BUSINESS PLAN 2009-2013

March 2009

Business Plan

Prepared by the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF)

ii

CONTENTS

Abbreviations & acronyms ................................................................................................. iv

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. v

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1. Purpose of the business plan .................................................................................................. 1

1.2. Investors & partners ................................................................................................................. 1

1.3. Structure of the business plan ................................................................................................. 3

2. Rationale for intervention ............................................................................................ 4

2.1. Importance of agriculture in Africa ....................................................................................... 4

2.2. Role of technology in increasing agricultural productivity and incomes .......................... 4

2.3. Rationale for creating AATF .................................................................................................. 6

2.4. Role of AATF ........................................................................................................................... 7

3. Mission & objectives and core values ........................................................................12

3.1. Vision & mission .................................................................................................................... 12

3.2. Strategic thrusts ......................................................................................................................... 12

3.3. Core values and guiding principles ....................................................................................... 13

4. Project activities ..........................................................................................................16

4.1. Overview of project lifecycle activities for delivering the AATF’s mission ................... 16

4.2. Project Lifecycle Phase 0: Intelligence Gathering .............................................................. 18

4.3. Project Lifecycle Phase 1: Project Formulation ................................................................. 18

4.4. Project Lifecycle Phase 2: Product Development .............................................................. 19

4.5. Project Lifecycle Phase 3: Product Deployment ................................................................ 19

4.6. Project management ............................................................................................................... 20

5. Governance & staffing ................................................................................................21

5.1. Governance ............................................................................................................................. 21

5.2. Staffing ..................................................................................................................................... 22

5.3. Organizational structure ........................................................................................................ 22

6. AATF’s current project portfolio ............................................................................... 25

6.1. Overview .................................................................................................................................. 25

6.2. Current projects ...................................................................................................................... 26

6.3. Product concepts .................................................................................................................... 38

6.4. Special projects ........................................................................................................................ 43

iii

6.5. Strategic initiatives .................................................................................................................. 43

7. AATF’s future project portfolio ................................................................................. 45

7.1. Golden rice for Africa ............................................................................................................ 46

7.2. Striga control in smallholder sorghum fields in Africa ..................................................... 48

7.3. Herbicide-resistant cowpea ................................................................................................... 49

7.4. Herbicide-resistant cassava .................................................................................................... 51

7.5. Reducing crop loss through control of locusts and grasshoppers .................................. 53

7.6. Diagnostic and MAS tools for crop improvement ............................................................ 55

8. Sources of funding ..................................................................................................... 58

8.1. Funding from public sources ................................................................................................ 58

8.2. Private sector funding ............................................................................................................ 59

9. Financials ................................................................................................................... 60

9.1. AATF historic expenditure ................................................................................................... 60

9.2. Summary AATF projected expenditure .............................................................................. 60

9.3. Funding requirements ............................................................................................................ 61

10. Milestones & reporting .......................................................................................... 64

10.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 64

10.2. Milestones ................................................................................................................................ 64

10.3. Progress reporting .................................................................................................................. 72

10.4. Indicators for evaluation at the end of AATF’s involvement in a project ..................... 72

11. Targets & impacts ..................................................................................................... 75

11.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 75

11.2. Methodology............................................................................................................................ 75

11.3. Assumed uptake of new technologies ................................................................................. 76

11.4. Assumed cost of combination of interventions required for adoption .......................... 77

11.5. Results ...................................................................................................................................... 78

11.6. Yield-income relationship ...................................................................................................... 82

iv

ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS

AATF African Agricultural Technology Foundation

ASARECA The Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa

BMGF Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

CORAF Le Conseil Ouest et Centre Africain pour la Recherche et le Développement Agricoles

DAC Design Advisory Committee

DFID Department For International Development, UK

GMO Genetically Modified Organism

FTO Freedom to Operate

ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics

IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute

IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture

IR Imazapyr Resistant

IPR Intellectual Property Rights

ISAAA International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications

KARI Kenya Agricultural Research Institute

MDG Millennium Development Goal

NARO National Agricultural Research Organisation

NARS National Agriculture Research System

NERICA New Rice for Africa

NGICA Network for the Genetic Improvement of Cowpea for Africa

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PPP Public-Private Partnership

R&D Research and Development

SACCAR Southern African Centre for Cooperation in Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Training

SSA Sub-Saharan Africa

v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document is the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (‘AATF’) business plan for

2009-2013. It has been prepared by AATF staff in working collaboration with the consulting

firm CEPA and reflects the initial judgements of the AATF Executive Director.

Rationale for creating AATF

AATF was created because of several problems that affect agricultural development in Africa

including:

The current size of Africa’s markets is often insufficient to attract the commercial

interests of most multinational corporations offering proprietary technologies.

Those corporations tend not to be prepared to invest in establishing the necessary

contacts or legal procedures, or face liabilities arising from the donated technologies.

Many public research institutions are willing to provide their technologies, but are not

capable of engaging in the required downstream partnerships and procedures.

Public research organisations have little experience in delivering technologies to the

private sector for production and deployment and require access to best practices.

Neither public nor private organisations in Africa have sufficient experience in

promoting proprietary agricultural technology targeting resource-poor farmers.

African agribusiness firms will be unwilling to invest in producing, promoting and

delivering products from new technologies to resource-poor farmers unless they have

some assurance of a reasonable return on investment

Role of AATF

AATF serves as an honest broker in negotiating the royalty-free transfer of technologies held by

public and private organisations in industrialised and developing countries to smallholder farmers

in Africa by establishing partnerships along the product value chain, and facilitating access to,

development, delivery and utilisation of proprietary agricultural technologies.

AATF assembles the necessary components for each project it undertakes by mobilising funding,

managing the licensing of technologies, facilitating testing and regulatory approval processes,

ensuring appropriate product stewardship, enforcing licence conditions, and ensuring that

products actually reach farmers.

Finally AATF addresses inadequate institutional resources for efficient access to, and utilisation

of, proprietary technologies. Although AATF can be seen as part of wider efforts to support

‘public-private partnerships’ for African development, it plays a catalytic role by negotiating

access to proprietary technology, supporting its adaptation, and providing stewardship for

subsequent sustainable commercialization and delivery to farmers.

vi

Mission & objectives

The mission of AATF is to access and deliver affordable agricultural technologies for sustainable

use by smallholders, and in particular resource-poor farmers, in Africa through innovative

partnerships and effective technology/product stewardship along the entire food value chain.

AATF has five principle objectives:

Objective 1: To manage access to and delivery of innovative technologies for

addressing constraints to agricultural productivity in SSA

Objective 2: To develop mechanisms for long-term technology stewardship across the

food value chain

Objective 3: To foster institutional partnerships for development, delivery and uptake

of agricultural technologies and innovations across the food value chain

Objective 4: To facilitate pro-poor approaches to market access for surplus produce

Objective 5: To develop sustainable capacities for identification, access, adaptation

and uptake of technologies

Strategic Thrusts

AATF has committed to anchor its activities within three strategic thrusts, namely:

Strategic thrust 1: Negotiating access to proprietary technologies that enhance the

productivity of agriculture in Africa

Strategic thrust 2: Managing partnerships for project formulation, product

development and deployment to introduce innovative agricultural technologies to

African farming systems

Strategic thrust 3: Managing knowledge and information to support technology

identification and development, and the policy environment.

As a pioneer institution to brokering innovative agricultural technologies to farmers, and in

particular to resource-poor smallholder farmers, in Africa, the Foundation upholds the core

values of integrity, dedication and accessibility.

Projects

AATF undertakes projects to develop and deploy new technology products (in the form

improved seed and other planting materials) to smallholder farmers in Africa. It is currently

undertaking five projects aimed at developing and/or deploying new input agricultural

technologies targeted toward overcoming the following biotic and abiotic constraints:

Striga resistance in maize.

Insect resistance in cowpea.

vii

Drought tolerance in maize.

Bacterial wilt resistance in banana.

Nitrogen-deficiency and saline environments in rice production.

In addition to the five projects currently being implemented, AATF is currently working on the

developing project ‘concept notes’ on Mycotoxin control in maize and peanuts and on

developing equipment for enhanced cassava production and utilization.

In addition to the continued implementation of these current projects and concept notes, AATF

is also looking looking to develop new projects targeting the following constraints:

Striga resistance in sorghum.

Vitamin A deficiency in rice.

Herbicide resistance in cowpea.

Herbicide resistance in cassava.

Reducing crop loss through control of locusts and grasshoppers.

AATF is also wishing to implement a projects to developer Molecular diagnostics and marker

assisted selection (MAS) tools for crop improvement, and is also undertaking a project involving

the development of nutritionally enhanced sorghum, as well as a number of other strategic

initiatives.

Budget overview

Table I shows AATF’s projected expenditures for the period 2009-2013. AATF plans to

significantly increase its expenditure on projects over the next 5 years from the $15m it spend

during from 2004 to 2008, to around $99m between 2009 and 2013:

Around 80% of the total project expenditure for 2009-2013 will be on the five current

projects, with around 48% of total expenditure flowing to the WEMA project.

Future projects are estimated to account for around 13% of spending over the next five

years (25% of expenditure if WEMA is excluded from total project expenditure).

Around 80% of project expenditures will be on ‘product development’ activities,

reflecting the relatively early stage of the majority of AATF’s projects.

viii

Table I: Projected expenditure

Item 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total

Staff costs $1.6m $1.7m $1.8m $1.9m $2.0m $9.0m

Operating costs $1.0m $0.9m $1.0m $1.0m $1.0m $4.9m

Capital expenditures $0.1m $0.1m $0.1m $0.2m $0.1m $0.6m

Projects $16.7m $18.5m $20.9m $20.6m $22.5m1 $99.1m

Total $19.3m2 $21.3m $23.7m $23.6m $25.6m $113.6m

AATF is now seeking to raise an additional $46.0m from donors for project-specific

expenditures for the period 2009-2013. It is also seeking to raise additional funding of $7.8m for

its core activities.

Impacts

The impacts section of the business plan uses economic analysis to estimate the yield increases

that are necessary (for given assumptions) for farmers to generate sufficient additional income

from increased sales of grain to offset their expenditure on new input technologies generated by

AATF’s projects.

This analysis takes account of AATF’s contribution to the cost and value of a combination of

interventions (including R&D and extension activities funded and delivered by other institutions)

implemented during and beyond the 5 year period of the business plan. Key results are:

Adopting farmers need to achieve an average yield increase of 12% - 15% from the

application of improved maize or rice seed in order for the profitability of farm use of

those new input technologies developed and/or deployed by AATF’s projects to be

assured.

On plausible assumptions, AATF’s projects have the potential to achieve welfare

improvements of $0.2bn - $0.8bn depending on the project (up to 9 times the cost of the

combination of interventions required to ensure that farmers adopt technologies

developed and/or deployed by AATF).

The impact analysis confirms both the delivery challenge to AATF and other institutions with a

role in ensuring farmers adopt the new technologies, and the significant potential for impact of

the combination of interventions.

1 This includes $9m for next phase of WEMA project (funding yet to be committed).

2 Projected expenditure excludes $0.4m for the Forum for China and Africa Collaboration (FOCAC). Funding for

this initiative was received from the Rockefeller Foundation in December 2008 to cover the period to the end of November 2009 when the project ends.

1

1. INTRODUCTION

This document, together with the companion Annexes, is the African Agricultural

Technology Foundation (‘AATF’) business plan (the ‘business plan’ or ‘plan’) for the period

2009-2013. It has been prepared by AATF, with input from and reflects the judgements of

the AATF Directors and staff3.

AATF is a not-for-profit organisation designed to facilitate public/private partnerships for

the access and delivery of appropriate proprietary agricultural technologies for use by

resource-poor smallholder farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa (hereafter ‘Africa’). AATF

commenced its operations in 2003.

1.1. Purpose of the business plan

The purpose of the business plan is to present the structure, mission and objectives of the

AATF intervention, the activities and sub-activities it performs, and sets out the AATF’s

current project portfolio and the projects it is planning to implement over the next 5 years.

The business plan also sets out a series of operational principles that define how AATF

seeks to maximise its impact; and provides details of the staffing, governance, proposed

budget, milestones and impacts of the AATF intervention.

This document is the second AATF business plan - the purpose of the first AATF business

plan (the ‘first plan’ or the ‘original plan’), prepared by the UK-based consulting company

CEPA in 2003-2004, was to set out the vision, mission, objectives, activities and AATF’s the

initial funding requirement at its inception.

1.2. Investors & partners

AATF started operations in 2003 with the support of three investors: the UK Department

for International Development (DFID), the Rockefeller Foundation and the US Agency for

International Development (USAID); it was officially launched in June 2004 with the

appointment of an Executive Director. It is registered as a charity under the laws of England

and Wales, has tax exemption as a non-profit entity in the USA, and operates as a foreign

corporate entity out of Kenya where it has signed a host country agreement with the

Government.

1.2.1. Investors

AATF has developed a significant project portfolio over the last 5 years and has attracted

new and continued funding support from the following organizations:

3 AATF has drawn on input from CEPA in producing this document – particular in illustrating impacts. Most

of the assumptions used by CEPA in this analysis have been provided by AATF.

2

The Rockefeller Foundation (RF): a knowledge-based, global foundation with a

commitment to enrich and sustain the lives and livelihoods of poor and excluded

people throughout the world.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID): the agency

responsible for providing and managing US economic and humanitarian assistance

worldwide.

The United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID):

The UK Government department responsible for promoting economic development

and the reduction of poverty globally.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF): guided by the belief that every

life has equal value, the BMGF works to help all people lead healthy, productive

lives. In developing countries, it focuses on improving people’s health and giving

them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty. In the United

States, it seeks to ensure that all people – especially those with the fewest resources –

have access to the opportunities they need to succeed in school and life.

The Howard G. Buffet Foundation (HGBF): a private foundation that primarily

supports agricultural development and clean water delivery in rural areas, focused in

Africa and Central America.

1.2.2. Partners

AATF is the result of a unique partnership between public and private sectors in Africa,

North America and Europe. AATF’s partnerships can be described as either operational or

strategic:

Operational partnerships focus on gaining legal access to proprietary technologies

and products and delivering them to intended beneficiaries.

Strategic partnerships focus on positioning AATF in the wider agricultural

development arena and also on helping improve the effectiveness of governments

and intergovernmental or sub-regional bodies that influence the policy environment

within which African agricultural research and development must occur.

Partnership engagements may be based on formal contracts or be guided by less restrictive

and legally binding memoranda of understanding (MoU), or comprise informal (and often

temporary) affiliations. AATF seeks to work as much as possible with farmers, agricultural

producers and consumers in creating access to new agricultural input technologies. Its

institutional partners include:

African national agricultural research institutions. AATF works with national

research institutions including KARI, NARO, and IAR, in carrying out country-level

3

co-ordination activities, technology and product testing, and communication and

awareness raising.

African trade and agribusiness organisations. AATF works with emerging

African private sector input supply companies such as Western Seeds, FICA and

Zum Seeds in carrying out technology testing, market development, and seed

distribution activities.

Agricultural Technology Industry IP holders. AATF also works with private

sector multi-national agricultural technology providers including Monsanto, BASF,

DowAgro, Pioneer/DuPont, and Syngenta who develop and license new

technologies.

International agricultural research institutions and agencies. AATF works with

international research organizations such as CIMMYT and IITA on the provision

and development of new technologies.

Local/international NGOs. AATF seeks to work with a range of NGO in creating

farmer awareness of new technologies and promoting new products.

AATF also seeks to align its work with the objectives and activities pan-African institutions

and agencies including FARA, the African Unions and NEPAD. Annex A contains a more

detailed list of AATF’s partners.

1.3. Structure of the business plan

The business plan includes 11 sections structured as follows:

Section 2 presents details of the rationale for the AATF intervention.

Section 3 sets out AATF’s vision, mission and objectives.

Section 4 provides details of AATF’s strategy and activities.

Section 5 summarises the organisational structure and staffing of AATF.

Sections 6 and 7 present details of AATF’s current and future project portfolios.

Section 8 presents information about the sources of AATF’s funding, and section 9

sets out the financial projections for the period 2009-2013.

Section 10 summarises the approach to M&E, and section 11 provides an analysis of

possible impacts of AATF’s activities.

4

2. RATIONALE FOR INTERVENTION

This section presents the rationale for the AATF intervention, the context in which AATF

operates, and details of the role AATF performs in reducing poverty and improving the lives

of smallholder farmers in Africa.

2.1. Importance of agriculture in Africa

Ensuring food security is one of the greatest challenges facing the world community. The

challenge is most critical in low-income, food-deficit countries of Sub-Saharan Africa where

an estimated 70% of the population comprises resource-poor farmers living on small family

gardens where soils have over the years become impoverished, in environments that are

prone to drought, soil erosion and epidemics of pests and diseases.

Current thinking on rural livelihoods has rightly emphasised the fact that rural people engage

in a wide range of farm and non-farm activities. However, improving agricultural

productivity and incomes in Africa is crucial if food security and a significant reduction in

poverty are to be achieved. Around 75% of the total labour force in Africa is, in part,

dependent on farming activities for their livelihood and at least 60% of the incomes of rural

people are from farming activities.

Accelerating growth and overcoming constraints in African agriculture is therefore crucial

not only for achieving food security, and reducing perennial hunger but also for generating

employment and trade. Over the last forty years in Africa, in contrast to other regions of the

world, agricultural incomes per capita have fallen (i.e. agricultural productivity has fallen) and

the proportion of people living in poverty has not declined.

Between 1970 and 1995 the number of malnourished children under the age of 5

increased by 40% from 28m to 40m (compared with a 45% reduction in East Asia).

Moreover, on current trends Africa is unlikely to meet the Millennium Development

Goals on poverty.

In SSA, agriculture employs nearly 65 percent of the labour force, but it only

accounts for about 30 percent of GDP, indicative of high inefficiencies in the sector,

but a potential to generate economic growth if constraints are appropriately

identified and adequate mitigating policies implemented

2.2. Role of technology in increasing agricultural productivity and incomes

Increasing farm incomes will stimulate forward and backward linkages in the rural economy

thereby increasing investment, employment and incomes in related activities; and it is widely

recognised that modern technology has potential to increase agricultural productivity and

farm incomes.

5

2.2.1. Positive impact of new agricultural technologies

The potential positive impacts on the poor of deploying technology are both direct and

indirect:

Higher yields of crops grown for own consumption can release land and resources

for crop diversification to improve dietary intake, or for sale in local, national or

international markets.

Increased yields and labour saving technologies can release labour for non-farm

activities that increase household incomes.

Improved varieties with increased resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses reduce

vulnerability, increase yields and help protect the environment.

Addressing these constraints to crop productivity is a monumental challenge that warrants,

among other things, technological interventions requiring use of new intensive production

technologies to increase yields and reduce losses, including where appropriate adoption of

genetically modified crops. National and regional institutions in Africa in collaboration with

their international partners are responding to these challenges and establishing innovative

approaches to addressing Africa’s agricultural malaise.

Although policies aimed at increasing agricultural growth need to give close attention to the

impact on environmental and economic sustainability, it is recognised that use of new

technologies forms an indispensable part of the potential solution for overcoming the

challenges facing Africa. Agricultural technologies can help provide better harvests to

improve household nutrition and well-being, reduce households’ susceptibility to risks of

pests, diseases and climate, provide additional cash income, contribute to a diversifying rural

economy, contribute to overall economic growth and address problems of environmental

degradation.

2.2.2. Constrained access to proprietary technologies

Until recently, Africa, and indeed much of the rest of the world, depended on public

organisations to develop and deliver agricultural technology. However, during the past few

decades, the private sector has begun to play an increasingly important role in technology

development, complementing public research efforts. This evolution in research and

development, combined with the fact that the private sector is usually more efficient at

producing and delivering technologies, helps explain the growing significance of proprietary

technology, developed by both the private and public sectors. In most industrialised

countries the development and delivery of proprietary technology is facilitated by a number

of commercial and legal institutions.

Africa’s experience in these areas is not yet well established, and private agribusiness and

input delivery have relatively less experience. But there are many proprietary technologies

6

developed elsewhere that can make significant contributions to increasing Africa’s

agricultural productivity and improving rural livelihoods. In many cases, the owners of such

technologies are willing to contribute them for agricultural development in Africa. The

challenge is how to access these proprietary technologies and manage their deployment until

they reach smallholder farmers, and this is where AATF plays its key role.

2.3. Rationale for creating AATF

AATF’s creation can be traced to discussions among stakeholders in industry, research and

public policy organised by the Rockefeller Foundation in 2000 to examine ways in which

agricultural science could make a greater impact on African livelihoods. One of the principal

findings was that although the owners of many proprietary technologies were willing to

make these available to African farmers there were significant ‘roadblocks’ to such transfers.

This stimulated a series of consultations that led to the establishment of a Design Advisory

Committee (DAC) for AATF in 2002, the appointment of an implementing director, and the

identification of donor funding.

AATF was created because of several problems that affect agricultural development in

Africa including:

The current size of Africa’s markets is often insufficient to attract the commercial

interests of most multinational corporations that offer useful proprietary

technologies.

Although many of those firms are interested in donating some of their technologies

for poverty alleviation, they are not prepared to invest in establishing the necessary

contacts or follow through the required legal and regulatory procedures, or face

liabilities that may arise from the donated technologies.

Similarly, many public research institutions (in the North and South) are willing to

provide their technologies for African farmers, but are not capable of engaging in the

required downstream partnerships and procedures.

Public research organisations in Africa have little experience in delivering

proprietary/innovative technologies to the private sector for production and

deployment and require advice and access to best practices.

Neither public nor private organisations in Africa currently have sufficient

experience in promoting proprietary agricultural technology targeting resource-poor

smallholder farmers.

African agribusiness firms will be unwilling to invest in producing, promoting and

delivering products from new technologies to resource-poor farmers unless they

have some assurance of widespread acceptance of such products enabling a

reasonable return on investment; they may also require advice and facilitation on

7

legal and regulatory matters and, in some cases, initial, targeted support to ensure

widespread uptake of the new products may be necessary.

2.4. Role of AATF

2.4.1. Roles and functions

Figure 2.1 on the next page describes the various roles and functions that AATF performs

along the agricultural value chain.

Honest broker

AATF serves as an honest broker in negotiating the royalty-free transfer of technologies held

by public and private organisations in industrialised and developing countries to smallholder

farmers in Africa. It does this by establishing partnerships along the product value chain,

from basic research through adaptive research and development, and product deployment.

AATF provides expertise and know-how that facilitates access to, development, delivery and

utilisation of proprietary agricultural technologies.

Project facilitator

AATF assembles the necessary components for each project it undertakes - balancing

concerns for expense, simplicity, and effectiveness. This includes mobilising funding for

projects, managing the licensing of technologies, facilitating testing and regulatory approval

processes in-country, ensuring appropriate product stewardship, enforcing licence conditions

as may be defined and agreed upon by the parties, and ensuring that products actually reach

farmers.

Technology steward

AATF addresses inadequate institutional resources for efficient access to, and utilisation of,

proprietary technologies in African agriculture. Although AATF can be seen as part of wider

efforts to support ‘public-private partnerships’ for African development, its role should be

understood in much more specific terms. AATF plays a catalytic role - by negotiating access

to proprietary technology, supporting its adaptation as necessary, and providing stewardship

for subsequent delivery and commercialization to farmers in the most sustainable way.

8

Figure 2.1: AATF roles in the agricultural value chain

Steps in the Value Chain

Technology Identification

Product Identification

Research and Development

InputProduction

InputMarketing

Agricultural Production

Surplus Marketing

AA

TF

fu

nctio

n

Planning, Monitoring and Project Decisions

Concept note and technical reviewsReview by AATF Go/No Go

Feasibility study,Business Plan,Board review Go/No Go

Contracts with R&D institutions,

Review progress, IP, regulatory Go/No Go

Contracts with input producers,Review progress,Assess any new

information

Contracts with marketing and

promotions organizations,

monitor progress

Contracts or links with NGOs and

extension services,Review progress

Contracts or links with output marketing

organizations,Review progress

IP Management

Negotiate access to IP, Examine

possible licensing arrangements

FTO analysis,Develop liability

management plan

Develop licensing agreements for commercial use

Ensure licensing agreements are

followed

Verify IPR enforcement

Review licensing requirements for

expansion to other areas

Verify IPR enforcement

Fostering Regulatory Compliance

Assess regulatory requirements of the

technology

Assess regulatory processes are in place and their

costs

Ensure regulatory data are developed

to meet requirements

Ensure that regulatory

procedures are followed

Assess adequacy of point-of-sale

regulation, farmer protection

Review regulatory requirements for

expansion to other areas

Evaluate regulatory compliance of product on the

market

Product R&D Management

Review performance with

this type of technology elsewhere

Assess technical feasibility, identify partners, mobilise

resources

Review research progress, assess

additional research needs

Assess initial performance of product in pilot

areas

Monitor product performance

Assess needs for additional research for product in new

areas

Assess product performance in the

market

Monitoring and Facilitating Production and Delivery

Assess possible mechanisms for production and

delivery

Identify production and delivery

strategies, costs, needs (e.g.

segmentation)

Identify producers, distributors (seek

support if required)

Monitor production, ensure promotion

and marketing strategies in place

Monitor marketing, assess needs for adjustments to

strategies

Review expansion opportunities to

other areas

Assess repeated use of product

Communication

Familiarisation with the technology, assess potential

challenges

Develop a communication

strategy

Update strategy, contribute to promotion strategies

Facilitate marketing strategy, create public awareness

Implement communication

strategy

Review communication

needs for extension to other areas

Monitor public acceptance

StewardshipIdentify potential

risksDevelop a

stewardship plan

Review potential risks and update stewardship plan

Evaluate adequacy of stewardship plan

Continue monitoring

stewardship plan

Review stewardship requirements for

expansion to other areas

Monitor stewardship plan

performance

Impact Assessment

Get data on target areas, assess ex-ante impact on food security,

income

Assess alternative and complementary

technologies

Review evidence on potential impact,

commission baseline study

Commission technology

perception study

Commission technology

adoption study

Commission impact assessment study

9

There is a wide range of proprietary technologies that are eligible for AATF’s attention,

including germplasm for conventional plant breeding, genes and tools for the development

of transgenic varieties, micro-organisms used to control pests or diseases, and techniques

such as tissue culture or marker assisted breeding that enhance the ability to identify and

deliver new technology. Other possibilities include mechanical innovations (e.g. for post-

harvest operations or high throughput laboratory assays), chemicals (e.g. for crop protection)

and processes (e.g. information management systems for plant breeding).

AATF does not develop technology itself, produce or market agricultural innovations,

promote or sponsor changes in these various organisations, nor does it advocate particular

policies or types of technology. Instead, AATF acts as a trustworthy partner capable of

entering into contracts with both public and private sector organisations to facilitate

technology access, development and deployment, and serves as a ‘responsible party’ in

ensuring that technologies are used appropriately, consistent with the principles of good

stewardship and in a manner that brings value to African smallholder farmers.

The principal beneficiaries of the AATF intervention will ultimately be African farmers and

consumers, but its activities are also aimed at:

strengthening African public and private research organisations;

promoting the establishment of more responsive legal, commercial and regulatory

institutions in Africa;

contributing to the development of African agribusiness; and

helping private and public organisations outside of Africa fulfil their aspirations of

sharing expertise and technology to create a strong foundation for African

agriculture.

AATF’s current priorities are for technologies that promote greater productivity of Africa’s

basic food crops, which contribute to food security and household income. In the future it

may find justification for including some non-food crops, livestock or other enterprises that

make significant contributions to the livelihoods of resource-poor farmers.

Annex B sets out the principles that have guided is choice of projects to develop.

2.4.2. Illustration of AATF engagement

Figure 2.2 on the next page illustrates the set of relationships and activities that AATF seeks

to facilitate. Within the AATF’s portfolio some projects involve activity along the entire

value chain, others (e.g. transfer of technology that does not require major adaptation or

regulatory approval such as mechanical/tissues culture laboratories) focus on facilitating

production, distribution and market development activities.

In this illustration AATF enters four contracts with various partners, in addition to the main

licence agreement with the technology provider(s):

10

Contract 1: AATF sub-licences the Technology to a research institute to carry out

the required adaptive research.

Contract 2: AATF sub-licences the Technology to a research institute (which would

be within the relevant country or region) to carry out regulatory testing and product

registration.

Contract 3: AATF sub-licences the registered product to one or more companies

(public or private) to produce and distribute the product in the relevant territory. In

practice these may be separate agreements in different countries.

Contract 4: AATF (as appropriate) could put in place output-based contracts or

provide other assistance to private stockists/NGOs to help develop the market, e.g.

by (i) carrying out demonstration projects; and / or (ii) provide targeted rebates to

poorer farmers.

11

Figure 2.2: AATF Activity

Technology licensors

AATF

Research

institute

Research

institute

Production &

distribution

company

NGO / private

stockist

Basic / strategic

/ adaptive

research

Regulatory

consents

Production &

distribution

Demonstration &

market

development

Farmers

Funders

Contracts:

Partners:

Activities:

Funds

Funds

Licence Technology / support in kind

1 2 3 4

12

3. MISSION, OBJECTIVES AND CORE VALUES

AATF is an African-led, African-based, free-standing, not-for-profit organisation designed

to promote food security and enhanced livelihoods by facilitating the use of improved

agricultural technologies by smallholder farmers in SSA.

It works with African stakeholders, farmers, scientists, small businesses, NGO’s and others,

to identify the needs of poor farmers and match them with technologies suitable for

adaptation to African ecologies and farming systems.

It is a public-private partnership that pursues its mission by combining the best practices

from, and by drawing upon, the resources of the public and private realms.

AATF seeks to link food security, poverty reduction, market development, and economic

growth in ways that both demand and trigger sustainable reform, and in doing so contributes

to capacity building of both private and public sectors. Recognising it unique role in African

agricultural development, AATF is motivated by the following vision, mission and

objectives.

3.1. Vision & mission

The vision of AATF is:

Prosperous farmers and a food secure Africa enabled through AATF

The mission of AATF is:

To access and deliver affordable agricultural technologies for sustainable use by smallholders, and in

particular resource-poor farmers, in Africa through innovative partnerships and effective technology/product

stewardship along the entire food value chain.

3.2. Objectives

The objectives of AATF are:

To manage access to and delivery of innovative technologies for addressing constraints to

agricultural productivity in SSA

To develop mechanisms for long-term technology stewardship across the food value chain

To foster institutional partnerships for development, delivery and uptake of agricultural

technologies and innovations across the food value chain

To facilitate pro-poor approaches to market access for surplus produce

To develop sustainable capacities for identification, access, adaptation and uptake of technologies

13

AATF’s strategy for delivering its mission and objectives remains broadly unchanged from

the original business plan. However, the Outputs have been updated and refined to be

consistent with AATF’s three strategic thrusts. These three areas were defined as part of a

process to develope a 10 Year Strategic Vision for AATF, which are described in detail in

Annex C.

Strategic thrusts 1

Negotiating access to proprietary technologies that enhance the productivity of agriculture in Africa

This involves (i) technology identification and access; (ii) managing access to and delivery of

intellectual property; (iii) managing an IP portfolio

Strategic thrusts 2

Managing partnerships for project formulation, product development and deployment to introduce innovative agricultural technologies to African farming systems

This involves: (i) identification of competent partner institutions; (ii) finding efficient

product delivery systems; (iii) facilitating farmers’ access to markets; (iv) intellectual property

protection and risk management; (v) facilitating regulatory compliance

Strategic thrusts 3

Managing knowledge and information to support technology identification and

development, and the policy environment.

This involves: (i) access or generate information; (ii) develop a knowledge base; (iii)

interactions with relevant institutions; (iv) periodic review of trends in key areas; (v) training

of stakeholders; (vi) provision of information for evidence-based advocacy

3.3. Core values and guiding principles

3.3.1. Core values

As a pioneer institution to brokering innovative agricultural technologies to farmers, and in

particular to resource-poor smallholder farmers, in Africa, the Foundation upholds the

following core values: integrity, dedication and accessibility.

Integrity: We uphold integrity; we keep our word and do what we say we will do by

when/how. We adhere to moral principles in dealing with ourselves and partners.

We seek to be honest, transparent and accountable. In recognition of our facilitative

role, we provide accurate information to our partners while respecting confidences.

We also base our actions on facts and present accurate reports of our progress, thus

showing credibility and thriving to become the partner of choice for stakeholders in

the agricultural sector.

14

Dedication: We are responsible partners, committed to ensuring our intended

beneficiaries are well served. We seek to maintain good relations with our partners,

investors, staff and other stakeholders to ensure we maximise their potential for

delivering public goods. We undertake to seek required resources to ensure the

success of accessing and delivering required technologies.

Accessibility: We are available and approachable to discuss and/or provide

information that will support technology transfer in AFRICA. AATF has specialised

expertise to address niche issues related to technology transfer such as technology

stewardship, partnership management, regulatory compliance, intellectual property

management and business and market linkages. In recognition of the capabilities and

contribution of the various entities involved in overall agricultural revival for

AFRICA, AATF will avail its knowledge and provide neceAfricary information in

discussions and in requests for information to support best decisions and inform

opinion on the issues at hand. We respect our stakeholders’ opinions and seek to

learn from their experiences.

3.3.2. Guiding principles

The key principles that guide AATF in implementing its strategy state that AATF will:

Respond to a growing sense of urgency demanding that agriculture plays a stronger

role in Africa’s economic development. The response includes the recognition that

new approaches to technology development and delivery are required and that its

role as ‘responsible party’ in facilitating access and delivery of these technologies is

critical.

Encourage the private sector to play a much more important role in technology

development and delivery to smallholder farmers if African agriculture is to provide

secure livelihoods for farm households and contribute to economic growth.

Commit to re-invigorating the public sector roles in African agriculture, ensuring that

public institutions support both markets and policies for equitable development.

Focus its attention on proprietary/innovative technologies that address African

needs because much of it is currently unavailable to African farmers. Because such

technologies encourage commercial activity it can bring new energy to African

agriculture; its importance lies in the incentives it provides for the delivery of a

product.

Facilitate the transfer and adoption of new technologies by intervening along the

entire food value chain to mitigate risks and ensure that the new technologies are

deployed and used appropriately.

15

Foster partnerships that are based on real incentives, including the desire of

emerging African enterprises to grow and prosper; the interest of farmers in

acquiring the most productive technologies to improve their food security and

incomes; and the commitment of donors and governments to see that those farm

households with insufficient resources are helped to build their assets and experience

in order to prosper.

16

4. PROJECT ACTIVITIES

Section 6 provides details of AATF’s current project portfolio. This section provides an

explanation of the phased project activities that apply to each of these existing projects and

to proposed new projects.

4.1. Overview of project lifecycle activities for delivering the AATF’s mission

AATF’s project activities follow a phased approach:

Phase 0: Intelligence Gathering AATF undertakes intelligence gathering on

technological breakthroughs locally and internationally with a view to generating

ideas that can be nurtured into projects for addressing constraints to crop

productivity in Africa.

Phase 1: Project Formulation Promising ideas are then discussed and screened for

feasibility through consultations with stakeholders leading to the formulation of

Project Business Plans.

Phase 2: Product Development: This is the phase of the project during which

collaborating partners carry out research, testing and adaptation of technologies.

Given the lead times in research, the expectation is that this phase will dominate the

others in terms of elapsed time.

Phase 3: Product Deployment AATF then guides activities that are critical for

product deployment to reach smallholder farmers and other end users.

Figure 4.1 on the next page summarises the entire process of developing a project. Each step

of the process generates a measurable output. Typically, the project lifecycle approach

encompasses implementation of all planned activities but it is important to note that the

entire process of identification, formulation and implementation of projects is intended to be

a flexible and iterative process involving periodic wide-ranging stakeholder consultations

with built-in triggers for ‘go’ or ‘no-go’ decisions.

In addition, the extent of activity and timescale in the ‘Product Development’ phase depends

on the stage at which AATF becomes involved and / or the nature of AATF’s value

addition.

17

Table 4.1: Phases and steps in AATF Project Lifecycle

Intelligence gathering Project formulation Product development Product deployment

Intelligence gathering

Agricultural Problem/Solution Product Concept Identification

Product Concept Note Development

Scientific/Technical/Legal Review

Feasibility Assessment

Project Business Plan Development

Board Recommendation

Product Development

Risk Management Strategy

Communication Strategy Development

Baseline Study for Impact Assessment

Product Deployment in Pilot Locations

Impact Assessment

Planning for Cross-Border Expansion

Wide Scale Product Deployment

Exit strategy

Intelligence gathering Project formulation Product development Product deployment

Intelligence gathering

Agricultural Problem/Solution Product Concept Identification

Product Concept Note Development

Scientific/Technical/Legal Review

Feasibility Assessment

Project Business Plan Development

Board Recommendation

Product Development

Risk Management Strategy

Communication Strategy Development

Baseline Study for Impact Assessment

Product Deployment in Pilot Locations

Impact Assessment

Planning for Cross-Border Expansion

Wide Scale Product Deployment

Exit strategy

18

The following sub-sections describe the four phases of project lifecycle activities in more

detail.

4.2. Project Lifecycle Phase 0: Intelligence Gathering

AATF selects projects following a demand-driven process, based on the needs of

smallholder farmers and the projects’ potential to reduce poverty in Africa. AATF staff

continuously gather intelligence on available proprietary technologies with a view to

identifying technologies that may address African smallholder farmers’ constraints.

Annex B contains more information about the principles guiding the composition of the

portfolio of projects AATF is creating and the criteria used to select projects.

4.3. Project Lifecycle Phase 1: Project Formulation

AATF staff sub-activities include:

Identification of product concepts.

Development of product concept notes.

Management of scientific, technical, and legal reviews.

Feasibility assessments.

Development of project business plans.

Preparation of Board recommendations.

Once such a technology is found, the patent holder is approached and, if there is a good

indication that the patent holder is willing to give access to the technology on humanitarian

grounds, a rigorous process is initiated to evaluate this opportunity and to formulate a

project that will use the technology to convert it into products to be used by smallholder

farmers. This process goes through the formulation of a product concept note, a technical

review of the concept, a feasibility study and ultimately a project business plan.

During the project formulation phase, an inventory is made of all the technology

components required and a technology due diligence is conducted to ascertain the ownership

of all components. Negotiations are held with the owners of all the technology components

to obtain the rights (usually in the form of licenses) to use their intellectual property with full

freedom-to-operate (FTO). Typically, AATF will then grant sub-licenses to partner

institutions for further research, as needed, to adapt the technologies to smallholder farming

conditions, to test the adapted technologies, and for commercial production and

distribution.

Product concept notes are developed in close consultation with key stakeholders. The

concept will cover the key commercial (including demand), technical, financial and regulatory

issues associated with the product. Table 2 describes the expected contents of a product

19

concept note. Interaction with stakeholders will be project specific. Product concept notes

are subjected to an external scientific/technical peer review by experts in the field of interest.

A feasibility study is commissioned to explore the various possible approaches of producing

and deploying the product, examine their advantages and the risks associated with them. At

each one of these steps, there is a possibility of terminating the project if the analysis reveals

a low probability of success of the project. The reviewed product concept note and the

feasibility study are then used to develop a project business plan which is submitted to the

Programme/Product Development Committee of the AATF Board for approval. Once

approved, the project business plan becomes the project’s reference document that is used

to draw annual work plans and to guide the implementation of project activities.

4.4. Project Lifecycle Phase 2: Product Development

AATF staff sub-activities include:

Product development activities.

Development of risk management strategies.

Development of communications strategies.

Development of baseline studies for impact assessment.

This is the phase of the project during which collaborating partners carry out research,

testing and adaptation of technologies. Given the lead times in research, the expectation is

that this phase will dominate the others in terms of elapsed time.

AATF’s involvement typically includes licensing of intellectual property to research partners

who are then responsible for adaptation and product development (e.g. adaptive research

and testing on-station and on-farm). It also involves the development of risk management,

communications strategies and baseline studies to take account of potential scenarios on the

ground.

Issues of public acceptance of the product become critical from this stage. With a product in

sight, it is important to identify strong partnerships that will support the dissemination of

information to various critical targets that will have an impact on the final release and use of

the product. Other activities in this phase include the identification of partners for product

development, setting up structures to service the partnership, gathering information that will

assist regulatory compliance, and monitoring public opinion.

4.5. Project Lifecycle Phase 3: Product Deployment

AATF staff sub-activities include:

Management of product deployment in pilot locations

Development of impact assessments.

20

Planning of cross-border expansion as part of wider-scale product deployments.

Development of exit strategies.

At this stage, a product has been developed, tested and found to provide a satisfactory

solution to the targeted farmers’ constraints. Relevant institutions, whether public or private,

will have been identified to produce and distribute the product.

Deployment of the product will start in pilot locations. Preliminary adoption studies and

farmer perception studies of the technology/product shall be conducted in this phase.

Lessons learned in the pilot location will be used to scale out the technology to other

locations. Wide-scale deployment activities shall be conducted to reach as many farmers as

possible.

During this phase, AATF will identify and establish strategies that will support the long term

availability of the products. Such strategies shall include the private sector entity

commercialising the product, extension services, NGOs and CBOs. An exit strategy will be

designed (often during the project formulation phase) to ensure that the product will

continue to be accessible to farmer after AATF has disengaged from the project.

4.6. Project management

AATF also undertakes as series of ‘project management’ activities to ensure that its project

lifecycle activities are implemented such that the deliver AATF’s overall mission and

objectives. The four principle project management activities are:

Project portfolio management.

Partnership management.

Stewardship.

Risk management.

These activities are as presented in the original AATF business plan, and for ease of

reference, are presented in more detail in Annex D.

21

5. GOVERNANCE & STAFFING

5.1. Governance

5.1.1. Governance of the Foundation

AATF is a not-for-profit, limited liability corporate entity. Its governance structure creates a

clear separation between the responsibility for setting and monitoring strategy and the

management of operations. A Board of Trustees is appointed to run the Foundation and has

overall fiduciary responsibility for its activities. It also approves the work plan, budget and

business processes; appoints and monitors the Executive Director; and sets delegated

authorities for the Executive Director and AATF management.

The Trustees (a total of 7–12 persons) are drawn from a range of backgrounds and

institutions and serve in their personal capacities. They are elected for terms of no more than

three years and are eligible for re-election to a second term. Terms of office are staggered in

order to ensure continuity on the Board. The Chair of the Board is elected for a three-year

term.

There is an Executive Sub-Committee and additional sub-committees responsible for

program and product development, nominations, and audit.

There is also a Board Advisory Committee, comprising representatives of various

stakeholder organisations in Africa, technology providers and donors that provides guidance

to the Board. This committee meets approximately every two years and their members are

consulted by the Board on an ad hoc basis.

5.1.2. Project governance

The project development process is managed by AATF in consultation with its partners.

Once approved and funded, product development and deployment activities typically are

managed by a Project Manager recruited by AATF or seconded by a partner institution. The

Project Manager reports to AATF through the AATF Technical Operations and is under the

supervision of a Project Steering Committee made up of stakeholder representatives. A host

of experts in various disciplines relevant for project implementation, referred to as Technical

Advisors, are selected to provide, on a voluntary basis, technical advice to the Project

Manager.

The Project Steering Committee and the Technical Advisors meet once a year to review

project’s progress and approve the work plan for the following year.

22

5.2. Staffing

AATF’s mandate requires a small but highly qualified staff, complemented by project staff

recruited for the duration of a project (either seconded by a partner organisation or fully paid

up from project resources).

AATF’s core of technical, legal, business, communication and regulatory expertise remains

small. These core responsibilities present a particular challenge because they involve the

recruitment of staff to conduct activities that have rarely been performed in Africa by public

institutions4. In addition, AATF recognises that it needs to build staff experience with the

demands and processes of agribusiness. Staffing expansion places high priority on attracting

personnel with significant hands-on experience in agribusiness.

Some of the issues that AATF is called upon to address are so complex and specialised that

it is unreasonable to believe that the organisation can develop in-house capacity - there are

occasions when AATF seeks to contract outside expertise from appropriate industry or

research sources (on a pro bono basis if possible). In doing so, AATF seeks to ensure that its

mission is widely understood and that private industry sees the provision of such expertise as

an important part of corporate social responsibility.

The fact that most of AATF’s projects involve significant lead times before actual products

are being tested and marketed provides an opportunity to build staff experience and contacts

in the relevant professional areas. One way to take advantage of this opportunity is to devote

a portion of staff time in AATF’s first years to documenting and analysing the status and

performance of key regulatory and legal areas in Africa. Once such reporting and monitoring

procedures are established, they require a smaller proportion of staff time in future years, as

actual project management responsibilities expand.

5.3. Organizational structure

Figure 5.1 shows AATF’s organizational structure. Key positions are as follows:

Executive Director, with overall responsibility for the operations of AATF,

including strategic guidance, resource mobilisation and utilisation as well as managing

partner and donor relations

Technical Operations Manager, responsible for identifying opportunities for

agricultural technology interventions, assessing the feasibility and probability of

success of project concepts, identifying sources of appropriate technologies,

4 For example, the negotiation for accessing proprietary technology and managing its development into

products that will be delivered to resource-poor farmers, in an environment where commercial, regulatory, and legal institutions are relatively untested.

23

negotiating their access and deployment, and providing overall leadership in the

implementation of AATF's project portfolio

Legal Counsel, responsible for AATF’s management of intellectual property,

including licensing and contract arrangements, assessing and mitigating liabilities, and

for ensuring the corporate integrity of the Foundation

Communications & Partnerships Manager, responsible for managing the

Foundation’s public relations, managing strategic partnerships, designing and

implementing corporate and project communication strategies

Administration & Finance Manager, responsible for managing the administrative,

human and financial resource functions of AATF.

Regulatory Affairs Manager, responsible for the development and management of

components critical for the regulatory approval process for deployment of

agricultural technologies, including ensuring compliance with regulatory

requirements of target countries, and assessing and mitigating risks for AATF

projects

Seed Systems Manager, responsible for the formulation and implementation of

seed production, dissemination and stewardship strategies and plans for AATF

projects, including advising on germplasm improvement

Agribusiness Manager, responsible for evaluating commercial viability and

financial feasibility of all AATF’s projects, for formulating project business plans,

and for providing to AATF and its partners the agribusiness perspective in

technology selection, product development and deployment

Project Managers, responsible for monitoring the day-to-day implementation of

AATF's projects, including consultations with stakeholders for priority setting,

monitoring and technical supervision of project implementation across the

technology delivery value chain.

In addition to its staff, AATF works with consultants on short-term technical or specialist

assignments on a case by case basis. In terms of legal expertise, AATF has established

linkages with various institutions such as Public Interest Intellectual Property Associates

(PIIPA) and Public Intellectual Property Resources for Agriculture (PIPRA). As noted

above, whereever possible AATF seeks to access additional legal expertise from these

sources on a pro-bono basis. The AATF Legal Counsel coordinates the Foundation’s access

to legal expertise.

24

Figure 5.1: AATF organizational structure

Admin & Finance Manager

AATF Board

Legal Counsel, IP & Corporate Affairs Manager

External Auditor

Internal Auditor

Technical Operations Manager

Executive Director

Communications & Partnership Manager

Information & Knowledge Management Officer

Regulatory Affairs

Manager

Agribusiness Specialist

Geneticist / Seed Systems

Manager

MR Cowpea Project

Manager

WEMA Project

Manager

Program Assistant

Special Assistant

Finance & Accounts

Unit

Accountant

WEMA Accountant

Admin & HR Unit

2 Admin Assistants

2 Drivers

Publication &Website Officer

Program Officer

Admin Assistant

25

6. AATF’S CURRENT PROJECT PORTFOLIO

6.1. Overview

As of the 1st of April 2009, AATF has five active projects, is formulating two project

concepts and is involved in one additional ‘special’ project. This section presents details of

these projects.

The five active projects are:

Striga control in maize fields in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Developing high quality insect-resistant cowpea.

Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA).

Improving rice productivity in nitrogen-deficient and saline environments of Sub-

Saharan Africa.

Improving bananas for resistance to banana bacterial wilt.

The two product concepts AATF is currently developing are:

Reducing aflatoxin contamination in peanuts and maize.

Mechanical equipment for labour productivity improvement in cassava production

and utilisation.

AATF is involved in one ‘special’ project - the African Bio-fortified Sorghum project led

by the Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation International in which AATF provides

expertise in intellectual property management.

The Figures in Annex E summarises the timing and duration of AATF’s current (or ‘active’)

projects, and current concept notes projects. Key points to note are:

Four of AATF’s five current projects will be in the ‘development’ phase throughout

the duration of the 2009-2013 period.

The mycotoxin and cassava productivity project concepts are expected to undergo

relatively short formulation and development phases before both enter the

deployment phase in 2012.

The following sub-sections describe AATF’s currently active projects.

26

Consistent with the rationale for AATF intervention, these projects are expected to impact

farmers’ livelihoods in various ways including:

Improvement of food security amongst farming households in Africa through

increased grain harvests

Grain surplus that can earn farmers income

Significant reduction of Striga seed bank in the soil

Opening up of abandoned land for cultivation

Encourage best farming practices and farming as a business

Empowerment of stakeholders and farming communities, and hence promoting

sustainability through sharing of information and knowledge

6.2. Current projects

6.2.1. Striga control in smallholder maize fields in Africa

Summary

Table 6.1 summarises the key information relating to this project.

Table 6.1: Key project information

Item Information

Target constraint Striga in maize

Coverage Kenya, Uganda Malawi, Tanzania, Zambia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mozambique, Nigeria, Zimbabwe

Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint

42.9m

Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology

12.9m

Partner institutions NARS, CIMMYT, BASF, IITA, TSBF-CIAT, WeRATE, NGOs, CBOs, Ministry of Agriculture, Farmers, private seed companies, Africa 2000 Network, RPK, FORMAT

Technology provider BASF, CIMMYT

Current status Product Deployment

Total funding required for 2009-2013 $12.0m

Total funding committed for 2009-2013 None

$12.0m to be sourced from donors

27

Timing

Figure 6.1 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project.

Note that the development of the striga maize product pre-dated AATF’s involvement.

Figure 6.1: Estimated project life-cycle

Pre-2004

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Post-2013

Intel’ gather

Formul-ation

Develop-ment

Deployment

Background

About 120m people living in Africa are affected by striga (witchweed), a parasitic weed

infesting cereals, curtailing maize production, resulting even in total grain loss in severely

infested fields. Striga has invaded over 20m ha of cropland, leading to economic losses

exceeding $2bn per year and resulting in food insecurity and rural poverty. For many

decades, striga was beyond the control of smallholder farmers in Africa and led many to

abandon maize farming altogether. Recent technological breakthroughs, particularly

StrigAway (IR) maize technology, offer great promise, and are easily integrated with farmers’

practices such as intercropping and legume rotation.

To address the Striga problem, AATF initiated a project in 2004 with the objective of

controlling Striga. The project embodies the public-private partnership approach, in which

AATF, CIMMYT and BASF are key partners and collaborate with several other stakeholders

in target countries. Currently, the project is in the deployment phase, which aims to facilitate

StrigAway (IR) maize technology (product) awareness, uptake and sustainable utilisation. To

achieve this, the project supports product demonstration, information dissemination

amongst stakeholders, product commercialisation, and stewardship for long term benefit to

farmers.

Delivery and uptake of striga management technologies require value chain management and

institutional partnerships that enable smallholder farmers to control the weed, produce

surplus maize and access efficient and equitable markets; greater income generation strongly

motivates farmers to invest in the uptake of new technologies.

28

Progress

The progress of the striga project is summarised as follows:

Product demonstration: As of December 2008, a total of 60,000 demonstrations

had been conducted in Kenya, 2,000 in Uganda, and 6,000 in Tanzania. These have

illustrated the product performance and given farmers a chance to learn how to use

the StrigAway (IR) maize within their farming systems, thus promoting uptake of the

technology.

Information dissemination: Various publications have been developed and

circulated amongst stakeholders. These include baseline studies from Kenya, Uganda,

Malawi, and Tanzania and a farmer perception study report from Kenya. Further,

handouts, Q&A, pamphlets, booklets and posters have been developed and

disseminated to stakeholders to create awareness and share information related to

StrigAway (IR) maize technology.

Product commercialisation: Commercialisation has been achieved in Kenya since

2005. It is expected that commercialisation in Tanzania will take place in 2009.

Technology Stewardship: Stewardship has assessed performance of the StrigAway

(IR) maize technology, and farmer adherence to user instructions. To date, several

project reports indicate the superior performance of IR maize under striga

infestation. Farmland that had been abandoned is now being opened for cultivation

once again.

Future activities

The striga project needs $12m over the next five years to expand striga control activities

across Africa. This will enable StrigAway (IR) maize activities to be scaled up to cover striga

infested maize farmland in Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Ethiopia, Ghana,

Mozambique, Nigeria and Zimbabwe. These countries account for 85% of the striga weed

occurring within Africa’s maize fields.

Wide-scale expansion of technology demonstration: AATF and its partners will

work jointly to cover all key striga infested maize growing fields in Eastern, southern

and western Africa. The target countries are Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda,

Zambia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mozambique, Nigeria and Zimbabwe. Project activities

within each country will focus on severely striga infested areas identified by national

collaborators. StrigAway (IR) maize technology was introduced in Malawi in 2008

and Nigeria will be in 2009 and in subsequent countries like Mozambique and

Zimbabwe in the coming year. The target is to cover key maize growing areas

infested by striga weed.

29

Information dissemination: Work will continue to raise the knowledge and

awareness of the StrigAway (IR) maize technology amongst stakeholders in the target

countries, thereby promoting acceptance and use.

Stewardship work: This will continue to ensure that the product is used

appropriately for optimal performance. This will encompass monitoring and

evaluation missions, field workshops, training meetings for various stakeholders,

including farmers, extension officers, agro-dealers and seed companies.

Commercialisation: AATF will facilitate national performance trials and

distinctiveness, uniformity and stability tests to ensure variety registration and release,

so that the improved seeds are available to agro-dealers and further acquisition by

farmers in striga infested areas.

Facilitating production of certified StrigAway (IR) maize seed: Seed companies

using IR maize have to be very vigilant on processing and storage. In particular, there

is need to have seed treaters that are dedicated to IR maize, since it is coated with

herbicide, and hence other crop seeds that are not resistant to the herbicide must not

be in contact with the herbicide. Secondly, stewardship of the seed treatment

process, especially in the introductory phases, is critical to ensure herbicide

concentrations are strictly adhered to.

As the project rolls out and intensifies work in Africa, AATF will also plan impact studies to

assess and document adoption of the technology and lessons that can be used to continually

improve the product deployment strategy.

6.2.2. Development of high quality Insect-Resistant Cowpea

Summary

Table 6.2 summarises the key information relating to this project.

Table 6.2: Key project information

Item Information

Target constraint Insects in cowpea

Coverage Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Niger, Mali, Senegal, Cameroon

Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint

28.6m

Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology

8.6m

Partner institutions NGICA , CSIRO, IITA, Monsanto, Kirkhouse Trust, PBS, Ministry of Agriculture, NABDA NARS, INERA, IAR, CSIR-SARI, NGOs, CBOs, farmers, private sector

30

Item Information

Technology provider Monsanto Company, USA

Current status Product Development

Total funding required for 2009-2013 $9.3m

Total funding committed for 2009-2013 Possible estimated $[9.0m - 10.0m] from a bilateral donor

Timing

Figure 6.2 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project

Figure 6.2: Estimated project life-cycle

Pre-2004

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Post-2013

Intel’ gather

Formulation

Development

Deploy-ment

Background

Cowpea is one of the most nutritionally and economically important grain legume and

fodder crop in Africa, cultivated on over 12.5m hectares of land. It is estimated that over 2m

people in Africa consume cowpea on a daily basis as protein supplement. However, cowpea

productivity levels have been very low due to the impact of pests and diseases as the uptake

of chemicals and other methods to prevent these losses have been very low. Yield losses due

to the pod borer, Maruca vitrata, alone reach 80%. Control methods currently in use include

spraying with insecticides and in most cases unsuitable ones such as the cotton pesticides,

due to the associated high costs and unavailability of suitable insecticides. So far resistance to

Maruca has been limited, and as such innovative approaches using molecular tools offer

greater potential in providing long-term management of this pest.

AATF initiated the cowpea project in 2003 with the objective of enabling smallholder

farmers in Africa have access to seed of high quality and socially acceptable cowpea varieties

with increased resistance to Maruca pod borer. In May 2005, AATF obtained a royalty-free

license, with a right to sublicense in all of Africa, to use Monsanto’s cry1Ab gene for

producing Maruca-resistant cowpea varieties. In implementation of the project, a Project

Advisory Committee (PAC) has been formed constituting scientists from the Network for

the Genetic Improvement of Cowpea for Africa (NGICA), the Program for Biosafety

31

Systems (PBS) and Monsanto. This specialist group will work in collaboration with AATF

for the overall coordination of project activities in product development, regulatory

compliance, consumer acceptance and stewardship of the product.

Progress

Significant milestones were achieved by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial

Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia in developing and optimising a reliable system for

cowpea transformation (Popelka et al., 2006; Plant Cell Reports 25, 304-312). To date some

52 primary transgenic events (T0) have been generated, representing about 25% of the

targeted 300 events from which a single elite event will be identified for introgression into

farmer-preferred varieties in the targeted countries. These lines have been molecularly

characterised and most show 80-100% efficacy to Helicoverpa armigera, a closely related species

to the target lepidopteran pest Maruca vitrata. The next crucial step is thus to test efficacy of

these transgenic events on the target pest.

AATF and partners held a project review and planning meeting on 2-5 June 2008 in Abuja,

Nigeria, where partners and stakeholders reviewed progress and clarified future work and

budget estimates towards delivery of Maruca-resistant cowpea varieties to farmers in Africa.

Currently, cowpea transformation has proceeded successfully at CSIRO, Australia,

generating several promising events which express the Cry1Ab protein. It is expected that

further work on transformation will proceed, and if possible with a second gene. In Nigeria,

site identification has been done and preliminary accreditation provided by the National Bio-

safety Committee.

Future activities

During the next five years, efforts in this project will be targeted at further transformation,

regeneration and molecular characterisation of the events at CSIRO and searching for a

second insect-resistant gene. The funds requested will also support the importation of

transgenic seed into Africa for introgression into farmer-preferred varieties and for efficacy

trials against Maruca under confined conditions. Parallel to this, concerted efforts will also be

channelled towards raising public awareness and acceptance amongst stakeholders, and

exploring market linkages for successful product deployment.

6.2.3. Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA)

Summary

Table 6.3 summarises the key information relating to this project.

32

Table 6.3: Key project information

Item Information

Target constraint Water inefficiency in maize

Coverage Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, South Africa, Mozambique

Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint

22.0m

Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology

10.7m

Partner institutions NARS, Monsanto, NGOs, CBOs, Farmers, Private seed companies, Ministry of Agriculture, CIMMYT

Technology provider Monsanto, BASF

Current status Product development

Total funding required for 2009-2013 $9.0m (in 2013)

Total funding committed for 2009-2013 $38.1m (2009-2012)

$9.0m to be sourced from BMGF, HGBF, and / or other donors

Timing

Figure 6.3 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project

Figure 6.3: Estimated project life-cycle

Pre-2004

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Post-2013

Intelligence gathering

Formul-ation

Development

Deploy-ment

Background

Africa is a drought-prone continent, making farming risky for millions of small-scale farmers

who rely on rainfall to water their crops. Maize is the most widely grown staple crop in

Africa – more than 300m Africans depend on it as their main food source – and it is severely

affected by frequent drought. Drought leads to crop failure, hunger, and poverty. Climate

change will only worsen the problem. Drought tolerance has been recognised as one of the

33

most important targets of crop improvement programmes, and biotechnology has been

identified as a powerful tool to achieve significant drought tolerance by the FAO. Identifying

ways to mitigate drought risk, stabilise yields, and encourage small-scale farmers to adopt

best management practices is fundamental to realising food security and improved

livelihoods for the continent.

In this project, AATF is leading a collaboration of public and private organisations –

including the National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) of Kenya, South Africa,

Tanzania, Uganda and Mozambique, CIMMYT and the Monsanto Company – to develop

drought-tolerant African maize using conventional breeding, marker-assisted breeding, and

biotechnology. The benefits and safety of the maize varieties will be assessed by national

authorities according to the regulatory requirements in the partner countries.

Progress

During the first year of the project (2008) the following major milestones were achieved:

AATF, CIMMYT and Monsanto signed a research collaboration agreement in

January.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Howard G. Buffet Foundation

respectively signed grant agreements with AATF.

Launching of the Project incorporating all the project partners and the

implementation of NARs planning workshop.

AATF concluded sub-grant and other agreements with all project partners.

Project meeting held, bringing together all the partners to agree on governance of the

project and finalisation of the project’s governance framework.

Finalisation of the project teams (Executive Advisory Operations, Intellectual

Property, Product Development, Regulatory Affairs, and Communications

Committees) and inauguration of regular team meetings.

Future activities

After months of work planning, the stage is now set for implementation of WEMA activities

along the four project components:

Intellectual Property.

Product Development.

Regulatory Affairs.

Communications.

34

These committees will guide activity implementation in line with the project’s milestones.

Funding for this project (from the Gates Foundation) is envisaged to last through the

coming four years.

6.2.4. Improvement of Banana for resistance to Banana Bacterial Wilt (BBW)

Summary

Table 6.4 summarises the key information relating to this project.

Table 6.4: Key project information

Item Information

Target constraint Bacterial wilt in banana

Coverage Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, DR Congo, Tanzania, Kenya

Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint

10.0m

Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology

3.0m

Partner institutions IITA, NARS, IRAZ, Academia Simica, NGOs, CBOs, Farmers, Ministry of Agriculture, private sector

Technology provider Academia Simica, Taiwan

Current status Product development

Total funding required for 2009-2013 $3.8m

Total funding committed for 2009-2013 None

$3.8m to be sourced from donors

Timing

Figure 6.4 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project

Table 6.4: Estimated project life-cycle

Pre-2004

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Post-2013

Intel’ gather

Formulation

Development

Deploy-ment

35

Background

In the East African highlands and most parts of the Great Lakes region, bananas especially

the cooking type represent a major source of food, as well as income for an estimated 100m

smallholder farmers, and their families. In this region, bananas reach their greatest

importance as a staple food crop. In Uganda, Burundi and Rwanda for example, the per

capita consumption has been estimated at 450kg per year, the highest in the world. Despite

the foregoing importance, the cultivation of banana in the Great Lakes region today faces

several challenges particularly growing pest and disease pressure.

While there are several diseases on this crop in the region, the recent outbreak of banana

bacterial wilt (Xanthomonas campestris pv musacearum), that is now rapidly spreading to many

areas of the Great Lakes leaving in its wake a trail of crop destruction which presents the

greatest challenge to banana production. In just five years since the first outbreak was

diagnosed in Uganda in 2001, the disease has spread to Burundi, Democratic Republic of

Congo, Kenya, Tanzania and Rwanda. At the current rate, and since none of the banana

cultivars in the region is resistant, the disease is expected to spread to all banana producing

areas of Africa.

Progress

During the past three years, AATF together with partners from public and private sector

institutions have been working on an initiative aimed at improving the productivity of

bananas in the Great Lakes region through the development, testing and deployment of

genetically engineered banana varieties with traits for resistance against BBW. The pflp genes

used in transformation of banana are from crop plants and have already been used to

combat diseases in crops like tobacco, potato, tomato, broccoli, orchids and rice.

AATF obtained a license from the Taiwan-based Academia Sinica in August 2006 to use the

genes and granted a sub-license thereto to International Institute of Tropical Agriculture

(IITA) in December of the same year. Already banana transformation is ongoing and is

expected to proceed to proof-of-concept shortly. The project looks promising and AATF

estimates that it will take this initiative a minimum of five years to develop GM banana

technology for resistance to BBW and another three years to set up commercial production

of suckers for distribution to farmers.

Future activities

During the next five years, efforts in this project will be targeted at refining the

transformation protocols for banana, genetic and molecular characterisation of transformed

events. In addition, AATF and partners will address environmental and food safety

assessment matters touching on deployment of GM banana and compile the requisite safety

dossier to secure regulatory approvals in the target countries of deployment. Towards the

end of this period, the project should have developed, tested and identified an elite event for

36

eventual multiplication and release. The project should have also explored market linkages

and tissue-culture based seed delivery banana plantlets in the Great Lakes region. This is

especially crucial since the current production capacities for tissue culture plantlets of the

existing laboratories in Kenya, Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda stands at an estimated 1m

plantlets per year, a figure way below the current demand from farmers for such material in

the region.

6.2.5. Improvement of Rice Productivity

Summary

Table 6.5 summarises the key information relating to this project.

Table 6.5: Key project information

Item Information

Target constraint Soil nitrogen deficiency

Coverage Kenya, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Ghana, Tanzania, Uganda, Cote d’Ivoire, Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Níger, Malí, Sierra Leone

Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint

14.3m

Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology

4.3m

Partner institutions PIPRA, NARS, Arcadia biosciences, NGOs, CBOs, Farmers, Ministry of Agriculture, NABDA, Private sector

Technology provider Arcadia Biosciences, USA

PIPRA, USA

Current status Product development

Total funding required for 2009-2013 $7.2m

Total funding committed for 2009-2013 $5.0m from a bilateral donor

$2.2m to be sourced from other donors

Timing

Figure 6.5 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project

37

Figure 6.5: Estimated project life-cycle

Pre-2004

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Post-2013

Intel’ gather

Formulation

Development

Deploy-ment

Background

Rice (Oryza spp.) is an important food staple in Africa but growing demand for this food

poses an economic challenge. Annual rice production in Africa is estimated to be 12m to

17m metric tonnes comprising 15% of the region’s cereal production. Most of this rice is

produced and consumed by small-scale farmers. However, according to the FAO, rice

consumption within Africa is growing by 6% per annum resulting in the current deficit of

6.5m metric tonnes per year valued at $1.7bn. Insufficient rice production affects the

wellbeing of over 20m smallholder farmers who depend on rice as their main food.

Nitrogen deficiency is a leading constraint to rice productivity in 87% of West Africa’s rice

lands. Nitrogen is difficult to apply and retain within flooded and flowing lowlands, but the

most acute nitrogen deficiency occurs in the highly weathered uplands where yields average

only 1 tonne per ha, or about 25% of its potential. Improving the nitrogen use efficiency of

rice is one means to overcome these limitations.

Salt accumulation has affected approximately 600,000ha of cultivated land in Africa. Salts

accumulate over time from the mineral ions carried in irrigation water; for example 2.5

tonnes of salt may be deposited per hectare during a single growing season from irrigating

with water containing only 0.05% dissolved salts, a concentration common in most waters

used for irrigation in semi-arid areas. Approximately 650,000ha of rice production in West

Africa are threatened by salinisation, particularly within the Sahel where rain fed rice

production is not feasible.

This project seeks to harness use of NUE and SAL+ technologies for the production of rice

varieties for use by smallholder farmers in Africa. Improved nitrogen use efficiency within

rice production systems will not only increase crop yields, but also lower the continent’s

fertiliser nitrogen deficit, reduce its soil nutrient depletion, protect water quality and likely

limit the amount of nitrogen lost as greenhouse gasses. Benefits from increased salt tolerance

by rice would not only be derived from increased yields by established crops, but would also

permit the recovery of lands previously abandoned to salt accumulation and a reduction in

Africa’s limited supplies of fresh water.

38

Progress

In February 2008, AATF and Arcadia Biosciences signed a research collaboration and license

agreement for the NUE rice project. A protocol for genetic transformation of NERICA rice

varieties is being developed at Arcadia Biosciences setting the stage for rice transformation.

AATF continued negotiations with PIPRA for access to a plant transformation vector with a

transposon module (allowing segregation of the selectable marker cassette in the transgenic

offspring) owned by PIPRA member institutions. A license agreement is being finalized to

effect the transfer of this technology.

NUE and ST japonica rice variety has been developed and tested in the lab and greenhouses

in the US by Arcadia (a private biotechnology company) and so there is proof of concept

that the technology works. The NUE canola has also been developed and tested in the field

by the same company. The technology has being licensed to Monsanto for

commercialisation in canola.

The genetic transformation of rice aimed at introducing these two traits is currently taking

place in the US. The elite varieties developed will be tested under confinement and given

satisfactory performance, under open field in target countries in Africa according to the

biosafety rules and regulations of each target country.

Future activities

During the next five years, therefore, efforts in this project will be targeted at genetic

transformation of African rice varieties, genetic and molecular characterisation of

transformed events, efficacy testing and agronomic trials. In addition, AATF and partners

will address environmental and food safety assessment matters touching on deployment of

NUE rice and compile the requisite safety dossier to secure regulatory approvals in the target

countries of deployment. Towards the end of this period, the project should have developed,

tested and identified elite events for eventual multiplication and release. The project should

have also explored market linkages and value chain analysis essential for delivery of this

technology to smallholder farmers in rice producing countries.

6.3. Product concepts

The following sub-sections describe AATF’s currently active product ‘concept’ projects.

6.3.1. Mycotoxin control in Maize and Peanuts

Summary

Table 6.6 summarises the key information relating to this project.

39

Table 6.6: Key project information

Item Information

Target constraint Mycotoxin in maize and peanuts

Coverage Kenya, Uganda Malawi, Tanzania, Zambia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Mozambique, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, South Africa

Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint

5.8m

Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology

1.7m

Partner institutions IITA, USDA-ARS, University of Arizona, NARS, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Health, Food Industries, Agriculture sector

Technology provider IITA, USDA-ARS and the University of Arizona

Current status Intelligence gathering / project formulation

Total funding required for 2009-2013 $3.3m

Total funding committed for 2009-2013 None

$3.3m to be sourced from donors

Timing

Figure 6.6 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project

Figure 6.6: Estimated project life-cycle

Pre-2004

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Post-2013

Intelligence gathering

Formul-ation

Develop-ment

Deploy-ment

Background

Mycotoxins are substances produced by fungal moulds that contaminate various agricultural

commodities either before, during or after harvest. They are a diverse group of substances

numbering as many as 300. However, the five most important ones comprise ochratoxins,

deoxynivalenol, zearalenone, fumonisins and aflatoxins. While effects of mycotoxin contamination

40

in food grains has been around since historical times, it was only during the 1960s following

the discovery of aflatoxins that considerable attention was paid to mycotoxins. AATF

recognises this problem too and has identified the control of mycotoxins in cereal grains as

one the priority areas targeted for intervention.

Fungal species in the genus Aspergillus, notably Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus, invade

crops during maturation in the field and during storage, contaminating them with aflatoxins.

Maize is by far one of the most susceptible cereal crops to pre-harvest aflatoxin

contamination particularly during periods of moisture stress and when insect damage is

prevalent.

Post-harvest contamination in maize also occurs when grains are stored in damp

environments. Consequently, dietary exposure to aflatoxin contaminated maize-based

products has been associated with various human health-related conditions including the

high incidence of liver cancer, growth retardation in children, reproduction impairment and

the suppression of cell-mediated immune responses. In a number of cases, maize grains

contaminated with aflatoxin-producing fungi have been implicated in incidences of food-

poisoning commonly referred to as aflatoxicosis that claim many lives in a number of African

countries. In Kenya, for instance, over 100 people died in 2005 alone during an incidence of

aflatoxicosis arising from feeding on contaminated maize.

Progress

Owing to the importance of maize as a staple cereal crop in Africa, the need to identify and

develop sustainable technologies for reducing aflatoxin contamination in this crop is high on

the agenda of many research organisations and development partners. Scientists at IITA are

spearheading a research initiative to minimise the formation of aflatoxins in maize by

exploiting a strategy based on competitive microbial exclusion. This strategy seeks to

establish benign strains of A. flavus and A. parasiticus to compete and eliminate the aflatoxin

producing strains. During the coming years AATF will seek to work with IITA, USDA-ARS

and the University of Arizona on an initiative to have promising non-toxigenic Aspergillus

strains tested and formulated for commercial use in reducing aflatoxin contamination in

maize.

Future activities

It envisaged that AATF will take a leading role in

Facilitating institutional partnerships for isolation and characterisation of native

strains of non-toxigenic A. flavus and A. parasiticus in Africa;

Facilitating partnerships for field testing both native strains of non-toxigenic fungi at

pilot locations in maize growing areas of Africa;

41

Considering effective deployment of promising strains in Africa to reduce aflatoxin

contamination; and

Ensuring compliance with regulations governing use of biological control agents.

6.3.2. Mechanical equipment for labour productivity improvement in cassava

production and utilisation

Summary

Table 6.7 summarises the key information relating to this project.

Table 6.7: Key project information

Item Information

Target constraint High labour cost in production and processing

Coverage Nigeria, DR Congo, Ghana, Tanzania, Mozambique, Angola, Uganda

Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint

28.6m

Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology

4.9m

Partner institutions IITA, Farm machinery producers of Brazil, Indonesia, India, China, NARS, Ministries of Agriculture, NEPAD Pan-African Cassava Initiative (NPACI), D’Andrea Agrimport ( Brazil), UNIDO

Technology provider IITA, Farm machinery producers of Brazil, Indonesia, India, China etc

Current status Intelligence gathering / project formulation

Total funding required for 2009-2013 $1.6m

Total funding committed for 2009-2013 None

$1.6m to be sourced from donors

Timing

Figure 6.7 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project

42

Figure 6.7: Estimated project life-cycle

Pre-2004

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Post-2013

Intelligence gathering

Formulation

Development

Deployment

Background

One of the key constraints to cassava production in Africa is mechanisation or appropriate

production and processing tools. Africa is the world’s largest cassava producing region and

accounts for nearly 55% of the world’s cassava output despite the fact that cassava yields in

Africa are the lowest in the world (10 tonnes per hectare compared to 26 tonnes per hectare

in India). The problem is that market opportunities for cassava in Africa are limited

compared to what they are in other cassava-producing regions of the world. It is well

established that where cassava farmers have access to markets, they tend to adopt

productivity-enhancing technologies and do increase their productivity.

Mechanisation of cassava production and processing has been identified as the most

important constraints to the development of the cassava sector in Africa. The use of cassava

as a feedstock for ethanol production, and any other large scale use (such as the mandated

incorporation of 10% cassava flour in wheat flour for bread making in Nigeria) requires the

existence of a large number of small scale cassava processing units.

The existing capacity for manufacturing of cassava processing equipment in Africa is of

inferior quality and unless this capacity is upgraded, it is unlikely that cassava farmers and

entrepreneurs will benefit from these new market opportunities. Manufacturers are able to

obtain prototypes from foreign manufacturers and to copy them. However, the quality of the

locally made equipment is usually sub-standard and uncompetitive. Equipment

manufacturers in some countries out of Africa are reluctant to supply equipment to African

businesses because of fear of piracy and subsequent loss of market.

Progress

In the past year, AATF has worked with various institutions on an initiative aimed at

sourcing, developing, delivering and supporting the adoption of labour-saving cassava

production technologies for use by small holder farmers in Africa. In this regard, AATF

commissioned a feasibility study in 2007 and is now in the process of finalising the proposal

for use in resource mobilisation efforts.

43

The project goal is therefore to achieve greater national energy security, increased incomes

and better livelihoods for millions of cassava farmers and thousands of small scale

entrepreneurs through the use of cassava as a raw material for ethanol production in African

countries.

Future activities

During the next five years, efforts in this project will be targeted at sensitising Africa towards

the preparation and adoption of a National Strategy on bio-fuels for Africa, sourcing for the

technologies and bringing together partners that will participate in the implementation of the

project.

6.4. Special projects

6.4.1. Developing nutritionally enhanced Sorghum varieties for use by smallholder

farmers in Africa

Background

The key objective of this project is to develop nutritionally enhanced sorghum varieties

suitable for growers and consumers in Africa. The project is funded through the Grand

Challenges in Global Health Programme of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The

project involves a consortium of partners, namely Africa Harvest Biotechnology Foundation

International, University of Pretoria, University of California Berkeley, Pioneer/DuPont,

CSIR, ARS, ICRISAT and AATF. AATF’s role covers management of IP and license

negotiations for the needed proprietary technologies.

Progress

AATF has participated in all review and planning meetings of the project; conducted an

inventory of all IP and other technologies being used in the project; coordinated the conduct

of a Freedom To Operate (FTO) assessment for the project, a report of which was

submitted to the Project Steering Committee in February 2007; and is helping to formulate a

global patent prosecution strategy.

6.5. Strategic initiatives

AATF plans to implement a series of strategic initiatives during 2009-2013. These activities

form part of AATF’s project formulation activities:

Open Forum for Biotechnology in Africa.

PPP for Delivery of Improved Seeds in Africa.

Trends monitoring: biosafety regulations.

44

Trends monitoring: IP status.

Trends monitoring: Seed regulations.

Trends monitoring: R&D priorities.

Value chain management for delivery of crop-based technologies.

45

7. AATF’S FUTURE PROJECT PORTFOLIO

During the next five years, a gradual expansion of AATF project portfolio and project

activities across Africa is anticipated and is expected include the following initiatives:

Golden rice for Africa.

Striga control in smallholder sorghum fields in Africa.

Reducing crop loss through control of locusts and grasshoppers.

Herbicide-resistant cowpea.

Herbicide-resistant cassava.

Molecular diagnostics and marker assisted selection (MAS) tools for crop

improvement.

This section provides more details of AATF’s future projects. Key points to note are:

Three of the six ‘future’ projects were already in progress at the time of writing this

business plan.

The Diagnostic and MAS tools project will start in, and will have been completed by

the end of the 2009-2013 period.

The herbicide resistant cassava and herbicide resistant cowpea projects will

commence in 2010.

Four of the six future projects will still be in the development phase at the end of the

2009-2013 period, with the deployment phases of these projects variously scheduled

to commence between 2015 and 2018.

The striga control in sorghum project will have reached the deployment phase by the

beginning of 2013.

More detailed information about the timing of the different phases of each project is

provided in Annex E.

46

7.1. Golden rice for Africa

Summary

Table 7.1 summarises the key information relating to this project.

Table 7.1: Key project information

Item Information

Target constraint Vitamin A deficiency

Coverage Kenya, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Ghana, Tanzania, Uganda, Cote d’Ivoire, Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Níger, Malí, Sierra Leone

Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint

14.3m

Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology

4.3m

Partner institutions IRRI, WARDA, Farmers, NARS, Ministry of Agriculture, Private sector

Technology provider Golden Rice Consortium

Current status Intelligence gathering

Total funding required for 2009-2013 $1.5m

Total funding committed for 2009-2013 None

$1.5m to be sourced from donors

Timing

Figure 7.1 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project

Figure 7.1: Estimated project life-cycle

Pre-2009

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Post-2018

Intelligence gathering

Formul-ation

Development

Deployment

47

Background

Despite its chronic poverty, Africa continues to import large amounts of cereals, including

rice. During 2005, Sub-Saharan countries imported 7.2 million tonnes of rice valued at $1.5

billion, or 40-45% of its total consumption. This imbalance is only expected to grow as rice

is increasingly becoming a preferred staple, particularly in West Africa and among urban

inhabitants. It is indeed ironic that massive amounts of foreign reserves are spent on rice and

other imported foods while longer-term rural development needs remain under-addressed.

Since Africa hardly produces adequate food to eat or surpluses for sale to generate income,

the mean daily per capita calorific intake is below the recommended level of 2,100.

The debilitating effects of hunger in Africa go far beyond that, severely affecting mostly

children under the age of five through hunger-related diseases. Indeed, nearly one half of

Africa’s children are so underfed that their growth is stunted to the extent of negatively

impacting on their cognitive capacities.

As well as gross under-nourishment, lack of vitamins, minerals and other micronutrients in

the diet is also widespread. For instance, the World Health Organization estimates that

around 18m pre-school children in Africa suffer from vitamin A deficiency, which often

degenerates to eye damage. As a result, many become partially or totally blind.

Studies on nutrition have shown that lack of vitamin A has an even more pervasive effect,

weakening the protective barriers inherent in the skin and the immune system. Iron

deficiency is also common in Africa and has been cited as being contributory to clinical cases

of anaemia among women of childbearing age. Correcting this is a challenge that was noted

by the World Bank as being both technological, requiring new intensive production

technologies to increase yields and reduce losses, and political, requiring policies that do not

discriminate against rural areas in general and smallholder agriculture in particular

Progress

One potential technical intervention that promises to address this is development of Golden

Rice for Africa. Golden Rice is a biotechnology product that fortifies rice with β-carotene,

the precursor of Vitamin A. This biofortification is beneficial considering the massive

deficiency in Vitamin A among the world’s poor. The technical achievement of Golden Rice

is the result of 25 years of state-of-the-art plant biotechnology R&D initiative in which a

humanitarian sub-license to public research institutions and low-income farmers in

developing countries applies. In other words, the technology may be introduced to the

farming communities in needy regions of the world as improved seed without additional

surcharge.

48

Future activities

During the coming years AATF envisages to formulate a multi-partner project that will apply

knowledge gained from cutting-edge science for the genetic improvement of rice, and

combined with advances in conventional rice breeding, leading to nutrient-rich rice for

improved livelihoods of smallholder farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa. This effort is particularly

challenging in that it positions transgenic crops to overcome persistent constraints to

nutrition deficiency permitting direct dietary interventions to a very challenging human

health problem.

7.2. Striga control in smallholder sorghum fields in Africa

Summary

Table 7.2 summarises the key information relating to this project.

Table 7.2: Key project information

Item Information

Target constraint Striga in sorghum

Coverage Kenya, Uganda Malawi, Tanzania, Zambia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Mozambique, Nigeria and Zimbabwe

Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint

14.3m

Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology

4.3m

Partner institutions NARS, ICRISAT, Du Pont, Purdue University, WeRATE, NGOs, CBOs, Ministry of Agriculture, Farmers, private seed companies, Africa

Technology provider Du Pont, Kansas State University

Current status Intelligence gathering

Total funding required for 2009-2013 $2.8m

Total funding committed for 2009-2013 None

$2.8m to be sourced from donors

Timing

Figure 7.2 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project

49

Figure 7.2: Estimated project life-cycle

Pre-2009

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Post-2018

Intelligence gathering

Formul-ation

Development

Deployment

Background

In terms of tonnage, sorghum is Africa’s second most important cereal. The continent

produces about 20m tonnes of sorghum per annum, about one-third of the world crop. The

potential for sorghum to be the driver of economic development in Africa is enormous.

However, its production is limited by the parasitic weed, striga hermonthica. This weed is a

widespread in Africa and destroys 40%-100% of a complete season’s crop.

The annual crop damage across Africa is estimated at $7bn. An estimated 26m hectares of

cereal fields (maize, sorghum and millet) are infested with S. hermonthica and striga asiatica,

leading to an estimated loss of about 10.7m tonnes. Overcoming this weed calls for a

concerted effort in basic and applied research in order to unleash sorghum’s capacity to be

the cornerstone of food security in Africa.

Future activities

Following the success of developing herbicide-resistant maize, recent research by various

working groups is targeting development of herbicide resistant sorghum varieties. This will

allow for low dose herbicide coating of sorghum seed with a potent herbicide that effectively

controls Striga weed.

During the coming years AATF envisages to formulate a public-private partnership

comprising Du Pont, Kansas State University, Purdue and ICRISAT that will build on

existing knowledge to introduce striga management technology for striga weed in sorghum

leading to increased cereal production in the arid and semi-arid areas where sorghum is the

flagship cereal crop in Sub-Saharan Africa.

7.3. Herbicide-resistant cowpea

Summary

Table 7.3 summarises the key information relating to this project.

50

Table 7.3: Key project information

Item Information

Target constraint Weeds affecting cowpea production

Coverage Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Niger, Mali, Senegal, and Cameroon

Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint

28.6m

Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology

8.6m

Partner institutions IITA, NARS, Private biotechnology company

Technology provider Private biotechnology company

Current status Not started

Total funding required for 2009-2013 $3.6m

Total funding committed for 2009-2013 None

$3.6m to be sourced from donors

Timing

Figure 7.3 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project

Figure 7.3: Estimated project life-cycle

Pre-2009

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Post-2018

Intel’ gather

Formul-ation

Development

Deployment

Background

Cowpea is an important food crop in the dry savannas of West and Central Africa because

of its high protein content. Its production across Africa accounts for over 65% of world

output, and according to FAO more than 2m people in Sub-Sahara Africa consume cowpea

on a daily basis as protein supplement. The value of cowpea lies also in its ability to tolerate

drought, fixing atmospheric nitrogen, and in turn improving poor soils. Despite its

importance in West Africa, yields are considerably reduced by weeds.

51

Weeds are a serious problem in many agricultural production systems. The use of herbicides

to reduce loss in crop yield due to weeds has become an integral part of modern agriculture.

However, some of these conventional methods, even if used individually and in

combination, have a limited impact on controlling weeds.

The engineering of transgenic crops resistant to the broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate has

greatly improved agricultural efficiency worldwide. In an integrated approach to control

weeds, AATF is looking at biotechnological approaches as new and promising possibilities

for weed management. Thus in its quest to assist farmers in Africa to access such proprietary

technologies, AATF will seek to engineer and develop herbicide-resistant transgenic cowpea.

Because of significant crop damage inflicted by weeds, the availability of herbicide-resistant

transgenic cowpea lines will contribute significantly to greater food security and improved

livelihoods of small-holder farmers in Africa.

Future activities

During the next five years, efforts in this project will be targeted at a business plan

preparation (project formulation, etc.) and product development. This will involve scouting

for the herbicide-tolerant gene, negotiating and obtaining a license to use the gene that

confers the resistance. Additional efforts will be geared towards developing transgenic plants

and molecularly characterising and testing the lines. To help realise these initial efforts, a

total budget of $4.6m is intended ($0.1m for business development, ($4.5m for product

development).

Towards the end of this period, the project will have developed a concept note and a

business plan; negotiated and obtained a license to use the genes that confer the resistance.

Some of the achievements will include developed transgenics which have been molecularly

characterised plants and tested for herbicide tolerance for elite events identification. The

project would also have determined the potential market of herbicide resistant cowpea in

Africa.

7.4. Herbicide-resistant cassava

Summary

Table 7.4 summarises the key information relating to this project.

Table 7.4: Key project information

Item Information

Target constraint Weeds affecting cassava production

Coverage Nigeria, DR Congo, Ghana, Tanzania, Mozambique, Angola, Uganda

Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint

28.6m

52

Item Information

Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology

4.9m

Partner institutions IITA, CIAT, NARS, Private biotechnology company

Technology provider Private biotechnology company

Current status Not started

Total funding required for 2009-2013 $3.0m

Total funding committed for 2009-2013 None

$3.0m to be sourced from donors

Timing

Figure 7.4 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project.

Figure 7.4: Estimated project life-cycle

Pre-2009

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Post-2018

Intel’ gather

Formul-ation

Development

Deployment

Background

Cassava is a multi-purpose crop in Africa whose importance cannot be over-emphasised.

Cassava is produced mostly by smallholders on marginal and sub-marginal lands in the

humid and sub-humid tropics. It is primarily a food crop that is efficient in carbohydrate

production, adapted to a wide range of environments and tolerant to drought and acidic

soils.

Weeds are a serious problem in cassava production systems even at the small scale farmer

level. The cost of weeding in cassava production is estimated at 35% of the total production

cost and therefore represents the major constraint in improving cassava productivity. The

use of herbicides to reduce loss in crop yield due to weeds has become an integral part of

modern agriculture and if applied to cassava will have great impact on cassava production

both for food and industrial purposes.

53

The engineering of transgenic crops resistant to the broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate has

greatly improved agricultural efficiency worldwide in crops such as maize, soybean and

canola. In an integrated approach to control weeds, AATF will look at modern

biotechnological approaches for weed management. For farmers in Africa to access such

proprietary technologies, AATF will seek to bring together a consortium of private and

public partners to develop, test and deploy broad based herbicide-resistant transgenic

cassava.

Future activities

During the next five years, efforts in this project will be targeted at formulating a business

plan and initiating the product development process. This will involve accessing the

herbicide-tolerant gene, negotiating and obtaining a license to use the gene and sub-license

the gene to a partner institution to develop herbicide-resistant cassava germplasm. To help

realise these initial efforts, a total budget of $3.0m is intended for business plan development

($0.1m), and initial product development ($2.9m). The project would also have determined

the potential market of herbicide resistant cassava in Africa.

7.5. Reducing crop loss through control of locusts and grasshoppers

Summary

Table 7.5 summarises the key information relating to this project.

Table 7.5: Key project information

Item Information

Target constraint Locusts and grasshoppers

Coverage Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Chad, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, Sudan

Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint

42.9m

Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology

c.13m

Partner institutions IITA, NARS

Technology provider IITA

Current status Intelligence gathering

Total funding required for 2009-2013 $0.9m

Total funding committed for 2009-2013 None

$0.9m to be sourced from donors

54

Timing

Figure 7.5 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project

Table 7.5: Estimated project life-cycle

Pre-2009

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Post-2018

Intelligence gathering

Formul-ation

Development

Deployment

Background

Locusts and grasshoppers are major pests of agriculture and forestry in many regions of the

world including most of the drier parts of Africa. Swarms of locusts have often invaded vast

areas on the continent consuming food crops and vegetation leaving in their wake devastated

rangelands and food insecurity for millions of people. Similarly, grasshoppers, although

rarely occurring in swarms, chronically attack crops leading to yield losses in most years.

In the past, most locust outbreaks, including the one recently experienced in much of West

Africa, were controlled through large scale application of chemical pesticides often involving

large amounts of funding, an approach that is undoubtedly costly and is associated with

environmental damage since the broad spectrum pesticides used also kill non-target

organisms including freshwater life and birds.

In response to these economic, environmental and public health effects, a number of

research institutions and development partners agreed to jointly support an international

collaborative research effort to develop a cost-effective, environmentally sustainable locust

and grasshopper control product based on the use of an African strain of the fungus

Metarhizium anisopliae. After many years of research and testing, an environmentally-friendly

and cost-effective bio-pesticide derived from the spores of the fungus was developed by

CABI and IITA. It has been licensed under the brand name Green muscle® to a South

African company called Bio-Control Product (BCP) for use in southern and eastern Africa

and in the Middle East.

Future activities

In 2005, IITA approached AATF to assist in creating public-private partnerships that can

further develop the bio-pesticide as a low-cost and sustainable option for controlling locusts

55

and grasshoppers in Africa. Several consultations followed culminating in the decision by

AATF to explore a mechanism of formulating a product concept note that aims at:

Obtaining the cooperation of FAO’s locust monitoring and emergency response unit

and developing a strategy for the use of the bio-pesticide to control grasshoppers

and prevent locust outbreaks.

Negotiating for licensing of the bio-pesticide for use in West Africa where locusts

and grasshoppers are a chronic problem.

Identifying a company having the capacity to produce sufficient quantities of the

product and negotiating a license agreement with such companies to ensure that the

product is produced in sufficient quantities and acceptable quality.

Exploring issues of registration and marketing that will facilitate access of this

technology for use by smallholder farmers.

During the coming years AATF will seek to formulate a project proposal around these key

thrusts and proceed to enlist partnership of public and private sector institutions in

implementing this initiative for sustainable control of locusts and grasshoppers in Africa.

7.6. Diagnostic and MAS tools for crop improvement

Summary

Table 7.6 summarises the key information relating to this project.

Table 7.6: Key project information

Item Information

Target constraint Crop improvement & seed exchange

Coverage Pan-African

Estimated number of farm households in Africa affected by target constraint

28.6m

Potential number of farm household beneficiaries of new technology

8.6m

Partner institutions NARS, BeCA, West African Biotech centers

Technology provider Private biotechnology company

Current status Intelligence gathering

Total funding required for 2009-2013 $1.5m

Total funding committed for 2009-2013 None

$1.5m to be sourced from donors

56

Timing

Figure 7.6 summarises the timing and duration of the estimated life-cycle of this project.

Table 7.6: Estimated project life-cycle

Pre-2009

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Post-2018

IG

Formul-ation

Development

Deploy-ment

Background

Advances in molecular marker techniques have led to development of genetic maps and a

better understanding of the genetic basis of agricultural traits in a variety of crops and

livestock. In the breeding practice, marker-assisted selection (MAS) is rapidly becoming an

established tool for crop improvement in developed countries. In many public research

institutions, the majority of applications of molecular marker techniques involve the

selection of simple and single-gene traits because the use of molecular selection methods for

complex quantitative traits is still hampered by limited throughput, resolution, the high cost

of generating these molecular markers, and the lack of robust information technology (IT)

tools, platforms and software to handle huge data generated in a real breeding programme.

Public sector institutions and in particular the national agricultural research systems in Africa

seldom use even the early generation marker technologies such as random amplification of

polymorphic DNA, amplified fragment length polymorphism, and simple sequence repeats.

Meanwhile, rapid advances in large-scale sequencing and plant genomics in general have

created an immense reservoir of polymorphisms in plant genomes, such as single nucleotide

polymorphisms (SNPs) using automated and high throughput instrumentation. Private plant

breeding institutions, particularly those in the advanced countries, have developed

proprietary tools to mine these genetic data, and related IT platforms for marker assisted

breeding. The use of these advanced molecular breeding tools has permitted the seed

companies in the US for instance to shorten the time of putting hybrid maize to the market

by 2-3 years compared to the conventional plant breeding approach. The first hybrid maize

variety developed using Marker Assisted Breeding (MAB) was commercialised in the USA in

2005.

57

Currently, AATF together with partners from public and private sector institutions is

working on developing drought tolerant maize for Africa using state of the art molecular

breeding tool owned and operated by the private partner.

Future activities

During the next five years we are proposing to develop and implement a public-private

partnership project aimed at accessing MAB tools and platforms from private seed breeding

companies for use in existing hubs of Biosciences East and Central Africa (BeCa) and West

Africa. These platforms will be used in speeding the breeding process of AATF projects as

well as partner breeding programmes that address major constraints to agricultural

production, which include drought stress, low soil fertility and pests. These were not easily

and economically amenable to MAB.

In addition, the project will provide unique opportunity for capacity building in effective use

of MAB in public sector plant breeding programmes in Africa. The project will entail the

negotiation to access proprietary tools, the use of these tools in developing improved food

crops (cowpea, banana, maize, cassava, sorghum, rice) and delivery of improved seed to

resource poor African small holder farmers. It is anticipated that this project will require an

investment of $1.45m.

58

8. SOURCES OF FUNDING

This section presents details of how and from whom AATF will leverage funding support to

support its activities during the period 2009-2013. To date, AATF’s activities have been

funded by grants, reflecting the ‘public good’ nature of the interventions to facilitate

technology development and delivery, which would not otherwise reach the poor.

The precise composition of AATF’s financial resources is driven by the nature of the

technologies it pursues and the pace of growth in Africa’s commercial, legal and regulatory

institutions. In its early years of operation AATF’s projects have represent the delivery of

technology that would otherwise remain inaccessible to resource-poor farmers and the

public good nature of the task justifies donor and government support - as commercial

incentives become more widespread in African agriculture, a certain proportion of AATF’s

projects should begin to attract more direct investment from the relevant industries, and

farmers themselves will be able to pay a larger proportion of the costs.

8.1. Funding from public sources

The expectation is that AATF’s activities will continue to be primarily funded by grants over

the period of this business plan. AATF aims at maintaining its current donors and in

addition it will:

Seek to increase the level of funding from these current donors to cover projects

and/or core funding.

Encourage linkages with related agricultural development initiatives (e.g. relating to

soil health and fertility, seed systems, policies, and agricultural innovation in Africa).

Seek to attract new sources of funding from African and other organizations that

fund agricultural development in Africa such as:

o African Governments and donors: e.g. through special agricultural initiatives

such as in Nigeria and Kenya; Government initiatives that encourage

public/private partnerships e.g. BMZ of Germany, other overseas

Government agencies such as CIDA and DANIDA and the EU/EC etc

o Foundations: those that are concerned with championing agriculture in

Africa and providing solutions to food insecurity, hunger, malnutrition and

poverty e.g. Gatsby, and IFAD.

o Banks that support agricultural development in Africa e.g. African

Development Bank and the World Bank.

AATF seeks to use its funding to leverage additional contributions from other donors and

from the private sector, and also pursues the possibility of donor funding for individual

projects. This provides possibilities for closer interaction and collaboration with donors who

59

have interests in particular types of technology, but it runs the risk of increasing the burden

on reporting procedures (if each project has a separate donor) and, in the extreme, can

potentially detract from AATF’s ability to provide a consistent and coordinated service.

Various types of endowment fund that would provide AATF with a secure income to

manage its core functions are another possibility.

8.2. Private sector funding

As a public-private partnership, AATF is also expected to leverage contributions from the

private sector, including:

Proprietary technology held by the public and private sectors in OECD and other

countries. Placing a value on this technology in African markets is difficult, but the

expectation is that much of it will be licensed at zero royalty initially. The elapsed

time and financial costs associated with publicly funded development of equivalent

technology (assuming that public institutions have the appropriate capacity) are likely

to be substantial (hundreds of millions of US dollars). It is anticipated that

companies will continue to contribute in kind to AATF’s projects through the

provision of knowledge and time by appropriate specialists.

Investment by the national (and potentially international) private sector in

production and distribution.

In the longer term AATF may seek opportunities to generate revenues to cover the costs of

some of its operating activities. AATF currently has a policy of not charging royalties on its

products, although as markets develop it may become imperative to change this policy in

order to levy modest royalties on selected products to help recover costs.

60

9. FINANCIALS

This section sets out historic spend from 2004 to the end of 2008 and the projected budget

from 2009 to the end of 2013 based on AATF assumptions about future staffing, operating

and capital expenditures, and the project portfolio detailed in sections 6 and 7.

9.1. AATF historic expenditure

Table 9.1 shows AATF’s historic expenditure for the period 2004-2008.

Table 9.1: Historic expenditure

Item 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total

Staff costs $0.7m $1.0m $1.1m $1.2m $1.7m $5.7m

Operating costs5 $0.9m $0.6m $0.9m $0.9m $1.1m $4.4m

Capital expenditures $0.1m $0.1m $0.0m $0.0m $0.1m $0.3m

Projects $0.3m $0.7m $1.5m $1.4m $10.6m $14.5m

Total $2.1m $2.3m $3.5m $3.6m $13.5m $24.9m

9.2. Summary AATF projected expenditure

Table 9.2 shows the AATF’s projected expenditures for the period 2009-2013. It shows that

AATF plans to significantly increase its expenditure on projects during the period 2009-

2013, compared to its historic spending in the preceding 5 years.

Table 9.2: Projected expenditure

Item 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total

Staff costs $1.6m $1.7m $1.8m $1.9m $2.0m $9.0m

Operating costs $1.0m $0.9m $1.0m $1.0m $1.0m $4.9m

Capital expenditures $0.1m $0.1m $0.1m $0.2m $0.1m $0.6m

Projects $16.7m $18.5m $20.9m $20.6m $22.5m6 $99.1m

Total $19.3m7 $21.3m $23.7m $23.6m $25.6m $113.6m

Tables 9.3 and 9.4 provide an analysis of the estimated total funding requirement for

AATF’s projects by status (e.g. current, concept notes, future projects, strategic initiatives)

5 Operating costs include costs of Board of Trustees, communications & partnerships, consultants, and general

operations. 6 This includes $9m for next phase of WEMA project (funding yet to be committed).

7 Projected expenditure excludes $0.4m for the Forum for China and Africa Collaboration (FOCAC). Funding

for this initiative was received from the Rockefeller Foundation in December 2008 to cover the period to the end of November 2009 when the project ends.

61

and phase (project formulation, product development, product deployment). Key points to

note are:

Around 80% of AATF’s estimated total project expenditure for the period 2009-

2013 will be on its five current projects, with around 48% of total expenditure

flowing to the WEMA project.

Future projects are estimated to account for around 13% of spending over the next

five years (25% of expenditure if WEMA is excluded from total project expenditure).

Around 80% of project expenditures throughout 2009-2013 will be on ‘product

development’ activities, reflecting the relatively early stage of the majority of AATF’s

projects.

Table 9.3: Estimated total expenditure by status of project

Item 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total

Current projects $14.5m $15.5m $16.4m $15.8m $17.2m $79.4m

Concept notes / special projects $0.8m $0.7m $1.0m $1.1m $1.1m $4.8m

Future projects $0.8m $2.0m $3.2m $3.4m $3.8m $13.2m

Strategic initiatives8 $0.5m $0.2m $0.3m $0.3m $0.4m $1.7m

Total $16.7m $18.5m $20.9m $20.6m $22.5m $99.1m

Table 9.4: Estimated total expenditure by phase of project

Item 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total

Project Formulation $1.2m $0.4m $0.4m $0.3m $0.4m $2.7m

Product development $13.6m $15.2m $17.2m $17.0m $17.3m $80.4m

Product deployment $1.8m $2.9m $3.3m $3.3m $4.8m $16.0m

Total $16.7m $18.5m $20.9m $20.6m $22.5m $99.1m

9.3. Funding requirements

9.3.1. Project activities

Table 9.5 shows the estimated funding requirement for AATF’s current and future projects,

and concept notes / special projects for the period 2009-2013. AATF is now seeking to raise

an additional $46.0m from donors for project-specific expenditures for the period 2009-

2013.

Annex F contains more detailed financial information for each project.

8 Strategic initiatives are included in ‘Project formulation’ activities.

62

Table 9.5: Budget requirement by project

Project

Historic expenditure

2004-2008

Estimated budget

requirement

2009-2013

Funding already

committed by donors

2009-2013

Funding now being sought from donors

2009-2013

Current projects

Striga control in maize $2.5m $12.0m - $12.0m

Insect-resistant cowpea $2.4m $9.3m $9.0m - 10.0m -

Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA)

$8.4m $47.1m $38.1m $9.0m9

Improvement of banana for resistance to bacteria

$0.5m $3.8m - $3.8m

Improved rice productivity $0.4m $7.2m $5.0m $2.2m

Concept notes / special projects

Mycotoxin control in maize and peanuts

$0.03m $3.3m - $3.3m

Improved cassava productivity

$0.13m $1.6m - $1.6m

Future projects

Golden rice for Africa - $1.5m - $1.5m

Striga control in sorghum $0.2m $2.8m - $2.8m

Herbicide resistant cowpea - $3.6m - $3.6m

Herbicide resistant cassava - $3.0m - $3.0m

Control of locusts and grasshoppers

$0.03m $0.9m - $0.9m

Diagnostic and MAS tools for crop improvement

- $1.5m - $1.5m

Total $14.5m $99.1m $53.1m $46.0m

Annex G contains more information about the assumptions used to develop the financial

projections presented in this section.

9 Funding committed for 2009-2012 by BMGF/HGBF ($9m of funding being sought is for 2013 only).

63

9.3.2. Core activities

Table 9.6 shows the estimated funding requirement for AATF’s core activities (excluding

project-specific expenditures) for the period 2009-2013. Around $6.7m has already been

committed to AATF’s core activities by donors, and AATF is now seeking additional

funding of $7.8m for its core activities.

Table 9.6: Budget requirement by core activity (excluding project-specific expenditures)

Item

Historic expenditure

2004-2008

Total budget

2009-2013

Funding committed by donors

2009-2013

Funding sought from

donors

2009-2013

Staff costs $5.7m $9.0m Not allocated by category of core

expenditure

Not allocated by category of core

expenditure Operating costs $4.4m $4.9m

Capital expenditures $0.3m $0.6m

Total $10.4m $14.5m $6.7m $7.8m

64

10. MILESTONES & REPORTING

This section presents details of the AATF strategy for monitoring and evaluating (M&E) its

activities during the period 2009-2013.

10.1. Introduction

The purpose of undertaking M&E is to continually ensure that AATF’s activities are

delivering a set of outputs, outcomes and ultimately, impacts that contribute to the overall

achievement of its mission and objectives. M&E activities are undertaken to record and

report the outputs of the AATF’s work on an on-going basis, and to provide donors with

the evidence they need to understanding the return on their grant or other investments in

AATF. M&E activities are funded from the core and project-level AATF budgets.

10.2. Milestones

There are broadly two types of milestones relating to AATF’s activities and projects:

AATF deliverables.

Intermediate outputs.

Milestones are the basis of future management and targeting of the AATF project and other

activities, and are the benchmarks for AATF’s future reporting and M&E.

10.2.1. AATF deliverables

Deliverables are closely related to the phasing of AATF’s projects and the intermediate

outputs of those projects (see next sub-section) – they are the documents and reports AATF

staff deliver throughout the duration of each project lifecycle. The different stages of the

project lifecycle feature different AATF deliverables as described in Table 10.1.

Table 10.1: AATF deliverables by phase of project lifecycle

Phase AATF deliverable

Intelligence gathering

AATF Management reviewed and agreed product ‘idea’ report (includes definition of agricultural problem and proposed solution).

Project formulation

AATF Management reviewed and agreed product concept and feasibility studies / report / notes.

Board of Trustees and AATF Management reviewed and agreed product development business plans.

Product development

AATF Management reviewed and agreed product risk mitigation plans.

AATF Management reviewed and agreed communications plans.

AATF Management reviewed and agreed baseline data.

65

Phase AATF deliverable

Product deployment

AATF Management reviewed and agreed technology impact assessments.

AATF Management reviewed and agreed cross-border expansion plans.

AATF Management reviewed and agreed monitoring reports.

AATF staff provide evidence of the commencement, management and monitoring of

deliverables on a monthly, quarterly and/or yearly basis as appropriate, according to the

current status and progress of each project. Figures 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3 shows the phasing of

the AATF deliverables by project and year.

Figure 10.1: AATF deliverables for 2009-2013 relating to current projects

Year

Quarter Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Striga control in smallholder maize fieldsIntelligence gathering Completed in 2004

Project formulation Completed in 2004

Product development Completed before 2004

Product deployment GHI

Water Efficient Maize for AfricaIntelligence gathering Completed in 2006

Project formulation Completed in 2007

Product development F

Product deployment To commence in 2014

Develop High quality insect-resistant cowpeaIntelligence gathering Completed before 2004

Project formulation Completed in 2007

Product development F

Product deployment To commence in 2014

Improvement of banana for resistance to bacteriaIntelligence gathering Completed in 2005

Project formulation Completed in 2007

Product development F

Product deployment To commence in 2014

Rice improved productivityIntelligence gathering Completed in 2005

Project formulation Completed in 2008

Product development F

Product deployment To commence in 2014

Deliverable legend

Product development

Baseline dataset established D

Risk mitigation plan agreed E

Communications plan agreed F

Product deployment

Technology impact assessment agreed G

Cross-border expansion plan agreed H

Monitoring report agreed I

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

66

Figure 10.2: AATF deliverables for 2009-2013 relating to current concept notes

Year

Quarter Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Mycotoxin control in maize and peanutsIntelligence gathering A

Project formulation B C

Product development F

Product deployment GHI

Cassava improved cassava productivityIntelligence gathering A

Project formulation B C

Product development DE F

Product deployment GHI

Deliverable legend

Intelligence gathering

Idea report agreed A

Project formulation

Product concept / feasibility agreed B

Product business plan agreed C

Product development

Baseline dataset established D

Risk mitigation plan agreed E

Communications plan agreed F

Product deployment

Technology impact assessment agreed G

Cross-border expansion plan agreed H

Monitoring report agreed I

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

67

Figure 10.3: AATF deliverables for 2009-2013 relating to future projects

Year

Quarter Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Diagnostic and MAS tools for crop improvementIntelligence gathering A

Project formulation B C

Product development DE F

Product deployment GHI

Control of locusts and grasshoppersIntelligence gathering A

Project formulation B C

Product development DE F

Product deployment To commence in 2015

Striga Control in smallholder Sorghum fieldsIntelligence gathering A

Project formulation B C

Product development DE F

Product deployment GHI

Golden rice for AfricaIntelligence gathering A

Project formulation B C

Product development DE F

Product deployment To commence in 2015

Herbicide resistant cowpeaIntelligence gathering A

Project formulation B C

Product development DE F

Product deployment To commence in 2018

Herbicide resistant cassavaIntelligence gathering A

Project formulation B C

Product development DE F

Product deployment To commence in 2018

Deliverable legend

Intelligence gathering

Idea report agreed A

Project formulation

Product concept / feasibility agreed B

Product business plan agreed C

Product development

Baseline dataset established D

Risk mitigation plan agreed E

Communications plan agreed F

Product deployment

Technology impact assessment agreed G

Cross-border expansion plan agreed H

Monitoring report agreed I

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

68

10.2.2. Intermediate outputs

Intermediate outputs are counts (numbers) of physical units of things generated by AATF

activities at specific points in time. The highest level AATF intermediate output is the

number of projects AATF is implementing / has delivered. The purpose of defining and

measuring intermediate outputs is to provide an indication of the progress of individual

projects and to allow AATF and its donors to judge whether particular milestones have been

achieved.

The different stages of the project lifecycle feature different intermediate outputs as

described in Table 10.2.

Table 10.2: Intermediate outputs by phase of project lifecycle

Phase Intermediate output

Project formulation

Number of viable, potentially high impact projects progressed to the product development phase.

Product development

Number of locally appropriate new technologies (such as a new disease-resistant variety) generated by each AATF project.

Number of new technologies / products progressed to the product deployment phase.

Product deployment

Number of demonstration plots and/or farmer field schools (FFS) run in pilot locations / target geographies.

Number of farm households accessing, experimenting and/or adopting a new technology generated by an AATF project.

Number of seed companies, input suppliers and stockists producing, processing stocking, selling and / or distributing new input technologies generated by an AATF project.

Volume of new technology stocked & sold per input suppliers / seed company (per year).

Product development and deployment intermediate outputs could be measured at the local,

national, regional or pan-African levels depending on the target coverage of each project. It

is also possible to aggregate intermediate outputs to understand AATF-level results

(recognising that there may be overlap of some projects, e.g. a farm household may benefit

from both the WEMA project and the maize striga project).

Tables 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5 below set out the phasing of intermediate outputs by project and

year. These intermediate outputs relate mainly to the product deployment activities to the

end of 2018 (five years after the end of the 2009-2013 period), reflecting the fact that many

project either are or will be in the product development phase throughout the period of this

business plan. Please note these intermediate outputs are projections, and are subject to

change.

69

Table 10.3: AATF intermediate outputs for 2009-2018 relating to current projects

Intermediate output Maize striga

Insect

resistant

cowpea

WEMA NUE rice Banana wilt

Number of new technologies / products progressed to deployment

10 varieties by end of 2018

6 varieties by end of 2013

5 varieties by end of 2012

4 varieties by end of 2013

5 varieties by end of 2014

Number of demonstration plots / FFS run in pilot locations / target geographies

300,000 by end of 2018

100,000 by end of 2018

50,000 by end of 2018

50,000 by end of 2018

10,000 by end of 2018

Number of farm households accessing, experimenting

and/or adopting new technology10 3,000,000 by end of 2018

1,000,000 by end of 2018

500,000 by end of 2018

500,000 by end of 2018

100,000 by end of end of 2018

Number of seed companies producing, processing stocking, selling and / or distributing new input technology

20 by end of 2018

7 by end of 2018

10 by end of 2018

6 by end of 2018

6 TC companies by end of 2018

Number of input suppliers/stockists stocking and selling new input technology

250 by end of 2018

150 by end of 2018

50 by end of 2018

125 by end of 2018

6 TC companies by end of 2018

Volume of new technology stocked & sold per input suppliers / seed company (per year)

120 tonnes by end of 2018

100 tonnes by end of 2018

100 tonnes by end of 2018

100 tonnes by end of 2018

705,000 TC plants by end of

2018

Target application rate (kg per farm household assuming 0.5ha of land dedicated to food crops per farm)

10kg 15kg 10kg 25kg 7 plantlets

10 Based on CEPA assumption of 10 farm households adopting the new technology per demonstration plot (each demonstration plot attended by 25 farmers in an

FFS, with 40% of FFS attendees subsequently adopting technology).

70

Table 10.4: AATF intermediate outputs for 2009-2018 relating to current concept notes

Intermediate output Mycotoxin control Cassava productivity

Number of new technologies / products progressed to deployment 4 strains by end of 2008 4 prototypes by end of 2013

Number of demonstration plots / FFS run in pilot locations / target geographies 8 by end of 2008 4 by end of 2013

Number of farm households accessing, experimenting and/or adopting new technology

5,000 by end of 2012 160 by end of 2013

Number of seed companies producing, processing stocking, selling and / or distributing new input technology

2 processing plants by end of 2011

4 by end of 2013

Number of input suppliers/stockists stocking and selling new input technology 15 by end of 2013 4 by end of 2018

Volume of new technology stocked & sold per input suppliers / seed company (per year)

200 tonnes by end 2015 100 machinery units by end

of 2018

71

Table 10.5: AATF intermediate outputs for 2009-2018 relating to future projects

Intermediate output Sorghum

striga Golden rice

Herbicide

resistant

cowpea

Herbicide

resistant

cassava

MAS

Control of

locusts &

grasshopp’s11

Number of new technologies / products progressed to deployment

3 varieties by end of 2015

5 varieties by end of 2015

4 varieties by end of 2018

4 varieties by end of 2018

10 varieties by end of

2013

1 strain by end of 2009

Number of demonstration plots / FFS run in pilot locations / target geographies

150,000 by end of 2018

20,000 by end of 2013

10,000 by end of 2018

20,000 by end of 2018

150,000 by end of 2018

3 by end of 2010

Number of farm households accessing, experimenting and/or adopting new technology

1,500,000 by end of 2016

200,000 by end of 2018

100,000 by end of 2018

200,000 by end of 2018

1,500,000 by end of 2018

See footnote

Number of seed companies producing, processing stocking, selling and / or distributing new input technology

5 by end of 2018

5 by end of 2018

3 by end of 2018

4 by end of 2018

10 by end of 2018

2 by end of 2010

Number of input suppliers/stockists stocking and selling new input technology

150 by end of 2018

50 by end of 2018

100 by end of 2018

8 by end of 2018

50 by end of 2018

15 by end of 2014

Volume of new technology stocked & sold per input suppliers / seed company (per year)

150 tonnes by end of

2018

80 tonnes by end of 2018

100 tonnes by end of

2018

100 tonnes by end of

2018

150 tonnes by end of

2018

10 tonnes by end of 2012

Target application rate (kg per farm household assuming 0.5ha of land dedicated to food crops per farm)

15kg 20kg 10kg 250 cuttings 15kg See footnote

11 Locust/grasshopper outbreaks are typically considered as a public pest, and governments & donors through the plant protection agencies take responsibility for

control operations; targeting their efforts to areas of eminent outbreaks.

72

10.3. Progress reporting

In accordance with the original business plan, AATF implements procedures to meet donor

requirements for financial reporting and review. As far as possible, these processes draw on

existing material produced for internal management and review processes.

A multi-donor report is produced annually by AATF. Its purpose is to review progress

against AATF’s objectives, and present funding proposals for new projects. The report is

supplemented by individual arrangements for financial reporting – reflecting the different

reporting requirements of donors. The AATF will continue to convene an annual donor

meeting to present and discuss the report12.

As set out in the original business plan, AATF will carry out a ‘zero’ based review of the

AATF’s activities, and its impact in 2012. Although an unconditional sunset clause is not

proposed, this review is intended inform a discussion with donors at the 2013 review

meeting on the continuation and added value of AATF. It would also consider whether

AATF would either (i) withdraw from activities when capacity has been developed in its

areas of competence (ii) increase its capacity building function over time.

AATF staff will present details of milestone reporting schedules in their projects to the

AATF Board, and will be required to meet these milestones as part of their role. They will

also updated and revises project plans and budget milestones, including the redefinition of

the years 2 to 5 grant-making phasing presented in the business plan, on a half-yearly basis

during the period 2009-2013.

10.4. Indicators for evaluation at the end of AATF’s involvement in a project

Given lead time of AATF’s projects, it is expected that the approach to evaluating the

impact of AATF’s activities will involve the following consideration of different indicators.

Indicators are the highest-level measures of the farm household outcomes and impacts of

the AATF’s activities over the durations of the AATF intervention’s life. The overall

effectiveness of the AATF intervention will be measured by four generic indicators relating to

food security, production, income and health at the farm household level:

Percentage and absolute increase in household income and asset indices.

Percentage and absolute decrease in child malnutrition and hunger.

Percentage and absolute increase in median crop yields (tons per hectare).

Percentage increase in the use of improved seeds and other inputs.

12 In order to minimise the workload associated with financial reporting, AATF will consider establishing an

intermediary mechanism to handle donor contributions and reporting. AATF will consult with donors on the appropriate mechanism.

73

The highest level indicator that the AATF will seek to monitor and evaluate is the

percentage and absolute changes in the volume of improved seed and other inputs

(developed and deployed via AATF’s projects) consumed by farm households in

target geographies.

Other indicators that are expected to contribute to the M&E of AATF’s projects, and the

intervention as a whole include:

Farmer financial and physical access to locally appropriate improved seed and other input

technologies developed and deployed by AATF’s projects.

Farmer demonstration and experimentation with new input technologies.

Farmer adoption of with new input technologies.

The intermediate outputs presented in section 10.2 will contribute to the measurement and

assessment of these indicators – they will be project-specific and will be measured during

and after the product deployment phase of each project.

Table 10.6 presents details of the purpose of these indicators and information about how

they will be measured. Another key intermediate indicator (not shown in Table 10.6) is the

extent of governmental and institutional adoption of improved policies and information

influenced by or arising from AATF’s project activities.

These indicators will be collected, monitored and measured at the project-level by AATF

staff working in collaboration with partner organizations as appropriate. Project-level

indicators will then be aggregated to generate indicators that allow AATF and its donors to

evaluate the overall outcomes and impacts of the AATF intervention. The indicators

presented in Table 10.6 are distinct from intermediate outputs generated by AATF projects

(see next sub-section).

74

Table 10.6: AATF farm impact indicators

Indicator Description Purpose How to measure

Farmer financial and physical access to locally appropriate improved seed and other input technologies

Sustained, seasonally recurring private (or public) sector supply of and farmer effective demand for locally adapted, appropriate seed and other inputs.

Primarily to capture the extent to which supply chains (and value chains more generally) have emerged that efficiently provide farmers with financial and physical access to locally appropriate input technologies developed and deployed by AATF projects. This is a proxy measure of the extent to which farmers have an on-going incentive to consume input technologies developed and deployed by AATF.

Periodic field and household surveys of changes in input consumption among smallholder farmers in target geographies.

Periodic surveys of changes importer, seed company and agro-dealer throughput (volumes stocked and sold) of locally appropriate seed and other inputs in target geographies.

Farmer demonstration and experimentation with new input technologies

Low unit cost extension of locally adapted agronomic information and experimental quantities of inputs to farmers in target geographies.

To capture the effectiveness of AATF supported or leveraged deployment / extension activities, which are the key intermediate step required for the transfer of locally adapted input technologies and ultimately to stimulate sustained demand for improved inputs.

Periodic field and household surveys of reach AATF-supported or leverage deployment / extension service delivery, and assessments of the relevance (local appropriateness) of the information and inputs being extended.

Farmer adoption of with new input technologies

Sustained, seasonally recurring farmer demand for and effective use of new input technologies (developed and deployed by AATF projects), normally extended through Government extension agents, NGO, agro-dealers or other private sector channels.

Primarily to capture the effectiveness of AATF supported deployment / extension activities in directly reaching farmers who subsequently adopt the new input technologies being promoted.

This measure will also capture the effectiveness of AATF activities in supporting the strengthening of input supply chains and agricultural value chains more generally.

Periodic household surveys of farmers directly interfacing with AATF-support deployment extension activities.

Periodic household surveys of farmers who have adopted new technologies via either: (i) other -leveraged donor / Government projects and programs; or (ii) farmer to farmer demonstration effects; or (iii) new customers of agro-dealers.

75

11. TARGETS & IMPACTS

In this final section of the business plan, we set out indicative yield targets and illustrations

of the potential farm income impacts of some of the projects AATF will engage in during

the 2009-2013 period.

11.1. Introduction

It is important to acknowledge that farm-level adoption of new input technologies and

subsequent income change will arise through a combination of interventions funded, managed

and/or delivered by a range of institutions (including Government, NGOs and the private

sector), in addition to AATF.

The analysis presented here takes account of AATF’s contribution to the cost and value of a

combination of interventions implemented during and beyond the 5 year period of the business

plan. It involves a partial analysis of production changes arising from the adoption of

AATF’s seed technologies only – the costs and use of complementary inputs such as

fertilizer and irrigation is not consider.

The section does not claim to comprehensively forecast the reach and impact of

AATF’s projects, rather it provides an indication of the target level of outputs that

would be required (for given assumptions) to offset the additional costs of AATF

developed and/or deployed seed technologies incurred by adopting farmers.

This type of ‘tipping point’ analysis provides AATF management with minimum average

yield change targets (or hurdles) that need to be achieved by farmers adopting new seed

technologies developed and/or deployed by AATF’s projects. It is important to recognise

that these forecasts are highly uncertain and reflect the limitations of both the model

structure and the assumptions, but they underline AATF’s projects’ potential for impact.

It also should also be noted that the quantitative target and impact estimates reported in this

section are confined to the most direct, first round impacts on the producers and consumers

of food. Where possible, the section identifies important consequential effects and suggests

whether the effect is likely to be positive or negative, large or small.

Finally, it is important to note at the outset, that the analysis carried out to establish

indicative targets and to assess impacts is only as good as the input assumptions that are

used. Some of the data relies on FAOSTAT information which can be of variable quality.

The results in this section should therefore be treated with appropriate caution.

11.2. Methodology

The methodology that has been used for modelling minimum yield targets is broadly as

follows.

76

Change in improved seed use: the first stage is to estimate the change in the

aggregate volume of improved seed supplied and used by farmers as result of AATF

projects (taking place during and beyond in the 2009-2013 period), based on the

assumed number of farm households adopting each new technology and a target

seed application rate (kg/ha).

Change in production of grain: the next stage of the analysis is to calculate the

increase in production that results from farmers accessing and using improved seed.

This calculation is a simple multiplication of yield increases and the change in

quantities of hectares applied with improved seed developed and/or deployed by

AATF’s projects.

Impact on grain price: the third stage in the analysis is to calculate the impact of

the increase in grain supply on the grain price. In order to simplify the analysis, the

starting assumption is that demand for grain is perfectly elastic (i.e. does not vary

according to price). This assumption is relaxed in a sensitivity analysis.

Welfare impact: the fourth stage involves calculating the total welfare benefit. The

welfare benefit is the sum of the increased benefits to consumers of food (‘consumer

surplus’ arising from lower food prices), and the changes in benefits to producers of

food (‘producer surplus’ arising from sales of more food).

Changes in farmer incomes: the final part of the analysis seeks to calculate changes

in farmers’ incomes by taking account of: (i) estimates of changes in food prices as a

result of more production of food; and (ii) the additional costs associated with use of

new input technologies.

Targets and impacts have been calculated for four of AATF’s projects based on a range of

input assumptions13.

11.3. Assumed uptake of new technologies

Table 11.1 on the next page sets out:

AATF’s assumptions about the number of farm households that will potentially be

impacted by the constraint each AATF project is targeting.

13 In the time available, a sample of four projects have been chosen for separate analyses – two current and two

future AATF projects targeting constraints relating to four different crops (maize, rice, sorghum and cowpea). Cassava and banana projects have not been modelled because of undefined assumptions about prices and volumes of improved planting material. The Mycotoxin, Control of Locusts & Grasshoppers, and MAS projects have not been modelled because of undefined assumptions regarding the mix of beneficiaries across the multiple target crops for each project.

77

AATF’s long-term aspiration about the number of farm households (hhs) that could

potentially adopt new technologies developed and/or deployed by its projects over

the long term (beyond 10 years)

Assumptions used for in this impact analysis over a notional 10 year period following

the commencement of AATF deployment activities (based on a conservative

assumption about the extent of uptake of new seed technologies in East African

countries’ in recent years).

It is important to note that the numbers in the columns of Table 11.1 should not necessarily

be added together to establish a total numbers of beneficiaries four these four AATF

projects – the expectation is that in some cases the same farmer may adopt more than one of

the technologies developed and/or deployed by AATF’s projects14.

Table 11.1: Assumed uptake of new technologies generated by a sample of AATF’s projects

Project

Number of farm hhs potentially impacted by target constraint

(100% of farm hhs impacted by constraint)

Aspiration number of farm hhs potentially adopting new AATF

technology

(30% of farm hhs)

Number of farm hhs assumed to adopt new

technology in this medium-term analysis

(5% of farm hhs)

Current projects

Striga control in maize

42.9m 12.9m 2.1m

Insect-resistant cowpea

28.6m 8.6m 1.4m

Future projects

Striga control in sorghum

14.3m 4.3m 0.7m

Golden rice for Africa

14.3m 4.3m 0.7m

11.4. Assumed cost of combination of interventions required for adoption

As stated at the start of this section, it is important to acknowledge that the AATF

intervention is one of several value chain activities and interventions that need to be

implemented successfully in order for farmers to adopt new input technologies. Table 11.2

presents estimates of the total cost of the required combination of interventions across a

simplified value chain. The key points to note are:

It is estimated that the total cost of reaching around 5% of the farm households

potentially impacted by each target constraint is in the range $60m - $150m once the

14 For example, it is possible that the same farmer could adopt both an AATF-generated striga resistant maize

variety, and an AATF-generated insect resistant cowpea variety.

78

cost of research and development (R&D), AATF’s costs and the cost of extension

activities required for adoption are taken into account. If AATF’s target of 30%

adoption is achieved, the necessary extension activities (assumed to be incurred by

other institutions) would push the estimated total cost per project up considerably.

For given assumptions, AATF’s project costs account for up to 11% of the total cost

of reaching around 5% of farm households. If the target of 30% adoption is

achieved, AATF’s share of the total cost reduces as the cost of extending the new

technologies to many more farmers increases.

Table 11.2: Assumed total cost of combination of interventions (incurred by AATF and other institutions)

Cost item Striga

resistant maize

Insect resistant cowpea

Striga resistant sorghum

Golden rice for Africa

R&D cost (fixed)15 $25.0m $25.0m $25.0m $25.0m

AATF cost (fixed)16 $14.5m $11.7m $2.9m $1.5m

Extension cost (variable)17 $107.3m $71.5m $35.8m $35.8m

Total cost $146.7m $108.2m $63.7m $62.3m

Implied AATF cost contribution 9.9% 10.8% 4.6% 2.4%

Annex H contains other assumptions used in the analysis presented in this section including:

current seed prices and application rates; current grain yields, prices and production volumes;

and hectares planted per farm household.

11.5. Results

Table 11.3 presents some projections of possible economic impacts18 that result from two

yield increase cases for each project:

The first case is the minimum yield increase farmers adopting new technologies need

to achieve in order to earn sufficient income to offset the cost of buying the required

seed (the break-even yield target).

15 Assumed constant across all projects.

16 AATF estimate of historic expenditure for 2004-2008, plus AATF estimated expenditure for 2009-2013.

17 AATF assumption of the total number of farm households potentially impacted by target constraint

multiplied by 5% assumed technology adoption rate multiplied by assumed cost of extension of $50 per adopting farm household (based on CEPA’s previous agricultural extension intervention modelling and analysis). 18

The calculations estimate the change in welfare surplus 10 years after the deployment phase of each project

commences arising from the additional food production. This becomes the basis for a conventional welfare analysis of the benefits of a one-off ‘shock’, in this case the availability and use of improved varieties of seed (at a price to the farmers that is not higher than the price of improved seed today), as part of successful and on-going adoption/application of improved varieties by each farmer.

79

The second case assumes that farmers adopting new varieties experience a 50%

response rate (yields increase by half).

Please note that the following results are based on a partial analysis of agricultural

inputs. Target break-even yields and resulting welfare increases and income changes

are based on the purchase and application of improved seed only – the costs and

application of fertilizer and other complementary inputs are not taken into account.19

For the given set of assumptions, the key points to note from this analysis are as follows.

Yield targets

Adopting farmers need to (on average) achieve increased maize and rice yields of 12-

15% in order to offset the cost of buying improved seed20. These yield ‘targets’ are

relatively low compared to the potential yield changes that could potentially be

achieved by farmers following successful adoption and application of the new input

technologies.

Adopting farmers need to (on average) achieve sorghum and cowpea yield increases

of 25-40% in order to offset the additional cost of buying the improved seed.

The high cowpea yield target arises from the high estimated project cost relative to

the (relatively low) assumed number of adopting farmers.

Aggregate welfare surplus

The value of the welfare increase generated by the projects is potentially very high. A

total welfare gain of more than $0.5bn could potentially be achieved if farmers

adopting maize or rice technologies are able to increase their yields by 50%,

indicating that the returns on these projects in particular are potentially very large.

The ratio of the total cost of the combination of interventions required to achieve

adoption to the resulting aggregate farm welfare gain (‘Implied cost : welfare benefit

ratio’) is constrained by the assumed high cost of extension activities in particular

(assumed to be incurred by institutions other than AATF, namely public extension

services, NGOs and/or the private sector).

19 If the costs of fertilizer and other inputs are factored into the calculations, target break-even yields increase

by 30-40% of the percentage reported in Table 11.3. However, the yield change farmers would be expected to achieve would be considerably higher if they use improved seed, fertilizer and irrigation etc, than if they only use improved seed. Therefore, the expectation is that they would achieve considerably higher yields than the increased break-even target. 20

Assumes that farmers pay for the new improved seed and fertilizer inputs at market prices (i.e. inputs are not

subsidised), and that the market for grain is perfectly elastic (i.e. farmers are able to sell additional grain produced into local markets at constant grain prices).

80

The potential cost : benefit payoff arising from the successful implementation of the

rice project is particularly large given the high market price of rice grain, relative to

the price of maize, sorghum and cowpea.

Farm household income change

The expected annual increase in household income generated by the projects varies

considerably across the projects (from $40 per annum in the case of the cowpea

project, to around $200 per annum in the rice project).

The change in annual net income per farm household increases as yields increase (see

next sub-section) and will be considerably higher than reported in Table 11.3 if

farmers also apply fertilizer and other complementary inputs to the improved seed.21

21 The estimated cost of improved seed plus fertilizer varies across the projects from around $40 per farm per

annum for maize production, to around $70 per farm per annum for rice production. These costs are based on

conservative assumptions about the price farmers will need to pay for the improved seed generated by AATF,

and that farmers will need to buy the same set of inputs annually. If these assumptions are relaxed, the annual

cost of additional inputs incurred by farmers will decrease.

81

Table 11.3: Impact analysis

Scenario Increase in

average yield

Cost of required combination of

interventions22

Total value of farm welfare

increase23

Implied cost : welfare benefit

ratio

Change in annual net income per

farm household24

Striga resistance in maize

Target ‘break-even’ yield 12.5% $140m $207m 1.5 -

Average yields increase by 50% 50% $140m $827m 5.9 +$100

Insect resistance in cowpea

Target ‘break-even’ yield 37.0% $103m $166m 1.6 -

Average yields increase by 50% 50% $103m $224m 2.2 +$40

Striga resistance in sorghum

Target ‘break-even’ yield 24.0% $61m $83m 1.4 -

Average yields increase by 50% 50% $61m $172m 2.8 +$62

Nutritionally enhance (golden) rice

Target ‘break-even’ yield 14.0% $59m $152m 2.6 -

Average yields increase by 50% 50% $59m $543m 9.1 +$197

22 In net present value (NPV) terms at a discount rate of 5%.

23 Aggregated across all adopting farm households (5% of farm households potentially impacted by target constraint).

24 The annual change in farm household income is zero in the break-even case – additional revenues generated by the sale of additional grain offset the additional cost

of inputs, resulting in zero net income.

82

11.6. Yield-income relationship

Figures 11.1 to 11.4 on the following pages show the additional annual income generated by

each farm household adopting new technologies (y-axis), for different levels of yield change

achieved as a result of successfully applying improved seed developed and/or deployed by

AATF (x-axis).

In each figure, the y-axis intercept is the cost of additional inputs incurred by each farm

household, and the x-axis intercept is the break-even target yield farmers need to achieve in

order to offset this additional cost.

The scale of the y-axis and the x-axis are held constant in Figures 11.1 to 11.4 for ease of

comparison across projects. For the given set of assumptions, the key points to note are:

Farm households investing in rice technologies achieve higher returns than

households investing in other crop technologies (shown by the steepest line).

Farm households investing cowpea technologies achieve the lowest returns (shown

by the flattest line).

83

Figure 11.1: Farm household income change for different yield changes achieved (Striga-resistant maize)

(200)

(100)

-

100

200

300

400

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Ad

dit

ion

al $

pe

r fa

rm h

ou

seh

old

Yield change achievedAdditional income per farm household

Figure 11.2: Farm household income change for different yield changes achieved (Insect-resistant cowpea)

(200)

(100)

-

100

200

300

400

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Ad

dit

ion

al $

pe

r fa

rm h

ou

seh

old

Yield change achievedAdditional income per farm household

84

Figure 11.3: Farm household income change for different yield changes achieved (Striga-resistant sorghum)

(200)

(100)

-

100

200

300

400

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Ad

dit

ion

al $

pe

r fa

rm h

ou

seh

old

Yield change achievedAdditional income per farm household

Figure 11.4: Farm household income change for different yield changes achieved (Golden rice)

(200)

(100)

-

100

200

300

400

-40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Ad

dit

ion

al $

pe

r fa

rm h

ou

seh

old

Yield change achievedAdditional income per farm household