CGIAR Research Program on Grain Legumes: Proposal - Library

More documents

Recommendations

Info

system level; while for policy-economic constraints, the unitof analysis was at a higher, countrylevel. Someresponses differed depending on state of knowledge and type of constraint.The review of production performance estimated actual yields, the relative importance of biotic and abioticconstraints, and the adoption levelss of modern varieties. Next, reviews of sales andd consumption examinedaspects of technology use, sophistication of post-harvest activities and scope of market offerings (Table 4) ).Yield productivity constraints included biotic (insect pests, disease, weeds), abiotic (drought, heat) and otherfactors (waterlogging,soil fertility). Technology and usebarriers comprised c three contextual factorsaffecting: production availability/access to seed or technology (unrestricted, restricted, very limited) ,difficulty inharvesting and mechanizabiliity (available/unimportant,restrictedimportant,verylimited/crucial), and legumes being “pushed out” of farming systems becausee of policy support orproductivitygains of other crops, typically cereals (not applicable/unimportant, restricting important, verylimited/crucial).Table 4. Topics of pan-legumee analysis: constraints, barriers and threats.Barriers affecting post-harvest with losses, sold immediately),price information (available, some but insufficient, none) ),activities and market demands included: storagee losses (stored withoutlosses, storedcooking time(unimportant, useful/helpful, important), level of processing/marketing sophistication (ready-to-eat, transformed andneeds cooking, crude form), and available market (international, national, local) .Threats to legume cultivation addressed: badd legume policy context (positive/favorable, none/neutral,negative/neutral), declining legumee demand (increasing, constant, decreasing perr capita), climate change(positive temp/rain, minor negativee impacts, severe yield impacts). Refinement off the analytical methodsand results will continueas a research activity within SC1.Grain Legumes – Justification13
Overall, the dataset represents 368 legume x country x farming systems. From both national andinternational programs, 43 experts evaluated particular legumes according to their field and otherprofessional experience. A minimum farming system area within a country of 1500ha was selected to reducethe size of dataset while also enabling the identification of common bio-physical conditions and potentialspillover benefits. This framework is used to illustrate how the research priorities of both the Product Lines(PL) and Strategic Components (SCs) address challenges along the value chain from production toconsumption.Data was both quantitative and qualitative. For example, yield losses were estimated according topercentage contribution to the yield gap (not % yield loss of yield potential). In contrast, the barriers wereassessed according to a qualitative green-yellow-red scale representing no/low importance - mediumimportance - high importance/critical.Summary results per legume and per region are in Table 5. Analysis of constraints, barriers and threatsreveals important similarities and differences across the grain legumes and regions. Productivity constraintsof insect pests and disease are perceived as being very important for six of the eight legumes: chickpea,cowpea, faba bean, groundnut, lentil and pigeonpea. Low soil fertility is especially important to beans, andto a lesser extent, soybeans. Crop diseases are the most important constraint in nearly all regions.Barriers to adoption and use also differed per legume and region. Access to seed is very limited with beans,cowpeas and soybeans. Difficulty of harvest restricts lentil and soybean production. Policies are perceived tohave pushed lentils, cowpeas and chickpeas out of some farming systems.Post-harvest constraints also have differing levels of perceived importance. Lack of ability to store harvestsand losses during storage greatly affects cowpea, faba bean, groundnut, and pigeonpea. Western andCentral Africa face the greatest storage challenges. A lack of price information affects all legumes to differingdegrees – with information most scarce for faba bean, groundnut, pigeonpea and soybean.Ease of cooking was considered a challenge in preparing to pigeonpea, faba beans, beans and soybeans, butnot so for cowpea, groundnut and lentil. Levels of processing/marketing also have a wide range ofsophistication. While cowpeas and beans are mostly available only in crude forms, the other legumes hadhigher levels of processing, with groundnut the most processed legume. Market scope ranges from theinternationally traded pigeonpea and faba bean, to locally-marketed soybean and cowpea.Perceived importance of threats also differed according to legume and region. Groundnut production facesthe most negative policy environment; while declining demand for lentils is an important threat. Growingdemand is perceived for cowpea, groundnut and soybean and to a lesser extent beans. These results areused to inform CRP management for setting priorities within the PLs and SCs.Grain Legumes – Justification 14
Page 4: AcknowledgmentsThe eleven core part
Page 7 and 8: ISRAITITASITPGRFAKARIKMKSLACLIFDCMA
Page 9 and 10: One, farmers in some regions have s
Page 11: • Central and Western Asia and No
Page 14 and 15: Justification of a CRP on Grain Leg
Page 16 and 17: Highest levels of poverty/hunger an
Page 18 and 19: That the consumption of milk, eggs,
Page 22 and 23: Table 5. Summaries of pan-legume co
Page 24 and 25: Table 6. Estimated gross value of p
Page 26 and 27: Crops addressed are chickpea, pigeo
Page 28 and 29: appear to share common mechanisms o
Page 30 and 31: new technologies is affected by the
Page 32 and 33: ProductLines and Strategic Componen
Page 34 and 35: Product Lines (PLs)Addressing abiot
Page 36 and 37: Activities• Identify potential re
Page 38 and 39: screening. Comparative studies on p
Page 40 and 41: Increased water use efficiency (WUE
Page 42 and 43: • Short-duration, drought toleran
Page 44 and 45: Table 13. Targeted countries for Pr
Page 46 and 47: an Integrated Pest Management (IPM)
Page 48 and 49: Impact pathwayFor improved varietie
Page 50 and 51: • Multi-environment evaluation of
Page 52 and 53: Table 18. Targeted countries for Pr
Page 54 and 55: Promotion of seed business ventures
Page 56 and 57: producers and input and product mar
Page 58 and 59: target production domains and valid
Page 60 and 61: systems must be employed to adequat
Page 62 and 63: characterization and development of
Page 64 and 65: Innovative contributionsPublic-priv
Page 66 and 67: Harvest destination:Bean -LACBean-A
Page 68 and 69: Promoting institutional innovations
Page 70 and 71:
The CRP will produce diverse types
Page 72 and 73:
Student scholarshipsStudent scholar
Page 74 and 75:
2010). The availability of high yie
Page 76 and 77:
disseminate the technologies. On a
Page 78 and 79:
Gender StrategyRationaleLegumes are
Page 80 and 81:
uilding activities will lead to inc
Page 82 and 83:
Gender considerate skills and knowl
Page 84 and 85:
InnovationsGrain Legumes constitute
Page 86 and 87:
Utilize bio-economic modeling to un
Page 88 and 89:
oles to play in (i) providing viabl
Page 90 and 91:
male and female farmer’s prioriti
Page 92 and 93:
evaluation in crop-livestock system
Page 94 and 95:
CRP is appropriately reflected in t
Page 96 and 97:
As the CRP will work with a wide ra
Page 98 and 99:
Mitigating RisksGrain Legumes is in
Page 100 and 101:
• Crop and region specific post-h
Page 102 and 103:
The CRP is projecting a budget of U
Page 104 and 105:
Costs for gender research and analy
Page 106 and 107:
Bhullar NK, Street K, Mackay M, Yah
Page 108 and 109:
ICARDA. 2010. Ethiopia and ICARDA.
Page 110 and 111:
Pande S. 2007. Prospects of legumes
Page 112 and 113:
365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/FP11
Page 114 and 115:
AppendicesAppendix 1. Profiles of t
Page 116 and 117:
(68,000 ha) (Saxena et al. 2010). W
Page 118 and 119:
Appendix 2. Profiles of Grain Legum
Page 120 and 121:
Latin America and the Caribbean (LA
Page 122 and 123:
Appendix 3. Global trends in grain
Page 124 and 125:
WCA: COWPEAArea trend: t t-value: 1
Page 126 and 127:
Direct consumption trend: t-value:
Page 128 and 129:
ESA: CHICKPEAArea trend: t-value: 7
Page 130 and 131:
Food consumption trend: : t-value:
Page 132 and 133:
Production trend: t-value: 5.26 sig
Page 134 and 135:
ESA: PIGEONPEAArea trend: t-value:
Page 136 and 137:
Food trend: t-value: 5.07 significa
Page 138 and 139:
SSEA: GROUNDNUTArea trend: t-value:
Page 140 and 141:
Production trend: t-value: 8.6 sign
Page 142 and 143:
LAC: DRY BEANArea trend: t-value: 0
Page 144 and 145:
CWANA: CHICKPEAArea trend: t-value:
Page 146:
SyriaTunisiaGrain Legumes - Appendi
Page 149 and 150:
MoroccooCWANA: LENTILSAreatrend: t-
Page 151 and 152:
MoroccooTurkeyGrain Legumes - Appen
Page 153 and 154:
In order to make an income group wi
Page 155 and 156:
In view of the nutritional status a
Page 157 and 158:
Crop/constraint Asia ESA WCA CWANA
Page 159 and 160:
ChickpeaCentral and West Asia and N
Page 161 and 162:
Figure 4: Area, demand andd supply
Page 163 and 164:
Figure 8: Area, demand and supply p
Page 165 and 166:
Figure12: Area, demand and supply p
Page 167 and 168:
Figure16: Area, demand and supply p
Page 169 and 170:
Figure 18: Area, demand andd supply
Page 171 and 172:
Table 1. Values of key parameters u
Page 173 and 174:
35%30%25%20%15%10%5%0%2014201520162
Page 175 and 176:
Measure / RegionTable 2. Summary me
Page 177 and 178:
Table 3. Potential impacts of cowpe
Page 179 and 180:
Table 5. Potential impacts of groun
Page 181 and 182:
Table 6. Potential impact of invest
Page 183 and 184:
Table 8. Summary of the potential i
Page 185 and 186:
Table 11. A summary of the potentia
Page 187 and 188:
Country Chickpeas Groundnut Lentils
Page 189 and 190:
these genes have been incorporated
Page 191 and 192:
Control of flower thrips (Megalurot
Page 193 and 194:
maize in both locations in the two
Page 195 and 196:
WeedsWeeds (parasitic and non-paras
Page 197 and 198:
Butare L, Rao IM, Lepoivre P, Polan
Page 199 and 200:
Khalil S, Kharrat M, Malhotra RS, S
Page 201 and 202:
Sanginga N and Woolmer PN (eds.). 2
Page 203 and 204:
Visalakshmi V, Ranga Rao GV and Arj
Page 205 and 206:
them, or how to manage them). The u
Page 207 and 208:
Grain Legumes should take into acco
Page 209 and 210:
Table 7: Adoption of improved cowpe
Page 211 and 212:
2005 rainy season. In neighboring a
Page 213 and 214:
Machine harvestingManual harvest of
Page 215 and 216:
Hangen LA and Bennink MR. 2003. Con
Page 217 and 218:
Appendix 10. Product Line logframes
Page 219 and 220:
Product Line 2. Heat tolerant chick
Page 221 and 222:
Output targets Milestones Target re
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Product Line 6. Extra-early chickpe
Page 233 and 234:
Product Line 7. Herbicide tolerant,
Page 235 and 236:
Product Line 8. Pigeonpea hybrids a
show all

CGIAR Research Program on Grain Legumes: Proposal - Library

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?