B PLAN 2009-2013 - aatf-africa.org · v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document is the African Agricultural...
Transcript of B PLAN 2009-2013 - aatf-africa.org · v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document is the African Agricultural...
BUSINESS PLAN 2009-2013
March 2009
Business Plan
Prepared by the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF)
ii
CONTENTS
Abbreviations & acronyms ................................................................................................. iv
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. v
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Purpose of the business plan .................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Investors & partners ................................................................................................................. 1
1.3. Structure of the business plan ................................................................................................. 3
2. Rationale for intervention ............................................................................................ 4
2.1. Importance of agriculture in Africa ....................................................................................... 4
2.2. Role of technology in increasing agricultural productivity and incomes .......................... 4
2.3. Rationale for creating AATF .................................................................................................. 6
2.4. Role of AATF ........................................................................................................................... 7
3. Mission & objectives and core values ........................................................................12
3.1. Vision & mission .................................................................................................................... 12
3.2. Strategic thrusts ......................................................................................................................... 12
3.3. Core values and guiding principles ....................................................................................... 13
4. Project activities ..........................................................................................................16
4.1. Overview of project lifecycle activities for delivering the AATF’s mission ................... 16
4.2. Project Lifecycle Phase 0: Intelligence Gathering .............................................................. 18
4.3. Project Lifecycle Phase 1: Project Formulation ................................................................. 18
4.4. Project Lifecycle Phase 2: Product Development .............................................................. 19
4.5. Project Lifecycle Phase 3: Product Deployment ................................................................ 19
4.6. Project management ............................................................................................................... 20
5. Governance & staffing ................................................................................................21
5.1. Governance ............................................................................................................................. 21
5.2. Staffing ..................................................................................................................................... 22
5.3. Organizational structure ........................................................................................................ 22
6. AATF’s current project portfolio ............................................................................... 25
6.1. Overview .................................................................................................................................. 25
6.2. Current projects ...................................................................................................................... 26
6.3. Product concepts .................................................................................................................... 38
6.4. Special projects ........................................................................................................................ 43
iii
6.5. Strategic initiatives .................................................................................................................. 43
7. AATF’s future project portfolio ................................................................................. 45
7.1. Golden rice for Africa ............................................................................................................ 46
7.2. Striga control in smallholder sorghum fields in Africa ..................................................... 48
7.3. Herbicide-resistant cowpea ................................................................................................... 49
7.4. Herbicide-resistant cassava .................................................................................................... 51
7.5. Reducing crop loss through control of locusts and grasshoppers .................................. 53
7.6. Diagnostic and MAS tools for crop improvement ............................................................ 55
8. Sources of funding ..................................................................................................... 58
8.1. Funding from public sources ................................................................................................ 58
8.2. Private sector funding ............................................................................................................ 59
9. Financials ................................................................................................................... 60
9.1. AATF historic expenditure ................................................................................................... 60
9.2. Summary AATF projected expenditure .............................................................................. 60
9.3. Funding requirements ............................................................................................................ 61
10. Milestones & reporting .......................................................................................... 64
10.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 64
10.2. Milestones ................................................................................................................................ 64
10.3. Progress reporting .................................................................................................................. 72
10.4. Indicators for evaluation at the end of AATF’s involvement in a project ..................... 72
11. Targets & impacts ..................................................................................................... 75
11.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 75
11.2. Methodology............................................................................................................................ 75
11.3. Assumed uptake of new technologies ................................................................................. 76
11.4. Assumed cost of combination of interventions required for adoption .......................... 77
11.5. Results ...................................................................................................................................... 78
11.6. Yield-income relationship ...................................................................................................... 82
iv
ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS
AATF African Agricultural Technology Foundation
ASARECA The Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa
BMGF Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
CORAF Le Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Développement Agricoles
DAC Design Advisory Committee
DFID Department For International Development, UK
GMO Genetically Modified Organism
FTO Freedom to Operate
ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
IR Imazapyr Resistant
IPR Intellectual Property Rights
ISAAA International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications
KARI Kenya Agricultural Research Institute
MDG Millennium Development Goal
NARO National Agricultural Research Organisation
NARS National Agriculture Research System
NERICA New Rice for Africa
NGICA Network for the Genetic Improvement of Cowpea for Africa
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PPP Public-Private Partnership
R&D Research and Development
SACCAR Southern African Centre for Cooperation in Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Training
SSA Sub-Saharan Africa
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document is the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (‘AATF’) business plan for
2009-2013. It has been prepared by AATF staff in working collaboration with the consulting
firm CEPA and reflects the initial judgements of the AATF Executive Director.
Rationale for creating AATF
AATF was created because of several problems that affect agricultural development in Africa
including:
The current size of Africa’s markets is often insufficient to attract the commercial
interests of most multinational corporations offering proprietary technologies.
Those corporations tend not to be prepared to invest in establishing the necessary
contacts or legal procedures, or face liabilities arising from the donated technologies.
Many public research institutions are willing to provide their technologies, but are not
capable of engaging in the required downstream partnerships and procedures.
Public research organisations have little experience in delivering technologies to the
private sector for production and deployment and require access to best practices.
Neither public nor private organisations in Africa have sufficient experience in
promoting proprietary agricultural technology targeting resource-poor farmers.
African agribusiness firms will be unwilling to invest in producing, promoting and
delivering products from new technologies to resource-poor farmers unless they have
some assurance of a reasonable return on investment
Role of AATF
AATF serves as an honest broker in negotiating the royalty-free transfer of technologies held by
public and private organisations in industrialised and developing countries to smallholder farmers
in Africa by establishing partnerships along the product value chain, and facilitating access to,
development, delivery and utilisation of proprietary agricultural technologies.
AATF assembles the necessary components for each project it undertakes by mobilising funding,
managing the licensing of technologies, facilitating testing and regulatory approval processes,
ensuring appropriate product stewardship, enforcing licence conditions, and ensuring that
products actually reach farmers.
Finally AATF addresses inadequate institutional resources for efficient access to, and utilisation
of, proprietary technologies. Although AATF can be seen as part of wider efforts to support
‘public-private partnerships’ for African development, it plays a catalytic role by negotiating
access to proprietary technology, supporting its adaptation, and providing stewardship for
subsequent sustainable commercialization and delivery to farmers.
vi
Mission & objectives
The mission of AATF is to access and deliver affordable agricultural technologies for sustainable
use by smallholders, and in particular resource-poor farmers, in Africa through innovative
partnerships and effective technology/product stewardship along the entire food value chain.
AATF has five principle objectives:
Objective 1: To manage access to and delivery of innovative technologies for
addressing constraints to agricultural productivity in SSA
Objective 2: To develop mechanisms for long-term technology stewardship across the
food value chain
Objective 3: To foster institutional partnerships for development, delivery and uptake
of agricultural technologies and innovations across the food value chain
Objective 4: To facilitate pro-poor approaches to market access for surplus produce
Objective 5: To develop sustainable capacities for identification, access, adaptation
and uptake of technologies
Strategic Thrusts
AATF has committed to anchor its activities within three strategic thrusts, namely:
Strategic thrust 1: Negotiating access to proprietary technologies that enhance the
productivity of agriculture in Africa
Strategic thrust 2: Managing partnerships for project formulation, product
development and deployment to introduce innovative agricultural technologies to
African farming systems
Strategic thrust 3: Managing knowledge and information to support technology
identification and development, and the policy environment.
As a pioneer institution to brokering innovative agricultural technologies to farmers, and in
particular to resource-poor smallholder farmers, in Africa, the Foundation upholds the core
values of integrity, dedication and accessibility.
Projects
AATF undertakes projects to develop and deploy new technology products (in the form
improved seed and other planting materials) to smallholder farmers in Africa. It is currently
undertaking five projects aimed at developing and/or deploying new input agricultural
technologies targeted toward overcoming the following biotic and abiotic constraints:
Striga resistance in maize.
Insect resistance in cowpea.
vii
Drought tolerance in maize.
Bacterial wilt resistance in banana.
Nitrogen-deficiency and saline environments in rice production.
In addition to the five projects currently being implemented, AATF is currently working on the
developing project ‘concept notes’ on Mycotoxin control in maize and peanuts and on
developing equipment for enhanced cassava production and utilization.
In addition to the continued implementation of these current projects and concept notes, AATF
is also looking looking to develop new projects targeting the following constraints:
Striga resistance in sorghum.
Vitamin A deficiency in rice.
Herbicide resistance in cowpea.
Herbicide resistance in cassava.
Reducing crop loss through control of locusts and grasshoppers.
AATF is also wishing to implement a projects to developer Molecular diagnostics and marker
assisted selection (MAS) tools for crop improvement, and is also undertaking a project involving
the development of nutritionally enhanced sorghum, as well as a number of other strategic
initiatives.
Budget overview
Table I shows AATF’s projected expenditures for the period 2009-2013. AATF plans to
significantly increase its expenditure on projects over the next 5 years from the $15m it spend
during from 2004 to 2008, to around $99m between 2009 and 2013:
Around 80% of the total project expenditure for 2009-2013 will be on the five current
projects, with around 48% of total expenditure flowing to the WEMA project.
Future projects are estimated to account for around 13% of spending over the next five
years (25% of expenditure if WEMA is excluded from total project expenditure).
Around 80% of project expenditures will be on ‘product development’ activities,
reflecting the relatively early stage of the majority of AATF’s projects.
viii
Table I: Projected expenditure
Item 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total
Staff costs $1.6m $1.7m $1.8m $1.9m $2.0m $9.0m
Operating costs $1.0m $0.9m $1.0m $1.0m $1.0m $4.9m
Capital expenditures $0.1m $0.1m $0.1m $0.2m $0.1m $0.6m
Projects $16.7m $18.5m $20.9m $20.6m $22.5m1 $99.1m
Total $19.3m2 $21.3m $23.7m $23.6m $25.6m $113.6m
AATF is now seeking to raise an additional $46.0m from donors for project-specific
expenditures for the period 2009-2013. It is also seeking to raise additional funding of $7.8m for
its core activities.
Impacts
The impacts section of the business plan uses economic analysis to estimate the yield increases
that are necessary (for given assumptions) for farmers to generate sufficient additional income
from increased sales of grain to offset their expenditure on new input technologies generated by
AATF’s projects.
This analysis takes account of AATF’s contribution to the cost and value of a combination of
interventions (including R&D and extension activities funded and delivered by other institutions)
implemented during and beyond the 5 year period of the business plan. Key results are:
Adopting farmers need to achieve an average yield increase of 12% - 15% from the
application of improved maize or rice seed in order for the profitability of farm use of
those new input technologies developed and/or deployed by AATF’s projects to be
assured.
On plausible assumptions, AATF’s projects have the potential to achieve welfare
improvements of $0.2bn - $0.8bn depending on the project (up to 9 times the cost of the
combination of interventions required to ensure that farmers adopt technologies
developed and/or deployed by AATF).
The impact analysis confirms both the delivery challenge to AATF and other institutions with a
role in ensuring farmers adopt the new technologies, and the significant potential for impact of
the combination of interventions.
1 This includes $9m for next phase of WEMA project (funding yet to be committed).
2 Projected expenditure excludes $0.4m for the Forum for China and Africa Collaboration (FOCAC). Funding for
this initiative was received from the Rockefeller Foundation in December 2008 to cover the period to the end of November 2009 when the project ends.
1
1. INTRODUCTION
This document, together with the companion Annexes, is the African Agricultural
Technology Foundation (‘AATF’) business plan (the ‘business plan’ or ‘plan’) for the period
2009-2013. It has been prepared by AATF, with input from and reflects the judgements of
the AATF Directors and staff3.
AATF is a not-for-profit organisation designed to facilitate public/private partnerships for
the access and delivery of appropriate proprietary agricultural technologies for use by
resource-poor smallholder farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa (hereafter ‘Africa’). AATF
commenced its operations in 2003.
1.1. Purpose of the business plan
The purpose of the business plan is to present the structure, mission and objectives of the
AATF intervention, the activities and sub-activities it performs, and sets out the AATF’s
current project portfolio and the projects it is planning to implement over the next 5 years.
The business plan also sets out a series of operational principles that define how AATF
seeks to maximise its impact; and provides details of the staffing, governance, proposed
budget, milestones and impacts of the AATF intervention.
This document is the second AATF business plan - the purpose of the first AATF business
plan (the ‘first plan’ or the ‘original plan’), prepared by the UK-based consulting company
CEPA in 2003-2004, was to set out the vision, mission, objectives, activities and AATF’s the
initial funding requirement at its inception.
1.2. Investors & partners
AATF started operations in 2003 with the support of three investors: the UK Department
for International Development (DFID), the Rockefeller Foundation and the US Agency for
International Development (USAID); it was officially launched in June 2004 with the
appointment of an Executive Director. It is registered as a charity under the laws of England
and Wales, has tax exemption as a non-profit entity in the USA, and operates as a foreign
corporate entity out of Kenya where it has signed a host country agreement with the
Government.
1.2.1. Investors
AATF has developed a significant project portfolio over the last 5 years and has attracted
new and continued funding support from the following organizations:
3 AATF has drawn on input from CEPA in producing this document – particular in illustrating impacts. Most
of the assumptions used by CEPA in this analysis have been provided by AATF.
2
The Rockefeller Foundation (RF): a knowledge-based, global foundation with a
commitment to enrich and sustain the lives and livelihoods of poor and excluded
people throughout the world.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID): the agency
responsible for providing and managing US economic and humanitarian assistance
worldwide.
The United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID):
The UK Government department responsible for promoting economic development
and the reduction of poverty globally.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF): guided by the belief that every
life has equal value, the BMGF works to help all people lead healthy, productive
lives. In developing countries, it focuses on improving people’s health and giving
them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty. In the United
States, it seeks to ensure that all people – especially those with the fewest resources –
have access to the opportunities they need to succeed in school and life.
The Howard G. Buffet Foundation (HGBF): a private foundation that primarily
supports agricultural development and clean water delivery in rural areas, focused in
Africa and Central America.
1.2.2. Partners
AATF is the result of a unique partnership between public and private sectors in Africa,
North America and Europe. AATF’s partnerships can be described as either operational or
strategic:
Operational partnerships focus on gaining legal access to proprietary technologies
and products and delivering them to intended beneficiaries.
Strategic partnerships focus on positioning AATF in the wider agricultural
development arena and also on helping improve the effectiveness of governments
and intergovernmental or sub-regional bodies that influence the policy environment
within which African agricultural research and development must occur.
Partnership engagements may be based on formal contracts or be guided by less restrictive
and legally binding memoranda of understanding (MoU), or comprise informal (and often
temporary) affiliations. AATF seeks to work as much as possible with farmers, agricultural
producers and consumers in creating access to new agricultural input technologies. Its
institutional partners include:
African national agricultural research institutions. AATF works with national
research institutions including KARI, NARO, and IAR, in carrying out country-level
3
co-ordination activities, technology and product testing, and communication and
awareness raising.
African trade and agribusiness organisations. AATF works with emerging
African private sector input supply companies such as Western Seeds, FICA and
Zum Seeds in carrying out technology testing, market development, and seed
distribution activities.
Agricultural Technology Industry IP holders. AATF also works with private
sector multi-national agricultural technology providers including Monsanto, BASF,
DowAgro, Pioneer/DuPont, and Syngenta who develop and license new
technologies.
International agricultural research institutions and agencies. AATF works with
international research organizations such as CIMMYT and IITA on the provision
and development of new technologies.
Local/international NGOs. AATF seeks to work with a range of NGO in creating
farmer awareness of new technologies and promoting new products.
AATF also seeks to align its work with the objectives and activities pan-African institutions
and agencies including FARA, the African Unions and NEPAD. Annex A contains a more
detailed list of AATF’s partners.
1.3. Structure of the business plan
The business plan includes 11 sections structured as follows:
Section 2 presents details of the rationale for the AATF intervention.
Section 3 sets out AATF’s vision, mission and objectives.
Section 4 provides details of AATF’s strategy and activities.
Section 5 summarises the organisational structure and staffing of AATF.
Sections 6 and 7 present details of AATF’s current and future project portfolios.
Section 8 presents information about the sources of AATF’s funding, and section 9
sets out the financial projections for the period 2009-2013.
Section 10 summarises the approach to M&E, and section 11 provides an analysis of
possible impacts of AATF’s activities.
4
2. RATIONALE FOR INTERVENTION
This section presents the rationale for the AATF intervention, the context in which AATF
operates, and details of the role AATF performs in reducing poverty and improving the lives
of smallholder farmers in Africa.
2.1. Importance of agriculture in Africa
Ensuring food security is one of the greatest challenges facing the world community. The
challenge is most critical in low-income, food-deficit countries of Sub-Saharan Africa where
an estimated 70% of the population comprises resource-poor farmers living on small family
gardens where soils have over the years become impoverished, in environments that are
prone to drought, soil erosion and epidemics of pests and diseases.
Current thinking on rural livelihoods has rightly emphasised the fact that rural people engage
in a wide range of farm and non-farm activities. However, improving agricultural
productivity and incomes in Africa is crucial if food security and a significant reduction in
poverty are to be achieved. Around 75% of the total labour force in Africa is, in part,
dependent on farming activities for their livelihood and at least 60% of the incomes of rural
people are from farming activities.
Accelerating growth and overcoming constraints in African agriculture is therefore crucial
not only for achieving food security, and reducing perennial hunger but also for generating
employment and trade. Over the last forty years in Africa, in contrast to other regions of the
world, agricultural incomes per capita have fallen (i.e. agricultural productivity has fallen) and
the proportion of people living in poverty has not declined.
Between 1970 and 1995 the number of malnourished children under the age of 5
increased by 40% from 28m to 40m (compared with a 45% reduction in East Asia).
Moreover, on current trends Africa is unlikely to meet the Millennium Development
Goals on poverty.
In SSA, agriculture employs nearly 65 percent of the labour force, but it only
accounts for about 30 percent of GDP, indicative of high inefficiencies in the sector,
but a potential to generate economic growth if constraints are appropriately
identified and adequate mitigating policies implemented
2.2. Role of technology in increasing agricultural productivity and incomes
Increasing farm incomes will stimulate forward and backward linkages in the rural economy
thereby increasing investment, employment and incomes in related activities; and it is widely
recognised that modern technology has potential to increase agricultural productivity and
farm incomes.
5
2.2.1. Positive impact of new agricultural technologies
The potential positive impacts on the poor of deploying technology are both direct and
indirect:
Higher yields of crops grown for own consumption can release land and resources
for crop diversification to improve dietary intake, or for sale in local, national or
international markets.
Increased yields and labour saving technologies can release labour for non-farm
activities that increase household incomes.
Improved varieties with increased resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses reduce
vulnerability, increase yields and help protect the environment.
Addressing these constraints to crop productivity is a monumental challenge that warrants,
among other things, technological interventions requiring use of new intensive production
technologies to increase yields and reduce losses, including where appropriate adoption of
genetically modified crops. National and regional institutions in Africa in collaboration with
their international partners are responding to these challenges and establishing innovative
approaches to addressing Africa’s agricultural malaise.
Although policies aimed at increasing agricultural growth need to give close attention to the
impact on environmental and economic sustainability, it is recognised that use of new
technologies forms an indispensable part of the potential solution for overcoming the
challenges facing Africa. Agricultural technologies can help provide better harvests to
improve household nutrition and well-being, reduce households’ susceptibility to risks of
pests, diseases and climate, provide additional cash income, contribute to a diversifying rural
economy, contribute to overall economic growth and address problems of environmental
degradation.
2.2.2. Constrained access to proprietary technologies
Until recently, Africa, and indeed much of the rest of the world, depended on public
organisations to develop and deliver agricultural technology. However, during the past few
decades, the private sector has begun to play an increasingly important role in technology
development, complementing public research efforts. This evolution in research and
development, combined with the fact that the private sector is usually more efficient at
producing and delivering technologies, helps explain the growing significance of proprietary
technology, developed by both the private and public sectors. In most industrialised
countries the development and delivery of proprietary technology is facilitated by a number
of commercial and legal institutions.
Africa’s experience in these areas is not yet well established, and private agribusiness and
input delivery have relatively less experience. But there are many proprietary technologies
6
developed elsewhere that can make significant contributions to increasing Africa’s
agricultural productivity and improving rural livelihoods. In many cases, the owners of such
technologies are willing to contribute them for agricultural development in Africa. The
challenge is how to access these proprietary technologies and manage their deployment until
they reach smallholder farmers, and this is where AATF plays its key role.
2.3. Rationale for creating AATF
AATF’s creation can be traced to discussions among stakeholders in industry, research and
public policy organised by the Rockefeller Foundation in 2000 to examine ways in which
agricultural science could make a greater impact on African livelihoods. One of the principal
findings was that although the owners of many proprietary technologies were willing to
make these available to African farmers there were significant ‘roadblocks’ to such transfers.
This stimulated a series of consultations that led to the establishment of a Design Advisory
Committee (DAC) for AATF in 2002, the appointment of an implementing director, and the
identification of donor funding.
AATF was created because of several problems that affect agricultural development in
Africa including:
The current size of Africa’s markets is often insufficient to attract the commercial
interests of most multinational corporations that offer useful proprietary
technologies.
Although many of those firms are interested in donating some of their technologies
for poverty alleviation, they are not prepared to invest in establishing the necessary
contacts or follow through the required legal and regulatory procedures, or face
liabilities that may arise from the donated technologies.
Similarly, many public research institutions (in the North and South) are willing to
provide their technologies for African farmers, but are not capable of engaging in the
required downstream partnerships and procedures.
Public research organisations in Africa have little experience in delivering
proprietary/innovative technologies to the private sector for production and
deployment and require advice and access to best practices.
Neither public nor private organisations in Africa currently have sufficient
experience in promoting proprietary agricultural technology targeting resource-poor
smallholder farmers.
African agribusiness firms will be unwilling to invest in producing, promoting and
delivering products from new technologies to resource-poor farmers unless they
have some assurance of widespread acceptance of such products enabling a
reasonable return on investment; they may also require advice and facilitation on
7
legal and regulatory matters and, in some cases, initial, targeted support to ensure
widespread uptake of the new products may be necessary.
2.4. Role of AATF
2.4.1. Roles and functions
Figure 2.1 on the next page describes the various roles and functions that AATF performs
along the agricultural value chain.
Honest broker
AATF serves as an honest broker in negotiating the royalty-free transfer of technologies held
by public and private organisations in industrialised and developing countries to smallholder
farmers in Africa. It does this by establishing partnerships along the product value chain,
from basic research through adaptive research and development, and product deployment.
AATF provides expertise and know-how that facilitates access to, development, delivery and
utilisation of proprietary agricultural technologies.
Project facilitator
AATF assembles the necessary components for each project it undertakes - balancing
concerns for expense, simplicity, and effectiveness. This includes mobilising funding for
projects, managing the licensing of technologies, facilitating testing and regulatory approval
processes in-country, ensuring appropriate product stewardship, enforcing licence conditions
as may be defined and agreed upon by the parties, and ensuring that products actually reach
farmers.
Technology steward
AATF addresses inadequate institutional resources for efficient access to, and utilisation of,
proprietary technologies in African agriculture. Although AATF can be seen as part of wider
efforts to support ‘public-private partnerships’ for African development, its role should be
understood in much more specific terms. AATF plays a catalytic role - by negotiating access
to proprietary technology, supporting its adaptation as necessary, and providing stewardship
for subsequent delivery and commercialization to farmers in the most sustainable way.
8
Figure 2.1: AATF roles in the agricultural value chain
Steps in the Value Chain
Technology Identification
Product Identification
Research and Development
InputProduction
InputMarketing
Agricultural Production
Surplus Marketing
AA
TF
fu
nctio
n
Planning, Monitoring and Project Decisions
Concept note and technical reviewsReview by AATF Go/No Go
Feasibility study,Business Plan,Board review Go/No Go
Contracts with R&D institutions,
Review progress, IP, regulatory Go/No Go
Contracts with input producers,Review progress,Assess any new
information
Contracts with marketing and
promotions organizations,
monitor progress
Contracts or links with NGOs and
extension services,Review progress
Contracts or links with output marketing
organizations,Review progress
IP Management
Negotiate access to IP, Examine
possible licensing arrangements
FTO analysis,Develop liability
management plan
Develop licensing agreements for commercial use
Ensure licensing agreements are
followed
Verify IPR enforcement
Review licensing requirements for
expansion to other areas
Verify IPR enforcement
Fostering Regulatory Compliance
Assess regulatory requirements of the
technology
Assess regulatory processes are in place and their
costs
Ensure regulatory data are developed
to meet requirements
Ensure that regulatory
procedures are followed
Assess adequacy of point-of-sale
regulation, farmer protection
Review regulatory requirements for
expansion to other areas
Evaluate regulatory compliance of product on the
market
Product R&D Management
Review performance with
this type of technology elsewhere
Assess technical feasibility, identify partners, mobilise
resources
Review research progress, assess
additional research needs
Assess initial performance of product in pilot
areas
Monitor product performance
Assess needs for additional research for product in new
areas
Assess product performance in the
market
Monitoring and Facilitating Production and Delivery
Assess possible mechanisms for production and
delivery
Identify production and delivery
strategies, costs, needs (e.g.
segmentation)
Identify producers, distributors (seek
support if required)
Monitor production, ensure promotion
and marketing strategies in place
Monitor marketing, assess needs for adjustments to
strategies
Review expansion opportunities to
other areas
Assess repeated use of product
Communication
Familiarisation with the technology, assess potential
challenges
Develop a communication
strategy
Update strategy, contribute to promotion strategies
Facilitate marketing strategy, create public awareness
Implement communication
strategy
Review communication
needs for extension to other areas
Monitor public acceptance
StewardshipIdentify potential
risksDevelop a
stewardship plan
Review potential risks and update stewardship plan
Evaluate adequacy of stewardship plan
Continue monitoring
stewardship plan
Review stewardship requirements for
expansion to other areas
Monitor stewardship plan
performance
Impact Assessment
Get data on target areas, assess ex-ante impact on food security,
income
Assess alternative and complementary
technologies
Review evidence on potential impact,
commission baseline study
Commission technology
perception study
Commission technology
adoption study
Commission impact assessment study
9
There is a wide range of proprietary technologies that are eligible for AATF’s attention,
including germplasm for conventional plant breeding, genes and tools for the development
of transgenic varieties, micro-organisms used to control pests or diseases, and techniques
such as tissue culture or marker assisted breeding that enhance the ability to identify and
deliver new technology. Other possibilities include mechanical innovations (e.g. for post-
harvest operations or high throughput laboratory assays), chemicals (e.g. for crop protection)
and processes (e.g. information management systems for plant breeding).
AATF does not develop technology itself, produce or market agricultural innovations,
promote or sponsor changes in these various organisations, nor does it advocate particular
policies or types of technology. Instead, AATF acts as a trustworthy partner capable of
entering into contracts with both public and private sector organisations to facilitate
technology access, development and deployment, and serves as a ‘responsible party’ in
ensuring that technologies are used appropriately, consistent with the principles of good
stewardship and in a manner that brings value to African smallholder farmers.
The principal beneficiaries of the AATF intervention will ultimately be African farmers and
consumers, but its activities are also aimed at:
strengthening African public and private research organisations;
promoting the establishment of more responsive legal, commercial and regulatory
institutions in Africa;
contributing to the development of African agribusiness; and
helping private and public organisations outside of Africa fulfil their aspirations of
sharing expertise and technology to create a strong foundation for African
agriculture.
AATF’s current priorities are for technologies that promote greater productivity of Africa’s
basic food crops, which contribute to food security and household income. In the future it
may find justification for including some non-food crops, livestock or other enterprises that
make significant contributions to the livelihoods of resource-poor farmers.
Annex B sets out the principles that have guided is choice of projects to develop.
2.4.2. Illustration of AATF engagement
Figure 2.2 on the next page illustrates the set of relationships and activities that AATF seeks
to facilitate. Within the AATF’s portfolio some projects involve activity along the entire
value chain, others (e.g. transfer of technology that does not require major adaptation or
regulatory approval such as mechanical/tissues culture laboratories) focus on facilitating
production, distribution and market development activities.
In this illustration AATF enters four contracts with various partners, in addition to the main
licence agreement with the technology provider(s):
10
Contract 1: AATF sub-licences the Technology to a research institute to carry out
the required adaptive research.
Contract 2: AATF sub-licences the Technology to a research institute (which would
be within the relevant country or region) to carry out regulatory testing and product
registration.
Contract 3: AATF sub-licences the registered product to one or more companies
(public or private) to produce and distribute the product in the relevant territory. In
practice these may be separate agreements in different countries.
Contract 4: AATF (as appropriate) could put in place output-based contracts or
provide other assistance to private stockists/NGOs to help develop the market, e.g.
by (i) carrying out demonstration projects; and / or (ii) provide targeted rebates to
poorer farmers.
11
Figure 2.2: AATF Activity
Technology licensors
AATF
Research
institute
Research
institute
Production &
distribution
company
NGO / private
stockist
Basic / strategic
/ adaptive
research
Regulatory
consents
Production &
distribution
Demonstration &
market
development
Farmers
Funders
Contracts:
Partners:
Activities:
Funds
Funds
Licence Technology / support in kind
1 2 3 4
12
3. MISSION, OBJECTIVES AND CORE VALUES
AATF is an African-led, African-based, free-standing, not-for-profit organisation designed
to promote food security and enhanced livelihoods by facilitating the use of improved
agricultural technologies by smallholder farmers in SSA.
It works with African stakeholders, farmers, scientists, small businesses, NGO’s and others,
to identify the needs of poor farmers and match them with technologies suitable for
adaptation to African ecologies and farming systems.
It is a public-private partnership that pursues its mission by combining the best practices
from, and by drawing upon, the resources of the public and private realms.
AATF seeks to link food security, poverty reduction, market development, and economic
growth in ways that both demand and trigger sustainable reform, and in doing so contributes
to capacity building of both private and public sectors. Recognising it unique role in African
agricultural development, AATF is motivated by the following vision, mission and
objectives.
3.1. Vision & mission
The vision of AATF is:
Prosperous farmers and a food secure Africa enabled through AATF
The mission of AATF is:
To access and deliver affordable agricultural technologies for sustainable use by smallholders, and in
particular resource-poor farmers, in Africa through innovative partnerships and effective technology/product
stewardship along the entire food value chain.
3.2. Objectives
The objectives of AATF are:
To manage access to and delivery of innovative technologies for addressing constraints to
agricultural productivity in SSA
To develop mechanisms for long-term technology stewardship across the food value chain
To foster institutional partnerships for development, delivery and uptake of agricultural
technologies and innovations across the food value chain
To facilitate pro-poor approaches to market access for surplus produce
To develop sustainable capacities for identification, access, adaptation and uptake of technologies
13
AATF’s strategy for delivering its mission and objectives remains broadly unchanged from
the original business plan. However, the Outputs have been updated and refined to be
consistent with AATF’s three strategic thrusts. These three areas were defined as part of a
process to develope a 10 Year Strategic Vision for AATF, which are described in detail in
Annex C.
Strategic thrusts 1
Negotiating access to proprietary technologies that enhance the productivity of agriculture in Africa
This involves (i) technology identification and access; (ii) managing access to and delivery of
intellectual property; (iii) managing an IP portfolio
Strategic thrusts 2
Managing partnerships for project formulation, product development and deployment to introduce innovative agricultural technologies to African farming systems
This involves: (i) identification of competent partner institutions; (ii) finding efficient
product delivery systems; (iii) facilitating farmers’ access to markets; (iv) intellectual property
protection and risk management; (v) facilitating regulatory compliance
Strategic thrusts 3
Managing knowledge and information to support technology identification and
development, and the policy environment.
This involves: (i) access or generate information; (ii) develop a knowledge base; (iii)
interactions with relevant institutions; (iv) periodic review of trends in key areas; (v) training
of stakeholders; (vi) provision of information for evidence-based advocacy
3.3. Core values and guiding principles
3.3.1. Core values
As a pioneer institution to brokering innovative agricultural technologies to farmers, and in
particular to resource-poor smallholder farmers, in Africa, the Foundation upholds the
following core values: integrity, dedication and accessibility.
Integrity: We uphold integrity; we keep our word and do what we say we will do by
when/how. We adhere to moral principles in dealing with ourselves and partners.
We seek to be honest, transparent and accountable. In recognition of our facilitative
role, we provide accurate information to our partners while respecting confidences.
We also base our actions on facts and present accurate reports of our progress, thus
showing credibility and thriving to become the partner of choice for stakeholders in
the agricultural sector.
14
Dedication: We are responsible partners, committed to ensuring our intended
beneficiaries are well served. We seek to maintain good relations with our partners,
investors, staff and other stakeholders to ensure we maximise their potential for
delivering public goods. We undertake to seek required resources to ensure the
success of accessing and delivering required technologies.
Accessibility: We are available and approachable to discuss and/or provide
information that will support technology transfer in AFRICA. AATF has specialised
expertise to address niche issues related to technology transfer such as technology
stewardship, partnership management, regulatory compliance, intellectual property
management and business and market linkages. In recognition of the capabilities and
contribution of the various entities involved in overall agricultural revival for
AFRICA, AATF will avail its knowledge and provide neceAfricary information in
discussions and in requests for information to support best decisions and inform
opinion on the issues at hand. We respect our stakeholders’ opinions and seek to
learn from their experiences.
3.3.2. Guiding principles
The key principles that guide AATF in implementing its strategy state that AATF will:
Respond to a growing sense of urgency demanding that agriculture plays a stronger
role in Africa’s economic development. The response includes the recognition that
new approaches to technology development and delivery are required and that its
role as ‘responsible party’ in facilitating access and delivery of these technologies is
critical.
Encourage the private sector to play a much more important role in technology
development and delivery to smallholder farmers if African agriculture is to provide
secure livelihoods for farm households and contribute to economic growth.
Commit to re-invigorating the public sector roles in African agriculture, ensuring that
public institutions support both markets and policies for equitable development.
Focus its attention on proprietary/innovative technologies that address African
needs because much of it is currently unavailable to African farmers. Because such
technologies encourage commercial activity it can bring new energy to African
agriculture; its importance lies in the incentives it provides for the delivery of a
product.
Facilitate the transfer and adoption of new technologies by intervening along the
entire food value chain to mitigate risks and ensure that the new technologies are
deployed and used appropriately.
15
Foster partnerships that are based on real incentives, including the desire of
emerging African enterprises to grow and prosper; the interest of farmers in
acquiring the most productive technologies to improve their food security and
incomes; and the commitment of donors and governments to see that those farm
households with insufficient resources are helped to build their assets and experience
in order to prosper.
16
4. PROJECT ACTIVITIES
Section 6 provides details of AATF’s current project portfolio. This section provides an
explanation of the phased project activities that apply to each of these existing projects and
to proposed new projects.
4.1. Overview of project lifecycle activities for delivering the AATF’s mission
AATF’s project activities follow a phased approach:
Phase 0: Intelligence Gathering AATF undertakes intelligence gathering on
technological breakthroughs locally and internationally with a view to generating
ideas that can be nurtured into projects for addressing constraints to crop
productivity in Africa.
Phase 1: Project Formulation Promising ideas are then discussed and screened for
feasibility through consultations with stakeholders leading to the formulation of
Project Business Plans.
Phase 2: Product Development: This is the phase of the project during which
collaborating partners carry out research, testing and adaptation of technologies.
Given the lead times in research, the expectation is that this phase will dominate the
others in terms of elapsed time.
Phase 3: Product Deployment AATF then guides activities that are critical for
product deployment to reach smallholder farmers and other end users.
Figure 4.1 on the next page summarises the entire process of developing a project. Each step
of the process generates a measurable output. Typically, the project lifecycle approach
encompasses implementation of all planned activities but it is important to note that the
entire process of identification, formulation and implementation of projects is intended to be
a flexible and iterative process involving periodic wide-ranging stakeholder consultations
with built-in triggers for ‘go’ or ‘no-go’ decisions.
In addition, the extent of activity and timescale in the ‘Product Development’ phase depends
on the stage at which AATF becomes involved and / or the nature of AATF’s value
addition.
17
Table 4.1: Phases and steps in AATF Project Lifecycle
Intelligence gathering Project formulation Product development Product deployment
Intelligence gathering
Agricultural Problem/Solution Product Concept Identification
Product Concept Note Development
Scientific/Technical/Legal Review
Feasibility Assessment
Project Business Plan Development
Board Recommendation
Product Development
Risk Management Strategy
Communication Strategy Development
Baseline Study for Impact Assessment
Product Deployment in Pilot Locations
Impact Assessment
Planning for Cross-Border Expansion
Wide Scale Product Deployment
Exit strategy
Intelligence gathering Project formulation Product development Product deployment
Intelligence gathering
Agricultural Problem/Solution Product Concept Identification
Product Concept Note Development
Scientific/Technical/Legal Review
Feasibility Assessment
Project Business Plan Development
Board Recommendation
Product Development
Risk Management Strategy
Communication Strategy Development
Baseline Study for Impact Assessment
Product Deployment in Pilot Locations
Impact Assessment
Planning for Cross-Border Expansion
Wide Scale Product Deployment
Exit strategy
18
The following sub-sections describe the four phases of project lifecycle activities in more
detail.
4.2. Project Lifecycle Phase 0: Intelligence Gathering
AATF selects projects following a demand-driven process, based on the needs of
smallholder farmers and the projects’ potential to reduce poverty in Africa. AATF staff
continuously gather intelligence on available proprietary technologies with a view to
identifying technologies that may address African smallholder farmers’ constraints.
Annex B contains more information about the principles guiding the composition of the
portfolio of projects AATF is creating and the criteria used to select projects.
4.3. Project Lifecycle Phase 1: Project Formulation
AATF staff sub-activities include:
Identification of product concepts.
Development of product concept notes.
Management of scientific, technical, and legal reviews.
Feasibility assessments.
Development of project business plans.
Preparation of Board recommendations.
Once such a technology is found, the patent holder is approached and, if there is a good
indication that the patent holder is willing to give access to the technology on humanitarian
grounds, a rigorous process is initiated to evaluate this opportunity and to formulate a
project that will use the technology to convert it into products to be used by smallholder
farmers. This process goes through the formulation of a product concept note, a technical
review of the concept, a feasibility study and ultimately a project business plan.
During the project formulation phase, an inventory is made of all the technology
components required and a technology due diligence is conducted to ascertain the ownership
of all components. Negotiations are held with the owners of all the technology components
to obtain the rights (usually in the form of licenses) to use their intellectual property with full
freedom-to-operate (FTO). Typically, AATF will then grant sub-licenses to partner
institutions for further research, as needed, to adapt the technologies to smallholder farming
conditions, to test the adapted technologies, and for commercial production and
distribution.
Product concept notes are developed in close consultation with key stakeholders. The
concept will cover the key commercial (including demand), technical, financial and regulatory
issues associated with the product. Table 2 describes the expected contents of a product
19
concept note. Interaction with stakeholders will be project specific. Product concept notes
are subjected to an external scientific/technical peer review by experts in the field of interest.
A feasibility study is commissioned to explore the various possible approaches of producing
and deploying the product, examine their advantages and the risks associated with them. At
each one of these steps, there is a possibility of terminating the project if the analysis reveals
a low probability of success of the project. The reviewed product concept note and the
feasibility study are then used to develop a project business plan which is submitted to the
Programme/Product Development Committee of the AATF Board for approval. Once
approved, the project business plan becomes the project’s reference document that is used
to draw annual work plans and to guide the implementation of project activities.
4.4. Project Lifecycle Phase 2: Product Development
AATF staff sub-activities include:
Product development activities.
Development of risk management strategies.
Development of communications strategies.
Development of baseline studies for impact assessment.
This is the phase of the project during which collaborating partners carry out research,
testing and adaptation of technologies. Given the lead times in research, the expectation is
that this phase will dominate the others in terms of elapsed time.
AATF’s involvement typically includes licensing of intellectual property to research partners
who are then responsible for adaptation and product development (e.g. adaptive research
and testing on-station and on-farm). It also involves the development of risk management,
communications strategies and baseline studies to take account of potential scenarios on the
ground.
Issues of public acceptance of the product become critical from this stage. With a product in
sight, it is important to identify strong partnerships that will support the dissemination of
information to various critical targets that will have an impact on the final release and use of
the product. Other activities in this phase include the identification of partners for product
development, setting up structures to service the partnership, gathering information that will
assist regulatory compliance, and monitoring public opinion.
4.5. Project Lifecycle Phase 3: Product Deployment
AATF staff sub-activities include:
Management of product deployment in pilot locations
Development of impact assessments.
20
Planning of cross-border expansion as part of wider-scale product deployments.
Development of exit strategies.
At this stage, a product has been developed, tested and found to provide a satisfactory
solution to the targeted farmers’ constraints. Relevant institutions, whether public or private,
will have been identified to produce and distribute the product.
Deployment of the product will start in pilot locations. Preliminary adoption studies and
farmer perception studies of the technology/product shall be conducted in this phase.
Lessons learned in the pilot location will be used to scale out the technology to other
locations. Wide-scale deployment activities shall be conducted to reach as many farmers as
possible.
During this phase, AATF will identify and establish strategies that will support the long term
availability of the products. Such strategies shall include the private sector entity
commercialising the product, extension services, NGOs and CBOs. An exit strategy will be
designed (often during the project formulation phase) to ensure that the product will
continue to be accessible to farmer after AATF has disengaged from the project.
4.6. Project management
AATF also undertakes as series of ‘project management’ activities to ensure that its project
lifecycle activities are implemented such that the deliver AATF’s overall mission and
objectives. The four principle project management activities are:
Project portfolio management.
Partnership management.
Stewardship.
Risk management.
These activities are as presented in the original AATF business plan, and for ease of
reference, are presented in more detail in Annex D.
21
5. GOVERNANCE & STAFFING
5.1. Governance
5.1.1. Governance of the Foundation
AATF is a not-for-profit, limited liability corporate entity. Its governance structure creates a
clear separation between the responsibility for setting and monitoring strategy and the
management of operations. A Board of Trustees is appointed to run the Foundation and has
overall fiduciary responsibility for its activities. It also approves the work plan, budget and
business processes; appoints and monitors the Executive Director; and sets delegated
authorities for the Executive Director and AATF management.
The Trustees (a total of 7–12 persons) are drawn from a range of backgrounds and
institutions and serve in their personal capacities. They are elected for terms of no more than
three years and are eligible for re-election to a second term. Terms of office are staggered in
order to ensure continuity on the Board. The Chair of the Board is elected for a three-year
term.
There is an Executive Sub-Committee and additional sub-committees responsible for
program and product development, nominations, and audit.
There is also a Board Advisory Committee, comprising representatives of various
stakeholder organisations in Africa, technology providers and donors that provides guidance
to the Board. This committee meets approximately every two years and their members are
consulted by the Board on an ad hoc basis.
5.1.2. Project governance
The project development process is managed by AATF in consultation with its partners.
Once approved and funded, product development and deployment activities typically are
managed by a Project Manager recruited by AATF or seconded by a partner institution. The
Project Manager reports to AATF through the AATF Technical Operations and is under the
supervision of a Project Steering Committee made up of stakeholder representatives. A host
of experts in various disciplines relevant for project implementation, referred to as Technical
Advisors, are selected to provide, on a voluntary basis, technical advice to the Project
Manager.
The Project Steering Committee and the Technical Advisors meet once a year to review
project’s progress and approve the work plan for the following year.
22
5.2. Staffing
AATF’s mandate requires a small but highly qualified staff, complemented by project staff
recruited for the duration of a project (either seconded by a partner organisation or fully paid
up from project resources).
AATF’s core of technical, legal, business, communication and regulatory expertise remains
small. These core responsibilities present a particular challenge because they involve the
recruitment of staff to conduct activities that have rarely been performed in Africa by public
institutions4. In addition, AATF recognises that it needs to build staff experience with the
demands and processes of agribusiness. Staffing expansion places high priority on attracting
personnel with significant hands-on experience in agribusiness.
Some of the issues that AATF is called upon to address are so complex and specialised that
it is unreasonable to believe that the organisation can develop in-house capacity - there are
occasions when AATF seeks to contract outside expertise from appropriate industry or
research sources (on a pro bono basis if possible). In doing so, AATF seeks to ensure that its
mission is widely understood and that private industry sees the provision of such expertise as
an important part of corporate social responsibility.
The fact that most of AATF’s projects involve significant lead times before actual products
are being tested and marketed provides an opportunity to build staff experience and contacts
in the relevant professional areas. One way to take advantage of this opportunity is to devote
a portion of staff time in AATF’s first years to documenting and analysing the status and
performance of key regulatory and legal areas in Africa. Once such reporting and monitoring
procedures are established, they require a smaller proportion of staff time in future years, as
actual project management responsibilities expand.
5.3. Organizational structure
Figure 5.1 shows AATF’s organizational structure. Key positions are as follows:
Executive Director, with overall responsibility for the operations of AATF,
including strategic guidance, resource mobilisation and utilisation as well as managing
partner and donor relations
Technical Operations Manager, responsible for identifying opportunities for
agricultural technology interventions, assessing the feasibility and probability of
success of project concepts, identifying sources of appropriate technologies,
4 For example, the negotiation for accessing proprietary technology and managing its development into
products that will be delivered to resource-poor farmers, in an environment where commercial, regulatory, and legal institutions are relatively untested.
23
negotiating their access and deployment, and providing overall leadership in the
implementation of AATF's project portfolio
Legal Counsel, responsible for AATF’s management of intellectual property,
including licensing and contract arrangements, assessing and mitigating liabilities, and
for ensuring the corporate integrity of the Foundation
Communications & Partnerships Manager, responsible for managing the
Foundation’s public relations, managing strategic partnerships, designing and
implementing corporate and project communication strategies
Administration & Finance Manager, responsible for managing the administrative,
human and financial resource functions of AATF.
Regulatory Affairs Manager, responsible for the development and management of
components critical for the regulatory approval process for deployment of
agricultural technologies, including ensuring compliance with regulatory
requirements of target countries, and assessing and mitigating risks for AATF
projects
Seed Systems Manager, responsible for the formulation and implementation of
seed production, dissemination and stewardship strategies and plans for AATF
projects, including advising on germplasm improvement
Agribusiness Manager, responsible for evaluating commercial viability and
financial feasibility of all AATF’s projects, for formulating project business plans,
and for providing to AATF and its partners the agribusiness perspective in
technology selection, product development and deployment
Project Managers, responsible for monitoring the day-to-day implementation of
AATF's projects, including consultations with stakeholders for priority setting,
monitoring and technical supervision of project implementation across the
technology delivery value chain.
In addition to its staff, AATF works with consultants on short-term technical or specialist
assignments on a case by case basis. In terms of legal expertise, AATF has established
linkages with various institutions such as Public Interest Intellectual Property Associates
(PIIPA) and Public Intellectual Property Resources for Agriculture (PIPRA). As noted
above, whereever possible AATF seeks to access additional legal expertise from these
sources on a pro-bono basis. The AATF Legal Counsel coordinates the Foundation’s access
to legal expertise.
24
Figure 5.1: AATF organizational structure
Admin & Finance Manager
AATF Board
Legal Counsel, IP & Corporate Affairs Manager
External Auditor
Internal Auditor
Technical Operations Manager
Executive Director
Communications & Partnership Manager
Information & Knowledge Management Officer
Regulatory Affairs
Manager
Agribusiness Specialist
Geneticist / Seed Systems
Manager
MR Cowpea Project
Manager
WEMA Project
Manager
Program Assistant
Special Assistant
Finance & Accounts
Unit
Accountant
WEMA Accountant
Admin & HR Unit
2 Admin Assistants
2 Drivers
Publication &Website Officer
Program Officer
Admin Assistant
25
6. AATF’S CURRENT PROJECT PORTFOLIO
6.1. Overview
As of the 1st of April 2009, AATF has five active projects, is formulating two project
concepts and is involved in one additional ‘special’ project. This section presents details of
these projects.
The five active projects are:
Striga control in maize fields in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Developing high quality insect-resistant cowpea.
Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA).
Improving rice productivity in nitrogen-deficient and saline environments of Sub-
Saharan Africa.
Improving bananas for resistance to banana bacterial wilt.
The two product concepts AATF is currently developing are:
Reducing aflatoxin contamination in peanuts and maize.
Mechanical equipment for labour productivity improvement in cassava production
and utilisation.
AATF is involved in one ‘special’ project - the African Bio-fortified Sorghum project led
by the Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International in which AATF provides
expertise in intellectual property management.
The Figures in Annex E summarises the timing and duration of AATF’s current (or ‘active’)
projects, and current concept notes projects. Key points to note are:
Four of AATF’s five current projects will be in the ‘development’ phase throughout
the duration of the 2009-2013 period.
The mycotoxin and cassava productivity project concepts are expected to undergo
relatively short formulation and development phases before both enter the
deployment phase in 2012.
The following sub-sections describe AATF’s currently active projects.
26
Consistent with the rationale for AATF intervention, these projects are expected to impact
farmers’ livelihoods in various ways including:
Improvement of food security amongst farming households in Africa through
increased grain harvests
Grain surplus that can earn farmers income
Significant reduction of Striga seed bank in the soil
Opening up of abandoned land for cultivation
Encourage best farming practices and farming as a business
Empowerment of stakeholders and farming communities, and hence promoting
sustainability through sharing of information and knowledge
6.2. Current projects
6.2.1. Striga control in smallholder maize fields in Africa
Summary
Table 6.1 summarises the key information relating to this project.
Table 6.1: Key project information
Item Information
Target constraint Striga in maize
Coverage Kenya, Uganda Malawi, Tanzania, Zambia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mozambique, Nigeria, Zimbabwe
Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint
42.9m
Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology
12.9m
Partner institutions NARS, CIMMYT, BASF, IITA, TSBF-CIAT, WeRATE, NGOs, CBOs, Ministry of Agriculture, Farmers, private seed companies, Africa 2000 Network, RPK, FORMAT
Technology provider BASF, CIMMYT
Current status Product Deployment
Total funding required for 2009-2013 $12.0m
Total funding committed for 2009-2013 None
$12.0m to be sourced from donors
27
Timing
Figure 6.1 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project.
Note that the development of the striga maize product pre-dated AATF’s involvement.
Figure 6.1: Estimated project life-cycle
Pre-2004
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Post-2013
Intel’ gather
Formul-ation
Develop-ment
Deployment
Background
About 120m people living in Africa are affected by striga (witchweed), a parasitic weed
infesting cereals, curtailing maize production, resulting even in total grain loss in severely
infested fields. Striga has invaded over 20m ha of cropland, leading to economic losses
exceeding $2bn per year and resulting in food insecurity and rural poverty. For many
decades, striga was beyond the control of smallholder farmers in Africa and led many to
abandon maize farming altogether. Recent technological breakthroughs, particularly
StrigAway (IR) maize technology, offer great promise, and are easily integrated with farmers’
practices such as intercropping and legume rotation.
To address the Striga problem, AATF initiated a project in 2004 with the objective of
controlling Striga. The project embodies the public-private partnership approach, in which
AATF, CIMMYT and BASF are key partners and collaborate with several other stakeholders
in target countries. Currently, the project is in the deployment phase, which aims to facilitate
StrigAway (IR) maize technology (product) awareness, uptake and sustainable utilisation. To
achieve this, the project supports product demonstration, information dissemination
amongst stakeholders, product commercialisation, and stewardship for long term benefit to
farmers.
Delivery and uptake of striga management technologies require value chain management and
institutional partnerships that enable smallholder farmers to control the weed, produce
surplus maize and access efficient and equitable markets; greater income generation strongly
motivates farmers to invest in the uptake of new technologies.
28
Progress
The progress of the striga project is summarised as follows:
Product demonstration: As of December 2008, a total of 60,000 demonstrations
had been conducted in Kenya, 2,000 in Uganda, and 6,000 in Tanzania. These have
illustrated the product performance and given farmers a chance to learn how to use
the StrigAway (IR) maize within their farming systems, thus promoting uptake of the
technology.
Information dissemination: Various publications have been developed and
circulated amongst stakeholders. These include baseline studies from Kenya, Uganda,
Malawi, and Tanzania and a farmer perception study report from Kenya. Further,
handouts, Q&A, pamphlets, booklets and posters have been developed and
disseminated to stakeholders to create awareness and share information related to
StrigAway (IR) maize technology.
Product commercialisation: Commercialisation has been achieved in Kenya since
2005. It is expected that commercialisation in Tanzania will take place in 2009.
Technology Stewardship: Stewardship has assessed performance of the StrigAway
(IR) maize technology, and farmer adherence to user instructions. To date, several
project reports indicate the superior performance of IR maize under striga
infestation. Farmland that had been abandoned is now being opened for cultivation
once again.
Future activities
The striga project needs $12m over the next five years to expand striga control activities
across Africa. This will enable StrigAway (IR) maize activities to be scaled up to cover striga
infested maize farmland in Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Ethiopia, Ghana,
Mozambique, Nigeria and Zimbabwe. These countries account for 85% of the striga weed
occurring within Africa’s maize fields.
Wide-scale expansion of technology demonstration: AATF and its partners will
work jointly to cover all key striga infested maize growing fields in Eastern, southern
and western Africa. The target countries are Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda,
Zambia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mozambique, Nigeria and Zimbabwe. Project activities
within each country will focus on severely striga infested areas identified by national
collaborators. StrigAway (IR) maize technology was introduced in Malawi in 2008
and Nigeria will be in 2009 and in subsequent countries like Mozambique and
Zimbabwe in the coming year. The target is to cover key maize growing areas
infested by striga weed.
29
Information dissemination: Work will continue to raise the knowledge and
awareness of the StrigAway (IR) maize technology amongst stakeholders in the target
countries, thereby promoting acceptance and use.
Stewardship work: This will continue to ensure that the product is used
appropriately for optimal performance. This will encompass monitoring and
evaluation missions, field workshops, training meetings for various stakeholders,
including farmers, extension officers, agro-dealers and seed companies.
Commercialisation: AATF will facilitate national performance trials and
distinctiveness, uniformity and stability tests to ensure variety registration and release,
so that the improved seeds are available to agro-dealers and further acquisition by
farmers in striga infested areas.
Facilitating production of certified StrigAway (IR) maize seed: Seed companies
using IR maize have to be very vigilant on processing and storage. In particular, there
is need to have seed treaters that are dedicated to IR maize, since it is coated with
herbicide, and hence other crop seeds that are not resistant to the herbicide must not
be in contact with the herbicide. Secondly, stewardship of the seed treatment
process, especially in the introductory phases, is critical to ensure herbicide
concentrations are strictly adhered to.
As the project rolls out and intensifies work in Africa, AATF will also plan impact studies to
assess and document adoption of the technology and lessons that can be used to continually
improve the product deployment strategy.
6.2.2. Development of high quality Insect-Resistant Cowpea
Summary
Table 6.2 summarises the key information relating to this project.
Table 6.2: Key project information
Item Information
Target constraint Insects in cowpea
Coverage Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Niger, Mali, Senegal, Cameroon
Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint
28.6m
Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology
8.6m
Partner institutions NGICA , CSIRO, IITA, Monsanto, Kirkhouse Trust, PBS, Ministry of Agriculture, NABDA NARS, INERA, IAR, CSIR-SARI, NGOs, CBOs, farmers, private sector
30
Item Information
Technology provider Monsanto Company, USA
Current status Product Development
Total funding required for 2009-2013 $9.3m
Total funding committed for 2009-2013 Possible estimated $[9.0m - 10.0m] from a bilateral donor
Timing
Figure 6.2 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project
Figure 6.2: Estimated project life-cycle
Pre-2004
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Post-2013
Intel’ gather
Formulation
Development
Deploy-ment
Background
Cowpea is one of the most nutritionally and economically important grain legume and
fodder crop in Africa, cultivated on over 12.5m hectares of land. It is estimated that over 2m
people in Africa consume cowpea on a daily basis as protein supplement. However, cowpea
productivity levels have been very low due to the impact of pests and diseases as the uptake
of chemicals and other methods to prevent these losses have been very low. Yield losses due
to the pod borer, Maruca vitrata, alone reach 80%. Control methods currently in use include
spraying with insecticides and in most cases unsuitable ones such as the cotton pesticides,
due to the associated high costs and unavailability of suitable insecticides. So far resistance to
Maruca has been limited, and as such innovative approaches using molecular tools offer
greater potential in providing long-term management of this pest.
AATF initiated the cowpea project in 2003 with the objective of enabling smallholder
farmers in Africa have access to seed of high quality and socially acceptable cowpea varieties
with increased resistance to Maruca pod borer. In May 2005, AATF obtained a royalty-free
license, with a right to sublicense in all of Africa, to use Monsanto’s cry1Ab gene for
producing Maruca-resistant cowpea varieties. In implementation of the project, a Project
Advisory Committee (PAC) has been formed constituting scientists from the Network for
the Genetic Improvement of Cowpea for Africa (NGICA), the Program for Biosafety
31
Systems (PBS) and Monsanto. This specialist group will work in collaboration with AATF
for the overall coordination of project activities in product development, regulatory
compliance, consumer acceptance and stewardship of the product.
Progress
Significant milestones were achieved by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia in developing and optimising a reliable system for
cowpea transformation (Popelka et al., 2006; Plant Cell Reports 25, 304-312). To date some
52 primary transgenic events (T0) have been generated, representing about 25% of the
targeted 300 events from which a single elite event will be identified for introgression into
farmer-preferred varieties in the targeted countries. These lines have been molecularly
characterised and most show 80-100% efficacy to Helicoverpa armigera, a closely related species
to the target lepidopteran pest Maruca vitrata. The next crucial step is thus to test efficacy of
these transgenic events on the target pest.
AATF and partners held a project review and planning meeting on 2-5 June 2008 in Abuja,
Nigeria, where partners and stakeholders reviewed progress and clarified future work and
budget estimates towards delivery of Maruca-resistant cowpea varieties to farmers in Africa.
Currently, cowpea transformation has proceeded successfully at CSIRO, Australia,
generating several promising events which express the Cry1Ab protein. It is expected that
further work on transformation will proceed, and if possible with a second gene. In Nigeria,
site identification has been done and preliminary accreditation provided by the National Bio-
safety Committee.
Future activities
During the next five years, efforts in this project will be targeted at further transformation,
regeneration and molecular characterisation of the events at CSIRO and searching for a
second insect-resistant gene. The funds requested will also support the importation of
transgenic seed into Africa for introgression into farmer-preferred varieties and for efficacy
trials against Maruca under confined conditions. Parallel to this, concerted efforts will also be
channelled towards raising public awareness and acceptance amongst stakeholders, and
exploring market linkages for successful product deployment.
6.2.3. Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA)
Summary
Table 6.3 summarises the key information relating to this project.
32
Table 6.3: Key project information
Item Information
Target constraint Water inefficiency in maize
Coverage Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, South Africa, Mozambique
Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint
22.0m
Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology
10.7m
Partner institutions NARS, Monsanto, NGOs, CBOs, Farmers, Private seed companies, Ministry of Agriculture, CIMMYT
Technology provider Monsanto, BASF
Current status Product development
Total funding required for 2009-2013 $9.0m (in 2013)
Total funding committed for 2009-2013 $38.1m (2009-2012)
$9.0m to be sourced from BMGF, HGBF, and / or other donors
Timing
Figure 6.3 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project
Figure 6.3: Estimated project life-cycle
Pre-2004
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Post-2013
Intelligence gathering
Formul-ation
Development
Deploy-ment
Background
Africa is a drought-prone continent, making farming risky for millions of small-scale farmers
who rely on rainfall to water their crops. Maize is the most widely grown staple crop in
Africa – more than 300m Africans depend on it as their main food source – and it is severely
affected by frequent drought. Drought leads to crop failure, hunger, and poverty. Climate
change will only worsen the problem. Drought tolerance has been recognised as one of the
33
most important targets of crop improvement programmes, and biotechnology has been
identified as a powerful tool to achieve significant drought tolerance by the FAO. Identifying
ways to mitigate drought risk, stabilise yields, and encourage small-scale farmers to adopt
best management practices is fundamental to realising food security and improved
livelihoods for the continent.
In this project, AATF is leading a collaboration of public and private organisations –
including the National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) of Kenya, South Africa,
Tanzania, Uganda and Mozambique, CIMMYT and the Monsanto Company – to develop
drought-tolerant African maize using conventional breeding, marker-assisted breeding, and
biotechnology. The benefits and safety of the maize varieties will be assessed by national
authorities according to the regulatory requirements in the partner countries.
Progress
During the first year of the project (2008) the following major milestones were achieved:
AATF, CIMMYT and Monsanto signed a research collaboration agreement in
January.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Howard G. Buffet Foundation
respectively signed grant agreements with AATF.
Launching of the Project incorporating all the project partners and the
implementation of NARs planning workshop.
AATF concluded sub-grant and other agreements with all project partners.
Project meeting held, bringing together all the partners to agree on governance of the
project and finalisation of the project’s governance framework.
Finalisation of the project teams (Executive Advisory Operations, Intellectual
Property, Product Development, Regulatory Affairs, and Communications
Committees) and inauguration of regular team meetings.
Future activities
After months of work planning, the stage is now set for implementation of WEMA activities
along the four project components:
Intellectual Property.
Product Development.
Regulatory Affairs.
Communications.
34
These committees will guide activity implementation in line with the project’s milestones.
Funding for this project (from the Gates Foundation) is envisaged to last through the
coming four years.
6.2.4. Improvement of Banana for resistance to Banana Bacterial Wilt (BBW)
Summary
Table 6.4 summarises the key information relating to this project.
Table 6.4: Key project information
Item Information
Target constraint Bacterial wilt in banana
Coverage Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, DR Congo, Tanzania, Kenya
Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint
10.0m
Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology
3.0m
Partner institutions IITA, NARS, IRAZ, Academia Simica, NGOs, CBOs, Farmers, Ministry of Agriculture, private sector
Technology provider Academia Simica, Taiwan
Current status Product development
Total funding required for 2009-2013 $3.8m
Total funding committed for 2009-2013 None
$3.8m to be sourced from donors
Timing
Figure 6.4 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project
Table 6.4: Estimated project life-cycle
Pre-2004
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Post-2013
Intel’ gather
Formulation
Development
Deploy-ment
35
Background
In the East African highlands and most parts of the Great Lakes region, bananas especially
the cooking type represent a major source of food, as well as income for an estimated 100m
smallholder farmers, and their families. In this region, bananas reach their greatest
importance as a staple food crop. In Uganda, Burundi and Rwanda for example, the per
capita consumption has been estimated at 450kg per year, the highest in the world. Despite
the foregoing importance, the cultivation of banana in the Great Lakes region today faces
several challenges particularly growing pest and disease pressure.
While there are several diseases on this crop in the region, the recent outbreak of banana
bacterial wilt (Xanthomonas campestris pv musacearum), that is now rapidly spreading to many
areas of the Great Lakes leaving in its wake a trail of crop destruction which presents the
greatest challenge to banana production. In just five years since the first outbreak was
diagnosed in Uganda in 2001, the disease has spread to Burundi, Democratic Republic of
Congo, Kenya, Tanzania and Rwanda. At the current rate, and since none of the banana
cultivars in the region is resistant, the disease is expected to spread to all banana producing
areas of Africa.
Progress
During the past three years, AATF together with partners from public and private sector
institutions have been working on an initiative aimed at improving the productivity of
bananas in the Great Lakes region through the development, testing and deployment of
genetically engineered banana varieties with traits for resistance against BBW. The pflp genes
used in transformation of banana are from crop plants and have already been used to
combat diseases in crops like tobacco, potato, tomato, broccoli, orchids and rice.
AATF obtained a license from the Taiwan-based Academia Sinica in August 2006 to use the
genes and granted a sub-license thereto to International Institute of Tropical Agriculture
(IITA) in December of the same year. Already banana transformation is ongoing and is
expected to proceed to proof-of-concept shortly. The project looks promising and AATF
estimates that it will take this initiative a minimum of five years to develop GM banana
technology for resistance to BBW and another three years to set up commercial production
of suckers for distribution to farmers.
Future activities
During the next five years, efforts in this project will be targeted at refining the
transformation protocols for banana, genetic and molecular characterisation of transformed
events. In addition, AATF and partners will address environmental and food safety
assessment matters touching on deployment of GM banana and compile the requisite safety
dossier to secure regulatory approvals in the target countries of deployment. Towards the
end of this period, the project should have developed, tested and identified an elite event for
36
eventual multiplication and release. The project should have also explored market linkages
and tissue-culture based seed delivery banana plantlets in the Great Lakes region. This is
especially crucial since the current production capacities for tissue culture plantlets of the
existing laboratories in Kenya, Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda stands at an estimated 1m
plantlets per year, a figure way below the current demand from farmers for such material in
the region.
6.2.5. Improvement of Rice Productivity
Summary
Table 6.5 summarises the key information relating to this project.
Table 6.5: Key project information
Item Information
Target constraint Soil nitrogen deficiency
Coverage Kenya, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Ghana, Tanzania, Uganda, Cote d’Ivoire, Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Níger, Malí, Sierra Leone
Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint
14.3m
Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology
4.3m
Partner institutions PIPRA, NARS, Arcadia biosciences, NGOs, CBOs, Farmers, Ministry of Agriculture, NABDA, Private sector
Technology provider Arcadia Biosciences, USA
PIPRA, USA
Current status Product development
Total funding required for 2009-2013 $7.2m
Total funding committed for 2009-2013 $5.0m from a bilateral donor
$2.2m to be sourced from other donors
Timing
Figure 6.5 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project
37
Figure 6.5: Estimated project life-cycle
Pre-2004
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Post-2013
Intel’ gather
Formulation
Development
Deploy-ment
Background
Rice (Oryza spp.) is an important food staple in Africa but growing demand for this food
poses an economic challenge. Annual rice production in Africa is estimated to be 12m to
17m metric tonnes comprising 15% of the region’s cereal production. Most of this rice is
produced and consumed by small-scale farmers. However, according to the FAO, rice
consumption within Africa is growing by 6% per annum resulting in the current deficit of
6.5m metric tonnes per year valued at $1.7bn. Insufficient rice production affects the
wellbeing of over 20m smallholder farmers who depend on rice as their main food.
Nitrogen deficiency is a leading constraint to rice productivity in 87% of West Africa’s rice
lands. Nitrogen is difficult to apply and retain within flooded and flowing lowlands, but the
most acute nitrogen deficiency occurs in the highly weathered uplands where yields average
only 1 tonne per ha, or about 25% of its potential. Improving the nitrogen use efficiency of
rice is one means to overcome these limitations.
Salt accumulation has affected approximately 600,000ha of cultivated land in Africa. Salts
accumulate over time from the mineral ions carried in irrigation water; for example 2.5
tonnes of salt may be deposited per hectare during a single growing season from irrigating
with water containing only 0.05% dissolved salts, a concentration common in most waters
used for irrigation in semi-arid areas. Approximately 650,000ha of rice production in West
Africa are threatened by salinisation, particularly within the Sahel where rain fed rice
production is not feasible.
This project seeks to harness use of NUE and SAL+ technologies for the production of rice
varieties for use by smallholder farmers in Africa. Improved nitrogen use efficiency within
rice production systems will not only increase crop yields, but also lower the continent’s
fertiliser nitrogen deficit, reduce its soil nutrient depletion, protect water quality and likely
limit the amount of nitrogen lost as greenhouse gasses. Benefits from increased salt tolerance
by rice would not only be derived from increased yields by established crops, but would also
permit the recovery of lands previously abandoned to salt accumulation and a reduction in
Africa’s limited supplies of fresh water.
38
Progress
In February 2008, AATF and Arcadia Biosciences signed a research collaboration and license
agreement for the NUE rice project. A protocol for genetic transformation of NERICA rice
varieties is being developed at Arcadia Biosciences setting the stage for rice transformation.
AATF continued negotiations with PIPRA for access to a plant transformation vector with a
transposon module (allowing segregation of the selectable marker cassette in the transgenic
offspring) owned by PIPRA member institutions. A license agreement is being finalized to
effect the transfer of this technology.
NUE and ST japonica rice variety has been developed and tested in the lab and greenhouses
in the US by Arcadia (a private biotechnology company) and so there is proof of concept
that the technology works. The NUE canola has also been developed and tested in the field
by the same company. The technology has being licensed to Monsanto for
commercialisation in canola.
The genetic transformation of rice aimed at introducing these two traits is currently taking
place in the US. The elite varieties developed will be tested under confinement and given
satisfactory performance, under open field in target countries in Africa according to the
biosafety rules and regulations of each target country.
Future activities
During the next five years, therefore, efforts in this project will be targeted at genetic
transformation of African rice varieties, genetic and molecular characterisation of
transformed events, efficacy testing and agronomic trials. In addition, AATF and partners
will address environmental and food safety assessment matters touching on deployment of
NUE rice and compile the requisite safety dossier to secure regulatory approvals in the target
countries of deployment. Towards the end of this period, the project should have developed,
tested and identified elite events for eventual multiplication and release. The project should
have also explored market linkages and value chain analysis essential for delivery of this
technology to smallholder farmers in rice producing countries.
6.3. Product concepts
The following sub-sections describe AATF’s currently active product ‘concept’ projects.
6.3.1. Mycotoxin control in Maize and Peanuts
Summary
Table 6.6 summarises the key information relating to this project.
39
Table 6.6: Key project information
Item Information
Target constraint Mycotoxin in maize and peanuts
Coverage Kenya, Uganda Malawi, Tanzania, Zambia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Mozambique, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, South Africa
Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint
5.8m
Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology
1.7m
Partner institutions IITA, USDA-ARS, University of Arizona, NARS, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Health, Food Industries, Agriculture sector
Technology provider IITA, USDA-ARS and the University of Arizona
Current status Intelligence gathering / project formulation
Total funding required for 2009-2013 $3.3m
Total funding committed for 2009-2013 None
$3.3m to be sourced from donors
Timing
Figure 6.6 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project
Figure 6.6: Estimated project life-cycle
Pre-2004
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Post-2013
Intelligence gathering
Formul-ation
Develop-ment
Deploy-ment
Background
Mycotoxins are substances produced by fungal moulds that contaminate various agricultural
commodities either before, during or after harvest. They are a diverse group of substances
numbering as many as 300. However, the five most important ones comprise ochratoxins,
deoxynivalenol, zearalenone, fumonisins and aflatoxins. While effects of mycotoxin contamination
40
in food grains has been around since historical times, it was only during the 1960s following
the discovery of aflatoxins that considerable attention was paid to mycotoxins. AATF
recognises this problem too and has identified the control of mycotoxins in cereal grains as
one the priority areas targeted for intervention.
Fungal species in the genus Aspergillus, notably Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus, invade
crops during maturation in the field and during storage, contaminating them with aflatoxins.
Maize is by far one of the most susceptible cereal crops to pre-harvest aflatoxin
contamination particularly during periods of moisture stress and when insect damage is
prevalent.
Post-harvest contamination in maize also occurs when grains are stored in damp
environments. Consequently, dietary exposure to aflatoxin contaminated maize-based
products has been associated with various human health-related conditions including the
high incidence of liver cancer, growth retardation in children, reproduction impairment and
the suppression of cell-mediated immune responses. In a number of cases, maize grains
contaminated with aflatoxin-producing fungi have been implicated in incidences of food-
poisoning commonly referred to as aflatoxicosis that claim many lives in a number of African
countries. In Kenya, for instance, over 100 people died in 2005 alone during an incidence of
aflatoxicosis arising from feeding on contaminated maize.
Progress
Owing to the importance of maize as a staple cereal crop in Africa, the need to identify and
develop sustainable technologies for reducing aflatoxin contamination in this crop is high on
the agenda of many research organisations and development partners. Scientists at IITA are
spearheading a research initiative to minimise the formation of aflatoxins in maize by
exploiting a strategy based on competitive microbial exclusion. This strategy seeks to
establish benign strains of A. flavus and A. parasiticus to compete and eliminate the aflatoxin
producing strains. During the coming years AATF will seek to work with IITA, USDA-ARS
and the University of Arizona on an initiative to have promising non-toxigenic Aspergillus
strains tested and formulated for commercial use in reducing aflatoxin contamination in
maize.
Future activities
It envisaged that AATF will take a leading role in
Facilitating institutional partnerships for isolation and characterisation of native
strains of non-toxigenic A. flavus and A. parasiticus in Africa;
Facilitating partnerships for field testing both native strains of non-toxigenic fungi at
pilot locations in maize growing areas of Africa;
41
Considering effective deployment of promising strains in Africa to reduce aflatoxin
contamination; and
Ensuring compliance with regulations governing use of biological control agents.
6.3.2. Mechanical equipment for labour productivity improvement in cassava
production and utilisation
Summary
Table 6.7 summarises the key information relating to this project.
Table 6.7: Key project information
Item Information
Target constraint High labour cost in production and processing
Coverage Nigeria, DR Congo, Ghana, Tanzania, Mozambique, Angola, Uganda
Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint
28.6m
Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology
4.9m
Partner institutions IITA, Farm machinery producers of Brazil, Indonesia, India, China, NARS, Ministries of Agriculture, NEPAD Pan-African Cassava Initiative (NPACI), D’Andrea Agrimport ( Brazil), UNIDO
Technology provider IITA, Farm machinery producers of Brazil, Indonesia, India, China etc
Current status Intelligence gathering / project formulation
Total funding required for 2009-2013 $1.6m
Total funding committed for 2009-2013 None
$1.6m to be sourced from donors
Timing
Figure 6.7 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project
42
Figure 6.7: Estimated project life-cycle
Pre-2004
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Post-2013
Intelligence gathering
Formulation
Development
Deployment
Background
One of the key constraints to cassava production in Africa is mechanisation or appropriate
production and processing tools. Africa is the world’s largest cassava producing region and
accounts for nearly 55% of the world’s cassava output despite the fact that cassava yields in
Africa are the lowest in the world (10 tonnes per hectare compared to 26 tonnes per hectare
in India). The problem is that market opportunities for cassava in Africa are limited
compared to what they are in other cassava-producing regions of the world. It is well
established that where cassava farmers have access to markets, they tend to adopt
productivity-enhancing technologies and do increase their productivity.
Mechanisation of cassava production and processing has been identified as the most
important constraints to the development of the cassava sector in Africa. The use of cassava
as a feedstock for ethanol production, and any other large scale use (such as the mandated
incorporation of 10% cassava flour in wheat flour for bread making in Nigeria) requires the
existence of a large number of small scale cassava processing units.
The existing capacity for manufacturing of cassava processing equipment in Africa is of
inferior quality and unless this capacity is upgraded, it is unlikely that cassava farmers and
entrepreneurs will benefit from these new market opportunities. Manufacturers are able to
obtain prototypes from foreign manufacturers and to copy them. However, the quality of the
locally made equipment is usually sub-standard and uncompetitive. Equipment
manufacturers in some countries out of Africa are reluctant to supply equipment to African
businesses because of fear of piracy and subsequent loss of market.
Progress
In the past year, AATF has worked with various institutions on an initiative aimed at
sourcing, developing, delivering and supporting the adoption of labour-saving cassava
production technologies for use by small holder farmers in Africa. In this regard, AATF
commissioned a feasibility study in 2007 and is now in the process of finalising the proposal
for use in resource mobilisation efforts.
43
The project goal is therefore to achieve greater national energy security, increased incomes
and better livelihoods for millions of cassava farmers and thousands of small scale
entrepreneurs through the use of cassava as a raw material for ethanol production in African
countries.
Future activities
During the next five years, efforts in this project will be targeted at sensitising Africa towards
the preparation and adoption of a National Strategy on bio-fuels for Africa, sourcing for the
technologies and bringing together partners that will participate in the implementation of the
project.
6.4. Special projects
6.4.1. Developing nutritionally enhanced Sorghum varieties for use by smallholder
farmers in Africa
Background
The key objective of this project is to develop nutritionally enhanced sorghum varieties
suitable for growers and consumers in Africa. The project is funded through the Grand
Challenges in Global Health Programme of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The
project involves a consortium of partners, namely Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation
International, University of Pretoria, University of California Berkeley, Pioneer/DuPont,
CSIR, ARS, ICRISAT and AATF. AATF’s role covers management of IP and license
negotiations for the needed proprietary technologies.
Progress
AATF has participated in all review and planning meetings of the project; conducted an
inventory of all IP and other technologies being used in the project; coordinated the conduct
of a Freedom To Operate (FTO) assessment for the project, a report of which was
submitted to the Project Steering Committee in February 2007; and is helping to formulate a
global patent prosecution strategy.
6.5. Strategic initiatives
AATF plans to implement a series of strategic initiatives during 2009-2013. These activities
form part of AATF’s project formulation activities:
Open Forum for Biotechnology in Africa.
PPP for Delivery of Improved Seeds in Africa.
Trends monitoring: biosafety regulations.
44
Trends monitoring: IP status.
Trends monitoring: Seed regulations.
Trends monitoring: R&D priorities.
Value chain management for delivery of crop-based technologies.
45
7. AATF’S FUTURE PROJECT PORTFOLIO
During the next five years, a gradual expansion of AATF project portfolio and project
activities across Africa is anticipated and is expected include the following initiatives:
Golden rice for Africa.
Striga control in smallholder sorghum fields in Africa.
Reducing crop loss through control of locusts and grasshoppers.
Herbicide-resistant cowpea.
Herbicide-resistant cassava.
Molecular diagnostics and marker assisted selection (MAS) tools for crop
improvement.
This section provides more details of AATF’s future projects. Key points to note are:
Three of the six ‘future’ projects were already in progress at the time of writing this
business plan.
The Diagnostic and MAS tools project will start in, and will have been completed by
the end of the 2009-2013 period.
The herbicide resistant cassava and herbicide resistant cowpea projects will
commence in 2010.
Four of the six future projects will still be in the development phase at the end of the
2009-2013 period, with the deployment phases of these projects variously scheduled
to commence between 2015 and 2018.
The striga control in sorghum project will have reached the deployment phase by the
beginning of 2013.
More detailed information about the timing of the different phases of each project is
provided in Annex E.
46
7.1. Golden rice for Africa
Summary
Table 7.1 summarises the key information relating to this project.
Table 7.1: Key project information
Item Information
Target constraint Vitamin A deficiency
Coverage Kenya, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Ghana, Tanzania, Uganda, Cote d’Ivoire, Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Níger, Malí, Sierra Leone
Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint
14.3m
Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology
4.3m
Partner institutions IRRI, WARDA, Farmers, NARS, Ministry of Agriculture, Private sector
Technology provider Golden Rice Consortium
Current status Intelligence gathering
Total funding required for 2009-2013 $1.5m
Total funding committed for 2009-2013 None
$1.5m to be sourced from donors
Timing
Figure 7.1 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project
Figure 7.1: Estimated project life-cycle
Pre-2009
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Post-2018
Intelligence gathering
Formul-ation
Development
Deployment
47
Background
Despite its chronic poverty, Africa continues to import large amounts of cereals, including
rice. During 2005, Sub-Saharan countries imported 7.2 million tonnes of rice valued at $1.5
billion, or 40-45% of its total consumption. This imbalance is only expected to grow as rice
is increasingly becoming a preferred staple, particularly in West Africa and among urban
inhabitants. It is indeed ironic that massive amounts of foreign reserves are spent on rice and
other imported foods while longer-term rural development needs remain under-addressed.
Since Africa hardly produces adequate food to eat or surpluses for sale to generate income,
the mean daily per capita calorific intake is below the recommended level of 2,100.
The debilitating effects of hunger in Africa go far beyond that, severely affecting mostly
children under the age of five through hunger-related diseases. Indeed, nearly one half of
Africa’s children are so underfed that their growth is stunted to the extent of negatively
impacting on their cognitive capacities.
As well as gross under-nourishment, lack of vitamins, minerals and other micronutrients in
the diet is also widespread. For instance, the World Health Organization estimates that
around 18m pre-school children in Africa suffer from vitamin A deficiency, which often
degenerates to eye damage. As a result, many become partially or totally blind.
Studies on nutrition have shown that lack of vitamin A has an even more pervasive effect,
weakening the protective barriers inherent in the skin and the immune system. Iron
deficiency is also common in Africa and has been cited as being contributory to clinical cases
of anaemia among women of childbearing age. Correcting this is a challenge that was noted
by the World Bank as being both technological, requiring new intensive production
technologies to increase yields and reduce losses, and political, requiring policies that do not
discriminate against rural areas in general and smallholder agriculture in particular
Progress
One potential technical intervention that promises to address this is development of Golden
Rice for Africa. Golden Rice is a biotechnology product that fortifies rice with β-carotene,
the precursor of Vitamin A. This biofortification is beneficial considering the massive
deficiency in Vitamin A among the world’s poor. The technical achievement of Golden Rice
is the result of 25 years of state-of-the-art plant biotechnology R&D initiative in which a
humanitarian sub-license to public research institutions and low-income farmers in
developing countries applies. In other words, the technology may be introduced to the
farming communities in needy regions of the world as improved seed without additional
surcharge.
48
Future activities
During the coming years AATF envisages to formulate a multi-partner project that will apply
knowledge gained from cutting-edge science for the genetic improvement of rice, and
combined with advances in conventional rice breeding, leading to nutrient-rich rice for
improved livelihoods of smallholder farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa. This effort is particularly
challenging in that it positions transgenic crops to overcome persistent constraints to
nutrition deficiency permitting direct dietary interventions to a very challenging human
health problem.
7.2. Striga control in smallholder sorghum fields in Africa
Summary
Table 7.2 summarises the key information relating to this project.
Table 7.2: Key project information
Item Information
Target constraint Striga in sorghum
Coverage Kenya, Uganda Malawi, Tanzania, Zambia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Mozambique, Nigeria and Zimbabwe
Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint
14.3m
Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology
4.3m
Partner institutions NARS, ICRISAT, Du Pont, Purdue University, WeRATE, NGOs, CBOs, Ministry of Agriculture, Farmers, private seed companies, Africa
Technology provider Du Pont, Kansas State University
Current status Intelligence gathering
Total funding required for 2009-2013 $2.8m
Total funding committed for 2009-2013 None
$2.8m to be sourced from donors
Timing
Figure 7.2 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project
49
Figure 7.2: Estimated project life-cycle
Pre-2009
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Post-2018
Intelligence gathering
Formul-ation
Development
Deployment
Background
In terms of tonnage, sorghum is Africa’s second most important cereal. The continent
produces about 20m tonnes of sorghum per annum, about one-third of the world crop. The
potential for sorghum to be the driver of economic development in Africa is enormous.
However, its production is limited by the parasitic weed, striga hermonthica. This weed is a
widespread in Africa and destroys 40%-100% of a complete season’s crop.
The annual crop damage across Africa is estimated at $7bn. An estimated 26m hectares of
cereal fields (maize, sorghum and millet) are infested with S. hermonthica and striga asiatica,
leading to an estimated loss of about 10.7m tonnes. Overcoming this weed calls for a
concerted effort in basic and applied research in order to unleash sorghum’s capacity to be
the cornerstone of food security in Africa.
Future activities
Following the success of developing herbicide-resistant maize, recent research by various
working groups is targeting development of herbicide resistant sorghum varieties. This will
allow for low dose herbicide coating of sorghum seed with a potent herbicide that effectively
controls Striga weed.
During the coming years AATF envisages to formulate a public-private partnership
comprising Du Pont, Kansas State University, Purdue and ICRISAT that will build on
existing knowledge to introduce striga management technology for striga weed in sorghum
leading to increased cereal production in the arid and semi-arid areas where sorghum is the
flagship cereal crop in Sub-Saharan Africa.
7.3. Herbicide-resistant cowpea
Summary
Table 7.3 summarises the key information relating to this project.
50
Table 7.3: Key project information
Item Information
Target constraint Weeds affecting cowpea production
Coverage Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Niger, Mali, Senegal, and Cameroon
Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint
28.6m
Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology
8.6m
Partner institutions IITA, NARS, Private biotechnology company
Technology provider Private biotechnology company
Current status Not started
Total funding required for 2009-2013 $3.6m
Total funding committed for 2009-2013 None
$3.6m to be sourced from donors
Timing
Figure 7.3 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project
Figure 7.3: Estimated project life-cycle
Pre-2009
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Post-2018
Intel’ gather
Formul-ation
Development
Deployment
Background
Cowpea is an important food crop in the dry savannas of West and Central Africa because
of its high protein content. Its production across Africa accounts for over 65% of world
output, and according to FAO more than 2m people in Sub-Sahara Africa consume cowpea
on a daily basis as protein supplement. The value of cowpea lies also in its ability to tolerate
drought, fixing atmospheric nitrogen, and in turn improving poor soils. Despite its
importance in West Africa, yields are considerably reduced by weeds.
51
Weeds are a serious problem in many agricultural production systems. The use of herbicides
to reduce loss in crop yield due to weeds has become an integral part of modern agriculture.
However, some of these conventional methods, even if used individually and in
combination, have a limited impact on controlling weeds.
The engineering of transgenic crops resistant to the broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate has
greatly improved agricultural efficiency worldwide. In an integrated approach to control
weeds, AATF is looking at biotechnological approaches as new and promising possibilities
for weed management. Thus in its quest to assist farmers in Africa to access such proprietary
technologies, AATF will seek to engineer and develop herbicide-resistant transgenic cowpea.
Because of significant crop damage inflicted by weeds, the availability of herbicide-resistant
transgenic cowpea lines will contribute significantly to greater food security and improved
livelihoods of small-holder farmers in Africa.
Future activities
During the next five years, efforts in this project will be targeted at a business plan
preparation (project formulation, etc.) and product development. This will involve scouting
for the herbicide-tolerant gene, negotiating and obtaining a license to use the gene that
confers the resistance. Additional efforts will be geared towards developing transgenic plants
and molecularly characterising and testing the lines. To help realise these initial efforts, a
total budget of $4.6m is intended ($0.1m for business development, ($4.5m for product
development).
Towards the end of this period, the project will have developed a concept note and a
business plan; negotiated and obtained a license to use the genes that confer the resistance.
Some of the achievements will include developed transgenics which have been molecularly
characterised plants and tested for herbicide tolerance for elite events identification. The
project would also have determined the potential market of herbicide resistant cowpea in
Africa.
7.4. Herbicide-resistant cassava
Summary
Table 7.4 summarises the key information relating to this project.
Table 7.4: Key project information
Item Information
Target constraint Weeds affecting cassava production
Coverage Nigeria, DR Congo, Ghana, Tanzania, Mozambique, Angola, Uganda
Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint
28.6m
52
Item Information
Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology
4.9m
Partner institutions IITA, CIAT, NARS, Private biotechnology company
Technology provider Private biotechnology company
Current status Not started
Total funding required for 2009-2013 $3.0m
Total funding committed for 2009-2013 None
$3.0m to be sourced from donors
Timing
Figure 7.4 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project.
Figure 7.4: Estimated project life-cycle
Pre-2009
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Post-2018
Intel’ gather
Formul-ation
Development
Deployment
Background
Cassava is a multi-purpose crop in Africa whose importance cannot be over-emphasised.
Cassava is produced mostly by smallholders on marginal and sub-marginal lands in the
humid and sub-humid tropics. It is primarily a food crop that is efficient in carbohydrate
production, adapted to a wide range of environments and tolerant to drought and acidic
soils.
Weeds are a serious problem in cassava production systems even at the small scale farmer
level. The cost of weeding in cassava production is estimated at 35% of the total production
cost and therefore represents the major constraint in improving cassava productivity. The
use of herbicides to reduce loss in crop yield due to weeds has become an integral part of
modern agriculture and if applied to cassava will have great impact on cassava production
both for food and industrial purposes.
53
The engineering of transgenic crops resistant to the broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate has
greatly improved agricultural efficiency worldwide in crops such as maize, soybean and
canola. In an integrated approach to control weeds, AATF will look at modern
biotechnological approaches for weed management. For farmers in Africa to access such
proprietary technologies, AATF will seek to bring together a consortium of private and
public partners to develop, test and deploy broad based herbicide-resistant transgenic
cassava.
Future activities
During the next five years, efforts in this project will be targeted at formulating a business
plan and initiating the product development process. This will involve accessing the
herbicide-tolerant gene, negotiating and obtaining a license to use the gene and sub-license
the gene to a partner institution to develop herbicide-resistant cassava germplasm. To help
realise these initial efforts, a total budget of $3.0m is intended for business plan development
($0.1m), and initial product development ($2.9m). The project would also have determined
the potential market of herbicide resistant cassava in Africa.
7.5. Reducing crop loss through control of locusts and grasshoppers
Summary
Table 7.5 summarises the key information relating to this project.
Table 7.5: Key project information
Item Information
Target constraint Locusts and grasshoppers
Coverage Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Chad, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, Sudan
Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint
42.9m
Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology
c.13m
Partner institutions IITA, NARS
Technology provider IITA
Current status Intelligence gathering
Total funding required for 2009-2013 $0.9m
Total funding committed for 2009-2013 None
$0.9m to be sourced from donors
54
Timing
Figure 7.5 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project
Table 7.5: Estimated project life-cycle
Pre-2009
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Post-2018
Intelligence gathering
Formul-ation
Development
Deployment
Background
Locusts and grasshoppers are major pests of agriculture and forestry in many regions of the
world including most of the drier parts of Africa. Swarms of locusts have often invaded vast
areas on the continent consuming food crops and vegetation leaving in their wake devastated
rangelands and food insecurity for millions of people. Similarly, grasshoppers, although
rarely occurring in swarms, chronically attack crops leading to yield losses in most years.
In the past, most locust outbreaks, including the one recently experienced in much of West
Africa, were controlled through large scale application of chemical pesticides often involving
large amounts of funding, an approach that is undoubtedly costly and is associated with
environmental damage since the broad spectrum pesticides used also kill non-target
organisms including freshwater life and birds.
In response to these economic, environmental and public health effects, a number of
research institutions and development partners agreed to jointly support an international
collaborative research effort to develop a cost-effective, environmentally sustainable locust
and grasshopper control product based on the use of an African strain of the fungus
Metarhizium anisopliae. After many years of research and testing, an environmentally-friendly
and cost-effective bio-pesticide derived from the spores of the fungus was developed by
CABI and IITA. It has been licensed under the brand name Green muscle® to a South
African company called Bio-Control Product (BCP) for use in southern and eastern Africa
and in the Middle East.
Future activities
In 2005, IITA approached AATF to assist in creating public-private partnerships that can
further develop the bio-pesticide as a low-cost and sustainable option for controlling locusts
55
and grasshoppers in Africa. Several consultations followed culminating in the decision by
AATF to explore a mechanism of formulating a product concept note that aims at:
Obtaining the cooperation of FAO’s locust monitoring and emergency response unit
and developing a strategy for the use of the bio-pesticide to control grasshoppers
and prevent locust outbreaks.
Negotiating for licensing of the bio-pesticide for use in West Africa where locusts
and grasshoppers are a chronic problem.
Identifying a company having the capacity to produce sufficient quantities of the
product and negotiating a license agreement with such companies to ensure that the
product is produced in sufficient quantities and acceptable quality.
Exploring issues of registration and marketing that will facilitate access of this
technology for use by smallholder farmers.
During the coming years AATF will seek to formulate a project proposal around these key
thrusts and proceed to enlist partnership of public and private sector institutions in
implementing this initiative for sustainable control of locusts and grasshoppers in Africa.
7.6. Diagnostic and MAS tools for crop improvement
Summary
Table 7.6 summarises the key information relating to this project.
Table 7.6: Key project information
Item Information
Target constraint Crop improvement & seed exchange
Coverage Pan-African
Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint
28.6m
Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology
8.6m
Partner institutions NARS, BeCA, West African Biotech centers
Technology provider Private biotechnology company
Current status Intelligence gathering
Total funding required for 2009-2013 $1.5m
Total funding committed for 2009-2013 None
$1.5m to be sourced from donors
56
Timing
Figure 7.6 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project.
Table 7.6: Estimated project life-cycle
Pre-2009
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Post-2018
IG
Formul-ation
Development
Deploy-ment
Background
Advances in molecular marker techniques have led to development of genetic maps and a
better understanding of the genetic basis of agricultural traits in a variety of crops and
livestock. In the breeding practice, marker-assisted selection (MAS) is rapidly becoming an
established tool for crop improvement in developed countries. In many public research
institutions, the majority of applications of molecular marker techniques involve the
selection of simple and single-gene traits because the use of molecular selection methods for
complex quantitative traits is still hampered by limited throughput, resolution, the high cost
of generating these molecular markers, and the lack of robust information technology (IT)
tools, platforms and software to handle huge data generated in a real breeding programme.
Public sector institutions and in particular the national agricultural research systems in Africa
seldom use even the early generation marker technologies such as random amplification of
polymorphic DNA, amplified fragment length polymorphism, and simple sequence repeats.
Meanwhile, rapid advances in large-scale sequencing and plant genomics in general have
created an immense reservoir of polymorphisms in plant genomes, such as single nucleotide
polymorphisms (SNPs) using automated and high throughput instrumentation. Private plant
breeding institutions, particularly those in the advanced countries, have developed
proprietary tools to mine these genetic data, and related IT platforms for marker assisted
breeding. The use of these advanced molecular breeding tools has permitted the seed
companies in the US for instance to shorten the time of putting hybrid maize to the market
by 2-3 years compared to the conventional plant breeding approach. The first hybrid maize
variety developed using Marker Assisted Breeding (MAB) was commercialised in the USA in
2005.
57
Currently, AATF together with partners from public and private sector institutions is
working on developing drought tolerant maize for Africa using state of the art molecular
breeding tool owned and operated by the private partner.
Future activities
During the next five years we are proposing to develop and implement a public-private
partnership project aimed at accessing MAB tools and platforms from private seed breeding
companies for use in existing hubs of Biosciences East and Central Africa (BeCa) and West
Africa. These platforms will be used in speeding the breeding process of AATF projects as
well as partner breeding programmes that address major constraints to agricultural
production, which include drought stress, low soil fertility and pests. These were not easily
and economically amenable to MAB.
In addition, the project will provide unique opportunity for capacity building in effective use
of MAB in public sector plant breeding programmes in Africa. The project will entail the
negotiation to access proprietary tools, the use of these tools in developing improved food
crops (cowpea, banana, maize, cassava, sorghum, rice) and delivery of improved seed to
resource poor African small holder farmers. It is anticipated that this project will require an
investment of $1.45m.
58
8. SOURCES OF FUNDING
This section presents details of how and from whom AATF will leverage funding support to
support its activities during the period 2009-2013. To date, AATF’s activities have been
funded by grants, reflecting the ‘public good’ nature of the interventions to facilitate
technology development and delivery, which would not otherwise reach the poor.
The precise composition of AATF’s financial resources is driven by the nature of the
technologies it pursues and the pace of growth in Africa’s commercial, legal and regulatory
institutions. In its early years of operation AATF’s projects have represent the delivery of
technology that would otherwise remain inaccessible to resource-poor farmers and the
public good nature of the task justifies donor and government support - as commercial
incentives become more widespread in African agriculture, a certain proportion of AATF’s
projects should begin to attract more direct investment from the relevant industries, and
farmers themselves will be able to pay a larger proportion of the costs.
8.1. Funding from public sources
The expectation is that AATF’s activities will continue to be primarily funded by grants over
the period of this business plan. AATF aims at maintaining its current donors and in
addition it will:
Seek to increase the level of funding from these current donors to cover projects
and/or core funding.
Encourage linkages with related agricultural development initiatives (e.g. relating to
soil health and fertility, seed systems, policies, and agricultural innovation in Africa).
Seek to attract new sources of funding from African and other organizations that
fund agricultural development in Africa such as:
o African Governments and donors: e.g. through special agricultural initiatives
such as in Nigeria and Kenya; Government initiatives that encourage
public/private partnerships e.g. BMZ of Germany, other overseas
Government agencies such as CIDA and DANIDA and the EU/EC etc
o Foundations: those that are concerned with championing agriculture in
Africa and providing solutions to food insecurity, hunger, malnutrition and
poverty e.g. Gatsby, and IFAD.
o Banks that support agricultural development in Africa e.g. African
Development Bank and the World Bank.
AATF seeks to use its funding to leverage additional contributions from other donors and
from the private sector, and also pursues the possibility of donor funding for individual
projects. This provides possibilities for closer interaction and collaboration with donors who
59
have interests in particular types of technology, but it runs the risk of increasing the burden
on reporting procedures (if each project has a separate donor) and, in the extreme, can
potentially detract from AATF’s ability to provide a consistent and coordinated service.
Various types of endowment fund that would provide AATF with a secure income to
manage its core functions are another possibility.
8.2. Private sector funding
As a public-private partnership, AATF is also expected to leverage contributions from the
private sector, including:
Proprietary technology held by the public and private sectors in OECD and other
countries. Placing a value on this technology in African markets is difficult, but the
expectation is that much of it will be licensed at zero royalty initially. The elapsed
time and financial costs associated with publicly funded development of equivalent
technology (assuming that public institutions have the appropriate capacity) are likely
to be substantial (hundreds of millions of US dollars). It is anticipated that
companies will continue to contribute in kind to AATF’s projects through the
provision of knowledge and time by appropriate specialists.
Investment by the national (and potentially international) private sector in
production and distribution.
In the longer term AATF may seek opportunities to generate revenues to cover the costs of
some of its operating activities. AATF currently has a policy of not charging royalties on its
products, although as markets develop it may become imperative to change this policy in
order to levy modest royalties on selected products to help recover costs.
60
9. FINANCIALS
This section sets out historic spend from 2004 to the end of 2008 and the projected budget
from 2009 to the end of 2013 based on AATF assumptions about future staffing, operating
and capital expenditures, and the project portfolio detailed in sections 6 and 7.
9.1. AATF historic expenditure
Table 9.1 shows AATF’s historic expenditure for the period 2004-2008.
Table 9.1: Historic expenditure
Item 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total
Staff costs $0.7m $1.0m $1.1m $1.2m $1.7m $5.7m
Operating costs5 $0.9m $0.6m $0.9m $0.9m $1.1m $4.4m
Capital expenditures $0.1m $0.1m $0.0m $0.0m $0.1m $0.3m
Projects $0.3m $0.7m $1.5m $1.4m $10.6m $14.5m
Total $2.1m $2.3m $3.5m $3.6m $13.5m $24.9m
9.2. Summary AATF projected expenditure
Table 9.2 shows the AATF’s projected expenditures for the period 2009-2013. It shows that
AATF plans to significantly increase its expenditure on projects during the period 2009-
2013, compared to its historic spending in the preceding 5 years.
Table 9.2: Projected expenditure
Item 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total
Staff costs $1.6m $1.7m $1.8m $1.9m $2.0m $9.0m
Operating costs $1.0m $0.9m $1.0m $1.0m $1.0m $4.9m
Capital expenditures $0.1m $0.1m $0.1m $0.2m $0.1m $0.6m
Projects $16.7m $18.5m $20.9m $20.6m $22.5m6 $99.1m
Total $19.3m7 $21.3m $23.7m $23.6m $25.6m $113.6m
Tables 9.3 and 9.4 provide an analysis of the estimated total funding requirement for
AATF’s projects by status (e.g. current, concept notes, future projects, strategic initiatives)
5 Operating costs include costs of Board of Trustees, communications & partnerships, consultants, and general
operations. 6 This includes $9m for next phase of WEMA project (funding yet to be committed).
7 Projected expenditure excludes $0.4m for the Forum for China and Africa Collaboration (FOCAC). Funding
for this initiative was received from the Rockefeller Foundation in December 2008 to cover the period to the end of November 2009 when the project ends.
61
and phase (project formulation, product development, product deployment). Key points to
note are:
Around 80% of AATF’s estimated total project expenditure for the period 2009-
2013 will be on its five current projects, with around 48% of total expenditure
flowing to the WEMA project.
Future projects are estimated to account for around 13% of spending over the next
five years (25% of expenditure if WEMA is excluded from total project expenditure).
Around 80% of project expenditures throughout 2009-2013 will be on ‘product
development’ activities, reflecting the relatively early stage of the majority of AATF’s
projects.
Table 9.3: Estimated total expenditure by status of project
Item 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total
Current projects $14.5m $15.5m $16.4m $15.8m $17.2m $79.4m
Concept notes / special projects $0.8m $0.7m $1.0m $1.1m $1.1m $4.8m
Future projects $0.8m $2.0m $3.2m $3.4m $3.8m $13.2m
Strategic initiatives8 $0.5m $0.2m $0.3m $0.3m $0.4m $1.7m
Total $16.7m $18.5m $20.9m $20.6m $22.5m $99.1m
Table 9.4: Estimated total expenditure by phase of project
Item 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total
Project Formulation $1.2m $0.4m $0.4m $0.3m $0.4m $2.7m
Product development $13.6m $15.2m $17.2m $17.0m $17.3m $80.4m
Product deployment $1.8m $2.9m $3.3m $3.3m $4.8m $16.0m
Total $16.7m $18.5m $20.9m $20.6m $22.5m $99.1m
9.3. Funding requirements
9.3.1. Project activities
Table 9.5 shows the estimated funding requirement for AATF’s current and future projects,
and concept notes / special projects for the period 2009-2013. AATF is now seeking to raise
an additional $46.0m from donors for project-specific expenditures for the period 2009-
2013.
Annex F contains more detailed financial information for each project.
8 Strategic initiatives are included in ‘Project formulation’ activities.
62
Table 9.5: Budget requirement by project
Project
Historic expenditure
2004-2008
Estimated budget
requirement
2009-2013
Funding already
committed by donors
2009-2013
Funding now being sought from donors
2009-2013
Current projects
Striga control in maize $2.5m $12.0m - $12.0m
Insect-resistant cowpea $2.4m $9.3m $9.0m - 10.0m -
Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA)
$8.4m $47.1m $38.1m $9.0m9
Improvement of banana for resistance to bacteria
$0.5m $3.8m - $3.8m
Improved rice productivity $0.4m $7.2m $5.0m $2.2m
Concept notes / special projects
Mycotoxin control in maize and peanuts
$0.03m $3.3m - $3.3m
Improved cassava productivity
$0.13m $1.6m - $1.6m
Future projects
Golden rice for Africa - $1.5m - $1.5m
Striga control in sorghum $0.2m $2.8m - $2.8m
Herbicide resistant cowpea - $3.6m - $3.6m
Herbicide resistant cassava - $3.0m - $3.0m
Control of locusts and grasshoppers
$0.03m $0.9m - $0.9m
Diagnostic and MAS tools for crop improvement
- $1.5m - $1.5m
Total $14.5m $99.1m $53.1m $46.0m
Annex G contains more information about the assumptions used to develop the financial
projections presented in this section.
9 Funding committed for 2009-2012 by BMGF/HGBF ($9m of funding being sought is for 2013 only).
63
9.3.2. Core activities
Table 9.6 shows the estimated funding requirement for AATF’s core activities (excluding
project-specific expenditures) for the period 2009-2013. Around $6.7m has already been
committed to AATF’s core activities by donors, and AATF is now seeking additional
funding of $7.8m for its core activities.
Table 9.6: Budget requirement by core activity (excluding project-specific expenditures)
Item
Historic expenditure
2004-2008
Total budget
2009-2013
Funding committed by donors
2009-2013
Funding sought from
donors
2009-2013
Staff costs $5.7m $9.0m Not allocated by category of core
expenditure
Not allocated by category of core
expenditure Operating costs $4.4m $4.9m
Capital expenditures $0.3m $0.6m
Total $10.4m $14.5m $6.7m $7.8m
64
10. MILESTONES & REPORTING
This section presents details of the AATF strategy for monitoring and evaluating (M&E) its
activities during the period 2009-2013.
10.1. Introduction
The purpose of undertaking M&E is to continually ensure that AATF’s activities are
delivering a set of outputs, outcomes and ultimately, impacts that contribute to the overall
achievement of its mission and objectives. M&E activities are undertaken to record and
report the outputs of the AATF’s work on an on-going basis, and to provide donors with
the evidence they need to understanding the return on their grant or other investments in
AATF. M&E activities are funded from the core and project-level AATF budgets.
10.2. Milestones
There are broadly two types of milestones relating to AATF’s activities and projects:
AATF deliverables.
Intermediate outputs.
Milestones are the basis of future management and targeting of the AATF project and other
activities, and are the benchmarks for AATF’s future reporting and M&E.
10.2.1. AATF deliverables
Deliverables are closely related to the phasing of AATF’s projects and the intermediate
outputs of those projects (see next sub-section) – they are the documents and reports AATF
staff deliver throughout the duration of each project lifecycle. The different stages of the
project lifecycle feature different AATF deliverables as described in Table 10.1.
Table 10.1: AATF deliverables by phase of project lifecycle
Phase AATF deliverable
Intelligence gathering
AATF Management reviewed and agreed product ‘idea’ report (includes definition of agricultural problem and proposed solution).
Project formulation
AATF Management reviewed and agreed product concept and feasibility studies / report / notes.
Board of Trustees and AATF Management reviewed and agreed product development business plans.
Product development
AATF Management reviewed and agreed product risk mitigation plans.
AATF Management reviewed and agreed communications plans.
AATF Management reviewed and agreed baseline data.
65
Phase AATF deliverable
Product deployment
AATF Management reviewed and agreed technology impact assessments.
AATF Management reviewed and agreed cross-border expansion plans.
AATF Management reviewed and agreed monitoring reports.
AATF staff provide evidence of the commencement, management and monitoring of
deliverables on a monthly, quarterly and/or yearly basis as appropriate, according to the
current status and progress of each project. Figures 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 shows the phasing of
the AATF deliverables by project and year.
Figure 10.1: AATF deliverables for 2009-2013 relating to current projects
Year
Quarter Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Striga control in smallholder maize fieldsIntelligence gathering Completed in 2004
Project formulation Completed in 2004
Product development Completed before 2004
Product deployment GHI
Water Efficient Maize for AfricaIntelligence gathering Completed in 2006
Project formulation Completed in 2007
Product development F
Product deployment To commence in 2014
Develop High quality insect-resistant cowpeaIntelligence gathering Completed before 2004
Project formulation Completed in 2007
Product development F
Product deployment To commence in 2014
Improvement of banana for resistance to bacteriaIntelligence gathering Completed in 2005
Project formulation Completed in 2007
Product development F
Product deployment To commence in 2014
Rice improved productivityIntelligence gathering Completed in 2005
Project formulation Completed in 2008
Product development F
Product deployment To commence in 2014
Deliverable legend
Product development
Baseline dataset established D
Risk mitigation plan agreed E
Communications plan agreed F
Product deployment
Technology impact assessment agreed G
Cross-border expansion plan agreed H
Monitoring report agreed I
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
66
Figure 10.2: AATF deliverables for 2009-2013 relating to current concept notes
Year
Quarter Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Mycotoxin control in maize and peanutsIntelligence gathering A
Project formulation B C
Product development F
Product deployment GHI
Cassava improved cassava productivityIntelligence gathering A
Project formulation B C
Product development DE F
Product deployment GHI
Deliverable legend
Intelligence gathering
Idea report agreed A
Project formulation
Product concept / feasibility agreed B
Product business plan agreed C
Product development
Baseline dataset established D
Risk mitigation plan agreed E
Communications plan agreed F
Product deployment
Technology impact assessment agreed G
Cross-border expansion plan agreed H
Monitoring report agreed I
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
67
Figure 10.3: AATF deliverables for 2009-2013 relating to future projects
Year
Quarter Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Diagnostic and MAS tools for crop improvementIntelligence gathering A
Project formulation B C
Product development DE F
Product deployment GHI
Control of locusts and grasshoppersIntelligence gathering A
Project formulation B C
Product development DE F
Product deployment To commence in 2015
Striga Control in smallholder Sorghum fieldsIntelligence gathering A
Project formulation B C
Product development DE F
Product deployment GHI
Golden rice for AfricaIntelligence gathering A
Project formulation B C
Product development DE F
Product deployment To commence in 2015
Herbicide resistant cowpeaIntelligence gathering A
Project formulation B C
Product development DE F
Product deployment To commence in 2018
Herbicide resistant cassavaIntelligence gathering A
Project formulation B C
Product development DE F
Product deployment To commence in 2018
Deliverable legend
Intelligence gathering
Idea report agreed A
Project formulation
Product concept / feasibility agreed B
Product business plan agreed C
Product development
Baseline dataset established D
Risk mitigation plan agreed E
Communications plan agreed F
Product deployment
Technology impact assessment agreed G
Cross-border expansion plan agreed H
Monitoring report agreed I
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
68
10.2.2. Intermediate outputs
Intermediate outputs are counts (numbers) of physical units of things generated by AATF
activities at specific points in time. The highest level AATF intermediate output is the
number of projects AATF is implementing / has delivered. The purpose of defining and
measuring intermediate outputs is to provide an indication of the progress of individual
projects and to allow AATF and its donors to judge whether particular milestones have been
achieved.
The different stages of the project lifecycle feature different intermediate outputs as
described in Table 10.2.
Table 10.2: Intermediate outputs by phase of project lifecycle
Phase Intermediate output
Project formulation
Number of viable, potentially high impact projects progressed to the product development phase.
Product development
Number of locally appropriate new technologies (such as a new disease-resistant variety) generated by each AATF project.
Number of new technologies / products progressed to the product deployment phase.
Product deployment
Number of demonstration plots and/or farmer field schools (FFS) run in pilot locations / target geographies.
Number of farm households accessing, experimenting and/or adopting a new technology generated by an AATF project.
Number of seed companies, input suppliers and stockists producing, processing stocking, selling and / or distributing new input technologies generated by an AATF project.
Volume of new technology stocked & sold per input suppliers / seed company (per year).
Product development and deployment intermediate outputs could be measured at the local,
national, regional or pan-African levels depending on the target coverage of each project. It
is also possible to aggregate intermediate outputs to understand AATF-level results
(recognising that there may be overlap of some projects, e.g. a farm household may benefit
from both the WEMA project and the maize striga project).
Tables 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5 below set out the phasing of intermediate outputs by project and
year. These intermediate outputs relate mainly to the product deployment activities to the
end of 2018 (five years after the end of the 2009-2013 period), reflecting the fact that many
project either are or will be in the product development phase throughout the period of this
business plan. Please note these intermediate outputs are projections, and are subject to
change.
69
Table 10.3: AATF intermediate outputs for 2009-2018 relating to current projects
Intermediate output Maize striga
Insect
resistant
cowpea
WEMA NUE rice Banana wilt
Number of new technologies / products progressed to deployment
10 varieties by end of 2018
6 varieties by end of 2013
5 varieties by end of 2012
4 varieties by end of 2013
5 varieties by end of 2014
Number of demonstration plots / FFS run in pilot locations / target geographies
300,000 by end of 2018
100,000 by end of 2018
50,000 by end of 2018
50,000 by end of 2018
10,000 by end of 2018
Number of farm households accessing, experimenting
and/or adopting new technology10 3,000,000 by end of 2018
1,000,000 by end of 2018
500,000 by end of 2018
500,000 by end of 2018
100,000 by end of end of 2018
Number of seed companies producing, processing stocking, selling and / or distributing new input technology
20 by end of 2018
7 by end of 2018
10 by end of 2018
6 by end of 2018
6 TC companies by end of 2018
Number of input suppliers/stockists stocking and selling new input technology
250 by end of 2018
150 by end of 2018
50 by end of 2018
125 by end of 2018
6 TC companies by end of 2018
Volume of new technology stocked & sold per input suppliers / seed company (per year)
120 tonnes by end of 2018
100 tonnes by end of 2018
100 tonnes by end of 2018
100 tonnes by end of 2018
705,000 TC plants by end of
2018
Target application rate (kg per farm household assuming 0.5ha of land dedicated to food crops per farm)
10kg 15kg 10kg 25kg 7 plantlets
10 Based on CEPA assumption of 10 farm households adopting the new technology per demonstration plot (each demonstration plot attended by 25 farmers in an
FFS, with 40% of FFS attendees subsequently adopting technology).
70
Table 10.4: AATF intermediate outputs for 2009-2018 relating to current concept notes
Intermediate output Mycotoxin control Cassava productivity
Number of new technologies / products progressed to deployment 4 strains by end of 2008 4 prototypes by end of 2013
Number of demonstration plots / FFS run in pilot locations / target geographies 8 by end of 2008 4 by end of 2013
Number of farm households accessing, experimenting and/or adopting new technology
5,000 by end of 2012 160 by end of 2013
Number of seed companies producing, processing stocking, selling and / or distributing new input technology
2 processing plants by end of 2011
4 by end of 2013
Number of input suppliers/stockists stocking and selling new input technology 15 by end of 2013 4 by end of 2018
Volume of new technology stocked & sold per input suppliers / seed company (per year)
200 tonnes by end 2015 100 machinery units by end
of 2018
71
Table 10.5: AATF intermediate outputs for 2009-2018 relating to future projects
Intermediate output Sorghum
striga Golden rice
Herbicide
resistant
cowpea
Herbicide
resistant
cassava
MAS
Control of
locusts &
grasshopp’s11
Number of new technologies / products progressed to deployment
3 varieties by end of 2015
5 varieties by end of 2015
4 varieties by end of 2018
4 varieties by end of 2018
10 varieties by end of
2013
1 strain by end of 2009
Number of demonstration plots / FFS run in pilot locations / target geographies
150,000 by end of 2018
20,000 by end of 2013
10,000 by end of 2018
20,000 by end of 2018
150,000 by end of 2018
3 by end of 2010
Number of farm households accessing, experimenting and/or adopting new technology
1,500,000 by end of 2016
200,000 by end of 2018
100,000 by end of 2018
200,000 by end of 2018
1,500,000 by end of 2018
See footnote
Number of seed companies producing, processing stocking, selling and / or distributing new input technology
5 by end of 2018
5 by end of 2018
3 by end of 2018
4 by end of 2018
10 by end of 2018
2 by end of 2010
Number of input suppliers/stockists stocking and selling new input technology
150 by end of 2018
50 by end of 2018
100 by end of 2018
8 by end of 2018
50 by end of 2018
15 by end of 2014
Volume of new technology stocked & sold per input suppliers / seed company (per year)
150 tonnes by end of
2018
80 tonnes by end of 2018
100 tonnes by end of
2018
100 tonnes by end of
2018
150 tonnes by end of
2018
10 tonnes by end of 2012
Target application rate (kg per farm household assuming 0.5ha of land dedicated to food crops per farm)
15kg 20kg 10kg 250 cuttings 15kg See footnote
11 Locust/grasshopper outbreaks are typically considered as a public pest, and governments & donors through the plant protection agencies take responsibility for
control operations; targeting their efforts to areas of eminent outbreaks.
72
10.3. Progress reporting
In accordance with the original business plan, AATF implements procedures to meet donor
requirements for financial reporting and review. As far as possible, these processes draw on
existing material produced for internal management and review processes.
A multi-donor report is produced annually by AATF. Its purpose is to review progress
against AATF’s objectives, and present funding proposals for new projects. The report is
supplemented by individual arrangements for financial reporting – reflecting the different
reporting requirements of donors. The AATF will continue to convene an annual donor
meeting to present and discuss the report12.
As set out in the original business plan, AATF will carry out a ‘zero’ based review of the
AATF’s activities, and its impact in 2012. Although an unconditional sunset clause is not
proposed, this review is intended inform a discussion with donors at the 2013 review
meeting on the continuation and added value of AATF. It would also consider whether
AATF would either (i) withdraw from activities when capacity has been developed in its
areas of competence (ii) increase its capacity building function over time.
AATF staff will present details of milestone reporting schedules in their projects to the
AATF Board, and will be required to meet these milestones as part of their role. They will
also updated and revises project plans and budget milestones, including the redefinition of
the years 2 to 5 grant-making phasing presented in the business plan, on a half-yearly basis
during the period 2009-2013.
10.4. Indicators for evaluation at the end of AATF’s involvement in a project
Given lead time of AATF’s projects, it is expected that the approach to evaluating the
impact of AATF’s activities will involve the following consideration of different indicators.
Indicators are the highest-level measures of the farm household outcomes and impacts of
the AATF’s activities over the durations of the AATF intervention’s life. The overall
effectiveness of the AATF intervention will be measured by four generic indicators relating to
food security, production, income and health at the farm household level:
Percentage and absolute increase in household income and asset indices.
Percentage and absolute decrease in child malnutrition and hunger.
Percentage and absolute increase in median crop yields (tons per hectare).
Percentage increase in the use of improved seeds and other inputs.
12 In order to minimise the workload associated with financial reporting, AATF will consider establishing an
intermediary mechanism to handle donor contributions and reporting. AATF will consult with donors on the appropriate mechanism.
73
The highest level indicator that the AATF will seek to monitor and evaluate is the
percentage and absolute changes in the volume of improved seed and other inputs
(developed and deployed via AATF’s projects) consumed by farm households in
target geographies.
Other indicators that are expected to contribute to the M&E of AATF’s projects, and the
intervention as a whole include:
Farmer financial and physical access to locally appropriate improved seed and other input
technologies developed and deployed by AATF’s projects.
Farmer demonstration and experimentation with new input technologies.
Farmer adoption of with new input technologies.
The intermediate outputs presented in section 10.2 will contribute to the measurement and
assessment of these indicators – they will be project-specific and will be measured during
and after the product deployment phase of each project.
Table 10.6 presents details of the purpose of these indicators and information about how
they will be measured. Another key intermediate indicator (not shown in Table 10.6) is the
extent of governmental and institutional adoption of improved policies and information
influenced by or arising from AATF’s project activities.
These indicators will be collected, monitored and measured at the project-level by AATF
staff working in collaboration with partner organizations as appropriate. Project-level
indicators will then be aggregated to generate indicators that allow AATF and its donors to
evaluate the overall outcomes and impacts of the AATF intervention. The indicators
presented in Table 10.6 are distinct from intermediate outputs generated by AATF projects
(see next sub-section).
74
Table 10.6: AATF farm impact indicators
Indicator Description Purpose How to measure
Farmer financial and physical access to locally appropriate improved seed and other input technologies
Sustained, seasonally recurring private (or public) sector supply of and farmer effective demand for locally adapted, appropriate seed and other inputs.
Primarily to capture the extent to which supply chains (and value chains more generally) have emerged that efficiently provide farmers with financial and physical access to locally appropriate input technologies developed and deployed by AATF projects. This is a proxy measure of the extent to which farmers have an on-going incentive to consume input technologies developed and deployed by AATF.
Periodic field and household surveys of changes in input consumption among smallholder farmers in target geographies.
Periodic surveys of changes importer, seed company and agro-dealer throughput (volumes stocked and sold) of locally appropriate seed and other inputs in target geographies.
Farmer demonstration and experimentation with new input technologies
Low unit cost extension of locally adapted agronomic information and experimental quantities of inputs to farmers in target geographies.
To capture the effectiveness of AATF supported or leveraged deployment / extension activities, which are the key intermediate step required for the transfer of locally adapted input technologies and ultimately to stimulate sustained demand for improved inputs.
Periodic field and household surveys of reach AATF-supported or leverage deployment / extension service delivery, and assessments of the relevance (local appropriateness) of the information and inputs being extended.
Farmer adoption of with new input technologies
Sustained, seasonally recurring farmer demand for and effective use of new input technologies (developed and deployed by AATF projects), normally extended through Government extension agents, NGO, agro-dealers or other private sector channels.
Primarily to capture the effectiveness of AATF supported deployment / extension activities in directly reaching farmers who subsequently adopt the new input technologies being promoted.
This measure will also capture the effectiveness of AATF activities in supporting the strengthening of input supply chains and agricultural value chains more generally.
Periodic household surveys of farmers directly interfacing with AATF-support deployment extension activities.
Periodic household surveys of farmers who have adopted new technologies via either: (i) other -leveraged donor / Government projects and programs; or (ii) farmer to farmer demonstration effects; or (iii) new customers of agro-dealers.
75
11. TARGETS & IMPACTS
In this final section of the business plan, we set out indicative yield targets and illustrations
of the potential farm income impacts of some of the projects AATF will engage in during
the 2009-2013 period.
11.1. Introduction
It is important to acknowledge that farm-level adoption of new input technologies and
subsequent income change will arise through a combination of interventions funded, managed
and/or delivered by a range of institutions (including Government, NGOs and the private
sector), in addition to AATF.
The analysis presented here takes account of AATF’s contribution to the cost and value of a
combination of interventions implemented during and beyond the 5 year period of the business
plan. It involves a partial analysis of production changes arising from the adoption of
AATF’s seed technologies only – the costs and use of complementary inputs such as
fertilizer and irrigation is not consider.
The section does not claim to comprehensively forecast the reach and impact of
AATF’s projects, rather it provides an indication of the target level of outputs that
would be required (for given assumptions) to offset the additional costs of AATF
developed and/or deployed seed technologies incurred by adopting farmers.
This type of ‘tipping point’ analysis provides AATF management with minimum average
yield change targets (or hurdles) that need to be achieved by farmers adopting new seed
technologies developed and/or deployed by AATF’s projects. It is important to recognise
that these forecasts are highly uncertain and reflect the limitations of both the model
structure and the assumptions, but they underline AATF’s projects’ potential for impact.
It also should also be noted that the quantitative target and impact estimates reported in this
section are confined to the most direct, first round impacts on the producers and consumers
of food. Where possible, the section identifies important consequential effects and suggests
whether the effect is likely to be positive or negative, large or small.
Finally, it is important to note at the outset, that the analysis carried out to establish
indicative targets and to assess impacts is only as good as the input assumptions that are
used. Some of the data relies on FAOSTAT information which can be of variable quality.
The results in this section should therefore be treated with appropriate caution.
11.2. Methodology
The methodology that has been used for modelling minimum yield targets is broadly as
follows.
76
Change in improved seed use: the first stage is to estimate the change in the
aggregate volume of improved seed supplied and used by farmers as result of AATF
projects (taking place during and beyond in the 2009-2013 period), based on the
assumed number of farm households adopting each new technology and a target
seed application rate (kg/ha).
Change in production of grain: the next stage of the analysis is to calculate the
increase in production that results from farmers accessing and using improved seed.
This calculation is a simple multiplication of yield increases and the change in
quantities of hectares applied with improved seed developed and/or deployed by
AATF’s projects.
Impact on grain price: the third stage in the analysis is to calculate the impact of
the increase in grain supply on the grain price. In order to simplify the analysis, the
starting assumption is that demand for grain is perfectly elastic (i.e. does not vary
according to price). This assumption is relaxed in a sensitivity analysis.
Welfare impact: the fourth stage involves calculating the total welfare benefit. The
welfare benefit is the sum of the increased benefits to consumers of food (‘consumer
surplus’ arising from lower food prices), and the changes in benefits to producers of
food (‘producer surplus’ arising from sales of more food).
Changes in farmer incomes: the final part of the analysis seeks to calculate changes
in farmers’ incomes by taking account of: (i) estimates of changes in food prices as a
result of more production of food; and (ii) the additional costs associated with use of
new input technologies.
Targets and impacts have been calculated for four of AATF’s projects based on a range of
input assumptions13.
11.3. Assumed uptake of new technologies
Table 11.1 on the next page sets out:
AATF’s assumptions about the number of farm households that will potentially be
impacted by the constraint each AATF project is targeting.
13 In the time available, a sample of four projects have been chosen for separate analyses – two current and two
future AATF projects targeting constraints relating to four different crops (maize, rice, sorghum and cowpea). Cassava and banana projects have not been modelled because of undefined assumptions about prices and volumes of improved planting material. The Mycotoxin, Control of Locusts & Grasshoppers, and MAS projects have not been modelled because of undefined assumptions regarding the mix of beneficiaries across the multiple target crops for each project.
77
AATF’s long-term aspiration about the number of farm households (hhs) that could
potentially adopt new technologies developed and/or deployed by its projects over
the long term (beyond 10 years)
Assumptions used for in this impact analysis over a notional 10 year period following
the commencement of AATF deployment activities (based on a conservative
assumption about the extent of uptake of new seed technologies in East African
countries’ in recent years).
It is important to note that the numbers in the columns of Table 11.1 should not necessarily
be added together to establish a total numbers of beneficiaries four these four AATF
projects – the expectation is that in some cases the same farmer may adopt more than one of
the technologies developed and/or deployed by AATF’s projects14.
Table 11.1: Assumed uptake of new technologies generated by a sample of AATF’s projects
Project
Number of farm hhs potentially impacted by target constraint
(100% of farm hhs impacted by constraint)
Aspiration number of farm hhs potentially adopting new AATF
technology
(30% of farm hhs)
Number of farm hhs assumed to adopt new
technology in this medium-term analysis
(5% of farm hhs)
Current projects
Striga control in maize
42.9m 12.9m 2.1m
Insect-resistant cowpea
28.6m 8.6m 1.4m
Future projects
Striga control in sorghum
14.3m 4.3m 0.7m
Golden rice for Africa
14.3m 4.3m 0.7m
11.4. Assumed cost of combination of interventions required for adoption
As stated at the start of this section, it is important to acknowledge that the AATF
intervention is one of several value chain activities and interventions that need to be
implemented successfully in order for farmers to adopt new input technologies. Table 11.2
presents estimates of the total cost of the required combination of interventions across a
simplified value chain. The key points to note are:
It is estimated that the total cost of reaching around 5% of the farm households
potentially impacted by each target constraint is in the range $60m - $150m once the
14 For example, it is possible that the same farmer could adopt both an AATF-generated striga resistant maize
variety, and an AATF-generated insect resistant cowpea variety.
78
cost of research and development (R&D), AATF’s costs and the cost of extension
activities required for adoption are taken into account. If AATF’s target of 30%
adoption is achieved, the necessary extension activities (assumed to be incurred by
other institutions) would push the estimated total cost per project up considerably.
For given assumptions, AATF’s project costs account for up to 11% of the total cost
of reaching around 5% of farm households. If the target of 30% adoption is
achieved, AATF’s share of the total cost reduces as the cost of extending the new
technologies to many more farmers increases.
Table 11.2: Assumed total cost of combination of interventions (incurred by AATF and other institutions)
Cost item Striga
resistant maize
Insect resistant cowpea
Striga resistant sorghum
Golden rice for Africa
R&D cost (fixed)15 $25.0m $25.0m $25.0m $25.0m
AATF cost (fixed)16 $14.5m $11.7m $2.9m $1.5m
Extension cost (variable)17 $107.3m $71.5m $35.8m $35.8m
Total cost $146.7m $108.2m $63.7m $62.3m
Implied AATF cost contribution 9.9% 10.8% 4.6% 2.4%
Annex H contains other assumptions used in the analysis presented in this section including:
current seed prices and application rates; current grain yields, prices and production volumes;
and hectares planted per farm household.
11.5. Results
Table 11.3 presents some projections of possible economic impacts18 that result from two
yield increase cases for each project:
The first case is the minimum yield increase farmers adopting new technologies need
to achieve in order to earn sufficient income to offset the cost of buying the required
seed (the break-even yield target).
15 Assumed constant across all projects.
16 AATF estimate of historic expenditure for 2004-2008, plus AATF estimated expenditure for 2009-2013.
17 AATF assumption of the total number of farm households potentially impacted by target constraint
multiplied by 5% assumed technology adoption rate multiplied by assumed cost of extension of $50 per adopting farm household (based on CEPA’s previous agricultural extension intervention modelling and analysis). 18
The calculations estimate the change in welfare surplus 10 years after the deployment phase of each project
commences arising from the additional food production. This becomes the basis for a conventional welfare analysis of the benefits of a one-off ‘shock’, in this case the availability and use of improved varieties of seed (at a price to the farmers that is not higher than the price of improved seed today), as part of successful and on-going adoption/application of improved varieties by each farmer.
79
The second case assumes that farmers adopting new varieties experience a 50%
response rate (yields increase by half).
Please note that the following results are based on a partial analysis of agricultural
inputs. Target break-even yields and resulting welfare increases and income changes
are based on the purchase and application of improved seed only – the costs and
application of fertilizer and other complementary inputs are not taken into account.19
For the given set of assumptions, the key points to note from this analysis are as follows.
Yield targets
Adopting farmers need to (on average) achieve increased maize and rice yields of 12-
15% in order to offset the cost of buying improved seed20. These yield ‘targets’ are
relatively low compared to the potential yield changes that could potentially be
achieved by farmers following successful adoption and application of the new input
technologies.
Adopting farmers need to (on average) achieve sorghum and cowpea yield increases
of 25-40% in order to offset the additional cost of buying the improved seed.
The high cowpea yield target arises from the high estimated project cost relative to
the (relatively low) assumed number of adopting farmers.
Aggregate welfare surplus
The value of the welfare increase generated by the projects is potentially very high. A
total welfare gain of more than $0.5bn could potentially be achieved if farmers
adopting maize or rice technologies are able to increase their yields by 50%,
indicating that the returns on these projects in particular are potentially very large.
The ratio of the total cost of the combination of interventions required to achieve
adoption to the resulting aggregate farm welfare gain (‘Implied cost : welfare benefit
ratio’) is constrained by the assumed high cost of extension activities in particular
(assumed to be incurred by institutions other than AATF, namely public extension
services, NGOs and/or the private sector).
19 If the costs of fertilizer and other inputs are factored into the calculations, target break-even yields increase
by 30-40% of the percentage reported in Table 11.3. However, the yield change farmers would be expected to achieve would be considerably higher if they use improved seed, fertilizer and irrigation etc, than if they only use improved seed. Therefore, the expectation is that they would achieve considerably higher yields than the increased break-even target. 20
Assumes that farmers pay for the new improved seed and fertilizer inputs at market prices (i.e. inputs are not
subsidised), and that the market for grain is perfectly elastic (i.e. farmers are able to sell additional grain produced into local markets at constant grain prices).
80
The potential cost : benefit payoff arising from the successful implementation of the
rice project is particularly large given the high market price of rice grain, relative to
the price of maize, sorghum and cowpea.
Farm household income change
The expected annual increase in household income generated by the projects varies
considerably across the projects (from $40 per annum in the case of the cowpea
project, to around $200 per annum in the rice project).
The change in annual net income per farm household increases as yields increase (see
next sub-section) and will be considerably higher than reported in Table 11.3 if
farmers also apply fertilizer and other complementary inputs to the improved seed.21
21 The estimated cost of improved seed plus fertilizer varies across the projects from around $40 per farm per
annum for maize production, to around $70 per farm per annum for rice production. These costs are based on
conservative assumptions about the price farmers will need to pay for the improved seed generated by AATF,
and that farmers will need to buy the same set of inputs annually. If these assumptions are relaxed, the annual
cost of additional inputs incurred by farmers will decrease.
81
Table 11.3: Impact analysis
Scenario Increase in
average yield
Cost of required combination of
interventions22
Total value of farm welfare
increase23
Implied cost : welfare benefit
ratio
Change in annual net income per
farm household24
Striga resistance in maize
Target ‘break-even’ yield 12.5% $140m $207m 1.5 -
Average yields increase by 50% 50% $140m $827m 5.9 +$100
Insect resistance in cowpea
Target ‘break-even’ yield 37.0% $103m $166m 1.6 -
Average yields increase by 50% 50% $103m $224m 2.2 +$40
Striga resistance in sorghum
Target ‘break-even’ yield 24.0% $61m $83m 1.4 -
Average yields increase by 50% 50% $61m $172m 2.8 +$62
Nutritionally enhance (golden) rice
Target ‘break-even’ yield 14.0% $59m $152m 2.6 -
Average yields increase by 50% 50% $59m $543m 9.1 +$197
22 In net present value (NPV) terms at a discount rate of 5%.
23 Aggregated across all adopting farm households (5% of farm households potentially impacted by target constraint).
24 The annual change in farm household income is zero in the break-even case – additional revenues generated by the sale of additional grain offset the additional cost
of inputs, resulting in zero net income.
82
11.6. Yield-income relationship
Figures 11.1 to 11.4 on the following pages show the additional annual income generated by
each farm household adopting new technologies (y-axis), for different levels of yield change
achieved as a result of successfully applying improved seed developed and/or deployed by
AATF (x-axis).
In each figure, the y-axis intercept is the cost of additional inputs incurred by each farm
household, and the x-axis intercept is the break-even target yield farmers need to achieve in
order to offset this additional cost.
The scale of the y-axis and the x-axis are held constant in Figures 11.1 to 11.4 for ease of
comparison across projects. For the given set of assumptions, the key points to note are:
Farm households investing in rice technologies achieve higher returns than
households investing in other crop technologies (shown by the steepest line).
Farm households investing cowpea technologies achieve the lowest returns (shown
by the flattest line).
83
Figure 11.1: Farm household income change for different yield changes achieved (Striga-resistant maize)
(200)
(100)
-
100
200
300
400
-40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Ad
dit
ion
al $
pe
r fa
rm h
ou
seh
old
Yield change achievedAdditional income per farm household
Figure 11.2: Farm household income change for different yield changes achieved (Insect-resistant cowpea)
(200)
(100)
-
100
200
300
400
-40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Ad
dit
ion
al $
pe
r fa
rm h
ou
seh
old
Yield change achievedAdditional income per farm household
84
Figure 11.3: Farm household income change for different yield changes achieved (Striga-resistant sorghum)
(200)
(100)
-
100
200
300
400
-40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Ad
dit
ion
al $
pe
r fa
rm h
ou
seh
old
Yield change achievedAdditional income per farm household
Figure 11.4: Farm household income change for different yield changes achieved (Golden rice)
(200)
(100)
-
100
200
300
400
-40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
Ad
dit
ion
al $
pe
r fa
rm h
ou
seh
old
Yield change achievedAdditional income per farm household