ANNUAL REPORT TO DFID

April 1999 - March 2000

CROP PROTECTIONPROGRAMME

part of

DFID's Renewable NaturalResources Research Strategy

April 2000

Programme Manager

Dr Simon Eden-GreenNatural Resources InternationalLimitedPO Box 258ChathamKent ME4 4PUUK

Volume 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageVOLUME 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i

INTRODUCTION BY CHAIRMAN OF PROGRAMME ADVISORY COMMITTEE ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS iv

PART I – NARRATIVE

I. Introduction and General Overview 1.1

Overall vision 1.1Summary of programme activity during the year 1.4Impacts of the programme and highlights of new knowledge 1.5

II. Programme Management Strategy 2.1

Progress, organisation and strategic shifts 2.1Actions to identify new needs and PD expenditure 2.4Project identification and cross cutting issues 2.6Proposals reviewed 2.6Contribution to purposes and poverty balance 2.7Linkages with other programmes and funding to developing countries 2.8PAC composition and activities 2.10Other management matters 2.10

III. Delivery of Outputs 3.1

Performance of projects completing within the year 3.1Project and programme reporting 3.1Publications and reports 3.1

IV. Uptake Promotion 4.1

Approach 4.1Actions to promote project outputs and examples of outputs taken up by specified target institution

4.1

Progress towards developmental impact 4.7Publicity 4.8

V. Progress Review 5.1

Progress against management milestones 5.1Response to recommendations on Report for 1998/99 5.2Milestones for 2000/2001 5.4

VI. Conclusion

i

DFID CROP PROTECTION PROGRAMME ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1999/2000

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In its fifth year, the Crop Protection Programme (CPP) has made goodprogress towards contributing to the challenges set by the new developmenttargets for elimination of world poverty. More than 100 projects were activeduring the year, of which more than 30 have been, or will shortly be,completed and 38 new projects were commissioned. The programme'scontribution to reducing pesticide use and promoting safer management ofpests of cotton in India, featured in last year's report, was recognised bysecuring the winning entry to DFID's Award Scheme during the year. Otherexamples of technologies already being taken up include:

• techniques for on-farm production of maize seed resistant to maize streakdisease developed and promoted in Uganda (R7429); for disease-freeseed potatoes in Kenya (R6629); and for healthier yam seed pieces inGhana (R6691)

• groundnut varieties resistant to rosette disease introduced and promotedin Uganda (R7445); improved tomato varieties, resistant to tomato yellowleafcurl virus and to the threat posed by recently introduced "B" biotype ofits whitefly vector, released in India (R7460)

• nucleopolyhedroviruses (NPV) and pheromones for control of diamondbacked moth successfully used in Kenya (R7449); and NPV for control ofarmyworm used in Tanzania (R6476)

• rice varieties resistant to tungro disease adopted by farmers or nationalprogrammes in the Philippines, Indonesia and India (R6519)

• new weed control technologies to clear perennial weeds promoted vianational television coverage in Ghana (R6737), and environmentally-friendly lure and kill techniques for control of fruitflies promoted in Pakistan(R7447).

Restructuring of programme strategy and the associated management teamwere completed, in response to new objectives of DFID's revised researchstrategy. Increased resources have been devoted to identifying andestablishing links with target institutions through which uptake of researchoutputs will be translated into developmental impact. Programmedevelopment visits were made to Bolivia, West Africa (Ghana, Nigeria,WARDA, IITA), Uganda, Kenya, India (ICRISAT) and Bangladesh. Newprojects or proposals were initiated with DFID's Plant Sciences, Crop PostHarvest and Livestock Production research programmes and with bilateralprojects in Uganda and Bangladesh. Arising from these visits and from theseries of uptake workshops commissioned last year, five competitive calls forproposals were issued to address priority, demand-led research topics. Thereport includes a detailed analysis of crop protection issues affecting povertyand gives examples of how projects contribute to sustainable livelihoods andreduced environmental degradation. This analysis is being used to guideproject selection and allocation of resources.

ii

As signalled in the previous year's report, project clusters have been furtherdeveloped and detailed vision frameworks are presented that help to definefuture projects, anticipated actions and interventions by target organisationsand development programmes, and to illustrate progress towardsdevelopmental impact. Assessment of new indicators of achievement ofprogramme outputs, established at the beginning of the year, shows that mostare on target.

For the coming year, programme funding is already more than 84%committed to fewer, larger projects, mostly co-ordinated within the projectclusters. Key issues will be to monitor and ensure effective progress duringproject implementation, and to look beyond the project cycle (and thehorizons of the present programme) towards new work, and novelpartnerships, that will be required to maintain and improve the impact newtechnologies on the livelihoods of the poor. These will be addressed througha programme workshop to analyse and take forward results of the uptakestudies carried out during the previous year; through development ofenhanced linkages with regional research networks and relevant fundingagencies; through greater attention to targeting of proposals for greatestimpact on those able to benefit from, but with least access to, outputs ofresearch; and through improved environmental screening of new projectproposals.

iii

INTRODUCTION FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PROGRAMMEADVISORY COMMITTEE

As predicted in my introductory comments to the last Crop Protection Programme report for1998/99, 1999/2000 has been a very hectic year for the programme management. It was thefirst year of a completely new phase of the programme, established in response to DFID’srevised research strategy for renewable natural resources, which set new goals forcontributing to the global development target of halving world poverty by 2015. Following therealignment of programme production system outputs and purposes in accordance with theWhite Paper on poverty elimination and the earlier strategy review, during 1999/2000programme outputs were further restructured, new output indicators were set and newlogframes were developed. Over 110 projects were active during the year and fivecompetitive calls for new proposals were issued. In response more than 100 proposals werereceived, screened and reviewed during the year. The Programme Advisory Committee(PAC) was actively involved in all of these developments. A particularly welcome trend hasbeen continued and formalised this year – that is the clustering of projects with a focus onfewer key crop commodities in specific geographic regions. This trend will certainly continuethrough the year ahead with a smaller number of larger projects which will extend currentlinkages and partnerships and develop new ones. The Programme Manager and his newsupport team, strengthened to place more emphasis on effective promotion and adoption ofappropriate technologies, are to be congratulated on their excellent work during the year.There is no doubt that the CPP is a very successful component of DFID's Strategy forresearch in renewable natural resources.

The PAC saw some major changes of membership with effect from April 1999. I shouldparticularly like to take this opportunity to express my personal thanks to Professor JohnPerfect, Dr Rob Williams, Dr Andy Hart and Mr Tom Farrington, all of whom were foundermembers of the Committee. They all contributed very significantly to the success of theprogramme.

Professor M.F. ClaridgeChairman, Crop Protection Advisory CommitteeSchool of BiosciencesCardiff UniversityCardiff CF1 3TL

April 2000

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to acknowledge the contributions and support throughout the year from members ofthe Crop Protection Programme Management Team, including: Isabel Carballal (ProgrammeCo-ordinator), Andrew Ward (Assistant to Programme Management), Tracy Wood and SarahTilley (personal and administrative assistants), Atalanta Christophers (communicationsmanager), Anthea Cook, Frances Kimmins, John Terry, Jim Waller, Simon Gowen, RichardLamboll, Duncan Overfield and Karen Wilkin (technical Advisers). We also wish to thankmembers of the Crop Protection Programme Advisory Committee, and Maggie Gill and othersin NR International who have provided advice, administrative and secretarial support.

The success of the programme depends on the continued good progress of its componentprojects, and the extent to which, through promoting and publicising their achievements, theknowledge that they gain can be brought to bear on problems affecting global poverty. Wewere encouraged and gratified that the impact that the programme has made on povertyelimination received credit through the winning of the annual DFID Award Scheme.

In the Award Scheme presentation at the DFID Research and Livelihoods meeting inDecember, 1999, we drew attention - by reference three areas of work in which this and otherUK-funded programmes have been involved over the years - to the often lengthy andunpredictable timescale between the acquisition of knowledge and its application to producereal benefits in development. Any success for which this programme can claim credit todayreflects on the past efforts of others who have had the vision and intellectual curiosity tocontribute to the knowledge bank on which our achievements are founded.

S J Eden-GreenJ M Lenné

April, 2000

v

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AAU Assam Agricultural University (India)ABC Armoured Bush CricketACIAR Australian Centre for International Agricultural ResearchACMV(D) African Cassava Mosaic Virus (Disease)ACORBAT Banana Network (Ecuador)ACRI American Cocoa Research InstituteAERDD Agricultural Extension and Rural Development Department (Reading Univ.)AFLP Amplified Fragment Length PolymorphismAGRHYMET Agriculture, Hydrology and Meteorology Programme for the Sahel (CILSS)AGRITEX Agricultural Research and Extension Services (Zimbabwe)AHI African Highland InitiativeAIDS Acquired Immuno-deficiency SyndromeANGRU Acharya NG Ranga University (India)APAARI Asia-Pacific Association of Agricultural Research InstitutionsARTI-llonga Agricultural Research and Technology Institute (Ilonga, Tanzania)ASARECA Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central AfricaAVRDC Asian Vegetable Research and Development Centre (Taipei, Taiwan)BARNESA Banana Research Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (INIBAP)BCA Biocontrol AgentBCMV Bean Chlorotic Mosaic VirusBPH Brown Plant Hopper (rice)BRRI Bangladesh Rice Research InstituteBSM Bean Stem MaggotBSV Banana Streak VirusBTOR Back To Office ReportBUROTROP Bureau for the Development of Research on Tropical Perennial Oil CropsCABI CABI Bioscience (UK)CARE Registered Mark of the Co-operative for Assistance and Relief EverywhereCATIE Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y EnseñanzaCBD Coffee Berry BorerCBO Community-Based OrganisationCBSV(D) Cassava Brown Streak Virus (Disease)CC Cross-CuttingCFC Common Fund for CommoditiesCGIAR Consultative Group for International Agricultural ResearchCIAT Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (Colombia)CIAT Centro de Investigacion Agricola Tropical (Bolivia)CICR Central Institute for Cotton Research (India)CIMMYT Centro Internacional para la Mejora del Maiz Y el TrigoCIP Centro Internacional de la PapaCIRAD Centre de Coopération International en Recherche Agronomique pour le

Développment (France)CKS Covered Kernel SmutCLR Coffee Leaf RustCORAF Conférence des Responsables Agronomiques en Afrique de l’ouest et du Centre

(Senegal)CORNET (Regional) Coffee Research Network (ASARECA)CPHP Crop Post-Harvest ProgrammeCPP Crop Protection ProgrammeCPV Cytoplasmic Polyhedrosis VirusCRF Competitive Research Facility (DFID)

vi

CRI Crop Research Institute (Ghana)CRIG Cocoa Research Institute (Ghana)CRRI Central Rice Research Institute (India)CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (Ghana)CTA Centre for Tropical AgricultureDBM Diamond Back MothDFID Department for International Development (UK)DLCO-EA Desert-Locust Control Organisation, East AfricaDOA Department of Agriculture (Zimbabwe)DRR Directorate of Rice Research (India)DRSS Department of Research and Specialist Services (Zimbabwe)EC European CommissionECABREN Eastern and Central African Bean Research NetworkECAMAW East and Central Africa Maize and Wheat Research NetworkECARSAM Eastern and Central African Research on Sorghum and Millet NetworkECLO Emergency Centre for Locust Operations (FAO)ELISA Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayEPN Entomopathogenic Nematode(s)EU European UnionFA Forest Agriculture (Production System)FAO Food and Agriculture OrganisationFGM Focus Group MeetingFPR Farmer Participatory ResearchFTR Final Technical ReportFW Fusarium WiltFY Financial YearGCI Grain Crops Research Institute (South Africa)GMO Genetically Modified OrganismGTZ Deutsche Gesellchaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (Germany)HARP Hill Agriculture Research Programme (Nepal)HAU Haryana Agricultural University (India)HIV Human Immuno-deficiency VirusHP High Potential (Production System)HRI Horticulture Research International (UK)HS Hillsides (Production System)HY(V) High Yield (Variety)IACR Institute of Arable Crops Research (UK)IARC International Agricultural Research CentreIBSRAM International Board for Soil Research and ManagementICAR Indian Council for Agricultural ResearchICIPE International Centre for Insect Physiology and EcologyICM Integrated Crop ManagementICO International Cocoa OrganisationIC-PCR Immunecapture Polymerase Chain ReactionICRAF International Centre for Research in AgroforestryICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid TropicsIDEA Investment in Developing Export Agriculture (USAID-funded project)IDRC International Development Research Centre (Canada)IDS Institute of Development Studies (UK)IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development (Italy)IFPRI International Food Policy Research InstituteIGR Insect Growth RegulatorIGS Intergenic Spacer

vii

IITA International Institute for Tropical AgricultureILRI International Livestock Research InstituteINIBAP International Network for the Improvement of Bananas and PlantainsIPGRI International Plant Genetic Resources InstituteIPM Integrated Pest ManagementIPPC International Plant Protection CongressIRAD Institute de la Recherche AgronomiqueIRM Integrated Resistance ManagementIRR Internal Rate of ReturnIRRI International Rice Research InstituteISFM Integrated Soil Fertility ManagementISR Induced Systemic ResistanceITK Indigenous Technical KnowledgeITS Internal Transcribed SpacerJIC John Innes Centre (UK)KARI Kenya Agricultural Research InstituteKATRIN Kilimanjaro Agricultural Training and Research Institute (Tanzania)KFRI Kerala Forest Research Institute (India)KIOF Kenya Institute of Organic FarmingLARS Long Ashton Research StationLDC Less Developed CountryLPP Livestock Production ProgrammeLW Land-Water (Production System)M&E Monitoring and EvaluationMALDM Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Development and Marketing (Kenya)MBS Maize Bushy StuntMD Mosaic DiseaseMoA Memorandum of UnderstandingMRFV Maize Rayado Fino VirusMSVD Maize Streak Virus DiseaseNAARI Namulonge Agricultural and Animal Production Research Institute (Uganda)NARES National Agricultural Research and Extension ServicesNARO National Agricultural Research Organisation (Uganda)NARP II National Agricultural Research Programme - phase II (Kenya)NARS National Agricultural Research SystemsNBRP National Banana Research Programme (Uganda)NGO Non-Governmental OrganisationNOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (USA)NPV Nucleopolyhedrovirus (also Nuclear Polyhedrosis Virus)NRI Natural Resources Institute (UK)NRIL Natural Resources International (UK)NRSP Natural Resources Systems ProgrammeODA Overseas Development Administration (UK)ODI Overseas Development Institute (UK)OPR Output to Purpose ReviewOVI Objectively Verifiable IndicatorPAC Programme Advisory CommitteePARC Pakistan Agricultural Research CouncilPCR Polymerase Chain ReactionPCSS Project Completion Summary SheetPD Programme DevelopmentPDBC Project Directorate of Biological Control (ICAR)PEDUNE Protection Ecologiquement Durable du Niebe

viii

PETTRA Poverty Elimination Through Rice Research Project (Bangladesh)PHPF Post Harvest Fisheries ProgrammePIMS Policy Information Marker System (DFID)PL Project LeaderPM Programme ManagerPMF Project Memorandum Form (see RD1)PORIM Palm Oil Research Institute of MalaysiaPPRI Plant Protection Research Institute (Zimbabwe)PRA Participatory Rural AppraisalPREPACE East African Regional Potato NetworkPRM Regional Maize Programme (CYMMYT)PROINPA Programa de Investigacion de la Papa (Bolivia)PROSHIKA Centre for Human Development (NGO, Bangladesh)PRRI Plant Protection Research Institute (South Africa)PS Production SystemPSL Production System LeaderPSMD Pigeonpea Sterility Mosaic DiseasePSRP Plant Sciences Research ProgrammePU Peri-Urban (Production System)RAPD Random Amplified Polymorphic DNARD1 Research and Development Funding Application = project memorandum (see

PMF)RFLP Restriction Fragment Length PolymorphismRICP Research Institute for Coconut and other PalmsRKN Root Knot NematodeRLD Rural Livelihoods Department (DFID)RLED Rural Livelihoods and Environment Division (DFID)RLRCC Rainfed Lowland Rice Research Consortium (RRI)RRA Rapid Rural AppraisalRRI Rice Research InstituteRT-PCR Reverse Transcriptase PCRRYMV Rice Yellow Mottle VirusSA Semi-Arid (Production System)SAARI Serere Agricultural and Animal Production Research Institute (Uganda)SABREN Southern African Bean Research NetworkSAC Scottish Agricultural CollegeSACCAR Southern Africa Co-operative Council for Agricultural ResearchSADC Southern Africa Development Community (Malawi)SARI Savannah Agricultural Research Institute (Ghana)SARRNET Southern Africa Regional Research NetworkSAT Semi-Arid TropicsSCRI Scottish Crop Research InstituteSPCSV(D) Sweet Potato Chlorotic Stunt Virus (Disease)SPFMV Sweet Potato Feathery Mottle VirusSP-IPM System-wide Programme on IPM (CGIAR)SPMMV Sweet Potato Mild Mottle VirusSPVD Sweet Potato Virus DiseaseSSA Sub-Saharan AfricaTA Technical AdvisorTC Technical Co-operationTNAU Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (India)ToLCVD Tomato Leaf Curl Virus DiseaseTPRI Tropical Pesticides Research InstituteTSBF Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Programme

ix

TVE Television Trust for the EnvironmentUASB University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore (India)UMSS Universidad Mayor de San Simon (Bolivia)UNBRP Uganda National Banana Research ProgrammeUNDP United Nations Development AgencyUSAID US Agency for International DevelopmentVF Vision FrameworkWARDA West Africa Rice Development Research AssociationWCAMRN West and Central Africa Millet Research Network (ICRISAT)WCGA Western Cotton Growing Area (Tanzania)WSB White Stem Borer (coffee)WVI World Vision InternationalWWW World Wide WebYSB Yellow Stem Borer (rice)

DFID Crop Protection Programme

Annual Report 1999-00

Part 1

NARRATIVE

INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL OVERVIEW

1.1

I. INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL OVERVIEW

1.1 Overall vision and strategic approach

Poverty elimination and environmental sustainability

1.1.1 DFID's 1997 White Paper recognises that knowledge and technology underpindevelopment and that the elimination of poverty, improved economic growth and protection of theenvironment can be achieved through support for research and development which enhancesthe sustainable livelihoods of poor people. This sets both a challenge and a responsibility forthe Crop Protection Programme (CPP) to contain and reduce pest losses through researchthat contributes to poverty elimination and environmental sustainability.

1.1.2 It is estimated that world population will grow by 32% to 7.5 billion by 2020. Almost allof this increase (95%) will occur in developing countries. To meet the increasing demand forfood, the world’s farmers will have to produce 40% more food by 2020. Meeting basic foodrequirements is the first priority of the malnourished and food insecure poor who may spendup to 80% of their income on food. The CPP contributes to productivity growth and povertyelimination principally through management of serious pests of food crops (global losses of30%) resulting in increased quantity and improved quality of food; increased and stabilisedfood supply; decreased unit production costs leading to cheaper food for the poor; andminimised health risks through reduced and safer pesticide use.

1.1.3 The impact of agricultural research for development, including crop protectionresearch, will not be sustainable without recognition of the importance of environmentalissues. The CPP contributes to protecting and improving the environment through thedevelopment and promotion of socially and environmentally acceptable pest managementtechnologies such as host plant resistance, enhancing the impact of natural predators andenemies, adapting cultural practices and judicious and selective use of safer pesticides.Increasingly, these technologies are being integrated through inter-disciplinary managementstrategies with partners and farmers. Environmental benefits include improved ecosystem health(e.g. water quality) through reduced and safer use of pesticides (including biopesticides) andstabilised and decreased expansion of cropped land into marginal environments, reducingdegradation of the natural resource base through increased unit production per area. Examplesof how projects contribute to poverty elimination and environmental sustainability arepresented in Box 1.

Sustainable livelihoods

1.1.4 The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework has been adopted by DFID as a way ofanalysing poverty issues and formulating more effective development strategies to alleviatepoverty. Analysis of how pest management strategies can enhance the asset status forparticular groups of people provides entry points to the framework for the programme. Theframework is also helping the programme to assess the potential impact of new cropprotection technologies and their benefits for the poor and to identify areas that need to bestrengthened to facilitate uptake of sustainable pest management practices.

1.1.5 Pest management strategies that increase yield (natural capital) of a crop with year-round demand and a well-functioning market can result in increased incomes for farmers andfor labourers. Pest management strategies that stabilise crop yields can be extremelyimportant in reducing people’s vulnerability. Pest management strategies can have asignificant impact on human capital assets. Use of herbicides will reduce labourrequirements. IPM approaches that build local people’s capacity to utilise knowledge aboutpests can contribute to increased well-being. A reduction in the quantity or toxicity ofpesticides will bring increases in well-being for those directly involved in pesticide application.Approaches to pest management that require community action such as synchronous plantingor use of pheromones can enhance social capital. The availability and type of physicalcapital will affect the outcomes of pest management strategies e.g. control over water aidsrice farmers in managing weeds, diseases and insect pests. Finally, pest

DFID Crop Protection Programme 1999/2000

1.2

BOX 1: A selection of CPP project outputs that contribute to increased quantity andquality of food; increased and stabilised food supply; decreased production costs;

cheaper food; and decreased health for poverty elimination.

R6519 – Rice varieties resistant to tungro virus disease have been promoted to farmers in thePhilippines, Indonesia and India. One variety has been extensively adopted over 10,000 ha inBali, greatly increasing food production and stabilising yields.R6764/R7430 – IPM strategies for vegetables are being developed in Zimbabwe and Kenyabased on more effective application of safer, selected pesticides that are less costly and haveless health risks.R6580 – Farmers are adopting break crops such as cassava and sweet potato on landinfested with banana nematodes in Uganda to stabilise food supply.R6691 – Healthy seed tubers are being promoted to farmers in Ghana to manage yamdiseases to increase both the quality and quantity of foodR6761 – Yields of cotton in Tanzania are being increased and stabilised through promotion ofFusarium-free seed of root-knot resistant varietiesR7405 – Use of pre-emergent herbicide in maize/coffee cropping systems in Kenya areresulting in decreased production costs where labour is both expensive and in short supply.

A selection of CPP project outputs that contribute to a healthy environment andreduced degradation of the natural resource base for environmental sustainability.

R7449 – Development and promotion of biorational management strategies for diamond backmoth based on a pheromone and granulosis virus (PxGV) will contribute to healthier vegetableproduction and environment in peri-urban areas of KenyaR6746 – Reduced doses of higher quality virus and improved timing of application of SeNPVwas used successfully to control armyworm in Tanzania – a viable alternative for damagingpesticides.R7325 – Development of integrated weed management strategies to reduce soil erosion riskson fragile Andean hillsides in BoliviaR7569 – Promotion of acceptable, marketable, disease resistant beans to resource poorfarmers in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania will decrease pressure on expansion of cropland into marginal areasR6654/R6921 – Development of scientifically sound integrated management strategies forStriga in sorghum based on tolerance, inter-cropping and soil N amendments to both managethe serious weed and reduce soil degradation in Tanzania and Uganda.R6734/R6788 - Development and promotion of improved cotton IPM in India has enabledfarmers to dramatically reduce their pesticide inputs whilst maintaining productivity andincreasing income.R6616/R7403 - Development of simple modifications to spray lances in Kenya is allowingfarmers to improve targeting of pesticides and reduce applications.

management strategies can improve poor people’s access to financial capital indirectlythrough increased crop yields and quality and reduced inputs (from Warburton and Martin(1999) Pest management and poor peoples livelihoods. In: International Crop Protection:Achievements and Ambitions, BCPC Symposium Proceedings No. 73. Pp. 33-55). Examplesof how projects contribute to poor people’s livelihoods are given in Box 2.

1.1.6 Institutions and local groups play a key role in how crop protection research outputsare used and who uses them (Warburton and Martin, 1999). These include: NARES, IARCs,pesticide and seed suppliers, NGOs, CBOs etc. They influence the access poor people haveto the technologies and their incentives to use them. As the sustainable livelihoods frameworkexplicitly analyses institutions and processes, it will be used by the programme to identify theinstitutional requirements vital for successful uptake of crop protection technologies.

1.1.7 Agricultural productivity increases needed to lift the poor out of food insecurity andsustain livelihoods without doing irreparable damage to the environment will be possible only ifthe appropriate government policies are established. Pesticides remain a concern inagricultural policy. The right policies on pesticides could accelerate crop productivity and

INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL OVERVIEW

1.3

contribute to environmental sustainability. The wrong policies could allow farmers access tosubsidised damaging Category 1 pesticides resulting in environmental degradation and illhealth. The development of regulatory frameworks and registration systems for bio-pesticideswill provide farmers with environmentally benign pest management alternatives. Governmentpolicies to support improved seed distribution systems will facilitate farmer access to pestresistant varieties. Opportunities are being sought through CPP projects to develop andpresent advice on crop protection issues that affect the livelihoods of the poor e.g. throughinternational and regional IPM fora to inform policy makers.

BOX 2: Examples of how projects contribute to poor people’s livelihoods

Sustainable livelihoods assets can include increased yields from wise use of naturalresource stocks (natural capital); increased capacity to use knowledge (human capital);community action for management (social capital); control over resources (physical capital);and reduced production costs (financial capital). Some examples from the Crop ProtectionProgramme include:

R6642/R7429 – Promotion of improved seed selection and production of streak virus tolerantopen-pollinated Longe 1 maize is contributing to the livelihoods of resource-poor farmers inUganda (see cover story).R7460 - Stabilising crop yields through the use of improved tomato lines with resistance toToLCV is decreasing the vulnerability of small scale farmers in India.R6653 – Development of effective, low cost biological and cultural methods for managingtermites in maize in Uganda will help to sustain livelihoods of smallholders.R6693 – Community-based adoption of pheromone technology for management of milletstemborer is enhancing the social capital of many resource-poor farmers in West Africa.R7445 – Development and promotion of acceptable groundnut varieties with durableresistance to rosette disease will improve the well-being and food security of small-scalefarmers in the Teso system of Uganda.R7346 – Development and promotion of management strategies to increase the quantity andnutritive value of crop residues used as fodder for dairy animals will contribute to thelivelihoods of women and children in the Deccan Plateau, India.R6734 – Thousands of small farmers in India have benefited from increased natural, human,social and financial capital by adopting resistance management strategies for cotton bollworm.

Strategic approach

1.1.8 During the year under review, the Programme began to operationalise the strategyoutlined in the proposal approved by DFID in April 1999. Renewed emphasis was placed ondevelopment of knowledge strategies and on their promotion to improve livelihood security –the two generic outputs of the revised DFID Research Strategy. Actions included continuing toconsolidate, focus and extend the Programme’s achievement of outputs through furtherdevelopment of geographical and cropping systems thematic clusters of projects (see para.2.1.4) within production systems and with partner organisations and through greaterawareness of livelihood issues. Strengthening project clusters will lead to efficiencies thatshould make a significant contribution to Programme purposes by 2005.

Partnerships

1.1.9 Much of the Crop Protection Programme’s contribution to management of serious pestsof staple food and cash crops over the past five years and, as a consequence, to povertyalleviation and reduced natural resource degradation, has been possible due to a unique suite ofpartnerships. Project partnerships include advanced research institutes in the UK and elsewhere(South Africa, Australia, USA etc.); national agricultural research systems (NARS) and theirregional networks; international agricultural research centres (IARCS); non-governmentalorganisations (NGOs); community-based organisations including farmers (CBOs); and, recently,the private sector. Long-term partnerships based on trust are one of the important foundations ofagricultural research for development. They are an essential pre-requisite for developingfunctional uptake pathways for successful promotion and adoption of research technologies.

DFID Crop Protection Programme 1999/2000

1.4

Multidisciplinary approaches

1.1.10 During the year under review, the expansion of thematic clusters of projects, targetinga range of different pests affecting a major crop or crops within cropping systems, is fosteringintegration of disciplines and multidisciplinary approaches. For example, entomologists,pathologists, nematologists and social scientists are working together in the vegetable clusterin peri-urban Kenya. Weed scientists, entomologists, pathologists, virologists, breeders andsocial scientists are collaborating together in the rice cluster in West Africa. The plannedexpansion of the potato cluster in Bolivia will facilitate the development of a team includingweed scientists, pathologists, entomologists, nematologists, breeders, natural resourcemanagement scientists; animal scientists, and social scientists.

Vision frameworks

1.1.9 Vision frameworks (VFs), first developed by the programme in 1998, are pictorialrepresentations of thematic clusters of completed, current and planned CPP projectscontributing to specific outputs and purposes during the 10 year programme timeframe (seeAnnex 4). The VFs also include projects linked to thematic clusters that are supported byDFID and other donors and from which specific thematic clusters are benefiting. Theframework also briefly defines uptake pathways and monitors progress towardsdevelopmental impact using the "A-H" pathway. The VFs were developed further during theyear under review as new projects became operational and additional areas of demand-drivenresearch were identified. The use of VFs as a planning tool by the programme is contributingsignificantly to monitoring the delivery of outputs and to tracking their contribution to theachievement of the production system purposes by 2005.

1.2 Summary of programme activity during the year

1.2.1 The past year has seen a period of intense activity associated with commissioning alarge number of new, and novel, projects to address the revised outputs of the programmewhich were contractually agreed in April, 1999. Five competitive calls were issued during theyear. 111 concept notes or short project memoranda were received and reviewed; 57proposals were approved and 38 have so far been commissioned. Over 100 projects wereoperational during the year, of which 29 were completed. The programme achieved a fullspend, despite a slow start due to the approval of the revised outputs only in April, and beginsthe new financial year with over 84% of the budget committed, to fewer, larger, projectsapproved during 1999/2000. New partnerships have been forged and new studies have beencommissioned to better understand the processes affecting uptake of research outputs andtesting by target institutions.

1.2.2 In Section 1 of Part 1 of this report, we present a summary of our overall vision toaddress the new programme outputs. We indicate how this sets overall priorities for theprogramme and present our interpretation of how this will contribute to the elimination ofpoverty. Some examples are included on the following pages of how projects are contributingto development targets. Section 2 presents the management strategy in more detail: how thisinfluences the identification of research needs and selection of projects; our choice ofpartnerships and the organisation of programme management to meet these challenges.Delivery and reporting of outputs is summarised in Section 3, and actions taken to promoteknowledge gained by the programme, with examples of uptake, in Section 4. Section 5reviews progress by the management team against objectives designed to maintain theforward momentum of the programme towards delivery of outputs and achievement ofpurposes, and also responds to points raised in the review of last year's report. Finally, inSection 6 we draw some broad conclusions to our work and identify key issues for the yearahead. To maintain the narrative flow, we have grouped most of the reference informationrelating to projects, project proposals, production systems and publications into a series ofannexes appended to this report. These include a detailed analysis of poverty issues in cropprotection, requested under Annex 3 of the programme's current management contract.1.3 Impacts of the programme and highlights of new knowledge

INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL OVERVIEW

1.5

1.3.1 Summaries of new knowledge or innovations gained by most of the projects duringthe year are presented in Annex 1(a), together with key points for the year ahead for the"project clusters" to which these projects increasingly relate. Text boxes on the followingpages present highlights from selected projects.

PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

2.1

2 PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

2.1 Progress, organisation and strategic shifts

2.1.1 Submission and subsequent acceptance of our proposals to address the revised CPPoutputs enabled constructive changes to be made to the management team in order to placestronger emphasis on effective promotion of the uptake and adoption of crop protectiontechnologies by target intermediaries and end users. The responsibilities of the programmemanager were re-focused on overall operation of the programme including managing,monitoring, financial aspects and commissioning of projects. A programme leader wasrecruited with responsibility for developing and implementing an overall technical strategy todeliver the revised outputs; identifying and developing uptake and promotional pathways foradoption of technologies; and programme development. An assistant programme managerwas appointed to take responsibility for the day to day management of the pipeline projectportfolio including administration of the project review cycle and associated informationsystems. A core team of technical advisors (TAs), familiar with the CPP and with arepresentative range of disciplinary expertise, was appointed to facilitate the development ofthematic project clusters (Table 2.1). The TAs are expected to lead and report on thedevelopment of projects in key target crops or cropping systems, and to improve integration ofproject activities and use of resources.

Table 2.1: CPP Technical Advisers and project cluster management (leadresponsibilities in bold)

Manager/Technical Adviser Expertise Clusters (and relation toproduction systems)

Simon Eden-Green (SEG) Plant pathology; bacterialdiseases; perennial crops

Coconut-based systems(LW1); perennial crops

Jill Lenné (JL) Plant pathology; diseases ofpasture and food legumes;biodiversity

Cereals, pulses (SA2);Hillsides. Agroforestry (FA2),fodder crops (PU)

Anthea Cook (AC) Entomology; virus diseases Maize (HP), vegetables (PU)Frances Kimmins (FK) Entomology; vector

epidemiologyRice-based systems (LW2)

Jim Waller (JW) Plant pathology; fungaldiseases; perennial crops

Perennial crops, roots &tubers, banana (FA1)

John Terry (JT) Weeds Cotton (SA3), migrant pests(SA4), cereals (SA2)

Simon Gowen (SG) Nematology Banana, roots & tubersRichard Lamboll (RL) Social science Cross-cutting, especially FA,

SA2, HSDuncan Overfield (DO) Social science Cross-cutting, especially LW,

HP, SA3&4Karen Wilkin (KW) Social development, policy and

promotionCross-cutting, especially PU,CC & promotion

Atalanta Christophers (ACh) Communications Dissemination & promotionAndrew Ward (AW) Entomology; social

developmentSweet potato, roots & tubers,pulses

2.1.2 During 1998/99, the outputs and purposes of the programme production systems hadbeen realigned in accordance with the DFID White Paper on poverty elimination andrecommendations from the strategic review of 1997/98. In the latter part of 1998/99, theprogramme outputs were further restructured, new output indicators were set and newprogramme purpose logframes developed to meet the requirements of the revised ResearchStrategy. Following the acceptance of the proposal for continued management of theprogramme, the major task during the year under review was to commission appropriate newprojects to address the two new generic outputs of the production systems. This wassuccessfully completed with full spend of the programme budget. New projects were initiated

DFID Crop Protection Programme 1999/2000

2.2

in all production systems. Special effort was directed at the Hillsides production system due topast difficulties in identifying appropriate projects.

2.1.3 As the year progressed, increasing emphasis was given to promotional activitiesincluding short projects to understand factors affecting the uptake and adoption of cropprotection outputs in major thematic cluster locations and commissioning of specific projectsto promote successful technologies generated by the programme and its partners (reported inmore detail in Section 4).

Thematic project clusters

2.1.4 A thematic cluster is a group of inter-linked projects on the complex of bioticconstraints affecting a priority crop in the same country or region. The thematic clusterapproach offers opportunities to benefit from the synergy between projects: projects build uponeach other’s expertise; share collaborators; resources; and knowledge. Uptake pathwaysbecome progressively stronger and promotion and adoption of crop protection technologies isenhanced. The programme has developed thematic clusters of projects in all productionsystems. These include: maize (High Potential); vegetables (Peri-Urban), rice (Land WaterInterface and High Potential), coconut (Land Water Interface), semi-arid cereals (Semi-AridPurpose 2); cotton (Semi-Arid Purpose 3); migrant pests (Semi-Arid Purpose 4); roots &tubers (Forest Agriculture Interface Purpose 1); banana (Forest Agriculture Interface Purpose1), perennial crops (Forest Agriculture Interface Purpose 2); agro-forestry (Forest AgricultureInterface Purpose 2); potato (Hillsides), and pulses (Hillsides). Examples of thematic clustersof projects are given in Box 3.

Box 3: Thematic Project Clusters in the CPP

Maize cluster:The High Potential production system maize cluster is focused in Eastern and Southern Africa,where maize is generally the preferred cereal and livelihood foundation of the poor in farmingsystems with sufficient rainfall and fertility. The development of management strategies forsteak virus, termites and ear rots is well advanced and is progressing for weeds. A newproject will be initiated on grey spot, an emerging problem. New projects on integratedmanagement of maize pests in Kenya and Uganda are being planned in close collaborationwith NARS, regional networks and farmers to integrate the research outputs of the on-goingand recently completed CPP maize projects into systems-based projects. Studies of soilfertility management will be considered as a component of the integrated pest managementprojects for maize, and could involve inputs from the Natural Resources Systems Programme.Future work within the maize cluster may consider pest constraints of common associatedcrops in maize-based cropping systems such as legumes and pest constraints of uni-modalrainfall maize systems in Southern Africa.

Vegetables cluster:The vegetable cluster is the major thematic cluster of the Peri-Urban production system,where the poor depend on the income generated from marketing vegetables as a critical partof their livelihood strategy. Most of the current work is focused in Kenya, where severalprojects collaborate closely with KARI, Kenya, to develop improved IPM strategies forvegetable systems. These include: studies to better integrate pesticides with maximising thecontribution of natural enemies; development of biorational techniques for management ofdiamond back moth; control of root-knot nematodes using pathogens; assessment of thesignificance of viruses of vegetable crops to develop management strategies. The work inKenya is linked to projects to develop sustainable control methods for vegetable pests anddiseases in Zimbabwe in collaboration with the Plant Protection Research Institute with whichexchange study tours have been arranged for local partners. A third cluster will be developedin either in Ghana or Uganda, where promotion of outputs from Kenya is likely to be highlycost effective.

PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

2.3

Rice clusters:CPP rice research projects fall into two distinct geographical clusters in South Asia (India andBangladesh) and West Africa and contribute to both the Land-Water Interface (rainfed rice)and the High Potential (irrigated rice) production systems. These rice systems are home to acomplex of insect pests, diseases and weeds that are exacerbated by intensification andincreased pesticide use. Current projects are focused on the use of host plant resistance,biological control, cultural control and use of pheromones to facilitate targeted and judiciouspesticide use. Many of the outputs from these projects have been or are being taken up byintermediate or target beneficiaries. Over the next four years it is anticipated that theseoutputs will be promoted through integrated crop management projects to contribute tosustaining the livelihoods of the poor.

Coconut cluster:The Land Water Interface production system coconut cluster (Purpose 1) focuses on the cropprotection needs of coastal coconut systems with emphasis on Ghana and Tanzania, wherecoconuts are an important multipurpose crop and provide essential income in ruralcommunities, thus sustaining livelihoods. Low input pest and disease managementtechnologies offer great potential for resource poor farmers to maintain and enhance cropproduction in a sustainable manner. Strategic research is also targeted at other countrieswhere regionally or internationally important problems need to be investigated in order todeliver the programme outputs, notably understanding the etiology of important, but poorlyunderstood, lethal coconut diseases.

Banana cluster:The CPP banana research activities have been developed in collaboration with the UgandaNational Banana Research Programme at Kawanda Agricultural Research Institute. Theprogramme has benefited from investment in staff training over the last 10 years and has ateam of five qualified senior scientists covering the major crop protection disciplines with goodquality support staff. Various biotic and abiotic constraints have caused a decline in bananaproductivity in parts of Uganda that has seriously affected rural livelihoods. It is anticipated thatthe four new projects (disease, nematode, weevil and streak virus management) will build onthe successful technologies already generated to halt this decline and lead to an improvementin the livelihoods of the banana-based farming communities in Uganda (and adjacentcountries).

Hillsides clusters:The CPP hillsides projects fall into three distinct geographical clusters. The first is in Boliviaand focuses on potato, with emphasis on Andean potato (Solanum tuberosum ssp. andigena).The second is in Eastern/Southern Africa on Phaseolus beans. The third is represented by aproject on ICM of chickpea in Nepal soon to be initiated. Projects are developing cropprotection technologies that take account of erosion risks in fragile hillsides systems e.g. weedand nematode management in potato systems in Bolivia; management of bean root rots inEastern Africa. New projects are being initiated to specifically promote outputs to beneficiaries(R7569, pipeline project PM171). Over the next four years it is anticipated that other outputswill be promoted through integrated crop management projects on potato in Bolivia andPhaseolus beans in Eastern Africa, contributing to the sustainable livelihoods of the poor,especially women.

2.1.5 Within a given production system, indicators of achievement at both output and purposelevels are defined by indicative milestones for validation, promotion and adoption of researchoutputs linked to dates of achievement and numbers of systems. Therefore the organisation ofprojects in thematic clusters is an efficient strategy for achieving outputs and purposes. Inaddition, the use of vision frameworks for thematic clusters which define project phasing andlinkages allows effective monitoring of progress toward achievement of outputs andprogramme purposes.

DFID Crop Protection Programme 1999/2000

2.4

Geographic focus

2.1.6 The geographic focus of the programme is strongly pro-poor with approximately 60%and 30% of projects and programme budget, respectively, targeted at Sub-Saharan Africa(principally Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Ghana) and South Asia (India, Bangladesh,Nepal). These regions are the "hot spots" of poverty and malnutrition with almost 70% of theworld's most food insecure and over 80% of the world’s malnourished children. Bolivia, the onlyother country outside these two regions where the CPP supports several projects, is one of thepoorest countries in Latin America. The focus here is on the fragile and erosion prone hillsides,home to many resource poor and livelihood insecure people. This geographic focus is highlyrelevant to DFID’s Strategies for Achieving the International Development Targets:Environmental Sustainability and Eliminating Poverty (March 2000).

2.2 Actions to identify new needs and programme development

2.2.1 The series of CPP Workshops held during 1998/99 and the year under review (Ricepest management in Asia; Striga management in Tanzania; Coffee IPM in East Africa) inpriority thematic clusters helped to identify demand for new areas of research to address thetwo new generic outputs; to enhance the involvement of stakeholders from partner institutionsin the development and validation of crop protection technologies; and to expand uptakepathways for technology adoption for the benefit of the poor. These workshops producedcomprehensive recommendations and discussion, in many cases taking a systemsperspective. Summaries of recommendations are available via the programme's website andthese have been used to define calls or follow-on proposals for priority research in maize,bananas, rice, coconut Striga and migrant pests.

2.2.2 Strategic programme development visits were made to India, Nepal, Bolivia, Uganda,Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria and Côte d’Ivoire (WARDA). On the basis of recommendations fromworkshops and programme development visits a call was made in March 1999 and wasprocessed in the reporting year. Further major calls for projects were issued in July 1999,August 1999 and March 2000; and specific subject calls in November 1999 and February2000 (Table 2.2). Programme development activities are summarised in Box 4. Actions takenby the programme to identify factors affecting the uptake of crop protection technologies arereported elsewhere. Approximately 3% of the operational budget was spent on programmedevelopment.

Table 2.2: Calls for proposals issued by the Crop Protection Programme in thereporting year

Calls during 1999/2000 Subject areasJuly 1999 Diseases of beans in Tanzania; sorghum pests in East Africa; rice

hispa, sheath blight and yellow stem borer in Bangladesh; ICM ofchickpea in Nepal; biocontrol of banana weevil; pheromone-basedpest management strategies and beneficial biodiversity-based pestmanage-ment strategies.

August 1999 Short studies on factors affecting the uptake of crop protectionresearch outputs in priority cluster locations; short cross-cuttingstudies on pests in the pre-/post harvest interface; transgenic pestresistant crops; integrated pest and soil fertility management; cropprotection research methodologies for agroforestry systems;mainstreaming environmental issues; pest management andsustainable livelihoods. Management of migrant pests (locusts,army worm, Quelea) in Southern Africa

November 1999 African rice gall midge in West AfricaFebruary 2000 Maize stripe virus on sorghum in IndiaMarch 2000 Potato pests and diseases in Bolivia; pigeon pea pests in East

Africa; finger millet blast in East Africa; bean pests in East Africa

PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

2.5

BOX 4: SUMMARY OF KEY PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES BYPRODUCTION SYSTEMS

High Potential:A visit was made to Kenya and Uganda in February 2000 to discuss future priorities forintegrated pest management in maize-based systems in the region with a wide range ofstakeholders. The findings from this visit will be used in a comprehensive study by externalconsultants to be undertaken in May 2000 to draft the future strategy for maize crop protectionresearch in Eastern and Southern Africa. Discussions were held with KARI, and with theRockefeller Foundation, FAO, CIMMYT and ICRISAT representatives in Nairobi; and with theMaize Programme, NARO, Uganda, where there are good opportunities of linking on-goingand planned CPP maize projects to other NARO maize programme activities on pestmanagement and to their key collaborators e.g. CIMMYT and through the regional maizenetwork ECAMAW.

Peri-UrbanAn external consultant undertook a programme development visit to Ghana in September1999 to discuss future priorities for vegetable IPM in Ghana in consultation with a wide rangeof potential stakeholders. The report has been sent to key institutes in Ghana for feedbackbefore future areas of work are finalised.

Forest/Agriculture InterfaceProgramme development visits were made to India in December 1999 to consider future workon tree crop diseases including tea and coffee; to Ghana and Nigeria in November 1999 toreview work in progress on yam IPM and identify future directions for the CPP; and to Ugandain February 2000 to review banana pest management projects and identify linkages withbanana projects supported by other donors. A workshop to define priorities for coffee IPM washeld in November, 1999.

HillsidesA joint visit was made to Bolivia in December 1999 with the Plant Sciences ResearchProgramme to identify future priorities and linkages for potato pest management. Linkageswith the Livestock Production Programme were also strengthened. A visit was made to EastAfrica in February 2000 to identify future work on Phaseolus bean pest management. Calls forprojects were issued as a result of the visits.

Land/Water interfaceA visit was made to Ghana to review progress on links between proposed coconut lethalyellowing diagnostics support project (promoting uptake of R6521) and an EU/Frenchdevelopment agency coconut rehabilitation programme. Programme development visits weremade to WARDA, West Africa and to Bangladesh to discuss future priorities for rice pestmanagement research with a wide range of stakeholders. These visits were in response torecommendations from two workshops (Rice in Africa, December 1998 and Rice in Asia, April1999) and a call for projects was issued after the visit to West Africa.

Semi-aridFollowing successful promotion of insecticide resistance management strategies for cotton inIndia, a programme development study was undertaken in Eastern Africa in May 1999 toidentify priorities for cotton pest management research. A workshop was held in Tanzania inSeptember 1999 to define future priorities for a new project on integrated management ofStriga in semi-arid cereal systems in Eastern and Southern Africa. Visits to Eastern Africa andIndia during the reporting year helped to define further priorities for pest managementresearch in semi-arid cereal and associated legumes systems some of which wereincorporated in calls for new projects. Priorities for future work on migrant pests were definedin a call in August based on the recommendations from a regional workshop held in SouthAfrica in March 1999.

DFID Crop Protection Programme 1999/2000

2.6

2.3 Project identification and cross-cutting issues

2.3.1 In the year under review, the programme sent five calls for projects, to addressdemand-driven areas of research under specific programme outputs and purposes, to UK andoverseas institutes with registered capability for crop protection research in developingcountries. Applicants were asked to submit concept notes according to specified guidelinesincluding demonstration of an awareness of socio-economic and environmental issues and arealistic view of how the outputs of the proposed research would impact on the livelihoods ofthe poor and food insecure in the target country. Project proposals were reviewed by bothnatural and social science technical advisers and by selected PAC members. Approvedconcept notes were developed into full project proposals.

2.3.2 The project memorandum form (RD1) specifically addresses poverty, environmentaland socioeconomic (including gender) issues in Sections 15g and 18b. Responses to thesequestions were reviewed by programme management and by selected PAC members,including a social scientist and the environmental specialist. Proposers were then asked tomodify or strengthen their approaches to addressing key environmental, poverty or socio-economic issues before projects were approved.

2.3.3 After discussions with the DFID Senior Environmental Adviser in February 2000, itwas suggested that the programme may wish to develop an environmental screening note tobe completed by programme management during the project approval process. Anappropriate screening note (based on existing DFID models) is being developed and will bepiloted on specific projects next year.

2.3.4 The programme issued a call in July 1999 for short projects to address specific cross-cutting issues (see Table 2.2). These included a short study on the use of transgenicapproaches to pest management in developing countries with emphasis on cotton, potato andrice. The main objective of this study is to inform the programme of the rapid advances beingmade in this field that may overtake the conventional pest management technologies beingdeveloped through projects supported by the programme. Possibilities for joint projects withthe Plant Sciences Research Programme on use of transgenic resistance to rice yellow mottlevirus in West Africa and potato cyst nematode transgenic resistance in Bolivia have beenidentified. Any decision by the programme to support projects in this area will be madeaccording to existing DFID guidelines, international guidelines and national biosafetyregulations, and only in target countries where appropriate legislation is or will be in place.

2.4 Proposals reviewed

2.4.1 Details of project proposals, extensions and applications for contract amendmentsconsidered during the year are appended at Annex 2, and the outcome of reviews of conceptnotes is sumarised in Table 2.3 below. Although most lead contractors remain UK-basedorganisations, the trend towards diversification of lead and partner contractors continues. Inseveral cases, following PAC recommendations management has been able to combineelements of two or more proposals and this has contributed to a tendency towards fewer,larger projects which should make for more efficient use of management resources. Severalconcept notes were received direct from NARs during the year, many of these not in responseto calls for proposals (“unsolicited” concept notes). On the whole, these were not judged toaddress regional issues and the quality was disappointing. During the coming year, it isproposed to devote greater efforts to reach regional and national programme groups throughthe regional research networks (e.g. ASARECA, SACCAR, CORAF etc.), where these arefunctional and where their priorities coincide with those of the programme.

PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

2.7

Table 2.3: Summary of concept notes received and reviewed in 1999/2000

Contractor Totalsubmitted

Accepted* Rejected Asked tocombine**

Awaitingdecision

(a) Responding to calls (includes 2 invited proposals)

NRI 37 18 (49%) 13 5 1CABI 13 9 (69%) 3 1 0Other UK 24 10 (42%) 8 2 4Other non-UK 14 6 (43%) 5 3 0Total 88 43 (49%) 29 11 5

(b) Received not in response to calls (i.e. unsolicited)

NRI 2 0 2 0 0CABI 5 1 3 0 1Other UK 2 0 1 0 1Other non-UK 18 1 11 0 6Total 27 2 17 0 8* Percentages calculated as % of total submitted by each partner.**Invited to combine as minor component of project led by others.

2.5 Contribution to purposes and poverty balance

2.5.1 As the reporting year was the first year of the revised research strategy, theprogramme effectively used the forward-looking review of “Pests and poverty – the continuingneed for crop protection research” as a guide for identifying priority areas of research thataddressed researchable constraints with a predominantly pro-poor focus (focused). Asummary of the review was presented in Annex 2 of last year’s annual report and a full versionsubmitted to RLD in August 1999. At the same time opportunities were sought by theprogramme to support projects that benefit broad-based population groups including the poorespecially by improving the delivery of research benefits to the poor (inclusive). Similarly, newprojects were also developed to generate knowledge to inform policy makers and strengthenregulatory frameworks to improve social, livelihood and other opportunities for the poor thuscontributing to the poverty impact of crop protection research outputs.

2.5.2 Annex 7a lists new projects selected and commissioned in the year under review byproduction system, purpose, thematic cluster and DFID poverty aim markers. Annex 7bpresents an approach to poverty issues in crop protection including an analysis how theprogramme’s allocation of resources by production system contributes to poverty alleviationand how the programme is meeting DFID’s poverty elimination agenda (as requested inAnnex 3 of the renewal of the programme’s management contract in April 1999). The majorityof newly commissioned crop protection projects are focused on developing pest managementstrategies for serious problems that affect important staple food and cash crops grown, soldand consumed by poor people in Sub-Saharan Africa and South India. They target genericoutput A (knowledge generation) for each production system purpose. A growing number ofnewly commissioned projects are focused on improving delivery and promotion of researchbenefits to the poor and informing policy makers and improving regulatory frameworks. Theytarget generic output B (promoting knowledge) for each production system purpose.

2.5.3 Most newly commissioned projects are grouped in thematic clusters in eachproduction system. As indicators of achievement of both outputs and purposes are defined byindicative milestones for validation, promotion and adoption of research outputs linked to dates ofachievement and numbers of systems, the grouping of projects in thematic clusters is anefficient and cost-effective strategy for contributing and monitoring the contribution to theachievement of programme purposes (see para. 2.1.4).

2.5.4 The programme’s poverty focus is targeted at multiple levels. For example, at theregional level, most of the poor in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia are farmers andagricultural labourers. Improved agricultural productivity looms large as the strategic entry

DFID Crop Protection Programme 1999/2000

2.8

point for poverty reduction in rural areas. Most of the resources of the programme arepresently targeted at projects that will contribute to increasing agricultural productivity in ruralareas (Forest Agriculture Interface Production System, Semi-Arid Production System, LandWater Interface Production System, Hillsides Production System). Growing urbanisation in thedeveloping world during the next 5 years may change the programme’s focus to supportingincreased production of greater quantities of healthier food (through environmentally benignmanagement strategies) in high potential and peri-urban production systems to benefit poorurban consumers.

2.5.5 Crop protection research targeted on specific commodities and thematic areas canmake a significant contribution to poverty elimination. The programme effectively targets pestmanagement of staple food and cash crops and successful management strategies contributeto decreased losses due to pests; stabilised yields; increased food availability; lowerproduction costs for farmers; cheaper and healthier food for consumers; reduced health risksfor farmers and labourers; and a safer and less degraded environment for all. The evolvingresponsibility of the programme for promoting crop protection technologies to intermediatetargets and ultimate beneficiaries will ensure that research outputs are delivered to those whoneed them most.

2.6 Linkages with other programmes and funding to developing countries

2.6.1 Some of the principal linkages and partnerships fostered by the programme aresummarised in para. 1.1.6. Especially strong collaborative linkages have been developed whereUK and overseas partners work together on related crop protection problems in a particularthematic cluster in a specific production system. For example: the vegetable cluster in the Peri-urban Production System in Kenya is comprised four projects that include partnerships betweenKARI and, CABI, KARI and NRI, KARI, IACR Rothamsted and University of Reading, and KARIand HRI. Each of these four partnerships is also linked with NGOs and farmers while AVRDCand KIOF are also collaborating within the cluster. The banana cluster in the Forest AgricultureInterface Production System in Uganda includes five projects that bring together NARO withUniversity of Reading and CABI, with NRI and JIC, and with IITA, CABI and University ofReading. INIBAP, NGOs and farmers are also collaborating with the cluster. Regular overseasvisits by UK-based partners and meetings foster these linkages. Usually socio-economic studiesare co-ordinated and integrated across the cluster and implemented by the same person. Atleast one annual stakeholders meeting is held where all partners review progress made by theproject cluster.

2.6.2 Where the Crop Protection Programme has expanded investment in projects targetingpest management of mandated crops of CGIAR centres, partnerships with such centres andtheir NARS collaborators have been strengthened in the past year. For example, the initiation ofnew projects on management of weeds in rainfed lowland rice (R7471), durable resistance toblast (R7552), and a pipeline project on gall midge ecology and management has stronglyenhanced collaboration with WARDA and the NARS regional rice network in West Africa. Newprojects on management of groundnut rosette (R7445), management of sorghum smut (R7518)and insect pests (R7572), and pipeline projects on finger millet blast management and IPM ofpigeon pea are strengthening collaboration with ICRISAT and NARS partners In East Africa whilenew projects on management of bean root rots (R7568), promotion of disease resistant beans(R7569) and a pipeline project on IPM of beans is enhancing partnerships with CIAT and NARSpartners. These projects are also building partnerships with networks such as ECARSAM,ECABREN and AHI under ASARECA. Box 5 gives other examples of projects beingimplemented in partnership with CGIAR centres.

PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

2.9

BOX 5: Other examples of CPP projects being implemented in partnership withCGIAR centres

IRRIR7296 Pest dynamics in rice-based systems in Bangladesh (IRRI and BRRI); R7471 Weedmanagement in rice systems in Bangladesh (IRRI and BRRI).

IITAR6691 Yam disease management in Ghana (IITA and NARS); R6694 Resistance to yamnematodes (IITA and NARS); R7441 Pheromone traps for Maruca pod borer on cowpea (IITA andNARS); R7529 Management of banana steak virus in East Africa (IITA and NARO); R7567Integrated management of banana diseases (IITA , NARO, INIBAP).

ICRAFR6736 Soilborne pests of Sesbania (ICRAF and NARS).

ILRIR7346 Plant diseases and crop residues in the Deccan plateau, India (ILRI, ICRISAT, NARS andNGOs).

2.6.3 Inter-programme partnerships have also been strengthened during the past year. Thishas achieved economies of scale for DFID as specific projects are contributing to outputs andpurposes across programmes. Joint projects have been initiated include R7346 Effects of plantdiseases on the yield and nutritive value of crop residues with LPP and R7565 Participatorybreeding of mosaic virus resistant cassava with PSRP. Other collaborative projects are listed inBox 6. Further opportunities are being explored with the CPHP, LPP and PSRP. Outputs fromprojects completed through other DFID funded projects are also being taken up by CPP projectse.g. R7452 Characterisation of pigeon pea sterility mosaic virus disease builds on knowledgegenerated from a CRF project while R7579 Strategies for forage production and erosion controlon Bolivian hillsides is promoting technologies developed through NRSP project R6621 into CPPproject R7325 Integrated weed management and erosion control on Bolivian hillsides.

2.6.4 Partnerships are also being developed with the DFID bilateral programmes. Stronglinkages have been established with the PETRRA project in Bangladesh through closeconsultation during the initiation and development of several new projects on rice pestmanagement in Bangladesh (e.g. R7296 Pest and natural enemy interactions in low input ricesystems; R7345 Management of weedy rices; pipeline projects PM161 Ecology andmanagement of rice hispa; and PM162 Management of rice sheath blight). Opportunities arebeing sought to identify problems of mutual priority for joint funding. Partnerships for thepromotion of research outputs with bilateral programmes in Uganda and Kenya are underdiscussion. Box 6 lists some of these principal DFID inter-programme linkages.

2.6.5 Finally, partnerships are being established with the private sector. It is hoped that suchpartnerships will catalyse collective action by small-scale farmers that will facilitate their verticalintegration with industry and input suppliers. A project on promotion of pheromones as acomponent of an IPM strategy for yellow stem borer of rice is being developed with BRRI andSyngenta in Bangladesh. A study of the technical and institutional options for management ofsorghum grain mould in India (R7506) is fostering linkages between small farmers, NARS andindustry in India.

2.6.6 Overseas national or regional organisations now act as lead contractors for threeprojects: CIAT, Bolivia for project R7462 (potato IPM); SAARI, Uganda for R7401 (draughtanimal technology and weed control); and ICRISAT, India for R7506 (management ofsorghum grain mould). Others are in the pipeline. Several other projects have beencommissioned in response to concept notes submitted by overseas institutes but foradministrative reasons the lead contracts are with UK partners. It is estimated thatapproximately 30% of research funds went to overseas partners during the reporting period(see analysis in Section 8).

BOX 6: Examples of CPP projects in partnership with other programmes

DFID Crop Protection Programme 1999/2000

2.10

Natural Resources Systems ProgrammeR7296 Pest dynamics in rice systems, Bangladesh (with DFID Bilateral project)

Crop Post Harvest ProgrammeR7505 Sorghum grain mould management and potential impact on the poor, India; PM139(pipeline) Strategies for reducing aflatoxin production in groundnut, India; R7372 Impact ofrodents on rural livelihoods, Mozambique (starting 2000/01); R7373 Efficacy and reliability ofinsecticidal plants, Ghana (starting 2000/01).

Livestock Production Programme R7401 Draught animal technology and weed control in Uganda (with DFID Bilateral); R7346Effects on animal nutrition of diseases affecting crop residues in India; R7325 Weedmanagement for Bolivian hillsides.

Plant Sciences Research ProgrammeR7189 Crop competitiveness for weed control (seed priming), Africa; R7565 Participatoryplant breeding of mosaic resistant cassava, Ghana; R7491 Weeds and nematode control,Bolivia.

DFID Bilateral projectsR7445 Groundnut rosette management, Uganda; R7518 Control of covered kernel smut ofsorghum, Uganda; R7471 Weed management for rice cropping systems, Bangladesh.

2.7 PAC composition and activities

2.7.1 The composition of the PAC underwent major changes at the beginning of the year,with Professor T J Perfect, Dr R A Williams, Dr A D Hart and Mr T Farrington standing down.New members, shown below, with specific cross-cutting responsibilities included Dr MBlackie, as agricultural economics adviser and Dr J Mumford as environmental scienceadviser. A hand-over meeting of old and most of the new PAC members was held in April1999, followed by one day meetings of the new PAC June and October 1999 and a one and ahalf day meeting of the PAC and technical advisers in January 2000 to review programmestrategy. A total of 63 concept notes and 48 project memoranda were reviewed by PACmembers during the year. We acknowledge the very useful and positive contribution from allPAC members during the year.

2.7.2 The programme manager and programme leader attended a CPHP PAC programmestrategy meeting in January 2000 and the programme leader participated in two meetings ofthe PSRP in June 1999 and January 2000 and in one meeting organised by the NRSP in June1999. Both managers participated in the annual programme managers’ meeting in July 1999.

2.8 Other management matters

2.8.1 Changes in programme management structure signalled in the CPP tender wereimplemented by July, 1999. Professor Jill Lenné assumed office as programme leader inMay, following departure of Dr Anthea Cook from the post of deputy programme manager,and Dr Andrew Ward was appointed as assistant to programme management in August. MsIsabel Carballal was promoted to programme co-ordinator, with administrative assistance fromMs Sarah Tilley. Responsibilities for overall strategy development within the productionsystems was taken over by the central management team, allowing the former productionsystem leaders (PSLs) to continue in the role of an expanded group of specialist technicaladvisers (TAs) with specific responsibilities for development and monitoring of projectclusters. Meetings of management and TAs took place quarterly.

PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

2.11

BOX 7: CPP PAC MEMBERS AT 31 MARCH, 2000 Attend-ance

Professor M FClaridge (Chairman)

Entomology, insect ecologyand taxonomy

Private consultant 4/4

Dr P E Harding Senior Natural ResourcesAdviser (Research)

DFID RLD 3/4

Dr G H L Rothschild IPM, entomology Private consultant 3/4Dr M Blackie* Agricultural economics,

farming systemsPrivate consultant 2/2

Professor B R Kerry Nematology IACR Rothamsted 2/4Professor M J Jeger Plant Pathology,

epidemiologyWye College 4/4

Dr J Mumford Environmental assessment Imperial College 4/4Mr C Parker Weed science Private consultant 4/4Mr B Pound Farming systems Natural Resources Institute 2/4Ms A Martin Social development and

socio-economicsNatural Resources Institute 4/4

Professor T M AWilson

Plant virology and plantbiotechnology

Horticultural ResearchInternational

4/4

Professor J M Lenné Programme Leader(strategy)

Natural ResourcesInternational

3/4

Dr S J Eden-Green Programme Manager Natural ResourcesInternational

4/4

*Joined PAC wef October, 1999

DELIVERY OF OUTPUTS

3.1

3. DELIVERY OF OUTPUTS

3.1 Performance of projects completing within the year

3.1.1 No project activities were terminated ahead of schedule. A summary of projectsoperational during the year, progress of final technical reports, and the main outcomes, ispresented in Annex 1.

3.2 Project and programme reporting

3.2.1 Most projects have submitted adequate and timely quarterly and annual reports,enabling the programme to maintain a record of timely reporting to DFID. In most casesProject Completion Summary Sheets have been submitted promptly but as shown in Annex1(b), delivery of final technical reports by projects to programme management, and in somecases completion of reviews and delivery to DFID, has left much to be desired. Clearing thesubstantial backlog of overdue FTRs will be given priority during the first quarter of 2000/01.

3.2.2 The backlog of queries on the equipment inventory has been cleared and annualupdates are being provided. DFID is routinely consulted regarding reassignment or disposalof capital assets no longer required by projects.

3.3 Publications and reports

3.3.1 A list of publications and other dissemination outputs produced under the programmeis appended at Annex 5 and the various categories of peer-reviewed and other outputs aresummarised below. As in previous years, papers reported as “in press” are recorded herebecause many of these are outputs of projects that have ended during the year and will not bereporting again. Although less numerous than in the previous year, the quantity and diversityof publications produced by projects continues to be encouraging.

3.3.2 The requirement to separately list unpublished “grey literature”, for wider circulationwithin DFID, came too late in the year to allow collection of a separate category of data butmost of this information is already included within “Category C” (internal reports). Thisinformation will be selectively filtered for a searchable bibliography of publications producedduring the last four years of the programme, due for completion next year.

Table 3.1: CPP Publications, 1999/2000

Output Published In press(A) – Papers in peer-reviewed journals, book chapters, editedinternational conference proceedings or bulletins

64 47

(B) – Oral-presentations/ posters/non-edited conferenceproceedings

32 3

(C) – Internal reports. 158 2(D) – Newsletters/technical leaflets, lectures/presentations. 35 0(E) – PhD theses. 5 1(F) – MPhil/MSc theses 6 0(G) – Miscellaneous/Other 27 0

3.3.3 An illustrated review of achievements under the first four years of the CPP has beencommissioned from a professional editor and is due for completion in the second quarter ofthe coming year. This will provide a companion volume for the highlights of the former IPMProgramme, published in 1998. It is proposed to assemble a companion bibliography ofprogramme publications on CD ROM.

UPTAKE PROMOTION

4.1

4. UPTAKE PROMOTION

4.1 Approach

4.1.1 The process by which research projects are developed plays a crucial role indetermining the most relevant uptake pathways for their outputs. Lack of adoption of cropprotection technologies is usually not due to the quality of the technology but rather to the lackof a pathway or mechanism for uptake and promotion. If an uptake pathway and promotion ofresearch outputs is built into the project from the beginning, the likelihood of successful uptakeis significantly greater. During the reporting year when a substantial number of new projectswere commissioned, the programme placed great emphasis on the building of robust uptakepathways in all newly commissioned projects through including activities for on-goinginteraction between collaborators. In some cases, long-standing collaborative researchrelationships are being further enhanced; in other cases efforts have been made to bring newpartners into the fold including NGOs and the private sector. Linkages to functional regionalresearch networks in Sub-Saharan Africa (ASARECA, SACCAR, CORAF) and South Asia(APAARI) are increasingly being sought. The programme is increasingly acting as a brokerand a catalyst for uptake of research outputs.

4.1.2 The revised logframe charges the programme with the additional responsibility ofactively promoting crop protection outputs to target intermediaries and ultimate beneficiaries.During the reporting year, the programme placed emphasis on identifying outputs fromcompleted projects and in some cases, from partner institutions that were ready for promotionto target groups across production systems. For example, projects on promotion ofmanagement strategies for sorghum smut in East Africa (R7518); promotion of managementstrategies for Striga in Southern and Eastern Africa (R7564); and promotion of diseaseresistant beans in the southern highlands of Tanzania (R7569) will improve the delivery ofsound pest management technologies to the poor. Additional pipeline projects to be initiated inthe next reporting year that specifically target promotion of research outputs for uptake andadoption by beneficiaries include: R7579 Strategies for uptake of forage productiontechnologies for erosion control in hillside potato systems in Bolivia and pipeline projectPM171 Promotion of integrated crop management strategies for chickpea in Nepal.

4.1.3 The grouping of projects in thematic clusters provides the programme with cost-effective opportunities to better understand factors affecting uptake of crop protection outputsat the level of cropping system and production systems. Seven short projects werecommissioned during the reporting year to specifically inform the programme as to how itmight improve the delivery of research outputs to beneficiaries in priority clusters including:maize-based systems in East Africa (R7489); rice-based systems in West Africa (R7561) andIndia (R7576); banana systems in Uganda (R7488); yam systems in West Africa (R7504); andvegetable systems in Kenya (R7512) and South Asia (R7513). A workshop will be held in June2000 to discuss and analyse the results of the individual studies to help formulate futureprogramme calls for promotional projects. Additional studies will be commissioned asadditional thematic project clusters produce outputs for promotion to beneficiaries.

4.2 Actions to promote project outputs and (in text boxes) examples ofoutputs taken up by specified target institutions

4.2.1 Maize cluster:A short project was commissioned to study the factors affecting the uptake and adoption ofoutputs of crop protection research in maize systems in Africa (R7489). A preliminaryworkshop with stakeholders identified key issues as incentives and constraints facing farmersand the institutional context within which the research is undertaken and outputsdisseminated. A literature review confirmed these as key factors influencing the uptakeprocess and highlighted many complex interactions between technical, economic and socialissues. A further stakeholder workshop was held in mid-March, the outcome to be reported byMay 2000. The findings of this study will be used to re-examine and where necessary torefocus planned uptake pathways for the research outputs of the on-going and recentlycompleted projects within the maize cluster.

DFID Crop Protection Programme 1999/2000

4.2

Maize seed-selection technologies developed through project R7429 (Management strategiesfor maize streak) to assist farmers to preserve maize streak resistance characteristics andmaintain the quality of open-pollinated maize varieties, have been successfully taken up byfarmers and at least one local NGO. These have enabled participating farmers to generateincome through sale of surplus seed to non-participating neighbours (see cover story). Theproject helped to prepare a video (in the local language) that has been used by farmergroups to demonstrate these techniques to other farmers; it has empowered farmers bybringing them together with researchers, extensionists and a local NGO. Participating farmersare now keen to look more closely at the production of other crop seeds for their own use andfor local sale.

4.2.2. Vegetables cluster:• A short project was commissioned to determine the factors affecting the uptake and

adoption of outputs of crop protection research in vegetable systems in Africa (R7512).The study has involved interviews with generators of the technologies, disseminators,farmer groups and individual farmers, and will report at the end of April. The findings willbe used to re-examine and where necessary to refocus planned uptake pathways for theresearch outputs of the on-going and recently completed projects within the vegetablecluster.

• Following the success of small-scale seed potato selection techniques developed byproject R6629 (Bacterial wilt of potatoes) in Kenya, an end of project workshop wasorganised to present the results and to consider technical, social and instutional issues tobe addressed for its wider promotion. The meeting (to be held early in April 2000) will beco-sponsored by KARI and CIP, with participation by the East African Regional PotatoNetwork (PREPACE), the African Highlands Initiative, NGOs from Kenya and Uganda andNARS from South Africa, who have been partners in associated work to develop a novelbiocontrol technique. The programme is sending an independent review team of seniornatural and social scientists (both UK and local) to participate in the workshop and to holdfollow-up meetings, targeted at government departments and NGOs, in order to makerecommendations for further promotion.

Improved spray lances introduced by project R6764 (Vegetable IPM, Zimbabwe) were testedon-farm and are now much in demand by farmers. Improved tomato lines developed with support from project R7460 (Bemisia tabaci and ToLCVmanagement), which performed well in multilocational trials with respect to tomato leaf curldisease resistance in India, were viewed by six to seven thousand farmers during Krishimela;the lines were considered to be very acceptable and to meet farmers requirements in terms ofresistance to ToLCV and other characteristics. Two lines obtained approval from the ZonalResearch Advisory Council and will be used by the Extension Education Unit and StateHorticultural Department in field trials. 4.2.3. Rice cluster:• A workshop was organised in April 1999 at the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute

(BRRI), in association with IRRI and representatives from the major stakeholders in theregion, in order to evaluate current CPP research activities in rice pest management, topromote and identify new uptake pathways for successful project outputs, and to identifyemerging or neglected pest/diseases which have a significant impact on poor riceproducers and/or consumers. The workshop confirmed that the CPP had, to date,addressed the most important rice pests and diseases in S.Asia. For example,stemborers, particularly the yellow stemborer (YSB), Scirpophaga incertulas, wereidentified as the most important chronic insect pests on rice in both Bangladesh and India.The pheromone technology developed under project R6739 has the potential to reducethe amount of pesticides used to control YSB and a new research project wascommissioned to investigate the potential for promoting the technology to farmers throughNARS and the private sector.

• Contact was established with the PETRRA project to ensure that research efforts betweenthe two initiatives are co-ordinated and will achieve maximum impact. A study to assess

UPTAKE PROMOTION

4.3

factors which affect the uptake and adoption of rice research outputs in Bangladesh willbe commissioned in 2000/2001.

• Two other studies on factors affecting the uptake and adoption of rice research outputswere commissioned in 1999/2000, the first focussing on projects based in India and thesecond on projects in Ghana (W. African region). The objective of these studies is toidentify the nature of constraints to uptake and adoption of new strategies formanagement of rice pests and diseases that have been principally developed throughCPP commissioned projects. Recommendations arising will assist programmemanagement, project leaders and other stakeholders to improve the impact of new cropprotection knowledge and technologies on poverty elimination.

The African study has established that many of the CPP projects deliver technologies to thebreeding and selection programmes of WARDA. Ensuring the impact of new varieties atnational level is thus a key issue. The value of, and constraints to, WARDA-NARS linkagesand delivery mechanisms have been extensively reviewed across a range of technologiesthrough discussion with WARDA and NARS scientists in Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. Results arebeing used by WARDA to help develop and inform an overall IPM strategy in the region.

Diagnostic technologies developed by project R6643 for distinguishing Rhizoctonia speciesimportant for breeding resistance to sheath blight disease have been taken up NARS in India.A new CPP project will transfer the techniques to NARS in Bangladesh and will assess someof the partially resistant materials and other resistant sources from international screeningprogrammes. 4.2.4. Banana cluster:• Under project R6580 (Management of banana nematodes in Uganda), the use of break

crops (cassava/sweet potato) to clear land infested with banana nematodes waspromoted at training sessions for over 160 farmers.

• A research uptake study (R7488) was commissioned to collect information from differentstakeholders and will be used to improve the uptake and accessibility of the bananaresearch findings.

Break crop techniques developed by R6580 and outputs from earlier disease characterisationprojects (R6007CB, R6692, R6794, R6583) are being taken up under a new phase ofparticipatory IPM research (R7567) at benchmark sites managed by NARS in Uganda withadditional donor support (IDRC/Rockefeller). A new DFID CRF project will also use outputsof these projects for wider application in E. Africa. Farmers are already requesting newdisease resistant varieties that are being supplied by the national programme. 4.2.6. Root Crops• Techniques for improving the health of yams in Ghana developed in project R6691 were

promoted at two field days held at the Savanna Agricultural Research Institute, Tamale inOctober 1999. About 100 farmers and extension staff participated and were provided withinformation leaflets produced by the project.

• An uptake and adoption study (R7504) was commenced in November 1999 and astakeholders’ workshop was held in Kumasi, Ghana in March 2000 when existingextension material produced by R6691 was evaluated.

• In S Tanzania farmer participatory research groups have been set up in five villages toevaluate the potential for adoption of management strategies for cassava brown streakdisease developed by project R6765. A new project has been commissioned to promotethese findings (R7563), linked with SARRNET and World Vision in Mozambique in orderto widen the uptake of project outputs in the region.

DFID Crop Protection Programme 1999/2000

4.4

Outputs from the yam nematode resistance study (R6694) have been taken up by IITA asnoted in its 1999 Annual Report. A cassava variety with good tolerance to cassava brown streak virus disease disease hasbeen identified by project R6765 and is already being adopted by local farmers, with supportfrom NGOs. 4.2.7. Perennial Crop Commodities• The coffee IPM project (R6782) in Kenya undertook farmer field schools and meetings to

promote the establishment of IPM techniques for the control of coffee pests and diseasesand was instrumental in promoting a regional coffee research network CORNET, underthe auspices of ASARECA for dissemination of coffee research outputs in the region.

• In Malawi, R6807 held a stakeholders’ workshop in Dec 1999 to promote the project’soutputs and enable avenues for further development and uptake to be explored.

• A coffee cluster workshop held at Egham in Dec 1999 enabled outputs of all coffee clusterprojects undertaken since 1996 to be reviewed and options developed for further workaimed at promoting adaptation and uptake by smallholder coffee farmers.

• The Ganoderma project (R6628) established an informal research network which iscontinuing to develop control strategies advocated by the project. The network wasfacilitated through a series of training attachments and an international workshop theproceedings of which are about to be published as a book.

4.2.8. Agroforestry cluster• The tree health project in Bolivia (R7479) held two training courses to promote a better

understanding of tree health constraints.• Promotion of outputs from the Sesbania project (R6736) have been undertaken through

the regional ICRAF offices, ICRAF extension literature and on-farm trials.• Outputs of project R6735 (Biocontrol of Mikania micrantha) have been publicised widely in

SW and NE India through local meetings, newsletters, the media and a major workshopinvolving a range in Institutions across India and held at KFRI in November 1999.

A range of Indian institutions including ICAR are now preparing for the introduction andrelease of the exotic rust fungus, Puccinia spegazzinii, identified by project R6735 as apromising biocontrol agent against the weed Mikania micrantha. This will be supported by aproposed follow-on project. 4.2.10. Hillsides clusters• A cluster of projects on management of key biotic constraints in hillside potato systems in

the Cochabamba region of Bolivia is being developed in collaboration with PROINPA,UMSS and CIP. The projects are targeting weeds, nematodes, insect pests and lateblight. During 2000-2001, R7325 will build on uptake of outputs from a former CPP/NRSPproject (R6621) and is linked to an LPP project (R6970); it will use outputs from the newCPP projects R7491 on integrated management of nematodes and weeds and R7579 onfodder production and erosion control to develop robust integrated weed managementstrategies. A framework is being developed for the outputs from the separate but linkedprojects to be taken up through an integrated cropping systems management project inthe Cochabamba region during the last three years of the strategy. The potential fordevelopment of a similar potato cluster in the meso-thermic valleys of Bolivia will beconsidered further as R7462 progresses.

• A new project R7569 was initiated in March 2000 to promote acceptable and marketable,

multiple disease resistant bean lines to farmers in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania. Itforms part of a cluster of projects on management of key biotic constraints affectingPhaseolus beans in hillsides production systems in Eastern and Southern Africa that isbeing developed in collaboration with NARS, CIAT and farmers groups linked intoECABREN, SABREN and AHI under ASARECA. The potential for an integrated systemsmanagement project in either Tanzania or Uganda will be considered as new projectsprogress.

UPTAKE PROMOTION

4.5

The new project R7569 (Dissemination of improved beans in Tanzania) was commissioned inresponse to demand from NARS in Tanzania, supported by CIAT regional networks, forassistance to make available improved multiple disease resistant bean lines for farmers in theSouthern Highlands of Tanzania. These are being developed from knowledge gained underformer CPP and ERP projects on characterisation and in situ conservation of Phaseolus beanbiodiversity. The project will seek to facilitate formal and informal seed production, includingtargeting the private sector. NARS in India (Central Coffee Research Institute) are applying to register a syntheticpheromone for use in the control coffee white stemborer (Xylotrechus quadripes). This wasdeveloped under a short project (R7246) completed in 1998/99. 4.2.11. Semi-arid cereals cluster• In Kenya and Tanzania, the acceptance of successful and simple seed selection and seed

treatment technologies for reducing contamination by spores of covered kernel smut ofsorghum by resource poor, small holder farmers indicated that the technologies had greatpotential to be further applied and promoted (R6581, completed 1998/99). A new project(R7518) was commissioned in September 1999 to more widely apply the technologies inKenya and Tanzania with NARS partners, farmers groups and schools and promote themto SAARI, Uganda and local farmers groups for wider impact. The project will assess theimpact of promotion activities carried out under the first phase.

• Identification of sources of resistance to rosette disease and its aphid vector among early

maturing, acceptable groundnut varieties (R6811, completed 1998/99) has enabled thedevelopment of varieties with more durable resistance to rosette. These have thepotential to contribute greatly to the food security and well-being of resource-poor farmersin the Teso system of Uganda. A new project commissioned in July 1999 (R7445) isspecifically focused on applying and promoting these outputs through on-farmparticipatory trials.

• The development of successful management technologies for Striga spp. in sorghum

systems in Tanzania (R6654) and their relevance for small holder farmers in semi-aridcereal-based systems in Eastern and Southern Africa laid the foundation for their widerapplication and promotion. In March 2000, a new project (R7564) was commissioned tomore widely apply the technologies in Tanzania and promote them to Uganda in closecollaboration with NARS partners and farmers in Lake, Central and Southern HighlandsZones in Tanzania and the Serere area of Uganda.

• These projects form a new cluster addressing major biotic constraints affecting sorghum

and associated legumes in Eastern Africa with a priority focus on the Serere region ofUganda in close collaboration with SAARI. These projects include management ofcovered kernel smut, insect pests, non-parasitic weeds and Striga spp. The cluster alsoincludes projects on biotic constraints affecting associated legumes e.g. groundnutrosette. A framework is being developed for the outputs achieved through these separatebut linked projects to be taken up through an integrated cropping systems managementproject in Serere during the last three years of the strategy. The potential for outputs fromprojects implemented in other countries in Eastern and Southern Africa to contribute tothis cluster will also be explored.

DFID Crop Protection Programme 1999/2000

4.6

Technology for using synthetic pheromones for monitoring and mating disruption of the milletstemborer (Coniesta ignefusalis) developed through R6693 has been taken up through theWest and Central African Millet Research Network and will be promoted widely throughoutWest African millet systems through an IFAD funded project. Practical methods of moisture conservation through weed management developed by R6655have been taken up by Agritex in Zimbabwe and promoted through a participatoryextension approach. A biocontrol rust identified for control of Parthenium weed in India has been taken up by anACIAR funded project that will assist in promoting these findings. 4.2.12. Cotton cluster• Until 1999, cotton research within the CPP had been split between India (primarily for the

management of insect pests; R6734,R6760 completed 1998/99) and Tanzania (for themanagement of cotton wilts; R6761). Research on Helicoverpa management in India hasbeen very successful, reaching stage ‘H’ on the uptake pathway, signalling achievementof successful promotion and uptake of a programme output. Further promotionalassistance was provided this year for regional knowledge transfer and training, inresponse to demand from state agricultural authorities in India.

• In future, CPP-supported research on insect pests will be done within a cluster of cotton

projects in Africa. The programme will promote uptake of outputs on cotton wilt inTanzania (R6761) by exploring social and policy, as well as technical, issues affecting theproduction and distribution of disease-free cotton seed in Tanzania.

Project outputs on development of cotton IPM (R5745CB, R6734, R6760) have been taken upby farmers, NGOs, government agricultural authorities and the private sector in fourstates in India. In response to highly publicised local demands, central Indian governmentfunds have been secured to promote wider uptake. The success of this work was reported inthe programme’s winning entry to the DFID Award Scheme. Further uptake is taking place vianew projects being supported by the EU (cotton IPM in Asia) and the Common Fund forCommodities (sustainable control of bollworm in Asia and Africa). These projects will deployresearch outputs and resources developed from work funded under the programme. Project R6761 on control of fusarium wilt (FW) of cotton has shown that practices resultingfrom deregulation of the Tanzania cotton industry are undermining the phytosanitary protocolsneeded for the management of FW. As a result, the Tanzania Cotton Lint and Seed Boardwishes to take up outputs of the project, with support from the CPP, to develop phytosanitationmeasures appropriate to the reformed smallholder cotton sector in Tanzania. 4.2.13. Migrant pests cluster• With the ending of several migrant pest projects in 1999-2000, a Migrant Pest Workshop

was sponsored by the Programme to disseminate outputs and identify priorities for futureresearch. The meeting, held in March 1999, was hosted by the Plant Protection ResearchInstitute (PPRI) in Pretoria and a full Workshop Proceedings is being produced. Thedemand for further research on migrant pests was clearly indicated and it was decidedthat the Programme would continue to support work on armyworm (in Tanzania), desert-,red- and brown-locusts (in Southern Africa) and quelea birds (in Southern Africa). Hence,migrant pest projects are clustered in Southern and Eastern Africa where theycomplement and support national, regional and international research and controlprogrammes.

UPTAKE PROMOTION

4.7

Factors that lead to changes in the distribution and numbers of desert locusts, particularly on aseasonal/annual basis, have been developed and promoted by R6822. The outputs are beingused by FAO to improve the accuracy of its forecasting and enhance the ability of nationalcontrol units to deal with locust outbreaks.

Improved armyworm forecasting models developed under R6762 (completed in 1998/99)helped to provide early warning to NARS in Tanzania of the largest outbreak of Africanarmyworm to affect East Africa in recent years. The Tanzanian government authoritieswere able to mobilise resources to initiate control measures earlier than would otherwise havebeen possible. In the same outbreak, an environmentally-friendly entomopathogenic virus,specific to this pest, was deployed experimentally with considerable success, generatingdemand for further assistance to explore ways to implement wider uptake by NARS, privatesector and possibly village groups.

4.3 Progress towards developmental impact

4.3.1 In order to guide selection of projects and partnerships geared towards theachievement of developmental impact, strategies have been developed for the main projectclusters by relating research needs, where possible, to the programmes of target institutions,regional or international organisations and other donors. The progress of projectscommissioned to date, and plans for future work, are illustrated by the series of visionframeworks shown in Annex 4. These attempt to relate projects to the so-called “A-H” scalebut as discussed in our report for 1998/99 and accepted in the subsequent review, this scalehas significant shortcomings and is not considered a useful indicator of progress.

4.3.2 Progress of the delivery of output indicators within the production systems wasreviewed at a PAC meeting in January 2000 and the assessments have been updated in thelogframe narratives presented in Annex 3. Delivery of outputs has continued to make goodprogress against these milestones.

Table 4.1: Progress towards achievement of priority output indicators

Purpose No of Output indicator numbers (refer to logframes)indicators achieved on target delayed

HPPS (A) 10 102,104,106, 107,109,110,111,113,114,115

(B) 1 116PUPS (A) 3 101,102,103 (B) 1 101/2/3FAPS 1 (A) 6 101,103 102,104,105,106, (B) 5 101 103/5,104,105,106FAPS 2 (A) 5 201,203,205, 206,207/8 (B) 4 201,203,205,207/8HSPS 1 (A) 2 101,102/3 (B) 2 101,104LWPS 1(A) 4 106 103,104,105, (B) 1 107LWPS 2(A) 5 201,202,203,204,205, (B) 3 203,206,207SAPS 2 (A) 5 201,203,204,206/7,208 (B) 3 201,206/7,204SAPS 3 (A) 2 301/3,302 (B) 2 301/3,302SAPS 4 (A) 2 401 402 (B) 2 401,402Totals 68 4 60 4

DFID Crop Protection Programme 1999/2000

4.8

4.4 Publicity

4.4.1 Two CPP projects are to be featured on the "Hands On It Works" series produced bythe Television Trust for the Environment (TVE) which is supported by DFID. The series will beshown on the BBC World Service and by national and local broadcasters in developingcountries, to an estimated audience of 5 million. One contribution on reducing pesticide use incotton has already been filmed in India and will be shown in May (R6734). This includedinterviews with local partners in CPP research at ICRISAT, and contributions from farmers,growers and sprayers in the local villages. A second contribution to the series is dependent onan outbreak of armyworm in Tanzania, and the filming crew are standing by for alert by theproject staff (R6746).

4.4.2 The CPP website provides information and access to 50 word summaries of eachproject, along with a selection of dissemination outputs. It is currently being re-designed and,in keeping with the CPP's desire to make information available to a wide audience will offeraccess to a searchable database on CPP projects.

4.4.3 Individual project leaders are very open to discussion about promotion opportunitiesand activities and regularly contact the programme management office for guidance. Whereappropriate they are referred to specialists, such as cartoonists or video makers. This year,NRIL has produced a guide to citation booklet. This has a dual function; firstly, it promptsproject leaders to supply citation details as we require them, and ensures the project leaderspells out the important characteristics of the dissemination vehicle chosen, such as the reachof a radio station or the audience for a leaflet or poster. More importantly perhaps, it alsoindicates the importance which the CPP places on dissemination and promotion activities.Where possible, we encourage project leaders to develop links with partner organisations toensure uptake. This can take various forms, including joint sponsorship of publishing costs orcommitment by the local partner to distribute copies to appropriate recipients. This sort of linkhas been established with WARDA, CTA and IRRI.

4.4.4 In July 1999, a text produced by the CPP "Cottoning on to better pest management"won first prize in the first Research Strategy for Renewable Natural Resources competition,held by DFID. This award brings with it £200,000 over three years to fund further cropprotection research. A presentation was made on the winning project and other CPP researchalong with presentations by all the renewable natural resource research programmes at theDFID Knowledge in Natural Resources Development Symposium, at the Royal HorticulturalHalls, London in December 1999 (R6734).

4.4.5 A four page glossy synopsis of the Kenyan vegetable pest cluster has been producedfor distribution to partner organisations and other interested parties such as Ministries ofAgriculture, British Council and British High Commission offices. It presents information on thebenefits offered by the creation of clusters of projects and explains the relationship betweenthe components. The projects involved include: Pest management in horticultural crops: anintegrated approach to vegetable pest management with the aim of reducing reliance onpesticides in Kenya (R7403), Integrated management of root-knot nematodes on vegetablesin Kenya (R7472), Development of biorational brassica IPM in Kenya (R7449), Managementof virus diseases of horticultural crops (R7571).

4.4.6 Often, uptake of research is constrained by the local cultural / political climate. Wherewider understanding of the issues involved could forward the uptake of improvedmethodologies or strategies, project leaders are particularly encouraged to use mass mediasuch as radio or local newspapers. Project R6737 (Management of the perennial weedCyperus rotundus) was featured in a Ghana national television programme “Agrolink” in bothEnglish and local lnaguage versions.

4.4.7 The CPP is aware of the interest of the UK general public and policy makers in certaincrop protection and development issues. A recent interview on local radio by a CPPresearcher explored the issues of controlling pests on cotton in India (R6760) whilst anothertargeted members of the Scottish Parliament with information on weeds of rice (R7331).

PROGRESS REVIEW

5.1

5. PROGRESS REVIEW

5.1 Progress against management milestones

5.1.1 Box 8 incorporates new programme management agreed in Jan-May 2000 andexcept where indicated all were achieved. New programme milestones are proposed in Box9.

BOX 8: NOTES ON ACHIVEMENT OF PROGRAMME LEVEL MILESTONES,1999/2000

New Milestone Status of achievementPM31(from97/98)

Develop a strategy to promote technologies arising from theprogramme (by January, 2000), implement and review outputs (byJuly 2000) and evaluate impact on project design (by December2000).

On Target. Uptake studiesimplemented in response tocompetitive call; outputs to bereviewed at workshop in June.

PM32(from97/98

Increase the impact of the programme by further enhancing thegeographic focus of programme activities through expanding theproject cluster approach. Assign TA responsibilities (by Dec. 1999);review and revise strategic vision frameworks and output indicatormilestones (by Jan 2000); and report progress of achievement inAnnual Report (note this addresses requirements at para 5 ofAnnex 3 of the Management Contract).

Achieved. Project cluster approachimplemented; vision frameworks andlogframe output indicators reviewedat PAC in January and updatesappended to this report.

PM33(fromtender)

New management structure fully and efficiently implemented (byJune, 1999); with programme management-related performancetargets incorporated into annual staff review by line management.

Achieved in July 1999 followingappointment of assistant toprogramme management.Performance targets subject to sixmonthly review.

PM34(fromtender)

Attain 100% commissioning of portfolio for 1999/2000 (byDecember, 1999) and establish rolling forward plan forcommissioning new work (by April 2000).

Achieved; 100% commissioningachieved by February, 2000; plan forcommissioning new work in place.

PM35(fromtender)

Complete output to purpose reviews, to timetable designated inCPP logframes; take follow up or remedial action where necessaryand report annually.

OPRs carried out where a new phaseof work with the same partners isproposed to deliver programmeoutputs.

PM36(fromtender)

Complete specific programme development reviews, to timetabledesignated in CPP logframes; review outputs and whereappropriate call for new work by open competition.

Achieved. PD reviews completed andcalls issued.

PM37(fromtender)

Complete review of linkages with other Research Strategyprogrammes (by July 1999 and annually thereafter). Incorporate instrategic visions of project clusters for review at annual strategymeeting (Jan 2000).

Formal review of linkages delayed(unable to obtain details from NRSP),but informal linkages strengthenedand reviewed at Jan 2000 meeting.

PM38(fromtender)

Carry out annual review of progress against programme Output andPurpose indicators (for annual reports). Provide comments tosubstantiate conclusions.

Achieved. This report Section 5 andlogframe narratives.

PM39(fromtender)

Include analysis of project monitoring milestones (in annual reports)and highlight any enhancement or remedial actions taken.

Partially achieved. Financialmilestones routinely checked againstproject invoicing. Analysis to beimplemented in 2000/01.

PM40(fromtender)

Commission expert studies of opportunities for improved promotionand exploitation of project outputs (by October 1999) and reviewoutputs (by August, 2000).

Achieved. Six studies of constraintsto uptake and promotioncommissioned following open call inAugust 1999; outputs to be reviewedin June 2000.

PM41(fromtender)

Establish and monitor project milestones for dissemination andpromotion activities as a formal requirement in new projects (byFebruary 2000).

Partially achieved. Disseminationand promotion milestones nowexpected from projects; formalrequirement to be embodied inrevised PMF to issue shortly.

DFID Crop Protection Programme 1999/2000

5.2

PM42(fromtender)

Enhance monitoring procedures to incorporate feedback fromtarget institutions and representatives of beneficiaries into mid- andend of project monitoring, and report annually examples of impactof monitoring on project activities (by April, 2000).

Formal procedures under discussionand to be implemented in 2000/01.

PM43 Provide an analysis of approach to poverty issues, relation toallocation of resources by production systems, and how programmeis meeting DFID's poverty agenda (annex to Annual Report for2000)

Addressed by the paper "Pests andPoverty: the continuing need for cropprotection research" submitted inJuly, 1999, and in Annex 7.

PM44 Clarify strategy for ensuring cross-cutting issues taken into accountin the project cycle (by August, 1999)

Strategy for assessing environmentalissues addressed by paper submittedJuly 1999 and further discussion inthis report.

PM45 Provide detailed and costed monitoring and evaluation plan for theconduct of output to purpose reviews (by August, 1999)

Provided in paper submitted in July1999.

5.2 Response to recommendations on report for 1998/99

Written comments and recommendations (shown here in italics) were received in August1999. The following comments relate to paragraph numbers of the "list of recommendations"on page 13 and amplifies our formal response dated 18 January 2000.

1. Monitoring hits received by web-site. Data accrued since November, 1999 showmonthly "hits" for the CPP pages of 55, 49, 57, 66 and 93 for November 1999 to March 2000,respectively. The total of 320 hits during this period compares with 413 for FRP, 245 for LPP,215 for CPHP and 134 for PHFP. It was not possible to monitor the identity of visitors to theindividual research programme pages; data was available for visitors to the company site(total 4806 during this period) but is meaningful only for enquirers with their own dedicatedInternet addresses (notably larger institutions and organisations). Individual users withcommercial email providers such as CompuServe or Africaonline cannot be identified. Theseinclude some of our key target institutions in the developing world.

2. Update of project equipment registers. A backlog has been cleared and up to dateregisters are being sent to DFID immediately following provision of this report.

3&4 Ensure full spend and avoid non-competitive ‘add-ons’ to on-going projects andensure all project costs are described during appraisal and competitive selection. Despite aslow start, arising from commissioning against a large number of refocused outputs thisfinancial year (which were only agreed in April), a full spend was achieved. Whilst allreasonable steps to ensure that project costs are fully described during appraisal andcompetitive selection, occasions arise where there are good opportunities to improve or addvalue to project outputs. The programme continued to take advantage of these, but took amore critical view and in particular emphasized response to initiatives that arose from targetinstitutions rather than UK contractors.

A significant number of project extensions were commissioned this year, partly reflecting thespecial circumstances pertaining to restructuring of the programme. We have argued stronglyfor the need to retain this flexibility. Biological systems are inherently unpredictable and recentclimatic swings in Africa have accentuated this; some projects have lost field data for two ormore seasons. This often justifies extra time to make up for slippage. There are also caseswhere research has led to additional or unexpected findings. We take such decisions aftervery careful consideration and often with review or consultation external to the managementteam. We have also defended actions taken to commission new phases or ‘follow-on’projects on a non-competitive basis, for reasons well rehearsed with the Programme AdvisoryCommittee. Such non-competitive follow-ons are subject to very rigorous review: during thepast year one project was rejected outright at project memorandum stage and anotherextensively revised in response to independent review of a stakeholder consultation proposedby the PAC and requested by programme management.

5&6 Ensure competitive bidding and encourage participation. Within the past 12 monthswe have issued five competitive calls for proposals, including for programme developmentstudies. Our register of organisations that have expressed interest in bidding for projects has

PROGRESS REVIEW

5.3

been revised, particularly to include NGOs and development organisations in the UK andoverseas. Calls have been advertised on the World Wide Web and latterly in ‘ResearchFortnight’. Programme Management has been proactive in promoting the programme andencouraging participation from a wide range of lead institutions and collaborators. However,the range of effective target institutions and intermediaries is limited and these tend to havelimited knowledge of UK partners and often have conservative preferences for those that theyknow or have worked with before. We endeavour to encourage but cannot imposepartnerships with ‘non-traditional’ contractors.

7-11 Recommendations for inclusion in next annual report.

7. Relate projects more clearly to the relevant Output OVIs. Output OVIs are included inthe project lists accompanying the updated logframes, at Annex 3.

8. List all concept notes received, showing lead institution and collaborators. Provided atAnnex 2.

9. Separate lists of all new and completed projects during the year. Shown in Annex 6.

10. Linking specific outputs with evidence of uptake and anticipated or actual impacts onpoverty elimination. Addressed in logframe narratives, Annexes 3 & 7, and in examplespresented in the text.

11. More sparing and careful use of the word "adoption". Noted.

Additional points in the assessment (numbers refer to paragraphs on page 14 of assessment):

1. Over reliance on NRI and CABI. This point is acknowledged. However, whilst thesetwo organisations may lead on many projects, their role (particularly NRI) is frequently as co-ordinator rather than major investigator. This may involve significant financial expenditure(owing to high unit staff costs) but time inputs are often relatively minor. Experience suggeststhat many UK and overseas partners prefer to concentrate on the science and developmentalaspects, and to leave technical and financial co-ordination to these two organisations thathave such experience, as well as effective accounting systems in place to deal with multiplesub-contracts and overseas accounts. Where three or more partners are involved, it isessential that one takes such a role. The percentage of projects led by these two institutionsis thus a very crude measure of wider access and participation in the programme.

4-6 Financial matters. These concerns have been dealt with above or elsewhere in thereport.

10. Request for further discussion of training, capacity building and technology transfer.These issues have now been considerably clarified in discussion with RLD, although there hasbeen little further written guidance.

11. Better use of programme milestones as an effective management tool recommended.Although the proposed milestones were largely as agreed and approved in our tender forcontinued management of the programme earlier in 1999, strengthened milestones wereproposed in January, 2000 and are reported to in this report.

12. New logframes and management structure should further improve management of theprogramme. These changes have now been implemented. Programme management hasnow attained a highly effective critical mass and has an extremely dedicated team.

DFID Crop Protection Programme 1999/2000

5.4

BOX 9: PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT MILESTONES, 2000/2001

New MilestonePM31(from98/99)

Develop a strategy to promote technologies arising from the programme (achieved),implement and review outputs (by July 2000) and evaluate impact on project design (byDecember 2000).

PM46 Review and revise strategic vision frameworks and output indicator milestones (by Jan2001); and report progress of achievement in Annual Report.

PM47 Maintain rolling forward plan for commissioning new workPM48 Maintain schedule of output to purpose reviews of selected projects to timetable

designated in CPP logframes; take follow up or remedial action where necessary andreport annually.

PM49 Complete specific programme development reviews, to timetable designated in CPPlogframes; review outputs and where appropriate call for new work by open competition.

PM37(from99/00)

(Modified) Further enhance linkages with other DFID research programmes fordevelopment of joint projects of mutual priority (cost-effectiveness) and with bilateralprogrammes to improve and extend uptake and promotion of programme outputs (reviewSeptember 2000 and March 2001).

PM50 Carry out annual review of progress against programme Output and Purpose indicators(for annual reports). Provide comments to substantiate conclusions.

PM39(from98/99)

Include analysis of project monitoring milestones (by July 2001 and thereafter in annualreports) and highlight any enhancement or remedial actions taken.

PM40(from98/99)

Commission expert studies of opportunities for improved promotion and exploitation ofproject outputs (achieved) and review outputs (by August, 2000).

PM41(from98/99)

Implement formal procedures for establishing and monitoring project milestones fordissemination and promotion activities as a requirement in new projects (by June 2000).

PM42(from98/99)

Enhance monitoring procedures to incorporate feedback from target institutions andrepresentatives of beneficiaries into mid- and end of project monitoring, and reportannually examples of impact of monitoring on project activities (by June, 2000).

PM51 Enhance linkages with regional NARS networks (e.g. ASARECA, SACCAR, CORAFetc.), and especially their individual crop-specific networks, to improve and extend uptakeand promotion of programme outputs (December 2000)

PM52 Enhance linkages with relevant funding groups (e.g. Rockefeller, Gatsby, FAO etc.) andCGIAR Systems-wide Programmes and Initiatives to improve and extend uptake andpromotion of programme outputs (review September 2000 and March 2001)

PM53 Establish a pilot scheme for environmental screening of new projects through the use ofan environmental screening note (by June 2000).

PM54 Initiate the development of a evolutionary framework as to how crop protection researchissues should be dealt with by DFID beyond 2005.

CONCLUSIONS

6.1

6. CONCLUSIONS

6.1 The past year has seen considerable re-focusing of projects and project clusters inorder to better address the revised objectives of the production systems. Where possible thishas been achieved with continuity to the first phase of the programme. Not only is thiseffective in monitoring uptake and impact over the whole period of the strategy but it alsohelps to maintain long-term relationships with our partner target organisations whoseparticipation is critical to achievement of developmental impact.

6.2 An exceptional number of projects were active during the year, as research wascompleted under the first phase of the programme, new work was defined and projectscommenced in response to the revised research strategy. The programme can look forwardto more settled progress in the coming year, with more effort concentrated on fewer projectsthat are better integrated and co-ordinated into clusters based around key cropping systemsand target organisations. This approach is likely to involve fewer but stronger partnerships;we see as a key issue the need to continue and strengthen relationships with developmentprojects and programmes able to support capacity building, technology transfer and training.

Key points for the coming year

6.3 The programme starts the new year with more than 84% of its funds committed.Thanks to the efforts put into the identification of new projects and partnerships, to efficienciesgained by the project clustering approach, and to the systems put in place by a highlymotivated and dedicated management team, the programme now has not only a healthyportfolio of demand-led pipeline projects in excess of provisions of the current budget, but alsothe capacity to commission and manage additional work should further funds be madeavailable.

6.4 Key issues will be to strengthen procedures to monitor and ensure progress duringproject implementation, without placing further demands on project personnel, and inparticular to improve our awareness of and response to feedback from project partners andthe constituents that they represent. We intend to look beyond the conventional project cycle(and the horizons of the present programme) towards new work, and novel partnerships, thatwill accelerate and focus the impact of new technologies on the livelihoods of the poor. A starthas been made through the uptake studies commissioned during the past year which willreport to a workshop in June and are expected to produce specific guidance. In particular, weshall seek ways to target projects for greatest impact on those poor communities able tobenefit from, but currently with least access to, the outputs of research. Improved screeningof project proposals for environmental, as well as social and economic, benefits will be animportant part of this process.

6.5 The programme is well positioned to respond to the new outputs that addresspromotion of knowledge. Most projects already actively involve the participation of targetorganisations, and many are engaged in on-farm research under which farmers are testing oradapting new varieties or novel technologies. This process is expected to intensify and effortswill be made to strengthen it by improving access to the programme for overseas partners,through improved contacts with regional networks of NARS and ARIs and, in turn, their linkswith NGOs and the private sector. We see the forthcoming appointment of an East AfricaRegional Research Co-ordinator (to which the programme will contribute) as an important andwelcome development that should help to foster and improve overseas participation.However, lack of local capacity, inadequate facilities and poor incentives often limit the scopeand effectiveness of overseas partnerships. Whilst we propose, so far as possible, to workwith development programmes able to support capacity building and technology transfer, wesee moves to better integrate and co-ordinate research with institutional development andtraining as increasingly critical to achievement of developmental impact. We shall welcomeopportunities for the programme to contribute to underpinning the resources necessary toachieve greater sustainability of overseas research.