production costs and helped Brazil to increase the offer of food while, at the same time, conserving natural resources and the environment and diminishing external dependence on technologies, basic products and genetic materials. EMBRAPA’s current major research areas include: (i) Genetic improvement of soybean, wheat and sunflower cultivars; (ii) Soybean pest control techniques; (iii) Techniques in reduction of soybean harvest loss; (iv) Soil-plant management for soybean production stability; (v) Socio-economic studies of soybean production. Hence soybean, bean and groundnut are EMBRAPA’s grain legume priority crops; CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES outcomes would certainly add strengths to EMBRAPA’s program and vice versa. Products that EMBRAPA can share with CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES include: (i) Specialized publications and video-tapes; (ii) Biological insecticides and parasiticides for soybean pests; and (iii) Improved Soybean cultivars. GCP: The Generation Challenge Programme The Generation Challenge Programme (GCP) was created by the CGIAR in 2003 as a time-bound 10year program. Its mission is to use genetic diversity and advanced plant science to improve crops by adding value to breeding for drought-prone and harsh environments. This is achieved through a network of more than 200 partners (as of 2009) drawn from CGIAR Centers, academia, regional and national research programs, and capacity enhancement to assist developing world researchers to tap into a broader and richer pool of plant genetic diversity.  CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 1 164 GCP’s network advances the frontiers of knowledge and develops practical tools such as molecular markers for desirable genes, for efficient field selection in plant breeding. Through its network of partners in the CGIAR, ARIs, NARS and private sector, GCP implements programs that bring together plant scientists from different disciplines to improve crops for the ultimate benefit of resource-poor farmers. GCP works with cutting-edge plant biology research partners, and augments the efforts of the CGIAR and the broader agricultural research-for-development community. In the context of this CRP, GCP’s efforts to develop an Integrated Breeding Platform and associated innovative breeding projects on various crops will be of tremendous value. This platform will comprise a one-stop-shop providing access to genetic stocks, pre-breeding materials, high throughput services for marker and trait evaluation, informatics tools, support services, capacity development and community support for conducting genomics research and integrated breeding projects. (www.generationcp.org) GDAR: General Directorate of Agricultural Research, Turkey Agricultural Research in Turkey is considered essentially a public duty which is mainly covered by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA). Other functionaries which also took part in agricultural development are the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Universities and TUBITAK (Turkish Scientific and Technological Council). General Directorate of Agricultural Research (GDAR) is the apex body to administer agricultural research in Republic of Turkey, and is part of MARA. Under the administration of GDAR, there are 7 Central, 9 Regional, 32 subject-specific (14 Horticulture and Field Crops, 3 Plant Health, 4 Animal Husbandry, 3 Aquaculture and 8 Animal Health) and 12 Soil and Water Research Institutes are in operation throughout the country. Human Resources at GDAR include 1608 staff of which men are 1102 (69%) and women are 506 (31%). Current Research Activities of GDAR: Biodiversity/Genetic Resources and Plant Improvement; Integrated Growing/Production Systems/ICM; Post-harvest Technologies; Agricultural Economy/ Marketing; Food and Feed Technologies; Soil and Water Resources Management; Organic Agriculture; and Biosafety. ICAR: Indian Council of Agricultural Research, India The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) is an autonomous organization under the Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE), Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. ICAR is headquartered in New Delhi. With 97 ICAR institutes and 47 agricultural universities across the country, ICAR is one of the largest national agricultural systems in the world. As the apex body for coordinating, guiding and managing research and education in agriculture in the country, ICAR provides advice that informs government policies and programs on grain legume food security issues. More than 250 scientists work on legumes in ICAR programs. ICAR institutes that work on grain legumes include the Indian Institute for Pulses Research (IIPR, Kanpur), the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI, New Delhi), the Central Research Institute of Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA; Hyderabad), the Directorate of Groundnut Research (Junagadh), and the Directorate of Soybean Research (Indore). Under the All India Coordinated Research Project (AICRP) 58 research institutes (including state agricultural universities) work on chickpea, and 22 research institutes each work on pigeonpea and groundnut. Collectively these institutions address a wide range of grain legumes including chickpea (Cicer arietinum), pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan), mung bean (Vigna radiata), urdbean (black gram; Vigna mungo), lentil (Lens culinaris), lathyrus (Lathyrus sativus), common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), pea (Pisum sativum), groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) and soybean (Glycine max). They address plant breeding, biotechnology, genetic resources (collection, evaluation and conservation), cropping systems research, integrated pest and disease management, on-farm research and informatics and postharvest technology. The main issues that the ICAR institutes are currently addressing include increasing and stabilizing the production of legumes, in order to address national production shortfalls and to reduce the prices of CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 1 165 these commodities, insect pest resistance (particularly against Helicoverpa) and expanding legume cultivation in rice fallows and other niches. ICAR works collaboratively with many CGIAR centers. Some of the strengths that the ICAR institutes that will contribute to CRP 3.5 include: (i) a large network of testing sites/locations for multi-location evaluation; (ii) capacity development for other NARS, especially from South Asia; (iii) leadership in farm machinery, mechanization, postharvest technologies, and development of novel food products; and (iv) possible coordination of activities in crops for centers not having offices in India ICARDA: International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas, Syria ICARDA conducts breeding improvement R4D on kabuli chickpea, lentil, faba bean and grasspea in the temperate zone of the developing world, and is exploring expansion into field pea (Pisum sativum). ICARDA holds large genetic resource collections of all these crops and carries out collection, conservation and utilization studies to enhance their utility for crop improvement. A few major accomplishments to date include the development of winter planted chickpea technology for West Asia and North Africa that more than doubles yields; improved short-duration lentil varieties that triggered an increase in production from 600,000 tons to 1.27 million tons in the last 30 years in South Asia; new faba bean varieties that have contributed to poverty alleviation in Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt; and the release of low-neurotoxin grasspea variety in Ethiopia. Drought, cold, heat and salinity tolerance are major abiotic challenges being addressed though breeding, while soil-borne and foliar pathogens and parasitic weeds are leading biotic constraints receiving attention. This includes resistance breeding/screening and integrated pest management of leaf miner, aphids and Sitona weevils, and against important viruses of grain legumes along with seed health testing, diagnostic kits for viruses, and village-level seed systems support. Conventional and molecular breeding approaches are utilized. For pests not endemic/epidemic in Syria, ICARDA relies on partnership with NARS to screen target crosses and other genetic materials. Agronomic research addresses tillage effects (till vs. no-till, irrigation vs. rainfed) on disease resistance and yield. Major current activities focus on:   Developing pre-breeding programs to introgress useful allele(s)/genes particularly from wild relatives; Increasing R4D on climate variability and development of heat, cold, and drought resistant germplasm using modern biotech approaches such as QTL and association mapping of these traits in lentil and chickpea; Developing disease and pest resistant varieties and IPM packages for existing and new biotic emerging threats in response to climate variability and change; Addressing pest problems in South Asia especially botrytis grey mold, wilt/root rot resistance and Stemphylium blight in partnership with NARS; A new effort to introduce pulses such as lentil into rice-fallow systems; Developing kabuli chickpea for East Africa (e.g. Ethiopia) to enter in the international kabuli commodity market; Developing different market classes of lentil and faba bean;       Biofortification of lentil with iron and zinc and extending the work to chickpea, faba bean and pea; Strengths that ICARDA will contribute to CRP 3.5 include a bio-pesticide laboratory; a large collection of bio-control agents; a strong seed technology section also focusing on seed delivery systems; screening facilities for Fusarium wilt, Ascochyta blight, cold tolerance and water supply variability; a wellorganized plant virology laboratory providing training and support of NARS in virus identification and diagnosis; geospatial sciences capacity that improves understanding of germplasm and targeting of breeding efforts to fit climatic and soil environments; food-feed and crop residue research including a CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 1 166 small ruminant research unit (sheep and goats); a biotechnology laboratory that routinely transforms chickpea and lentil; a large collection of Rhizobium (1400 accessions) for BNF R4D; a legume food quality lab addressing nutritional (iron, zinc); and a strong international germplasm testing network with NARS. ICRISAT: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, India ICRISAT improves chickpea, groundnut and pigeonpea crops and systems that are widespread across the tropical drylands and beyond. These crops are among the hardiest of the grain legumes against drought and heat, having evolved under conditions of high variability in rainfall, temperature and soil quality. ICRISAT holds in trust for humanity one of the world’s largest collections of grain legume genetic resources. This includes 20,140 accessions of chickpea, 15,419 of groundnut, and 13,632 of pigeonpea. ICRISAT conducts R4D on the characterization and use of this germplasm for plant breeding, including drought and heat physiology, pathology and entomology studies supported by a strong biotechnology effort. Cropping systems R4D addresses soil, water and nutrient management, while markets, institutions and policies are also studied to enhance market-access and profits for poor farmers. All these directions are accompanied by capacity-building activities to strengthen partner institutions across the dryland tropics of Africa and Asia. Impacts to date have been large. Fifty-four countries have released improved cultivars of groundnut (135), chickpea (116) and pigeonpea (65) using germplasm accessions and breeding materials supplied by ICRISAT, resulting in impacts estimated at over US$150 million annually in increased production. A few of these impacts are highlighted in Chapter 3. With their partners, biotechnologists in ICRISAT have constructed reference genetic maps in chickpea, groundnut and pigeonpea, and are in the process of sequencing the genomes of chickpea and pigeonpea. In the partnership arena, ICRISAT has played a catalytic and coordinating role in the Cereals Legumes Asia Network (CLAN) since its inception. In recent years ICRISAT pioneered an important public-private partnership known as the Hybrid Parents Research Consortium (HPRC) with private-sector seed companies to which all partners contribute to advance hybrid varieties and seed supply chains. Another private-public partnership achievement is the Agri-business Innovation Platform (AIP) that fosters entrepreneurship to increase the availability of modern technology to poor dryland tropical farming communities. ICRISAT will contribute the experiences, partnerships and capacities gained in all the above areas to CRP 3.5. IITA: International Institute for Tropical Agriculture, Nigeria IITA improves cowpea and soybean for the sub-humid and semi-arid areas of sub-Saharan Africa. Research on the important but neglected bambara groundnut crop has recently been re-initiated. IITA aims to improve integrated farming systems, varieties, seed systems, plant health management and natural resource management. IITA also addresses postharvest value-chain activities in order to stimulate commercial demand through improved processing and marketing of grain legume products. In view of the integrated and multiple objectives of smallholder farmers in Africa, IITA develops multiple-purpose varieties that provided grains for human food, feed for livestock and improve soil fertility. These targets include the development of efficient and effective rhizobial inoculants to enhance BNF, and integrated plant health management options. The IITA genebank holds the world's largest and most diverse collection of cowpeas, with 15,122 accessions from 88 countries representing 70% of African cultivars and nearly half of the crop’s global diversity. The gene bank also holds 1742 soybean and 1815 bambara groundnut. In cowpea the development and dissemination of a wide range of cultivars has led to increases in production and incomes of smallholder farmers. Improved varieties have been released by 68 countries around the world. Varieties tolerant to the parasitic weeds Striga and Alectra have reduced production CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 1 167 losses. Other technologies that have increased cowpea production include the establishment of a novel parasitoid against flower thrips in West Africa, and the development of cheap delivery systems for natural enemies of the legume pod borer. In view of the commercial importance of soybean around the world, IITA approached the crop from a value chain perspective in Nigeria, generating major impact with partners. Keys to this success were the development and dissemination of promiscuously-nodulating varieties in concert with improved processing and utilization technologies and activities to raise public awareness of home preparation methods. Ensuring that all value chain bottlenecks were alleviated led to the emergence of a number of medium and large-scale soybean processors that added further value to the chain. IITA will contribute this learning to CRP 3.5 to assist its application to other grain legumes. Current priorities include:           Disease-resistant varieties targeted to a range of uses Improved resistance to drought and low phosphorus Resistance to Maruca pod borer Reducing the excessive use of synthetic insecticides Partnering with NGOs and private sector for the production of bio-pesticides Development of efficient rhizobial inoculants to increase BNF Improved nutritional quality, particularly for micronutrients Improved processing and utilization Crop management practices to increase productivity Dissemination and impact analysis Dry Grain Pulses CRSP: The Dry Grain Pulses Collaborative Research Support Program, USA The Dry Grain Pulses Collaborative Research Support Program (Pulse CRSP), funded by the Bureau of Food Security, USAID-Washington, seeks to contribute to economic growth and food and nutrition security through knowledge and technology generation that strengthens edible grain legume (e.g., bean, cowpea, pigeonpea, chickpea etc.) value chains and enhances the capacity and sustainability of agriculture research institutions which serve these sectors in developing countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. Under the technical and administrative leadership of Michigan State University, U.S. university scientists collaborate in multi-disciplinary research and technology dissemination projects with National Agriculture Research Systems, agriculture universities, NGOs, International Agriculture Research Centers (CIAT, IITA, ICRISAT), and private sector organizations in approximately 20 countries. The Dry Grain Pulses CRSP seeks to contribute to USAID’s Feed the Future global research objectives by focusing on the following themes:     To reduce bean, cowpea and related dry grain pulses production costs and risks for enhanced profitability and competitiveness, To increase the utilization of bean, cowpea and other dry grain, food products, and ingredients so as to expand market opportunities and improve community health and nutrition, To improve the performance and sustainability of dry grain pulse value chains, especially for the benefit of women, and To increase the capacity, effectiveness and sustainability of agriculture research institutions which serve the dry grain pulse sectors and developing country agricultural industries. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 1 168 Appendix 2. Brief Profiles of CRP 3.5 Target Crops Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is the world’s second-largest cultivated food legume. Developing countries account for over 95% of its production and consumption (Gaur et al. 2008). Chickpea grain is an excellent source of high-quality protein, with a wide range of essential amino acids (Wood and Grusak 2007) and high ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen. Since major consumers such as India do not produce sufficient chickpeas domestically, there are opportunities especially for East African countries to sell into this important market; indeed, sown area in ESA doubled over the past 30 years and exports accounted for about 30% of total production, indicating that these poor farmers are using chickpea for both food and to earn extra income. The area under chickpea in West Asia has also increased dramatically in the past 30 years (from 378,000 ha to 1,526,000 ha) leading to the exportation of chickpea from countries such as Turkey, Syria, and Iran. Drought stress commonly affects chickpea because it is largely grown under rainfed conditions during the post-rainy season on residual soil moisture (Gaur et al. 2008). R4D on drought tolerance has paid dividends in recent years with the improved drought tolerant chickpea cultivars. Collar rot, Fusarium wilt, dry root rot and Ascochyta blight are some of the important diseases of chickpea in the Indian subcontinent, whereas Ascochyta blight and Fusarium wilt are the most important worldwide (Chen et al. 2011). Chickpea in CWANA is traditionally grown during spring to avoid ascochyta blight and cold/frost but then encounters drought conditions, reducing potential yields (Malhotra et al. 2009). Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is the most important grain legume for direct human consumption with 23 million ha grown worldwide (Broughton et al. 2003). Approximately 12 million metric tons are produced annually, of which about 8 million tons are from Latin America and Africa (FAO, 2005). Over 200 million people in SSA depend on the crop as a primary staple, with beans contributing to diet and incomes in over 24 countries in this region alone (Wortmann et al. 1998). In the developing world bean is a small farmer crop, and in Africa is cultivated largely by women. Consumption is as high as 66 kg/year/person, and in many areas, common bean is the second most important source of calories after maize. Typical bean yields, however, represent only 20 to 30% of the genetic potential of improved varieties due to major production risks such as insect pests, diseases and drought, which – due to climate change – is increasing in severity and frequency in the region (Funk et al. 2008). Drought affects production of common beans in most of Eastern Africa, but is especially severe in the midaltitudes of Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi and Zimbabwe, as well as in Southern Africa as a whole. Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) is the most important grain legume crop in sub-Saharan Africa (Timko et al. 2007), grown by tens of millions of smallholders. It is estimated that 200 million children, women, and men in West Africa rely on cowpea, consuming the grain daily whenever available. It is mostly grown in the hot drought-prone savannas and very arid Sahelian agro-ecologies, where it is often intercropped with pearl millet and sorghum (Hall, 2004). Cowpea is a protein-rich grain that complements staple cereal and starchy tuber crops, but also provides fodder for livestock, soil improvement benefits through nitrogen fixation, and household benefits in the form of cash and income diversity. Cowpea is highly drought-tolerant with deep roots that help stabilize the soil and dense foliage that shades the soil surface preserving moisture. Cowpea ‘on-farm’ grain yields in SSA reach only 10–30% of their biological yield potential, due primarily to insect and disease attacks and drought (Ehlers and Hall, 1997). Improved varieties are urgently needed that will help to reduce this yield gap (Hall et al. 1997). Faba bean (Vicia faba L.) Faba bean (Vicia faba L.) also called fava bean, broad bean, field bean, horse bean and bell bean is an erect leafy winter or summer annual. It is one of the oldest crops domesticated in the Fertile Crescent of the Near East. It expanded around the world during Neolithic period: from Antalya (Turkey) towards Europe (Germany, Greece, France, Italy and Spain); from Egypt across North Africa and eastwards to Afghanistan and onwards to China, India and in more recent times to Latin America and North America (Canada and USA) (Cubero, 1974). In WANA faba bean is cultivated in costal Mediterranean areas with 300 mm and above annual rainfall. In China there are two major production CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 2 169 areas, one sown in winter (mainly in the southern province of Yunnan) and the other sown in spring (in highlands stretching from Mongolia to Tibet). Faba bean is grown in northern India (Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa, West Bengal). In Latin America it is mainly grown in Argentina and Chile. Cultivated faba bean is used as human food in developing countries, and as animal feed (mainly for pigs, horses, poultry and pigeons) in developed countries and in North Africa. In addition to boiled grains, it is consumed as vegetable green seeds/pods, dried or canned. It is a staple breakfast food in the Middle East, Mediterranean region, China and Ethiopia (Bond et al. 1985). Faba bean has a protein content of 24-30 percent. Although the global average grain yield of faba bean has almost doubled during the past 50 years, the total area sown to the crop has declined by 56% over the same period due to the cheap availability of fertilizers (devaluing some of the short-term economic benefits of BNF) and competition with policy-favored cereal and high-value urban cash crops. The most important diseases of faba bean are chocolate spot (Botrytis fabae and B. cinerea), rust (Uromyces viciae fabae), Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta fabae), black root rot (Thielaviopsis basicola), stem rots (Sclerotina trifoliorum, S. sclerotiorum), root rots/damping-off (Rhizoctonia spp.), pre-emergence damping-off (Pythium spp.), bean yellow mosaic virus, bean true mosaic virus, bean leaf roll virus and bean yellow necrotic virus (van Emden et al. 1988). Among the insect pests, bruchids and aphids are important. Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea), is known by many local names including peanut, earthnut, monkey nut and poor man’s nut. Though groundnut is native to South America, it is successfully grown in other parts of the world and became an important oil seed and food crop. From a nutritional point of view, groundnuts are very important in the lives of poor as they are very rich source of protein (26%) and monounsaturated fat. In addition to protein, groundnuts are a good source of calcium, phosphorus, iron, zinc and boron. While China and India are the leading producers worldwide, millions of smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) grow groundnut as a food and cash crop, which accounts for 9m ha of cultivated farmland (2007 datum). While this area is 40% of the world total, this percentage represents only 25% of the total production due to low yield (950 kg/ha, versus 1.8 t/ha in Asia). The main constraints hampering higher yields and quality in Africa are intermittent drought due to erratic rainfall patterns and terminal drought during maturation. Yield losses from drought run to millions of dollars each year (Sharma and Lavanya 2002). A drought-related quality issue is pre-harvest contamination of seeds with aflatoxin, a carcinogenic mycotoxin produced primarily by the fungus Aspergillus flavus, which consequently shuts out SSA groundnuts from export markets. In addition, major foliar fungus diseases like early leaf spots (ELS) and late leaf spots (LLS) and Rust; and virus diseases like Rosette, Peanut Clump and Bud Necrosis causes devastating yield losses (50-60% yield losses by ELS–-LLS, Waliyar et al. 1991; Grichar et al. 1998) and as much as 100% by rosette in epidemic years, Yayock et al. 1976., Olorunju et al. 1992). Lentil (Lens culinaris Medikus) is one of the world’s oldest cultivated plants, originating in the Middle East and spreading east through Western Asia to the Indian subcontinent. Lentil is currently grown in South America, Europe, Australia and Asia (Bangladesh, India, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey). Lentil has a variety of different names in different countries and languages including Masoor (India), Adas (Arabic), Mercimek (Turkey), Messer (Ethiopia) and Heramame (Japanese) giving some indication of the breadth of its importance (Erskine et al. 2009). It is a short-statured, annual, self-pollinated, high valued crop species. The crop has great significance in cereal-based cropping systems because of its nitrogen fixing ability, its high protein seeds for human diet and its straw for animal feed. Protein content ranges from 22 to 35% and like other grain legumes its amino acid profile is complementary to that of cereals. Lentil is currently grown on 3.8 M ha worldwide (though much of this is in developed countries) with production of over 3.5 M metric tons (FAOStat, 2008). The major reason for its low productivity in developing countries is because the crop produced on marginal lands in semi-arid environments without irrigation, weeding or pest control. The major producers of lentil are the countries in Southern and Western Asia, Northern Africa, Canada, Australia and USA (Chen et al. 2011). The most economically important fungal diseases of lentil worldwide are Ascochyta blight and Fusarium wilt; however other diseases such as anthracnose, Stemphylium blight and Botrytis blight are also CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 2 170 economically significant. Major pests include aphids, bud weevils, cutworms, leaf weevils, pod borer, stink bugs and thrips (Chen et al. 2011). Pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.) is a staple grain legume in South Asian diets and is also widely grown and consumed in household gardens in Africa – and rapidly expanding as an export crop from Eastern/Southern Africa to South Asia. Household artistanal production is not well documented in the FAO database, which indicates total global area of 4.79 M ha (FAO, 2008) in 22 countries. India is by far the largest producer with 3.58 M ha although this is insufficient to meet all its consumption needs; it imports from neighbor Myanmar (560,000 ha) and other countries, notably in ESA. In Africa smallholders are most intensified for dual consumption and export in Kenya (196,000 ha), Malawi (123,000 ha), Uganda (86,000 ha), Mozambique (85,000 ha), and Tanzania (68,000 ha) (Saxena et al. 2010). With protein content totaling more than 20%, almost three times that of cereals, pigeonpea plays an important role in nutrient-balancing the cereal-heavy diets of the poor. Pigeonpea is also important in some Caribbean islands and some areas of South America associated where populations of Asian and African heritage have settled (Saxena et al. 2010). In addition to being an important source of human food and animal feed, pigeonpea also plays an important role in sustaining soil fertility by improving physical properties of soil and fixing atmospheric nitrogen. Traditional long-duration pigeonpea expresses a perennial tall bush like growth habit that conveys additional soil protection and deep-rooted nutrient recycling ability. Shorter-duration varieties will naturally have less time to provide such services. Pigeonpea is generally relay or intercropped with sorghum, cotton, maize and groundnut and thus has to compete with that associated crop for water, nutrients, sunlight and other resources. Recently, ICRISAT has developed hybrid pigeonpea cultivars that produce 35% higher yields and are currently being multiplied through the private sector for dissemination to farmers. Major biotic stresses include diseases especially sterility mosaic, Fusarium wilt, and Phythophthora blight in the Indian subcontinent; wilt and Cercospora leaf spot in eastern Africa; and witches' broom in the Caribbean and Central America (Reddy et al. 1990). The major insect pests are pod fly (Melanagramyza sp), pod borers (Helicoverpa armigera and Maruca vitrata), and pod sucker (Clavigralla sp) (Joshi et al. 2001). Major abiotic constraints are drought and in some areas intermittent waterlogging. Soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) cultivation originated in China around 1700-1100 B.C. Soybean is now cultivated throughout East and Southeast Asia, North America, Brazil and Africa where people depend on it for food, animal feed and medicine. It is highly industrialized in developed countries, providing more than a quarter of world’s food and animal feed requirement in addition to protein (Graham and Vance, 2003). It grows well in tropical, subtropical, and temperate climates during warm, moist periods. Postharvest technologies such as oil processing have led to many new applications of this useful plant. Soybean has great potential as an exceptionally nutritive and rich protein food. It contains more than 40 per cent protein of superior quality and all the essential amino acids, particularly glycine, tryptophan and lysine, similar to cow’s milk and meat protein. Soybean also contains about 20 per cent oil including healthy fatty acids, lecithin and vitamins A and D. Soybean also contains secondary metabolites such as isoflavones (Sakai and kogiso, 2008), saponins, phytic acid, oligosaccharides, goitrogens and phytoestrogens (Liener, 1994; Ososki and Kennelly, 2003). Soybean oil is also used as a source of biodiesel (Pimentel and Patzek, 2008). Some of the major biotic constraints include Asian soybean rust, frogeye leaf spot, bacterial pustule, bacterial blight and soybean mosaic virus. Nematodes and insects such as pod feeders (stink bugs), foliage feeders, and bean flies feed on soybean plants. These wounds provide entry points for pathogens, and the plant frequently becomes susceptible to pathogenic organisms. Breeders at IITA are currently developing dual-purpose varieties that are tolerant to phosphorus-deficient soils and have enhanced capacity to kill seeds of the parasitic weed Striga hermonthica that attacks cereals. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 2 171 Appen ndix 3. CRP C 3.5 GRAIN LEGUM MES Focu us Regio ons: Brief P Profiles Central an nd West Asia a and North Africa (CWA ANA) Faba bean n, chickpea and a lentil are e the most im mportant gra ain legumes in CWANA. IIn general fa aba bean is grown in the low coa astal areas, chickpea c in t the continen ntal areas and lentil in th he high altitude areas. Faba bean and lentil are grown during the cool rainy winters w and chickpea in the late winter/early spring as t h wheat or barley. the rains end d and tempe eratures rise. . These crops s are usually rotated with b Over the past 30 years, the chick kpea and len til area has been increasing in West t Asia while faba bean and other r grain legum mes are decl lining in oth er parts of CWANA. C Alth hough yields s are low in West Asia (0.5-1 t/h ha) the sown n area quadrupled from m 1976 to 20 008 (from 378,000 ha t to 1,526,000 0 ha - FAO 2008). The increase in n West Asia is i mainly due e to growing g awareness of the benef fits of food legumes in cereal-dominated cro opping system ms. It is also o partly due to the adop ption of new w cultivars suitable for machine h harvesting, and a winter-c chickpea tech hnology (Asc cochyta bligh ht-resistant, cold-toleran nt cultivars of kabuli c chickpea). The biotic c stresses of o major imp portance for r chickpea are a Ascochyt ta blight and d Fusarium wilt while abiotic str resses are drought, cold and heat. F For high-altit tude areas R4D R emphasiizes Fusarium m wilt and plant type e for lentil. R4D R on faba-bean is focu used on yield d potential, combining ea arly maturity y with heat tolerance, , and resista ance to biot tic stresses s such as cho ocolate spot and rust, a nd to parasitic weeds especially y Orobanche. . Livestock are very imp portant components of C CWANA farm ming systems s, and lentil is s well integr rated as an important t legume for r food and fe eed. Lentil st traw has goo od feed value and somet times is as valuable v as the grain per unit weig ght. Thus hig gh biomass p productivity is an importa ant consider ration for len ntil. There hav ve been man ny reasons for f the decliine in grain legumes in North Africa a including Orobanche O infestation, non-availa ability of improved seed d, lack of sui itable varieti ies for mech hanical harve esting, low prices, hig gh productio on costs and climatic str ess, especially severe dr roughts. Loss ses of huma an capacity to condu uct R4D have also taken a toll. t nisia Morocco and Tun were form merly export ters of food legumes but have n now beco ome importers s. Faba bean n in North Afr rica is grown on 274,000 ha, mainly in Morocco. A la arge component of the fa aba bean prod duction is in the form of g green pods, but FAO prod duction data do not repor rt this form m of the crop. Egypt (78,0 000 000 ha) and Sudan (68,0 ha) are t the other la arge faba be ean produc cers (FAO 2008 8). CRP 3.5 GR RAIN LEGUME ES – 15 AUG 20 011 – Append dix 3 172 During the Soviet era food legumes were important components of farming systems in Central Asia and the Caucasus, but have since become forgotten crops. Among the CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES, chickpea is still grown on a modest area of about 100,000 ha followed by lentil on about 10,000 ha. Chickpea is mainly grown in Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan, and lentil in Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Armenia, and Uzbekistan. An organized marketing chain for these crops is lacking in this sub-region, so observations of grain legume trade within the region may give a false impression of production estimates. The main R4D effort on grain legumes takes place in Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan where few cultivars had been developed during the Soviet era. Crop Chickpea Faba bean Lentil Focus Countries Primary Secondary Iran, Morocco, Syria, Turkey Egypt, Morocco, Syria Iran, Syria, Turkey Algeria, Tunisia, Uzbekistan Algeria, Tunisia Algeria, Morocco Eastern and Southern Africa (ESA) Bean, groundnut, cowpea, pigeonpea and soybean are the most important legumes in the ESA region, with lesser amounts of bambara groundnut, chickpea, lentil and faba bean. Largely grown as subsistence foodstuffs, these crops are especially cultivated by women for feeding the household. Annual per capita consumption is approximately 9 kg. A limited number of commercial farmers grow soybean in South Africa, Zimbabwe and Zambia. Continuous maize cultivation is widespread in ESA. This monoculture has led to the mining of soil nutrients and soil degradation. Drought and low soil fertility are the main constraints. Where landholdings are small, grain legumes (primarily bean, cowpea, and pigeonpea) are intercropped or rotated with maize to diversify food supplies, hedge against drought risk, generate income and combat declining soil fertility. Sole crops of groundnut and soybean are grown in rotation with maize where sufficient land and labor or machinery are available. The area devoted to chickpea and soybean production, though small has been steadily increasing over the years in the region. Chickpea doubled in sown area over the past 30 years (from 210,000 to 420,000 ha between 1979 and 2008) to meet increasing demand in domestic and international markets. Crop Common bean Chickpea Focus Countries Primary Secondary Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia Ethiopia, Malawi, Tanzania Mozambique, Tanzania Ethiopia, Sudan Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda Ethiopia Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Uganda Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique Burundi, Malawi, Rwanda Eritrea, Kenya, Mozambique Malawi Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe Cowpea Faba bean Groundnut Lentil Pigeonpea Soybean Zambia Rwanda CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 3 173 West and Central Africa (WCA) The main legumes grown in WCA are: groundnut, cowpea, soybean, common bean and bambara nut. Pigeonpea and African yam bean are also grown as home garden intercrops. According to FAO data, average annual production and areas under the main legume crops in WCA are: groundnut (6.4 million tons on 5. 3 million ha), cowpea (4.5 million tons on 10.1 million ha), soybean (610,000 tons on 660,000 ha), common bean (230,000 tons on 390,000 ha) and bambara nuts (58,300 tons on 71,000 ha). Across WCA, both the production and land area under legumes has been increasing by 2- 6% per year over the past five years. This trend is expected to continue. Grain yield in these crops have remained static and low when compared with world averages. Apart from soybean and groundnut to lesser extent, the other legumes are grown in mixed cropping including intercropping and relay cropping with cereals (sorghum, millet, maize), other legumes and root crops such as cassava, yam and sweet potato, cotton (cowpea mainly), sugarcane, and plantation tree crops. With their increased role as cash crops, mono-cropping of the legumes is expanding in the different countries. Women are the main producers of homestead legumes in mixed and intercrop systems. Where legumes are grown as field cash crops, men are more likely to be involved. Few large scale commercial farmers growing these crops in this region. Grain legume processing and retailing are carried out almost exclusively by women. Cowpea and bambara nut are cultivated mainly in the drier Sudan savanna and the Sahel regions, while groundnut is better adapted to the less harsh northern guinea savanna zone. Soybean is grown in the still moister savanna regions (southern guinea) and extending to the forest/savanna transition agroecology. The legume crops often occupy marginal poor farmlands. Farmers use no or little fertilizer on them and do not inoculate with rhizobium. The only input that is often used is insecticide on cowpeas in some situations in Nigeria where such inputs could be obtained, often through cotton input supply systems. Most crop management activities are done by hand in this region, although animal traction is used is some areas. Crop Focus Countries Primary Secondary Cowpea Groundnut Soybean Mali, Niger, Nigeria Ghana, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal Nigeria Burkina Faso, Ghana, Senegal Burkina Faso, Niger - CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 3 174 CRP 3.5 GR RAIN LEGUME ES – 15 AUG 20 011 – Append dix 3 175 Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) In Latin America and the Caribbean two grain legumes are of major importance: common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) and soybean (Glycine max). Other legume species including another four species of cultivated Phaseolus as well as groundnut are also cultivated but on relatively small areas in niches of extreme heat, drought or high rainfall, rendering some of them as interesting potential components to help adapt farming systems to climate change. Several introduced legume species are important locally: cowpea in northeast Brazil, the northern coast of South America and eastern Cuba; pigeonpea in Haiti; chickpea in the Pacific coast of Mexico; and faba bean in the high Andes. For human consumption common bean is by far the most important in area and tonnage. In general the grain legumes are cultivated by small farmers for home consumption and for sale through local and regional markets. Traditionally a large proportion of common bean area was planted with climbing or semi-climbing types in association or relay with maize; in highland areas of southern Mexico, Guatemala, Ecuador, and Peru some association with maize persists. However rising labor costs have led farmers to prefer upright bush habits that facilitate harvest. In Central America the smallseeded types of the Mesoamerican gene pool predominate, with most production in the range of 400 to 1200 m above sea level. Yields typically average around 700 kg/ha, although El Salvador now registers a national yield average of about 1000 kg/ha. In the low to mid-altitude regions Gemini viruses became the primary production limitation in the decade of the 1970s, and now are effectively controlled through genetic means. While vegetable production offers significant income for farmers with good market access, among field crops beans continue to be the best income option for small farmers. In the Caribbean, Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Haiti are the most important producers and consumers of legumes. Here the altitudinal gradient, soil and climate determine which legumes are produced, although common bean is the legume of preference. In the Caribbean and in the Andean zone, as well as in parts of Brazil the large-seeded types that originated in the Andes are preferred. Mexico and Brazil present extremes of production systems. In Brazil the irrigated winter planting represents about 5% of total area, while the northeast of Brazil remains one of the strongholds of poverty in the western hemisphere with more than a million hectares of bean and cowpea, out of more than 4 million ha nationwide. Mexico presents even wider variability in production, from irrigated high input agriculture on the Pacific coast, to mechanized dryland agriculture in the central plateau, to totally traditional systems in the south. In Latin America urbanization has led to lower per capita consumption and in some cases more dietrelated illnesses such as cardio-vascular disease and diabetes. Common bean area has been steady or has declined slightly, but production has increased due to gradually improving yields. However, erratic weather in Central America in recent years has led to serious production shortages, with grain buyers looking far afield to meet local demand. Soybean production is concentrated in Brazil and Argentina and is principally in the hands of large mechanized farmers, although some technology (for example, BNF) could be of utility to other regions of the world. Crop Focus Countries Primary Secondary Common bean Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Haiti Northeast Brazil, El Salvador, Mexico CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 3 176 South and d Southeast Asia (SSEA) South and d Southeast Asia A contains more than half of the world’s w popu ulation living on less than n one-third of its ara able land while w producing more th han half of the develo oping world’’s grain legu ume crop. Population pressures on land ar re particular rly high in SEA, S where grain legum mes have traditionally provided a major sour rce of food and a nutrition nal security. Asia is th he center of f origin of many m import tant grain le egumes. Asia a dominates s world prod duction of several gr rain legumes s including pigeonpea p (9 95%), mung bean (90%) ) and chickp pea (85%). In ndia alone accounts for around 80% 8 of SEA chickpea c and d pigeonpea production, about half o of its lentils and about one third of its soybea ans, groundn nuts, dry pea as and dry beans (mainly y mung bean n and urn be ean). A ban on the trade of grass spea in India a and Nepa l due to neu urotoxin con ncerns has b been the ma ain reason behind th he drastic de ecline in this crop’s cultiv vation. In Ba angladesh, gr rasspea still occupies first position among the pulse crop ps. ainable legum me-cereal sy ystem began n to break down with th he Green Re evolution in the 1960s The susta cash crops responding that heav vily promoted d increasing cereal prod duction, as well w as the rise of other c r to industr rial developm ment. Traditional legume e component ts in crop rot tations were e relegated to o marginal land areas s. For examp ple wheat, ra apeseed, and d mustard have largely replaced r chic ckpea and le entil in the CRP 3.5 GR RAIN LEGUME ES – 15 AUG 20 011 – Append dix 3 177 middle an nd northern temperate t regions of Ind dia, forcing those t crops southward s in nto hotter, drier d areas. Competiti ion from maize and co otton has co ontributed to t declines in the area of groundn nut in the Philippine es, Thailand and a India. The deleterious conse equences of policy bias a against grain n legumes on n national ec conomies as well as on farming s systems are being increa asingly reco ognized in th he region. In ndia, Pakista an and Sri Lanka have become m major legum me importers s from China a, Myanmar, Thailand, Australia A and d Canada, creating an orts to cope have resulte outflow o of hard currency from the e region. Effo ed in the bre eeding of hig gh-yielding t to heat and drought, so that these short-dura ation grain legume varie eties tolerant e crops could d better fit into the m marginal nic ches availabl le in cereal rotations, often o maturing on residu ual moisture e. But this progress h has not been n sufficient to o meet grow wing food dem mand for leg gumes. Rising pro osperity is als so changing the legume market in ec conomically-emergent pa arts of Asia. Increasing urbanization and changing food habits including growing demand for healthy convenien nce foods is however new kinds creating n of dema and that could ben nefit poor farmers. T There is a need to diversify products food from made legumes t to satisfy growing demands oods. for such fo Crop Chickpea Focus Countries s Prima ary Second dary In ndia, Myanm mar, Pakistan Ind dia, Indonesiia, Myanmar r, Vietn nam Ind ia India, My yanmar Bangladesh h, Nepal Bangladesh, Nepa al, Philippine es, Thaila and Ban ngladesh, Ne epal, Pakistan n Nepa al Groundnut t Lentil Pigeonpea a CRP 3.5 GR RAIN LEGUME ES – 15 AUG 20 011 – Append dix 3 178 Appendix 4. Grain legume distribution by farming systems and region Farming System Latin America & Caribbean (LAC) Irrigated Forest based Coastal plantation mixed Cereal-livestock (Campos) Maize-beans (Mesoamerica) Extensive mixed (Cerrados_Llanos) Intensive highland mixed (N. Andes) High altitude mixed (Central Andes) Mediterranean mixed Temperate mixed (Pampas) Extensive dryland mixed (Gran Chaco) Dryland mixed Pastoral Sparse (forest) Total Argentina & Brazil (ARGBRA) Forest based Coastal plantation mixed Intensive mixed Cereal-livestock (Campos) Extensive mixed (Cerrados_Llanos) High altitude mixed (Central Andes) Mediterranean mixed Temperate mixed (Pampas) 143,952 286,128 1,257,656 291,928 423,050 119,150 102 10,442 905,704 2,833 4,741,114 8,713,868 8,335,152 111,556 40 13,476,625 0 4,912 67,199 12,876 15,610 0 0 256,360 398 21,514 0 686 192 845 0 0 0 1,050,053 315,387 6,065,969 9,019,358 8,774,003 231,552 142 13,743,427 4,359,130 10,359,180 14,696,680 2,792,733 3,576,010 268,856 68,422 3,325,325 885,266 8,474 633,403 62,627 762,647 59,868 117,944 82,339 16,229 4,148 12,766 6,673 0 472 2,652,856 37,099 4,357,923 193,247 143,755 164,462 444,506 1,141 2,494 4,991 52 4,623 0 0 0 90 94,382 41,575 0 0 0 18,474 37,099 11,783 216,858 110,754 2,947,538 14,779 369,820 14,061 62,221 18,089 3,257 78,079 24,850 40,816 4,441 10,298 5,880 7,146 7,821 21,957 14,484 33,153 4,204 5,492 44,876 0 0 1,790 20,120 926 1,933 0 6,282 0 6,066 2,345 955 70,886 0 1,498 0 0 38,715 1,583 442 801 994,752 236,853 922,306 3,049,499 878,724 440,266 153,861 197,660 18,974 171,104 466,886 7,866 0 562 5,524,925 1,585,576 24,287,080 1,626,798 10,885,814 3,528,738 12,571,301 4,581,291 787,312 108,862 553,381 272,863 1,332 148,115 66,463,388 Bean Cowpea Soybean Groundnut Faba bean Chickpea Pigeonpea Lentil Total Pov Pop <$2 CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 4 179 Farming System Extensive dryland mixed (Gran Chaco) Dryland mixed Pastoral Sparse (forest) Total Bean 133,125 1,710,446 0 680 4,376,660 Cowpea Soybean 1,540,616 690,453 0 40 0 38,518,000 Groundnut 667 10,799 0 0 368,423 Faba bean Chickpea 4,451 Pigeonpea Lentil Total 1,678,859 2,434,185 Pov Pop <$2 404,931 9,943,185 78,851 87,333 49,960,636 22,487 0 0 45,276 5,296 0 0 0 720 Central & West Asia & North Africa (CWANA) Irrigated Highland mixed Rainfed mixed Dryland mixed Pastoral Sparse (arid) Irrigated Horticulture mixed Large scale cereal-vegetable Small scale cereal-livestock Extensive cereal-livestock Pastoral Sparse (cold) Sparse (arid) Total West & Central Africa (WCA) Irrigated Tree crop Forest based Highland perennial Highland temperate mixed 649 202,012 74,738 113,289 41,323 167,262 174,591 15,806 2,908 35,569 4,323 82,378 53,234 2,556 3,535 306,764 289,833 399,223 26,802 42,170 0 0 0 4,614 478,998 748,814 543,000 150,168 122,598 7,315,277 42,801,078 42,143,874 6,938,507 2,289,700 36,113 64,522 9,513 15,062 20,351 8,669 3,063 44,038 0 56,613 0 0 0 0 257,944 2,421 52 0 2,369 7,117 54,675 790 6,995 16,471 7,241 50 9,935 0 577 28,200 47,050 0 0 179,101 775 133,889 2,975 1,208 47,726 574 24,005 13,423 15,069 1,457 2,550 24,127 85,281 34,389 185,932 62,917 11,628 1,622 2,494 4,919 0 4,740 0 1,052 0 578 395,553 15,189 492,200 100,180 83,387 53,723 12,918 0 209,427 0 245,501 14,300 0 0 0 1,226,824 0 0 550,567 1,700 39,871 19,327 150,101 49,812 78,626 34,719 5,596 400 170,416 213,122 796,461 370,232 260,410 152,012 37,503 8,557 462,861 0 348,511 42,500 52,776 0 1,354 13,235,256 13,074,907 7,437,407 5,094,121 5,290,718 5,133,242 12,191,311 6,523,708 3,431 2,551,641 1,650,042 16,772,842 176 4,474,164 93,432,966 CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 4 180 Farming System Root crop Cereal-root crop mixed Maize mixed Agro-pastoral millet/sorghum Pastoral Sparse (arid) Coastal artisanal fishing Total Eastern & Southern Africa (ESA) Irrigated Tree crop Forest based Rice-Tree crop Highland perennial Highland temperate mixed Root crop Cereal-root crop mixed Maize mixed Large commercial Agro-pastoral millet/sorghum Pastoral Sparse (arid) Coastal artisanal fishing Total South & Southeast Asia (SSEA) Lowland rice Tree crop mixed Bean 425,166 447,358 27,382 74,911 107,048 83 9,378 1,523,336 Cowpea 558,047 2,060,345 4,587 3,043,625 2,813,152 635 285,976 9,162,506 Soybean 404,993 147,165 16 24,699 3,454 0 22,460 748,814 Groundnut 1,241,758 2,701,935 30,186 2,448,939 458,067 40 63,081 8,008,798 Faba bean 689 Chickpea Pigeonpea 0 0 2,692 Lentil Total 2,630,653 5,356,803 64,863 5,592,175 3,381,723 758 Pov Pop <$2 57,577,519 69,586,022 3,740,063 44,925,840 11,072,801 1,035,870 21,166,931 310,593,482 53 742 0 7,306 0 380,948 18,775 28,082 7,825 79,497 1,231,549 154,988 781,928 98,850 1,696,418 48,594 154,821 414,138 501 35,089 4,751,054 0 4,347 1,773 1,900 43,168 677 56,015 14,524 269,129 7,437 18,035 45,009 0 3,793 465,807 70 700 77,691 11,555 5,761 33,465 5,403 702 1,781 0 2,053 138 0 102,779 48,518 15,359 114,861 147,034 1,188,714 1,910,330 13,594,323 35,213,221 38,366,291 18,575,148 16,327,075 76,644,405 17,035,657 2,809,050 13,533,960 1,291,197 10,400,823 247,037,228 78,769 12,259 1,446 137 336,192 204,645 23,410 58 403 0 658,089 119,452 50,173 405,434 423,839 1,129,386 64,265 292,793 263,076 10,546 32,829 2,920,265 18,279 284,774 9,621 23,746 109,623 25,755 115,686 28,951 18,839 176,458 43,358 227 19,829 30,045 289,618 3,858 61,978 0 991 21,591 1,564,187 680,762 1,303,225 610,971 4,028,415 324,940 20,913 106,430 586 10,371 68,115 13 1,335 15,983 41,499 0 1,158 443,770 1,492 20,529 0 0 110,576 537,817 958,854 12,048 74,205 579,375 448,006 823,180 76,793 48,744 3,171 890,308 54,128 627,592 250,988 0 0 85,478 5,098 182,983 10,904 26 0 2,658,311 401,082 127,494,776 24,453,562 CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 4 181 Farming System Root-tuber Upland intensive mixed Highland extensive mixed Temperate mixed Pastoral Sparse (forest) Sparse (arid) Rice Coastal artisanal fishing Rice-wheat Highland mixed Rainfed mixed Pastoral Sparse (arid) Sparse (mountain) Total India Upland intensive mixed Highland extensive mixed Pastoral Sparse (forest) Rice Coastal artisanal fishing Rice-wheat Highland mixed Rainfed mixed Dry rainfed Bean 2,227 820,337 254,592 9,459 570 113,575 0 22,057 1,390 115,180 32,612 1,856 7,480 21,750 1,128 2,304,186 Cowpea Soybean 0 Groundnut 15,768 620,162 144,952 0 125 189,232 0 27,168 2,255 73,622 11,659 3,526 388 10,062 69 1,977,570 Faba bean Chickpea Pigeonpea Lentil Total 17,995 Pov Pop <$2 1,170,400 66,189,666 3,618,578 67,022 777,072 9,107,635 238,000 100,074,203 7,138,334 122,564,585 32,967,319 2,556,295 3,506,167 22,035,235 5,887,963 529,846,812 75,554 23,973 467,390 145,377 12,240 0 0 132,680 43,033 0 282,290 95,167 0 1,921 2,398,413 709,014 21,699 0 8,559 195 52,266 0 0 0 0 15,722 0 5,154 294 733,382 98,912 85 33,603 0 323 0 11,184 9,992 0 0 0 45,332 2,541 135,989 90,681 975 412,958 0 144,586 7,519 1,081,465 260,687 10,973 4,374 624 0 3,810 5,592 40,177 415 12,108 13,021 0 0 3 316 65,636 188,538 5,331 0 1,379,256 0 0 260 626,791 1,680 5,044 4,359 287,571 75,184 225,397 11,462 174,400 1,687,945 0 0 96 0 83,960 10,345 1,960,813 39,467 692,476 144,834 0 0 0 0 24,487 1,376 0 9,369 222,524 13,249 0 0 22 0 267 41 564,300 9,887 10,363,007 294,480 0 0 0 0 412,316 113,560 215,787 17,668 5,165,370 1,341,007 0 0 0 0 73,029 7,556 1,438,429 4,651 5,719,534 1,247,052 0 0 0 0 112,838 23,365 164,415 6,530 2,659,660 1,041,191 0 0 68 0 53,502 6,071 859,913 18,350 696,887 0 0 0 187 0 760,399 162,313 5,203,657 105,921 25,519,458 4,081,814 65,819 27,626 2,713 11,957 128,908,283 22,281,962 393,560,192 31,867,564 332,222,682 38,507,397 CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 4 182 Farming System Pastoral Sparse (arid) Sparse (mountain) Total China Extensive cereal-livestock Pastoral Sparse (cold) Lowland rice Upland intensive mixed Highland extensive mixed Temperate mixed Pastoral Sparse (forest) Sparse (arid) Total Eastern Europe & Central Asia (EECA) Irrigated Mixed Forest based livestock Horticulture mixed Large scale cereal-vegetable Extensive cereal-livestock Sparse (cold) Total Bean 15,192 0 13,067 2,960,249 Cowpea 0 0 0 271,005 Soybean 4 0 1,690 11,233,698 Groundnut 299,470 71,889 0 7,637,067 Faba bean Chickpea 709,942 286,378 11 0 9,486,582 Pigeonpea 5,565 12 141 4,013,717 Lentil 2 2 5,282 1,640,076 Total 1,030,175 358,280 20,191 Pov Pop <$2 8,697,638 2,393,149 2,092,441 960,639,423 3 0 0 86,725 119,617 24,443 174,790 126,928 2,495 7,482 542,484 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,062 0 978 1,951,428 2,592,412 455,465 3,199,323 891,037 36,234 57,184 9,190,123 0 0 0 2,165,107 1,049,920 38,820 1,069,230 73,325 2,029 0 4,398,431 5 0 0 139,968 193,026 39,038 282,128 205,016 3,835 11,984 875,000 0 0 0 0 0 2,188 0 0 313 0 2,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,468 13,419 1,184 21,566 15,974 6 382 62,000 6,070 0 978 4,352,697 3,968,394 561,137 4,747,037 1,312,280 44,912 77,032 20,982 10,032 1,512 180,187,309 161,126,680 41,716,894 96,699,611 41,784,612 2,213,717 19,282,079 543,043,428 551 55,018 63,710 48,307 38,370 3,803 0 209,760 9,273 6,863 2,410 51,730 343,456 35,221 107,305 714,736 570,488 90,771 1,913,708 10,000 17,414 3,786 0 0 0 6,214 17,414 0 1,605 33 1,934 0 13,967 0 17,539 0 2,320 46 0 2,274 52,282 428,391 98,964 168,241 753,106 588,259 90,771 180,535 1,646,348 630,455 2,341,605 1,358,537 1,652,088 328,151 8,137,719 CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 4 183 Appendix 5. The ex-ante economic, nutritional, and environmental impacts of legume R4D Methods and Data An economic surplus model (Alston et al. 1995) was used to derive summary measures of the potential impacts of legumes improvement under certain reasonable assumptions for research starting in 2011 and benefits accruing from 2014 (beginning of adoption of improved technologies) to 2020. The benefits were measured based on a parallel downward shift in the (linear) supply curve following research. The annual flows of gross economic benefits from crop improvement were estimated for each of the countries and aggregated, with the aggregate benefits finally discounted to derive the present value (in 2011) of total net benefits from the intervention. The key parameters that determine the magnitude of the economic benefits are: (1) the expected technology adoption in terms of area under improved technologies; (2) expected yield gains following adoption; and (3) preresearch levels of production and prices. Specifically, the economic surplus empirical model for an open economy was used to calculate the economic benefits for each country from a downward shift in the supply curve. In an open economy, economic surplus measures can be derived using formulas presented in Alston et al. (1995)—i.e. change in economic Surplus (∆ES) = P0Q0Kt (1+0.5Ktε); where Kt is the supply shift representing cost reduction per ton of output as a proportion of product price (P); P0 represents pre-research price for 2006─2008 (US$/ton); Q0 is pre-research level of production for 2006─2008; and ε is the price elasticity of supply. The research-induced supply shift parameter, K, is the single most important parameter influencing total economic surplus results from unit cost reductions and was derived as Kt = At (∆Y/Y)/ε where ΔY/Y is the average proportional yield increase per hectare, with the elasticity of supply (ε) used to convert the gross production effect of research-induced yield changes to a gross unit production cost effect. Annual supply shifts were then projected based on projected adoption profile for improved technologies (At) for the period from 2014 to 2020 for research starting in 2011. Adoption (At) is assumed to follow the logistic diffusion curve starting in 2014 with less than 1% of the area put under improved technologies in 2014. In view of the already available pool of improved technologies some of which would only need investments in seed production and distribution, a research lag of only three years was assumed from the year of initial research investment in 2011 to the beginning of adoption of technologies in 2014. Table 5.1 presents the values of some of the key project-, technology-, and market-related parameters used in the projection of impacts of legumes research and extension. The values of these parameters and others were assembled from several sources— such as project proposal, past empirical work (e.g. Alston et al. 1995; Alene et al. 2009), and others (e.g. FAOStat). Figure 5.1 presents the projected technology adoption profiles for legumes implied by the expected values of the technology parameters. The food security and nutritional impacts of legume research and extension were calculated as the incremental per capita grain and protein availability associated with the incremental production attributable to research. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 5 184 Table 5-1. Values of key parameters used in the projections of impacts of legume R4D Parameter Productivity change (%) Maximum adoption (%) Maximum adoption beyond 2020 (%) Gestation lag (years until start of adoption) Adoption lag (years until maximum adoption) Elasticity of supply Elasticity of demand Discount rate (%) Project duration Time path of benefits from investments Protein content (g protein/kg of grain) Biological Nitrogen Fixation (kg N/ton of grain) 1 2 Bean 20 20 30 3 10 1 Perfectly elastic 5 2011-2020 2014─2020 2201 50 kg/ha/yr4 Chickpea 20 20 30 3 10 0 Perfectly elastic 5 2011─2020 2014─2020 1713 625 Cowpea 20 20 30 3 10 1 Perfectly elastic 5 2011-2020 2014─2020 240 50 Faba bean 20 20 30 3 10 1 Perfectly elastic 5 2011─2020 2014─2020 300 86 Groundnut 20 20 30 3 10 0 Perfectly elastic 5 2011-2020 2014─2020 4013 555 Lentil 20 20 30 3 10 0 Perfectly elastic 5 2011─2020 2014─2020 2513 625 Pigeonpea 20 20 30 3 10 0 Perfectly elastic 5 2011-2020 2014─2020 2233 505 Soybean 20 20 30 3 10 1 Perfectly elastic 5 2011─2020 2014─2020 4003 765 For South and South East Asia, the maximum adoption considered is 20% Assumption: 22g of protein/100 g of bean (Litzenberger SC. 1973). 3 Calculated using figures from Gopalan et al. 2004. 4 Common bean fixes 50 kg/ha/yr (Adrian Montanez, 2000). 5 Calculated using Herridge et al. 2008. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 5 185 35% 30% Adoption (% area) 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2014 Figure 5.1. Projected adoption profile for legumes technologies 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) benefits were estimated as the replacement cost of an equivalent value of N from urea fertilizer based on FAOStat regional average urea producer prices, e.g. US$420 per metric ton in sub-Saharan Africa vs. $375/ton in SSEA region. The quantity of BNF was estimated following Herridge et al. (2008). The calculation is [aboveground biomass estimated from grain production/crop harvest index] x [crop-specific average shoot % N content] x [crop-specific average % of plant N that is atmospheric in origin] x [crop-specific multiplier to include belowground BNF]. For protein content, published values were used, e.g. Litzenberger (1973) demonstrated that bean contains 22 g of protein per 100 gr of beans. Results The summary measures of the ex-ante economic, nutritional, and environmental impacts of grain legume research and extension are presented in Table 5.2. Given the long lag between research investments and reaping the full benefits, the projections of benefits and returns under any shortterm scenario represent more conservative estimates of the social profitability of research investments. Although subsequent benefits will not flow without further research and extension investments beyond 2020, the analysis that links project investments (2011─2013) to a finite stream of benefits (2014─2020) is bound to understate the true benefits. The present value of gross benefits of grain legume research and extension is estimated at US$ 2,755 million, equivalent to US$ 505 million per year. Over the period 2014─2020, legume research is also projected to contribute to: (1) food security through increased availability of food (7,071,000 tons); (2) nutrition security through increased availability of protein (2,123,000 tons); and (3) environmental benefits through biological nitrogen fixation (402,000 tons) that also translates to a fertilizer cost saving of US$ 271 million. Legume research and extension will have the greatest economic impacts in South and South-East Asia and SSA where most of the poor are located accounting for over 50% of the projected economic benefits. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 5 2030 186 Table 5.2. Summary measures of potential impacts of investment in legume research and extension activities, 2011─2020. Region Present value of gross benefits (US$ million) Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) West & Central Africa (WCA) East & Southern Africa (ESA) Central & West Asia & North Africa (CWANA) Latin America & Caribbean (LAC) South and Southeast Asia (SSEA) Total Annual gross benefits (US$ million) Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) West & Central Africa (WCA) East & Southern Africa (ESA) Central & West Asia & North Africa (CWANA) Latin America & Caribbean (LAC) South and Southeast Asia (SSEA) Total Incremental food availability (‘000 tons) Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) West & Central Africa (WCA) East & Southern Africa (ESA) Central & West Asia & North Africa (CWANA) Latin America & Caribbean (LAC) South and Southeast Asia (SSEA) Total Incremental protein availability (‘000 tons) Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) West & Central Africa (WCA) East & Southern Africa (ESA) Central & West Asia & North Africa (CWANA) 149 33 116 9 23 16 148 139 9 25 33 479 397 82 18 14 4 14 64 31 33 907 600 262 66 1024 347 1030 1218 618 82 1928 3125 168 252 530 591 159 677 148 529 52 136 96 618 581 38 82 112 1197 993 204 84 61 15 61 159 77 82 2937 1799 967 302 347 3656 7071 69 33 69 84 28 4 174 243 15 22 44 48 7 36 10 26 2 13 4 28 27 2 4 5 69 47 22 7 5 1 5 7 4 3 155 88 59 24 33 301 505 548 262 305 418 197 31 759 1196 51 101 191 217 47 Bean 286 81 205 19 94 Chickpea 34 Cowpea 197 186 11 31 Faba bean 36 Groundnut 437 316 121 50 26 Lentil 6 Pigeonpea 26 Soybean 47 27 20 Total 1069 610 402 175 262 1306 2755 CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 5 187 Region Latin America & Caribbean (LAC) South and Southeast Asia (SSEA) Total Incremental nitrogen fixation (‘000 tons) Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) West & Central Africa (WCA) East & Southern Africa (ESA) Central & West Asia & North Africa (CWANA) Latin America & Caribbean (LAC) South and Southeast Asia (SSEA) Total Fertilizer cost savings due to N fixation (US$ million) Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) West & Central Africa (WCA) East & Southern Africa (ESA) Central & West Asia & North Africa (CWANA) Latin America & Caribbean (LAC) South and Southeast Asia (SSEA) Total Bean 76 Chickpea 185 Cowpea Faba bean Groundnut 773 Lentil 42 60 1 Pigeonpea 118 132 3 3 4 Soybean Total 76 1118 226 34 8 26 19 217 7 4 10 72 148 31 29 2 25 8 1252 66 54 11 64 12 6 6 2123 161 97 52 20 19 6 107 31 22 20 1 4 68 22 4 102 6 5 172 35 28 7 9 13 1 27 30 2 2 12 9 4 4 214 402 117 61 49 12 14 53 40 8 32 14 86 4 2 6 46 2 5 7 17 19 9 136 271 54 54 CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 5 188 Appendix 6. Relative importance and yield losses (%) due to biotic/abiotic constraints in grain legumes in different regions Crop/constraint Chickpea Abiotic: Drought stress Heat/cold tolerance Diseases: Fusarium wilt/root rot* Ascochyta/Botrytis* Insect pests: Helicoverpa* Leaf miner/aphids/cut worm Soil Fertility/BNF: Common bean Abiotic: Drought/heat stress Diseases: Mosaics - Viruses Angular leaf spot/Anthracnose Root rots Insect pests: Bean fly/Apion Leaf hoppers/aphids Soil Fertility/BNF: Cowpea Abiotic: Drought/heat stress Diseases: Mosaics - Viruses Bacterium blight Rust Insect pests: Flower thrips Pod bugs Maruca Aphids Soil Fertility/BNF: Faba bean Abiotic: Drought stress Heat/cold stress Salinity Diseases: 30.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 30.0 30.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 30.0 30.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 30.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 25.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 25.0 10.0 8.0 7.0 25.0 5.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 25.0 28.0 28.0 30.0 15.0 5.0 10.0 22.0 8.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 20.0 24.0 24.0 30.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 26.0 7.0 6.0 9.0 4.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 30.0 15.0 7.0 8.0 25.0 15.0 10.0 25.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 14.0 6.0 10.0 20.0 15.0 5.0 20.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 20.0 5.0 5.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 20.0 22.0 22.0 30.0 15.0 8.0 7.0 28.0 16.0 12.0 20.0 34.0 25.0 9.0 24.0 16.0 8.0 26.0 18.0 8.0 16.0 30.0 25.0 5.0 27.0 15.0 12.0 20.0 15.0 5.0 23.0 40.0 25.0 15.0 35.0 15.0 20.0 22.0 12.0 10.0 3.0 Asia ESA WCA CWANA LA - - - - - - - - - - - - - CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 6 189 Crop/constraint Ascochyta blight* Choclate spot/rust Viruses Insect pests: Aphids Parasitic weeds: Soil Fertility/BNF: Groundnut Abiotic: Drought/heat stress Diseases: Aflatoxin Foliar diseases Rosette/bud necrosis* Insect pests: Defoliators/leaf miners White grubs/termites Soil Fertility/BNF: Lentil Abiotic: Drought stress Heat stress/low temperature Diseases Wilt/root rots* Rust Ascochyta/Stemphylium/Botrytis Insect pests: Sitona weevil Aphids Parasitic weeds: Soil Fertility/BNF: Pigeonpea Abiotic: Drought stress Diseases: Fusarium wilt* Sterility mosaic* Phytophthora* Insect pests: Helicoverpa/Maruca Pod fly Soil Fertility/BNF: Soybean Abiotic: Drought/heat stress Diseases: Bacterial blight* Mosaic virus* Asia 20.0 10.0 15.0 25.0 ESA 15.0 15.0 15.0 25.0 WCA CWANA 15.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 15.0 10.0 LA - - 23.0 23.0 36.0 10.0 15.0 11.0 18.0 10.0 8.0 23.0 17.0 17.0 50.0 12.0 20.0 18.0 18.0 8.0 10.0 15.0 17.0 17.0 50.0 15.0 20.0 15.0 15.0 5.0 10.0 18.0 - - - - - - 28.0 15.0 13.0 40.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 12.0 5.0 7.0 0.0 20.0 28.0 20.0 8.0 27.0 12.0 8.0 7.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 30.0 - 28.0 15.0 13.0 22.0 10.0 7.0 5.0 20.0 15.0 5.0 10.0 20.0 - - - - - 15.0 15.0 32.0 15.0 9.0 8.0 33.0 20.0 13.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 25.0 15.0 0.0 10.0 35.0 20.0 15.0 20.0 - - - - - - - - - 23.0 23.0 40.0 10.0 10.0 20.0 20.0 35.0 5.0 10.0 20.0 20.0 40.0 5.0 10.0 - 23.0 23.0 37.0 7.0 10.0 - CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 6 190 Crop/constraint Soybean rust Frogeye leaf rust Insect pests: Pod sucking bugs Bean fly Leaf defoliators Soil Fertility/BNF: Asia 15.0 5.0 20.0 5.0 8.0 7.0 17.0 ESA 15.0 5.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 30.0 WCA 10.0 15.0 25.0 5.0 8.0 12.0 15.0 CWANA LA 15.0 5.0 20.0 5.0 10.0 5.0 20.0 - - *Have the potential to cause complete loss during outbreaks, which are quite frequent in the tropics. Weeds and bruchids cause 10–15% loss across crops/regions. Notes: Based on inputs received on percentage yield loss in different regions due to various biotic and abiotic production constraints, and the published information on various crops / constraints. Total yield loss due to various constraints in a region has been computed as a percentage of total loss. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 6 191 Appendix 7. Grain Legume Regional R4D Networks: Brief Profiles A number of important regional networks that are important to CRP 3.5 success are described here in more detail. Sub-Saharan Africa PABRA: CIAT facilitates the Pan- Africa Bean Research Alliance (PABRA). PABRA was founded in 1996 and now is a consortium of regional bean networks consisting of about 350 direct and indirect partners, mainly NARS in 28 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, an international research organization (CIAT), and a number of donor organizations, Government and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), sub-regional organization (SROs) such as ASARECA, SADC-FANR and CORAF, communitybased Organizations (CBOs), selected rural communities, farmers (seed producers and on-farm researchers), traders and the commercial private sector. The sub-regional bean networks linked by PABRA are the Eastern and Central Africa Bean Research Network (ECABREN) with eight countries (Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Sudan, Eastern and west DRC, Madagascar and Northern Tanzania), the Southern Africa Bean Research Network (SABRN) consisting of 10 countries (Southern Tanzania, Mozambique, Zambia, Malawi, Lesotho, Mauritius, South Africa, Angola, southern DRC, Swazi land) and the relatively new West and Central Africa Bean Network (WECABREN) consisting of Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo Brazzaville, Guinea Conakry, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo, Ghana and Mali. The regional networks are managed by regional coordinators and respond to issues and priorities of respective sub-regional organization (SROs). A network Steering Committee (SC) is made of leaders of the National Bean Programs of countries in the network who by and large are also leaders of the Legume Program. Annual work plans and budgets are proposed by the SC of each network based on regional network partnership activities. The network workplans are integrated and harmonized to into PABRA workplans. PABRA facilitates collaborative research within and between the bean networks in Africa by providing a forum for building and maintaining linkages to multiple partners and between research and development. PABRA’s five-year framework (developed by partners, based on shared vision and objectives, and a long term mutual agreement to collaborate, sharing of knowledge, resources and capabilities) has well defined performance indicators and is collaboratively implemented by NARS partners in 28 countries belonging to three regional bean networks through complementarity which PABRA harnesses through a process facilitated by the three Regional Networks and PABRA Steering Committees. The successes in beans in Africa are largely attributed to the partnership: release of several bean varieties and the reach of over 7 million households with improved bean varieties within a period of five years. PRONAF and NGICA on cowpea in Western and Central Africa: Several networks were established mainly in West Africa for cowpea. The main objectives of these networks are to allow interactions among cowpea scientists in the region and to exchange improved cowpea breeding lines and crop management knowledge. RENACO (Réseau de Recherche sur le Niébé pour l’Afrique de l’Ouest et du Centre) [West and Central African Cowpea Research Network] created in covered the following Countries: Benin, Cameroon, Ghana, Nigeria, Niger, Mali, Senegal and Burkina Faso. Another project PEDUNE (Protection écologiquement durable du niébé) was set up in 1997 to increase cowpea production and productivity in the Sahel and African savannas by devising ecologically and economically sustainable cowpea pest control for subsistence farmers. PEDUNE covered Benin, Burkina Faso, Mozambique, Niger and Nigeria in the pilot phase and was expanded later to include Cameroon, Ghana, Mali and Senegal. From 2000, RENACO and PEDUNE were merged to form PRONAF (Projet Niebe pour l’Afrique) with IFAD funding which serves nine Countries: Benin, Burkina CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 7 192 Faso, Cameroon, Ghana, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria and Senegal. The goal of this project is to enhance livelihoods of rural poor through empowerment and gender equitable access to cowpea value chain opportunities via improved institutional arrangements, capacity building and strong linkages with NARES, countries’ IFAD investment projects, farmer's organizations and the private sector. The current phase of the project involves the following Countries: Benin, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Malawi and Nigeria. IITA scientists are also involved in the Network for the Genetic Improvement of Cowpea for Africa – NGICA. This is a voluntary association of scientists and other stakeholders in cowpea. NGICA take a novel approach to maximizing the benefits of this crop in Africa – NGICA seeks to address the entire spectrum of the cowpea production and utilization system. NGICA is an informal organization made up of volunteers dedicated to the genetic improvement of cowpea worldwide. The main geographic focus is sub-Saharan Africa. The central goal is to benefit the millions of cowpea producers and tens of millions of cowpea consumers in Africa, but if the benefits can be extended further, so much the better. Because the NGICA community is international, it involves participants from North America, South America, Europe and Australia in addition to Africa. It represents disciplines ranging from plant breeding to molecular biology, from agricultural economics to public policy. We believe that traditional institutions and approaches have often become less and less relevant, and that bold, unconventional institutions and approaches are needed – particularly to take advantage of the information and biotechnology revolutions of the past decade. South and Southeast Asia (SSEA) All India Coordinated Research Programs (AICRP): AICRP is multi-disciplinary multi-location research network spearheaded by ICAR to monitor, guide, and coordinate research on pulses in India. Many CGIAR centers participate including ICARDA and ICRISAT for the evaluation of lentil, chickpea, pigeonpea, groundnut, and grasspea. This network has identified appropriate varieties and production technologies of these crops in India. Cereals and Legumes Asia Network (CLAN): The Cereals and Legumes Asia Network (CLAN) was established in 1992, after merging the erstwhile Cooperative Cereals Research Network (CCRN) and the Asian Grain Legumes Network (AGLN). CLAN currently includes scientists and policymakers from 12 member countries (Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam). It also includes interested regional and international research institutions in Asia. The Asia-Pacific Association of Agriculture Research Institutions (APAARI) has endorsed and supported the network activities over the past two decades. CLAN is cofacilitated by three CRP 3.5 partners, ICRISAT, ICARDA and AVRDC. CLAN aims to enhance production and productivity of grain legumes (as well as cereals) in Asia. Major network activities include: i) research collaboration to generate smallholder-appropriate technologies, ii) strengthening crop improvement and natural resource management research in NARS, iii) information and knowledge sharing among member countries and iv) capacity building of NARS research and development programs. Central and West Asia and North Africa (CWANA) In collaboration with national scientists across CWANA, ICARDA is leading multi-location, multi-year testing of advanced lines to identify improved germplasm through an international nursery system. Lines are evaluated against stresses such as drought, heat, cold, salinity, disease, and insects at many key sites. The information received includes performance data, meteorological data, and agronomic information, providing valuable information on the performance and adaptation of the test genotypes. Every year, ICARDA's food legume program distributes improved germplasm to 50 countries. Thus, ICARDA’s international testing network complements national efforts for fasttracking the release of improved germplasm for general cultivation and facilitating the design of appropriate breeding strategies for specific regions. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 7 193 Regional Seed Network: The national seed sectors in the West Asia and North Africa (WANA) region are at different stages of development in terms of policy, regulation, technology, and institutions, which affects the progress of seed sector in each country and its integration both at national and regional levels. Networking between national seed programs can assist regional cooperation through the exchange of information and sharing of experiences. Since 1992, the Network is operational as the regional seed organization and the scope of its activities has increased. It is now the major 'outreach vehicle' of the ICARDA Seed Unit and complements other main regional activities such as training. Nile Valley Regional Food legume Network: Three networks are being established at the regional level in Nile valley and Red Sea region. Ethiopia coordinates one network for the management of wilt and root-rot diseases of cool-season food legumes. Breeding lines and varieties from the four countries, Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea and ICARDA are screened in Ethiopia (hot spot areas) and shared among countries. Egypt coordinates the network on integrated control of aphids and major virus diseases in cool-season food legumes and cereals and similar IPM options are being tested and demonstrated across participating NARS. Egypt also coordinates the network on socioeconomic studies to see the adoption and impact studies of regional projects on the livelihoods of small-holder farmers. Maghreb Food Legumes Network: The Maghreb Food Legumes Network [Roseau Maghreb in de Recherche et Developpement des Legumineuse Alimentaires (REMALA)] was created in Tunis targeting North African countries especially Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia for setting up research and development priorities for food legumes in the region. The network comprises a steering committee and the representative members from each country, ICARDA, and European network on protein pea (link to European researchers). The network is dormant now and needs to be revitalized as the demand for food legumes in the region is increasing. Latin America and the Caribbean Bean networks were initiated in Central America with the PROFRIJOL network, and a second network was subsequently formed in the Andean zone as well. These networks are no long funded but the collegial relationships established in the past are still carried forward. These include the exchange of information and joint planning, either under projects that span the region such as the AgroSalud project on crop biofortification, or through the regional agronomy meetings known as the PCCMCA (Programa Cooperativo Centroamericano para el Mejoramiento de Cultivos y Animales). Bean programs of Costa Rica, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua routinely participate in the PCCMCA. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 7 194 Appendix 8. Global Partners in CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Agricultural Research Council (ARC), Egypt Agricultural Research Council (ARC), South Africa Agricultural Research Council (ARC), Sudan Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria (ARCN) Agricultural Research Division (ARD), Swaziland Agricultural Research Institute, Naliendele (ARI-TANZANIA) Agriculture Research Division (ARD), Lesotho Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council (BARC), Bangladesh Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI) Bayero University Kano (BUK) Bureau of Agricultural Research (BAR) and Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development (PCARRD), Philippines Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) Central Food Technological Research Institute (CFTRI), Mysore, India Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering (CIAE), Bhopal, India Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA), Hyderabad, India Central Research Institute for Field Crops (CRIFC), Turkey Centre de Recherches Agronomiques de Loudima (CRAL), Congo Brazzaville Centre National de la Recherche Appliquée au Développement Rural (FOFIFA), Madagascar Centro Nacional de Tecnificación Agrícola (CENTA), El Salvador Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), China Comisión Para la Promoción de Exportaciones (PROMPEX), Peru Crops Research Institute, (CRI), Ghana Department of Agricultural Extension Services (DAES) Department of Agricultural Research (DAR), Myanmar Department of Agriculture & Cooperation (DAC), India Department of Agriculture Research and Technical Services (DARTS) Department of Research & Specialist Services (DR&SS), Zimbabwe Department of Science & Technology, India Department of. Agricultural Research Services (DARS), Malawi Direccion de Ciencia Y Tecnologia Agropecuaria (DICTA) and Escuela Agrícola Panamericana (EAP), Honduras Directorate of Groundnut Research (DGR), Junagadh, India Directorate of Soybean Research (DSR), Indore, India Dryland Agricultural Research Institute (DARI), Iran Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA), Brazil Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), Ethiopia Ethiopian Seed Enterprise (ESE), Ethiopia General Commission for Agricultural Scientific Research (GCSAR), Syria General Directorate of Agricultural Research (GDAR), Turkey Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi, India Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) Indian Institute of Chemical Technology (IICT), Hyderabad, India Indian Institute of Pulses Research (IIPR), Kanpur, India Institut Centrafricain de Recherche Agronomique (ICRA), Republic of Central Africa Institut de l'Environnement et de Recherches Agricoles (INERA), Burkina Faso Institut de Recherche Agricole Pour Le Developpement (IRAD), Cameron Institut de Recherche Agronomique de la Guinée (IRAG), Guinee Institut d'Economie Rurale (IER), Mali Institut Des Sciences Agronomiques Du Burundi (ISABU), Burundi Institut des Sciences Agronomiques du Rwanda (ISAR), Rwanda Institut National De La Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Rabat, Morocco 195 CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 8 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. Institut National de Recherche Agronomique de Tunis (INRAT), Tunisia Institut National de Recherches Agronomiques du Niger (INRAN), Niger Institut National des Recherches Agricoles du Benin (INRAB), Benin Institut National pour l'Etude et la Recherche Agronomique (INERA), DR Congo Institut Senegalais de Recherches Agricoles (ISRA), Senegal Institut Togolais de Recherche Agronomique (ITRA), Togo Institute for Agricultural Research (IAR), Nigeria Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnología Agrícolas (ICTA), Guatemala Instituto de Investigacao Agraria de Mocambique (IIAM), Mozambique Instituto de Investigação Agronómica (IIA), Angola Instituto Nacional Autonomo de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIAP), Ecuador Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales y Agropecuarias (INIFAP), Mexico Instituto Nicaraguense de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), Nicaragua Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), Kenya La Estación Experimental Agroindustrial Obispo Colombres (EEAOC), Argentina Lake Zone Agricultural Research and Development Institute (LZARDI), Tanzania Mauritius Sugar Industry Research Institute (MSIRI), Mauritius Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Malawi Msekera Research Station (ZARI) and Provincial Department of Agriculture, Zambia Naliendele Agricultural Research Station (NARS), Tanzania National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO), Uganda National Bureau of Agriculturally Important Microorganisms (NBAIM), Mau, India National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), New Delhi, India National Cereal Research Institute (NCRI), Nigeria National Institute of Nutrition (NIN), Hyderabad, India Nepal Agricultural Research Council (NARC), Nepal Pakistan Agricultural Research Council (PARC), Pakistan Plant Protection Research Institute (PPRI), Hanoi, Vietnam Selian Agricultural Research Institute (SARI), Tanzania Soil Research Institute (SRI) Vietnam Academy of Agricultural Sciences (VAAS), Hanoi, Vietnam Zambian Agricultural Research Institute (ZARI), Zambia International Agricultural Research Centers (IARCs) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Bioversity International, Rome, Italy Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Columbia GenerationChallengeProgram (GCP) HarvestPlus Challenge Program of CGIAR International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), Syria International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India/Africa International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), USA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Nigeria International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Kenya/Ethiopia International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Mexico International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Philippines International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Sri Lanka Advanced Research Institutes (ARIs)/Universities 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Acharya N G Ranga Agricultural University (ANGRAU), Hyderabad, India Aleppo University, Syria Assam Agriculture University, Jorhat, India Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Australia Bayero University of Kano (BUK), Nigeria Beijing Genomics Institute (BGI), China Birsa Agricultural University (BAU), Jharkhand, India Botswana College of Agriculture (BCA), Botswana Bunda College of Agriculture (BCA), Malawi 196 CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 8 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD), France Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture (CLIMA), Australia Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University (CCSHAU), Haryana, India Colorado State University (CSU), United States of America Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC), Spain Cornell University, United States of America CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya (CSKHPKVV )Dhaulakuan Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI), Queensland, Australia Donald Danforth Center, St Louis, United States of America Dry Grain Pulses Collaborative Research Program, United States of America Egerton University, Kenya Estação Nacional de Melhoramento de Elvas (ENMP), Portugal GB Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, India Ghent University, Belgium Halemaya University, Ethiopia Indian Agriculture Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi, India Indira Gandhi AgriculturaI University (IGAU), Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India Institut National De La Recherche Agronomique (INRA), France Instituto de Investigacion y Formacion Agraria y Pesquera de Andalucia (IIFAPA), Spain Instituto Nacional de Salud Publica (INASP), Mexico Iowa State University, United States of America Japan International Researach Centre for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS), Tsukuba, Japan Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya (JNKVV), Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India Kaduna State Agricultural Development Project (KADP), Nigeria Kano State Agricultural and Rural Development Authority (KNARDA), Nigeria Kansas State University (KSU), United States of America Kenyatta University, Kenya Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Ghana Lanzhou University, China Laval University, Canada Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth (MPKV), Rahuri, India Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda Michigan State University, United States of America Moi University, Kenya Murdoch University, Australia Narendra Deva University of Agriculture & Technology (NDUA&T), Faizabad National Centre for Genome Resources (NCGR), New Mexico, United States of America National Research Centre on Plant Biotechnology (NRCPB), New Delhi, India National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland Njala University, Sierra Leone North Carolina State University (NCSU) North Dakota State University, United States of America Nottingham University, United Kingdom Orissa University of agriculture & Technology, Orissa, India Osmania University (OU), Hyderabad, India Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth (PDKV), Akola, India Peanut Collaborative Research Support Program, United States of America Penn State University, United States of America Pulse Breeding Australia (PBA), Australia Punjab Agricultural University (PAU), Ludhiana, India Purdue University, United States of America Rajmata Scindia Krishi Vishwavidyalaya (RSKV), Gwalior, India Savanna Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) (SARI- GHANA) SARI-Awassa Sokoine University of Agriculture (SOKOINE UNIVERSITY) Sokoine University of Agriculture, Tanzania 197 CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 8 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Coimbatore, India Tamworth Agricultural Institute, NSW, Australia Techreen University, Syria Tuskegee University, USA Université Nationale de Rwanda, Rwanda University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur, India University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, India University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, India University of Agriculture, Makurdi (UAM) University of California, Davis, United States of America University of California, Riverside, United States of America University of Cordoba, Spain University of Frankfurt, Germany University of Georgia, United States of America University of Ibadan, Nigeria University of Illinois, United States of America University of KwaZulu Natal, South Africa University of Maiduguri, Nigeria University of Makurdi, Nigeria University of Nairobi, Kenya University of Pretoria, South Africa University of Queensland, Australia University of Saskatoon, Canada University of West Virginia, United States of America University of Western Australia, Australia University of Wisconsin, Madison, United States of America University of Zambia, Zambia University of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe USDA-ARS, Soybean Genomics Lab, BARC, United States of America Victorian Agri-Biosciences Centre (VABC), Australia Washington State University, United States of America Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. African Seed Trade Association (AFSTA), Kenya Africare, Washington DC, United States of America Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA),Kenya AMADEA, Madagascar AME Foundation, Bangalore, India Association of Church Development Projects (ACDEP) BAIF Institute for Rural Development, Pune, India CARE International, Switzerland Catholic Dioceses Development, Kenya Catholic Relief Services (CRS), United States of America Centre for World Solidarity (CWS), Hyderabad, India Centre Régionale pour la Production Agricole (CERPA) Concern Universal, Malawi Initiative for the Promotion of Green Resources (PROGREEN) Institut de Conseiletd'Appui Technique (ICAT) Kirkhouse Trust, United Kingdom Mozambican Farmers Co-operative- for agri-trading, processing and exporting (IKURU), Mozambique National Smallholder Farmers’ Association of Malawi (NASFAM), Malawi One Acre Fund/Tubura Rwanda, Burundi and Kenya Radio Communautaire FM Alaketu (ALAKETU FM) Radio Gbetin (Radio Gbetin) Radio Horizon (Radio Horizon) Rural Development Trust (RDT), Anantapur, India Sasakawa Global 2000 (SG2000), Ethiopia 198 CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 8 25. Seed Trade Association of Malawi, Malawi 26. SNV, Niger 27. Sustainable intensification of maize-legume cropping systems for food security in eastern and southern Africa (SIMLESA), Africa 28. Techno Serve, Washington DC, United States of America 29. The Cooperative League of USA (CLUSA), United States of America 30. Water Users Association, Malawi 31. Women Organizing for Change in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management (WOCAN) 32. World Vision International, United States of America Private Sector 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. Agricultural Commodity Supplies (ACOS), Ethiopia Agri-Inputs Suppliers Association of Malawi, Malawi Agricultural Seed Agency, Tanzania Alheri Seeds, Niger Asia & Pacific Seed Association (APSA) Association of Smallholder Seed Growers (ASSMAG), Malawi Demeter Agriculture, Malawi Dry Bean Producers Organization South Africa Dry Land Seed Co, Kenya East African Seeds Co Ltd, Tanzania Elfora Agro-industry Ltd, Ethiopia FAMCO Seed Ltd, Tanzania Farm Input Care (FICA) Seed, Uganda Farmers’ Link, Zambia Funwe Farm, Malawi Highland Seed Company Ltd, Tanzania International Seed Testing Association (ISTA), Switzerland Jirkur Seed Cooperative Biu (JIRKUR SEED) Kamano Seeds, Zambia Kenya Seeds, Kenya Krishidhan Seeds Ltd., India Krishna Seeds, Tanzania Leldet Seeds, Kenya Mahyco Seeds, India Masoumin Grain Trader, Madagascar Nalweya Seed Company (NASECO), Uganda National Smallholder Farmers’ Association of Malawi (NASFAM(, Malawi Nimbkar Seeds Private Ltd., India PANNAR Seed (PTY) Ltd, South Africa Premier Seeds Nigeria Limited Pristine Seeds, Zimbabwe Progeny Seeds, Zimbabwe Rwanda Seed Company (RWASECO) Private Seed Co, Rwanda Simlaw Seeds Company Ltd, Kenya Transeed International Ltd, Tanzania Victoria Seeds Limited, Uganda Zenobia Seed Co, Tanzania Regional/sub-regional organizations 1. 2. 3. 4. Asia-Pacific Association of Agriculture Research Institutions (APAARI), Thailand Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA), Uganda Association of Agricultural Research Institutions in the Near East and North Africa (AARINENA), Jordan Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), Ghana CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 8 199 Farmers’ cooperatives and organizations 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Association of Seed Marketing Action Group (ASMAG), Malawi Bora Dembela Farmers’ Cooperative Union (FCU), Ethiopia Confédération des Associations des Producteurs Agricoles pour le développement (CAPAD), East Province Farmers’ Cooperative (Zambia )Imbaraga, Rwanda Lume Adama Farmers’ Cooperative Union (FCU), Ethiopia CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 8 200 Appendix 9. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES: Current bilateral funded R4D projects CIAT Project Title: Biofortified crops for improved human nutrition - Harvest Plus Challenge Program Donor: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Canadian CIDA, World Bank Countries: Rwanda and D.R. Congo, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala Crops: Common bean Partners: ISAR, INERA, PABRA- ECABREN –SABRN, EAP, INTA, FUNDIT Summary: This is an annual project carried out as part of the CGIAR HarvestPlus Challenge Program, which is bringing together scientific and research resources of the CGIAR to combat malnutrition in the developing world. Using phenotypic and marker-assisted selection, this project aims to biofortify varieties of beans to create lines with higher mineral content, especially iron, and superior agronomic traits. Bioefficacy trials are also conducted to demonstrate the value of high-iron beans. Project Title: Improving tropical legume productivity for marginal environments in sub-Saharan Africa (TL-I) Phase 2 Donor: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through the Generation Challenge Program Countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Zimbabwe Crops: Common bean Partners: SARI-Awassa, KARI, DARTS, SARI-Selian, Zimbabwe Summary: This project aims to contribute to the development of improved legume varieties in sub-Saharan Africa by developing genomic resources and molecular markers for traits of importance, and by implementing modern breeding in sub-Saharan Africa. Being a collaborative project, CIAT's specific role is to improve common bean productivity for marginal environments in sub-Saharan Africa. This project will address this issue along with additional important biotic stress resistance traits through five activities. Project Title: Improving the livelihoods of farmers in drought-prone areas of sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia through enhanced grain legume production and productivity (TL-II) – Phase 1: Aug 1997 to Aug 2011; Phase 2: Sep 2011 to Aug 2014 Donor: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation through ICRISAT Countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Zimbabwe Crops: Chickpea, common bean, cowpea, groundnut, pigeonpea and soybean Partners: EIAR, KARI, DARTS, SARI-Selian, Zimbabwe Summary: This project aims to increase the productivity and production of six grain legumes – groundnut, cowpea, bean, chickpea, pigeonpea and soybean. Project activities involve developing cultivars tolerant to drought and the major pests and diseases using modern plant-breeding techniques such as marker-aided selection (which will be developed under the Tropical Legumes I Project supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation). A major thrust will be to develop sustainable seed production and delivery systems in project countries that enhance access to improved legume varieties by resource-poor farmers. Social science research will be used to analyze and provide advice concerning the social and cultural environments that influence the sustainable adoption and spread of promising varieties, technologies and innovations, and the scaling-up and scaling-out work done amongst farm communities. Capacity building and infrastructure development among national program partners involved in breeding and seed delivery systems is a major activity, in order to ensure the sustainability of legume breeding efforts in the project countries. Project Title: Dry bean improvement and marker assisted selection for diseases and abiotic stresses in Central America and the Caribbean Donor: Generation Challenge Program Countries: Haiti, Mexico, Nicaragua Crops: Common bean Partners: ORE, INIFAP, INTA CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 9 201 Summary: This project will be one of the first to apply molecular breeding on a large scale to common bean improvement for the region of Central America and the Caribbean, and will focus on tolerance to drought stress and diseases that occur under drought and low soil-fertility conditions. The project combines the strengths of the INIFAP, the Mexican national agriculture research institution, with CIAT. Studies on gene expression have revealed several differences between drought resistant red seeded beans and less resistant black seeded beans. Lines selected in CIAT have performed well at the mid-altitude site in the Bajio, Guanajuato. Project Title: Basal root architecture and drought tolerance in common bean Donor: Generation Challenge Program Countries: Mozambique, USA Crops: Common bean Partners: Penn State University Summary: Beans have many different classes of roots. Basal roots are those which originate at the crown, and can vary widely in number. The project is designed to test if basal roots give plasticity to the plant to explore shallow soil strata for plant nutrients, and simultaneously to explore lower strata for moisture. The outcome will assist in the development of germplasm that is tolerant to low levels of soil phosphorus as well as to drought. Project Title: The Pan Africa Beans Research Alliance (PABRA) Phase IV 31/12/2013 Donor: CIDA- Canadian International Development Agency Countries: 28 countries in East, southern and West Africa Crops: Common bean Partners: National programs in 28 countries; international and local NGOs; private seed companies Summary: PABRA (Pan-Africa Bean Research Alliance) is a consortium of sub-regional bean networks: ECABREN (Eastern and Central Africa), SABRN (Southern Africa) and WECABREN (West and Central Africa). PABRA is quite large, with 350 direct and indirect partners from NARS, IARCs, donors, NGOs, sub-regional organizations (ASARECA, SADC-FANR, CORAF), community-based organizations, seed producers, traders and the commercial private sector. PABRA works under a programmatic framework with seven broad objectives: improved and more resilient bean varieties; improved nutrition through consumption of biofortified beans and bean based foods; improved crop management; strengthened market linkages; wider impact through partnerships; enhanced research and institutional capacity; gender equity. Under the BMGF-funded Tropical Legumes II project, in addition to supporting the bean component, PABRA also led the seed systems component, opening new options for decentralized seed production, and links to the private sector. Project Title: Supporting nutrition and health, food security, environmental stresses and market challenges that contribute to improve livelihood and create income resource poor small holder families in sub– Saharan Africa Donor: SDC-Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation Countries: 28 countries in East, southern and West Africa Crops: Common bean Partners: National programs in 28 countries; international and local NGOs; private seed companies Summary: This project is part of PABRA which is co-funded by SDC and Canadian CIDA. ICARDA Project Title: Improving the livelihoods of resource-poor farmers through the use of biodiversity of food legumes to increase productivity, nutritional security and establish sustainable farming system in the nontropical dry areas Donor: World Bank, EU, USAID Countries: Afghanistan; Algeria; Armenia; Azerbaijan; Bangladesh; Eritrea; Ethiopia; Egypt; Georgia; Iran; India; Iraq; Jordan; Lebanon; Morocco; Nepal; Pakistan; Sudan; Syria; Tunisia; Turkey; Uzbekistan and Yemen. Crops: Chickpea, lentil, faba bean and grasspea Partners: ICARDA and National Programs in the target region CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 9 202 Summary: Food legume crops (lentil, Kabuli chickpea, faba bean and grasspea) play an important role in food, feed and farming systems of dry areas. A vast majority of people in dry areas of South Asia, West Asia, Central Asia, China, North and East Africa and Latin America are dependent on these crops for their nutritional requirement and food security. The residues of food legumes are valuable animal feed. These legumes when grown in rotation with cereals provide sustainable cropping systems. The productivity of food legumes in developing countries remains stagnant and per capita availability is far below the WHO recommended 45g/person/day. Therefore, improvement in the production of these crops through germplasm enhancement and crop management will therefore contribute substantially to improved human nutrition in the developing world. This project aims to develop methodologies and technologies, improved genetic stocks and associated knowledge to improve crop productivity and eventually contributes to better livelihoods of people in the developing world. Food legume improvement links components of basic and strategic research with appropriate field evaluation across a diverse range of environments. The creation and application of linkages among gene identification, plant breeding, crop management practices, and livelihood outcomes across multiple sites and cropping systems are the guiding principles of this project. The genetic enhancement research represent genetically enhanced, seed-embedded technologies developed by multidisciplinary teams (germplasm enhancement, integrated pest management, biotechnology, genetic resources, seed systems) charged with the generation of products reflecting integrated solutions for target end-users. The exciting portfolio under development through consultation with and analysis of the needs of National programs are stress tolerant (diseases, pests, drought and cold) cool-season legumes for food security, and crop intensification and diversification, bio-fortified lentils, integrated pest management (IPM) options for the control of diseases, insect pests, strengthening seed delivery systems, and capacity building in NARS programs. Project Title: Genetic enhancement in breaking yield barriers in Kabuli chickpea and lentil through prebreeding for the development of high yielding cultivars Donor: Department of Agriculture & Cooperation (DAC), Government of India Countries: India and Syria Partners: DAC, ICAR and ICARDA Summary Lentil and chickpea have an intrinsically narrow genetic base in India. This limits breeder’s progress today. The existing variability among indigenous germplasm has been exploited to reach to a desirable level of productivity today. However, to attain further breakthrough in increasing yield and improving stability in future cultivars, new variability needs to be tapped and incorporated into Indian germplasm. There is a striking difference between germplasm available in South Asia including India and the centers of origin/diversity of these crops. For example, lentil germplasm from India is among the least variable among lentil producing countries, despite India being the largest lentil producing country in the world. Similar striking difference was recorded in other crops between germplasm from South Asia and the rest of the world. This project aims to widen the genetic base of chickpea, and lead to the development of new lines which may be used in ongoing breeding program for improvement of cultivated chickpea as well their release directly as varieties. Similarly in lentil the project envisages genetic enhancement through pre-breeding for increasing the extent of useful diversity to breeders through introgression of desirable characteristics from exotic cultivated and wild species. Varieties with better yield potential, enhanced quality and wider genetic base will lead to increased productivity and better adaptability. Project Title: Breeding chickpea for drought tolerance and disease resistance Donor: Australia Countries: Australia and WANA Region Crops: Chickpea Partners: Australia and regional NARS Summary: This project aims to enhance production, productivity and yield stability of chickpea under Mediterranean and similar Australian environments through genetic improvement and agronomic options. Most chickpea cultivars grown by farmers in Mediterranean and Australian environments are susceptible to Ascochyta blight, affected by terminal drought, susceptible to vegetative and flowering stage cold. An additional threat from Fusarium wilt, a soil borne disease present in most of the chickpea growing countries is increasing under the changing climates, which requires pre-emptive action. This project will use genetic and agronomic manipulation to enhance production and productivity of chickpea. It will attempt to develop efficient and reliable field and laboratory screening techniques for the evaluation of germplasm and breeding materials for biotic and abiotic stresses, understand their genetic CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 9 203 bases, and develop efficient and high yielding cultivars with combined resistances to these stresses through conventional and molecular breeding approaches. The results of this project will be shared with NARS in the West Asia and North Asia (WANA) institutions and in areas with similar environments in Australia. Project Title: Development of large-seeded lentil varieties with high biomass, multiple disease resistance and tolerance to terminal drought and heat Donor: ICAR, New Delhi, India Countries: India Crops: Lentil Partners: IIPR (Kanpur); GBPUA&T (Pantnagar); CSKHPKVV (Dhaulakuan); RMVRSKVV (Sehore); JNKVV (Jabalpur); NDUA&T (Faizabad); IARI (New Delhi) Summary: Lentils of Indian-subcontinent have marked lack of variability with respect to important morphological, agronomic, and phenological and stress resistance traits. Seed size of local cultivars and landraces are generally <2.5 g per 100-seeds. This requires infusion of new germplasm in the Indian breeding program to make a significant improvement in lentil crop. ICARDA has >11,000 germplasm and breeding lines with enormous variability for various traits, and is running a strong international breeding program. Through rigorous screening and multi-location evaluation, ICARDA has identified accessions with various maturity groups, different seed traits, rust, wilt and Stemphylium blight resistance, etc. Recently, ICARDA has developed early maturing lines in large-seeded group by involving early material from South Asian origin in its breeding program. The genetically fixed materials and segregating populations having large-seed trait (up to 7.00 g per 100-seed weight), and other desirable traits can be tested by collaborating institutions in various edapho-climatic conditions. The project aims at development of bold-seeded cultivars (>3.0 g per 100-seeds) using local and ICARDA-supplied genetic materials (germplasm, breeding lines, segregating populations) with resistance to rust, vascular wilt and root rot, and tolerant to drought and heat, and identification and use of wild relatives having desirable genes, and tagging of rust resistant genes to use in MAS. Project Title: Development of lentil cultivar with high concentration of iron and zinc Donor: HarvestPlus Challenge Program of CGIAR Countries: Bangladesh, Nepal, India, and Syria Crops: Lentil Partners: ICAR, BARI, NARC, GCSAR Summary: Over 2 billion people in the developing world are affected by micronutrient malnutrition, the “Hidden Hunger,” and many times it is ignored/ unnoticed by us. Of them, Iron deficiency alone affects >47% of women and preschool children, often leading to anemia, impaired physical and mental growth, and also affect learning capacity. Like Iron deficiency, Zinc deficiency also prevails to a great extent in the developing world and thought to affect billions of people. Among various options, “Biofortification” of staple crops and their intake in daily diet has been proved to be a key strategy to address micronutrient malnutrition and thereby nutritional security. Lentil, which is a staple pulse crop and is a key component of daily dish of the people of South & West Asia and North & East Africa and where micronutrient deficiency is prevailing, is being researched for the development of Iron- and Zinc-rich cultivars under the HarvestPlus Challenge Program of CGIAR. ICRISAT Project Title: Improving the livelihoods of farmers in drought-prone areas of sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia through enhanced grain legume production and productivity (TL-II) Phase 1: Aug 1997 to Aug 2011; Phase 2: Sep 2011 to Aug 2014 Donor: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, India Crops: Chickpea, common bean, cowpea, groundnut, pigeonpea and soybean Partners: ICRISAT, CIAT, IITA, AGRA/PASS, N2Africa, WFP/P4P Summary: This project aims to increase the productivity (yield per unit area) and production (total availability) of six grain legumes – groundnut, cowpea, bean, chickpea, pigeonpea and soybean. These are important sources of protein for more than 2.1 billion people living in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. The project proposes to develop, test and promote improved crop cultivars (and associated crop management CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 9 204 practices) which can enhance legume productivity and production in the drought-prone areas of target regions and countries. Project activities will involve developing cultivars tolerant to drought and the major pests and diseases using modern plant-breeding techniques such as marker-aided selection (which will be developed under the Tropical Legumes I Project supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation). A major thrust will be to develop sustainable seed production and delivery systems in project countries that enhance access to improved legume varieties by resource-poor farmers. Social science research will be used to analyze and provide advice concerning the social and cultural environments that influence the sustainable adoption and spread of promising varieties, technologies and innovations, and the scaling-up and scaling-out work done amongst farm communities. Social science inputs will also support research developments in breeding through a feedback process, policy dialogue, and by identifying lessons learnt for technology dissemination. Ensuring capacity building and infrastructure development among national program partners involved in breeding and seed delivery systems will be a major activity, in order to ensure the sustainability of legume breeding efforts in the project countries. Project Title: Improving tropical legume productivity for marginal environments in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia (TL I-Phase 2) (Objectives 1, 4 and 5) Donor: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation thru Generation Challenge Program/CIMMYT Countries: Senegal, Niger, India, Malawi, Mali, Tanzania ARIs: University of California-Davis (UC-Davis), USA; University of Georgia, USA; North Carolina State University (NCSU), USA; University of Frankfurt, Germany; Agropolis, CIRAD, France; UCB, Brazil; EMBRAPA Genetic Resources and Biotechnology, Brazil Crops: Groundnut, cowpea, common bean and chickpea Summary: This project aims to contribute to the development of improved legume varieties by developing genomic resources and molecular markers for traits of importance, and by implementing modern breeding in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Being a collaborative project, ICRISAT’s specific role is to improve groundnut and chickpea productivity for marginal environments in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Its overall objective is to improve the productivity of groundnut, cowpea, common bean and chickpea for SSA through the application of modern breeding approaches using the genetic resources and genomic tools developed in the first phase of the project, in close partnership with SSA countries and regional research institutions. This project will apply modern breeding for the four legume crops, will conduct high-quality phenotyping and will improve human resources and local infrastructure. Project Title: Sustainable Intensification of Maize-Legume Cropping Systems for Food Security in Eastern and Southern Africa (SIMLESA) Donor: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) thru CIMMYT Countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique, Republic of South Africa, Uganda, Australia ARIs: Queensland Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (QDEEDI), Australia; Murdoch University, Australia Crops: Chickpea, pigeonpea, groundnut, common bean, cowpea and soybean Summary: The aim of the project is to increase food security and incomes at household and regional levels and economic development in eastern and southern Africa through improved productivity from more resilient and sustainable maize-based farming systems. The overall objective is to sustainably increase the productivity of selected maize-legume systems in eastern and southern Africa by 30% from the 2009 average for each target country by the year 2020 and at the same time reduce seasonal down-side risks by 30%. Project Title: BREAD: Overcoming the Domestication Bottleneck for Symbiotic Nitrogen Fixation in Legumes Donor: National Science Foundation, USA thru the University of California-Davis, USA Countries: USA, India Partners: University of California-Davis, USA; Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya (RVSKVV), India; Punjab Agricultural University (PAU), India Crops: Chickpea Summary: It is commonly asserted that domestication has reduced the efficiency of symbiotic nitrogen fixation in cultivated legume species, and that this situation continues to worsen as modern breeding further reduces genetic variation in elite varieties. Despite the important implications, we have essentially no understanding of the mechanisms that underlie efficient symbiosis, or how and to what extent breeding has reduced ancestral gains to symbiotic nitrogen fixation. The goal of the proposed research is to CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 9 205 characterize the genetic mechanisms that underlie phenotypic plasticity for symbiosis in the agricultural context. We propose: (1) to elucidate the molecular genetic basis of phenotypic variation for symbiotic nitrogen fixation efficiency in Cicer spp, including C. ariteinum (cultivated chickpea) and C. reticulatum (the wild progenitor), (2) to quantify the impact of domestication on the potential for symbiotic nitrogen fixation in chickpea, and (3) to initiate purpose-driven populations and association genetics to examine genetic potential for efficient nitrogen fixation in elite genotypes of chickpea. Project Title: Zambia Groundnut Productivity – Improving Groundnut Farmers’ Incomes and Nutrition through Innovation and Technology Enhancement (I-FINITE) Donor: USAID Countries: Zambia Crops: Groundnut Partners: IITA-Nigeria; Msekera Research Station (ZARI) and Provincial Department of Agriculture, Zambia; University of Zambia, Zambia; Tuskegee University, USA; USDA-ARS-National Peanut Research Laboratory, Georgia, USA Summary: This project aims to increase the incomes of smallholder groundnut farmers in four districts in the Eastern Province of Zambia (Chipata, Katete, Petauke and Lundazi). This will be achieved through innovative partnerships; developing crop management strategies and seed systems to enhance productivity and link farmers to markets; developing low-cost technologies to control and determine aflatoxin contamination; and setting up systems of grades and standards to enhance traceability. Project Title: Malawi Seed Industry Development Donor: Irish Aid Countries: Malawi Crops: Groundnuts, pigeonpea, chickpea, beans and rice Partners: Bunda College of Agriculture, Malawi; National Smallholder Farmers Association of Malawi (NASFAM), Malawi; African Seed Trade Association (AFSTA), Kenya; Agri-Inputs Suppliers Association of Malawi, Malawi; Director of Agricultural Research Services (DARS), Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, Malawi; Seed Trade Association of Malawi, Malawi, Water Users Association, Malawi Summary: With the Malawi Seed Industry Project’s activities implementation having commenced towards the end of 2008, ICRISAT has since been working with various stakeholders to improve the livelihoods of smallholder farmers through the provision of high quality foundation and certified seeds. While legumes, particularly groundnuts, pigeonpeas, chickpea and beans have been the major target crops, rice – a cereal crop – has been added to the portfolio of crops targeted under the project. The decision to include rice, a non-legume crop, was demand driven to multiply certified seed of selected varieties in order to help rice producing smallholder farmers attain high yields. While taking cognizance of the successes of the past three years, ICRISAT will continue working to achieve its project goal of increasing smallholder farmer yields and incomes through provision of high quality seeds. Year-4 grant will be used to implement activities that will ultimately contribute to the attainment of three primary objectives: i) Develop capacity of existing and potential local seed companies; ii) Improve the policy environment for seed trade and quality assurance using novel technology such as genetic finger printing; iii) Strengthen the commercial distribution network for improved seed, complementary inputs, and resulting crop outputs. Project Title: Groundnut improvement for poor smallholder farmers in Asia Donor: OPEC Fund for International Development Countries: Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Timor Leste, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. Crops: Groundnut Partners: NARS in Asia Summary: This project intends to help alleviate rural poverty by raising incomes and food and nutritional security of poor smallholder groundnut farmers in Asia by ensuring regular and sustainable increases in groundnut productivity and the profitability of groundnut cultivation through genetic enhancement in partnership with NARS in Asia. Project Title: Securing chickpea productivity under contemporary abiotic stresses: improvement of podding and seed-filling under heat, drought and salinity (Approved in principle -- Awaiting sanction order) Donor: Australia-India Strategic Research Fund (AISRF), Department of Science & Technology, Govt. of India CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 9 206 Countries: India, Australia Crops: Chickpea Partners: University of Western Australia, Australia; Punjab University, India Summary: Chickpea is an important grain legume crop in Australia and India, but grain yields are often restricted by stresses of heat, drought and salinity. Drought and heat often co-occur in field situations and during terminal drought when soils dry in late spring salinity also increases; yet, virtually all studies of plant responses to these stresses have investigated each individual factor. The overall goal is to identify mechanisms contributing to stress tolerance in chickpea and the information on tolerance mechanisms can then be used in breeding programs in the development of stress tolerant cultivars for Australia and India. Thus, project aims are to: (i) elucidate the processes in the reproductive phase of chickpea most susceptible to heat, drought and salinity stress; (ii) identify sources of tolerance across stresses and the physiological mechanisms involved; (iii) further our understanding of salinity tolerance of reproduction and validate salinity tolerance quantitative trait loci (QTL); (iv) initiate breeding for multiple stress tolerance by developing multi-parental crosses involving stress-tolerant chickpea genotypes. IITA Project Title: Encouraging regional trade with hermetic storage for cowpea in West and Central Africa Donor: Purdue University (PURDUE) Countries: Nigeria, Cameroon, Togo, Benin Crops: Cowpea Partners: Initiative for the Promotion of Green Resources (PROGREEN), Centre Régionale pour la Production Agricole (CERPA) MONO-COUFFO (CERPA MONO-COUFFO), Institut de Conseil et d'Appui Technique (ICAT), Institut Togolais de Recherche Agronomique (ITRA), Centre Régionale pour la Production Agricole (CERPA) OUEME-PLATEAU (CERPA OUEME-PLATEAU), Centre Régionale pour la Production Agricole (CERPA) ZOU-COLLINES (CERPA ZOU-COLLINES), Centre Régionale pour la Production Agricole (CERPA) ATACORA-DONGA, (CERPA ATACORA-DONGA), Centre Régionale pour la Production Agricole (CERPA) BORGOU-ALIBORI (CERPA BORGOU-ALIBORI), Institute of Agricultural Research for Development (IRAD), La Nouvelle Tribune (La Nouvelle Tribune), Radio Communautaire FM Alaketu (ALAKETU FM), Radio Gbetin (Radio Gbetin), Radio Horizon (Radio Horizon), Department of Agriculture Research Services (DARS) Summary: The IITA component of the project has two parts. Part one is about conducting village’s demonstrations and collect data on technology performance. Part II is about conducting research to understand adoption patterns and household characteristics that affect adoption. Project Title: Public-private partnership for innovation in soybean and cowpea value chains in Mozambique (Platform Mozambique) Donor: USAID through Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) Countries: Mozambique Crops: Cowpea, Soybean Summary: The project proposes to use the public-private innovation partnership approach. Public-private sector partnerships in research have been used in many developed and developing countries to generate innovations and developmental impact in the education, health, community development and agriculture. The conceptual debate about increasing agricultural productivity through agricultural research and development has now shifted from agricultural knowledge and information systems to agricultural innovation systems. This project proposes to address the following research questions (a) Does the innovation partnership approach work and have impact on food security, productivity, and reduced poverty of rural households? (b) Under what context, when and for whom does the innovation partnership approach work? (c) How sustainable and usable is the approach outside the test environment? The multisite randomized trials research design will be used to test the causal effects of the innovation partnerships approach and compare to the counterfactuals of what would have happened without the interventions. Some geographical units (districts/administrative posts/localidades/villages) will be selected for implementation of the project while others are not chosen. The difference in the before-after change in outcomes between households in the project areas participating in the project and households in the non-project areas not participating will be used to evaluate the impact of innovation partnership approach. The innovation partnership interventions will be randomly allocated to district sites. Stratified randomization sampling will be used to select lower administrative levels within chosen areas (administrative posts/localides/villages) and households that will be contacted and interviewed to CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 9 207 collect baseline and end-of-project evaluation data. Hierarchical meta-modeling approaches will be used to assess the impact of the project at different sites, and predict impact of subsequent implementation of the program in other sites and extrapolate results outside the current geographically targeted areas. The project areas will be in Nampula, Zambezia and Manica provinces. The provinces are high potential areas for soybean and cowpea production. IITA has ongoing activities, which will be complementary to the proposed activities Project Title: Less loss, more profit, better health: reducing the losses caused by the pod borer Maruca vitrata on vegetable legumes in Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa Donor: The World Vegetable Center (AVRDC) Countries: Benin, Kenya Crops: Vegetable legumes Summary: The overall project goal is to improve the livelihoods and income generation capacity of smallholder vegetable legume farmers in the target countries of Thailand and Vietnam in Southeast Asia, and Benin and Kenya in sub-Saharan Africa by developing a simple, economical, and environmentally sound integrated pest management (IPM) strategy for the control of the legume pod borer (LPB), Maruca vitrata. Existing IPM technologies based on sex pheromones, entomopathogens, and botanicals will be refined and combined with species-specific natural enemies of the LPB for introduction and release throughout Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Project Title: Enhancing grain legumes productivity, production and income of poor farmers in drought-prone areas of sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia (TL II) Phase 1: Aug 1997 to Aug 2011; Phase 2: Sep 2011 to Aug 2014 Donor: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, through International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) Countries: Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Tanzania Crops: Bean, chickpea, cowpea, groundnut, pigeonpea and soybean Partners: Kaduna State Agricultural a Development Project (KADP), The Borno State Agricultural Development Project (BOSADP), Agricultural Research Institute Naliendele (ARI-TANZANIA), Premier Seeds Nigeria Limited (PREMIER SEEDS), National Cereals Research Institute (NCRI), Institut d'Economie Rurale du Mali (IER-MALI), Sokoine University of Agriculture (SOKOINE UNIVERSITY), Instituto de Investigacao Agraria de Mocambique (IIAM), Department of Agriculture Research Services (DARS), Institute for Agricultural Research (IAR), Kano State Agricultural and Rural Development Authority (KNARDA), Institut National de la Recherches Agronomiques du Niger (INRAN), Empresa Comercial dos Productores Associados (IKURU), Organisation Néerlandais de Développement (SNV), Jirkur Seed Cooperative Biu (JIRKUR SEED), University of Agriculture, Makurdi (UAM) Summary: This project aims at increasing productivity (yield per unit area) and production (total availability) of five legumes (bean, chickpea, cowpea, groundnut, pigeonpea and soybean) that are important sources of protein to more than 206.8 million people living in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. The project proposes to develop, test and promote improved crop cultivars and crop management practices that can enhance legume productivity and production in the drought-prone areas of target countries. This will involve developing cultivars that have drought tolerance and resistance to major pests and diseases, using modern plant breeding techniques such as marker-aided selection (developed under Tropical Legumes I Project supported by the Foundation). A major thrust will be to develop and operationalize sustainable seed production and delivery systems in project countries to enhance access of farmers, especially resource poor, to improved cultivars. Social science research will analyze and advise on social and cultural environments that influence sustainable adoption and spread of promising varieties, technologies and innovations, scaling-up and scaling-out of amongst farmers. Social science inputs will also support research developments in breeding through a feedback process, policy dialogue, and lessons learnt for technology dissemination. Capacity building and infrastructure development of national program partners in modern breeding and seed delivery systems is a major activity to ensure sustainability of breeding research in project countries. Project Title: Putting Nitrogen Fixation to Work for Smallholder Farmers in Africa (N2fixAfrica) Donor: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Gates Foundation) through Wageningen University Countries: Kenya, Nigeria, Ghana, Rwanda, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 9 208 Crops: Groundnut, cowpea, soybean, common bean Partners: Institute for Agricultural Research (IAR), International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Kaduna State Agricultural Development Project (KADP), Sasakawa Global 2000 (Sasakawa Global 2000), Bayero University Kano (BUK), Association of Church Development Projects (ACDEP), URBANET (URBANET), Savanna Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) (SARI- GHANA), Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Department of Agricultural Extension Services (DAES), Bunda College of Agriculture (BUNDA), Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), WORLD VISION (WORLD VISION), Women Organizing for Change in Agriculture and Natural Resource Management (WOCAN), Concern Universal Malawi (Concern Universal), Soil Research Institute (SRI) Summary: Smallholder farmers operate under diverse socio-ecological constraints that limit the productivity of legumes and farmers’ ability to scale up the integration of legumes into their farming systems. This project is a new initiative in which legumes are used as a basis for improving cropping systems and household well-being, increasing inputs from biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) that will link family protein supply and farm nitrogen inputs directly to the atmosphere, will improve soil health and will increase household incomes. An integrated assessment will be made of the biophysical and socio-economic factors that are likely to influence farmers’ decisions to adopt legume and associated rhizobial inoculation technologies to improve BNF, allowing for identification of appropriate legume niches for different farmer resource endowments, farm typologies and agroecologies. The large body of research findings on BNF and nitrogen dynamics in smallholder farming systems in SSA will be used, together with the results from adaptive onfarm research to improve existing legume and inoculum-based technologies, develop new ones and support extension campaigns intended to increase BNF and its benefits under smallholder conditions. The project will explore the research-and-development continuum from laboratory testing to collaboration and dissemination with farmer groups in West, East and Southern Africa. CRP 3.5 GRAIN LEGUMES – 15 AUG 2011 – Appendix 9 209