INTEGRATING CIAT
RESEARCH IN AFRICA
Africa Team
Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

Outline
• Introduction
• PABRA Partnerships (What and How)
• Achievements of PABRA
• New Phase of PABRA
• Opportunities for Integrating CIAT Research
in Africa
• Challenges and Opportunities
• SSACP

CHALLENGES OF AGRICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA
 Population Growth - rapidly increasing population
(6.7 m/ yr)
 Poverty & Hunger ( 2000 - 334 m and 2010 - 435 m)
 Climate change and water
 Natural resources degradation & loss of biodiversity
 HIV/AIDS and its impact on agriculture
 Gender dimensions (rural male out-migration;
Gender differences in decision-making)
 Weak infrastructure and markets
 Inappropriate policies
 Inadequate capacity and Brain drain

AFRICA’S DEVELOPMENT AGENDA
(AFRICAN RESPONSE)
COMPREHENSIVE AFRICA AGRICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME’S (CAADP)
Four Pillars
Pillar 2
Pillar 3
Pillar 1 Rural infrastructure
Increasing food
land & water mgt & trade-related
supply & reducing
capacities for market
hunger
access
Pillar 4
Agricultural research, technology dissemination & adoption
 Integrated natural resource management
 Adoptive management of appropriate germplasm
 Development of sustainable market chains
 Policies for sustainable agriculture
Framework for African Agricultural Productivity (FAAP)

Common Goals to Address Africa’s Problems
Millennium AU/NEPAD FARA / ASARECA CIAT
FARA / ASARECA
Development /FANR /CORAF
/FANR /CORAF
Goals
Growth in Commitment to To reduce
Eradicate GDP of 6% Commitment to to the
indicators linked hunger and
extreme pa by 2015 indicatorspovertyto the
MDG for linked and poverty and
poverty and MDG for poverty and
NEPAD’s goal for improve human
NEPAD’s growth
economic goal for
hunger and health in the
economic growth
halve, tropics through
between 1990 research to
Is increased
and 2015, the Is increased increase the
proportion of
economic growth eco-efficiency of
economic growth
people whose 4% growth rate and improved agriculture and
and improved
income is less in agricultural livelihoods while enhance the
livelihoods while
than US$1 a productivity enhancing the nutritional value
enhancing the
day quality of the of foods.
quality of the
environment
environment

CIAT AFRICA STRATEGY
The CIAT Africa strategy aims to respond to
African needs through research where CIAT and
its partners have a comparative advantage.
√ Contribution towards addressing the complex problems
(poverty, productivity, impact on climate variation)
√ Add value and addresses both regional goals & system
priorities.
√ Define and exploit CIAT’s global and regional
comparative advantages
√ A partnership based on value addition, synergy and
achieving common and our strategic goals (research and
development).

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS
FOR CGIAR, CIAT, CIAT-AFRICA
CGIAR/STRATEGIC GLOBAL CIAT CIAT AFRICA -PABRA
OBJECTIVES
A1. Food for People B1. Improved crops C1a. Improving nutrition and health of
for vulnerable communities through
the poor bean products
C 1b. Pro-poor market development
A2. Environment for B2. Improving soil C2a. Building soil assets for small farmer
fertility
People management productivity and environmental
services
C2b. Enhancing systems resilience so as
to lessen or prevent impact of
A3. Policies for environmental /ecological stresses
B3. Latin America and C3. Building capacity building and
People knowledge management for policy
the Caribbean and
B4. Catalyzing C4. Reaching (Institutional
advocacy the hard to reach faster
partnerships in REU strengthening).
and
B5. Mainstreaming more efficiently
C5. Mainstreaming Gender
Gender

TARGET REGION
Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

IMPACT
Bean
ZONES
s
TSBF
Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

UGANDA (Kampala)
KAWANDA AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH STATION
CORAF
UNIVERSITY
ASARECA OF NAIROBI
KENYA ICRAF
SADORE
(Mali) MASENO
RWANDA (Kigali) TANZANIA (Arusha)
ISAR
SELIAN AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
KINSHASA
(DRC) FANR/SADC
BUKAVU MALAWI (Lilongwe)
CHITEDZE AGRICULTURAL
(eastern DRC) RESEARCH STATION
MAPUTO
(Mozambique) ZIMBABWE (Harare)
Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

DONORS
CIDA, SDC, USAID, BMGF, McKnight, ASARECA,
KHT, SADC-FANR , AGRA, KIRKHOUSE
9
7
Uganda - Sudan
Central Africa Republic Tanzania (North)
Congo Brazzaville
DRC - W, North& East.
Cameroun - Togo Kenya - Rwanda
Burkina Faso 10 Burundi - E thiopia
Guinea Country Angola - Lesotho Madagascar
Senegal Malawi - Mozambique
Swaziland - South Africa
Tanzania-South - Zambia
Zimbabwe - DR Congo-South
Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

Pan-Africa Bean Research Alliance (PABRA)
Member Countries (24)

HOW PABRA WORKS
Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

PABRA’ s Partnership:
Complementary and efficient use of resources
CIAT NARES:
Biophysical Management
Social Scientists
Technology development
Research actions:
• Identify key thrusts:
constraints/opportunities
• Catalyze teams for
strategic and applied work
• Publish /share results to
feed into future work
Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

PABRA’s Partnership:
Complementary and efficient use of resources
CIAT NARES: Development
Biophysical Management Partners and
Social Scientists Policy makers
Technology development + Technology adaptation and
priority setting policy support
Identify key research •Engage partners for
constraints /opportunities adaptive research to refine
•Catalyze teams for technology across multiple
strategic and applied work countries
•Publish /share results to • Test approaches to upscale
feed into future work fast, widely and equitably
Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

PABRA’s Partnerships
Complementary and efficient use of resources
CIAT NARES: Development
Biophysical Management Partners and Users
Social Scientists Policy makers
Technology development Technology adaptation and Catalyze links and
+ priority setting policy support partnerships to reach users.
Identify key research •Engage partners for adaptive
constraints research to refine technology •Provide tools and methods
/opportunities across multiple countries for widespread skills and
•Catalyze teams for • Test approaches to upscale knowledge enhancement
strategic and applied fast, widely + with equity. •Raise awareness
work •Publish and share results •Test and use technologies
•Publish /share results to
feed into future work
Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

Shared Breeding Responsibilities:
CIAT-HQ, CIAT-Africa & NARS
Malawi & Tanzania &
Uganda Red Dark Red Zimbabwe
Mottled Kidney
Rwanda Tanzania &
Climbing
Beans Small Red Ethiopia
CIAT –Africa
Regional Programs
Snap Beans
(French)
Kenya
CIAT Others
HQ
South Africa & Large
Madagascar White Sugar,
Tan & D R Congo &
Yellow South Africa
Pintos,
Small
South Africa White Carioca s
& Ethiopia
Kenya

Interaction Within and Between Networks
Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

1. Structure of the networks…Primary and
secondary partners
Existing strong linkages between NBP, NGOs and Department
of Extension at District Level (Dark Blue Circles)

ROLE VS BENFITS OF THE
ALLIANCE
Roles Benefits
• Technology development & • Faster, efficient and wider
adaption uptake of technologies
• Catalyze the uptake of
technologies
• Facilitate the integration of • Increased impact
discipline and partners (first and
secondary; Regional and
national) • Efficient use of resources
• Strengthening capacity (human and materials)
• Resource mobilization
Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

PAST ACHIEVEMENTS
2003 - 2008
Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

PABRA Model, (2003 – 2008 Framework)
Outputs Outcomes Impact
Genetic
improvement
Increased
ISFM & IPDM utilization of
bean based
technologies
Improved Nutrition,
Wider Impact
Food Security,
Income and
Community
Community skills Enhanced Empowerment for
and knowledge capacity of Poverty Alleviation,
communities and in a Sustainable
Manner
Gender and
equity
Partner skills
Strengthening
and knowledge
institution and
organization
Institutional
capacity (network)
capacity

Pythium species
(identified by
sequencing)
pathogenic to beans
and their
Isolates
distribution
Pathogenic
Species Uganda Kenya Rwanda Total
P. ultimum 17 9 23 50
P. 1
aphanidermatum 1 2
P. irregulare 9 1 10
P. myriotylum 1 1 2
P. torulosum 8 11 10 29
P. salpingophorum 12 1 4 17
P. spinosum 7 1 7 15
P. pachycaule 3 3
P. graminicola 7 7
P. nodosum 2 2 Reaction of AND 1062, RWR 719 and
susceptible CAL 96 and LRK 33-1
P. paroecandrum 3 3 6 following inoculation with P. ultimum

A Taking advantage of benefits of molecular tools
to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of
technology development
About 100 resistant lines out of 6000
Elite resistant sources: RWR 719, MLB-49-89A, AND1062, AND 1055 and
SCAM 80CM/15.
Resistance Markers identified in RWR 719, M, MLB-49-89A and AND
1062
Only one SCAR marker, PYAA19, in RWR 719 is useful and routinely
used in MAS at CIAT Kawanda, Uganda
Genetically variable - MAS used to detect
F1 populations presence of desirable
alleles
- Field evaluation
- Application of MAS M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 C
F3 population - On-station PPB
F4 Population - Application of MAS for
ALS and Anthracnose
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 C C
- On-station PPB
F5 Population - Seed increase of the MAS
selected individual plants

Role of intercrops on root rots in bean based
system
 Pythium species
from sorghum
pathogenic on
beans, sorghum
and peas.
 Alternative host
for Pythium species
 Role in of
Scanning electron micrographs of sorghum
intercrops on
tissue: non-inoculated (left) and 8 days
prevalence, after planting with in P. utlimum soil
survival and

M C R Varieties released in PABRA region 2003-2008
Market Class Varieties Countries
Released
Red mottled 17 CD, KE, RW, ET, UG, ZW, SW,
TZ, MZ
Red Kidney 15 CD, MD, KE, RW, TZ,UG, ET,
ZM, TZ
Sugars/speckled 31 KE, CD, ET,UG, ZW, SW, TZ,
MZ, MW, LE
Climbing beans 26 CD, KE, TZ, MD, RW, ET, UG
Small & Medium Red 9 ET, KE, MD, CD
Navy & Large White 22 TZ, MD, ET, SU, ZW, ZM, SW,
CD, ZA, LE
Brown and Tans 24 RW, BU, DRC, ET, ZM, ZW,
TZ, DRC, MW
Purples & Others 3 ZM, CD, LE
Total 147
Some countries have no
breeding programs– but
have released bean
varieties. Some varieties
are released in more than
one country- “Nets that
work for all”

Germplasm Screening for Biofortification
G X E for Grain Fe concentration
Accessions collected: 2849
Screened for minerals:1684 Maharagi Soja 120
Fe: range 27 to 114 ppm 100
80
Lowest: Mex 142 Kab 04
Iron, ppm
Thika
60
Highest: Maharagi Soja, AND 620 Kab 05
Kak
40
Zinc : 12 to 62 ppm 20
Lowest : M211 0
Highest: VNB 81010 AND 620 GLP 2 Gofta M211 Maharagi MLB 49- Nakaja
Soja 89A
Roba-1 TY 3396- VNB
12 81010
Genotype
G X E for Grain Zn concentration
40
•AND 620 and Maharagi Soja had the highest 35
Fe concentration across locations and 30
seasons 25
Kab 04
Zinc, ppm
Thika
20
Kab 05
15
•VNB 81010 had the highest Zn concentration 10
Kak
in all test sites and seasons 5
•Environmental factors influence grain 0
AND 620 GLP 2 Gofta M211 Maharagi MLB 49- Nakaja Roba-1 TY 3396- VNB
mineral concentration Soja 89A 12 81010
Genotype
•Partnerships with seed companies, NGOs,
CBOs, nutrition/health programs etc critical
in ensuring fast track lines reach intended
end users

Participatory evaluation leaves of Maharagi Soja
Line Grain Leaf
Fe Zn Protein Fe Zn Protein
(ppm) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (%)
AFR 708 83 30 21.0 1062 52 17.0
K132 70 31 23.0 1931 53 15.6
TY 3396-12 95 33 nd 482 38 27.6
b. Trial range 49 -107 20-50 16 - 27 397-2498 20-67 15 - 27

Performance of Fast Track Bush Lines in Kenya,
2007 and 2008
Genotype Lowland sites Highland sites
Mean yield Yield over Yield over Mean yield Yield over Yield over
(kg ha-1) best check mean of (kg ha-1) best check mean of
(%) checks (%) (%) checks (%)
MN 1 1150 20.9 33.8 2030 32.6 45.1
MN 3 1130 18.8 31.5 1960 28.7 45.1
MN 6 1130 18.0 30.6 2800 80.6 97.7
MN 9 1010 6.1 17.5 1890 23.3 35.0
MN 5 880 -7.3 2.6 1150 -24.8 2.6
MN 10 950 -0.1 10.6 1210 -20.5 10.6
MN 2 880 -7.4 2.5 1260 -7.0 2.5
MN 11 510 -46.6 -40.3 1420 -46.6 1.8
GLP 92 950 1380
GLP 1127 800 1530
GLP 2 830 1280
Source: KEPHIS, 2008. GLP 92 (Mwitemania), GLP 1127 (Mwezi Moja) and GLP 2 (Rosecoco) were checks.

Yield of four mineral dense climbing bean lines evaluated in
national
performance trials at seven locations in Kenya over two years
Line Status Mean yield across Yield over best
environments check (%)
(kg ha-1)
MV 19 Candidate 2230 45.8
MV17 Candidate 2200 44.1
MV14 Candidate 2150 40.1
MV18 Candidate 1560 2.2
MAC 34 Check 1530
MAC 13 Check 1190
MAC 64 Check 1180
Vuninkingi Check 1110
•New varieties will need to be both nutritionally and agronomically superior, hence
need to combine mineral density with resistance to biotic and abiotic in major
commercial grain types
Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

Future Directions 2) Breeding short day runner beans (P.coccineus)
1) Snap Bean Breeding
•Limited work in the
region and experience 3) Beans for
•Demand for public
Hot, Humid
bred lines on the rise
•Major traits: pod lowland
shape, size, texture, Tropics
rust, angular leaf spot
•Both bush and
climbing types
•Major export e.g.
Kenya ($60m/year);
employs >1 million
4) TL II drought nursery
Katumani
drought
phenotyping
Kabete
training

IMPROVING NUTRITION AND HEALTH
• Assessment of dietary practices, characteristics
and prevalence of malnutrition in selected
countries
• Technologies evaluated for adaptation and
utilization among vulnerable communities
 Participatory variety evaluation and selection on
demonstration gardens
• Tested options for effective integration of beans
into other local diets
• Processing, preparation and post harvest value
addition,
• Information dissemination, awareness creation
and promotion through a wide range of health
partners

Improving Nutrition and Health
• Improved nutrition and health status:
• Improved cooking methods and dietary
combinations (Central Uganda and Western
Kenya)
• National nutrition and Micronutrient
intervention policies incorporate bio-
fortification and agriculture as key intervention
in combating malnutrition (RW, UG and KE)
Future studies
– Bioavailability, efficacy and effectiveness- H+
– Facilitate uptake and promote consumption
(CIALCA, NGOs, health partners like
AMREF)
– Conduct more impact studies
Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

mg GAE/100g dm
0
200
400
600
800
1000
MEX 142
CAB 19
VCB 81013
Awash Melka
Ranjonomby
white
Ituri Matata
HRS 545
CAB 2
CAB 19 (F9)
Maharagi
Libi
RWV 528
cream
Roba 1
Nakaja
light
Gofta
brown
G 2331
TY 3396-12
Zebra
Africa
GLP X92
brown
Ayenew
mottled
Selian 97
Umubano
RWR 10
Vuninkingi
(Not published)
GLP 585
Decelaya
GLP 24
Umubano K1
dark red
ABA 136
Vuninkingi
Mashai Red
MCM 2001
39.33333333
Oba -1
Dose dependent effect of bean polyphenols on iron absorption
GLP 2
AND 620
PVA 8
mottled
dark red
VNB 81010
BCR 4
Polyphenol content of beans from Eastern
Tajeri Foman 2006
MLB 49/89A
black

PABRA - REU
United- cross technology and information
thrust
• Production
• Environmental stress concerns
• Nutrition and health
Aims
• To generate strategic lessons (which REU is cross-cut,
which are technology specific)
• To leverage out production and outreach synergies
(e..g 4 thrusts in single regions– enhance integrated
impact)
Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

PABRA serves as integrating REU
Umbrella
Examples of Current Seed System-related projects
• TLII (Kenya + Ethiopia)
• McKnight (Malawi, Moz., S. Tanzania)
• (HP+- DRC and Rwanda)
• PABRA-funded directly
– Uganda
– DRC
– Zambia
– Zimbabwe
Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

RESEARCH: Seed Production Models being
tested under TLII
FOUNDATION/CERTIFIED SEED- production, via
1. NARS (produced Research Center)
2. Private Sector companies – producing directly
3. Private Sector- producing with contract farmers
4. Public sector with Contract farmers (who have ‘good track record’)
5. Trained Farmer groups (cowpea)
6. Small farmer individuals (select group)
7. Agricultural Universities (India)
8. Individual farmers’ fields ( breeder seed, under supervision- India
‘OTHER’ QUALITIES OF SEED PRODUCTION, via
1. Individual seed producers
2. CBSS, trained farmers groups
3. Schools
4. NGOs multiplying (ESA)
5. Federation of farmers groups.
6. PDKV- (university name ) model- individual farmers
7. Farmer associations- (have to be registered)

RESULTS: NEW PUBLIC –PRIVATE
SECTOR PARTNERSHIP
• 28,000 packs sold
(Sept 09- Jan 09)
Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

Reaching End Users with seed of
improved varieties
• The WIP strategy –from • Estimated 8 million
centralized distribution farmers (primary
networks to decentralized beneficiaries) accessing
networks new bean varieties as of
• Building on varied 2008.
organizational strengths
• Diversifying categories of • Program catalyzed some
beneficiaries 440 partnerships by 2008
• Engaging nutrition and health
partners in agricultural
extension
Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

PABRA’s Contribution towards impacts
Increased Income and remarkable contributions to welfare
changes for rural households
 Beans transfer to immediate cash for rural households, and are a major
source of household income for commercial farmers.
 In Tanzania income from local varieties has increased by 59% over the
last five years, average income from new varieties has grown by 197%,
more than three times. ).
 In Malawi, improved bean varieties accounted for 80% of the total
volume of beans procured from farmers by local food wholesale traders.
 In Uganda, surveys indicate that average annual household bean income
has more than doubled since introduction of new varieties. New varieties
now account for 67% of the annual household bean income.
Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

KNOWLEDGE SHARING
• Manuals
• Communication and awareness creation
materials
• PABRA Outlooks
• Videos
• Websites

PABRA’s NEW PHASE
2009 - 2013
Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

PABRA FRAMEWORK 2009-2013
Project Outcomes Outputs
Goal Resilience – Tools targeting technologies for specific stresses
Improved varieties Mechanisms for resistance
Improved
nutrition Resilience Non Options for managing stress environments
Tools to diagnose and understand acute stress
varietal
and health, constraints
Access and
gender
utilization of Mineral rich bean varieties
equality, micronutrient-rich Bean based food products
Bio-availability, bio-efficacy, retention of
food bean varieties and micronutrients and health qualities
security, products
incomes and Information on and linking to markets
Opportunities of
natural new and expanding
Competitive and market demanded products
Bean production for niche markets
resource markets
base for Seed systems and information
Environment stress management products
sustainable Micro nutrient dense bean based products
Reaching end users
livelihoods of Policy tools
resource Knowledge
Synergies, efficiencies, and accountability,
in responding to demand in new areas
poor women sharing and use, Knowledge base
and men policy, M&E Policy and advocacy
farmers Integration of women in technology dev,
Gender Equality Integration of women in res and decision
making in PABRA

AREA/THEMES (09 – 13) FOCUS AND TARGET
Enhancing systems resilience so as to -Research and development
lessen or prevent impact of interventions towards support of
environmental /ecological stresses system resilience
-Variety development (biotic and
abiotic)
- Climate change
Improving nutrition and health of -Micronutrient rich varieties
vulnerable communities through use of -Link Health and Agric
developed (e.g. bean) products -Value addition & Food baskets
Pro-poor market development -New market product S(incl varieties)
-Organization , Value addition
-Input use and access to credit
Reaching the hard to reach faster and -Accelerate reach, Novel approaches
more efficiently -Cross technology strategy
-Numbers – 16.5 m (09-13)
Building capacity building and knowledge -Institutionalization of knowledge,
management for policy and advocacy skills and approaches
(Institutional strengthening). -Policies
-Knowledge management
Gender Mainstreaming -Gender in technology development
-Research and governance

Strengthening of Cross Cutting
Areas
 Gender Mainstreaming
 HIV-AIDS Mainstreaming
 Partnerships and Alliance
 M& E
 Niche markets

ALIGNING NEW AND ON-GOING EFFORTS TO
NEW THE FRAMEWORK
• Use of the Framework (integrate on-going
efforts and activities)
• Strengthening of National Levels Participation
and contributions
Communication and awareness of PABRA
Involvement and contributions in PABRA activities
Support in complementary resource mobilization
Team development
• Mobilization of resources
To consider new and complementing opportunities

MAPPING COMPLEMENTARY PROJECTS/PRGMS IN PABRA
DONORS AND DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS
Outcome KT AGRA BMGF NUTRIBE HP MKF MSI CRSP ASARE BMZ NGO’s GOV
AN CA Ts
Resilience 4 5 5 3 1 1 2 √
varieties
Res Non- var 1 1 √
Nutrition 3 2 1 √ √
Markets √ 1 √ √
REU 5 5 2 3 √ √
Capacity 4 2 3 3 √ √
Gender √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Figures indicate number of countries

Budget from donors and estimated input / contributions by partners / government.
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Donor/
US$ US$ US$ US$ US$
Contrib.
CIDA 1,612,000 1,530,000 1,596,000 1,610,000 1,650000,
SDC 1.050,000 1.050,000 1.050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000
BMGF 800,000 800,000 ? ?
AGRA 105,000 105,000 100’000 ?
VLIR 120,000 120,000
CIAT (HQ) 200,000 200,000 200,000 150,000 150,000
NARS (in
3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
Kind)
NGOs (in
4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
kind)
Total 10,887,000 10,805,000 9,946,000 9,810,000 9,850,000

OPPORTUNITIES FOR
INTEGRATION
Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

Opportunities for Integration
• Lessons from PABRA
– Framework
– Bean Projects in Africa (Internal and External)
• TLII, HP+ (internal)
• KIRKHOUSE, AGRA
• Agro-biodiversity and TSBF (& LAC)
• Cassava and TSBF (CIALCA)
• PABRA (Outcome 1) and TSBF
• PABRA and Afnet
• Forages Initiating
• CGIAR
– ILRI and CIAT (initiated)
– IITA and Cassava (relations improving)
– Collective Action Initiatives
– SSACP

Implementing Integration - How ?
• Sharing agendas and identifying our comparative
advantages
• Increase participation in project program development
and implementation
• Joint positions (e.g. Nutrition, agro- enterprise, REU)
• Common location & sharing of costs (e.g. Kigali, Arusha,
Malawi)
• Take advantage of common research sites
Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

CIALCA technologies and
products
Improving productivity
Improved legume-cassava intercropping systems:
 Using disease-resistant, high-yielding germplasm
 Legume integration for system diversification
 Adapted agronomy and spacing to maximize legume productivity
 In situ biomass production through the legumes
 Combining with micro-dose fertilizer application
Productivity is increased based on the ISFM approach, integrating improved germplasm, efficient use of organic and
inorganic nutrient inputs, and adaptation to local conditions and cropping practices.

Integration in Africa
PROGRAM AREAS & LOCATION
PROGRAMS FOR
AG-BIO TSBF LAC INTEGRATION
AFRICA
5 Thematic
Areas
or Projects
√ Reaching the hard to reach
√ Maximizing farmers’ benefit from markets
√ Building eco-system resilience
√ Linking agriculture to health
√ Institutional strengthening

CHALLENGES AND
OPPORTUNITIES
Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

Challenges
• Synergy and integration platforms (within
and others)
• Evolving regional priorities
• Balance between research and catalyzing
• Communication & links between regions
• Capacity development
• Funding and other support
Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

Emerging Opportunities
• New initiatives focusing on Africa (e.g. CP, BMGF,
AGRA. SROs)
• New Research Opportunities
Climate change (gender +resilience under high
stress)
HIV/AIDS (mitigation)
• Emerging and dynamic markets
• Integration of nutrition in Agricultural Research
• Regional Plan for collective Action
Eco-Efficient Agriculture for the Poor

SSACP

Intensively cultivated slopes in the LK PLS

Lake Kivu PLS- MILESTONES
STAGE I: INCEPTION - PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT
• Launch- Kigali Rwanda by ASARECA (April 2005),
• MoU between ASARECA and FARA (June 2005 )
• PLS-MC selected in July, 2005
• Appointment of Lead Institutions consortium August 2005
• Validation exercise (October 2005),
• EU Review Mission
Entry points selected (Kigali workshop)
#1: More food products and better nutrition at reduced cost and minimal degradation of
the natural resource base;
#2: Beneficial conservation and sustainable use of natural resources
#3: Wealth creation through agro-enterprise diversification and improved market
access.

STAGE II: PROJECT INTEGRATION
DEVELOPMENT OF COMMON GOALS
– Long-term:
– Improved food and nutrition security,
– Increased household incomes,
– Improved quality of the PLS natural resource base
– Medium-term (inter alia):
– An agricultural innovation platform model
– Increased resource productivity
– Behavioural changes among actors along the value chain
– Increased diversification of agricultural and other natural resource-
based enterprises

Research
Questions Which options enhance and/or stabilize productivity
while ensuring sustainable NRM under different bio-
Under what conditions does improved access to
physical and socio-economic conditions ?
How can diverse rural households and their support
and competitiveness of smallholder farmers in
institutions be empowered to bemarkets enhance investment into
and output pro-active members of
inputproductivity enhancing technologies and practices
A Which
value chains?NRM?
ensure conservation of the NR base?
Productivity D
Under what conditions do commodity value chains lead to
Sustainable
What NRM options and strategies facilitate farmers
improved NRM
productivity and competitiveness of alternative
and other actors to effectively respond to market
Policies enterprises? DEF
opportunities such as change in seasonal
F What are the requisite policies and institutions needed to
What market demands andto create are required to for
consumer preferences
institutional innovations new income sources,
enable integrated NRM
differentiated products
increase productivity and competitiveness of smallholder
increased productivity as well as encourage investments in
C Eproducers?
B
conservation?
Efficient
markets What trade, value addition and food security policies enhance
the efficiency of agricultural markets and make them work
better for the small farmers?

Innovation Platforms-
Learning alliances
RC/V = Rural Policy makers Extension
Community/Village Micro-credit
institutions
/village ()
Education
Researchers
RC/V
Transporters
Farmer association
with a facilitating Farmer
function group
Water/irrigation
RC/V
Agro-processor
Input / output
marketers
ICT providers
Health providers

STAGE III: SC RECOMMENDED NEW QUESTIONS
Questions
– Does the IAR4D concept work and can it generate deliverable
international and regional public goods for the end users?
– Does the IAR4D framework deliver more benefits to end users than
conventional approaches?
– How sustainable and usable is the IAR4D approach outside the test
environment (i.e. issues of scaling out for broader impact)?
Action taken
Development and harmonization of a revised integrated programme framework,
workplan and budgets.

STAGE IV: IMPLEMENTATION
 Finalize the integration process
 Develop a research action plan and
strategy for Proof of Concept of IAR4D
(understand and consolidate the
process based)
• Design
• Sites
• Integration among projects, within site and between
sites

2. TECHNICAL ACHIEVEMENTS /
PROGRESS
• Specific sites (Action & Counterfactual) selected
• Stakeholder analysis and mapping
• Baseline studies (Plot, Household, Village
characterization, Market surveys) conducted
• Data collection & Entry
• Data management training
• 7 IP initiated

ACTION & COUNTERFACTUAL SITES
Country Market accessibility
Good Poor
Uganda Chahi Bufundi
Rwanda Gataraga Mudende
Rwerere
DRC Muvunyi- Kisigari
Shanga

Categories of stakeholders in Bufundi
Stake holder No. of No. of
category groups linkages
1. Private sector 5 15
2. Farmer 4 30
3. Extension 4 15
4. Policy makers 2 5
5. Researchers 1 3
6. NGO 1 4

CHALLENGES
TECHNICAL
• Long planning Process
• Evolving agenda
• Not been easy converting 3 to 1 (conceptually and
practically)
• Technical adaptations and harmonization of the three
entry points in the proof of concepts
• Maintaining partners engagement

CHALLENGES
ADMINSTRATION
• Adapting budgets in the one project
approach
• Changes in TF leaderships (1 and 3)
• Synchrony in reporting