HarvestPlus c/o IFPRI
2033 K Street, NW • Washington, DC 20006-1002 USA
Tel: 202-862-5600 • Fax: 202-467-4439
HarvestPlus@cgiar.org • www.HarvestPlus.org
Biofortification in Africa
Evidence of Success and Vision
for Scaling Up
ReSAKSS 2016 Conference Side Event
October 18, 2016 | Accra, Ghana

Session Line-up
I. Introduction
Prof Ruth Oniang’o (Chair)
II. Nutrition and Impact Evidence
Dorene Asare-Marfo
III. Crop Releases and Delivery
Bho Mudyahoto
IV. Partnerships for Scale Up
Nelson Ojijo-Olang’o
V. Discussion
Dr. Lawrence Haddad (Discussant)

INTRODUCTION
Prof Ruth K. Oniang’o
Editor-in-Chief, African Journal of Food, Agriculture,
Nutrition and Development (AJFAND)
Founder, Rural Outreach Program (ROP) Africa

NUTRITION AND SOCIO-
ECONOMIC IMPACT EVIDENCE
Dorene Asare-Marfo
Program Manager and Senior Research Analyst
HarvestPlus-IFPRI, Washington DC

Global Micronutrient Deficiency

Hidden Hunger
 Affects 2 billion people worldwide (i.e. 1 in 3)
(FAO 2013)
 Contributes to the global disease burden of children
 Poor quality diets is one of the major causes
– High intake of starchy staple foods
(e.g. rice, maize, cassava)
– Low intake of micronutrient-rich foods
(e.g. vegetables, legumes, animal source foods)

Strategies for Tackling Hidden Hunger
Supplementation Fortification
Biofortification
Dietary diversity

is a process of
increasing the density of vitamins
and minerals in a crop through
plant breeding or agronomic
practices, so that the biofortified
crops, when consumed regularly,
will generate measurable
improvement in vitamin and
mineral nutritional status.

Sweet Potato
Uganda
(2007)
Biofortified Crops in Africa
Maize
Zambia
(2012)
Beans
Rwanda & DRC
(2012)
Cassava
Nigeria & DRC
(2011)

3
1 2
Dr. Howarth Bouis
2016 World Food Prize Laureate
Are farmers willing
to grow and are
consumers willing to
eat biofortified
crops?
Can conventional
breeding add extra
nutrients in the
crops without
reducing yields?
When consumed, can
the increase in nutrient
levels make a
measurable and
significant impact on
human nutrition?

1
3
2
Can conventional
breeding add extra
nutrients in the
crops without
reducing yields?
Are farmers willing
to grow and are
consumers willing to
eat biofortified
crops?
When consumed,
can the increase in
nutrient levels make
a measurable and
significant impact on
human nutrition?
Is biofortification
feasible &
effective?

Is Biofortification Feasible and Effective?
H+
Socio-
Economic
& Nutrition
Research
Targeting for impact
Measuring impact
Testing for impact

Targeting for Impact
Consumption, retention and
bioavailability (absorption) studies
Biofortification Priority Index (BPI)

Testing for Impact
Efficacy Trials/Studies
Farmer Field Day Evaluations
Farmer Feedback Studies
Consumer Acceptance Studies

Testing: Nutrition Evidence
• Vitamin A Maize Efficacy study - Zambia (Gannon et al., 2014)
– Children aged 5-7
– Total body stores of vitamin A increased significantly for treatment group
for three months
– Beta carotene in maize is an efficacious source of vitamin A
• Iron Beans Efficacy study - Rwanda (Haas et al., 2016)
– Young women aged 18-27
– Significant increase in iron status after consuming biofortified beans for
six months
– Iron biofortified beans are an efficacious source of iron

Testing: Socio-Economic Evidence
• Vit A Maize (VAM) Farmer Feedback study - Zambia (Diressie et al, 2016)
– Farmers who planted VAM
– Feedback from farmers was very positive and informative
• Growers liked the production and consumption traits of VAM
• Majority want to plant VAM in subsequent seasons and want 4X more seed
• Vit A Cassava Consumer Acceptance - Nigeria (Oparinde et al., 2014)
– Rural consumers in Oyo state
– Hedonic testing for vitamin A (light and dark yellow) gari vs white gari
– Information on nutritional benefits has an effect on level of acceptance
• Without information, light yellow gari is preferred
• With information, higher preference for deep-colored yellow gari

Measuring Impact
Effectiveness Studies
Impact Assessment
Studies
Population
Level

Measuring: Nutrition Evidence
Orange Sweet Potato (OSP) Effectiveness Study in Uganda
and Mozambique
• OSP significantly increased vitamin A intake among women and
children  9.5% reduction in prevalence of low serum retinol
(Hotz et al., 2012)
• OSP accounted for more than half of total vitamin A intake –
53% in Uganda and 78% in Mozambique (Hotz et al., 2012)
• Reduced prevalence (by 11.5 percentage points) and frequency
(by 0.6 days) of diarrhea in children under-five
(Jones and de Brauw, 2015)
• OSP can improve child health by reducing vitamin A deficiency
(Jones and de Brauw, 2015)

Measuring: Socio-Economic Evidence (1)
Orange Sweet Potato (OSP) Effectiveness Study in Uganda
and Mozambique
(de Brauw et al., 2010)
• 61% (Uganda) and 68% (Mozambique) of beneficiary households
adopted OSP
• Farmers increased share of OSP in total sweet potato cultivated
area and consumers substituted white or yellow SP varieties for
OSP
• Intervention cost about US$15–20 per Disability Adjusted Life
Years (DALYs) saved  highly cost-effective

High Iron Beans (HIBs) Impact Assessment Study in Rwanda
(Asare-Marfo et al., 2016)
• 28% HIB adoption since 2010 ≈ Half a million HHs in Rwanda
• 54% continuous or intermittent adopters
• Farmers increase area planted to HIB over time
• 12% of total bean output in SB 2015 was HIB
• Social networks play a major role in diffusion
– 41% received first planting material from friend or neighbor
Measuring: Socio-Economic Evidence (2)

1
3
2
Can conventional
breeding add extra
nutrients in the
crops without
reducing yields?
Are farmers willing
to grow and are
consumers willing to
eat biofortified
crops?
When consumed,
can the increase in
nutrient levels make
a measurable and
significant impact on
human nutrition?
The Research has proven that:
Conventional breeding can increase the
nutrients in the crop
When consumed, nutrient levels can make a
measurable and significant impact
Farmers are willing to grow, and consumers
are willing to eat biofortified crops

The Potential of Biofortified Crops
Dr. Akinwumi Adesina,
President of the African Development Bank

BREEDING AND DELIVERING
BIOFORTIFIED CROPS IN AFRICA
Bho Mudyahoto
Senior Monitoring, Learning and Evaluation Specialist
HarvestPlus-IFPRI, Kampala

What We Now Know About Breeding and
Delivery of Biofortified Crops in Africa
• Breeding can add extra nutrients to crops
• Farmers are willing to grow and consumers are
willing to eat biofortified crops
• More African countries have embraced biofortified
crops and biofortification as a strategy to reduce
malnutrition
• Carefully identified indicators and good
coordination are crucial for tracking reach and
impact for biofortification initiatives

Breeding, Testing & Release of Varieties
• HarvestPlus/CG/NARS  develop, test & release
• NARS release and keep improving nutrient levels and
other production traits
• Biofortified germplasm  public goods to governments
• Over 20 African countries are now developing, testing
& releasing several biofortified crop varieties

Status of Biofortified Varieties in Africa
Iron
beans
Yellow
cassava
Orange
maize
Orange
sweet
potato
Number of countries
tested in
6 8 10 > 14
Number of countries
released in
6 5 7 > 14
Number of varieties
released
28 10 31 > 90
Source: HarvestPlus (2016)

Delivering Released Varieties to Farmers
• Active delivery operations in DRC, Nigeria, Rwanda,
Uganda, Zambia  Zimbabwe, Tanzania & Kenya*
• H+ delivers through partners  use commercial and
non-commercial delivery channels:
– Zambia – private commercial seed companies  multiply & market direct
– Uganda & Rwanda – partners & Individual smallholder farmers
– Also through governments, NGO/CBO  with or without H+
• Indirect reach  farmer to farmer diffusion for non
hybrid varieties
*HarvestPlus partnership countries

Measuring What We Report
• HarvestPlus’ 3 legged Monitoring, Learning and Action
(MLA) system
a. Implementation monitoring  5 process & 10 output level
indicators
b. Outcome monitoring  10 outcome level indicators 
monitoring surveys
c. MLA models  10 outcome & 3 impact indicators
• Feeding data into MLA models  application/use
• Impact Assessments  10 outcome & 3 impact level
indicators  qualitative variables

Number of Households Reached in Africa (‘000)
Crop/country 2012 2013 2014 2015
Vitamin A cassava, Nigeria 0 106 360 520
Vitamin A OSP, Uganda 33 76 107 132
Iron beans, Uganda 29 69 43 37
Iron beans, Rwanda 105 609 332 480
Iron beans, DR Congo 60 241 128 175
Vitamin A cassava, DR Congo 0 25 75 180
Vitamin A maize, Zambia 0 11 104 110
Total 227 1,137 1,149 1,634

• High phytate content in crops being developed for high
iron or zinc  interfere with their absorption
• β-carotene levels vs DM content in OSP & VAC
• Invisible trait crops  iron and zinc:
– Adulteration/falsification along the value chain
• Seed production is a constraint in many countries
– Low access by the poor
– Commercial seed shun root & tubers crops
– Seed quality control is challenging
Challenges:15yrs of research, delivery & learning

Concluding Remarks
• The HarvestPlus/CG/government/private sector and farmers 
tremendous progress in Africa  develop, test, release
• Commercial and non-commercial channels for delivery of PM
• More households are growing and eating biofortified crops each
year in target countries
• More countries are developing and releasing biofortified crop
varieties without direct support from HarvestPlus 
sustainability
• Variable identification, systematic data collection and analysis
and good coordination of M&E systems crucial for successful
measurement of progress & results for biofortification initiatives

PARTNERSHIPS FOR SCALING UP
BIOFORTIFIED FOODS
Nelson Ojijo Olang’o
Lead Specialist Capacity Development
FARA, Nairobi

Partnerships for Biofortification
Phase of Biofortification Type of Partnership
Development of biofortified crop
technologies
For technical feasibility
(breeders,
agronomists, funding)
Efficacy and effectiveness testing For nutritional impact
(nutritionists, food
scientists, processors)
Adoption, scaling up, sustainability For scalability &
sustainability
(See next figure)

Framework for Scaling Up
Adapted from: Cooley, L. and Linn, J. F. (2014)

Africa’s Commitment to Nutrition
• African Union Commission (AUC)
– Malabo Declaration III 3(d)
– Africa Regional Nutrition Strategy (2005 – 2015 & 2016 – 2025)
– African Task Force on Food and Nutrition Development (ATFFND)
– The Cost of Hunger in Africa (COHA) studies
• NEPAD
– Food & Nutrition Program
– NEPAD Food Security and Nutrition Expert Panel
• Regional Economic Communities
• FARA and SROs

Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement

Partnerships & the CAADP RF 2014 - 2024
Agriculture contribution to
economic growth and inclusive
development
Agricultural Transformation &
Sustained Growth
Strengthened systemic capacity
for effective execution and
delivery of results
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Improved food security & nutrition
(Ind: underweight, stunting, wasting)
Increased production & productivity
(of nutrient-enhanced crops)
Partnerships & alliances within and across
sectors (for scaling up nutrition)

Partnerships in Scaling Up
Public Private

Partnerships for Scalability
• Sweet Potato for Health Initiative (SPHI): 10 million
households in 10 years
– Dissemination of New Agricultural Technologies in Africa (DONATA)
(2008 – 2015): OFSP
– Sweet potato Action for Security and Health in Africa - SASHA I and
II (2010 - 2019) including Mama SASHA on OFSP
– Reaching Agents of Change (2011 – 2014) on OFSP
• Building Nutritious Food Baskets, BNFB (2016 – 2018):
testing a model for multi-crop approach to scaling up
– Orange sweet potato, yellow cassava, high iron/zinc beans, orange
maize (CIP, IITA, H+, FARA, CIMMYT, CIAT, national partners)

Partnerships for Sustainability (1)
We need action at policy, private sector and
beneficiary levels:
– Mainstreaming of biofortification initiatives in
government policies
– Private sector commitment and involvement in
biofortification – development, production,
processing, marketing, and promotion
– Increased nutritional knowledge and changed
consumption habits of consumers

Partnerships for Sustainability (2)
Key partnerships would include:
• Biofortified crop development – mainstreaming
by national and CG Centers (Kigali declaration of
2014)
• Partnerships with Private Seed Companies
• Aid/Grants - Development partners including
biofortification in their programs
• Food Industry - Local and International
companies processing biofortified foods

The Work Ahead
Forging NARS/CGIAR partnerships :
– For Zinc rice and Zinc wheat varieties
– For Iron Pearl Millet and Zinc/Iron sorghum in Sahelian
countries
– To increase regional capacity to develop additional
nutrient-rich staple food varieties;
– To strengthen public and private seed systems and policies
to fuel supply and demand for more nutritious crops

Call To Action
• Explicit indicators needed to track nutritional outcomes
at Levels II & III of the CAADP RF (2014 – 2024)
• Urgent need for African policy makers to:
– Include biofortification in key agriculture, health and nutrition
strategies at national, regional, and global levels.
– Mandate biofortification within National Agricultural Research
Systems (NARS)
– Support inclusion of Biofortification definition into CODEX and
National Standards

Acknowledgements

DISCUSSION
Dr. Lawrence Haddad
Executive Director, Global Alliance for Nutrition (GAIN)