2

Contents page

A. Key Messages 3

B. Impact Pathway and Intermediate Development Outcomes 4

C. Progress along the Impact Pathway 5

D. Gender Research Achievements 10

E. Partnership Building Achievements 11

F. Capacity Building 12

G. Risk Management 12

H. Lessons Learned 13

I. Financial report 13

Annex 1: CRP indicators of progress, with glossary and targets 14

Annex 2: Acronyms 25

Annex 3: MAIZE performance per Strategic Initiative in 2013 26

Annex 4a: Progress towards Impact (external reviews) 27

Annex 4b: Progress towards Impact (Impact Assessments) 28

Annex 5: Financial Report 32

3

A. KEY MESSAGES MAIZE is a highly collaborative program that contributes to 10 of the 11 Intermediate Development Outcomes (IDOs) of the CGIAR – productivity, food security, income, gender, capacity to innovate and adapt, environment, future options and climate. In 2013, MAIZE financed research with more than 150 partners

1, leveraged

investments, partnerships and 50,000 training events2 or field days in 130 bilateral projects

3, and collaborated

strongly with other CRPs. The sustainable intensification strategy in MAIZE addresses maize and maize-based

farming systems-related challenges through 75 innovation platforms and 13,500 study and survey sites4; serving

to enhance the capacity to innovate and capacity to adapt of participants. More than 50% of these platforms are shared with WHEAT, GRiSP, CCAFS, Grain Legumes, Livestock or Aquatic Systems. MAIZE germplasm research strategy annually sends new germplasm to around 100 collaborators

5 mostly in Africa, Asia and Latin America,

augments the capacity of 180 small- and medium-sized seed companies6 and 226 community-based seed

producers7 that reach out to disadvantaged farmers; contributing directly to Food Security, Productivity and

Income IDOs, and providing major inputs to A4NH, CCAFS and GCP. The post-harvest research strategy works with NGOs, local entrepreneurs and A4NH. As a result, over 1 million farmers, on 417,000 ha of land, are estimated to have benefited from MAIZE research outputs in 2013; contributing to Food Security, Productivity and Income IDOs. Many more are benefiting through maize germplasm that has been released by partners [map].

2013 MAIZE highlights include: (a) a collaborative effort among MAIZE, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), the International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) and the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA) to mitigate the expanding threat of Maize Lethal Necrosis (MLN) disease, including the establishment of a centralized MLN screening facility at Naivasha, Kenya; (b) in collaboration with the University of Hohenheim, the expansion of doubled haploid (DH) breeding technology to Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) – culminating in the opening of a Maize DH facility at Kiboko, Kenya – the first DH breeding facility in Africa for the benefit of both national agricultural research systems (NARS) and small- and medium-sized seed companies; (c) continued expansion of the “Take it to The Farmer” project in Mexico – now reaching over 200,000 farmers

8; (d) the expansion of the integrated control of Striga (Witch Weed) across

hotspot areas in East and West Africa; (e) the expansion of hermetic, low-cost grain storage in metal silos across East and Southern Africa; (f) championing commercial female-headed and socially inclusive and equitable seed businesses in Nepal; (g) new insights on dual-purpose maize (grain and stover production) in collaboration with the International Livestock Research Institute(ILRI); (h) an assessment of drivers of change and systems modeling for better targeting of project interventions undertaken in collaboration with Wageningen University; (i) completion of the MAIZE Gender Audit and major progress on gender mainstreaming, and; (j) exciting work to reduce drudgery, increase productivity and women’s empowerment through small-scale mechanization for sustainable intensification in SSA, aligned with similar efforts in South Asia. Major challenges to the CRP include, MLN reducing the demand for/sales by the fledgling seed sector in Africa, setting back scale-out capacities established in recent years; and inadequate opportunities to strategically analyze successes and challenges to the adoption of new technologies/innovations within the maize based systems work.

1. Partnership brings progress in fighting MLN in Eastern Africa

MAIZE is taking a leading role in research to fight this disease, which is devastating many maize-growing areas of East Africa. Working with partners such as KARI, the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA), the Seed Trade Association of Kenya (STAK), ASARECA and ICIPE, CIMMYT is spearheading efforts to identify sources

1 MAIZE Partners List CGIAR survey

2 Data provided by CIMMYT training office, available upon request

3 MAIZE sub grantees list, CIMMYT Project Management Unit (PMU), January 2014, available upon request

4 Information collected by scientists from bilateral and W1 & W2 projects and collated by CIMMYT GIS unit

5 Combined figures from the list of improved CIMMYT germplasm recipients from the Genebank as well as partner institutions receiving

materials under development in SSA, Latin America and Asia through our breeding locations (especially Kenya, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, India, Colombia and Mexico) 6 Nearly 110 seed companies are supported in SSA through DTMA, WEMA and IMAS projects especially. The other 70 partnering seed

companies are in Asia under IMIC-Asia (35 seed companies as members) and in Latin America (35 under MasAgro-IMIC). 7 Upadhyaya, H.K. et al 2014. Report of the External Evaluation, HMRP IV, Kathmandu, Nepal

8 MasAgro works through a network of government extension programs. This number represents the farmers reached with information,

services etc

4

of MLN resistance, and to replace existing MLN-susceptible varieties with MLN-resistant varieties. Several promising inbred lines and pre-commercial hybrids with MLN resistance have been identified and shared with public and private institutions in SSA. Intensive efforts are ongoing to rapidly develop and deploy MLN-resistant maize germplasm that can replace the existing MLN-vulnerable varieties commercialized by the East African seed industry. With funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and the Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture (SFSA), a dedicated MLN screening facility was opened at KARI’s facilities in Naivasha, Kenya, in September 2013 to support the identification of maize lines and breeding materials with MLN resistance.

2. Operational innovation hubs in the Indo-Gangetic Plains

Operating in rural “innovation hubs” in Bangladesh, India and Nepal, the Cereal Systems Initiative for South Asia (CSISA) project supported more than 185,000 farmers in India to implement sustainable intensification technologies in 2013. CSISA supported 750 mechanized service providers with technical and business skills training and accelerated work with women farmers on maize-based intercropping and small enterprise formation (http://csisa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/10/CSISA-Annual-Report-Nov-2013-final-v.2.pdf, p. 7-8). MAIZE, WHEAT and CCAFS contributed to the development of the Nutrient Expert® decision support tools for maize and wheat through a Competitive Grant Initiative (CGI) grant with the International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI). Nutrient Expert® was recognized by the Bihar Innovation Forum as the Best Innovation for Improving Rural Livelihood in Bihar, India. CSISA has developed ICT-based tools for site-specific nutrient management that will significantly increase farmer profitability while improving the environmental footprint of fertilizer use in South Asia. Tools for maize were released in Bangladesh in 2013 where CSISA also promoted and facilitated mechanized planting using strip-till planters and bed planters. In Nepal, CSISA facilitated access for women farmers to women-friendly, scale-appropriate machinery, including two-wheel tractors (2WT) and implemented maize trials with new hybrids and farm varieties to assess their performance under different management practices. Overall, more than 11,000 farmers received maize related training. MAIZE Funding in 2013 W1&W2 contributions to MAIZE varied significantly during the year 2013 with various versions of the CGIAR Finance Plan emerging. Budget insecurity made fiscal management difficult and was compounded by partner commitments made in 2012 not being recognized by the CGIAR Finance Plan, in spite of the PIA authorizing such commitments within approved budgets. MAIZE finalized its year with US$ 14.0 million (M) in W1&W2 funding. Total expenditures were US$ 59.6M. MAIZE results were also scaled out through supplementary projects valued at US$ 25.3M. Following approaches used by UNDP, MAIZE implemented the Gender DAC marker in its financial analysis, which estimated a MAIZE gender budget of 13% (including so far CIMMYT data only).

$mn Budget as per PIA Budget Actual Spend

Gender budget in % of total MAIZE budget

W 1 & 2 15.6 14.0 13.9 10%

W3 43.9

16.7 20%

Bilateral 29.0 11%

Total 59.5 59.6 13%

B. IMPACT PATHWAY AND INTERMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT OUTCOMES (IDOS) MAIZE was launched on 1 July 2011, working on nine interrelated Strategic Initiatives that were clustered in 2013 into three research strategies in which each align with a distinct impact pathway and Theory of Change http://maize.org/theory-of-change/: 1) Sustainable Intensification and Income Opportunities for the Poor; 2) Maize varieties – Stress-Tolerant, Nutritious and Safe; and 3) Integrated Post-Harvest Management. These research strategies were further divided in five Flagship Projects with 21 Clusters of Activities. The reorganization is part of the CGIAR-wide realignment of CRPs and will be further reviewed and aligned with an outcome-based M&E framework as all CRPs move towards the 2015-2016 extension phase. Together, the five Flagship Projects contribute to the 10 intermediate development outcomes (IDOs) of the CGIAR, in particular productivity, food security, income, gender, capacity to innovate and adapt, environment, future options and climate. W1 and W2 funding provides 23% of MAIZE funding with the remainder coming from W3 and bilateral grants. They report towards a set of CRP Indicators and joint CGIAR Indicators (Annex 2).

5

C. PROGRESS ALONG THE IMPACT PATHWAY C.1 Progress towards outputs This Annual Report highlights achievements now aligned with the three research strategies. Progress towards the delivery of 2013 outputs was good, ranging from 84% in SI3 to 91% in SI5 (Annex 3). Percentage completion was less than 100% due to: a) over-ambitious work plans; b) budget insecurities experienced for W1&W2; and c) difficulties experienced by some MAIZE CGI partners in meeting the exacting schedules for contracted deliverables.

1) Sustainable Intensification and Income Opportunities for the Poor

Sustainable Intensification and Income Opportunities for the Poor is the first major impact pathway of MAIZE. It aims to pilot, scale-up and scale-out profitable, resource-efficient maize-based farming systems and value chain innovations to improve system productivity, resilience, sustainability and increase incomes of smallholders. This impact pathway is currently being spearheaded in three clusters of projects in Mexico (SAGARPA funded), East and Southern Africa (Australia, USAID and IFAD funded) and in South Asia (Australia, BMGF, USAID and IFAD funded). Most of these bilateral projects began in 2010. MAIZE W1&W2 funding is used to provide critical interventions and analyses in all three regions. For example, in 2012, MAIZE initiated investments to improve and enhance the success of project interventions, such as through the Agro-ecosystem Diversity, Trajectories and Trade-Offs for Intensification of Cereal-based systems (ATTIC) project, a collaboration between MAIZE and Wageningen University. ATTIC is studying the past and present trajectories of farming systems in three countries – Ethiopia, Mexico and Nepal – drawing on, and interchanging results and experiences with the MAIZE regional projects. Although presently revolving around three case studies, the ATTIC project is providing MAIZE with a conceptual and analytical framework to improve the design and implementation of projects under the sustainable intensification strategy.

The activities of the Sustainable intensification of maize-legume based cropping systems for food security in eastern and southern Africa (SIMLESA) project exemplifies the ways in which MAIZE facilitates the development of resilient and sustainable cropping systems. Innovation platforms (IPs) and partnerships are key to the success. In the case of SIMLESA, IPs have been established in six countries (Ethiopia – 10, Kenya – 8, Malawi – 6, Mozambique – 6, Rwanda – 4 and Tanzania – 6)

9. They foster innovation in maize-legume cropping systems and

post-harvest handling. They contribute to adapt and validate improved maize-legume technologies and are the point of origin for spontaneous scale out. In Malawi for example, large-scale adoption of sustainable intensification technologies has taken place through partnership with Total LandCare, a regional NGO, reaching more than 18,000 farmers to date (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378429012003826). Aligned with the germplasm strategies of MAIZE and the CRP on Grain Legumes, SIMLESA has contributed to the release of 40 maize varieties, including 24 hybrids and 16 open pollinated varieties (OPVs)

10. The IPs are also

used to better understand the constraints to farmer adoption and to identify and test potential solutions. IPs greatly facilitate our understanding of farmers’ decision-making, farmers’ perceptions, gender aspects of our technologies, profitability and viability of our interventions and the impact on farmers’ livelihoods. Using these platforms, obstacles in maize-legume related business transactions such as unregulated trans-border trade, poor market access and poor access to credit were eliminated. Partnerships with farmers, district and local leaders, processors, agro-dealers, seed producers, traders, NGOs, micro-finance institutions, insurance companies, media, researchers and extensionists articulate demand for new technologies and approaches, test and adapt new technologies and approaches and play a crucial role in out-scaling technologies and approaches. SIMLESA also plays a critical role in capacity development. More than 40,000 farmers, almost half of them women, have benefited from capacity building efforts through farmer field days and exchange programs. More than 3,000 agricultural scientists

11 and partners have been trained and mentored in various aspects of maize and legume

value chains. In total, 19 doctoral students have been enrolled in universities across Australia, Ethiopia, Kenya and South Africa. A further 40 students are pursuing Master of Science degrees at national universities in SIMLESA partner countries. Whilst this project began a couple of years before the MAIZE CRP was initiated, it has benefited substantially from the agricultural innovation systems analysis and capacity-building support provided by KIT and internal innovation specialists funded 100% by MAIZE CRP (Windows 1&2).

9 SIMLESA Program Semi-Annual Report: July 2013-December 2013,

http://repository.cimmyt.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10883/4018/98864.pdf?sequence=1 10

idem 11

idem + data provided by CIMMYT training office, available upon request

6

2) Maize varieties – Stress-Tolerant, Nutritious and Safe

Climate change scenarios show that agricultural production will largely be negatively affected and will impede the ability of many regions to achieve the necessary gains for future food security (Lobell et al. 2008). Maize germplasm with tolerance to drought, heat stress or flooding, as well as resistance to newly emerging pests and diseases will need to make a major contribution to climate adaptation strategies (Cairns et al. 2013).

In SSA, the Drought-Tolerant Maize for Africa (DTMA) project continued to make impressive progress: over 17,000 tons

12 13

of drought-tolerant maize seed was produced in 13 African countries (Angola, Benin, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe) by a network involving now more than 100 small and medium scale seed producers and companies. Recognizing the bottlenecks in the seed sector, CIMMYT and IITA have significantly strengthened investments in seed sector development, through capacity building of small seed companies, seed production research and the development of country- and company-specific “seed road maps.” In 2013 a joint working group was established with the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) that supports seed companies and agro-dealers, helping to ensure that they are able to stock enough seed and have good distribution networks to reach farmers across the continent. These achievements are in part derived from significant investments in DT maize development in Africa by bilateral (eg SDC, BMZ, UNDP, IFAD, USAID) and core donors (eg DfID) since 1996.

Similarly relevant for climate change adaptation were the investments by the Seeds of Discovery (SeeD) project, which begin with the launch of the MAIZE CRP. SeeD works on the interface between genetic resources and maize breeding, mining the CIMMYT gene bank collections for novel, high-value genetic variation which is not present in the germplasm of maize breeders, yet required as global agricultural production enters an arena of increasingly variable climates. In 2013 SeeD characterized 20,000 maize accessions

14 from CIMMYT's gene bank

using a novel genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) method that generates “population” level fingerprints which are most representative of maize accessions. Integrating theory with application, SeeD is advancing the analysis of the world’s most comprehensive association mapping panel and is discovering novel markers of high potential value to breeders, while in the field scientists have been applying the data to form six new, accession-based breeding synthetics for genomic selection applications and several bi-parental populations for marker assisted breeding. SeeD has produced the most comprehensive set ever of phenotypic and genotypic data on maize genetic resources, which will be released to the general scientific community through a Molecular Atlas starting in 2014.

Discovering new traits implies that they need to be incorporated into elite varieties in the most efficient manner, such as through molecular markers or the DH technology. In September 2013, KARI and CIMMYT jointly established the Maize DH Facility at KARI-Kiboko Experimental Station in Kenya, dedicated to accelerating breeding progress by African NARS and seed companies. The DH technology enables breeders to develop parental lines of maize hybrids in just 2-3 crop seasons, compared to 7-8 seasons with conventional breeding. While the DH technology is used routinely by multinational companies, the new facility, funded by BMGF, is making the technology available to public sector maize breeding programs, as well as SME African seed companies. It follows the development and release of the first tropically adapted DH inducer, jointly developed by CIMMYT and the University of Hohenheim. In the area of molecular markers, validation took place of SNP markers tagging meta-QTL for drought tolerance and of gene-specific markers for the reliable identification of genotypes that are suitable for DH induction. 896 inbreds, 155 landraces and 157 breeding populations

15 were

already successfully characterized for their suitability for DH induction. 2013 also brought the discovery of key genomic regions and promising haplotypes that confer resistance to MLN. To save time, validation and large-scale marker application for MLN resistance is now simultaneously taking place in 22 widely used and high-impact Africa-adapted CIMMYT maize lines. The expansion of DH work (using a mixture of bilateral and W1&2 funding) is based on initial bilaterally funded work funded since 2007.

12

Abate T, Menkir A, MacRobert JF, Tesfahun G, Abdoulaye T, Setimela P, Badu-Apraku B, Makumbi D, Magorokosho C, Tarekegne A (eds.).

2013. DTMA Highlights for 2012/13. http://repository.cimmyt.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10883/4017/98863.pdf?sequence=1 13

Note that MLN affected seed production for Kenya significantly in 2013; many companies could not sell their seed because of the disease

and did not want to produce more. Production in Zimbabwe was also very much affected by severe drought that occurred in the country 14

Reporte final, Descubriendo la Diversidad Genética de la Semilla (MasAgro-Biodiversidad), Meta 2.1: Caracterizar genéticamente

accesiones de maíz y realizar acciones de pre-mejoramiento, p.14. Available upon request

15 Based on a study undertaken by Vijay Chaikam (Maize DH Specialist based at CIMMYT-Mexico), Sudha Nair, Raman Babu and B.M.

Prasanna, during 2012-2013. Article to be submitted to “Theoretical and Applied Genetics”.

7

Another example of collaboration was a project funded as a MAIZE CGI between ILRI, Livestock and Fish CRP and CIMMYT on dual-purpose maize. This work builds on promising bilaterally-funded collaborative work between ILRI and CIMMYT since mid-2000. Maize production is rapidly increasing in India, largely due to the growing poultry industry, and is replacing crops such as rice, sorghum, legumes and wheat in some areas. Dual-purpose maize is needed to meet both the poultry industry demand for grain and the demand for good quality stover to feed cattle. Among the main findings are: maize stover can provide fodder quality similar to widely traded sorghum stover; significant variation in maize germplasm for stover fodder quality traits can be exploited without detriment to grain yield; and stover from a superior dual-purpose maize hybrid resulted in similar levels of milk production compared to sorghum stover.

3) Integrated Post-Harvest Management

The integrated post-harvest management pathway aims to reduce post-harvest losses and improve food safety and market opportunities through the commercial production and distribution of maize storage technologies and aflatoxin bio-control. The first step in the identification of potential fungal strains for biocontrol of aflatoxin contamination involves collections of Aspergillus flavus strains from major maize production zones. Using molecular analysis and mycological techniques produced in collaboration with USDA-ARS, a large number of country-specific isolates are being narrowed down currently for Ghana, Malawi, Tanzania and Zambia to identify the most competitive strains that are capable of outcompeting toxigenic strains. Two biocontrol products formulated from mixtures of four selected Zambian atoxigenic strains were used to conduct on-farm trials in Zambia to determine the adaptability of the selected strains to different agro-ecological zones and their efficacy in reducing aflatoxin contamination in the field. The efficacy trials were conducted with 36 women and 25 men farmers from the eastern and central provinces using a participatory approach. Maize samples collected from this trial had a low level of aflatoxin contamination during the 2012/2013 cropping season. Application of the biocontrol products significantly reduced aflatoxin levels by more than 65% in 87% of the treated fields. Microbiological analysis of the maize samples did not find significant differences in the total population of Aspergillus strains isolated from biocontrol-treated and non-treated maize grains. Application of Aflasafe significantly altered the Aspergillus strain profile, with the L-strains showing a 38% increase in treated maize grains. This work is based on a decade of bilaterally-funded pre-CRP work; predominantly in West Africa.

C.2 Progress towards the achievement of research outcomes and IDOs

Towards IDOs: productivity, food security, capacity to adapt – New MAIZE research is being conducted on Striga hermonthica, a noxious parasitic weed, which has infested approximately 2.4 million hectares (ha) of maize production areas in SSA, causing yield losses of 30% to 80%

16. Building on initial bilaterally-funded work by

CIMMYT on Imazapyr Resistant (IR), breeding and cropping systems/rotations work conducted by IITA, and push-pull work conducted by ICIPE, the Integrated Striga Management Project (ISMA), funded by BMGF with a broad range of partners, aims to improve the livelihoods of 15 million smallholder farmers in northern Nigeria and 10 million

17 in western Kenya. In on-station trials conducted in Nigeria, promising Striga-resistant maize OPVs and

hybrids produced up to 126%18

higher grain yields. A total of 65,000 farmers19

were reached through multiple pathways; enhancing productivity and food security. Among the technologies introduced to the farming communities, rotation of maize with soybean was the most preferred Striga management method, which was adopted by 32% of farmers

20 in northern Nigeria. The best Striga management options in demonstration trials in

western Kenya were the legumes Desmodium and groundnuts intercropped with IR-maize and Striga-resistant maize hybrids. Providing farmers with a wide range of options to combat striga endows them with a greater capacity to adapt.

Towards IDOs: productivity, income, capacity to innovate and adapt, policy, environment and climate – Funded by the Mexican government, and initiated at the same time as MAIZE, MasAgro works with 180 partners – research institutions, policymakers, farmers and private companies – to strengthen national food security

16

AATF 2006. Empowering African Farmers to Eradicate Striga from Maize Crop lands. ISBN 9966-775-02-01. - Ejeta, G. 2007. The Striga

scourge in Africa: a growing pandemic. Pages 3-16 in Ejeta and Gressel (ed): Integrating new technologies for Striga control: towards ending the witch hunt, World Scientific Publishers, Singapore. - Woomer, P.L., M. Bokanga, and G.D. Odhiambo. 2008. Striga management and the African farmer. Outlook on Agriculture 37: 247-252. 17

IITA 2011. Achieving sustainable Striga control for poor farmers in Africa. A proposal submitted to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. 18

Menkir, A. 2013. Progress on Maize Variety Improvement in Nigeria. In: Integrated Striga Management in Africa. Proceedings of the

Annual Review and Planning Meeting (Oluoch, M. Ed.) 4-7 June, 2013, Kisumu, Kenya. 19

IITA internal calculation 20

IITA socio-economic study, not yet published

8

through research, capacity building and technology transfer. For maize, partners test and promote adoption of conservation and precision agriculture technologies to increase yields (contributing to the productivity IDO), improve farm household incomes (contributing to the income IDO), reduce harmful environmental effects of agriculture and mitigate climate change (contributing to the environment IDO). In 2013, MasAgro increased the profitability of Mexico’s maize-based farming systems by US $105M

21, based on cost reductions and income

gains, reaching an estimated 150,000 farmers and benefitting more than 600,000 people22

. Maize farmers learn about, test and provide input for innovations by way of 41 experimental platforms for conservation agriculture (CA)-based technologies, 175 demonstration modules and 100 soil fertility experiments. In yet another innovative arrangement, the governments of 12 major agricultural states in Mexico have directly aligned their AR4D policies and programs with those of MasAgro. Data for the locations, farm holdings and cropping practices of participating maize farmers were uploaded to MasAgro electronic logbook and innovation network systems that allow greatly improved targeting and technical support for the farmers. A “train-the-trainer” program has enabled technical assistants to master the program’s innovation network system technology – applications for socioeconomic analysis and targeting within farm communities – and pass on this knowledge throughout the national extension system

23.

(http://repository.cimmyt.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10883/4019/98869.pdf?sequence=1) Towards IDOs: productivity, food security, income, nutrition, gender, capacity to adapt – DTMA works in diverse settings (Kassie et al. 2013) – and in 2013 focused some of its efforts on Ethiopia. The current yield is upwards of 3 metric tons (mt) per ha, second highest in SSA after South Africa. Yield has doubled in the 10 years between 2003 and 2012; growth in productivity and production were more rapid and consistent particularly since 2004. These achievements contribute to the productivity, food security and income IDOs). The Ethiopian NARS released 60 maize varieties between 1973 and September 2013; 38 (63%) of these were hybrids and 22 (37%) were OPVs. A total of 11 drought-tolerant maize varieties were released under the collaborative work of the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) and DTMA between 2007 and 2013. These included six hybrids and five OPVs. The new varieties have 20-30% yield advantage over the farmers’ varieties. In addition to being drought-tolerant, they have additional desirable traits such as resistance to major foliar diseases; three of the varieties are quality protein maize (QPM) (contributing to the nutrition IDO and gender IDO; as bio-fortified maize is a strongly female preferred trait). In Africa, 72 new DT varieties were in the variety release process in 2013. Several new varieties were released in 2013 – Ethiopia (4), Malawi (3), Uganda (3) and Zambia (3). (http://dtma.cimmyt.org/index.php/publications/doc_view/187-dt-maize-vol-2-no-4-december-2013)

Towards IDOs: productivity, income, capacity to innovate and adapt – In Mexico, the International Maize Improvement Consortium (IMIC), established under MasAgro and supported by the Mexican Government, reciprocates what DTMA is achieving in Africa, to develop maize varieties that will increase production in rainfed environments even as climates change. The IMIC collaboration has developed and narrowed down 270 maize hybrids suitable for tropical, subtropical and highland valley areas using data from over 600 highly diverse sites across the country. From the best 15 hybrids, 31 tons of pre-commercial seed has been delivered to 18 Mexican seed companies and two public sector collaborators, for further scale-up and sale. As in Africa, the companies receive seed business training in support of rapid scale-up of seed production

24. Further south, Bolivia and

Colombia each released two varieties in 2013. Collaboration with two seed companies has resulted in acid soil tolerant hybrids now accounting for 20% of the seed market in Colombia. The purchase and use of high yielding maize hybrids by small holder farmers contributes to increased productivity and income.

Towards IDOs: productivity, food security, income, gender, capacity to innovate – Seed production can also be successful with communities. Launched in 1999, the Hill Maize Research Project (HMRP) is in its fourth phase. The project focuses on improving the food security and income of resource-poor farm households in the hills of Nepal; through increased productivity of improved maize varieties. Through its Gender Equity and Social Inclusion (GESI) approach, the project targets farm families that are suffering from caste-, gender- and/or ethnicity-based discrimination and have food self-sufficiency for less than six months. HMRP’s targets are ambitious – 55% women and 65% disadvantaged groups (DAG) should be represented in community-based seed production (CBSP) groups and 60 percent women and 70 percent DAGs should be participating in other

21

Based on the total ha reached by the different government programs MasAgro works with, based on the average increases in yield and

reduction in costs as well as the extra revenue generated by income from workshops etc., selling and generating new machinery . The number is an estimate adding up all this information. 22

On average 1 farmer has 4 family members connected to and ‘benefitting from’ his enterprise (survey data from SEP) 23

MasAgro 2013 Annual Report to SAGARPA (The Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food in Mexico) 24

idem

9

participatory research and extension activities. Thus, women, whether of the dalit caste or Janajati (indigenous to Nepal) are the main beneficiaries of the project. This contributes to the gender IDO. According to the Outcome Monitoring Summary

25, the project reached these targets in June 2012. During a project visit (by the Royal

Tropical Institute, KIT) in February 2013, respondents said that the project had achieved more than was initially targeted. Work now covers 20 hill districts of Nepal and is jointly funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). About 50,000 households and 226 CBSP

26 (60% of CBSP members are women) groups have been participating in the project. The project began

multiplying seed of improved maize varieties through CBSP groups in 2000. That year, about 14 tons of improved maize seed were produced by seven CBSP groups. By 2011, more than 1,140 tons of improved maize seed were produced by 195 CBSP groups and, in 2012, 207 groups produced 1,036 tons. Seed production through CBSP groups has been a successful model in Nepal and has contributed to increasing the adoption of improved maize varieties and technologies. CBSPs help ensure the availability of improved maize seed in remote hill areas on time at lower prices. Organization of small holder farmers into CBSP groups contributes to the capacity to innovate IDO. The 2013 project phase initiated pre-sowing seed contracts for improved maize varieties, assisting and guiding CBSP groups and seed buyers/traders to sign formal agreements. As an example, one CBSP (Tillottama Agriculture Cooperative) signed a pre-sowing seed contract for 2 tons of improved maize seed with a local farming products retailer, Bhandari Agrovet. This contract is believed to be the first in the history of improved maize seed production in Nepal. Following this, the HMRP, in coordination with district agriculture development offices (DADOs) and the Seed Entrepreneurs’ Association of Nepal (SEAN), facilitated the signing of contracts for 207 tons of improved maize seed between 52 other CBSPs and 25 private buyers in the project area (http://blog.cimmyt.org/?p=11288, based on HMRP Annual Progress reports 2012-2013) Towards IDOs: food security, income, gender – Globally, around one-third of the food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted. In the developing world, a significant amount of maize waste occurs in storage due to rodents and insect pests, most prominently the larger grain borer (LGB) and maize weevil. The Effective Grain Storage Project (EGSP) supported by SDC’s Food Security Program combines research, training and scale out to ensure cost-effective grain storage solutions becomes available and makes a pronounced livelihood impact among smallholders in Kenya, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Based on inadequate success of similar projects in the past, research supported the project by carefully choosing the criteria for implementation success: high maize production activities, known LGB prevalence, year-round accessibility, high presence of non-maize cash incomes and reliable technology. The criteria influencing the geographic selection of target sites were quite different than previous selection of target sites. Districts and cluster sites within each district for the project were subsequently selected based on these criteria. On-station testing of metal silo and hermetic bags against storage insect pests was conducted in the four countries to determine their effectiveness, followed by farmer participatory assessment of the technologies with 68% women participation. A supply chain analysis of grain storage pesticides, and a review and analysis of agricultural policies and institutional arrangements was done in Zimbabwe to develop a case study for evidence- based policy discussions at national or regional level.

In parallel to laying out the framework for success (right technology, right target environment, supportive policy framework) the implementing component of the project assessed training needs. Training of local entrepreneurs in fabricating metal silos was followed by training of local partners on post-harvest management, including exchange visits to pioneering sites in Malawi and Kenya. Field days were organized for different segments of the community and various stakeholders (farmers, artisans, extension officers, cereal traders, community leaders). Relevant training materials were published and printed using simplified languages suited to the various target audiences. Boarding schools and HIV/AIDS support groups were recognized as important partners in scale out. At this stage, the project is gaining momentum. By 2011, 150 silos of various sizes had been constructed across two pilot countries (Kenya and Malawi), constructed but not yet demanded. By mid-July 2013 awareness about the approach had increased sufficiently so that 247 metal silos had been sold to farmers, schools and colleges in one of the five piloting districts alone, a good indicator that careful targeting matched with solid project implementation generates success. The goals set in the nine participating district are ambitious: a 30% reduction in post-harvest losses by 2015 and 50% by 2020; reduce household hunger gap by 30%; increase household incomes from sale of surplus grains by 20%; raise female participation from the current 20-30% to above 50%. In some districts of Kenya, this number is already being exceeded. This work contributes to the food

25

Outcome Monitoring Summary Report (2014), Hill Maize Research Project Phase IV, available upon request 26

Upadhyaya, H.K. et al (2014). Report of the External Evaluation HMRP IV, Kathmandu, Nepal

10

security IDO by enabling households to store grain safely throughout the whole year and contributes to the income IDO by reducing grain loses and enabling grain sales at time of year when prices are high. The increase in female participation contributes to the gender IDO.

C.3 Progress towards Impact

The impact analysis for Drought Tolerant Maize (DTM) was revisited in 2013. DTM investments and increasing adoption in SSA are estimated to generate US$ 362-590M in cumulative benefits to both producers and consumers by 2016. The considerable modeled ex ante benefits reflect both mean yield gains and increased yield stability, especially in high drought risk areas and potentially translate into poverty reductions of 0.01–4.29% by 2016 (Kostandini et al. 2013). Metal grain silos are having a large impact on the welfare and food security of farm households in Kenya – through savings of US$135 annually per household (reduced grain loss, less insecticide use), selling surplus maize after five months at better prices and reducing inadequate food provision by a month (Gitonga et al. 2013). CA has the potential to increase maize yields in SSA – but it has less impact on farm income (Corbeels et al. in press) which is quite different to results in Mexico where substantive reduction in labor and input costs were realized. In Ethiopia, adopters of sustainable intensification practices enhanced their agricultural productivity, food security and income, particularly when adopted in combination – although this also increased women’s workload (Teklewold et al. 2013). Insights such as these, and others, were a major reason for launching the Farm Mechanization and Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Intensification (FACASI) project with ACIAR funding in East Africa in 2013. Using South-South collaboration between Africa, India, China and Brazil, and tackling the core issues of low farm productivity and women drudgery, this joint initiative between MAIZE and WHEAT explores small-scale mechanization options and ensures that women and men are put in the driver’s seat of acceptance studies. D. GENDER RESEARCH ACHIEVEMENTS Several strategic gender research activities were executed in 2013 to inform the research agenda and increase the understanding of the role of gender in the MAIZE impact pathways. MAIZE co-initiated the conceptualization and design of the global, comparative, qualitative study on gender norms and agency in relation to agricultural and NRM innovation – a joint cross-CRP study under the CGIAR Gender and Agricultural Research Network. This contributes to SI 1, Output I. In Africa, gender research was initiated in the development and adoption of improved post-harvest storage technologies. This contributes to SI 6, Outputs II & III. In Africa and Asia, exciting research is seeking to empower the role of women in smallholder mechanization, challenging traditional gender roles. Several MAIZE publications (Beuchelt and Badstue 2013; Fisher and Kandiwa 2014; Kassie et al. 2014) were finalized in 2013, informing the maize research priority-setting on gender-related constraints in various settings. The MAIZE gender audit (GA) was completed in 2013, applying a participatory, interactive and iterative approach and involving staff at different levels from CIMMYT and IITA, project teams, partners and beneficiaries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The GA findings were discussed and validated in a collaborative workshop which included participation of CRP managers, senior management, gender experts and biophysical scientists. The comprehensive GA report provides a solid analytical tool for gender mainstreaming, strategic gender research and enhanced targeting and impact of maize R4D. The GA spurred strong interest in, and demand for gender analysis. Gender was a focal topic during CIMMYT’s bi-annual Science-Week in December 2013. This strategically important event included: a) a plenary presentation on the importance of integrating gender into research; b) three separate workshops on gender; and c) the systematic reflection on gender in all research strategy sessions. Overall, Science Week ensured exposure of all CIMMYT scientists, project leaders and managers to different reasons for integrating gender in maize R4D. This contributes to Output I. Other MAIZE gender mainstreaming in 2013 included:

Mainstreaming of sex-disaggregation in socio-economic surveys and participatory research activities. A compliance reporting mechanism was included as key performance indicator in the annual staff evaluations. This contributes to Output IV.

The number of MAIZE projects with gender integration increased from 4 in 2012 to 10 in 2013 addressing topics in the area of: a) crop improvement e.g. participatory varietal selection, on-farm trials and demonstrations; b) seed systems research, e.g. gender as customer attribute, community seed production by women and marginalized groups; c) post-harvest storage technology testing and diffusion; d) labor-saving technologies for reduced drudgery of women and children; e) use and diffusion of quality protein maize; f) innovation systems research for sustainable intensification, e.g. promoting market linkages and service provision to female and male farmers, whole family trainings. This contributes to Output V.

11

Explicit assessment of the gender dimension of partner proposal was incorporated as a standard requirement in the CGI application and processing procedure. This contributes to Output III.

A support tool for scientists and research teams on gender-aware research design was developed and launched through training of 35 CIMMYT scientists. This contributes to Output III.

In a total of 1,004 capacity-building events (formal courses, meetings, workshops, field days, study tours, traveling workshops)

27 for MAIZE in 27 countries, 30% of the 48,958 participants were women.

Bilateral projects were aligned with cluster of activities and flagship projects, enabling gender mainstreaming to take place through systematic implementation at a higher aggregate level.

A Gender DAC marker was introduced into the financial system, following a well-tested UNDP approach. Significant progress has been achieved in relation to mainstreaming gender into research and operational frameworks, and staff awareness increased. Challenges remain in the relation between scope-time-resources. At low proportion of W1&W2 funding within the overall CRP and with bilateral projects based on existing contracts, resources cannot simply be rearranged. Also even though priority was given to gender research in MAIZE CGIs, Consortium-promoted budgeting approaches for 2013 disregarded all partner grant commitments made in 2012 for 2013, severely curtailing investments in partner grants and options to invest in new gender research. The insecurity caused among scientists and partners was as devastating as the budget cuts. Gender performance self-assessment: approaching requirements.

E. PARTNERSHIP BUILDING ACHIEVEMENTS

In 2013, the CO commissioned a study on CRP partnerships which found that MAIZE was ranked either 1st or 2nd on 12 of 26 partnership criteria. Key priorities for partners were food security and capacity building.

In 2013, MAIZE had contractual research collaborations with more than 153 partners, sent germplasm to collaborators in 111 institutions and 36 countries, and worked and interacted with farmers at 13,500 study sites in 12 countries [map].

MAIZE collaborates with over 300 partners (NARS, universities, regional and international organizations, ARIs, private sector institutions, NGOs, CBOs and host countries), of whom 153 are funded/with formal agreements. MAIZE distinguishes itself by allocating funds to non-CGIAR researchers to fill MAIZE research gaps and capture a wider range of innovative ideas, by launching a call for competitive grants. In October 2013, more than 40 institutions have been awarded a MAIZE CGI to complement the work of MAIZE across Central America and Colombia, Africa and South Asia, addressing themes such as mechanization, gender empowerment, sustainable smallholder practices, climate change vulnerability and the management of MLN and Tar Spot Complex (TSC) diseases, in addition to testing new maize varieties with resistance to diseases, Striga and environmental stresses.

Public-private partnerships have emerged through the CGI. For example, the PPP with IPNI in South Asia which (supported by CCAFS, MAIZE and WHEAT) developed The Nutrient Expert decision support tools for maize and wheat, recognized by the Bihar Innovation Forum as the Best Innovation for Improving Rural Livelihood in Bihar, India.

In addition to current linkages with A4NH, Aquatic Systems, CCAFS, GRiSP, Grain Legumes, Livestock, WHEAT and GCP, linkages with several other CRPs are being explored and strengthened, in particular Humid Tropics, PIM and RTB.

Partnership was essential to the development and functioning of MLN and DH facilities in Kenya. This partnership included not only KARI and IITA, but also industry partners, NARS and small and medium-sized seed companies. Barring a few countries that are reasonably well-developed and have multinational seed companies with a substantive market share, the University of Hohenheim has given complete freedom for CIMMYT to offer DH production service to NARS and SME seed companies in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

The Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) project is also a good example of a public-private partnership to develop and deploy drought-tolerant white maize varieties royalty-free in selected countries of Africa (Kenya, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda), and to increase maize yields and reduce risk

27

Data provided by CIMMYT training office, available upon request

12

under drought conditions through a combination of conventional breeding, marker-assisted breeding and transgenes. WEMA has conducted four confined field trials to date for genetically modified (GM) drought-tolerant maize variety MON87460 with promising results. It might take a few more years before farmers can plant the GM maize varieties, but significant progress has been achieved through conventional breeding. 15 drought-tolerant maize hybrids have been released under WEMA: in Kenya (10), Uganda (2) and Tanzania (3) and large number of hybrids were in first year national performance trials (NPT) testing in all countries.

To improve knowledge about partners’ key priorities, MAIZE conducted and analyzed a Partner Priorities Survey in 2013 that drew 67 responses. The two top priorities identified by partners were: food security (based on stable and affordable prices); and capacity building to create a new generation of scientists and other professionals.

F. CAPACITY BUILDING In 2013, a total of 1,004 MAIZE training events (field days, meetings, seminars, training courses and traveling workshops) took place, reaching over 50,000 people

28 in 27 countries. When gender information was collected

(84% of the time), an average of 30% of participants were female. In addition to those already mentioned in other parts of this report, examples of such capacity building included: As part of the efforts to share knowledge and experience on MLN, an intensive, three-week course took place in Kenya in 2013 for 37 young maize breeders – including 10 women – to provide them the knowledge and skills to use modern breeding methods efficiently in their maize programs. The course included participants from national programs and seed companies in 14 African countries. Emphasis was placed on breeding maize for abiotic stress tolerance. Presenters also focused on MLN, including background on the disease in Africa, efforts made to breed for MLN resistance in African germplasm and strategies to prevent the spread of the disease. Participants were sponsored through various projects, including DTMA, WEMA, IMAS, a USAID project, Harvest Plus and four local seed companies.

Collaboration between the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and the Nutritious Maize for Ethiopia (NuME) project led to a QPM seed production course in Ethiopia, where 40 participants (including 5 women) were trained on QPM seed technology and informed about its role in food and nutrition security.

In order to improve the credibility of laboratory results among farmers, 14 senior laboratory technicians from Ghana and Nigeria have been trained on Good Laboratory Practices and Laboratory Information Management Systems (GLP-LIMS) for soil and plant analytical laboratories in Ibadan. The training was organized by AGRA in collaboration with IITA.

IITA also put emphasis on bioinformatics to manage and interpret the massive data generated by genomic research and where most researchers have the least expertise. To build the capacity of researchers in Tanzania, IITA, Inqaba Biotec and CLC-Bio organized a workshop to give participants a better understanding, through theory and hands-on practice, on common sequence analysis techniques in basic and advanced DNA sequence analyses. The training brought together 20 researchers from IITA but also from different institutions in Tanzania. See Annex 2.

G. RISK MANAGEMENT

The outbreak of MLN virus in East and Southern Africa shows just how essential an internationally available, highly diverse yet elite germplasm base is to food and income security among the most vulnerable. MAIZE resources were mobilized to bring in expertise and draw up a rapid action plan and ensure resources were available to address this massive threat. The outbreak also calls for more active monitoring of new biotic threats.

The CGIAR System remains an unduly high risk factor for the implementation of CRPs: Several Financial Plans forthcoming during 2013 projected significant changes in W1&W2 for MAIZE, varying between USD$ 18.6 M to 14.0 M, and this made planning very difficult. Bilateral donors are able to issue multiyear contracts; the CGIAR must be able to make firm multi-year budget commitments and buffer income variations. Far too many goal posts keep changing and create a higher inefficiency than what they intend to resolve.

28

Data provided by CIMMYT training office, available upon request

13

The small proportion of W1&W2 funds makes it difficult to sustain longer-term, mission-critical activities (e.g. plant breeding).

H. LESSONS LEARNED

Analysis of variance from what was planned:

i. Estimate the overall level of confidence/uncertainty of the indicators provided in Table 1.

-Confidence in 2013 presented indicators is reasonably robust (>90%) but in many instances incomplete due to unrealistic expectations. With programs the size of MAIZE, annual impact assessment across the entire scope of MAIZE is unrealistic. Confidence in future indicators is somewhat lower (2013 >80%, 2014: >65%) given funding uncertainties.

ii. Description, if relevant, of research avenues that did not produce expected results, and description of implications for the CRP, such as new research directions pursued instead and their expected outputs and outcomes.

-No new research directions were pursued.

iii. Lessons learned by the CRP from monitoring the indicators and from qualitative analyses of progress.

-The operationalization of CIMMYT’s new RMS has greatly improved the collection and storage of MAIZE performance indicators.

- Scientists in bilateral projects experience a double reporting, towards the CRP and the bilateral project.

-Under-resourcing of M&E and Learning given the size and complexity of the CRP – with a new position set to be filled in 2014.

-The Consortium Office science team needs to align its requirements with the financial and legal team, in terms of calendar and content.

I. CRP FINANCIAL REPORT

There are 9 financial reports:

1. Report L101 – Annual CRP Financial Summary – by CG Participant

2. Report L102 – Cumulative CRP Financial Summary – CG Participant

3. Report L111 – CRP Annual Finance Plan Summary (by Center, Windows 1 and 2)

4. Report L121 – CRP Expenditure by natural classification - by CG Center

5. Report L131 – CRP Expenditure by Theme/Flagship Project and by Cluster of activities29

6. Report XXX – CRP expenditure on gender research by Theme/Flagship Project and by Cluster of activities

30

7. Report L201 – CRP Bilateral Grants Summary - by CG Center

8. Report L211 – CRP Partnerships Report- by CG Center

9. Report L401 – CRP Funding Statement – Windows 1 and 2

29

An explanatory note for this item is forthcoming 30

An explanatory note for this item is being prepared

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 14

14

Annex 1: CRP indicators of progress, with glossary and targets

CRPs concerned by this indicator

Indicator Deviation narrative - MAIZE 2012 2013 2014

Target Actual Target Actual Target Actual

KNOWLEDGE, TOOLS, DATA

All 1. Number of flagship “products” produced by CRP

Glossary: These are frameworks and concepts that are significant and complete enough to have been highlighted on web pages, publicized through blog stories, press releases and/or policy briefs. They are significant in that they should be likely to change the way stakeholders along the impact pathway allocate resources and/or implement activities. They should be products that change the way these stakeholders think and act. Tools, decision-support tools, guidelines and/or training manuals are not included in this indicator.

SI1: Socioeconomic analyses SI2: Locally adapted approaches to maize-based systems intensification SI3: Sensor technologies for improved nutrient applications SI4: Stress tolerant maize SI5: International Maize Improvement Consortium SI6: Post harvest management technologies SI7: Nutritious maize SI8: Characterized genetic resources SI9: Tools for SMEs and NARS to accelerate breeding

9 9 9 9

All

2. % of flagship products produced that have explicit target of women farmers/NRM managers

Specify what type of products, from above glossary, you have included in the number indicated under 2013; if relevant specify geographic locations

"Include" not "have": SI1: Socioeconomic analyses SI2: Locally adapted approaches to maize-based systems intensification SI4: Stress tolerant maize SI5: International Maize Improvement Consortium SI6: Postharvest SI7: Nutritious maize

4 5 6 5

All

3. % of flagship products produced that have been assessed for likely

Glossary: The web pages, blog stories, press releases and policy briefs supporting indicator #1 must have an explicit focus on women farmers/NRM managers to be

Gender audit 9 9 with 2 more in-

depth

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 15

15

gender-disaggregated impact

counted Provide concrete examples of what you include in this indicator

All 4. Number of ”tools” produced by CRP

Glossary: These are significant decision-support tools, guidelines, and/or training manuals that are significant and complete enough to have been highlighted on web pages, publicized through blog stories, press releases and/or policy briefs. They are significant in that they should be likely to change the way stakeholders along the impact pathway allocate resources and/or implement activities Based on the glossary, describe the types of outputs you include in this indicator

Manuals and web-based applications

28 (16 co develope

d with other CRPs)

25

27 (17 co developed with other

CRPs)

25

All

5. % of tools that have an explicit target of women farmers

Glossary: The web pages, blog stories, press releases and policy briefs supporting indicator #4 must have an explicit focus on women farmers/NRM managers to be counted

Tools target men and women users equally

n/a

All

6. % of tools assessed for likely gender-disaggregated impact

Glossary: Reports/papers describing the products should include a focus on gender-disaggregated impacts if they are to be counted

Tools are not assessed individually but at flagship product level

55

All 7. Number of open access databases maintained by CRP

Indicate the type of data bases (e.g., socio-economic survey data; crop yields in field experiments…) you are reporting on in the following columns

IMIS 1 1 12 12

All 8. Total number of users of these open access databases

592 600 3370 4000

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 16

16

All

9. Number of publications in ISI journals produced by CRP

KPI indicator DB

84 (includin

g 18 jointly with other CRPs)

84 137 120

1,2,3, 4, 6

10. Number of strategic value chains analyzed by CRP

Clearly indicate the type of value chains you are reporting on in the next columns

From KPI database 27

1,5,6,7

11. Number of targeted agro-ecosystems analyzed/characterized by CRP

Specify the type of system, using its main products as descriptors (e.g., mixed crop, livestock system; monoculture of XX; agroforestry with maize, beans, etc.; mixed cropping with upland rice, cassava, etc.)by geographical location and agroecological zones (FAO typology)

1,5,6,7

12. Estimated population of above-mentioned agro-ecosystems

CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT AND INNOVATION PLATFORMS

All

13. Number of trainees in short-term programs facilitated by CRP (male)

Glossary: The number of individuals to whom significant knowledge or skills have been imparted through interactions that are intentional, structured, and purposed for imparting knowledge or skills should be counted. This includes farmers, ranchers, fishers, and other primary sector producers who receive training in a variety of best practices in productivity, post-harvest management, linking to markets, etc. It also includes rural entrepreneurs, processors, managers and traders receiving training in application of

From Training database

22,428 (15,144

with other CRPs)

20,000

36,588 (151 with

other CRPs)

20,000

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 17

17

new technologies, business management, linking to markets, etc., and training to extension specialists, researchers, policymakers and others who are engaged in the food, feed and fiber system and natural resources and water management. Include training on climate risk analysis, adaptation, mitigation, and vulnerability assessments, as it relates to agriculture. Training should include food security, water resources management/IWRM, sustainable agriculture, and climate change resilience Indicate, from the above list, the general subject matters in which training was provided

All

14. Number of trainees in short-term programs facilitated by CRP (female)

(see above, but for female)

From Training database: info on female participation was missing in 16% of all cases; average proportion in 2013 was 30%

5,941 (73 with

other CRPs) (IITA 15)

6,000 13,592 (73 with other

CRPs) 6,000

All

15. Number of trainees in long-term programs facilitated by CRP (male)

Glossary: The number of people who are currently enrolled in or graduated in the current fiscal year from a bachelor’s, master’s or Ph.D. program or are currently participating in or have completed in the current fiscal year a long term (degree-seeking) advanced training program such as a fellowship program or a post-doctoral studies program. A person completing one long term training program in the fiscal year and currently participating in another long term training program should be counted only once. Specify in this cell number of Master’s and number of PhD’s

MSc & PhDs & training longer than 90 days

37 (5 with other CRPs)

60 149 (7 with

other CRPs)

60

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 18

18

All

16.Number of trainees in long-term programs facilitated by CRP (female)

(see above, but for female) MSc & PhDs & training longer than 90 days

16 (1 shared other CRPs)

36 80 (4 with

other CRPs)

30

1,5,6,7

17. Number of multi-stakeholder R4D innovation platforms established for the targeted agro-ecosystems by the CRPs

Glossary: To be counted, a multi-stakeholder platform has to have a clear purpose, generally to manage some type of tradeoff/conflict among the different interests of different stakeholders in the targeted agro-ecosystems, and inclusive and clear governance mechanisms, leading to decisions to manage the variety of perspectives of stakeholders in a manner satisfactory to the whole platform. Indicate the focus of each platform in this cell, including geographical focus

75 75 87 80

TECHNOLOGIES/PRACTICES IN VARIOUS STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT

All

18. Number of technologies/NRM practices under research in the CRP (Phase I)

Glossary: Technologies to be counted here are agriculture-related and NRM-related technologies and innovations including those that address climate change adaptation and mitigation. Relevant technologies include but are not limited to:

Germplasm: 28,833 Agronomy: 1,300 From KPI database

32,300 30,000 30,122 30,000

• Mechanical and physical: New land preparation, harvesting, processing and product handling technologies, including biodegradable packaging

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 19

19

• Biological: New germplasm (varieties, breeds, etc.) that could be higher-yielding or higher in nutritional content and/or more resilient to climate impacts; affordable food-based nutritional supplementation such as vitamin A-rich sweet potatoes or rice, or high-protein maize, or improved livestock breeds; soil management practices that increase biotic activity and soil organic matter levels; and livestock health services and products such as vaccines;

• Chemical: Fertilizers, insecticides, and pesticides sustainably and environmentally applied, and soil amendments that increase fertilizer-use efficiencies;

• Management and cultural practices: sustainable water management; practices; sustainable land management practices; sustainable fishing practices; Information technology, improved/sustainable agricultural production and marketing practices, increased use of climate information for planning disaster risk strategies in place, climate change mitigation and energy efficiency, and natural resource management practices that increase productivity and/or resiliency to climate change. IPM, ISFM, and PHH as related to agriculture should all be included as improved technologies or management practices.

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 20

20

New technologies or management practices under research counted should be only those under research in the current reporting year. Any new technology or management practice under research in a previous year but not under research in the reporting year should not be included.

Clearly indicate, from the list above, the type of technology and geographical location that you are reporting on in next columns

All

19. % of technologies under research that have an explicit target of women farmers

The papers, web pages, blog stories, press releases and policy briefs supporting indicator #x must have an explicit focus on women farmers/NRM managers to be counted

Technologies are not targeted individually but at flagship product level

All

20. % of technologies under research that have been assessed for likely gender-disaggregated impact

Reports/papers describing the products should include a focus on gender-disaggregated impacts if they are to be counted

Technologies are not assessed individually but at flagship product level

55%

1,5,6,7

21 Number of agro-ecosystems for which CRP has identified feasible approaches for improving ecosystem services and for establishing positive incentives for farmers to improve ecosystem functions as per the CRP’s recommendations

Use the same classification of agro-ecosystem as for indicator 11 above, including geographical location and agro-ecological zone

3 5

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 21

21

1,5,6,7

22. Number of people who will potentially benefit from plans, once finalized, for the scaling up of strategies

Indicate the potential number of both women and men

All, except 2

23. Number of technologies /NRM practices field tested (phase II)

Glossary; Under “field testing” means that research has moved from focused development to broader testing (pilot project phase) and this testing is underway under conditions intended to duplicate those encountered by potential users of the new technology. This might be in the actual facilities (fields) of potential users, or it might be in a facility set up to duplicate those conditions. Clearly identify in this cell the type of technology and the geographical locations of the field testing/pilot projects reported in next columns

Germplasm: 1,433 Agronomy: 121 From KPI database

1,180 1,200 1,554 1,200

1,5,6,7

24. Number of agro-ecosystems for which innovations (technologies, policies, practices, integrative approaches) and options for improvement at system level have been developed and are being field tested (Phase II)

Clearly identify in this cell the type of technology and the geographical location of the field testing/pilot projects, and use the same classification of agroecosystem as for indicator 11, specifying the type of agroecosystems in which field testing is taking place

3 3 4 3

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 22

22

1,5,6,7

25. % of above innovations/approaches/options that are targeted at decreasing inequality between men and women

3 3 3

1,5,6,7

26. Number of published research outputs from CRP utilized in targeted agro-ecosystems

32

All, except 2

27.Number of technologies/NRM practices released by public and private sector partners globally (phase III)

Glossary: In the case of crop research that developed a new variety, e.g., the variety must have passed through any required approval process, and seed of the new variety should be available for multiplication. The technology should have proven benefits and be as ready for use as it can be as it emerges from the research and testing process. Technologies made available for transfer should be only those made available in the current reporting year. Any technology made available in a previous year should not be included. Clearly identify in this cell the technologies/practices thus released (scale up phase), the geographical areas concerned

Germplasm: 63 Agronomy: 13 From KPI database

48 53 77 50

POLICIES IN VARIOUS STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 23

23

All

28. Numbers of Policies/ Regulations/ Administrative Procedures

Number of agricultural enabling environment policies / regulations / administrative procedures in the areas of agricultural resource, food, market standards & regulation, public investment, natural resource or water management and climate change adaptation/mitigation as it relates to agriculture that underwent the first stage of the policy reform process i.e. analysis (review of existing policy / regulation / administrative procedure and/or proposal of new policy / regulations / administrative procedures).Please count the highest stage completed during the reporting year – don't double count for the same policy.

3 3 1 1 1

Analyzed (Stage 1)

Clearly identify in this cell the type of policy, regulations, etc. from the above list

All

29. Number of policies / regulations / administrative procedures drafted and presented for public/stakeholder consultation (Stage 2)

….. ……that underwent the second stage of the policy reform process. The second stage includes public debate and/or consultation with stakeholders on the proposed new or revised policy / regulation / administrative procedure.

1 1 1 1

Clearly identify in this cell the type of policy, regulations and so on, and the geographical location of the consultations

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 24

24

All

30. Number of policies / regulations / administrative procedures presented for legislation(Stage 3)

: … underwent the third stage of the policy reform process (policies were presented for legislation/decree to improve the policy environment for smallholder-based agriculture.)

0

Clearly identify in this cell the type of policy and the country/region concerned

All

31. Number of policies / regulations / administrative procedures prepared passed/approved (Stage 4)

: …underwent the fourth stage of the policy reform process (official approval (legislation/decree) of new or revised policy / regulation / administrative procedure by relevant authority).

0

Clearly identify in this cell the type of policy and the country/region concerned

All

32. Number of policies / regulations / administrative procedures passed for which implementation has begun (Stage 5)

: …completed the policy reform process (implementation of new or revised policy / regulation / administrative procedure by relevant authority) Clearly identify in this cell the type of policy and the country/region concerned

0

OUTCOMES ON THE GROUND

All

33. Number of hectares under improved technologies or management practices as a result of CRP research

Clearly identify in this cell the geographic locations where this is occurring and whether the application of technologies is on a new or continuing area

INCOMPLETE; use of germplasm by third parties has an additional impact

313,120 417,000 500,000

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 25

25

All

34. Number of farmers and others who have applied new technologies or management practices as a result of CRP research

Clearly identify in this cell the geographic location of these farmers and whether the application of technologies is on a new or continuing area and indicate: 34 (a) number of women farmers concerned 34(b) number of male farmers concerned

INCOMPLETE; use of germplasm by third parties has an additional impact

869,778 1,100,000 1,200,000

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 26

26

Annex 2: List of acronyms ACIAR: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research

AGRA: Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa

ASARECA: Association for strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa

ATTIC: Agro-ecosystem Diversity, Trajectories and Trade-Offs for Intensification of Cereal-based

systems

BMGF: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

CBSP: Community Based Maize Seed Production

CCAFS: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security

CGI: Competitive Grants Initiative

CIMMYT: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

CSISA: Cereal Systems Initiative for South Asia

DH: Double-Haploid

DTMA: Drought-Tolerant Maize for Africa project

EGSP: Effective Grain Storage Project

EIAR: Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research

FACASI: Farm Mechanization and Conservation Agriculture for Sustainable Intensification

GBS: Genotyping-by-sequencing

GCP: Generation Challenge Programme

GRiSP: Global Rice Science Partnership

HMRP: Hill Maize Research Project

ICIPE: International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology

IFAD: International Fund for Agricultural Development

IITA: International Institute for Tropical Agriculture

ILRI: International Livestock Research Institute

IMAS: Improved Maize for African Soils

IMIC: International Maize Improvement Consortium (IMIC-Latin America)

IPNI: International Plant Nutrition Institute

ISMA: Integrated Striga Management Project

KARI: Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute

KIT: Royal Tropical Institute

MLN: Maize Lethal Necrotic Virus

PASS: Program for Africa’s Seed Systems

RTB: CGIAR Research Program on Roots, Tubers and Bananas

SAGARPA: Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca y Alimentación

SDC: Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

SeeD: Seeds of Discovery project

SFSA: Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture

SIMLESA: Sustainable Intensification of Maize-Legume cropping systems for food security in Eastern and

Southern Africa

STAK: Seed Trade Association of Kenya

USDA-ARS: United States Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Research Service

USAID: United States Agency for International Development

WEMA: Water Efficient Maize for Africa

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 27

27

Annex 3: MAIZE performance per Strategic Initiative in 2013 The traffic light indicator sums up the progress achieved of projects under MAIZE, per strategic initiatives in 2013, regardless of their funding (Windows 1& 2 or bilateral funded). It monitors the progress per SI output, per SI and for the CRP as a whole.

Overall MAIZE performance was 88% on annual milestones/deliverables associated with SI outputs based on projects reported. Despite a number of smaller delays, which are being tracked, no significant issues were reported.

STRATEGIC INITIATIVE- THEME

SI Performance (aggregation of

progress towards all SI outputs -weighted

average)

1-Socioeconomic and Policies for maize futures.

89.2

2-Sustainable intensification and income opportunities for the poor.

87.4

3- Smallholder precision agriculture. 84.3

4-Stress tolerant maize for the poorest. 86.6

5-Towards doubling maize productivity

91.2

6-Integrated postharvest management.

90.9

7-Nutritious maize.

85.8

8-Seeds of discovery. 93.6

9-New tools and methods for NARS and SMEs.

85.5

Progress per Output

Progress per SI (all SI outputs)

CRP MAIZE Progress (all SIs)

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 28

28

Annex 4a: Progress towards Impact (external reviews)

2008 1. Conservation Agriculture Research at CIMMYT (MAIZE SI2, SI3) 2. Drought tolerant maize for Africa (MAIZE SI4, bilateral)

2009 1. CGIAR Social Science Stripe Review (MAIZE SI1) 2. Hill maize research in Nepal (MAIZE SI4, bilateral) 3. CGIAR Harvest Plus Review (MAIZE SI7) 4. Genotyping at CIMMYT (MAIZE SI9)

2010 1. Water efficient maize for Africa (MAIZE SI4, bilateral) 2. Conservation Agriculture in Southern Africa (MAIZE SI2, bilateral)

2011 1. Cereal Systems Initiative South Asia (MAIZE SI2 &SI3, bilateral) 2. New Seed Initiative for Southern Africa (MAIZE SI4, bilateral) 3. Drought tolerant maize for Africa (MAIZE SI4, bilateral) 4. MycoRed (MAIZE SI6, bilateral)

2012 1. CA and smallholder farmers in E&S Africa-Leveraging institutional innovations and policies (MAIZE SI1, bilateral) 2. NRM research in the CGIAR (MAIZE SI2, SI3) 3. Maize-rice systems in Bangladesh (MAIZE SI2, SI3 bilateral) 4. Enhancing total farm productivity in smallholder CA based systems in Eastern Africa (MAIZE SI2, bilateral) 5. SIMLESA mid-term review (MAIZE SI2, bilateral) 6. Governance & Management of the Cereal Systems Initiative South Asia (MAIZE SI2 &SI3, bilateral) 7. Mechanization in Bangladesh (MAIZE SI2, bilateral) 8. Alignment of MAIZE SI2 with CRP1.2 (internal between two CRPs involved) 9. Water efficient maize for Africa (MAIZE SI4, bilateral) 10. Review of the integrated breeding platform (MAIZE, SI9, bilateral)

2013 1. Gender Audit of MAIZE (MAIZE) 2. Innovation system thinking for improved research impact (MAIZE SI2) 3. New Seed Initiative for Southern Africa (MAIZE SI4, bilateral) 4. International Maize Improvement Consortium (MAIZE SI5) 5. Transgenic strategy (MAIZE SI9) 6. Plant breeding support in the CGIAR (MAIZE SI4-9; BMGF) 7. Biotechnology research in the CGIAR (MAIZE SI4, SI8, SI9, ISPC)

2014 1. Review of Capacity building & Partnerships (MAIZE)

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 29

29

Annex 4b: Progress towards Impact (Impact Assessments)

2010 A meta-analysis of community-based studies on quality protein maize (MAIZE SI7)

Adoption and continued use of improved maize seeds: Case study of Central Ethiopia (MAIZE SI4, SI5)

Determinants of Agricultural Technology adoption: the Case of Improved Pigeonpea Varieties in Tanzania. (MAIZE SI2)

How cost-effective is Biofortification in combating micronutrient malnutrition? An Ex ante assessment (MAIZE SI7)

Potential for herbicide resistant maize seed for Striga control in Africa (MAIZE SI4)

Quality Protein Maize: progress, impact, and prospects (MAIZE SI7)

The effectiveness of quality protein maize in improving the nutritional status of young children in the Ethiopian highlands (MAIZE SI7)

DTMA ex ante analysis - Potential impact of investments in drought tolerant maize in Africa (MAIZE SI4)

2011 Agricultural technology adoption, seed access constraints and commercialization in Ethiopia (MAIZE SI4, SI5)

Agricultural Technology, Crop Income, and Poverty Alleviation in Uganda (MAIZE SI1)

Are soil conservation technologies "win-win?" A case study of Anjeni in the north-western Ethiopian highlands (MAIZE SI2)

Assessing the influence of neighbourhood effects on the adoption of improved agricultural technologies in developing agriculture (MAIZE)

Assessing the potential economic impact of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) maize in Kenya (MAIZE SI4)

Determinants of improved maize seed and fertilizer adoption in Kenya (MAIZE SI2)

2012 Adoption and impact of DT maize in Zimbabwe (MAIZE SI4)

Adoption of Agricultural Technologies in Kenya: How Does Gender Matter (MAIZE)

Adoption of bio-diversification, conservation tillage and modern seed: Welfare and environmental implications. (MAIZE SI1)

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 30

30

Adoption of interrelated sustainable agricultural practices in smallholder system: Evidence from rural Tanzania. Technological forecast and social change (MAIZE SI2))

Adoption of Multiple Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Rural Ethiopia (MAIZE SI2)

Analysis of Adoption and Diffusion of Improved maize Varieties in Ethiopia (MAIZE SI4, SI5)

Can Metal Silo Technology Offer Solution to Grain Storage and Food Security Problem in Developing Countries? An Impact Evaluation From Kenya (MAIZE SI6)

Could farmer interest in a diversity of seed attributes explain adoption plateaus for modern maize varieties in Malawi? (MAIZE SI4)

Estimating consumer willingness to pay for food quality with experimental auctions: the case of yellow versus fortified maize meal in Kenya (MAIZE SI7)

Identifying recommendation domains for targeting dual-purpose maize-based interventions in crop-livestock systems in East Africa (MAIZE SI1)

Impact of modern agricultural technologies on smallholder welfare: Evidence from Tanzania and Ethiopia (MAIZE SI1)

Improved Maize Technologies and Welfare Outcomes In Smallholder Systems: Evidence From Application of Parametric and Non-Parametric Approaches (MAIZE SI1)

Maize impact in Zambia (MAIZE SI4, SI5)

Poverty Reduction Effects of Agricultural Technology Adoption: A Micro-evidence from Rural Tanzania. MAIZE SI1)

The choice of spatial and temporal cropping systems diversification in Malawi: impacts on crop income and agro-chemicals use. (MAIZE SI2)

Welfare Effects of Agricultural Technology Adoption: The Case of Improved Groundnut Varieties in Rural Malawi. (MAIZE SI2)

Welfare impact of farm input subsidy and improved maize in Malawi (MAIZE SI1)

Welfare impacts of maize-pigeon pea intensification in Tanzania (MAIZE SI2)

What determines gender inequality in household food security in Kenya? Application of exogenous switching treatment regression. (MAIZE SI1)

2013 What Determines Gender Inequality in Household Food Security in Kenya? Application of Exogenous Switching Treatment Regression (MAIZE SI1)

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 31

31

What are the farm-level impacts of Malawi’s farm input subsidy program? A critical review (MAIZE SI1)

Food security as a gender issue: Why are female-headed households worse off compared to similar male-headed counterparts? (MAIZE SI1)

Household, community, and policy determinants of food insecurity in rural Malawi (MAIZE SI1)

Mapping the effect of market liberalisation policies on the maize seed systems in Kenya based on micro-evidence from 1992 to 2010 (MAIZE SI1)

Maize stover use and sustainable crop production in mixed crop–livestock systems in Mexico (MAIZE SI2)

Gender and Innovation in Agriculture: A Case Study of Farmers’ Varietal Preference of Drought Tolerant Maize in Southern Guinea Savannah Region of Nigeria (MAIZE

SI4)

On-farm evaluation of maize varieties in the transitional and savannah zones of Ghana: Determinants of farmer preferences (MAIZE SI4)

Potential impacts of increasing average yields and reducing maize yield variability in Africa (MAIZE SI4)

Smallholder Farmers’ Perceptions of Drought Risk and Adoption of Modern Maize in Southern Malawi (MAIZE SI4)

Economic Analysis of Modern Maize Varieties in Malawi (MAIZE SI4)

Maize for food and feed in East Africa—The farmers’ perspective (MAIZE SI7)

Potential for dual-purpose maize varieties to meet changing maize demands: Overview (MAIZE SI7)

Potential for dual-purpose maize varieties to meet changing maize demands: Synthesis (MAIZE SI7)

Assessing the potential of dual-purpose maize in southern Africa: A multi-level approach (MAIZE SI7)

Identifying recommendation domains for targeting dual-purpose maize-based interventions in crop-livestock systems in East Africa (MAIZE SI7)

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 32

32

Annex 5: Financial Reports

CRP : 3.2 CRP on MAIZE Cumulative Financial Summary

Period: 01/01/2013 - 12/31/2013 Amounts in USD (000's)

Report Description

Name of Report: Cumuative Financial Summary Frequency/Period: Annual

Deadline: Every April 15th

Summary Report - by CG Partners

(a) Total POWB budget since inception

(b) Actual cumulative Expenses

(c) Variance / Balance

Windows 1 & 2

Window 3

Bilateral Funding

Center funds

Total Funding

Windows 1 & 2

Window 3

Bilateral Funding

Center funds

Total Funding

Windows 1 & 2

Window 3

Bilateral Funding

Center funds

Total Funding

1. AFRICA RICE

-

-

-

- -

-

-

2. BIOVERSITY

-

-

-

- -

-

-

3. CIAT

-

-

-

- -

-

-

4. CIFOR

-

-

-

- -

-

-

5. CIMMYT

30,114

28,639

105,887

-

164,640

26,158

25,209

95,781

-

147,149

3,956

3,430 10,106

-

17,491

6. CIP

-

-

-

- -

-

-

7. ICARDA

3,880

5,229

11,047

-

20,156

3,906

3,770

7,588

-

15,264

(25)

1,459 3,459

-

4,892

8. ICRAF

-

-

-

- -

-

-

9. ICRISAT

-

-

-

- -

-

-

10. IFPRI

-

-

-

- -

-

-

11. IITA

-

-

-

- -

-

-

12. ILRI

-

-

-

- -

-

-

13. IRRI

-

-

-

- -

-

-

14. IWMI

-

-

-

- -

-

-

15. WORLDFISH

-

-

-

- -

-

-

Total for CRP 33,994

33,868

116,934

-

184,796

30,064

28,979

103,369

-

162,412

3,930 4,889

13,565 -

22,384

18% 18% 63% 0% 100%

19% 18% 64% 0% 100%

18% 22% 61% 0% 100%

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 33

33

CRP : 3.2 CRP on MAIZE

Annual Funding Summary

Period: 01/01/2013 - 12/31/2013 Amounts in USD (000's) Report Description

Name of Report: Annual Funding Summary

Frequency/Period: Annual

Deadline: Every April 15th

PART 1 - Annual FINANCE PLAN (Totals for Windows 1 and 2 combined)

Approved Level for Year - Initial Approval (as per PIA) Approved Level for Year - Final Amount

PART 2 - Funding Summary for Year

2013 Actual Funding

Windows 1&2 Window 3 Bilateral Funding Total Funding

1 CGIAR Fund

13,138

13,138

2 ACIAR

-

2,444

2,444

3 BMGF

11,595

3,278

14,873

4 CAAS China

99

1

99

5 Cornell

-

278

278

6 GCP

-

225

225

7 GIZ

-

514

514

8 IFAD

1,274

274

1,548

9 IITA

62

233

296

10 IRRI

-

446

446

11 SAGARPA

-

12,589

12,589

12 SDC

-

2,549

2,549

13 SFSA

-

1,757

1,757

14 USAID

1,962

993

2,955

15 CIMMYT

1,641

114

1,755

16 ADA

62

62

17 AFDB

1,840

1,840

18 African Wildlife Foundation

50

50

19 AGRA

357

357

20 CORAF

72

72

21 NIGERIA

477

477

22 Others < $50K

47

450

496

-

Total for CRP "X.X" 13,138 16,679 29,002 58,819

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 34

34

CRP : 3.2 CRP on MAIZE

Annual Financial Summary by Centers

Period: 01/01/2013 - 12/31/2013 Amounts in USD

(000's)

Report Description

Name of Report:

Annual Financial Summary by Centers & Other Participants

Frequency/Period:

Annual

Deadline: Every April 15th

Summary Report - by CG Partners

(a) CRP 2013 POWB approved budget

(b) CRP 2013 Expenditure

(c) Variance this Year

Windows 1 & 2

Window 3

Bilateral Funding

Center funds

Total Funding

Windows 1 & 2

Window 3

Bilateral Funding

Center funds

Total Funding

Windows 1 & 2

Window 3

Bilateral Funding

Center funds

Total Funding

1. AFRICA RICE

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2. BIOVERSITY

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3. CIAT

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4. CIFOR

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5. CIMMYT

12,509

18,472

26,884

-

57,865

11,611

14,773

24,564

-

50,949

898

3,699

2,320

-

6,917

6. CIP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7. ICARDA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8. ICRAF

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9. ICRISAT

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

10. IFPRI

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

11. IITA

1,501

1,934

4,959

-

8,394

1,527

1,906

4,438

-

7,871

(25)

28

521

-

523

12. ILRI

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

13. IRRI

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

14. IWMI

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

15. WORLDFISH

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Total for CRP

14,010

20,406

31,843

-

66,259

13,138

16,679

29,002

- 58,819

872 3,727

2,841

- 7,440

21% 31% 48% 0% 100%

22% 28% 49% 0% 100%

12% 50% 38% 0% 100%

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 35

35

Annual Financial Summary by Natural Classification

CRP : 3.2 CRP on MAIZE Period: 01/01/2013 -

12/31/2013 Amounts in USD 000's

Report Description

Name of Report:

Financial Summary by Natural Classification lines

Frequency/Period:

Annual

Deadline:

Every April 15th

Windows 1 & 2

Window 3

Bilateral Funding

Center Funds

Total Funding

Windows 1 & 2

Window 3

Bilateral Funding

Center Funds

Total Funding

Windows

1 & 2

Window 3

Bilateral Funding

Center Funds

Total Funding

Total CRP"X.X"

POWB Approved Budget

Actual

Unspent/Variance

Personnel

4,073

5,413

11,420

-

20,906

3,654

3,988

8,630

-

16,272

420

1,425

2,790

-

4,635

Collaborators Costs - CGIAR Centers

115

3,074

320

-

3,510

83

2,606

200

-

2,889

32

468

121

-

621

Collaborator Costs - Partners

4,252

2,518

4,474

-

11,244

3,008

2,002

3,704

-

8,715

1,243

516

769

-

2,528

Supplies and services

2,838

3,985

8,417

-

15,240

3,912

3,969

9,641

-

17,522

(1,074)

16

(1,224)

-

(2,282)

Operational Travel

924

1,440

1,706

-

4,070

631

1,031

1,481

-

3,143

293

409

225

-

927

Depreciation

285

1,880

948

-

3,113

249

1,459

1,538

-

3,246

36

421

(591)

-

(133)

Sub-total of Direct Costs

12,487

18,311

27,284

-

58,083

11,537

15,057

25,194

-

51,787

951

3,254

2,091

-

6,296

Indirect Costs

1,523

2,095

4,558

-

8,177

1,601

1,623

3,808

-

7,032

(78)

472

750

-

1,144

Total - All Costs

14,010

20,406

31,843

-

66,259

13,138

16,679

29,002

-

58,819

872

3,727

2,841

-

7,440

LESS Coll Costs CGIAR Centers

(115.2)

(3,074)

(320)

-

(3,510)

(83)

(2,606)

(200)

-

(2,889)

(32)

(468)

(121)

-

(621)

Total Net Costs

13,895

17,332

31,523

-

62,750

13,055

14,073

28,803

-

55,930

840

3,259

2,720

-

6,819

Amounts for each participating center below:

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 36

36

CIMMYT

POWB Approved Budget Actual

Unspent/Variance

Personnel

3,437 4,570

9,825

17,832

2,753

3,187

7,498

- 13,438

684

1,383

2,327

- 4,394

Collaborators Costs - CGIAR Centers

115 3,074

320

3,510

83

2,606

200

- 2,889

32

468

121

- 621

Collaborator Costs - Partners

4,165 1,920

3,737

9,822

3,001

1,627

2,329

- 6,958

1,164

293

1,408

- 2,865

Supplies and services

2,429 3,777

6,997

13,203

3,587

3,606

8,600

- 15,794

(1,158)

171

(1,603)

- (2,591)

Operational Travel

806 1,316

1,124

3,245

541

831

1,058

- 2,431

264

484

65

- 814

Depreciation

228 1,878

781

2,887

241

1,457

1,355

- 3,054

(14)

421

(574)

- (166)

Sub-total of Direct Costs

11,180

16,535

22,784

-

50,500

10,207

13,316

21,040

-

44,563

973

3,220

1,744

- 5,937

Indirect Costs

1,329 1,937

4,099

7,366

1,404

1,458

3,524

- 6,386

(75)

479

576

- 980

Total - All Costs

12,509

18,472

26,884

-

57,865

11,611

14,773

24,564

-

50,949

898

3,699

2,320

- 6,917

LESS Coll Costs CGIAR Centers

(115.2)

(3,074)

(320)

-

(3,510)

(83)

(2,606)

(200)

-

(2,889)

(32)

(468)

(121)

- (621)

Total Net Costs

12,394

15,398

26,564

-

54,355

11,528

12,167

24,364

-

48,060

866

3,231

2,199

- 6,296

IITA

POWB Approved Budget Actual

Unspent/Variance

Personnel

636 843

1,595

-

3,075

901

802

1,132

- 2,834

(265)

42

463

- 241

Collaborators Costs - CGIAR Centers

- -

-

-

-

-

-

-

- -

-

- -

- -

Collaborator Costs - Partners

87 598

736

-

1,421

7

375

1,375

- 1,758

80

223

(639)

- (336)

Supplies and services

409 208

1,420

-

2,037

324

363

1,041

- 1,728

85

(154)

379

- 309

Operational Travel

118 124

582

-

825

90

200

423

- 712

29

(76)

160

- 112

Depreciation

57 2

166

-

225

7

2

183

- 192

50

0

(17)

- 33

Sub-total of Direct Costs

1,307

1,776

4,500

-

7,583

1,329

1,741

4,154

-

7,224

(22)

35

346

- 359

Indirect Costs

194 158

459

-

811

197

165

284

- 647

(3)

(7)

175

- 164

Total - All Costs

1,501

1,934

4,959

-

8,394

1,527

1,906

4,438

-

7,871

(25)

28

521

- 523

LESS Coll Costs CGIAR Centers

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

- -

Total Net Costs

1,501

1,934

4,959

-

8,394

1,527

1,906

4,438

-

7,871

(25)

28

521

- 523

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 37

37

Annual Financial Summary by Themes

CRP : 3.2 CRP on MAIZE Period: 01/01/2013 - 12/31/2013 Amounts in USD 000's

Report Description

Name of Report:

Financial Summary by Themes Frequency/Period:

Annual

Deadline: Every April 15th

POWB Approved

Current Year Actual Expenditures

Unspent Budget

Summary Report - by Themes `

8,413

6,106

2,307

SI 2 Systems

9,857

8,383

1,474

SI 3 Yield gap

817

724

93

SI 4 Stress enviroments

14,520

13,814

705

SI 5 Double yield

6,551

7,560

(1,009)

SI 6 Postharvest

2,905

2,719

186

SI 7 Nutrition

770

761

9

SI 8 Seed of Discovery

7,039

5,267

1,772

SI 9 Tools

4,906

4,465

441

Gender Strategies

8,607

7,031

1,576

CRP Management/Coordination

1,874

1,989

(115)

Total - All Costs 66,259 58,819 7,440

CIMMYT SI 1 Socioeconomics

7,365

5,070

2,296

SI 2 Systems

5,920

4,805

1,115 SI 3 Yield gap

817

724

93

SI 4 Stress enviroments

12,894

12,232

662 SI 5 Double yield

6,111

7,142

(1,031)

SI 6 Postharvest

1,967

1,841

126 SI 7 Nutrition

515

501

13

SI 8 Seed of Discovery

7,039

5,267

1,772 SI 9 Tools

4,906

4,465

441

Gender Strategies

8,607

7,031

1,576 CRP Management/Coordination

1,725

1,872

(147)

Total - All Costs 57,865 50,949 6,917

IITA SI 1 Socioeconomics

1,048

1,037

11

SI 2 Systems

3,937

3,578

359 SI 3 Yield gap

-

-

-

SI 4 Stress enviroments

1,626

1,582

43 SI 5 Double yield

440

418

22

SI 6 Postharvest

938

878

60 SI 7 Nutrition

256

260

(4)

SI 8 Seed of Discovery

-

-

- SI 9 Tools

-

-

-

Gender Strategies

-

-

- CRP Management/Coordination

149

117

32

Total - All Costs 8,394 7,871 523

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 38

38

CRP : 3.2 CRP on MAIZE

CRP Partnership Report Period: 01/01/2013 -

12/31/2013 Amounts in USD 000's

Report Description

Name of Report: CRP Partnerships Report

Frequency/Period: Annual Deadline:

Every April 15th

TOTAL FOR CRP "X.X"

Actual Expenses - This Year

Item Institute Acronym

Institute Name Country

Windows 1 & 2

Window 3

Bilateral Center Funds

TOTAL

1 AQS Aminata Quality Seeds Ltd Tanzania

-

19

20

- 39

2 ARARI

AMHARA REGION AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE Ethiopia

-

32

-

- 32

3 ARC ARC Tanzania

-

27

27

- 54

4 AS

AGROBAL SERVICIOS S.P.R. DE R.L. Mexico

-

-

36

- 36

5 BARI

BANGLADESH AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE Bangladesh

23

2

3

- 27

6 BCAPRU

BUNDA COLLEGE AGRICULTURAL POLICY RESEARCH UNIT Malawi

108

-

-

- 108

7 BU BAYERO UNIVERSITY Nigeria

70

-

-

- 70

8 CB Charles Bett Ethiopia

-

28

-

- 28

9 CBI

CROP BREEDING INSTITUTE Zimbawe

70

-

-

- 70

10 CBIRF

Chemical Biological Incident Response Force Zimbawe

-

26

-

- 26

11 CBA Kshs CBA Kshs Kenya

59

-

-

- 59

12 Copmtroll Copmtroll India

-

43

-

- 43

13 CEFKF

Construction of Electric fence Kiboko farm Malawi

-

-

53

- 53

14 CIAT

CIAT - ANDEAN REGIONAL MAIZE PROGRAMME Colombia

-

-

30

- 30

15 CIEAIPN

CENTRO DE INVESTIGACION Y DE ESTUDIOS AVANZADOS DEL INSTITUTO POLITECNICO NACIONAL Mexico

-

-

94

- 94

16 CRES CRES Ethiopia

140

-

-

- 140

17 DAA

DOE AGRICULTURE ACCOUNT USA

15

-

15

- 30

18 DAT

DIVERSITY ARRAYS TECHNOLOGY, PTY LTD. Australia

-

-

419

- 419

19 DH David Hodson Nepal

17

24

-

- 41

20 DMMI

Deogratias Mwamba Muloy Ilunga Zimbawe

-

-

30

- 30

21 EIAR

ETHIOPIAN INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Zimbawe

53

20

19

- 92

22 ETB ETB Colombia

32

20

-

- 51

23 GKIL

GrainPro Kenya INC Limited Kenya

-

-

32

- 32

24 GM George Mahuku Zimbawe

2

9

35

- 46

25 GVART

Golden Valley Agricultural Research Trus zambia

4

63

18

- 84

26 IAICOA

INTER AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR COOPERATION ON AGRICULTURE Costa Rica

67

-

-

- 67

27 ICAR

INDIAN COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH India

40

5

46

- 91

28 ICIPE

INTERNATIONAL CENTER OF INSPECT PHYSIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY Kenya

38

-

-

- 38

29 ICRISAT ICRISAT India

-

-

58

- 58

30 IDE

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES Bangladesh

-

348

-

- 348

31 IFPRI

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE USA

-

189

-

- 189

32 IIAM

Institute of de invstigacao Agronom Mozambique Zimbawe

181

91

19

- 290

33 IITA

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TROPICAL Nigeria

28

1,863

146

- 2,036

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 39

39

AGRICULTURE

34 ILRI

INTERNATIONAL LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE. Ethiopia

55

81

-

- 136

35 INIFAP

INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE INVESTIGACIONES FORESTALES AGRICOLAS Y PECUARIAS Mexico

-

-

240

- 240

36 IPNI

INTERNATIONAL PLANT NUTRITION INSTITUTE Canada

158

-

-

- 158

37 IRRI

International Livestock Research lnstitute Philippines

-

474

24

- 498

38 JC Jill Cairns Zimbawe

-

3

28

- 31

39 KARI

KENYA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE Kenya

63

30

75

- 168

40 KSC Kenya Seed Company Ltd Kenya

-

13

16

- 29

41 LGL LGC GENOMICS LTD UK

-

-

75

- 75

42 MATC Meru Agro Tours & Consul Kenya

15

17

48

- 79

43 MOAL

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND LIVESTOCK, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MECHANIZATION SECTION Zimbawe

-

-

104

- 104

44 NAARI NAARI Kenya

-

52

19

- 72

45 NMRI

NATIONAL MAIZE RESEARCH INSTITUTE (VIETNAM) Vietnam

-

-

48

- 48

46 NMRP

NATIONAL MAIZE RESEARCH PROGRAM Nepal

125

-

-

- 125

47 NULS

NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES Norway

275

-

-

- 275

48 OAU

OBAFEMI AWOLOWO UNIVERSITY Nigeria

80

-

-

- 80

49 other other (blank)

64

103

37

- 205

50 PS PROGENE SEEDS Zimbawe

-

-

28

- 28

51 PU PURDUE UNIVERSITY USA

-

120

-

- 120

52 RBM Ruth Bruno Madulu Ethiopia

-

42

-

- 42

53 RSA RSA Zimbawe

-

1

24

- 25

54 RTI

ROYAL TROPICAL INSTITUTE Holanda

576

-

-

- 576

55 SARI

SAVANNA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE Tanzania

20

32

7

- 59

56 SATG

SOMALI AGRICULTURAL TECHNICAL GROUP Kenya

29

-

-

- 29

57 SGD

Sika Gbegbelegbe Dofonsuo Kenya

1

31

6

- 37

58 STA Seed Trade Association Zimbawe

-

41

-

- 41

59 STI

SIDIMEX TECNOLOGIAS DE INFORMACION SA DE CV Mexico

-

-

36

- 36

60 TFH Trust Fund Holding Zimbawe

-

28

2

- 30

61 UACH

UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE CHIAPAS Chile

25

-

2

- 27

62 UAY

UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE YUCATAN Mexico

-

-

67

- 67

63 UH UNIVERSITAT HOHENHEIM Germany

-

151

65

- 216

64 UOB

UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA España

118

-

-

- 118

65 UOG UNIVERSITY OF GHANA GHANA

40

-

-

- 40

66 UOKN

UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU NATAL. South Africa

45

-

-

- 45

67 UON UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI Kenya

60

-

-

- 60

68 UOZ

UNIVERSITY OF ZIMBABWE Zimbawe

15

-

14

- 29

69 UR UAS RAICHUR India

-

27

-

- 27

70 USCG

UNIVERSIDAD DE SAN CARLOS DE GUATEMALA GUATEMALA

25

-

-

- 25

71 VUOT

VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Austria

121

-

-

- 121

78 WSCL

WESTERN SEED COMPANY LIMITED Kenya

3

3

40

- 45

79 WSU

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY USA

35

-

-

- 35

80 WU WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY Holanda

134

-

-

- 134

81 WVU WORLD VISION UGANDA USA

35

-

-

- 35

82 ZARI

ZAMBIA AGRICULTURE RESEARCH INSTITUTE Zimbawe

60

-

74

- 134

83 Others < $25 other (blank)

(35)

179

350

- 494

84 IFPRI

USA

-

-

518

- 518

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 40

40

85 CIMMYT

USA

-

6

180

- 186

86 AFRICARICE

USA

-

-

168

- 168

87 ICIPE

USA

-

-

160

- 160

88 IER

USA

-

80

27

- 107

89 FMARD

USA

-

-

76

- 76

90 IITA

USA

2

15

56

- 73

91 CRI

USA

-

31

41

- 72

92 INRAB

USA

-

64

0

- 64

93 IAR

USA

-

59

3

- 61

94 SARI

USA

-

51

7

- 58

96 Others < $25

(blank)

5

70

141

- 215

Total for CRP

3,091

4,609

3,904

- 11,604

1. AFRICA RICE

Actual Expenses - This Year

Item Institute Acronym

Institute Name Country

Windows 1 & 2

Window 3

Bilateral Center Funds

TOTAL

1

- 2

-

Total for CRP

-

-

-

- -

2. BIOVERSITY

Actual Expenses - This Year

Item Institute Acronym

Institute Name Country

Windows 1 & 2

Window 3

Bilateral Center Funds

TOTAL

1

- 2

-

3

- 4

-

5

- 6

-

7

- 8

-

9

- 10

-

11

- 12

-

13

- 14

-

15

- 16

-

17

- 18

-

Total for CRP

-

-

-

- -

3. CIAT

Actual Expenses - This Year

Item Institute Acronym

Institute Name Country

Windows 1 & 2

Window 3

Bilateral Center Funds

TOTAL

1

- 2

-

3

- 4

-

5

- 6

-

7

- 8

-

9

- 10

-

11

- 12

-

13

- 14

-

15

- 16

-

Total for CRP

-

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 41

41

- - - -

4. CIFOR

Actual Expenses - This Year

Item Institute Acronym

Institute Name Country

Windows 1 & 2

Window 3

Bilateral Center Funds

TOTAL

1 -

-

-

-

Total for CRP

-

-

-

- -

5. CIMMYT

Actual Expenses - This Year

Item Institute Acronym

Institute Name Country

Windows 1 & 2

Window 3

Bilateral Center Funds

TOTAL

1 AQS Aminata Quality Seeds Ltd Tanzania

-

19

20

- 39

2 ARARI

AMHARA REGION AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE Ethiopia

-

32

-

- 32

3 ARC ARC Tanzania

-

27

27

- 54

4 AS AGROBAL SERVICIOS S.P.R. DE R.L. Mexico

-

-

36

- 36

5 BARI

BANGLADESH AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE Bangladesh

23

2

3

- 27

6 BCAPRU

BUNDA COLLEGE AGRICULTURAL POLICY RESEARCH UNIT Malawi

108

-

-

- 108

7 BU BAYERO UNIVERSITY Nigeria

70

-

-

- 70

8 CB Charles Bett Ethiopia

-

28

-

- 28

9 CBI CROP BREEDING INSTITUTE Zimbawe

70

-

-

- 70

10 CBIRF Chemical Biological Incident Response Force Zimbawe

-

26

-

- 26

11 CBA Kshs CBA Kshs Kenya

59

-

-

- 59

12 Copmtroll Copmtroll India

-

43

-

- 43

13 CEFKF Construction of Electric fence Kiboko farm Malawi

-

-

53

- 53

14 CIAT CIAT - ANDEAN REGIONAL MAIZE PROGRAMME Colombia

-

-

30

- 30

15 CIEAIPN

CENTRO DE INVESTIGACION Y DE ESTUDIOS AVANZADOS DEL INSTITUTO POLITECNICO NACIONAL Mexico

-

-

94

- 94

16 CRES CRES Ethiopia

140

-

-

- 140

17 DAA DOE AGRICULTURE ACCOUNT USA

15

-

15

- 30

18 DAT DIVERSITY ARRAYS TECHNOLOGY, PTY LTD. Australia

-

-

419

- 419

19 DH David Hodson Nepal

17

24

-

- 41

20 DMMI Deogratias Mwamba Muloy Ilunga Zimbawe

-

-

30

- 30

21 EIAR ETHIOPIAN INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Zimbawe

53

20

19

- 92

22 ETB ETB Colombia

32

20

-

- 51

23 GKIL GrainPro Kenya INC Limited Kenya

-

-

32

- 32

24 GM George Mahuku Zimbawe

2

9

35

- 46

25 GVART Golden Valley Agricultural Research Trus zambia

4

63

18

- 84

26 IAICOA

INTER AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR COOPERATION ON AGRICULTURE Costa Rica

67

-

-

- 67

27 ICAR INDIAN COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH India

40

5

46

- 91

28 ICIPE

INTERNATIONAL CENTER OF INSPECT PHYSIOLOGY AND ECOLOGY Kenya

38

-

-

- 38

29 ICRISAT ICRISAT India

-

-

58

- 58

30 IDE

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ENTERPRISES Bangladesh

-

348

-

- 348

31 IFPRI

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE USA

-

189

-

- 189

32 IIAM Institute of de invstigacao Agronom Mozambique Zimbawe

181

91

19

- 290

33 IITA

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TROPICAL AGRICULTURE Nigeria

28

1,863

146

- 2,036

34 ILRI INTERNATIONAL Ethiopia

136

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 42

42

LIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE.

55 81 - -

35 INIFAP

INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE INVESTIGACIONES FORESTALES AGRICOLAS Y PECUARIAS Mexico

-

-

240

- 240

36 IPNI INTERNATIONAL PLANT NUTRITION INSTITUTE Canada

158

-

-

- 158

37 IRRI International Livestock Research lnstitute Philippines

-

474

24

- 498

38 JC Jill Cairns Zimbawe

-

3

28

- 31

39 KARI KENYA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE Kenya

63

30

75

- 168

40 KSC Kenya Seed Company Ltd Kenya

-

13

16

- 29

41 LGL LGC GENOMICS LTD UK

-

-

75

- 75

42 MATC Meru Agro Tours & Consul Kenya

15

17

48

- 79

43 MOAL

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND LIVESTOCK, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, MECHANIZATION SECTION Zimbawe

-

-

104

- 104

44 NAARI NAARI Kenya

-

52

19

- 72

45 NMRI

NATIONAL MAIZE RESEARCH INSTITUTE (VIETNAM) Vietnam

-

-

48

- 48

46 NMRP NATIONAL MAIZE RESEARCH PROGRAM Nepal

125

-

-

- 125

47 NULS NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES Norway

275

-

-

- 275

48 OAU OBAFEMI AWOLOWO UNIVERSITY Nigeria

80

-

-

- 80

49 other other (blank)

64

103

37

- 205

50 PS PROGENE SEEDS Zimbawe

-

-

28

- 28

51 PU PURDUE UNIVERSITY USA

-

120

-

- 120

52 RBM Ruth Bruno Madulu Ethiopia

-

42

-

- 42

53 RSA RSA Zimbawe

-

1

24

- 25

54 RTI ROYAL TROPICAL INSTITUTE Holanda

576

-

-

- 576

55 SARI SAVANNA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE Tanzania

20

32

7

- 59

56 SATG SOMALI AGRICULTURAL TECHNICAL GROUP Kenya

29

-

-

- 29

57 SGD Sika Gbegbelegbe Dofonsuo Kenya

1

31

6

- 37

58 STA Seed Trade Association Zimbawe

-

41

-

- 41

59 STI SIDIMEX TECNOLOGIAS DE INFORMACION SA DE CV Mexico

-

-

36

- 36

60 TFH Trust Fund Holding Zimbawe

-

28

2

- 30

61 UACH UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE CHIAPAS Chile

25

-

2

- 27

62 UAY UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE YUCATAN Mexico

-

-

67

- 67

63 UH UNIVERSITAT HOHENHEIM Germany

-

151

65

- 216

64 UOB UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA España

118

-

-

- 118

65 UOG UNIVERSITY OF GHANA GHANA

40

-

-

- 40

66 UOKN UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU NATAL. South Africa

45

-

-

- 45

67 UON UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI Kenya

60

-

-

- 60

68 UOZ UNIVERSITY OF ZIMBABWE Zimbawe

15

-

14

- 29

69 UR UAS RAICHUR India

-

27

-

- 27

70 USCG UNIVERSIDAD DE SAN CARLOS DE GUATEMALA GUATEMALA

25

-

-

- 25

71 VUOT VIENNA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY Austria

121

-

-

- 121

72 WSCL WESTERN SEED COMPANY LIMITED Kenya

3

3

40

- 45

73 WSU WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY USA

35

-

-

- 35

74 WU WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY Holanda

134

-

-

- 134

75 WVU WORLD VISION UGANDA USA

35

-

-

- 35

76 ZARI ZAMBIA AGRICULTURE RESEARCH INSTITUTE Zimbawe

60

-

74

- 134

77 Others < $25 other (blank)

(35)

179

350

- 494

Total for CRP

3,084

4,234

2,528

- 9,847

Templat es for annual r epo r t ing for th e year s 2012 an d 2013 Page | 43

43

11. IITA

Actual Expenses - This Year

Item Institute Acronym

Institute Name Country

Windows 1 & 2

Window 3

Bilateral Center Funds

TOTAL

1 IFPRI

USA

-

-

518

518

2 CIMMYT

USA

-

6

180

186

3 AFRICARICE

USA

-

-

168

168

4 ICIPE

USA

-

-

160

160

5 IER

USA

-

80

27

107

6 FMARD

USA

-

-

76

76

7 IITA

USA

2

15

56

73

8 CRI

USA

-

31

41

72

9 INRAB

USA

-

64

0

64

10 IAR

USA

-

59

3

61

11 SARI

USA

-

51

7

58

12 Others < $25 other (blank)

5

70

141

215

Total for CRP

7

375

1,375

- 1,758