1. HarvestPlus c/o IFPRI 2033 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1002 USA Tel: 202-862-5600 Fax: 202-467-4439 HarvestPlus@cgiar.org www.HarvestPlus.org Biofortification in Africa Evidence of Success and Vision for Scaling Up ReSAKSS 2016 Conference Side Event October 18, 2016 | Accra, Ghana

2. Session Line-up I.Introduction Prof Ruth Oniang’o (Chair) II.Nutrition and Impact Evidence Dorene Asare-Marfo III.Crop Releases and Delivery Bho Mudyahoto IV.Partnerships for Scale Up Nelson Ojijo-Olang’o V.Discussion Dr. Lawrence Haddad (Discussant)

3. INTRODUCTION Prof Ruth K. Oniang’o Editor-in-Chief, African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND) Founder, Rural Outreach Program (ROP) Africa

4. NUTRITION AND SOCIO- ECONOMIC IMPACT EVIDENCE Dorene Asare-Marfo Program Manager and Senior Research Analyst HarvestPlus-IFPRI, Washington DC

5. Global Micronutrient Deficiency

6. Hidden Hunger  Affects 2 billion people worldwide (i.e. 1 in 3) (FAO 2013)  Contributes to the global disease burden of children  Poor quality diets is one of the major causes – High intake of starchy staple foods (e.g. rice, maize, cassava) – Low intake of micronutrient-rich foods (e.g. vegetables, legumes, animal source foods)

7. Strategies for Tackling Hidden Hunger Supplementation Fortification Biofortification Dietary diversity

9. Biofortified Crops in Africa

10. Dr. Howarth Bouis 2016 World Food Prize Laureate Are farmers willing to grow and are consumers willing to eat biofortified crops? Can conventional breeding add extra nutrients in the crops without reducing yields? When consumed, can the increase in nutrient levels make a measurable and significant impact on human nutrition?

11. Can conventional breeding add extra nutrients in the crops without reducing yields? Are farmers willing to grow and are consumers willing to eat biofortified crops? When consumed, can the increase in nutrient levels make a measurable and significant impact on human nutrition?

12. Is Biofortification Feasible and Effective? H+ Socio- Economic & Nutrition Research

13. Targeting for Impact Nutrition What micronutrient levels do biofortified varieties need to have to be able to meet nutritional estimated daily requirements?Socio-economic Where should we introduce [which] biofortified crops for biggest impact? Consumption, retention and bioavailability (absorption) studies Biofortification Priority Index (BPI)

15. Targeting: Nutrition Evidence Target setting: % of Estimated Average Requirement (EAR)* (Bouis et al., 2011) Revised Targets (Forthcoming publication) : ―Iron Target: +30% EAR ―Zinc Target: +40% EAR ―Vitamin A Target: +50% EAR Initial nutrient concentration (raw food) Nutrient retained after harvest (storage, processing, cooking) Amount of food consumed % Nutrient absorbed (bioavailable) Contribution to nutritional sufficiency (30-50% EAR) *Reference EAR for a non pregnant, non lactating woman of child bearing age

16. Targeting: Socio-Economic Evidence Production sub-index (PI) Consumption sub-index (CI) Micronutrient deficiency sub-index (MDI) Global Sub-national Asare-Marfo et al., 2013 Funes et al., forthcoming

17. Testing for Impact Nutrition When biofortified crops are consumed in a controlled setting, can the increase in nutrient intake levels make a measurable and significant impact on micronutrient deficiency status? Socio-economic Are farmers willing to grow and consumers willing to eat biofortified crops? Efficacy Trials/Studies Farmer Field Day Evaluations Farmer Feedback Studies Consumer Acceptance Studies

18. Testing: Nutrition Evidence Vitamin A Maize Efficacy study - Zambia (Gannon et al., 2014) – Children aged 5-7 – Total body stores of vitamin A increased significantly for treatment group for three months – Beta carotene in maize is an efficacious source of vitamin A Iron Beans Efficacy study - Rwanda (Haas et al., 2016) – Young women aged 18-27 – Significant increase in iron status after consuming biofortified beans for six months – Iron biofortified beans are an efficacious source of iron

19. Testing: Socio-Economic Evidence Vit A Maize (VAM) Farmer Feedback study - Zambia (Diressie et al, 2016) – Farmers who planted VAM – Feedback from farmers was very positive and informative Growers liked the production and consumption traits of VAM Majority want to plant VAM in subsequent seasons and want 4X more seed Vit A Cassava Consumer Acceptance - Nigeria (Oparinde et al., 2014) – Rural consumers in Oyo state – Hedonic testing for vitamin A (light and dark yellow) gari vs white gari – Information on nutritional benefits has an effect on level of acceptance Without information, light yellow gari is preferred With information, higher preference for deep-colored yellow gari

20. Measuring Impact Nutrition When biofortified crops are consumed as usual, (i.e. uncontrolled setting), can the increase in nutrient intake levels reduce micronutrient deficiency? Socio-economic Is biofortification cost- effective? ------- What is the rate of adoption of biofortified crops? Effectiveness Studies Impact Assessment Studies Population Level

21. Measuring: Nutrition Evidence Orange Sweet Potato (OSP) Effectiveness Study in Uganda and Mozambique OSP significantly increased vitamin A intake among women and children  9.5% reduction in prevalence of low serum retinol (Hotz et al., 2012) OSP accounted for more than half of total vitamin A intake – 53% in Uganda and 78% in Mozambique (Hotz et al., 2012) Reduced prevalence (by 11.5 percentage points) and frequency (by 0.6 days) of diarrhea in children under-five (Jones and de Brauw, 2015) OSP can improve child health by reducing vitamin A deficiency (Jones and de Brauw, 2015)

22. Measuring: Socio-Economic Evidence (1) Orange Sweet Potato (OSP) Effectiveness Study in Uganda and Mozambique (de Brauw et al., 2010) 61% (Uganda) and 68% (Mozambique) of beneficiary households adopted OSP Farmers increased share of OSP in total sweet potato cultivated area and consumers substituted white or yellow SP varieties for OSP Intervention cost about US$15–20 per Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) saved  highly cost-effective

23. High Iron Beans (HIBs) Impact Assessment Study in Rwanda (Asare-Marfo et al., 2016) 28% HIB adoption since 2010 ≈ Half a million HHs in Rwanda 54% continuous or intermittent adopters Farmers increase area planted to HIB over time 12% of total bean output in SB 2015 was HIB Social networks play a major role in diffusion – 41% received first planting material from friend or neighbor Measuring: Socio-Economic Evidence (2)

24. Can conventional breeding add extra nutrients in the crops without reducing yields? Are farmers willing to grow and are consumers willing to eat biofortified crops? When consumed, can the increase in nutrient levels make a measurable and significant impact on human nutrition?

25. The Potential of Biofortified Crops

26. BREEDING AND DELIVERING BIOFORTIFIED CROPS IN AFRICA Bho Mudyahoto Senior Monitoring, Learning and Evaluation Specialist HarvestPlus-IFPRI, Kampala

27. What We Now Know About Breeding and Delivery of Biofortified Crops in Africa Breeding can add extra nutrients to crops Farmers are willing to grow and consumers are willing to eat biofortified crops More African countries have embraced biofortified crops and biofortification as a strategy to reduce malnutrition Carefully identified indicators and good coordination are crucial for tracking reach and impact for biofortification initiatives

28. Breeding, Testing & Release of Varieties HarvestPlus/CG/NARS  develop, test & release NARS release and keep improving nutrient levels and other production traits Biofortified germplasm  public goods to governments Over 20 African countries are now developing, testing & releasing several biofortified crop varieties

30. Status of Biofortified Varieties in Africa Iron beans Yellow cassava Orange maize Orange sweet potato Number of countries tested in6810 > 14 Number of countries released in657 > 14 Number of varieties released281031 > 90 Source: HarvestPlus (2016)

31. Delivering Released Varieties to Farmers Active delivery operations in DRC, Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, Zambia  Zimbabwe, Tanzania & Kenya* H+ delivers through partners  use commercial and non-commercial delivery channels: – Zambia – private commercial seed companies  multiply & market direct – Uganda & Rwanda – partners & Individual smallholder farmers – Also through governments, NGO/CBO  with or without H+ Indirect reach  farmer to farmer diffusion for non hybrid varieties *HarvestPlus partnership countries

32. Measuring What We Report HarvestPlus’ 3 legged Monitoring, Learning and Action (MLA) system a.Implementation monitoring  5 process & 10 output level indicators b.Outcome monitoring  10 outcome level indicators  monitoring surveys c.MLA models  10 outcome & 3 impact indicators Feeding data into MLA models  application/use Impact Assessments  10 outcome & 3 impact level indicators  qualitative variables

33. Number of Households Reached in Africa (‘000) Crop/country 2012201320142015 Vitamin A cassava, Nigeria0106360520 Vitamin A OSP, Uganda3376107132 Iron beans, Uganda29694337 Iron beans, Rwanda105609332480 Iron beans, DR Congo60241128175 Vitamin A cassava, DR Congo02575180 Vitamin A maize, Zambia011104110 Total2271,1371,1491,634

34. High phytate content in crops being developed for high iron or zinc  interfere with their absorption β-carotene levels vs DM content in OSP & VAC Invisible trait crops  iron and zinc: – Adulteration/falsification along the value chain Seed production is a constraint in many countries – Low access by the poor – Commercial seed shun root & tubers crops – Seed quality control is challenging Challenges: 15yrs of research, delivery & learning

35. Concluding Remarks The HarvestPlus/CG/government/private sector and farmers  tremendous progress in Africa  develop, test, release Commercial and non-commercial channels for delivery of PM More households are growing and eating biofortified crops each year in target countries More countries are developing and releasing biofortified crop varieties without direct support from HarvestPlus  sustainability Variable identification, systematic data collection and analysis and good coordination of M&E systems crucial for successful measurement of progress & results for biofortification initiatives

36. PARTNERSHIPS FOR SCALING UP BIOFORTIFIED FOODS Nelson Ojijo Olang’o Lead Specialist Capacity Development FARA, Nairobi

37. Partnerships for Biofortification Phase of BiofortificationType of Partnership Development of biofortified crop technologies For technical feasibility (breeders, agronomists, funding) Efficacy and effectiveness testing For nutritional impact (nutritionists, food scientists, processors) Adoption, scaling up, sustainability For scalability & sustainability (See next figure)See next figure

38. Framework for Scaling Up Adapted from: Cooley, L. and Linn, J. F. (2014)

39. Africa’s Commitment to Nutrition African Union Commission (AUC) – Malabo Declaration III 3(d) – Africa Regional Nutrition Strategy (2005 – 2015 & 2016 – 2025) – African Task Force on Food and Nutrition Development (ATFFND) – The Cost of Hunger in Africa (COHA) studies NEPAD – Food & Nutrition Program – NEPAD Food Security and Nutrition Expert Panel Regional Economic Communities FARA and SROs

40. Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement

41. Partnerships & the CAADP RF 2014 - 2024 Agriculture contribution to economic growth and inclusive development Agricultural Transformation & Sustained Growth Strengthened systemic capacity for effective execution and delivery of results Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Improved food security & nutrition (Ind: underweight, stunting, wasting) Improved food security & nutrition (Ind: underweight, stunting, wasting) Increased production & productivity (of nutrient-enhanced crops) Increased production & productivity (of nutrient-enhanced crops) Partnerships & alliances within and across sectors (for scaling up nutrition)

42. Partnerships in Scaling Up PublicPrivate

43. Partnerships for Scalability Sweet Potato for Health Initiative (SPHI): 10 million households in 10 years – Dissemination of New Agricultural Technologies in Africa (DONATA) (2008 – 2015): OFSP – Sweet potato Action for Security and Health in Africa - SASHA I and II (2010 - 2019) including Mama SASHA on OFSP – Reaching Agents of Change (2011 – 2014) on OFSP Building Nutritious Food Baskets, BNFB (2016 – 2018): testing a model for multi-crop approach to scaling up – Orange sweet potato, yellow cassava, high iron/zinc beans, orange maize (CIP, IITA, H+, FARA, CIMMYT, CIAT, national partners)

44. Partnerships for Sustainability (1) We need action at policy, private sector and beneficiary levels: – Mainstreaming of biofortification initiatives in government policies – Private sector commitment and involvement in biofortification – development, production, processing, marketing, and promotion – Increased nutritional knowledge and changed consumption habits of consumers

45. Partnerships for Sustainability (2) Key partnerships would include: Biofortified crop development – mainstreaming by national and CG Centers (Kigali declaration of 2014) Partnerships with Private Seed Companies Aid/Grants - Development partners including biofortification in their programs Food Industry - Local and International companies processing biofortified foods

46. The Work Ahead Forging NARS/CGIAR partnerships : – For Zinc rice and Zinc wheat varieties – For Iron Pearl Millet and Zinc/Iron sorghum in Sahelian countries – To increase regional capacity to develop additional nutrient-rich staple food varieties; – To strengthen public and private seed systems and policies to fuel supply and demand for more nutritious crops

47. Call To Action Explicit indicators needed to track nutritional outcomes at Levels II & III of the CAADP RF (2014 – 2024) Urgent need for African policy makers to: – Include biofortification in key agriculture, health and nutrition strategies at national, regional, and global levels. – Mandate biofortification within National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) – Support inclusion of Biofortification definition into CODEX and National Standards

48. Acknowledgements

49. DISCUSSION Dr. Lawrence Haddad Executive Director, Global Alliance for Nutrition (GAIN)

50. EXTRA SLIDES

51. Current evidence: Nutrition Efficacy evidence shows that biofortification improves micronutrient deficiency status among target populations – Provitamin A-rich OSP: van Jaarsveld et al. 2005; Low et al. 2007 – Provitamin A orange maize: Moura et al., 2014; Tanumihardjo et al. 2013 – Provitamin A yellow cassava: Talsma et al, forthcoming; Moura et al., 2014 – Iron pearl millet: Finkelstein et al, 2015; Beer et al, 2014; Moura et al., 2014; Scott et al, 2014; Pompano et al. 2013 – Iron beans: Haas et al. forthcoming; Moura et al., 2014; Haas et al, 2013; Luna et al. 2012

52. Current evidence: Consumption – Evidence on provitamin A biofortified crops: OSP: Chowdhury et al, 2012; Stevens and Winter- Nelson 2008; Laurie and Van Heerden 2011; Pillay et al. 2011; Naico and Lusk, 2010. Orange maize: Meenakshi et al., 2012; Banerji et al., 2013 Yellow cassava: Oparinde et al., 2016; Talsma et al., 2013; Taleon et al forthcoming – Evidence on iron biofortified crops Beans: Oparinde et al., forthcoming; Perez et al., forthcoming Pearl millet: Birol et al., 2015; Banerji et al., 2015