Annual Review - Summary Sheet
This Summary Sheet captures the headlines on programme performance, agreed actions and learning over the
course of the review period. It should be attached to all subsequent reviews to build a complete picture of actions
and learning throughout the life of the programme.
Title: HarvestPlus – Delivering Nutritionally Enriched Food Crops
Programme Value: £30m
Programme Code: 203651-101
Review Date: 29/12/2014
Start Date: 01/12/2012 End Date: 30/11/2015
Summary of Programme Performance
2013
2014
Year
A
A+
Programme Score
Low
Low
Risk Rating
Summary of progress and lessons learnt since last review
HarvestPlus continues to make very good progress against its outcome and output targets for breeding,
delivery, evidence generation as well as embedding biofortification into national policies and frameworks.
HarvestPlus and its partners are on track to reach 2014 delivery targets; by the end of 2014, > 2 mill
cumulative households will be reached. New varieties are being released and commercialised, and
teams are developing innovative ways of marketing biofortified crops and food products. HarvestPlus
has a strong track record on delivery, is developing new partnerships with the private sector and is well
managed.
This review documents some of the lessons learnt. More substantive documentation is referenced
particularly in preparation for the 2nd Global Biofortification Conference in Kigali in March/April 2014.
Summary of recommendations for the next year
1. HarvestPlus is working to manage the risks between pulling a product into use by developing a
market for, e.g. Vitamin A cassava or orange fleshed sweet potato (OFSP) based foods, with the
potential health and nutrition challenges of these foods where they are snack foods or high in
sugar or fats. This requires consideration of the nutritional quality of the products produced and
associated labelling and marketing. HarvestPlus should work with CIP and others to develop
a coherent approach to this issue. This should be documented and shared with DFID by
June 2015.
2. As HarvestPlus develops its expertise in working with the private sector, it should document
lessons on managing these partnerships, including rules of engagement and challenges of
“confidentiality” agreements that can hold up work with larger businesses. HarvestPlus could
usefully generate lessons learnt for incorporation into its annual reports and for sharing with the
Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) movement, governments partnering with private sector, and other
organisations facing similar challenges. This should be captured in HarvestPlus’ reporting to
DFID for the 2015 Project Completion Review.
3. As the DFID Nutrition policy team works with Government of Brazil to prepare for the 2016
Rio Nutrition Event, it should maximise synergies with HarvestPlus and explore
opportunities for joint working. In particular, it would be helpful to engage with HarvestPlus,
which is joining the CSO SUN Global Network (funded by DFID), on tackling some of the
misconceptions around biofortification, fortification and GM foods, and concerns around private
sector engagement particularly in Brazil.
1
4. HarvestPlus to update the annual milestones in the logframe, and confirm the final
delivery figures for end of 2014, by the end of March 2015.
5. HarvestPlus to share Terms of Reference and protocols with DFID for the forthcoming
effectiveness studies.
6. HarvestPlus needs to ensure that whereever it undertakes external communication
activities to demonstrate the impact and effectiveness of biofortification, it fully
acknowledges UK funding.
7. Given the high priority placed on nutrition within DFID linked to the Nutrition for Growth
Commitments, DFID should consider mechanisms to ensure continued funding for Phase
3, and ones which allow sufficient lead time for HarvestPlus’ own planning and delivery
activities in 2016 onwards.
A. Introduction and Context (1 page)
DevTracker Link to
Business Case:
DevTracker Link to
Log frame:
http://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB1-203651/documents/
http://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB1-203651/documents/
Outline of the programme
The UK is providing up to £30m as core funding to HarvestPlus over the period 2012-2015. This will
enable the scale up of nutritionally improved (or biofortified) food crops through the delivery of at least 6
new crop varieties to 3 million farming households in 7 countries in Africa and Asia. It will also enable a
high quality impact evaluation to strengthen evidence on the effectiveness of biofortified crops in
delivering nutritional outcomes.
DFID has supported Harvest Plus since 2004, providing over £18.5m of assistance. HarvestPlus is a
research initiative of the CGIAR, a global international agricultural research system responsible for many
of the gains made by developing country agriculture over the past 40 years. HarvestPlus has developed
a pipeline of high-yielding, mineral and vitamin dense food crops using conventional breeding to
significantly elevate levels of essential micro-nutrients in the staple crops grown by the poor. A first
“wave” of these biofortified crops has already been released in several target countries – including
orange fleshed sweet potatoes rich in vitamin A, maize high in vitamin A, and beans and pearl millet high
in iron. Second and third waves with higher nutrient levels will be released in the next few years.
Support is provided to HarvestPlus through the CGIAR Fund, a single fund through which the majority of
donor support to the CGIAR is passed. HarvestPlus is an established partner, and we work on this
programme in close collaboration with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). DFID and BMGF
share a common approach that avoids duplication of efforts and maximising synergies. This helps keep
our administrative and management costs down. This approach is consistent with our policy of support to
the CGIAR through core funding. DFID holds a highly influential position within the key governance
bodies of the CGIAR. It is working to ensure that the organisation as a whole continues to reform and
restructure.
B: PERFORMANCE AND CONCLUSIONS (1-2 pages)
Annual outcome assessment A+ (Moderately exceeded expectation)
HarvestPlus continues to make very good progress against its outcome and output targets for breeding,
delivery, evidence generation as well as embedding biofortification into national policies and frameworks.
HarvestPlus has a strong track record on delivery, is developing new partnerships with the private sector
and is well managed. The 2nd Global Biofortification Conference organised by HarvestPlus in 2014
2
highlighted growing support and ownership at country level for integration of biofortification in nutrition
strategies. This was reinforced at the recent Second International Conference on Nutrition.
HarvestPlus has moved into its Phase 3 “delivery” phase – whilst still maintaining the breeding pipeline
in biofortified crops. In 2013, HarvestPlus reached more than 1.3 million farm families in seven countries
with a number of biofortified crops. By the end of 2014, that number will increase substantially, with over
2 million farmer households growing high-micronutrient varieties of pearl millet, rice, wheat, cassava,
beans, maize, and sweet potato. In Nigeria, more than 245,000 farming households are planting Vitamin
A cassava stems. By the end of 2014, it is estimated that 800,000 farm families in Rwanda will be
growing varieties of iron bean. One of the primary reasons for the rapid uptake of biofortified beans in
Rwanda is the higher yield these new varieties deliver. An important lesson is that when breeders can
combine increases in micronutrients with increases in yield, the prospects for uptake and impact
increase substantially.
The 2nd Global Biofortification conference in Kigali illustrated important progress in country leadership on
biofortification, and integration into the national policies of four of the nine HarvestPlus priority countries
(Rwanda, India, Nigeria and Zambia). Steps also are underway through the Codex Alimentarius to
develop biofortification guidelines, which are essential to national and international adoption and
commercialization.
HarvestPlus underpins the breeding, and delivery work with commissioning efficacy, consumer
acceptance and effectiveness trials for the major biofortified crops. This work continues to deepen the
evidence base on biofortification, which is promoted via both HarvestPlus and other programmes
including those which DFID is engaged (e.g. Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition
and BMGF’s Improving Nutrition Outcomes Through Optimized Agricultural Investments (ATONU).
Overall output score and description
A+ (Outputs moderately exceeded expectation)
HarvestPlus is on track to meet all the outputs and milestones. In Output 1 on development and release
of new varieties, it has met or exceeded all the targets. Under Output 2 on delivery, the full delivery
targets for 2014 have yet to be achieved. However the review team anticipate that once monitoring data
is available at end of 2015 that these figures will have been achieved. Despite some slippage in delivery
targets for India, overall the delivery work is progressing well. The Kigali biofortification conference
demonstrated significant progress in embedding biofortification into national policies and programmes.
Under Output 3, HarvestPlus has a strong programme of externally commissioned studies, on efficacy,
consumer acceptance and effectiveness of biofortified crops.
Key lessons
1. HarvestPlus is developing partnership with the private sector to accelerate delivery. One
example of this is from Rwanda, where HarvestPlus is shifting away from working through NGO
networks, which can be costly in terms of roll out costs per household. HarvestPlus are
exploring the distribution of virus-free vines through the private sector. With higher vine yields,
farmers are starting to realise the benefits of paying for clean planting materials for virus free
vine. A second is from Nigeria, where HarvestPlus has established an on-line trading platform
for Vitamin A cassava stems and products. HarvestPlus itself is building its own capacity to
engage with the private sector to underpin the up-scaling, and should document the lessons
learnt in the process (Recommendation #2).
2. HarvestPlus is building expertise in negotiating licensing agreement, for example, between seed
companies and National Agricultural Research Services (NARS), drawing on CGIAR policies on
IP. HarvestPlus facilitates these agreements as a neutral party but with an interest to engage the
private sector in building both supply and demand for biofortified seed. The exact nature of these
agreements depends on individual country rules and regulations. HarvestPlus is in the process
of developing principles for engaging with private sector partners, who are crucial to the scale up
and long-term sustainability of biofortified seeds and foods. HarvestPlus can play a role in helping
other parts of the CGIAR develop better partnership principles. Because HarvestPlus is not itself
a legal entity, it works through the CGIAR host centers to enter into legal agreements. This is a
new area of engagement and there is more work required to streamline the CGIAR process for
3
granting commercialisation rights, and share and document lessons. These are key first steps in
being able to facilitate agreements with larger businesses.
3. HarvestPlus are finding that the media drama TV series Shamba-Shape up and farm radio are
proving very useful in scaling up new technologies. Shamba-Shape Up reaches large numbers
of people at low cost and seems to be effective. HarvestPlus is also launching Vitamin A
cassava films (multi-language formats) at the Nigeria film festival and expect these to be effective
in raising awareness in Nigeria.
4. One of the primary reasons for the rapid uptake of biofortified beans in Rwanda is the higher yield
these new varieties deliver. An important lesson is that when breeders can combine increases in
micronutrients with increases in yield, the prospects for uptake and impact increase substantially.
5. Consumer acceptance studies completed for iron beans in Rwanda and Guatemala, and iron
pearl millet in India, reveal that overall consumers prefer these varieties to conventional ones,
even in the absence of information about their nutritional benefits and/or certification/identification
as being iron rich.
6. As HarvestPlus and its partners explore options for commercialisation of new varieties, they are
also exploring engagement with processors, millers and other players in the value chain. Where
biofortified crops are being developed into new food products, there is a need to consider the
potential health and nutrition challenges of these foods, where they are snack foods or high in
sugar or fats. This will require consideration of the nutritional quality of the products produced
and associated labelling and marketing. HarvestPlus should work with the International Potato
Centre (CIP) and others to develop a coherent approach to this issue (Recommendation #1).
7. There is a major debate within the CGIAR, in the context of the Strategic Results Framework and
commissioning of new Consortium research programmes, about the extent to which individual
research programmes should move into the delivery space. HarvestPlus demonstrates an
effective example of an integrated breeding and delivery programme, and its coherent approach
to undertaking this in a phased manner, has relevance to other flagship technology programmes
within the CGIAR (e.g. drought tolerant maize, climate-resilient rice varieties, etc).
8. DFID’s support to HarvestPlus at the end of their Phase 2 and into the Delivery Phase 3 has
been essential in enabling HarvestPlus to maintain momentum in reaching farm households,
without cutting back on the breeding programmes and nutrition studies. Currently DFID’s funding
is due to end at an early stage of Phase 3 (2014-2018). Given the high priority placed on
nutrition within DFID linked to the Nutrition for Growth Commitments, DFID should consider
mechanisms to ensure continued funding for Phase 3 , helping to ensure momentum is sustained
(recommendation #7).
Has the logframe been updated since the last review?
A theory of change has been produced (Quest ref: 4683478) for the development and delivery of
biofortified crops.
HarvestPlus needs to review and update the annual milestones and indicators to the logframe in the light
of changes in likely uptake trajectories particularly in India.
Summary of responses to issues raised in previous DFID Annual Review
Recommendation from 2012/3 review
1. HarvestPlus should review the way in which it tracks and
communicates
its
impact
on
mainstreaming
of
biofortification as a breeding target across the CGIAR
centres and Challenge Research Programmes and ensure
its milestones are realistic and measurable.
Status
This has been a major thrust of the Kigali
Conference, at which the CGIAR made a major
commitment to integrating biofortification as a
breeding target across the CGIAR.
2. HarvestPlus to inform DFID about strategies to put in
place to disseminate pro vitamin A among the poorest and
HarvestPlus has adjusted their delivery targets and
country level strategies for India and Zambia.
4
more marginalized households. HarvestPlus to report back
to DFID and BMGF on how they will adjust their strategy to
reach 3 million households by 2015, adjusting for the
delays in India and Zambia. The strategy should be
finalised within the first quarter of 2014.
3. DFID should monitor the advancements in reaching
target households, in particular in India and Zambia
4. HarvestPlus to share the gender assessment of its
research and delivery strategy with DFID, and implications
for its approach. The assessment should be finalised within
the first quarter of 2014.
5. HarvestPlus to share further information with DFID
Zambia on their strategies to disseminate pro-Vitamin A
among the poorest and most marginalized households.
See below analysis for details.
HarvestPlus
completed
a
strategic
gender
assessment
of
research,
operations
and
management
and
developed
actionable
recommendations for better integrating gender
throughout the program.
Done.
6. HarvestPlus to closely monitor the results from the
Zambia feeding trials, and proactively manage
communication of results and programme implications.
HarvestPlus to arrange a meeting with key stakeholders in
Zambia to discuss the preliminary findings and the
proposed way forward, to avoid misinterpretation of the
findings and ensure adequate consultation.
In addition to these actions, DFID has worked with
the AgResults Steering Committee to prepare a
technical note on the nutrition evidence on Vitamin A
maize in Zambia, in order to agree a way forward on
the roll out of the AgResults pilot. This led to the
AgResults Steering Committee decision to move
ahead with the Zambia pilot.
7. HarvestPlus to take into account the results of the
Micronutrient and Food Consumption Survey (funded by
DFID and Irish Aid) which are expected by the end of 2013,
before embarking on another trial in Zambia.
Done.
8. HarvestPlus to inform DFID Zambia and Research and
Evidence Division if there are changes in design,
geographical scope and timeframe of the planned studies.
Complete.
9. HarvestPlus to ensure that the design of impact studies
in Uganda and Nigeria aim to generate robust evidence on
cost-effectiveness and nutrition efficacy.
Ongoing for Nigeria impact studies are waiting for (1)
the outcome of the efficacy study (2) release of
yellow cassava varieties with full target levels of
vitamin A. In the meanwhile HarvestPlus are
developing a subnational biofortification prioritization
index to help select sites for the forthcoming
effectiveness study. Study preparations will continue
in 2015, with implementation slated for 2016.
10. HarvestPlus needs to ensure that where it undertakes
external communication activities to demonstrate the
impact and effectiveness of biofortification, that it fully
acknowledges UK funding.
5
For iron beans, HarvestPlus is following a three tier
approach: (1) feasibility study for an effectiveness
(impact evaluation) study in Guatemala is completed.
This will not be competitively bid because
HarvestPlus has applied for funding to BMZ
(awarded) and DFID/BMGF (pending) with IFPRI. (2)
Planning for an impact assessment study for iron
beans in Rwanda, which will measure adoption and
diffusion rates, as well as additional bean and iron
intake from iron bean adoption. This study will be
implemented by HarvestPlus/Centre for International
Agriculture in the Tropics and Rwandan Agriculture
Bureau. (3) Initiated background (feasibility) studies
for potential effectiveness studies in Uganda (iron
beans) and Burundi (orange sweet potato and iron
beans). For the latter HarvestPlus has applied for
BMGF/DFID funding with World Vision.
Done. Given the importance afforded this topic by
DFID, and in order that it remains in the forefront
within the partnership, this is reflected again in the
recommendations (#6).
C: DETAILED OUTPUT SCORING (1 page per output)
Output Title
Development and release of new or improved varieties of 6 biofortified crops in 7
countries: Iron beans (Rwanda and DR Congo), hybrid iron pearl millet and zinc
wheat (India), pro vitamin A maize (Zambia), pro vitamin A cassava (Nigeria and DR
Congo), zinc wheat (India and Pakistan), zinc rice (Bangladesh and India).
Output Score
Output number per LF
1
A++
Risk:
Low
Impact weighting (%):
40%
Risk revised since last AR?
N
Impact weighting % revised
since last AR?
N
Indicator(s)
Analyses of micronutrient
content/concentration in new
biofortified crop varieties.
Development and application of
IP policy which protects IP and
enables effective partnership with
the Private sector.
Milestones
Breeding pipelines filled with
lines with higher nutrient levels.
Progress
Met
Expand partnership with private
sector/NGOs in 7 countries for
delivery and/or branding of
biofortified crops.
Varietal field testing of biofortified
crops.
Initial release of iron pearl millet
(India), zinc wheat (Pakistan)
and zinc rice (India) and second
wave of release of pro vitamin A
maize (Zambia), pro vitamin A
cassava (DR Congo) and zinc
wheat (India)
HarvestPlus is rapidly expanding
its partnerships with the private
sector, and has explicitly scaled
up its capacity to work in this
area. Its delivery partnerships
with private sector and NGOs
are now in 27 countries.
Milestones met or on track to be
met in 2015 for new biofortified
crops. See table below.
Key Points
Biofortified crops are being released in 27 countries (18 in Africa, 4 in Asia, 5 in Latin America). They
are being tested in 43 countries (26 in Africa, 8 in Asia and 9 in LAC). The milestones are fully on track
with new biofortified crops due for release next year for both Zinc Rice in India and Zinc Wheat in
Pakistan, and second waves of biofortified crops with higher nutrient content.
Table 1 Number of Varietal Release by Crop and Country
Before 2014
Bean
Iron
Pearl Millet
Cassava
Vitamin A
Rwanda
DRC
Uganda
9
10
1
India
Nigeria
DRC
Zambia
1 OPV
3
1
3
Maize
Orange Sweet
Potato
Uganda
India
Wheat
Pakistan
2014
Next Waves
2015
2017
2 Hybrids
3
2015
2015
6
5
2015
Zinc
Rice
Bangladesh
1 Aman
India
1 Boro
2015
6
Output Title
Demonstrate that biofortified crops can be adopted by smallholders at scale through
scale up of 6 crops in 7 countries.
Output Score
A
Output number per LF
2
Risk:
Medium
Impact weighting (%):
Risk revised since last AR?
N
Impact weighting % revised N
since last AR?
Indicator(s)
No. of farm
households
growing
and
consuming
biofortified
crops.
2014 Milestones
Biofortified crops are
consumed in > 2 million
farm households in
target countries.
30%
Progress
HarvestPlus reached an estimated 626,000 households in
2014. The 2014 target figures of 781,000 households is not
yet reached, because the main planting seasons are
underway in several countries,( e.g. in Zambia and DRC)
and the full figures will only come in late January 2015.
Once these figures are in, it is anticipated that HarvestPlus
will have met the cumulate target.
For India pearl millet, the number of households reached in
2014 is much higher than initially projected. Despite a late
monsoon, many farmers planted iron pearl millet, resulting
in excellent sales. Final numbers from retailers are not yet
in, but preliminary figures indicate that they will reach the
target number of households for 2014. HarvestPlus
anticipate that the availability of iron hybrid pearl millet
seed going forward will greatly expand the appeal of
biofortified pearl millet. Hybrid varieties were test marketed
in 2014 and will be more fully integrated into seed
companies’ product lines beginning in 2015.
For Zambia maize, data for 2014 seed sales is not yet
available. Seed availability remains the main constraint in
reaching the target number of households. Recent
indications that the multilateral AgResults1 initiative may
require less vitamin A maize seed than planned, may allow
HarvestPlus to reach the 2014 target. While seed supply
remains a constraint in 2014, HarvestPlus has brought on a
new seed systems specialist, based in Zambia, to work
with seed companies to build capacity for vitamin A maize
seed production and ensure that production targets are
reached. All three seed companies licensed to produce
vitamin A varieties will be producing seed for the 2015
season, so that seed production is no longer anticipated as
a constraint from 2015 onward.
Key Points
The review team found that HarvestPlus and its partners are on track to reach 2014 delivery targets; by
the end of 2014, more than 2 million households will have been reached by biofortified planting
materials. HarvestPlus expects to reach its total 2014 targets once planting materials are disseminated
in late 2014. Data will be available by late January.
As HarvestPlus expands its delivery partnerships and broadens its expertise, they are developing
innovative ways of marketing biofortified crops and food products. In Nigeria, HarvestPlus has launched
1
www.agresults.org AgResults is a multilateral initiative testing and developing the use of pull mechanisms to
promote agricultural innovation.
7
an e-market to connect food products to markets: http://harvestplusng.org/marketlinks/. HarvestPlus
developed a mobile site to connect buyers and sellers (www/ourmarketlinks.com), which is now an up-todate source of information and a successful online trading platform. Sellers engaged thus far are private
traders or small businesses who are looking for a market for vitamin A cassava roots or foods. The
system gives an indication of market demand and supply for cassava stems, roots and processed foods
made from vitamin A cassava. Buyers and sellers are able to meet through this platform, share contact
information, bid and buy products. Through this transparent bidding and buying process, a benchmark is
set for the recommended market value of the listed items. HarvestPlus has access to users’ profiles and
buying/selling patterns, allowing them to create and grow a database that can be used in other areas of
the programme.
In Uganda, HarvestPlus partnered with Farm Radio International to develop and air radio dramas about
orange sweet potato, improving awareness of the crop and driving demand for orange sweet potato
vines.
Country teams are currently working with food processors and nutritionists to develop and test
biofortified food products adaptable for producers of different sizes. HarvestPlus is developing several
food products with biofortified cassava for example - many of these are healthy preparations. Recipes
are currently being tested and standardised for typical Nigeria cooking conditions. Nutritional analysis
will follow, and those results will determine which recipes are most promoted. The nutritional analysis is
expected to be completed in the first half of 2015. Further work may need to be undertaken to look at
use of and labelling for biofortified foods in snack foods to ensure that they contribute to healthy diets
(see Recommendation #1).
A major milestone this year was the 2nd Global Biofortification Conference (http://biofortconf.ifpri.info/).
This was organised to understand the current state of biofortification, the role it can play in improving
nutrition and growth, and how to accelerate scale up and adoption. Many organisations and
governments made commitments at the conference, including:
o
o
o
o
CGIAR commitment to mainstream breeding for mineral and vitamin traits.
The Government of Nigeria committed to fully integrating biofortification into the
Agricultural Transformation Agenda of the Federal Ministry of Agriculture. In addition to
supporting the work of HarvestPlus to disseminate biofortified cassava stems to farmers
and promoting private sector involvement in the production and marketing of biofortified
crops, the government of Nigeria is also providing funds to Nigerian universities to support
efforts on multiplication of biofortified cassava.
The Government of Rwanda, through the 2013 Nutrition Action Plan, committed to
promoting the introduction and wider production and consumption of high iron beans as
one of the most promising crops that can support the reduction of iron deficiency,
especially for food insecure households.
The Government of Uganda committed to supporting (through its policies and financially)
the further development and dissemination of biofortified crops – vitamin A sweet potato
and cassava, high-iron beans and iron pearl millet. Varietal release committees will
incorporate minimum nutrient content guidelines as criteria for release. Finally, the
ministries of Agriculture, Health, and Education will include information about the benefit
of biofortified crops in their educational programs.
The Conference was well organised and to a great extent delivered well on its objectives, particularly in
terms of generating country leadership in at least some countries. The final panel was chaired by
Rachel Kyte (WB), and involved Rwanda Health Minister, Nigeria Agriculture Minister, Jonathan Shrier
Special Rep for Global Food Security US State Dept, Tim Wheeler (DFID), Ruben Echeverria (CIAT
DG). The “Kigali principles” were agreed, with the purpose of setting out an action plan and collective
commitments to scale up biofortification. A number of commitments were made by organisations during
the conference.
8
Table 2: Updated projection of households reached
2014 Delivery Targets
Reached in 2014
(as of 30 Sept)
2014 Cumulative (Target)
Iron Bean Rwanda
130,000
130,000
800,000
Iron Bean DR Congo
74,000
74,000
325,000
Iron Pearl Millet India
40,000
0
215,000
Provitamin A Maize Zambia
114,000
0
125,000
Provitamin A Cassava Nigeria
300,000
245,000
406,000
Provitamin A Cassava DR Congo
75,000
0
100,000
Zinc Wheat India
25,000
0
26,000
Zinc Wheat Pakistan
0
0
0
Zinc Rice Bangladesh
22,000
11,000
23,000
Zinc Rice India
1,000
0
500
781,000
626,000
2,021,000
Country-Crop
Total
9
Output Title
Generation of high quality evidence of the efficacy and cost effectiveness of
biofortification as a strategy to tackle micronutrient deficiencies.
Output Score
A
Output number per LF
3
Risk:
Medium
Impact weighting (%):
Risk revised since last AR?
N
Impact weighting % revised N
since last AR?
Indicator(s)
New nutritional efficacy trials
undertaken and published for 6
crop/country combinations.
Measuring impact and costeffectiveness of new biofortified
crops on consumption and micronutrient deficiencies in target
groups.
2014 Milestones
Publication of feeding trial for
iron beans (Rwanda), iron pearl
millet and zinc wheat (India), pro
vitamin A maize (Zambia), data
analysis for pro vitamin A
cassava (Nigeria), and feeding
trial for zinc rice (Bangladesh).
Design and baseline data for
RCTs on iron beans (Uganda)
and pro vitamin A cassava
(Nigeria).
30%
Progress
Bioavailability and efficacy trials
complete (5) or underway (4).
Consumer acceptance studies
were completed for iron beans in
Rwanda and Guatemala, and
iron pearl millet in India. Overall
consumers prefer these varieties
to conventional ones even in the
absence of information about
their nutritional benefits and/or
certification/identification as
being iron rich.
Planning began for an
effectiveness (impact evaluation)
study for iron beans in
Guatemala and an impact
assessment study for iron beans
in Rwanda.
Background (feasibility) studies
began for potential effectiveness
studies for iron beans in Uganda
and/or Burundi.
No of peer reviewed articles from Peer-review articles on efficacy In 2013, HarvestPlus had 35
HarvestPlus and its partners.
studies in Rwanda (bean), India peer review publications (48 in
(pearl millet), and Zambia 2012), 15 other research outputs
(maize).
and 2 book chapters. Efficacy
trial results are either published
or in the pipeline (see table in
presentation for further info).
Key Points
There has been continued strong progress in this area, as HarvestPlus moves through its planned
programme of efficacy trials, consumer acceptance studies and effectiveness studies. It is generating a
strong pipeline of publications, and making a major contribution to establishing an evidence base in this
area.
Results are available for several additional bioavailability studies. Studies on bioavailability in iron beans
in high phytate diets have confirmed increasing levels of iron absorption from high phytate diets when
subjects consume them for longer periods of time. This confirms earlier efficacy trial results on the
10
positive impact of beans in Rwanda2. The zinc absorption study from agronomically biofortified wheat
(whole wheat flour and 80% extraction flour) was completed by ETH-Zurich and reported at the
Micronutrient Forum in Addis Ababa (June 6-9, 2014). Biofortified wheat flours contributed 50% more
zinc to the daily requirement of healthy Swiss women than the non biofortified controls. There was no
significant difference in zinc absorbed between biofortified and fortified wheat flour groups.
Field activities are underway for four efficacy studies: Zinc rice in Bangladesh (with UC Davis and
ICDDR,B); Vitamin A cassava in Nigeria (Wageningen Agricultural University/Ibadan University
consortium); Iron-and-zinc pearl millet study with children under 3 years of age (Cornell
University/SNDT Womens University consortium); and two zinc wheat studies in India (John Hopkins
study in Delhi slum populations and ETH-Zurich Bangalore study with school children).
The validation of novel and zinc biomarkers assays study in Bangladesh continues.
For a multiple crop efficacy trial focusing on 1,000 days window of opportunity, the Request for Proposal
has been launched and a selection committee established in September 2014. The finalist will be
selected by the end of November 2015.
A global Biofortification Prioritization Index (BPI) was developed to help inform decisions for investing in
effective biofortification interventions in developing countries. The development of subnational BPIs for
larger countries, including Ethiopia, Nigeria and India is underway.
Consumer acceptance studies were completed for iron beans in Rwanda and Guatemala and iron pearl
millet in India. Results reveal that overall consumers prefer these varieties to conventional ones even in
the absence of information about their nutritional benefits and/or certification/identification as being iron
rich.
Planning began for an effectiveness (impact evaluation) study for iron beans in Guatemala and an
impact assessment study for iron beans in Rwanda.
Background (feasibility) studies began for potential effectiveness studies for iron beans in Uganda and/or
Burundi.
In a coordinated effort across the program, HarvestPlus completed a strategic gender assessment of
research, operations & management and developed actionable recommendations for better integrating
gender throughout the program.
2 Haas J et al. The FASEB Journal April 2014; vol. 28 (no. 1 Supplement): abstract 646.1
11
D: VALUE FOR MONEY & FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE (1 page)
Key cost drivers and performance
The main cost drivers are HarvestPlus’ administrative charges and programme costs, including those of
partners. Supplemental Schedule 2 of IFPRI’s 2013 annual audited statements shows how these funds
have been used. As mentioned in the VfM section below, HarvestPlus’ administrative costs have
remained fairly static at 14.4% of total expenditure. HarvestPlus are also making more use of the private
sector to distribute vines to smallholder farmers and to develop commercial products from these new
biofortified crops.
VfM performance compared to the original VfM proposition in the business case
The business case outlined the following parameters to assess VfM.
i. Measuring the overall management and administrative costs of HarvestPlus and ensuring
these are controlled. HarvestPlus 2013 annual audited statements show that management and
administrative costs of $4.901m represents 14.4% of its total disbursements of $33.963m. This is an
increase on a comparable figure of 13.2% in 2012.
ii. Tracking the number of peer reviewed publications. Details of all 2013 publications is contained in
Annex A. 35 peer review articles were published compared with 48 (2012) and 64 (2011). Publications
follow the lifecycle of the HarvestPlus project. The reason for the downward trajectory is that in previous
years, many publications were the result of research from HarvestPlus’ discovery and development
phases, particularly focusing on proof of concept around crop development and nutrition, as well as new
techniques for breeding and analysing micronutrient-dense crops. As HarvestPlus has moved into pilot
delivery, the rate of novel research and discovery has declined. Crop development has progressed, and
nutritional studies have become more complicated, resulting in some delay between study completion
and publication (HarvestPlus do expect several nutritional efficacy publications in the next few months).
Simultaneously, delivery efforts have not yet provided enough robust data to produce publications
focusing on proof of concept around deployment models and impact. While the number of publications is
expected to remain lower than the historical average in 2014 and possibly 2015, increases are
anticipated in 2016 and beyond.
iii. Measuring the delivery of the priority research programme outputs against milestones,
ensuring robust evaluation mechanisms, which include cost-effectiveness of delivery and a
series of ex-post impact assessments. As outlined earlier, the project is exceeding expectation in
meeting its three outputs.
iv. simplifying DFID’s administrative and management inputs by working closely with BMGF on a
common approach to strategic direction, and sharing of reports and progress. DFID continues to
work proactively with BMGF in the management and administration of this programme. Ideally, we would
have liked to align our reporting period with that of BMGF. However DFID systems and processes don’t
readily allow us to do this. Instead, we decided to work with the annual report prepared for BMGF for the
calendar year. HarvestPlus provides an update on any highlights/issues between the end of the calendar
and the end of our reporting period. This is intended to minimise HarvestPlus’ reporting responsibilities.
BMGF’s senior programme officer for HarvestPlus keeps us appraised of progress. The senior
programme officer has also participated in this review.
Assessment of whether the programme continues to represent value for money
The project continues to represent value for money. The UK Government is a signatory to the Global
Nutrition for Growth Compact with a commitment by 2020:


to ensure that at least 500 million pregnant women and children under two are reached
with effective nutrition interventions
to reduce the number of children under five stunted by at least 20 million.
12

to save the lives of at least 1.7 million children under 5 by preventing stunting, increasing
breastfeeding, and increasing treatment of severe acute malnutrition.
HarvestPlus and its partners have an impressive record of developing and delivering improved
biofortified crops to smallholder farmers. 1.3 million families in seven countries have been reached by
HarvestPlus in 2013. To date, an estimated 626,000 farm households are growing and consuming
biofortified crops Evidence to date, indicates that biofortified crops can have a significant impact on the
nutrient status of women and children.
HarvestPlus are developing partnerships with the private sector to increase the delivery of virus free
vines, and working with its partners to develop new food products from biofortified crops which should be
more nutritious than existing ones. They are in the process of developing principles for engaging with
private sector partners, who they see as crucial to the scale up and long-term sustainability of biofortified
seeds and foods. These centre around ensuring that any engagement demonstrates a clear value and
strategic alignment for improving nutrition of under-nourished populations by developing markets for
biofortified products and access to these markets for smallholder farmers and rural communities.
Quality of financial management
HarvestPlus have robust financial management processes in place for monitoring receipts & expenditure
and reporting to donors. DFID payments have been made in accordance with the schedule set out in the
MOU. We have received 2013 annual audited financial statements for HarvestPlus. These are contained
under Schedules in IFPRI’s and Centre for International Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)’s annual audited
financial statements. IFPRI’s financial statements show receipts and expenditure for the HarvestPlus
program. CIAT’s financial statements show receipts and expenditure for HarvestPlus Challenge
Programme Phases I & II.
Our payment in December 2012 appears in IFPRI’s 2013 audited financial statements. It did not appear
in 2012 because it would not have been paid to HarvestPlus until early 2013 as it has to go through the
CGIAR Multi-Donor Trust Fund managed by the World Bank. Table 3 below shows actual programme
funding and expenditure for 2013 and estimates for 2014 and 2015. This demonstrates that our
contributions are being fully utilised or will be fully utilised in the calendar year in which it’s received by
HarvestPlus.
Table 3 HarvestPlus Receipts and Expenditure 2013, 2014, 2015 (in thousands USD)
Donor Receipts
2013*
2014** 2015**
DFID
15,970
16,358
16,100
Other Donors
8,873
13,717
14,026
Subtotal: Receipts
24,843
30,075
30,126
Interest Income
Actual: Jan-Dec 2013
70
Estimated: Jan-Dec 2014
257
Expected: Jan-Nov 2015
200
Subtotal: Interest Income
70
257
200
Total Funding
24,913
30,332
30,326
Expenditures
Actual: Jan - Dec 2013
25,370
Estimated: Jan-Dec 2014
30,346
Expected: Jan-Nov 2015
33,000
Total Expenditures
25,370
30,346
33,000
Net Funding Available
-457
-14
-2,674
* Actuals ** Estimated
13
Date of last narrative financial report
Date of last audited annual statement
21/11/2014
31/12/2013
E: RISK (½ page)
Overall risk rating: Low
The overall risk is currently assessed as low risk (no change from previous annual review).
Output risk: low. HarvestPlus has a good track record on delivery, and tracks milestones and outputs
closely. Reporting is detailed and clear. All the measures required are in place for upscaling, with the
major challenge being getting the right partnerships in place particularly with the private sector. The
evidence outputs are well planned and on track. There is some opposition to biofortification, primarily
where it is seen to be linked to GM technologies, but this is not a major constraint in the countries in
which HarvestPlus is focusing its scale up activities.
Management risk: low. HarvestPlus has a strong organisational structure and capacity, and has further
strengthened this over the last year with key appointments in headquarters as well as in regional offices.
Financial systems are embedding A4NH managed by IFPRI, although at times this reduces the flexibility
and ease with which HarvestPlus can contract and make partnership agreements. Overall however this
is highly effective and well led programme.
Intellectual risk: the intellectual risk at this stage of the research, essentially the delivery stage and
improving the nutrient content within the breeding pipeline is low.
Outstanding actions from risk assessment
No specific actions.
F: COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS (½ page)
Delivery against planned timeframe
HarvestPlus is on track to meet the timescales set out in the Business Case. Some of the impact and
effectiveness studies initiated under this Business Case will be completed later in Phase 3 and after this
phase of DFID support has ended.
Performance of partnership (s)
DFID and BMGF are the two largest contributors to this programme and have agreed to share
monitoring, reporting and technical inputs. Sharing technical inputs ensures a coherent approach, avoids
duplication and maximises synergies. This arrangement also results in a reduced burden for
HarvestPlus, e.g. technical report completed for BMGF’s annual review is also the basis for this annual
review. As well as regular communications between the two organisations, BMGF’s senior programme
officer participated in this review.
Asset monitoring and control
N/a
G: CONDITIONALITY (½ page)
Update on partnership principles (if relevant)
N/a
H: MONITORING & EVALUATION (½ page)
14
Evidence and evaluation
The third output of the logframe focuses on generating high quality evidence on the efficacy, consumer
acceptance and effectiveness of biofortified crops. This component continues to progress well, with
HarvestPlus commissioning leading researchers, including those outside the CGIAR, to undertake this
work. A useful overview of the latest status of research and development on biofortification is in the
document prepared for the 2nd Global Biofortification Conference (http://biofortconf.ifpri.info/resources2/ideas-lab-briefs/).
Monitoring progress throughout the review period
DFID has been in regular contact with HarvestPlus monitoring progress. DFID also engages with BMGF
as a major partner and co-funder. DFID attended, and the Deputy Chief Scientific Adviser spoke in the
final Plenary Panel session, at the 2nd Global Biofortification Conference in Kigali. The Conference
involved field visits.
Approach for this Annual Review
The annual review was carried out by an internal DFID team with staff from HarvestPlus. The DFID
team included Rachel Lambert (Senior Livelihoods Adviser DFID), Tanya Green (Policy Analyst,
Nutrition policy team) and Alasdair Swift (Deputy Programme Manager DFID). Lawrence Kent from
BMGF joined the meeting and provided comments. It also drew on the attendance by Tim Wheeler and
Rachel Lambert at the 2nd Global Biofortification Conference in Kigali 31 March – 3 April.
The annual review team considered the 2013 annual report received from HarvestPlus and undertook a
review of key programme documentation, including the Business Case, Financial Statements, ToR,
evaluation technical proposal, etc. The Team met with HarvestPlus by video-conference. HarvestPlus
staff who attended were:
Howdy Bouis – Director
Wolfgang Pfeiffer, Deputy Director for Operations
Pam Wuichet, Head of Partnerships and Development
Amy Saltzman, Senior Research Analyst
The checklist guidance has been followed and a completed checklist saved in Quest. The annual review
has been quality assured by the Agriculture Team Leader.
Key documents:
Business Case (Quest No 4054322)
Logframe (Quest No 4256522)
HarvestPlus 2013 Annual Report to BMGF & DFID (Quest No 4742321)
HarvestPlus Powerpoint presentation for DFID Review meeting (Quest No 4742398)
Feedback from BMGF (Quest No 4750219)
Annual Review 2013 (Quest No 4656597)
Annual Review - Project Score Calculator (Quest No 4656713)
Annual Review – Terms of Reference & Checklist (Quest No 4656642)
Back to Office Report on Global Biofortification Conference in Rwanda (Quest No 4488045)
2013 IFPRI Annual Audited Accounts (Quest No 4742336)
2013 CIAT Annual Audited Accounts (Quest No 4742241)
HarvestPlus 2013 Annual Report (Quest No 4742311)
HarvestPlus Latest Financial Statement (Quest No 4743865)
Team Leader’s approval (Quest No 4754844)
15
Appendix A: Publications and Media Highlights
2013(52)
Peer-review articles (35)
1. Armah, SM; Carriquiry, A; Sullivan, D; Cook, JD; Reddy, MB. 2013. A Complete Diet-Based
Algorithm for Predicting Nonheme Iron Absorption in Adults. The Journal of Nutrition. 143(7):
1136-1140.
2. Arsenault, JE; Yakes, EA; Islam, MM; Hossain, MB; Ahmed, T; Hotz, C; Lewis, B; Rahman,
AS; Jamil, KM; Brown, KH. 2013. Very Low Adequacy of Micronutrient Intakes by Young
Children and Women in Rural Bangladesh Is Primarily Explained by Low Food Intake and
Limited Diversity. The Journal of Nutrition. 143(2): 197-203.
3. Ashok Kumar, A; Anuradha, K; Ramaiah, B. 2013. Increasing grain Fe and Zn concentration
in sorghum: progress and way forward. Journal of SAT Agricultural Research 11.
4. Ashok Kumar, A; Reddy, BVS; Ramaiah, B. 2013. Biofortification for combating
micronutrient malnutrition: Identification of commercial sorghum cultivars with high grain
iron and zinc concentrations. Indian Journal of Dryland Agricultural Research and
Development. 28(1): 95-100.
5. Ashok Kumar, A; Reddy, Belum VS; Ramaiah, B; Sahrawat, KL; Pfeiffer, WH. 2013. Gene
effects and heterosis for grain iron and zinc concentration in sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.)
Moench]. Field Crops Research. 146: 86-95.
6. Babu, R; Palacios Rojas, N; Gao, S; Yan, J; Pixley, K. 2013. Validation of the effects of
molecular marker polymorphisms in LcyE and CrtRB1 on provitamin A concentrations for 26
tropical maize populations. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 126(2): 389-399.
7. Blair, MW. 2013. Mineral Biofortification Strategies for Food Staples: The Example of
Common Bean. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 61(35): 8287-8294.
8. Cercamondi, CI; Egli, IM; Mitchikpe, E; Tossou, F; Zeder, C; Hounhouigan, JD; Hurrell, RF.
2013. Total Iron Absorption by Young Women from Iron-Biofortified Pearl Millet Composite
Meals Is Double That from Regular Millet Meals but Less Than That from Post-Harvest IronFortified Millet Meals. The Journal of Nutrition. 143(9): 1376-1382.
9. Ceballos, H; Morante, N; Sanchez, T; Ortiz, D; Aragon, I; Chavez, AL; Pizarro, M; Calle, F;
Dufour, D. 2013. Rapid Cycling Recurrent Selection for Increased Carotenoids Content in
Cassava Roots. Crop Science. 53(6): 2342-2351.
10. Chandler, K; Lipka, AE; Owens, BF; Li, H; Buckler, ES; Rocheford, T; Gore, MA. 2013.
Genetic Analysis of Visually Scored Orange Kernel Color in Maize. Crop Science. 53(1): 189200.
11. Ekesa, BN; Kimiywe, J; Van den Bergh, I; Blomme, G; Dhuique-Mayer, C; Davey, M. 2013.
Content and Retention of Provitamin A Carotenoids Following Ripening and Local Processing
of Four Popular Musa Cultivars from Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. Sustainable
Agriculture Research. 2(2): 60-75.
12. Fiedler, JL. 2013. Towards overcoming the food consumption information gap:
Strengthening household consumption and expenditures surveys for food and nutrition
policymaking. Global Food Security. 2(1): 56-63.
13. Fu, Z; Chai, Y; Zhou, Y; Yang, X; Warburton, ML; Xu, S; Cai, Y; Zhang, D; Li, J; Yan, J.
2013. Natural variation in the sequence of PSY1 and frequency of favorable polymorphisms
among tropical and temperate maize germplasm. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 126(4):
923-935.
16
14. Garcia, JA; Sanchez, T; Ceballos, H; Alonso, L. 2013. Non-destructive sampling procedure
for biochemical or gene expression studies on post-harvest physiological deterioration of
cassava roots. Postharvest Biology and Technology. 86: 529-535.
15. Govindaraj, M; Rai, KN; Shanmugasundaram, P; Dwivedi, SL; Sahrawat, KL; Muthaiah, AR;
Rao, AS. 2013. Combining Ability and Heterosis for Grain Iron and Zinc Densities in Pearl
Millet. Crop Science. 53(2): 507-517.
16. Heying, EK; Grahn, M; Pixley, KV; Rocheford, T; Tanumihardjo, SA. 2013. High-Provitamin
A Carotenoid (Orange) Maize Increases Hepatic Vitamin A Reserves of Offspring in a Vitamin ADepleted Sow-Piglet Model during Lactation. The Journal of Nutrition. 143(7): 1141-1146.
17. Islam, MM; Woodhouse, LR; Hossain, MB; Ahmed, T; Huda, MN; Ahmed, T; Peerson, JM;
Hotz, C; Brown, KH. 2013. Total Zinc Absorption from a Diet Containing either Conventional
Rice or Higher-Zinc Rice Does Not Differ among Bangladeshi Preschool Children. The Journal
of Nutrition. 143(4): 519-525.
18. Kandianis, CB; Stevens, R; Liu, W; Palacios, N; Montgomery, K; Pixley, K; White, WS;
Rocheford, T. 2013. Genetic architecture controlling variation in grain carotenoid composition
and concentrations in two maize populations. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 126(11):
2879-2895.
19. Katz, JM; La Frano, MR; Winter, CK; Burri, BJ. 2013. Modelling potential B-carotene intake
and cyanide exposure from consumption of biofortified cassava. Journal of Nutritional
Science. 2, e6.
20. Kodkany, BS; Bellad, RM; Mahantshetti, NS; Westcott, JE; Krebs, NF; Kemp, JF;
Hambidge, KM. 2013. Biofortification of Pearl Millet with Iron and Zinc in a Randomized
Controlled Trial Increases Absorption of These Minerals above Physiologic Requirements in
Young Children. The Journal of Nutrition. 143(9): 1489-1493.
21. Kumar, H; Dikshit, HK; Singh, AM; Singh, D; Kumari, J; Singh, A; Kumar, D. 2013.
Characterization of elite lentil genotypes for seed iron and zinc concentration and genotype x
environment interaction studies. Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding. 73(2): 169176.
22. La Frano, MR; Woodhouse, LR; Burnett, DJ; Burri, BJ. 2013. Biofortified cassava increases
B-carotene and vitamin A concentrations in the TAG-rich plasma layer of American women.
British Journal of Nutrition. 110(2): 310-320.
23. Li, H; Singh, RP; Braun, H-J; Pfeiffer, WH; Wang, J. 2013. Doubled Haploids versus
Conventional Breeding in CIMMYT Wheat Breeding Programs. Crop Science. 53(1): 74-83.
24. Mabesa, RL; Impa, SM; Grewal, D; Johnson-Beebout, SE. 2013. Contrasting grain-Zn
response of biofortification rice (Oryza sativa L.) breeding lines to foliar Zn application. Field
Crops Research. 149: 223-233.
25. Miller, LV; Krebs, NF; Hambidge, KM. 2013. Mathematical model of zinc absorption:
effects of dietary calcium, protein and iron on zinc absorption. British Journal of Nutrition.
109(4): 695-700.
26. Palmer, LJ; Palmer, LT; Pritchard, J; Graham, RD; Stangoulis, JCR. 2013. Improved
techniques for measurement of nanolitre volumes of phloem exudate from aphid stylectomy.
Plant Methods. 9:18.
27. Petry, N; Egli, I; Campion, B; Nielsen, E; Hurrell, R. 2013. Genetic Reduction of Phytate in
Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Seeds Increases Iron Absorption in Young Women. The
Journal of Nutrition. 143(8): 1219-1224.
28. Pillay, K; Siwela, M; Derera, J; Veldman, FJ. 2013. Influence of biofortification with
provitamin A on protein, selected micronutrient composition and grain quality of maize.
African Journal of Biotechnology. 12(34): 5285-5293.
17
29. Rai, KN; Yadav, OP; Rajpurohit, BS; Patil, HT; Govindaraj, M; Khairwal, IS; Rao, AS. 2013.
Breeding pearl millet cultivars for high iron density with zinc density as an associated trait.
Journal of SAT Agricultural Research 11.
30. Saltzman, A; Birol, E; Bouis, HE; Boy, E; De Moura, FF; Islam, Y; Pfeiffer, WH. 2013.
Biofortification: Progress toward a more nourishing future. Global Food Security. 2(1): 9-17.
31. Sanchez, T; Dufour, D; Moreno, JL; Pizarro, M; Aragon, IJ; Dominguez, M; Ceballos, H.
2013. Changes in extended shelf life of cassava roots during storage in ambient conditions.
Postharvest Biology and Technology. 86: 520-528
32. Talsma, EF; Melse-Boonstra, A; de Kok, BPH; Mbera, GNK; Mwangi, AM; Brouwer, ID. 2013.
Biofortified Cassava with Pro-Vitamin A Is Sensory and Culturally Acceptable for Consumption
by Primary School Children in Kenya. PLoS ONE. 8(8): e73433.
33. Tumuhimbise, GA; Namutebi, A; Turyashemererwa, F; Muyonga, J. 2013. Provitamin A
Crops: Acceptability, Bioavailability, Efficacy and Effectiveness. Food and Nutrition Sciences.
4(4): 430-435.
34. Velu, G; Ortiz-Monasterio, I; Cakmak, I; Hao, Y; Singh, RP. Biofortification strategies to
increase grain zinc and iron concentrations in wheat. Journal of Cereal Science.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2013.09.001
35. Wang, L; Ying, Y; Narsai, R; Ye, L; Zheng, L; Tian, J; Whelan, J; Shou, H. 2013.
Identification of OsbHLH133 as a regulator of iron distribution between roots and shoots in
Oryza sativa. Plant, Cell & Environment. 36(1): 224-236.
Books(2)
1. Ashok Kumar, A; Sharma, HC; Sharma, R; Blummel, M; Reddy, PS; Reddy, BVS. 2013.
Phenotyping in sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]. in Panguluri. Siva Kumar; Kumar, Are
Ashok (Eds). Phenotyping for Plant Breeding. Applications of Phenotyping methods for Crop
Improvement. 211 p.
2. Pixley, K; Palacios, N; Babu, R; Mutale, R; Surles, R; Simpungwe, E. 2013. Biofortification
of Maize with Provitamin A Carotenoids. in Carotenoids and Human Health. Tanumihardjo,
Sherry A. (Ed.). 2013, Chapter 17, 271-292. Humana Press.
Other (15)
1. Anuradha, K; Prakash, B; Ramu, P; Shah, T; Ashok Kumar, A; Deshpande, SP. 2013. In Silico
identification of candidate genes for grain Fe and Zn in sorghum using reported cereals gene
homologs. In: Compendium of papers & abstracts: Global consultation on millets promotion
for health & nutritional security, 18-20 December, 2013, Society for Millets Research.
(Editors: S Rakshit, IK Das, G Shyamprasad, JS Mishra, CV Ratnavathi, RR Chapke, Vilas A
Tonapi, B Dayakar Rao and JV Patil). Pp 10-12.
2. Bouis, H; Tanumihardjo, SA; Jan Low, J; McEwan, M. 2013. Biofortification: Evidence and
lessons learned linking agriculture and nutrition. Second International Conference on
Nutrition (ICN2). Rome, Italy. 13-15 November 2013.
3. Bresnahan, K; Chileshe, J; Tanumiharjo, S. 2013. Malaria is associated with decreased
nutrient intake in Zambian children fed provitamin A biofortified maize. The FASEB Journal.
27 (Meeting Abstract Supplement): 638.23.
4. Bresnahan, K; Davis, C; Tanumihardjo, S. 2013. The relative vitamin A value of 9-cis and
13-cis B-Carotene as compared to all-trans B-Carotene in Mongolian gerbils. The FASEB
Journal. 27 (Meeting Abstract Supplement): 38.4.
18
5. Ekesa, B; Mirroir, C; Blomme, G; Van den Bergh, I; Davey, MW. 2013. Retention of
provitamin A carotenoids during postharvest ripening and processing of three popular musa
cultivars in south-western Uganda. Acta Horticulturae ISHS 986: 319-330.
6. Gannon, BM; Tanumihardjo, SA. 2013. Linking agriculture to nutrition - The harvest is near
and how do we measure impact?. The FASEB Journal. 27 (Meeting Abstract Supplement):
638.25.
7. Hambidge, KM; Bellad, RM; Mahantshetti, NS; Kodkany, BS; Boy, E; Westcott, JE; Rai, KN;
Cherian, B; Miller, LV; Krebs, NF. 2013. Bioavailability of iron (Fe) and zinc (Zn) from Fe and
Zn biofortified pearl millet. The FASEB Journal. 27 (Meeting Abstract Supplement): 638.21.
8. Kaliwile, C; Arscott,SA; Masi, C; Tanumihardjo, SA. 2013. Community mobilization
activities for the Zambia 2012 Orange Maize Efficacy Trial. The FASEB Journal. 27 (Meeting
Abstract Supplement): 638.24.
9. Lipkie, TE; De Moura, FF; Zhao, Z-Y; Albertsen, MC; Che, P; Glassman, K; Ferruzzi, MG.
2013. Bioaccessibility of carotenoids from transgenic provitamin A biofortified sorghum. The
FASEB Journal. 27 (Meeting Abstract Supplement): 638.20.
10. Pompano, LM; Przybyszewski, EM; Udipi, SA; Ghugre, P; Haas, JD. 2013. VO2 max
improves in Indian school children after a feeding trail with iron biofortified pearl millet. The
FASEB Journal. 27 (Meeting Abstract Supplement): 845.28.
11. Rabbi, I; Gedil, M; Kulakow, P; Ly, D; Hamblin, M; Jannink, JL. 2013. Linkage and
genome-wide association mapping using next-generation genotyping-by-sequencing in clonally
propagated cassava. in XXI Plant and Animal Genome Conference. 12-16 January 2013. San
Diego USA.
12. Scott, S; Murray-Kolb, L; Wenger, M; Udipi, S; Ghugre, P; Haas, J. 2013. Iron deficiency
but not anemia affects cognition in Indian adolescents. The FASEB Journal. 27 (Meeting
Abstract Supplement): 845.8.
13. Tako, E; Beebe, S; Reed, S; Boy, E; Glahn, R. 2013. Biofortified Black Beans (Phaseolus
vulgaris L.) in a Maize and Bean Diet Provide More Bioavailable Iron to Chickens (Gallus gallus)
Than Standard Black Beans. The FASEB Journal. 27 (Meeting Abstract Supplement): 859.9.
14. Wenger, MJ; Scott, SP; Murray-Kolb, LE; Ghugre, P; Udipi, S; Haas, JD. 2013. Brain
dynamics as a function of iron status: Relating electroencephalographic (EEG) patterns and
body iron measures in Indian adolescents. The FASEB Journal. 27 (Meeting Abstract
Supplement): 845.6.
15. zum Felde, T; Alamu, OE; Porras, E; Maroya, N; Maziya-Dixon, B. 2013. Screening for provitamin A components in Cassava (Manihot esculenta) using NIR to support bio-fortification. In
Proceedings of the NIR 2013. 16th International Conference on Near Infrared Spectroscopy, 2 7 June 2013, la Grande-Motte, France. IRSTEA - France Institut National de recherche en
sciences et technologies pour l’environnement et l’agriculture. Pp. 182-186.
19
Smart Guide
The Annual Review is part of a continuous process of review and improvement throughout the programme cycle. At
each formal review, the performance and ongoing relevance of the programme are assessed with decisions taken
by the spending team as to whether the programme should continue, be reset or stopped.
The Annual Review includes specific, time-bound recommendations for action, consistent with the key findings.
These actions – which in the case of poor performance will include improvement measures – are elaborated in
further detail in delivery plans. Teams should refer to the Smart Rules quality standards for annual reviews.
The Annual Review assesses and rates outputs using the following rating scale. ARIES and the separate
programme scoring calculation sheet will calculate the overall output score taking account of the weightings and
individual outputs scores
Description
Outputs substantially exceeded expectation
Outputs moderately exceeded expectation
Outputs met expectation
Outputs moderately did not meet expectation
Outputs substantially did not meet expectation
Scale
A++
A+
A
B
C
Teams should refer to the considerations below as a guide to completing the annual review template.
Summary Sheet
Complete the summary sheet with highlights of progress, lessons learnt and action on previous recommendations
Introduction and Context
Briefly outline the programme, expected results and contribution to the overall Operational Plan and DFID’s
international development objectives (including corporate results targets). Where the context supporting the
intervention has changed from that outlined in the original programme documents explain what this will mean for
UK support
B: Performance and conclusions
Annual Outcome Assessment
Brief assessment of whether we expect to achieve the outcome by the end of the programme
Overall Output Score and Description
Progress against the milestones and results achieved that were expected as at the time of this review.
Key lessons
Any key lessons you and your partners have learned from this programme
Have assumptions changed since design? Would you do differently if re-designing this programme?
How will you and your partners share the lessons learned more widely in your team, across DFID and externally
Key actions
Any further information on actions (not covered in Summary Sheet) including timelines for completion and team
member responsible
Has the logframe been updated since the last review? What/if any are the key changes and what does this
mean for the programme?
C: Detailed Output Scoring
Output
Set out the Output, Output Score
Score
Smart Guide
i
Enter a rating using the rating scale A++ to C.
Impact Weighting (%)
Enter the %age number which cannot be less than 10%.
The figure here should match the Impact Weight currently shown on the logframe (and which will need to be
entered on ARIES as part of loading the Annual Review for approval).
Revised since last Annual Review (Y/N).
Risk Rating
Risk Rating: Low/Medium/High
Enter Low, Medium or High
The Risk Rating here should match the Risk currently shown on the logframe (and which will need to be entered on
ARIES as part of loading the Annual Review for approval).
Where the Risk for this Output been revised since the last review (or since inception, if this is the first review) or if
the review identifies that it needs revision explain why, referring to section B Risk Assessmen
Key points
Summary of response to iprogrammessues raised in previous annual reviews (where relevant)
Recommendations
Repeat above for each Output.
D Value for Money and Financial Performance
Key cost drivers and performance
Consider the specific costs and cost drivers identified in the Business Case
Have there been changes from those identified in previous reviews or at programme approval. If so, why?
VfM performance compared to the original VfM proposition in the business case? Performance against vfm
measures and any trigger points that were identified to track through the programme
Assessment of whether the programme continues to represent value for money?
Overall view on whether the programme is good value for money. If not, why, and what actions need to be taken?
Quality of Financial Management
Consider our best estimate of future costs against the current approved budget and forecasting profile
Have narrative and financial reporting requirements been adhered to. Include details of last report
Have auditing requirements been met. Include details of last report
E Risk
Output Risk Rating: L/M/H
Enter Low, Medium or High, taken from the overall Output risk score calculated in ARIES
Overview of Programme Risk
What are the changes to the overall risk environment/ context and why?
Review the key risks that affect the successful delivery of the expected results.
Are there any different or new mitigating actions that will be required to address these risks and whether the
existing mitigating actions are directly addressing the identifiable risks?
Any additional checks and controls are required to ensure that UK funds are not lost, for example to fraud or
corruption.
Outstanding actions from risk assessment
Describe outstanding actions from Due Diligence/ Fiduciary Risk Assessment/ Programme risk matrix
Describe follow up actions from departmental anti-corruption strategies to which Business Case assumptions and
risk tolerances stand
F: Commercial Considerations
Delivery against planned timeframe. Y/N
Compare actual progress against the approved timescales in the Business Case. If timescales are off track provide
an explanation including what this means for the cost of the programme and any remedial action.
Performance of partnership
How well are formal partnerships/ contracts working
Are we learning and applying lessons from partner experience
How could DFID be a more effective partner
Smart Guide
ii
Asset monitoring and control
Level of confidence in the management of programme assets, including information any monitoring or spot checks
G: Conditionality
Update on Partnership Principles and specific conditions.
For programmes for where it has been decided (when the programme was approved or at the last Annual Review)
to use the PPs for management and monitoring, provide details on:
a. Were there any concerns about the four Partnership Principles over the past year, including on human
rights?
b. If yes, what were they?
c. Did you notify the government of our concerns?
d. If Yes, what was the government response? Did it take remedial actions? If yes, explain how.
e. If No, was disbursement suspended during the review period? Date suspended (dd/mm/yyyy)
f. What were the consequences?
For all programmes, you should make a judgement on what role, if any, the Partnership Principles should play in
the management and monitoring of the programme going forward. This applies even if when the BC was approved
for this programme the PPs were not intended to play a role. Your decision may depend on the extent to which the
delivery mechanism used by the programme works with the partner government and uses their systems.
H: Monitoring and Evaluation
Evidence and evaluation
Changes in evidence and implications for the programme
Where an evaluation is planned what progress has been made
How is the Theory of Change and the assumptions used in the programme design working out in practice in this
programme? Are modifications to the programme design required?
Is there any new evidence available which challenges the programme design or rationale? How does the evidence
from the implementation of this programme contribute to the wider evidence base? How is evidence disaggregated
by sex and age, and by other variables?
Where an evaluation is planned set out what progress has been made.
Monitoring process throughout the review period.
Direct feedback you have had from stakeholders, including beneficiaries
Monitoring activities throughout review period (field visits, reviews, engagement etc)
The Annual Review process
Smart Guide
iii