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: DFID - Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Strategic Collaboration Portfolio
Programme Value: £34,104,769
Programme Code: 202044
Review Date: 19/01/2015
Start Date: 01/11/2010 End Date: 31/03/2016
Summary of Programme Performance
Year
2012
2013
Programme Score
A
A+
Risk Rating
Low
Low
2014
A+
Medium1
Summary of progress and lessons learnt since last review
Overall this portfolio of research programmes is performing very well, both on discovery science, as well
as translational research. Several new co-funded programmes have been added this year, two in
livestock, one in capacity building in biosciences research with the BecA hub hosted at ILRI, and two
Grand Challenge innovations. This brings the number of projects in the portfolio to 15. Existing cofunded investments are all performing well, with strong technical and programme oversight from BMGF.
There are several examples of programmes which are delivering tangible research products to farmers
or other end users and this review highlights a number of significant scientific achievements.
The review as well as the September 2014 partnership discussions between DFID and BMGF, confirms
that there are clear continued benefits to both DFID and BMGF of this strategic research collaborations.
This is true of both translational research and discovery research, but particularly so for discovery
research, where clearly the Foundation has much greater breadth of technical expertise than is available
in DFID.
DFID gains from being able to draw on BMGF’s deep technical expertise (e.g. BMGF’s close oversight of
potentially transformative C4 Rice work), and from the ability to co-fund research which we would not do
as a stand-alone project (e.g. Durable Rust Resistance in Wheat (DRRW). BMGF gains from the
additional resources (e.g. our co-funding of DRRW enables the project to do more, faster), in the form of
identifying more sources of disease resistance and delivering these to breeding programmes which are
then testing more wheat lines and delivering more outputs to farmers in East Africa and South Asia),
expansion in geographical scope (e.g. our co-funding of cassava work enabled a geographical extension
to non-BMGF focal areas) or new areas of engagement (e.g. the impact studies under JPAL ATAI which
looks at a range of economic and welfare outcomes), or cross-funder dialogue which leads to improved
rigour in project design and implementation i.e. asking grantees to report on how many of their peerreviewed publications were open access was a welcome new step for BMGF in 2012).
During the year, DFID has also used the partnership with BMGF to provide support to GALVmed for
Tryps 2. Product Development programmes like GALVmed and AATF allow the UK and BMGF to jointly
scale up work focusing on the development of new products. Both of these programmes receive core
funding from DFID and use this to manage their large scale technical programmes, funded by BMGF.
This is a model that works well, providing financial stability and large scale funding.
There may be scope to expand our partnership with BMGF on large scale delivery of products, drawing
on lessons from large scale Product Development Partnerships in the heath sector. From the
This has been revised upwards, following a change in the way in which DFID’s Research and Evidence Division
categorises risks into output, management and intellectual (research) risks. The change in rating reflects a change
in the approach to risk analysis, rather than a fundamental shift in the risk profile of the portfolio.
1
1
September 2014 discussion with various BMGF teams working on product development, it was clear that
while the agriculture PDPs can develop products to a state where they are marketable, they cannot get
them to scale. This requires other organisations and other instruments. There is clearly more scope to
expand our work and partnerships with BMGF around innovative financing. This could include exploring
a range of modalities, including Global access agreements, Volume guarantees, Bond guarantees,
Loans and loan buy-downs, Equity investments, Advance Market Commitments, payments triggered by
uptake of new crop varieties, etc.
This review summarises a number of lessons both on technical aspects of the programmes, and on
management of the partnership more generally, and a specific piece of work undertaken on the role of
beneficiaries particularly women, in the research cycle.
Summary of recommendations for the next year
1. The current MoU between DFID and BMGF ends in March 2016. Further work on refining areas
of focus for a second phase of collaboration between DFID and BMGF should take place in 2015,
with a view to having a new Business Case for collaboration ready by April 2016. Consideration
should be given to the scheduling of another DFID-BMGF bilateral in late 2015 to help define the
overarching strategy for the potential next phase from 2016. Monitoring of those 8 sub-projects
which have an end date after March 2016 would transition to the new Business Case and MoU,
to ensure continuity in reporting and accountability.
2. There is scope and interest to explore collaboration with BMGF on innovative financing in
agriculture, both within the CGIAR and beyond, during 2015. New co-funding initiatives should
explore scope for results based financing approaches, where this has the potential to incentivise
additional results which conventional funding is less well oriented to deliver (e.g. DRRW could
consider payments for delivery of diverse wheat lines carrying multiple sources of disease
resistance in Ethiopia, Kenya and/or South Asia).
3. DFID to monitor outcome of February 2015 meeting convened by BMGF to get input from
funders of staple crop breeding in the CGIAR and in national systems in Sub-Saharan Africa and
South Asia on the institutionalisation, use, and support of the Breeding Programme Assessment
tool. DFID to assess what lessons can be learnt for DFID’s wider support to both BBSRC and the
CGIAR (by March 2015).
4. DFID and BMGF should ensure JPAL ATAI continues to publish its materials, particularly short
accessible briefs targeted at policy makers. DFID to ensure proactive sharing of JPAL ATAI
briefs and outlines of impact studies with relevant Country Offices and cadres (on-going).
5. Whilst PACA supports data collection and country analysis, it is less engaged in research
activities than originally envisaged by DFID. However it is playing an important evidence broker
role in Africa with governments and other stakeholders. DFID (and BMGF) should continue to
ensure synergies between PACA and other aflatoxin investments (IFPRI aflatoxin, AgResults,
new research work on aflatoxin/nutrition linkages) and support to the BecA-ILRI Hub (on-going).
6. DFID to develop criteria for promoting engagement with beneficiaries and end-users at the start
of any research project. DFID to assemble guidance materials for researchers on how to engage
with beneficiaries and to assess gender issues. DFID to ensure projects are aware that
beneficiary engagement and gender assessment will be viewed positively in budgets and
proposals. BMGF will share the summary analysis prepared with DFID among its co-funded
grantees (by March 2015).
Recommendations specific to BMGF:
7. Supported by its new Open Access policy, BMGF to continue to ensure that open access
publications and data are proactively encouraged, and that resources are provided to all projects
to ensure open source publications if required. BMGF staff involved have been interested to learn
from DFID’s experience and will discuss future potential linkages (on-going).
2
8. Visibility for DFID as a co-funder remains important. BMGF should remind sub-grantees of this
need when they are undertaking communications activities and acknowledging their sources of
funding.
A. Introduction and Context (1 page)
DevTracker
Link
to
Business Case:
DevTracker Link to Log
frame:
http://iati.dfid.gov.uk/iati_documents/3728953.doc
http://iati.dfid.gov.uk/iati_documents/3801171.doc
Outline of the programme
DFID and BMGF agreed to co-fund a portfolio of research to develop new technologies and make them
accessible to small farmers and other actors along the commodity chain from the farm to the consumer.
The partnership is structured around two outputs, one on advanced discovery science with a potentially
high and transformative impact, and the second on translational research. Some sub-projects cross-cut
both of these outputs. The intention is that by working together, DFID and BMGF can expand the scope
and scale of research and deliver more impact. This programme is expected to increase agricultural
productivity, improve access to markets, generate greater marketable surpluses for poor farmers in
Africa and Asia and increase their income.
Each project is co-funded on a variable, but roughly 30:70 financing split between DFID and BMGF,
respectively. DFID’s contribution is £30 million over five years. BMGF are managing the full project cycle
using their well-established methods, tools, IT resources, accounting systems, administrative and
technical teams.
The research includes:












re-establishing durable rust resistance in wheat (DRRW - managed by Cornell University);
re-engineering the way that rice uses sunlight to increase yield significantly and improve water
use efficiency (C4 Rice, managed by IRRI);
the development and deployment of ultra-low cost, rapid detection kits (managed by Diagnostics
for All) for bacterial contamination of milk, cow pregnancy and aflatoxin in maize;
impact studies on agricultural innovation (through J-PAL’s Agricultural Technology Adoption
Initiative);
development of new breeding tools and techniques for cassava (NextGen Cassava managed by
Cornell University);
development of diagnostic tools to manage pests and disease of cassava (managed by
Mikocheni Agricultural Research Institute);
research and technologies for the management and control of aflatoxins through the Partnership
for Aflatoxin Control in Africa (PACA); and
biofortification in bananas (managed by Queensland University of Technology with NARO
Uganda).
use of a bovine experimental challenge model and natural transmission models of tuberculosis to
validate human BCG2 challenged models for assessing TB vaccine efficacy
evaluation of Chinese Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia BEN-1 Vaccine for use in African
cattle.
improved vaccines for the control of east coast fever in cattle in Africa
support to capacity building for East and Central African researchers through the Biosciences
East and Central Africa (BecA) hub based in ILRI.
2
Bacille de Calmette et Guérin (BCG) is a vaccine against tuberculosis that is prepared from a strain of the attenuated
(virulence-reduced) live bovine tuberculosis bacillus, Mycobacterium bovis.
3
B: PERFORMANCE AND CONCLUSIONS (1-2 pages)
Annual outcome assessment
Overall the portfolio of research programmes is performing very well. New co-funded programmes have
been added this year, two in livestock and one in capacity building in biosciences research with the BecA
hub hosted at ILRI. Existing co-funded investments are all performing well, with strong technical and
programme oversight from BMGF. There are several examples of programmes which are delivering
tangible research products to farmers or other end users. Both outputs are performing well.
The review confirms that there are clear continued benefits to both DFID and BMGF of research
collaborations. This is true of both translational research and discovery research, but particularly so for
discovery research, where clearly the Foundation have much greater breadth of technical expertise than
is available in DFID.
Overall output score and description (A+ Moderately exceeding expectations)
Work under the first output on discovery research has progressed very well. All existing programmes
(DRRW, C4 Rice, Banana 21) are on track and demonstrating delivery of research outputs. This year
saw the start-up of two new livestock interventions, on East Coast Fever and Contagious Bovine
Pleuropneumonia. Despite some early stage delays in contracting and start up arrangements, these are
performing well. Where research or management issues have been encountered, BMGF’s strong
technical and project management skills have enabled measures to have been put in place to address
these in a timely and effective fashion.
Work has also progressed very well on Output 2 on translational research. The two cassava research
programmes are both progressing very well, both in delivering specific research outputs (including the
Cassavabase open access resource for breeders) as well as contributing to building the capacity of
national agricultural research partners. Design of new support to BecA has been undertaken, with the
new project ready to start at the end of 2014. DFID has maintained a watching brief on PACA with a
view to determining how to continue to engage. 7 new impact evaluations have been commissioned
under JPAL’s ATAI and early lessons from their earlier adoption studies are being disseminated to DFID
Country Offices.
Key lessons
Innovative financing
BMGF has considerable expertise, particularly in health, on innovative financing, which may have
lessons for agriculture. During the partnership discussions in Seattle in September, and in the
discussions for this Annual Review, scope was identified for further partnership between DFID and
BMGF in exploring the scope for further work on innovative financing in agriculture, particularly but not
exclusively within the context of the CGIAR. As the current MoU between DFID and BMGF ends in
March 2016, this is an area that should be explored. There may be potential for explore scope for new
more results based financing approaches to new phases of existing work (e.g. DRRW) (recommendation
1).
Livestock programmes
Two key lessons have come from the livestock sub-grants, although these are of wider relevance. Firstly
the importance of industry engagement at an early stage in the project cycle. Early private sector
consultation and involvement yields greater access to intellectual property and collaboration.
Secondly, challenges of working across cultures, particularly with partners from SE Asia, in terms of
managing intellectual property, language and culture should not be underestimated and need to be
better understood if projects involving such engagement are to progress on time. One further lesson that
4
appears to continually crop up is not under estimating the time required for initial contracting of subgrantees.
Improving performance of crop breeding programmes
BMGF is developing a scorecard approach to improve performance of CGIAR and NARS crop breeding
programmes. This Breeding Program Assessment Tool (BPAT) is envisaged as a support for increasing
the rate of genetic gain delivered to farmers through BMGF and wider breeding investments. The BPAT
models both the state of the art in breeding pipeline management and an accountability framework that
is standard for the private sector, but that has not been applied to the breeding programs we support.
This is of considerable interest within the context of the CGIAR reforms and interest in DFID on different
forms of Payment By Results (recommendation 2).
Management lessons
There are now 3 other DFID teams basing partnerships with BMGF on the original agriculture research
MoU model. The grants/legal team in BMGF see significant advantage in a single umbrella MoU to make
processes more efficient and to keep transaction costs down to a minimum. This is for the Global
Partnerships team to discuss. However, at the level of the agriculture research collaboration, DFID
needs to use the Annual Reviews to continue to review the MoU and the partnership generally to ensure
that it remains fit for purpose, and keeps transaction costs to a minimum for both parties.
Beneficiary engagement
The tension between upstream laboratory based research and beneficiary involvement is real but not unmanageable. Even where the research is upstream there should, in all cases, be some ground truthing
of assumptions about the relevance of the research to beneficiaries. Where fully integrated into
breeding, beneficiary engagement can transform the relevance of the breeding, as work on cassava has
shown.
Budget and methodologies for engagement of beneficiaries, particularly women, should be made
available in order to support high quality early stage feedback on the technical solution that is essential
for ensuring relevance and prioritisation of research.
A targeted gender component under NEXTGen Cassava has demonstrated the potential for focused
gender initiatives to drive better integration of gender issues in plant breeding. Under the Gender Special
Initiative, the programme has supported gender training for early career plant breeders. This may have
wider relevance within the context of the gender strategy across the CGIAR as a whole.
Table 1 List of recommendations from 2013 review and status of follow up
Recommendations
1. BMGF to continue to ensure that open access
publications are proactively encouraged, and that
resources are provided to all projects to ensure open
source publications if required. JPAL ATAI should in
particular be encouraged to publish its materials,
including the White Paper on innovation.
2. DFID to undertake a review of JPAL ATAI
portfolio with BMGF against the original programme
objectives by end March 2014, in order to check
progress against original objectives and intentions.
3. DFID and BMGF to discuss including an
additional Indicator under Output 2, “Projects set out
measures to take into account the needs of women
farmers, workers and consumers; and report
5
Status up-date
Ongoing. It would be useful if
BMGF could issue a reminder to
all sub-grantees on this following
this Annual Review
(recommendation #8)
Done in September 2014. DFID
Agriculture Research team have
shared the credit and risk briefs
with Country Offices and cadres
(recommendation #4).
Incorporated into beneficiary
feedback survey. Undertaken
under Point/Recommendation 4
below.
annually on actions to promote benefits and mitigate
costs to women”. This would facilitate future reviews
to look at gender in more depth.
4. BMGF and DFID ask all sub-projects to undertake
a rapid review of why soliciting feedback from
beneficiaries would support the project in the
delivery of its objectives, at what stage in the project
cycle this is more relevant, and what the
mechanisms are for doing this.
5. DFID to consider options for combining a field visit
to the cassava breeding and disease diagnostics
work in Tanzania with the proposed AVRDC/CABI
visit in May/June.
6. DFID will engage with BMGF on the institutional
arrangements for PACA under the AUC, with a view
potentially to providing funding directly to PACA.
7. Additional funding to Grand Challenge
Explorations on crop protection to be agreed before
March 2014.
8. BMGF to provide an update on funding
arrangements for East Coast Fever and CBPP in
January 2014.
9. Both BMGF and DFID will work towards finalising
additional funding to BecA, Grand Challenge
Explorations on post-harvest loss as set out in
section 2.1.
10. DFID to agree with BMGF a mechanism to
handle tail off of projects and responsible exit from
these partnerships.
11. Commission an end Evaluation of the
partnership; ToRs by April 2014 with a view to
completing evaluation by October 2014.
Undertaken – analysis included in
this report. See analysis in
Section H and recommendation
#6.
Done – see BTOR Andrew
Clayton (Quest 4548393)
Ongoing – no decision needed to
be taken on continued funding to
PACA at this stage.
Done.
Done and DFID funding
approved.
Grand Challenge Explorations
funding agreed. BecA funding
proposal has been approved
within BMGF and agreed with
DFID.
Programme extended de facto
from Dec 2015 to March 2016 as
a result of an Addendum to the
Programme Memorandum to
include Tryps Phase II. This will
enable responsible exit from most
sub-projects.
This has been postponed, partly
as a result of the aforementioned
extension to the BMGF
Memorandum. ToR by March
2015 and evaluation completed
by October 2015.
Has the logframe been updated since the last review?
No
6
C: DETAILED OUTPUT SCORING (1 page per output)
Output Title
High impact research on global priorities such as (re)-establishing durable resistance
to wheat rusts that threaten world food security: fundamental re-engineering the way
that rice uses sunlight to increase yield by 50% and doubles its water use efficiency
etc.
Output Score
Output number per LF
1
A
Risk:
High
Risk revised since last AR?
Impact weighting (%):
No
Impact weighting % revised
since last AR?
Indicator(s)
Cumulative number of peer
reviewed publications.
Milestones
200 (for output 1 and 2
combined)
Number of DFID-funded grants
on track according to log frames
and milestones.
6
Proportion of research projects in
portfolio assessed as on-track to
achieve intended impacts.
80% (with at least 2 illustrative
examples of scientific
achievement reported).
45%
No
Progress
182 peer review publications
have been produced by three
projects under Output 1. Other
projects have not produced any
publications, or are at too early a
stage in the research cycle to
publish or release research
findings through different fora.
This indicator is intended as a
measure of ‘quality of research
output’. There is work being
undertaken to identify a more
appropriate methodology for
measuring research quality.
This indicator and the milestones
will be updated in due course.
There are 5 grants reported
under this output. All are ontrack and delivering high
quality research outputs.
The three existing co-funded
programmes under this
programme (C4 Rice, Banana
21, Durable Rust Resistance in
Wheat) are all progressing well.
Two new co-funded projects
(East Coast Fever and
Contagious Bovine
Pleuropneumonia) started this
year. They are at an early stage
but the review team has
assessed them as being on
track.
100% (significant scientific
achievements reported in annual
reports to BMGF on C4 Rice,
Banana 21, DRRW).
Key Points
Good progress has been made in all of the output 1 projects (C4 Rice, Banana 21, Durable Rust
Resistance in Wheat (DRRW), East Coast Fever and Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia). Details of
7
progress are set out in Table 3 below. Where there are specific technical or programme management
issues to address, BMGF has addressed these in a timely and effective fashion, enabling programmes to
stay on track with progress towards deliverables. The output scores an A – programmes are on track.
Table 2: Publications by project
Project
Total publications since DFID
funding started
Project
Durable Rust
Resistance in
Wheat
Open access *
2012
2013
2014
50
52
28
NextGen
Cassava
2012
2013
Source evidence
2014
Annual Report
3
(plus
one in
pipeline)
Annual Report to
BMGF
C4Rice
8 (primary
and
commentari
es)
15
11
http://c4rice.irri.org/
Partnership
for Aflatoxin
Control in
Africa
10
2
3
http://www.aflatoxin
partnership.org/?q=
aflatoxin-impactsand-solutions
* it has not been possible to collate the proportion of open access data for the sub projects. BMGF has a new Open
Access policy and will ensure that open access publications and data are proactively encouraged and reported.
Resources will be provided to all projects to ensure open source publications, if required.
Table 3: Progress of all DFID-BMGF co- funded grants across the portfolio for both Output 1 and
2
Project
DFID/BMGF
Funding
Start
Date
Finish
Date
On track
Durable Rust
Resistance
in Wheat *~
£9.35m/$25m
Feb
2011
Dec
2015
On-track. Continued excellent progress on high
volume screening in East Africa, and in breeding
new rust resistance varieties. Surveillance system
in Ethiopia worked well in alerting and stimulating
action on new race of stem rust. New challenge is
how we move from breeding these varieties to
ensure a continual pipeline of new rust resistant
breeds, and developing multiple sources of rust
resistance.
Diagnostics
For All ~
£0.66m/$1.9m
March
2011
Jan
2014
Jointly funded Diagnostics for All (DFA)
research (01/03/11 – 31/01/14) into low-cost,
rapid diagnostics for improving agricultural
and livestock productivity finished its first
8
phase. A second phase has been funded by
BMGF. Phase one completed field tests on DFA’s
serum based bovine progesterone test to detect
oestrous in cows. The trials showed that whilst the
test worked well, a serum based test was not
practical. The test needed to be adapted to a
whole blood sample. However the plasma
separation membrane (PSM) used in the whole
blood test needs further work (BMGF funded
phase 2) to prevent it holding back progesterone
molecules from reaching detection zones of the
flow through device. Phase one also took an
aflatoxin diagnostic test device from the concept
stage, through feasibility studies and the early
stages of development. Field testing showed the
device had significant promise but further testing
was required (as yet un-funded) to improve the
extraction protocol for samples and build a
multiple-threshold device, capable of providing a
qualitative response at 10, 4, and 2 parts per billion
aflatoxin levels.
Partnership
for Aflatoxin
Control in
Africa
(PACA) ~
£1m/$18.4m
Feb
2012
Feb
2017
Despite slow initial progress, good progress
has ensured a full, high quality team and a
clear strategy in place. The PACA secretariat
is well positioned to take the work forward in
2015 and beyond. The establishment of the
PACA secretariat at the African Union with a
clear strategy has been an iterative process to
ensure buy-in from a range of stakeholders.
During 2013 and early 2014, Dalberg conducted
an independent review of PACA. The review put
forward several functions and roles for PACA
secretariat but these were seen as too broad in
view of the available resources, and the strategic
position of PACA secretariat within the African
Union. During May to August 2014, a MonitorDeloitte team helped in refining the PACA’s
strategy to distinguish the core activities of the
secretariat versus those of the larger PACA
community. The refined strategy affirms the
earlier direction developed by the PACA Steering
Committee, but is more targeted. The secretariat
will support governments’ effectiveness in
aflatoxin control through three primary roles,
including 1) convener; 2) knowledge manager
and 3) financial resources provider. In addition,
the secretariat will provide technical assistance
to support 5 country pilots in Gambia, Senegal,
Malawi, Tanzania and Uganda over the next 3
years, and then look to transition this role to
national governments for long-term provision.
During 2014, PACA has organized several high
level regional and national stakeholder
engagement and stepped up its knowledge
management functions.
J-PAL –
£3.49m/$5.73
Dec
Dec
On-track. Good progress with 6 impact studies
9
Agricultural
Technology
Adoption
Initiative
(ATAI) ~
C4Rice *
£2.77m/$8.5m
2012
2016
commissioned, and a 7th is in the final stages of
approval and contracting. The number of studies
is higher than originally anticipated, as researchers
are leveraging some additional sources of funds.
JPAL is producing policy briefs on credit and
insurance based on the ongoing studies. These
are being actively shared with DFID country offices
and cadres. The Sierra Leone study on NERICAs
will be delayed by at least a year due to ebola.
May
2012
May
2015
On-track. Despite a slow start to Phase 2, the
programme has progressed well.
Major
strengths include the composition of the group (top
scientists; commitment and leadership); enhanced
scientific understanding; and leverage on other
science in this area in China/Australia. Funding for
the field and the field itself has flourished and this
is now a well-supported consortium. The C4 Rice
consortium has become more sophisticated in how
it is dealing with IP issues, product development
and PPPs. They have developed an IP strategy
for the programme which can be applied across
other parts of IRRI as well.
A slow start was related to the difficulty that IRRI
has had as the lead in retaining and attracting high
quality staff. BMGF has ensured that this issue is
addressed, making this year’s funding contingent
on revised milestones and allocation of roles,
ensuring that sub-teams are reorganised to bring in
the right level of scientific leadership. They have
also provided management/coaching support
where appropriate.
Next
Generation
Cassava ~
£3.3m/$17.7m
Sept
2012
Sept
2017
On-track. This project implements genomic
selection breeding strategies in cassava. It is led
by Cornell University, but primarily takes place in
three cassava breeding programs: the
International Institute for Tropical Agriculture
(IITA), the National Root Crops Research
Institute (NRCRI) in Nigeria, and the National
Crops Resources Research Institute (NaCRRI) in
Namulonge, Uganda. It has enabled the
promotion of Cassavabase as a platform for
global access to cassava data. Wider use of
Cassavabase will enhance its potential to
sustainably serve as a useful cassava data
management resource. It also provides useful
linkages with other cassava research
programmes in Africa. Germplasm was
exchanged among partners to establish a set of
common reference lines and good
representatives of various flowering and seed set
classes. Prediction models were developed for
both NaCRRI and NRCRI breeding programs.
One of 7 objectives is delayed due to no
approvals for germplasm shipment from Latin
America to the breeding programs under this
project. Work on hybridization is progressing but
10
slowly. The civil works for the germplasm
conservation facility are now in progress, with
completion expected within 18 months.
Banana 21 Biofortified
Bananas *
£1.17m/$3.8m
Oct
2012
Oct
2015
On track. Team has asked for a no-cost
extension – with this extension, the project is
on track for all objectives, except the human
feeding trial and the communications officer.
Despite problems encountered last year on East
Africa Highland Banana component due to
instability of cultivars, they are now making solid
advance in this area. They are making steady
progress on raising pro vitamin A levels in East
African Highland bananas. Iron levels are still
proving more challenging, and additional specialist
advice is being brought in on this area. A scientific
advisory committee has just been set up.
Approvals for human feeding trials are being
processed.
This trial is funded through and
managed by Harvest Plus. The trial has been
delayed because of logistics reasons and request
for additional inputs from the Banana21 Scientific
Advisory Committee before the trial commences.
Cassava
Diagnostics
~
£2.4m/$6.8m
Feb
2013
June
2016
On-track. This grant is a significant investment in
addressing the critical threat of cassava virus
diseases to small farmers across sub-Saharan
Africa. The research is important in understanding
how best to control root crop viral diseases and
also supports other stakeholders, including in
cassava breeding for disease resistance (NextGen
Cassava), validation of clean planting material, use
of diagnostics tools, and longer-term strategic
efforts to control cassava viruses. In addition to its
critical connection and coordination role, this
Mikocheni Agriculture Research Institute (MARI)
led grant is an important learning opportunity in
partnering directly with leading National
Agricultural Research Systems (NARS), both to
build local capacity, and to deliver on outcomes for
cassava farmers across Africa.
Good progress in the first year of this Phase II
grant, with the team performing well. The project
has drawn high level interest from the President,
leading to increased investments at MARI. In terms
of scientific progress, confirmation this year from 4
project countries identifying cassava viruses in
non-cassava plants (including bushy weeds
growing in or near cassava fields) is extremely
significant, and when validated in peer-reviewed
publication will represent a major step forward in
understanding of how and why cassava viruses
emerged in African continent, where cassava is not
a native crop. That this is new knowledge reflects
the lack of research attention given to these
complex disease systems, and can be used to
design more effective control measures (e.g. weed
control becomes even more significant, not just for
11
agronomic reasons but for disease control).
Bovine TB ~
£0.65m/$1.22m
Aug
2013
April
2015
On-track – earlier delays have been overcome.
The development of a bovine experimental
challenge model and natural transmission models
for tuberculosis have progressed well. Delays
reported in the 2013 AR have been largely
overcome. As of December 2013 the project
implementer, the ‘Animal Health and Veterinary
Laboratories Agency’ UK, has successfully
achieved milestones. A BCG (Bacillus CalmetteGuérin vaccine) challenge model based on
intranodal introduction of the pathogen had been
established and shown there is enough scope in
the outcome for the model to be used to
demonstrate superior vaccine efficacies for (future)
novel experimental vaccines compared to BCG
alone. This work has been published3. The project
successfully determined the transmission rate of
natural infection in cattle, in Ethiopia, to validate a
BCG challenge model. In 2014, the project has
demonstrated reproducibility of the challenge
model, transferred the model to Ethiopian partners
and provided further training and exposure of
Ethiopian partners through stakeholder meetings.
A major stakeholder meeting was convened in
Addis Ababa in December. Delays have been
experience in planned biomarker studies but the
studies will go ahead. These immunological
studies plan to validate biomarkers, recently
discovered by AHVLA, that correlate with vaccineinduced protection or with disease progression.
Biosciences
East and
Central
Africa (BecA)
~
£3m/$8m
Nov
2014
Dec
2018
Grant started in November 2014. The development
of a proposal for support to BecA, hosted by ILRI,
took longer than anticipated. BMGF did well in
clarifying some of the management issues in terms
of the relationship between ILRI and BecA, and
ensuring that the support is in line with DFID’s
overall strategy with respect to the CGIAR. A final
proposal for support to BecA was developed and
approved, and start implementation in November
2014. The proposed program support focuses on
providing African National Agricultural Research
Systems (NARS) scientists with the means of
driving discovery and applied research to address
key constraints in crop and livestock for
smallholder farmers in Africa. The grant will
support and strengthen BecA’s human and
physical capacity to host African researchers’ work
at BecA (including direct annual support of 52
Africa Biosciences Challenge Fund fellows, and
increasing the effectiveness of the short term
training and long term impact for an additional 40
fellows to be supported along with other BecA
3
Villarreal-Ramos, B., Berg, S., Chamberlain, L., McShane, H., Hewinson, R.G., Clifford, D. and Vordermeier, M. 2014.
Development of a BCG challenge model for the testing of vaccinecandidates against tuberculosis in cattle. Vaccine 32 (2014)
5645–5649
12
donors). The programme’s outcome is NARS
increasingly driving and leading strategy and
implementation of research for development
projects in agriculture in Eastern and Central
Africa, with consequent sustainable productivity
increases for smallholder farmers. It is gender
inclusive, both in terms of the target beneficiaries
as well as the BecA research community itself.
DFID’s first tranche will be made in May 2016 and
the second in May 2017.
East Coast
Fever *
£1m/$10m
Jan
2014
Dec
2017
On-track, despite early contracting delays. The
research to improve vaccines to prevent east coast
fever commenced in January 2014 with a
stakeholder workshop. Delays in contracting subgrantees meant that the project will now end in
Dec. 2017 rather than August 2017. Despite this
administrative
delay,
sub-grantees
have
commenced initial experimental work to improve
the existing infection and treatment method of ECF
control, induce improved antibody immunity to the
sporozoite stage of the ECF parasite, to induce Tcell mediated immunity to the schizont stage of the
ECF parasite, evaluate differing antigen delivery
systems and map genetic variation within the
parasite prior to whole genome sequencing.
Kenya’s National Biosafety Authority (NBA) has
approved all of the proposed ECF viral vectored
vaccine trials.
CBPP*
£0.18m/$01.52
m
Nov
2013
Oct
2015
Overall progress, whilst good, has been
delayed by the challenging contractual
negotiations,
particularly
on
intellectual
property
protection.
Contagious
Bovine
Pleuropneumonia BEN-1 vaccine strain has been
bred by the Harbin Veterinary Research Institute
(HVRI) and vials of the isolate quality assured by
CIRAD4 in terms of specific identification of the
organism and purity. The transfer of Ben-180
isolates from CIRAD to the African Union’s Pan
African Veterinary Vaccine Centre (PANVAC) will
occur once contracts are agreed.
A delayed
"Intellectual property protection contract for
Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia Ben-1
Vaccine" between HVRI and Global Alliance for
Livestock Veterinary Medicines (GALVmed) was
agreed and signed by both parties in October
2014. It should now be possible for PANVAC to
receive technical support from HVRI seconded
staff to manufacture the experimental BEN-1
vaccine. This will then be transferred to CVRI
(Zambia) for ongoing challenge validation studies
supported by GALVmed through a separate
(BMGF / DFID funded programme5. The building
PANVAC’s capacity to manufacture the BEN-1
vaccine has taken longer than originally planned.
4
5
(CIRAD is the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) Reference Centre for CBPP)
Global Alliance For Livestock Veterinary Medicines (GALVmed): Phase 2 – Protecting Livestock and Saving Human Lives
13
As a result of these impediments, the project
completion date has been changed, in agreement
with BMGF, from the original date of March 2015 to
October 2015.
Tryps Phase
2~
£4.1m/$7.64m
Dec
2014
March
2016
Funding has just started – progress to be
assessed next year.
Grand
Challenge
Exploration –
Asilomar Bio
striga control
£0.21m/$0.67m
Aug
2014
Aug
2016
Funding has just started – progress to be
assessed next year. Asilomar Bio have developed
a novel strategy for the elimination of Striga seeds
from infested regions: before planting, a small
quantity of a low-cost strigolactone mimic (AB01) is
applied to the field, which induces germination and
death of the parasite, leading to improved crop
health and grain yield. The phase II project will
evaluate AB01 as a tool for cost-effective Striga
management. To improve smallholder farm
productivity, the product will have to demonstrate
(1) efficacy in clearing or reducing the Striga
burden in the field, with concurrent increases in
harvest yield, (2) a manufacturing cost and dose
level that will allow the intervention to be used by
resource-constrained farmers, (3) a formulation
and application method that allows ease of use
and ready adoption, and (4) safety of the
formulated product for users and the environment.
They will also make a technical and economic
comparison with other Striga control technologies
and develop an adoption plan with strategic
partners.
Grand
Challenge
Exploration
£ 0.33m/$0.62m
TBC
TBC
Funding has just started – progress to be
assessed next year. Mobile Assay plan to deploy
the Lab-on-Mobile-Device (LMD) platform on
smartphones for use in Sub-Saharan smallholder
farms and mills to quantify mycotoxins in grain and
then develop an integrated new mobile ozone
decontamination (MOD) treatment system for
infected material. The goal of the Phase II project
is to create and deploy a comprehensive solution
for the detection and elimination of mycotoxins
(mainly Aflatoxin) in maize for smallholder farmers
in Sub Saharan Africa (SSA). This uses highly
sensitive mobile diagnostic monitoring and a MOD
system to treat affected maize preserving the
economic value of grain stores for farmers and
ensuring food safety for communities at large. This
has the potential to increase the quantity and
quality of agricultural data for predictive models of
contamination, reduce public exposure to Aflatoxin
and incidence of associated diseases, and
preserve the economic livelihood of smallholder
farmers.
Lab-onMobileDevice
platform to
detect
mycotoxins
* contributes to Output 1
~ contributes to Output 2
14
Output Title
Translation of known science into technological solutions e.g. improved nutritional
qualities of major staple crops through biofortification, better use of legumes to
improve soil quality and atmospheric nitrogen fixation etc.
Output Score
Output number per LF
2
A+
Risk:
Low
Risk revised since last AR?
Impact weighting (%):
N
Indicator(s)
Milestones
Number
of
new
research 8
products relevant to the poor
developed and in use by
intermediate and final users.
Impact weighting % revised
since last AR?
55%
N
Progress
Target exceeded:
DRRWi breeding and delivery products delivered:
 294 new high yield lines that carry nearimmune to moderately resistant
characteristics have been replicated in yield
trials and non-replicated screening nurseries
for distribution in 2014 and 2015.
 26 resistant and 60 moderately resistant
lines of durum wheat have been distributed
globally.
 At least 15 resistant and 8 moderately
resistant lines have been selected for global
distribution in 2015.
 An estimated 35,500 tons of seed of rust
resistant wheat varieties are available for
planting:
o (14,400 tons of resistant wheat (5
varieties) in Ethiopia are available to
replace Digelu and Kakabe.
o 21,000 tons of rust resistant seed (4
varieties) are being harvested for
distribution in Kenya.
o 40 tons of seed (2 varieties) will be
available this season in Bhutan to
replace an old Green Revolution
variety.
o 22 tons of resistant Breeder Seed
and 2 tons of Foundation Seed are
available in Bangladesh.
JPAL ATAI has produced two policy relevant briefs
on credit and risk which are being shared with
decision makers.
Illustrative examples of scientific
achievements against milestones
of individual projects.
2
Cassavabase is being actively used by researchers
to improve breeding activities which are relevant to
poor farmers (see example below).
See examples below of scientific achievements
from JPAL ATAI, NEXTGEN Cassavabase, gender
in cassava breeding and PACA.
Whilst this
milestone is intended as indicative of the types of
progress being delivered, these are strong
examples further underlining the strength of the
portfolio as a whole.
15
Key Points
Work has progressed very well on Output 2 on translational research. All co-funded programmes are
on-track against their milestones and logframes. DRRW project generates a very useful summary of its
“impact metrics” on an annual basis, which demonstrates the prolific and diverse range of research
products from this programme, with several new high yielding lines developed and 26 resistant and 60
moderately resistant lines of durum wheat have been distributed globally. DRRW is making available rust
resistant wheat seed varieties available for planting in Ethiopia, Kenya, Bhutan and Bangladesh.
Design of new support to BecA has been undertaken, with the new project is ready to start at the end of
2014. PACA has started to deliver tangible outputs, and to demonstrate its role as an evidence broker at
country level on aflatoxins. 7 new impact evaluations have been commissioned under JPAL’s ATAI and
early lessons from their earlier adoption studies are being disseminated to DFID Country Offices. The
two cassava research programmes are both progressing very well, both in delivering specific research
outputs (including the Cassavabase open access resource for breeders) as well as contributing to
building the capacity of national agricultural research partners.
New support was agreed in the year to two Grand Challenge Exploration projects, on bio striga control
and Lab-on-Mobile-Device platform to detect mycotoxins.
Examples of Scientific achievements
The logframe asks for 2 examples. However, a larger number (but not exhaustive list) is highlighted
here to indicate the range of outputs and products being generated.
NEXTGEN Cassava’s Cassavabase initiative
The Next Generation Cassava Breeding (NEXTGEN Cassava) project aims to significantly increase the
rate of genetic improvement in cassava breeding and unlock the full potential of cassava, a staple crop
central to food security and livelihoods across Africa. Cassava (Manihot esculenta), is the main source
of calories for 500 million people across the globe. No other continent depends on cassava to feed as
many people as Africa where cassava is indispensable to food security. It is a widely preferred and
consumed staple, as well as a hardy crop that can be stored in the ground as a fall-back source of food
that can save lives in times of famine. Despite the importance of cassava for food security, it has
received relatively little research and development attention compared to other staples such as wheat,
rice and maize.
The Next Generation Cassava Breeding (NEXTGEN) project aims to significantly increase the rate of
genetic improvement in cassava breeding and unlock the full potential of cassava. The project will
implement and empirically test a new breeding method known as Genomic Selection that relies on
statistical modeling to predict cassava performance before field-testing and dramatically accelerates the
breeding cycle.
Scientists on the NEXTGEN Cassava project at Cornell University have released Cassavabase, a
database that promotes global open access data sharing. www.cassavabase.org features all phenotypic
and genotypic data generated by cassava breeding programs involved in the NEXTGEN Cassava
project, and makes the data immediately and openly accessible to all users prior to publication. Wider
use of Cassavabase will enhance its potential to serve as a sustainable, global cassava data
management resource.Open access databases such as Cassavabase enable better decisions based on
good quality data by the global cassava breeding community. Cassavabase will lead to increased
efficiency in agricultural cassava breeding and ultimately improve the livelihoods of African cassava
farmers. The cassava research community are leading the way amongst agricultural scientists in sharing
their data rapidly and openly to maximize opportunities for developing improved cassava varieties for
small farmers in sub-Saharan Africa and indeed, globally.
Cassavabase content is up to date with all training population genotypic data, and most phenotypic data
from all three breeding programmes. There are now a total of 15,540 accessions on Cassavabase,
87,451 plots and 2,769,311 phenotypic measurements, a nearly three-fold increase in the last year.
16
JPAL’s briefs on credit and risk insurance
BMGF’s co-funding to JPAL Agricultural Technology Adoption Initiative goes to the initial adoption
studies, which are underway. DFID’s funding supports work to extend these or commission new impact
studies. Chris Udry was invited to present in DFID on early findings. DFID has encouraged JPAL to
share the early findings from the adoption studies via short succinct policy briefs. These are now
available, and DFID is sharing these with advisers in Country Offices who are working on agricultural
growth issues. DFID should continue to actively share emerging lessons from JPAL ATAI with Country
Offices and developing country governments. The outputs from JPAL are highly relevant to supporting
rural transformation and transitions, providing evidence on understanding the risk and negative impacts
involved and how to manage these more effectively (see recommendation #4).
Integration of gender into cassava breeding
Under the Gender Special Initiative, the programme has supported gender training for early career plant
breeders. NEXTGEN breeders from IITA, NRCRI and NaCRRI participated in designing interdisciplinary
gender surveys for Uganda and Nigeria, and also attended gender sensitization workshops. Survey tool
testing and pilot survey design were carried out in Nigeria, and are being designed in Uganda. Pilot
surveys are ongoing in Nigeria, with full surveys planned in Period 3. Pilot surveys are planned for
Uganda in Period 3. A specific gender training program for cassava researchers is planned and under
development with Cultural Practice LLC, a gender training consultancy group. We anticipate the delivery
of this training program to NARO researchers, Makerere faculty and RTB breeders in early 2015. All
gender research and training is in close contact with the CGIAR Roots, Tubers and Bananas program,
with whom the surveys are being co-designed. The importance of integrating gender issues into
cassava breeding was reflected in a blog (http://www.rtb.cgiar.org/including-womens-preferences-toenhance-cassava-breeding-programs-conversing-with-bill-gates/#
Programme for Aflatoxin Control in Africa
PACA has finalised training on the Africa Aflatoxin Information Management System (AfricaAIMS) in all
five pilot countries. AfricaAIMS is an electronic data management system that serves as a ‘one-stop’
information hub for aflatoxin and related topics. Countries will now be able to collect and manage
relevant data for major value chains that had been identified by the respective country.
PACA is producing evidence outputs targeted at country stakeholders engaging on aflatoxins.
1) “10 Facts You Should Know About Aflatoxins” provides a short, easy to read overview of
aflatoxin, impacts on staple crops and negative human health and economic impacts, and the
range of options already available to address the problem through ac-curate detection, good
agricultural practices, policies and regulations, and other measures to reduce exposure. The brief
includes a call to support and expand the impact of work al-ready being done toward an Africa
free from the harmful effects of aflatoxins. The brief is available at:
http://aflatoxinpartnership.org/uploads/PACA_10facts_v2.pdf.
2) “The Relationship Between Aflatoxins and Stunting: A Summary of Current Research” describes
the work being conducted to better understand and show the linkages between aflatoxin
exposure and childhood growth faltering. Childhood stunting, a chronic form of malnutrition, is
potentially associated with many health problems, including an increased rate of infectious
illnesses, impaired learning capabilities, and reduced work productivity. Several studies have
shown a potential correlation between aflatoxin exposure and child-hood stunting. This brief
provides a summary of some of the major research currently underway that is exploring the
relationship between mycotoxin (including aflatoxin) exposure and childhood stunting. The brief is
available at: http://aflatoxinpartnership.org/uploads/PACA%20Stunting%20Policy%20Brief.pdf
3) Infographic on Aflatoxin Activities in Africa, 2014. This infographic was developed for the 2014
PACA Partnership Platform Meeting. The PACA Secretariat has been collecting information
about many of the aflatoxin control efforts across Africa. They are compiled into Database of
Aflatoxin Activities in Africa.
http://www.aflatoxinpartnership.org/uploads/Afltaoxin%20Control%20Activities%20Infographic.pdf
17
D: VALUE FOR MONEY & FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE (1 page)
Key cost drivers and performance
No specific costs or cost drivers were identified as this programme was approved prior to the introduction
of the business case. The main cost drivers are Grantees’ costs and reimbursables. All applicants have
to set out their spending plans to BMGF as part of their Request for Application. These spending plans
are carefully monitored by BMGF throughout the lifetime of the project. BMGF shares these financial
reports with DFID and forwards to DFID a copy of the Grantees annual financial statements. Grantees
must get the co-funders prior agreement to any budget cost category change of more than 10%.
VfM performance compared to the original VfM proposition in the business case
The partnership provides very good value for money. It allows DFID to participate in a significant portfolio
of research investments that has been identified by BMGF through a highly competitive process
undertaken by BMGF. This expanding portfolio contains a mix of long term highly transformative
research and research delivering more short to medium term outcomes of relevance to poor people.
Through regular dialogue with BMGF, we are able to decide to fund new high quality projects which
closely align with DFID’s research priorities. We are able to call on BMGF’s significant technical advisory
skills BMGF in the management of these projects. This results in low transaction costs for DFID
especially given the size of the portfolio.
Assessment of whether the programme continues to represent value for money
Bovine TB challenge models being developed by the ‘Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories
Agency’ UK have cost less than predicted after optimisation studies allowed the use of smaller than
planned experiment group sizes and co funding from Defra funding projects shared key costs.
Quality of financial management
A due diligence assessment of BMGF was carried out in September 2014 as part of increasing our
overall support to the partnership to include DFID’s funding to the Tryps Phase 2 programme. This
assessment has found BMGF to have a low risk rating. In particular, BMGF has a clear governance and
control structure, stringent fraud, bribery and corruption policies and practice, including when working
with downstream partners and adequate policies in place to minimise risk. BMGF has transparent and
robust procurement processes, and implements measures to ensure these are compliant with relevant
laws and regulations. BMGF has demonstrated the capacity and prior experience needed to properly
monitor and manage downstream partners. This assessment was signed off by the Deputy Chief
Scientific Adviser.
BMGF has tried and tested tools and methods for project monitoring and reporting. Under the terms of
the MOU, BMGF provide DFID with a copy of the annual audited statements from each co-funded
project, detailed expenditure statements which form part of the rigorous annual technical reports
provided by each co-funded project as well as an annual confirmation letter from BMGF’s Chief Finance
Officer confirming the annual payment received from DFID. The latter is provided as DFID’s contributions
cannot appear in BMGF’s annual audited statements as it would infringe the organisation’s tax free
status under US Internal Revenue Service’s rules. These documents are all submitted promptly by
BMGF to DFID without any intervention.
Following discussions, it was agreed that all future payments submitted by DFID to BMGF would be
made in US$ rather than £. This will greatly simplify the payment process for BMGF as DFID’s
contribution can be forwarded to the Grantee without the need for a currency conversion. It was also
agreed that we would dispense with Annex A to the MOU, which set out a payment schedule for DFID
and BMGF contributions. This had to be maintained in both £s and US$. Instead, each partner will
maintain its own spreadsheet.
Table 4 below shows how DFID’s contribution to the partnership has been spent together with details of
future payments. A sum of about £1.38m has still to be committed.
18
Table 4: DFID Payments and Commitments
Date
Project
Payment
Mar-11
Mar-11
Nov-11
Apr-12
Durable Wheat Rust
Diagnostics For All
PACA
Durable Wheat Rust
£6,500,000
£660,000
£1,000,000
£2,849,200
Apr-12
May-12
Feb-13
Feb-13
Nov-13
Jan-14
JPAL (ATAI)
C4Rice
Cassava Diagnostics
Bovine TB
Next Generation Cassava
Biofortified Bananas
£1,166,680
£2,768,850
£1,685,528
£652,302
£3,352,986
£1,174,846
Jul-14
Jul-14
Jul-14
Dec -14
East Coast Fever
JPAL (ATAI)
CBPP
Tryps Phase 2
Total
£599,371
£898,942
£179,948
£1,567,647
£25,056,300
Date
Project
Committed
Mar-15
JPAL (ATAI)
$1,200,000
Mar-16
Tryps Phase II
$4,323,419
Mar-16
Aug-15
JPAL (ATAI)
GCE – Asilomar STRIGA
GCE - Phase II Mobile
Assay
$1,191,643
$317,868
BecA
BecA
$2,987,595
$1,512,405
Aug-15
May-16
May-17
Total
Current Exchange Rate
(£1=$1.5706)
Grand Total
Programme Budget
Still to commit
$513,823
$12,046,753
£7,670,160
£32,672,472
£34,104,769
£1,378,309
Date of last narrative financial report
Date of last audited annual statement
Various
6 January 2014
19
E: RISK (½ page)
Overall risk rating: Medium
The risk profile has been revised upwards, following a change in the way in which DFID’s Research and
Evidence Division categorises risks into output, management and intellectual (research) risks. The
change in rating reflects a change in the approach to risk analysis, rather than a fundamental shift in the
risk profile of the portfolio.
Risk analysis uses the system adopted in DFID’s Research and Evidence Division of looking at output,
management and intellectual risk.
Overall the management risk, as in previous years, remains low. This has not changed since inception.
The risk of DFID and BMGF failing to deliver an effective and innovative research portfolio, that is well
managed both technically and programmatically, is low. BMGF is a trusted partner with whom we keep
in close contact by both face to face and electronic contacts and have a good track record of productive
engagement. BMGF project design and management of the project cycle is backed up by high quality
staff using tried and tested methods. We have been able to select the projects that we wish to co-fund
and have ensured that these are feasible, are conducted by competent and reliable grantees and fit with
DFID’s strategy, aims and goals.
BMGF employs rigorous tools and methods for project monitoring and reporting (see the Annual Report
for Durable Rust Resistance in Wheat as an example). BMGF has rigorous financial management and
procurement systems in place to provide DFID with necessary financial data, i.e. grantee’s expenditure
updates, grantee’s annual audited accounts and annual confirmation from BMGF of DFID funds
received.
Output risk is also low. This is primarily because the risk of attaining the outputs is low. Given the
diversity and size of the portfolio, risk is spread across programmes. It is also low due to BMGF’s strong
technical oversight and close monitoring of programmes.
Research or intellectual risk is medium for the portfolio as a whole, but relatively high under Output 1, as
is expected with transformational research. However, the risk of these projects failing to deliver some
form of useful research outputs is low – even if they fail to deliver the expected research outcomes, e.g.
rice with higher photosynthetic efficiency, they will generate useful invaluable lessons on science in this
area which can be used to benefit related breeding work.
There is no change in the overall climate and environment risk. Many of the co-funded projects
demonstrate research that responds to changing climatic and weather conditions (e.g. better surveillance
and protection from wheat rust, improved cassava which is a drought resistant crop). The 2012 review
provided two examples (cassava and C4 rice). Two new examples from this year are the JPAL ATAI
evaluations which have been commissioned in 2013, which include impact evaluation of shorter duration
rice in Sierra Leone, and drought tolerant risk reduction in rice and its impact on yield and welfare in
India.
F: COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS (½ page)
Delivery against planned timeframe
This programme started in January 2011 and was due to finish in December 2015. An addendum to the
business case was approved recently to include our support to the Tryps Phase 2 programme with
GALVmed through the partnership. This addendum extended the programme end date to March 2016.
All of the projects are on track except for CBPP – see Table 3 - where although good progress has been
made, the project has been delayed by demanding contractual negotiations, particularly on intellectual
property protection. The CBPP project completion date has been changed, in agreement with BMGF,
from the original date of March 2015 to October 2015.
20
Performance of partnership(s)
The programme began in 2011 with three co-funded projects. This has expanded to six (2012), nine
(2013) and fifteen (2014). This expansion has made it increasingly challenging to keep track with what’s
happening across individual projects and across the portfolio as a whole. The DFID core programme
team consists of one DFID adviser and one deputy programme manager. Additional inputs are brought
in as required from other advisers, a deputy programme manager and an animal health/livestock
consultant. The consultant is filling a knowledge gap in animal health within the Agriculture Team.
These additional technical inputs are particularly important as the portfolio has grown in size.
The BMGF’s Senior Program Officer of Agricultural Development (Kathy Kahn) has played a critical role
in coordinating DFID’s engagement across the range of different Programme Officers overseeing each
sub-grantee. DFID has benefited from her considerable knowledge of the projects outside of her own
portfolio, her facilitation role, as well as the coordination and inputs required to bring the lead program
officers together for the DFID Annual Review. As the programme has grown, so has the level of
coordination and engagement required on both sides. This needs to be considered as the current
Business Case comes to an end, we consider future partnership and given internal pressures in DFID to
reduce the number of projects managed by the Team by combining projects in bundling arrangements
such as this one.
A list of the co-funded projects together with start and end dates are shown in Table 5. The programme
is due to end in March 2016. 8 projects continue beyond this date. We have been considering how we
will handle this tail off in projects and the proposed next phase of co-funded research with BMGF in a
way which ensures appropriate accountability and reporting. One option is to prepare a business case
for our new round of joint-funded projects with BMGF, and transfer the monitoring of the remaining
projects under this existing programme to the new programme. This will help with the general strategy of
minimising the number of projects handled by Agriculture Research Team. Consideration should be
given to the scheduling of another DFID-BMGF bilateral in late 2015 to help define the overarching
strategy for the potential next phase from 2016. It is recommended that during 2015 DFID and BMGF
build on the priorities identified in September visit to Seattle to refine a new strategic programme of cofunding. (recommendation #1).
Table 5: List of Co-funded Projects with Start and End Dates
Start
Date
Mar-11
End Date
Diagnostics For All
Total DFID
Contribution
£660,000
Tryps Phase II
£4,321,360
Dec-14
Mar-15
Bovine TB
£652,302
Aug-13
Apr-15
C4Rice
£2,768,850
May-12
May-15
Biofortified Bananas
£1,174,846
Oct-12
Oct-15
CBPP
£177,210
Nov-13
Oct-15
Durable Wheat Rust
£9,349,200
Feb-11
Dec-15
Cassava Diagnostics
£1,685,528
Feb-13
Jun-16
JPAL (ATAI)
£3,487,716
Dec-12
Dec-16
GCE - Phase II Mobile Assay
£327,840
Aug-14
Jul-16
GCE – Asilomar STRIGA
£202,813
Aug-14
Jul-16
PACA
£1,000,000
Feb-12
Feb-17
Next Generation Cassava
£3,352,986
Sep-12
Sep-17
East Coast Fever
£590,642
Oct-13
Nov-17
BecA
£2,871,179
Nov-14
Dec-18
£32,672,472
21
Jan-14
Asset monitoring and control
BMGF has demonstrated the capacity and experience needed to properly monitor and manage
programme assets. Capital expenditure is closely monitored in project budget reports.
22
G: CONDITIONALITY (½ page)
Update on partnership principles (if relevant)
Not applicable
H: MONITORING & EVALUATION (½ page)
Evidence and evaluation
BMGF adopted an Open Access policy in November 2014. This is to enable the unrestricted access and
reuse of all peer reviewed public research funded by the foundation, including any underlying data sets.
This will be effective for 2017. This aligns BMGF closely with DFID’ own open access policy, although
there are some changes in emphasis between the two funders. This will make it easier to ensure
grantees have a clear workplan and approach on open access (recommendation #7).
Monitoring progress throughout the review period
Monitoring of individual sub-grants varies across the portfolio depending on the stage of the project
cycle. For example, there has been a close relationship on BecA with BMGF, where DFID has been
planning to provide funding, but this has been light touch on other projects.
In addition to the Annual Review discussions, a DFID team visited BMGF in Seattle in September 2014
to discuss strategic research priorities (see BTOR Quest 4650926).
Review of Beneficiary engagement across the project cycle
DFID carried out a questionnaire assessment of how beneficiaries’ feedback into the BMGF research
projects throughout the project cycle. This included analysis of gender awareness and support. The
assessment showed that beneficiary engagement and responsiveness to gender issues was variable
across the projects. The majority showed strong to moderate engagement for both issues (see
Beneficiary and Gender Survey response summary Quest 4751388). As would be expected there
appeared to be weaker engagement for projects working at the upstream end of research rather than for
technology introduction or product development projects. The tension between upstream laboratory
based research and beneficiary involvement is real but not un-manageable. Some of the upstream
projects showed moderate to good engagement. For example, the NEXTGEN Cassava project’s
biotechnology-focused work in Uganda has convened workshops on biotechnology for community
leaders and farmers in Uganda, in addition to engaging directly with policy makers (members of the
Ugandan parliament). There is also a targeted gender component to this project and recognition that
traits most often targeted by the breeding programs are usually those preferred by men, so there’s an
opportunity to hear more women’s voices. Some of the upstream projects, for example the research on
Bovine TB vaccine were also building upon community based studies not repeated in the current phase
of project work or would lead to future engagement with communities once the laboratory work was
complete.
It was clear in some cases that upstream research was reliant upon assumptions of the demand and
importance of their research outputs, particularly for women farmers. Even though research is upstream
there should, in all cases, be some ground truthing of assumptions about the relevance of the research
to beneficiaries. In some cases this could be confined to literature review or formal consultation with local
partners against basic criteria, rather than a household level survey or consultation. In some cases
highly specialised technicians managing the project do not have, and would not be expected to have, the
skill sets to carry out beneficiary engagement and gender analysis. A common challenge cited by
upstream researchers was the logistical, communications and information challenges associated with
Smart Guide
i
directly accessing beneficiaries. In all cases there appeared to be willingness to engage, but the budget
and methodologies for engagement were not always available or familiar to the researchers. For
example, several projects showed good recognition that iterative grower engagement provides high
quality feedback on the technical solution and is essential for ensuring relevance and prioritisation.
DFID should develop criteria for promoting engagement at the start of any research project. DFID should
assemble guidance materials for researchers on how to engage with beneficiaries and to assess gender
issues. DFID to ensure projects are aware that beneficiary engagement and gender assessment will be
viewed positively in budgets and proposals (recommendation #5).
REVIEW PROCESS
The review was undertaken by an internal DFID team (Rachel Lambert, Nicoliene Oudwater and
Alasdair Swift) with input from Tim Leyland (Livestock Adviser) on the livestock sub-projects. It involved
a review discussion by video-conference on 22nd October 2014 with the technical Programme Officers in
BMGF, who are responsible for the management and oversight of the sub-granted programmes. It also
involved written progress updates from BMGF to DFID on the sub-grants, as well as progress reports
from the sub-grantees. The team also reviewed the previous year’s DFID Annual Review. It also draws
on a field visit made by Andrew Clayton to the Cassava Diagnostics work (Quest No 4548393) and
meetings held by DFID and BMGF in Seattle in September 2014 (Quest No 4650926). It draws on a
survey initiated by Ben Cattermoul following last year’s review, into beneficiary feedback in the research
cycle, which was undertaken by BMGF with project grantees, and analysed by Tim Leyland.
Documentation
Project Memorandum (Quest No 3221797)
Logframe (Quest No 3801171)
DFID 2012 Annual Review of DFID-BMGF Partnership (Quest No 3327794)
Annual Review Scoring Sheet (Quest No 4216205)
DRRW 2013 Progress Report (Quest No 4760775)
Diagnostics For All Final Progress Report (Quest No 4757596)
Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa 2013 Progress Report (Quest No 4692545)
J-PAL – Agricultural Technology Adoption Initiative 2013 Progress Report (Quest No 4560935)
C4Rice Progress 2013 Report (Quest No 4692538)
Next Generation Cassava Progress 2013 Report (Quest No 4692526)
Cassava Diagnostics Progress 2013 Report (Quest No 4692530)
Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia BEN-1 2013 Progress Report (Quest No 4700736)
Bovine TB Progress Report (Quest No 4700736)
East Coast Fever 2013 Progress Report (Quest 4700736)
Biofortified Bananas Progress Report (Quest No 4692542)
Letter from BMGF CFO confirming 2013 DFID Contributions (Quest No 4327556)
DRRW 2013 Financial Statements (Quest No 4760775)
Diagnostics For All 2013 Annual Audited Accounts (Quest No 4312724)
Diagnostics For All Final Financial Statements (Quest No 4757596)
Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa 2013 Financial Statements (Quest No 4692545)
C4Rice 2013 Financial Statements (Quest No 4764703)
Next Generation Cassava 2013 Budget Summary (Quest No 4692526)
Cassava Diagnostics 2013 Financial Statements (Quest No 4764708)
JPAL ATAI 2013 Budget Summary (Quest No 4560935)
Biofortified Bananas 2013 Annual Audited Accounts (Quest No 4752959)
Beneficiary and Gender Engagement Assessment Summary of Survey Response (Quest No 4751388)
BTOR BMGF Partnership discussions Seattle Visit September 2014 (Quest No 4650926)
Team Leader’s Approval (Quest No 4801473)
http://www.rtb.cgiar.org/including-womens-preferences-to-enhance-cassava-breeding-programsconversing-with-bill-gates/#
Smart Guide
ii
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
iii
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
iv
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
i
DRRW falls under both output 1, discovery science as well as translational science. Breeding and delivery targets
are reported here, as relevant to the milestone relating to products in farmers’ fields.
Smart Guide
v