The initial phase of five years in the partnership between CIMMYT, KARI and Syngenta Foundation in the IRMA project will expire by the end of 2003. In order to bring forward the strategy for the next phase Syngenta Foundation has proposed to carry out a strategic review of progress made and lessons learnt in order to establish a detailed business plan which shall be the basis for contact with other donors who might be participating.

Achievements of the IRMA I have been remarkable and excellent work has been done by a highly motivated team.

The target product is yet to be delivered which means that the timeline has been grossly underestimated. This was due firstly to the complexity of the biotic and abiotic factors influencing maize development in addition to stem borer damage. Secondly, the biosafety regulatory process although in place, has contributed to the delays due to slow acquaintance with formalities and understanding of the function of the different national committees.

The review team recommends a second phase IRMA under the following provisions:

• Closer collaboration should be intensified between KARI, farmers and extension which should lead to the launching of a product obtained through conventional breeding by 2005 and Bt maize by 2008 to meet the farmer’s expectation and to avoid disillusion.
• KARI should nominate a counterpart to the CIMMYT Kenya IRMA coordinator.
• A key person should be identified by KARI to follow up regulatory processes in order to avoid delays.
• More of the remaining fundamental work should be performed in KARI under the scientific leadership of CIMMYT.
• In order to meet the challenging time schedule more collaborative activities should be undertaken with institutions such as ICIPE pursuing similar research goals.
• The marketability of Bt maize locally and regionally should be examined. Product identification by seed companies and the farmer will present new challenges.
• The Intellectual Property and Biosafety issues as well as delivery systems have to be considered and closely monitored.
• Issues related to liability and farmer’s ability to recycle seeds must receive attention.
• A detailed business plan must be presented by mid May 2003 to Syngenta Foundation.

The Insect Resistant Maize for Africa (IRMA) project is a unique public-private partnership between CIMMYT Mexico, the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) and the Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture based in Basel, Switzerland. It addresses one of the most important production problems, namely, losses caused by different stem borers in maize grown by smallholder farmers in Kenya. The program is using both conventional breeding methods as well as modern biotechnology to incorporate Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) genes to produce maize varieties that are suitable for economic, social and environmental conditions in different agro-ecological zones in Kenya. Based on the experience and results generated in Kenya the appropriate technologies and varieties would be extended to other African countries.

The first five-year phase of the project will expire at the end of 2003. At the last Steering Committee meeting in November, 2002, it was proposed by the Syngenta Foundation that in order to design and develop a strategy for the next phase of the project, a strategic review of the progress made and lessons learnt should be carried out. Based on the recommendations made a business plan covering the scope, timelines and cost outlays would have to be worked out in order to have a basis for contact with other donors who might be interested in future participation in the IRMA project.

The following three-member team and a facilitator were constituted to review the IRMA project:
Prof. Walter S. Alhassan, Animal Scientist, Ghana- Chairman
Prof. Norah Olembo, Biochemist, Kenya- Member
Mr. Al Imfeld, Development Specialist, Switzerland- Member
Mr. Jost Frei, Agronomist, Switzerland- Facilitator

The Terms of Reference (TOR) used by the Review Team are presented in Appendix 1. The TOR’s are also presented in the body of the text under the findings of the review team for ease of reference.

At the outset of designing the project in 1999, a number of guidelines were established and needed to be met. These were as follows:

• Model of good practice (including biosafety aspects) that other countries can learn from.
• Pilot project for public-private partnership and co-operation.
• State of the art technology and methodology.
• Transparent and open project with on-going stakeholder dialogue.

In addition the donor, Syngenta Foundation, was to have no commercial interest in the project.

The review team spent 12 days in Kenya, out of which 8 days were on visits and interviews and 4 days on writing up. Two feedback sessions were held in Nairobi, meeting with CIMMYT, KARI and government officials from Kenya. The review methodology involved:

• Access to existing documents and literature produced by the program.
• Interviews with key staff of both CIMMYT and KARI.
• Interviews with key stakeholders.
• Visits made to major sites in Kenya.
• Observations made during visits.

Well laid-out visits were undertaken to the following IRMA project sites:

• KARI headquarters housing the Biosafety Level II laboratory,
• Katumani Research Center housing the insectary and another biotechnology laboratory,
• National Range Research Center at Kiboko where the Project Nursery and Open Quarantine Site (OQS) occur,
• Embu Research Center with various germplasm field evaluations and collaborative studies on farmers’ fields.
• Picasso Production Ltd. in downtown Nairobi which collaborates in documentation and communication.

All site visits were preceded with presentations by IRMA project scientists.
Visits were undertaken and discussions held with the following stakeholders in Nairobi:

• Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development (MoALD).
• National Council for Science and Technology (NCST).
• Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS).
• African Biotechnology Stakeholders Forum (ABSF).
• United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
• Rockefeller Foundation.
• International Center of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE).
• Kenya Industrial Property Institute (KIPI).
• Kenya Seed Company.

Members of the KARI and CIMMYT Management Teams are presented in Appendix 2. Appendix 2 also contains the names of the IRMA Project Team Leaders.

The findings are presented according to the review team’s terms of reference:

TOR 1: Evaluate the goal, purpose and objectives of the program and its respective sub-programs.

The project goal of insect resistant maize production appears simple yet more complex to address. It is multi-dimensional and needs to cover many equally important limiting factors like drought and soil fertility. The project must by necessity be long term to deliver the desired product. The 5 sub-programs (objectives) are all-embracive and satisfactory.

With regard to food security, the policy issue should include the diversification of the crop base.

TOR 2: Evaluate the specific, organizational, institutional, capacity and infrastructure development, selection and engagement of stakeholders, and regulatory/legal (including handling of biosafety issues) approaches taken.

The scientific work done is very good. However, more transparency in project execution is required. There is the need for free information flow between project scientists, extension staff of the MoALD and farmers. The human resource capacity appeared inadequate though efforts are on-going to train project participants at various levels. In the light of job cuts by government the KARI management intends to liaise with the universities more closely to enable the services of post-graduate students on KARI projects as well as encourage university lecturers to do their sabbatical studies at KARI. The infrastructure development appeared satisfactory except for the delay in the construction of the greenhouse and the inadequacy of project vehicles.

A broad base of stakeholders is involved in the project but these stakeholders must be differentiated and engaged at different levels.

The regulatory framework and actions appear satisfactory. The legislation for biosafety will need to be expedited. Nevertheless, the biosafety framework is being implemented. With regard to Material Transfer Agreements (MTA’s), it is important to consider issues related to liability. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR’s) issues should be urgently considered in their totality. Currently the IRMA project is allowed free use of Bt genes to develop Bt maize in Kenya as a public good. The technology is not protected in Kenya. Kenya has a draft biotechnology policy document, a draft biosafety law and a biosafety framework. IPR issues will be incorporated in the biotechnology policy document.

The project has addressed environmental concerns associated with Bt maize introduction such as the impact on non-target organisms, gene flow to landraces and insect resistance to Bt genes.

TOR 3: Evaluate the progress and achievements accomplished so far.

The project is a unique partnership between KARI, CIMMYT and the Syngenta Foundation. The US$6.2 million project completes the first phase which will last five years by the end of 2003. On the whole the project has been a success. The target product is yet to be delivered and could take about 5 more years necessitating the introduction of a second phase to enable delivery of the final product, namely, insect resistant maize to farmers. Product development has taken longer than had been anticipated due to the requirement of the regulatory process and protracted contract award processes in connection with the construction of the biosafety greenhouse. The delay in the construction of this facility has held up the application for license to bring in Bt maize seeds from CIMMYT Mexico to continue the project. Nevertheless, the project has achieved the following milestones:

• Biosafety Lab. Level II funded by IRMA is complete and in active use. Bt maize leaf bioassay for insect resistance is ongoing.
• Biosafety Level II Greenhouse contract has been awarded. Construction is soon to begin.
• A National Biosafety Committee and a KARI Institutional Biosafety Committee are in place. The screening of biotechnologies for safety and granting of operational licences is on-going as well as monitoring of operations.
• Product development involving Bt lines of maize and the conventional selection of lines for insect resistance, drought tolerance and nitrogen efficiency with a view to developing Open Pollinated Varieties (OPV’s) and hybrids is advanced.
• Five cry genes have been identified for the various stem borer pests in Kenya. The predominant pests are Chilo and Busseola.
• Biosafety Level II laboratory and Open Quarantine Site with irrigation facilities are in place.
• Training of post-graduate students with IRMA facilities is on-going for breeding and socio-economics.
• Training of KARI staff on marker assisted selection, bioassays, and transformation has started.
• Training in biosafety protocols has been undertaken.
• Major stem borers of Kenya together with their ecological distribution catalogued.
• Parasitoids and predators of maize stem borer identified.
• Reference collections of insects relevant to maize established.
• Techniques for mass rearing of stem borers perfected.
• Training of personnel from three countries on insectary management.
• Fact sheets intended for extension use should be more simplified for farmers’ direct use.
• Transport and computing facilities with internet connectivity provided.
• Seminars, scientific visits and workshops done.
• Study tour of biotechnology and biosafety facilities in Mexico and the USA undertaken by project management staff from KARI, KEPHIS and MoALD.
• Support given to make Katumani insectary fully functional (water purification facilities and stand-by generator).
• Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) equipment acquired.
• Support for bioassay lab in Kitale.
• KARI has benefited from the acquiring of germplasm under the IRMA project.
• Project has considered environmental concerns associated with Bt maize introduction such as the impact on non-target organisms, gene flow to landraces and insect resistance to Bt gene.

This is treated under TOR 4 which is as follows:
Identify the lessons learnt from the design, implementation and resources management of the program that will be relevant to other organizations and countries embarking on similar endeavors and to provide input into the design of the next phase of the program.

Most of the lessons learnt from the IRMA project arise from the failure to meet the deadlines set which have resulted in the project not realizing its goal in the timeframe set for product delivery, that is, the development of insect resistant maize to the Kenyan farmer within a five year timeframe. The lessons learnt are as follows:

• In the light of the complexity of variables that should go into the development of a stem borer resistant maize germplasm using genetic engineering technology in an environment not used to the technology, a more realistic timeframe should have been set. The complexity of variables referred to relate to the incorporation of resistance to other attributes such as low soil nitrogen, storage pests and drought into insect resistant maize.
• Uncertainties of product development of the nature of the IRMA project are many and include those of the regulatory process and general bureaucracy. Due to these delays the hopes of beneficiary farmers should not be heightened unduly.
• Ideally a national biosafety policy and legislation must be in place. In their absence, an implementable biosafety framework pending legislation but which in the interim draws strength from existing plant quarantine or other legislation can be used. Delays in biosafety committee deliberations occasioned by the protracted absence of members must be avoided through the appointment of alternate members and realistic timeframes set for committee deliberations.
• Farmer and extension service involvement at the initial phases of the project is to be encouraged.
• Continuous communication and involvement of stakeholders is necessary to maintain project harmony.
• Sensitization and continuous education of the public on genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) is necessary to create awareness.
• Product acceptability and marketability should be considered even before product development. This is borne out of the anxiety expressed by farmers on market availability for Bt maize.
• Training and infrastructure supply should go hand in hand. The training should be broad covering various categories of project implementing members. The infrastructure referred to include laboratory equipment, quarantine facilities, transport facilities, computers and communication equipment, clean water and electricity. Project scientists should be supported to visit other countries handling GMO’s.

This is addressed through TOR 5 which seeks to:
Identify issues that should be addressed in the next phase, including those of stakeholder engagement, consumer interests, biosafety, intellectual property management and delivery systems.
It is evident from the presentation above that the original objective of the project that is, developing and delivering insect resistant maize varieties to smallholder farmers has not been met. In view of the impressive progress made towards realizing this goal the review team recommends a second phase IRMA which takes note of the lessons learnt above as well as the following:

• IRMA II activities will be more downstream as the project gets nearer to delivering a product to the farmer. A closer collaboration between the farmer, the extension service and KARI will be required than was the case with phase one of the project. Farmer, Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) and Community Based Organization (CBO) engagement should be greatly enhanced.
• A closer link between KARI and CIMMYT in product development will be necessary. More of any remaining fundamental work should be done in KARI under the scientific leadership of CIMMYT.
• To ensure product acceptability and quicken the pace of product delivery to the farmer IRMA II should transform an existing local popular maize variety.
• KARI should assume greater responsibility in the management of IRMA II. Consequently, a KARI partner to the Kenya based CIMMYT project coordinator, Dr. Stephen Mugo, should be nominated by KARI.
• If as recommended by the project, 20% of the maize cropped is to be put under alternate borer host plants (refugia), these refugia should be crops of nutritional and/or economic value.
• >Current project management by CIMMYT appears satisfactory but KARI should assume more project management responsibility in IRMA II which is likely to be more complex in view of extended donor and stakeholder participation.
• Scientific publications arising out of joint effort between KARI and CIMMYT staff should be reflected in the authorship for such publications.
• There is the need for KARI to list all its maize improvement projects and to show the relationship to IRMA. All maize improvement projects in KARI should be harmonized. Activities of the modern biotechnology laboratory built under Netherlands government support at Katumani should be merged with those of IRMA II.
• It is advised that KARI in the near future harmonizes all donor assisted biotechnology activities in the institute.
• The manpower base in KARI though of excellent quality and well-motivated has a low numerical strength and is dependent on too few outstanding personalities. Steps should be taken through recruitment, training and grooming of staff.
• Awareness creation should bring GM technology to the language level of the farmer and extension.
• Information dissemination to other African countries should be enhanced in IRMA II through more widespread distribution of video films, brochures, fact sheets and an updated website.
• Government should be lobbied for free air time on radio and TV for farmer education.
• Ultimate seed distribution system should ensure that IRMA seed is affordable to smallholders. Agreement reached between KARI and prospective commercial seed agencies should consider this concern.
• KARI should merge activities of the DGIS funded biotech facility with those of IRMA II. National Agricultural Laboratories (NAL) biotech lab can undertake genetic engineering work while the Katumani lab does the marker assisted selection.
• Socio-economic studies on the possible effects of Bt maize should be undertaken from the beginning of phase two. For instance changes in subsistence and moving into market economy; effects on small scale farming; effects on land size and family heritage. Serious studies on credit systems adapted to resource poor farmers in Africa.
• Farmers have expressed their wish to participate in field days throughout the cropping season.
• Steps should be taken to ensure closer collaboration with farmers in germplasm development in order to avoid rejection.
• Every effort should be made in IRMA II to release non-Bt material at the early phase of the project while the Bt maize is being developed.
• While the current annual planning meetings should be encouraged, quarterly project review meetings should be adopted in IRMA II to ensure that all stakeholders are on course.

TOR 6 is to identify key partners for the next phase.

Contacts established with the USAID, the Rockefeller Foundation and the International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE) indicated a willingness to cooperate with the IRMA project in phase two. There is need to draw up a business plan indicating the nature of assistance and collaboration required. It was stressed in talks with ICIPE to avoid duplications in areas such as refugia work or resistance management, gene flow and on target and non-target insect species where a vast amount of work had been done and was still being done at the institute.

Collaboration and consultation was essential to share information. Such close collaboration is suggested for IRMA II.

Other potential donors and/ or collaborators should be identified and contacted as soon as possible.

To address the overarching goal of food security in Kenya it will be necessary to diversify the consumer food base and to take the pressure off maize. If appropriate food crops can be identified in addition to sorghum as refugia in insect resistance management in Bt maize alternate food crops can be gradually introduced. Assistance to small scale farmers by way of input subsidy and a more effective market support should be considered by the government.

The emerging problem of the Larger Grain Borer (LGB) should receive urgent attention through a special formulated research initiative. Such an initiative is beyond the IRMA II purview. Intellectual Property issues arising from World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreements should take into account the concerns of the small scale farmer with regard to access to germplasm. Farmer’s ability to recycle seed should receive attention.

In future the Biosafety Regulations should incorporate and build the needed capacity for examining human toxicological issues arising out of GMO products for human consumption.

• It is generally felt that the new government has inspired a high level of motivation amongst Kenyans to undertake all-out efforts for radical change.
• Preliminary talks with key government officials indicate a continuing support for biotechnology.
• Achievement of the IRMA I project has been impressive but the timeline has been grossly underestimated.Conservative estimates from the review team’s consultations reveal that a five year time frame would be required to further develop and release Bt maize to reach the farmer after the seed certification process. Non-Bt maize could be released in a two year time frame. This optimistic scenario would require careful advanced planning of activities and a religious commitment to timeframes. It is necessary to maintain the enthusiasm generated in the first phase and to carry this into IRMA II. While maintaining farmer expectation the project should educate them of the scope of work and time frames.
• In order to improve time management, it is recommended that certain aspects of the work be undertaken simultaneously rather than sequentially.
• CIMMYT and KARI should present a realistic time-bound business plan for IRMA II by the middle of May 2003 in specific segments which could be funded by any new donor partner willing to assist the project.
• KARI should designate a staff who would be dedicated to following up on regulatory applications lodged with various regulatory agencies. This or other coordinating staff should follow up the timeframes set up in the business plan to ensure that tasks are performed according to the schedule.
• It is recommended that a mid-term review is carried out in order to assess progress and compliance.
• It is strongly recommended that the Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Development funds and ensures the IRMA project is brought to its most logical conclusion. The difficulties associated with project initiation in phase one of the IRMA project having been cleared and useful lessons learnt, IRMA II should be more smooth sailing. The Syngenta Foundation, KARI and CIMMYT and the whole of Africa would have chalked a historic milestone with the delivery of an insect resistant germplasm to the small scale farmer borne out of cutting edge technology mastered and applied by African scientists.
• Despite the perceived complexity of the IRMA project, a holistic approach to it must be adopted in order to ensure sustainability.

The review team would like to thank all the people who were involved in organising the review and providing all the support to ensure the success of the review effort. In particular Dr. Stephen Mugo of CIMMYT Kenya who collated and presented background papers and Ms. Ebby Irungu and Linda Alondo also of CIMMYT Kenya who provided logistic support.

The hospitality offered to the review team at the KARI Center in Nairobi, Katumani, Kiboko and Embu was highly appreciated as were all the presentations made by the respective Center Directors and their staff involved in the IRMA project. The role of KARI Director-General, Dr. Romano Kiome, in the overall facilitation of the project is appreciated.

The CIMMYT team from Mexico under the chairmanship of Dr. David Hoisington has also contributed effectively with their presentations to the successful conclusion of the review. The review team appreciated the open and frank discussions and information provided by all on the project. The spirited discussions held with various government agencies as well as development partners and ICIPE are graciously acknowledged.

The members of the project team are most grateful to the Syngenta Foundation for the opportunity to undertake this landmark review.

Mugo, S., Gethi, M., Songa, J., Odongo, O., Ombakho, G., Gethi, J. Njoroge, K., Ininda, J., Mutinda, C., and Bergvinston, D. 2002. Development of locally adapted insect resistant maize in Kenya. IRMA Project Documentation No. 9. Draft. KARI, Syngenta, CIMMYT Publ. Draft.

KARI/CIMMYT. 2002. Insect Resistant Maize for Africa (IRMA) Project Annual Report. IRMA Project Documentation No. 8.

KARI/CIMMYT. 2003. IRMA Project in CIMMYT Progress Reports 1999-2002. Prepared for IRMA Project Review. February, 3-15 2003

KARI/CIMMYT. 2003 Nomination for the CGIAR Science Award for Outstanding Partnership 2002, IRMA Updates Vol. 1-3 and IRMA Project Quarterly Reports 1-4. Prepared for IRMA Project Review. February 3-15 2003.

KARI/CIMMYT.2000. Insect Resistant Maize for Africa (IRMA) Project. Strategic Plan. January, 2000.

KARI/CIMMYT. 2002. Insect Resistance Maize for Africa (IRMA) Project. Annual Report 2002. IRMA Project Documentation No. 10. Draft for IRMA Review.

KARI/CIMMYT.2001. Insect Resistant Maize for Africa (IRMA) Project Annual Report 2001. IRMA Project Documentation No. 6.

KARI/CIMMYT. 2000. Insect Resistant Maize for Africa (IRMA) Project. Annual Report 2000.

Mugo, S., Poland, D., De Groote, H. and Hoisington, D. (Eds.). 2000. Stakeholders Meeting: Insect Resistant Maize for Africa (IRMA) Project. IRMA Project Documentation No. 3.

Mugo, S., Poland D., Songa, J., De Groote, H. and Hoisington, D. (Eds.). 2001. Second Stakeholders Meeting: Insect Resistant Maize for Africa (IRMA) Project. IRMA Project Documentation No. 7.