OFFICIAL

Annual Review – post April 2018 Title: Agricultural Technologies Strategy – Catalyst: Supporting Agricultural Innovation for

International Development Programme Value £ (full life): £20,000,000 Review Date: 8 August 2019 Programme Code: 203067 Start Date: 01/04/2014 End Date: 31/03/2023

Summary of Programme Performance Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Programme Score B A A A A

Risk Rating High Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

DevTracker Link

to Business Case: https://devtracker.dfid.gov.uk/projects/GB-

1-203067/documents DevTracker Link

to Log frame:

A. Summary and Overview (1-2 pages) Description of programme (1/2 page) The Agri-Tech Catalyst aims to accelerate the development of new agricultural innovations to tackle

challenges facing agriculture in developing countries by supporting research institution/private sector

partnerships. It was set-up to tackle the “Valleys of Death” which impede the flow of innovations to market,

particularly where the technical feasibility of a concept has been shown through publicly funded research.

Support for the translation of the proof of concept to a working prototype is relatively limited. The Catalyst

aims to support this process through funding of research/private sector partnerships, the latter providing a

clear route to market. Three classes of grant are available on a competitive basis.

1. Early stage award: evaluating the technical feasibility of an idea and establishing proof of concept in

a model system.

2. Industrial Research: enabling the exploration and evaluation of the commercial potential of an early-

stage scientific idea.

3. Late-stage award: taking a well-developed concept and demonstrating its effectiveness and utility in

a relevant environment.

The anticipated impact of the “Agricultural Technologies Catalyst - International Development Window” is

enhanced food security, nutrition and welfare of the poor. This will result from greater involvement of the

private sector, both UK and African, in agri-tech innovation generating faster translation of research

outputs, and innovation at scale

The Catalyst was launched in 2013 as part of the UK Agricultural Technologies Strategy and is

implemented by Innovate UK (IUK), the UK’s innovation agency. Funding for international development

focussed projects is from DFID. To date, a total of 34 projects have been funded through seven

competition rounds. The projects are diverse and will deliver innovations in a number of areas include

crop breeding, control of pests and improved livestock vaccines, that will deliver benefits for farmers and

increase the profitability of the agriculture sector. In 2018 an additional £10m was approved to continue

supporting the Catalyst.

Summary supporting narrative for the overall score in this review (1/2 page) The Agri-Tech Catalyst is on track to achieve its outcome of increased pace and scale of uptake of

agricultural technology and is meeting expectations. The programme is delivering innovative technology,

including a low-cost, water efficient system for growth of animal feed on arid and/or degraded land, a novel

diagnostic test for Contagious Bovine/Caprine Pleuropneumonia and a new business model for providing

agricultural mechanisation services in Zambia.

Seven competition rounds have resulted in a portfolio of 34 projects, across each award category and a

range of sectors. The scope of the competition has been broadened to include food systems innovation

from Round 7. Interest in the competition continues to increase, and the approval of Global Challenges

OFFICIAL

Research Funding, through IUK, to expand the programme means that additional rounds will be possible,

providing the opportunity for innovations to move through the award categories, with the Catalyst offering

a genuine pipeline for innovations. Seven projects completed during the year, ten new projects were

funded from Round 7 and Round 8 closed in early June 2019.

Recommendations for the year ahead (1/2 page) 1. DFID Agriculture Research Team to continue to work closely with IUK to support synergies

between DFID funding and GCRF funding to the Catalyst.

2. DFID Agriculture Research Team to engage more regularly with DIT to build links between their

workstreams and the Catalyst. As a start, DFID will make recommendations to DIT for projects to

profile at the Game Changing Technologies event in London in October 2019. (June 2019 and

ongoing)

OFFICIAL

B: DETAILED OUTPUT SCORING (suggest 1 page per output)

Output Title Portfolio of collaborative projects managed to ensure delivery and relevance of

project outputs.

Output number per LF 1 Output Score A Impact weighting (%): 30% Impact weighting % revised

since last AR?

N

Indicator(s) Milestone(s) for this review Progress 1.1 Competitions managed:

competition process managed,

applications assessed, grants

awarded.

1 competition managed

1 competition launched

Achieved Round 7 launched with projects

selected. At the time of reporting Due

Diligence checks were ongoing.

Round 8 launched, closing in early

June for applicants.

1.2 Number of collaborative projects

that "go-live"

100% of funded projects have

started activities.

Achieved 100% of projects started activities from

Rounds 1 – 6. R7 projects were not

expected to have started during the

reporting period due to the timing of the

competition.

1.3 Project Monitoring: Funded

projects are monitored on a

regular basis.

90% of project milestones

achieved

Achieved While there have been some delays in

achieving milestones, more than 90%

have been achieved.

Provide supporting narrative for the score During the reporting period, May 2018 – April 2019, IUK continued to manage the Catalyst programme

effectively. Following approval of additional funding from DFID, reported last year, Round 7 of the Catalyst

was launched and successfully managed, with a total of 107 applications received, although only 68 were

sent out to assessors. The remaining applications did not meet basic eligibility (eg a partner in Africa) or

administrative requirements (e.g. all necessary forms completed). At the time of reporting, Due Diligence

checks are under way before the ten projects start. The trend in applications is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: Application Trends1

Round 7 attracted a similar

number of eligible applicants as

Round 6 (R6; blue line). The green

line shows the success rate for

applicants, which has reduced

significantly in R6 and R7 as

compared to R2 – R5. This

reflects the higher number of

applicants competing for a similar

amount of funding meaning that

not all strong proposals are being

funded. Although the number of

projects funded in each round has

steadily increased (red line), the

number of applicants has

increased more substantially.

Round 8 of the competition was

launched during the reporting period, with IUK and the Knowledge Transfer Network organising a number

of networking events and sharing information on the competition. 115 applications were received, with 86

1 Only applicant numbers were available for Round 8 at the time of drafting.

R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R80

102030405060708090

100

Application Trends

Applications Projects Funded Success Rate (%)

OFFICIAL

being sent for assessment. The others were incomplete or ineligible. A tentative timeline has been agreed

for Round 9.

OFFICIAL

Additionally, during the reporting period, IUK successfully bid for Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) funding for the AgriTech Catalyst International Development Window. This will include funding for additional innovation projects, enabling a minimum of an additional two competition rounds (R10 and R11). In addition, they will support skills training and networking and dissemination activities. The former aims to build capacity in developing countries and the latter to increase engagement between funded projects and innovation networks in the UK and Africa. Both activities will be strongly linked to existing programmes and also new programmes, including KTN Africa, that will be supported by DFID and IUK.

Monitoring Officers, contracted by IUK continue to monitor projects on a quarterly basis, providing regular updates to IUK. During the reporting period, no significant issues have arisen with projects, with any delays or changes to projects being handled through IUK’s normal processes. Table 1, provides a summary of all 34 funded projects to date, including those from Round 7 which have not yet started activities. Table 1: Summary of Confirmed Projects NB: greyed out rows are completed projects, projects without Start/End date are from R7 and currently undergoing Due Diligence Checks.

Project Title Lead Institution Sector Start Date End Date Early Stage Projects 131781 KASP™ technology to improve new rice varieties and farmers' livelihoods Bangor University Crop: Plant Breeding and Genomics 01/05/2015 31/10/2016 131788 Development of pearl millet for health benefits for type-2 diabetes – feasibility study of

physicochemical properties and genetic enhancement Aberystwyth University Crop: Plant Breeding and Genomics 01/03/2015 31/08/2016

131891 Improved methods for freeze drying of entomopathogenic fungi Asypmtote Crop: Pest Control 01/11/2015 30/04/2017 132165 Vaccine Diluent Improvement for ECF-ITM GALVmed Livestock: Health 01/02/2016 31/07/2017 132166 Aphid resistant wheat for the smallholder farmer in Africa Rothamsted Research Crop: Pest Control 01/02/2016 31/07/2017 132167 Application of General Repellents against Agricultural Pests Russell IPM Ltd Crop: Pest Control 01/05/2016 31/10/2017 132345 Aflascope Crop Innovations Crop: On-farm storage and management 01/08/2016 31/01/2018 132346 Rapid and cost effective 'on-site' detection of cacao swollen-shoot virus Mars Chocolate Crop: Disease Control 01/11/2016 30/04/2018 132347 DryGroAF (DAF) DryGro Crop: Engineering Solutions including

Precision Ag 01/11/2017 30/06/2018

133047 AFLA - project - Acoustic Filtration Lab-free Apparatus for better aflatoxin management in Kenya

Crop-Innovations Crop: On-farm storage and management 01/08/2018 31/01/2019

133048 ELFF - Ethiopian Lupins for food and feed Secure Harvests Ltd Crop: Plant Breeding and Genomics 01/09/2017 28/02/2019 133049 Development of a novel diagnostic test for Contagious Bovine/Caprine

Pleuropneumonia disease Centre for Innovation Excellence in Livestock

Livestock: Health 01/08/2017 28/02/2019

133050 GenePrint: Novel business strategy for decentralised seed supplies increasing resilience in Zambia

Crop-Innovations Crop: Plant Breeding and Genomics 01/08/2017 31/01/2019

105310 Production Breeding and Market Development of Grasscutter in Ghana University of Edinburgh Livestock: Animal Breeding and Genetics 105311 Data-Led Soil Management for Low Income Farmers Sustainable Venture

Development Partners Limited

Crop: Soil water and nutrition management

105314 Resource Efficient Farming by Renewable Ugandan Irrigation Technology (REFRUIT) Scene Connect Ltd. Crop: Engineering Solutions including Precision Ag

105315 Exploring the potential for sustainable potatoes as a crop for Northern Ghana Luminno Ltd. Crop: Disease Control 105316 SolarSaver - Solar powered modular food drying system to reduce food losses for off

grid Africa Countries Biopower Technologies Ltd.

Crop: Other

105318 STOVERPACK - Creating a new value proposition for waste maize stover in Uganda Bangor University Crop: Non-food applications

OFFICIAL

Project Title Lead Institution Sector Start Date End Date Industrial Research Projects 101918 Hybrid Wheat for Food Security KWS UK Ltd Crop: Plant Breeding and Genomics 01/09/2015 31/07/2020 102275 Sustainable intensification of agriculture in the Horn of Africa Seawater Greenhouses

Ltd Crop: Engineering Solutions including Precision Ag

01/11/2015 31/10/2018

102534 Benchmark Scenario Planning in Primary Production: Creating Sustainable Change Syngenta Crop: Engineering Solutions including Precision Ag

01/02/2016 31/01/2019

102643 Supply Chain Development in Kenya - UK Agritech to improve rural livelihoods Finlays Crop: Non-food applications 01/12/2016 30/11/2019 102647 Improving consistencey of yields and quality of large-scale and small-holder bean

growers Provenance Partners Crop: Soil water and nutrition

management 01/10/2016 30/09/2019

103710 Hybrid wheat in Africa - increasing productivity and stability KWS UK Ltd Crop: Plant Breeding and Genomics 01/04/2018 31/03/2021 103711 KASP genomic selection: improving farmers' livelihoods through better rice varieties LGC Genomics Ltd Crop: Plant Breeding and Genomics 01/08/2017 31/07/2020 103712 Advanced Mobile Pre-Cooling Concept (AMPCS) Dearman Engine

Company Ltd Crop: On-farm storage and management 01/01/2018 31/12/2019

105309 Development of Cacao Swollen Shoot Virus (CSSV) on-site detection prototype and field evaluation

MARS Wrigley Confectionery Ltd.

Crop: Disease Control

105312 Black Sigatoka resistant banana varieties Tropic Biosciences UK Ltd.

Crop: Plant Breeding and Genomics

105313 Genetic improvement of cattle in Zimbabwe utilising advanced breeding technologies Paragonvet Ltd. Livestock: Reproduction 105317 Developing strategies to alleviate heat stress-induced flower abortion and prevent

yield losses in fine and runner beans for commercial growers and for small-holder farmers in Kenya

Provenance Partners Ltd. Crop: Other

Late Stage Projects 102028 Demonstration and commercialisation of Bioarational pheromone based male and

female attract and kill system for the successful control of fruit flies in Asia and Africa. Russell IPM Ltd Crop: Pest Control 01/03/2015 29/02/2016

131900 HealthyShrimp: An affordable salinity sensor device for increased aquaculture yields and reduced environmental damage

Odyssey Labs Limited Aquaculture 01/11/2015 30/06/2016

103713 Agricultural mechanisation of Sub-Saharan African smallholders by agrodealer development

AGCO UK Ltd Crop: Engineering Solutions including Precision Ag

01/09/2017 28/02/2019

OFFICIAL

Lessons identified this year, and recommendations for the year ahead linked to this output Lesson 1: The sustained level of applications since Round 6, at around 70 eligible applications,

continues to indicate a good level of interest in the International Development Window of the AgriTech Catalyst. The Knowledge Transfer Network (KTN) who have organised the various networking events to publicise the competition and support new consortia and applications have also indicated that there is a high level of interest. However, they have also indicated that at present there are relatively limited alternative funding opportunities for collaborative research, as provided by the Catalyst, due to broader shifts in the funding environment. In the short term, this may be an advantage as it may be pulling in organisations who wouldn’t normally consider ODA-type funding. However, if the situation should change in the future, the level of interest may tail off.

Lesson 2: Round 7 has provided a further two examples of follow-on projects receiving funding. Industrial Research Project 105309 is a direct follow-on from Early Stage Project 132346 which was successfully completed. Industrial Research Project 105317 is not a direct follow-on from Industrial Research Project 102647, but broadens the collaboration between the project partners who consider the first project to have been very successful. The lesson here is that, while the Catalyst mechanism was conceived as a pipeline through which innovations could move from research to market, it is also supporting new collaborations/partnerships which may develop outside the confines of a specific project. The external independent evaluation (Output 3) will look in more detail at how projects move through the different award categories, whether they receive funding from other sources, and other broader impacts on partnerships.

Recommendation 1: DFID Agriculture Research Team to continue to work closely with IUK to support synergies between DFID funding and GCRF funding to the Catalyst.

OFFICIAL

Output Title Research outputs, products and services delivered to drive agricultural innovation in

developing countries Output number per LF 2 Output Score A Impact weighting (%): 50% Impact weighting %

revised since last AR? N

Indicator(s) Milestone(s) for this review Progress 2.1 Individual projects deliver their

contracted research outputs (including conference papers, publications, patents, in-house knowledge, workshops etc)

Project are on track to deliver contracted outputs.

Achieved for most projects Some projects experienced technical and practical delays.

2.2 Number of products/services delivered in developing countries

AGCO has launched the new “Farm in a Box” product based on outputs from their completed project. 2.3 Sales (GBP value) of

products/services delivered in developing countries.

2.4 Jobs created in developing countries.

Briefly describe the output and provide supporting narrative for the score Progress under each project is summarised below. Projects that completed activity during the reporting period are highlighted in grey. Projects that completed in previous reporting periods are not included. Due to the gap between Rounds 6 and 7 of the competition, only six Industrial Research projects will continue activities into the next reporting period. The ten new projects funded under R7 will come online in mid-2019. During the reporting period, DFID and IUK held a number of discussions to work out how output reporting from funded projects can be improved, given that it is not current practice to collect this information until the end of a project. IUK have been keeping track of project outputs and have provided DFID with this data. However, the diversity of projects and outputs makes it challenging to aggregate data and set specific targets for the programme as a whole, other than to show that projects are on track to deliver their contracted outputs. The issue of improving data management and analysis for both technical and financial data is being considered as part of the independent evaluation. Early Stage Projects (shaded projects have completed in the past year) 132347: DryGroAF (DAF - Developing a low-cost, water efficient system for growth of animal feed on arid and/or degraded land, unsuitable for agriculture)

The DryGro™ Animal Feed project (DAF) aimed to develop a low-cost system to grow animal feed on land that is currently too arid to be suitable for agriculture. Laboratory trials of the innovative DryGro™ process have demonstrated that it has the potential to reduce the water-use requirements of biomass production by over 99% compared to conventional agriculture in arid environments. The DAF project will build on this previous work to develop a commercial system that also meets smallholder development goals in East Africa. The project completed in June 2018. Exploitation opportunities are extremely good for the new technology. The lead partner has been asked to scale up to industrial production levels. To achieve this it will have to increase growing capacity from the current position of 6 units (farms) to 12 units. The project has secured two strong patents and is well underway with a third patent application. 133048: ELFF - Ethiopian Lupins for food and feed This project explored the feasibility of a white lupin breeding programme to combine traits from Ethiopian and UK varieties, producing lines that benefit Ethiopian farmers in the first instance but also lines benefiting agriculture in many other countries. The project successfully completed in February 2019 and identified markers linked to low alkaloid production. The large amount of data generated can be used for further breeding work. In particular identification of other markers and genome wide association studies. The

OFFICIAL

project has developed a business strategy for novel varieties in Ethiopia and generated a further grant for field trials in the UK.

OFFICIAL

133049: Development of a novel diagnostic test for Contagious Bovine/Caprine Pleuropneumonia

Funding for the project has allowed for the feasibility testing of an emerging diagnostic platform (UK based) which is already being developed for bovine TB, and attempt to translate the technology for use with a tropical pathogen. This project has developed a new low-cost diagnostic test (first of its kind) against a common respiratory pathogen common across Africa. The test has been trialled using samples from infected animals collected by a Kenyan veterinary service provider. The project completed in February 2019 after securing a short 3-month extension to allow field testing to be completed. Shipping of the trial kits to Kenya proved extremely difficult. This resulted in a major delay to the project. So far limited testing has occurred in Kenya, however, early results are encouraging

133050: GenePrint: Novel business strategy for decentralised seed supplies increasing resilience

The GENEPRINT project combined the expertise of a Zambian research institute, a UK-based charity, a UK-based biotech commercialisation business, an East African charitable foundation and two companies with specialisms in Biotech to explore the market and technical feasibility of a novel business model for localised production and marketing of high quality locally-bred seed in Zambia. The project successfully completed in January 2019. The key outputs being robust proof-of-concept data for using probe-based melt analysis to give DNA fragment size estimates, and data on variations of probe design to enhance the assay. This technology will allow Zambian seed breeders and multipliers to distinguish and register their locally-bred seed varieties. The project has developed 2 exploitation strategies, firstly promotion and development of bean landraces in Zambia, and secondly the exploitation of the technology into other applications. The team have built a portfolio to support registration of bean landraces in Zambia. The genetic fingerprinting technology will likely be spun out into a separate business.

Industrial Research Projects (shaded projects have completed in the past year) 101918 - Hybrid Wheat for Food Security This innovative wheat research and breeding project aimed at improving food security in India and Pakistan as well as benefitting the UK wheat growers through the introduction of high yielding wheat hybrids. The product is developing wheat hybrid testing in South Asia and the UK utilising an innovative, non-GMO, non-chemically based, hybrid system. The project is now in its fifteenth quarter and is proceeding to plan with all active work packages on track. The Q14 reports provided evidence that there remains good levels of communication and collaboration between all the partners. Outcomes from this project will be used in another DFID-funded AgriTech Catalyst project entitled ‘Hybrid wheat in Africa - increasing productivity and stability’ (project 103710). This project will have a much more spring wheat outlook and help identify appropriate maternal and paternal pools for global hybrid wheat. Current activity included a field day at held in March 2019 and the successful publication of a patent in April 2019:

102275 - Sustainable Intensification of Agriculture in the Horn of Africa

This project aimed to develop and test a low-cost seawater greenhouse in Somaliland, taking forward existing technology for developed markets completed in October 2018. Despite working in a challenging environment, all technical deliverables were achieved, although the establishment of a local enterprise in Somaliland is on-going. Cost reduction of the system was key in order to maximise uptake and ensure

OFFICIAL

profitability and scalability after the pilot stage and the capital cost was 1% of previous designs for Australia. The greenhouse and farm produced its first crop of lettuce, tomato, cucumber and sea salt in February 2018 and is being operated by a local crew that was trained during the construction process. Additional outcomes include publishing of an academic paper in the journal Desalination, in collaboration with Aston University, as well as invitations and presentations at many international conferences. The site has also become a demonstration centre for the new design. Hosted by the Somaliland partner, several international donors including FAO, GIZ and the Norwegian Development Fund have visited the site and expressed interest in expanding the operation or replicating it elsewhere in the Horn. Throughout the course of the project they received numerous awards and recognitions for their work. These include the Business Green International Impact Award, Energy Globe National Award (x2), and the Shell Springboard National award, earning us £150,000.

102534 - Benchmark Scenario Planning in Primary Production: Creating Sustainable Change This project focused on improving outcomes in primary food production, and hence food security, by using advanced technologies to facilitate efficiency benchmarking for both productivity and environmental performance. The hypothesis investigated is that historic data patterns can be used to support farmers’ decision making, a positive impact on global food security in a sustainable way. Compared with the UK, where crops such as wheat already obtain close to theoretical maximum yields, the project tested with data provision to farmers in Zambia could improve yields. However, whilst data was collected on smallholder farmers and the project team worked with a local organisation, it was clear that a relatively limited number of parameters impacted maize yields and therefore, in the short term, it would only be an appropriate solution for larger scale commercial farmers.

102643: Supply Chain Development in Kenya - UK Agritech to Improve Rural Livelihoods

The project aimed to develop a new sustainable supply chain for five essential oil crops produced by potentially thousands of small holders in Kenya. The project utilises UK technology and research know how to rapidly develop sustainable oil crop production systems in Kenya. The project is now in its tenth quarter with all work packages remaining on track. The still was completed in 2018. A significant highlight has been the first distillations of Rose Geranium and Eucalyptus Citriodora oils. The process produced 52.75kg of Geranium and 6.40kg of Citriodora gum. Samples of these are undergoing quality evaluation at the University of Reading. Samples have been sent to a potential customer for the Geranium oil. Exploitation activity and opportunity remains high for this project

102647: Improving consistency of yields and quality of large-scale and small-holder bean production in Kenya by precision management of soil, water and pathogens

This project aims to develop and test an innovative and resilient integrated water and soil management strategy for bean production in Kenya. The project started in October 2016 and is proceeding to plan. Trial sites have been prepared and beans established in dedicated tunnels. The project held a major event in June 2018 where all partners visited commercial farms, trial sites and had the opportunity to interact with smallholders. The improved crop management techniques developed under the project will be deployed and supported to accelerate sustainable intensification on large- and small-holder farms around Naivasha.

103710: - Hybrid wheat in Africa - increasing productivity and stability

OFFICIAL

This project, which compliments and expands on project 101918, aims to test the hypothesis that geographically distant genepools can be exploited in wheat hybrids aiming at high, low and intermediate wheat production regions. The project will test several hundred hybrid spring wheat lines created with lines from major global spring wheat regions such as Southern and Eastern Africa, the Americas, Australia and Europe. The test hybrids will be tested in 33 different environments on five continents over two years. Methods for cost-efficient hybrid seed production in South Africa will be tested with the aim of being able to produce affordable wheat hybrid seed locally. The project is in its 5th quarter. Harvest of 732 hybrid production plots was in August 2018. This is the largest number attempted in house during a field season and key insights into managing large scale hybrid production have been gained during the sowing, management and harvesting of these plots. This information has already been applied towards additional hybrid seed production in 2019 and approaches undertaken for this project’s production have been adopted by other members of staff attached to KWS UK Ltd. Together all three partners have facilitated the sowing of trials in 20 locations across the Americas, Europe, Southern Africa and Australia. The 661 hybrids represented in these trials will generate a robust and informative dataset. In parallel, the South African private partner initiated investigations in 2018 aiming to evaluate the economics of seed production and management using two hybrid production systems. As cost-effective seed production is a major constraint on the viability of hybrid breeding, the findings of this work has helped inform the feasibility of hybrid breeding in the target region as well as opportunities for optimization of programmes. 103711: KASP: Technology to improve new rice varieties and farmers’ livelihoods This project will develop LGC genomics' proprietary molecular technologies (called KASP) by providing thousands of new KASP markers. By the end of the project, KASP will become the marker of choice for rice breeders through greater choice of markers (available for any cross), reduced costs (allowing a three-fold increase in the size of the breeding programme) and increased speed and reliability. The project is beginning to deliver significant technical achievements, 5,000 KASP assays have been selected for genotyping and 400 genotypes have been sown under field conditions across four nursery sites in partner countries.

OFFICIAL

103712: Advanced Mobile Pre-Cooling System With DFID funding and support for a 24-month project, Dearman is working with local partners Transfrig, the cold chain operator, and Harvest Fresh, a family-owned food producer based in the Gauteng province, to develop an off-grid, zero-emissions mobile pre-cooling (MPC) system that is accessible and affordable to small farmers. The technology at the heart of the mobile pre-cooling system is the liquid nitrogen-powered Dearman engine, which seeks to displace more costly and polluting diesel systems. This project seeks to deliver a successful technology demonstration, including a six-month field trial, and set out a viable route for wider commercial deployment of the pre-cooling system. The project launched in April 2018. As of May 2019, the project has successfully produced a Concept Design for the prototype MPC and begun Detailed Design. Throughout the Concept development phase, several lab tests were completed to provide data to validate thermodynamic and heat transfer models, establish cooling requirements (air distribution, fan power requirements) and establish blast chiller configuration design. The project has undertaken substantial analysis of the market and routes into them, identifying and estimating the market size in South Africa and the UK. Four business models have been developed, which are applicable to: Large farms from emerging economies, small farms and co-operatives in emerging economies, large producers of leafy vegetables in the UK or EU, who often use conventional cooling systems for in-field cooling. Berry and soft-fruit growers in the UK or EU, who often use conventional cooling systems for in-field cooling. Late Stage Projects (shaded projects have completed in the past year) 103713: Agricultural mechanisation of Sub-Saharan African smallholders by agrodealer development This is a collaborative research project involving three companies and two universities, both in the UK and Zambia. The project focuses on improving the sustainable intensification of agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa by evaluating the benefits and commercial potential of agricultural mechanisation and support services for smallholders in Zambia. The project has two objectives: (a) to assess the affordability of mechanisation systems to support conservation agriculture for smallholders in Zambia, (b) to develop and evaluate economically a novel approach of farm service centre (agrodealer) for supporting and training smallholders. The project is currently in its 7th quarter and results have been used in developing a new product Farm In a Box (FIAB) which was launched by AGCO at the International Green Week exhibition in Berlin on the 18 January 2019 (https://youtu.be/cuL4QDxmel4). This works through a franchise model with a local agro-dealer providing services to small-holder farmers. Technical support is provided to agro-dealers by AGCO and remote monitoring of tractor performance enables targeted advice to be provided. FIAB is now being marketed in Zambia. Lessons identified this year, and recommendations for the year ahead linked to this output Lesson 3: During the course of the year it has been clearer that DFID funding to the Agri-Tech Catalyst

fills a clear “innovation gap” between the scientific research funded by the UK Research Councils and the support to trade and investment provided by the Department for International Trade (DIT). The Catalyst is supporting the translation of scientific research into new products and services which create the potential for new export or investment opportunities. Innovate UK has strong links with the UK Research Councils, but there is a need for stronger engagement with DIT.

Recommendation 2: DFID Agriculture Research Team to engage more regularly with DIT to build links

between their workstreams and the Catalyst. As a start, DFID will make recommendations to DIT for projects to profile at the Game Changing Technologies event in London in October 2019. (June 2019)

OFFICIAL

Output Title Effectiveness, efficiency and relevance of the catalyst mechanism for developing

country agriculture demonstrated. Output number per LF 3 Output Score A

Impact weighting (%): 20% Impact weighting % revised since last AR?

N

# Indicator(s) Milestone(s) for this

review Progress

3.1 Independent evaluation completed Evaluation contracted Achieved

Provide supporting narrative for the score Four bids were received for the AgriTech Catalyst Evaluation under the Global Evaluation Framework Agreement. After a reviewing bids, the contract for the evaluation of the AgriTech Catalyst was signed with IPE Global on 11 January 2019 and the kick-off meeting held in London on 13 February 2019. The Inception Report was signed off on 6 June 2019 and the Evaluation Team are now rolling out the evaluation, having received key data from IUK and DFID. During the Inception Phase fortnightly teleconferences were held between the Evaluation Team, IUK and the Evaluation Steering Group. The Steering Group includes representatives from DFID, and the Department for Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), who have commissioned an evaluation of the UK component of the AgriTech Catalyst. Along with DFID representation on the BEIS AgriTech Evaluation Reference Group, this aims to ensure synergies and complementarities between the two evaluations. The primary purpose of the evaluation is to evaluate the effectiveness of the AgriTech Catalyst International Development Window (Catalyst) in catalysing agricultural innovation in developing countries. Additionally, the evaluation will also assess the impact of selected individual projects funded by the Catalyst. The evaluation will require assessment of the Catalyst competition process and the individual projects funded by the programme. More specifically, learning from the Process Evaluation will feed directly into future rounds of the Catalyst and also provide lessons for future DFID-IUK collaboration. The Impact component will support DFID’s learning on the effectiveness of the mechanism in accelerating the pace and scale of agricultural innovation and inform future decisions on support to the sector. The evaluation is split into two phases, with the report from the first phase due in October 2019. The second phase will then run concurrently with the programme, to evaluate impact, and the report will be submitted in December 2021.

OFFICIAL

C: THEORY OF CHANGE AND PROGRESS TOWARDS OUTCOMES (1-2 pages) Summarise the programme’s theory of change and any major changes in the past year (1/2 page) The underlying theory of change (ToC) for the Agri-Tech Catalyst has not changed over the past year. The evaluation, which is being commissioned will test the ToC that, providing support to research organisation/private sector collaborative research and development, and requiring private sector match funding, will accelerate the development and scale-up of agricultural innovations of relevance to developing country markets and address the “valleys of death” that impede the translation of technological opportunities into new innovations. As part of the evaluation, a Theory of Change workshop was held in March 2019 involving the Evaluation Team, DFID and IUK. This resulted in a strengthened and more detailed ToC than had been included in the original business case, although the underlying narrative remained the same. The revised ToC is shown in Figure 2 (next page), with the assumptions listed below.

A1) There is a sufficient number of applications with relevant concepts that could address an existing challenge in developing countries’ agricultural sectors.

A2) Potential markets and commercial applications for funded projects exist.

A3) Grantees have the ability to develop compelling business cases that can entice investors.

A4) The AgriTech Catalyst brand is recognised among investors and stakeholders, which means grants could provide a signal of confidence in the innovation.

A5) Enterprises are able to produce and sell the innovations at scale in relevant markets.

A6) Innovations receive necessary certifications to be sold and used in relevant markets.

A7) Having a local partner ensures that innovations are affordable and culturally appropriate, and that the selling enterprises are trusted amongst targeted value chain players. Value chain players use innovations appropriately.

A8) People use increases in income to increase their food consumption - whether immediately or after investing in income-generating assets/activities that will enable them to do so in the future

A9) Organisations are able to identify relevant partners for their applications.

A10) Partnerships are collaborative and effective.

A11) Increased investment in innovation is relevant to improving food security in developing countries.

A12) Peer review assessment score fits industrial research piece

A13) Funding model and grant size supports successful innovation development Describe where the programme is on track to contribute to the expected outcomes and impact, and where it is off track and so what action is planned as a result in the year ahead (1/2 page) The programme is on track to contribute to the expected outcomes and impact. More detailed, independent analysis of performance will be provided by the independent evaluation.

OFFICIAL

Figure 2: Revised Theory of Change

OFFICIAL

D: VALUE FOR MONEY Assess VfM compared to the proposition in the Business Case, based on the past year (1 page) Since the Agri-Tech Catalyst Business Case was approved in 2013, Research and Evidence Division (RED) has articulated a ‘quality and value at each step’ approach to value for money which provides a more useful framework for ensuring VfM than the original metrics proposed. This framework recognises that assessing Value for Money for agriculture research investments is challenging, as the outcomes and impacts cannot be easily determined. While the evidence of positive rates of return from investment in agriculture research is clear, this is not sufficient for ensuring value for money at programme level. This is a common issue for all research programmes. VfM is delivered by: -

• Picking the right problems – Catalyst specifically targets the key problem of “valleys of death”, blockages that hinder agricultural innovation as outlined in the business case.

• Working through strong partnerships – DFID has a strong partnership with IUK, which has a strong track record in delivering Catalyst type programmes in the UK. There is a good working relationship and they have managed the competitions process successfully.

• Always requiring good quality – All applications to Catalyst go through a robust assessment process and projects that do not reach the required standard are not funded. To date 16% of applications have been successful, similar to other competitions of this nature and indicative of the high bar on quality.

• Programme Management – IUK provides good programme management of the portfolio of projects. The lead institution for each project is visited quarterly to ensure deliverables are on track before invoices are paid. Building on an existing mechanism and in partnership with others (BBSRC and BEIS) has been cost effective. IUK and the DFID programme management team are currently exploring the possibility of a programme funded post based at IUK to further strengthen capacity to manage the programme, build links with other programmes and thereby strengthening VfM for DFID. ToR’s for the post are currently being drafted.

Additionally, the application assessment process, managed by IUK, includes an assessment of proposed project costs to ensure they are appropriate to the scale of the project. Project costs are also monitored as part of IUK’s quarterly monitoring process to ensure costs are meeting expectation.

Further analysis of the VfM of the programme will be conducted as part of the performance evaluation which was externally procured by DFID during this reporting year is currently underway.

Explain whether and why the programme should continue from a VfM perspective, based on its own merits and in the context of the wider portfolio

(1 page) Tackling malnutrition (Sustainable Development Goal 2) is a key priority for the UK Government – helping to save lives, prevent various illnesses, help people escape from poverty and be more productive, and contribute to economic growth. The DFID Research review highlighted agriculture as a priority theme for spending and impact. Additionally, DFID’s Conceptual Framework on Agriculture highlights the importance of research and innovation in delivering agricultural transformation. The role of the private sector in delivering impact in developing countries is also acknowledged in DFID’s Economic Development Strategy and private sector engagement on food systems and nutrition. Additionally, the focus on delivering agricultural innovation in Africa from Round 7 onwards will deliver against the UK commitments under the new Strategic Approach to Africa. This new approach highlights the importance of science and innovation and harnessing technology for development in Africa. Specifically, the Agri-Tech Catalyst aims to build a pipeline of promising innovations that can deliver benefits to farmers and companies in developing countries by supporting them through the stages of innovation and de-risking the necessary research and investment. The programme is investing in technology to tackle tough development challenges and working with the private sector to reach scale.

OFFICIAL

The Agri-Tech Catalyst which works with research and private sector organisations to deliver agricultural innovation continues to be relevant to current DFID priorities.

Based on the positive progress outlined above and the highly relevant nature of the programme to DFID priorities, the programme should continue.

OFFICIAL

E: RISK (½ to 1 page) Overview of programme risk (noting the rating from p.1) and mitigation The overall programme risk rating for this reporting year remains moderate.

Risk Category Rating Comment Risk Trajectory

Context Moderate The overall risk level for the portfolio is moderate as the majority of projects operate in low risk environment. There are some individual projects that may present a higher contextual risk due to the geographies in which they operate (i.e. Project number 102275 which operates in Somalia)

Delivery Moderate There has been no change to risks in this category.

DFID has a strong partnership and good working relationship with IUK. The Residual Delivery risk is rated as moderate due to the long delivery chain through IUK, to a UK lead working with overseas partners. This risk is managed through IUK’s quarterly monitoring meetings and review of technical and financial reports before invoices are paid.

Operational Minor There has been no change to risks in this category. Safeguarding Moderate At portfolio level, risk is moderate. Fiduciary Moderate There has been no change to risks in this category.

Catalyst projects are structured using a “hub and spoke” model, with the lead institution invoicing IUK and receiving payments and transferring funds to overseas partners. Therefore, IUK does not have direct contact on financial issues with downstream partners. This risk is mitigated by IUK’s robust monitoring procedures (see below for further detail on this). Quarterly invoices are paid in arrears when the Monitoring Officer is satisfied that activities have been completed as planned.

Reputational Moderate Reputational risk to DFID is partly linked to the Risks identified other categories above and there has been no change.

Overseas monitoring and due diligence

OFFICIAL

During the next reporting year, an additional operational overhead will be applied to procure non-standard overseas monitoring services and due-diligence checks on overseas partners to ensure the appropriate use of funding against eligible cost categories and financial viability of all project partners ahead of projects commencing.

DFID funding will be used to support developing country partners via a UK lead partner as part of the ‘Hub and Spoke’ model. Discussions between IUK AgriFood Team, IUK Governance Team and DFID have resulted in an agreed framework for due diligence of overseas partners to ensure greater risk oversight and mitigation. It has been agreed that viability checks will be conducted on international partners claiming £50,000 or more. These checks are currently being contracted to PwC for Round 7.

During this reporting period, there has also been a change to the procurement process for Monitoring Services. The process to procure UK and overseas monitoring for Round 7 projects is currently in progress. Once Monitoring Services have been procured, DFID will work with IUK and the assigned Monitoring Officer(s) to establish an approach that provides sufficient assurances that risks associated with funding overseas partners are mitigated and managed. Monitoring of projects for Round 7 are being procured on the basis that monitoring will include physical attendance at review meeting each quarter. There will also be overseas visits to the African partner organisations at a frequency of:

• For 12-month projects - 1 overseas visit, at Q2

• For 18-month projects - 2 overseas visits, at Q2 and Q6

• For 24-month projects - 2 overseas visits, at Q2 and Q6

• For 36-month projects – 3 overseas visits, at Q2, Q6 and Q10

Compliance with DFID Commitments:

• Gender Equality Act and Equality Act 2014: This programme was approved before the Gender Equality Act came into law, and therefore no specific compliance actions were included in the Business Case. However, guidance on gender analysis and data disaggregation is included in the Guidance for Applications for each competition. Assessors are also required to assess whether applicants have given due consideration to gender in their application.

• International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI): While IUK is aware of this requirement, it is not a requirement that they deliver against for other programmes. There are particular sensitivities with respect to the commercially sensitive nature of some project activities. Discussions are ongoing and will continue during the next reporting year to encourage compliance with this requirement where appropriate.

• Branding: Initial rounds of the Catalyst were cobranded as “Agri-Tech Catalyst” due to the multiple funders. Projects are also co-funded by the private partners. All contracts signed by IUK include a clause covering publicity and branding and guidance is provided. However, this does not include the requirement to reference DFID funding. While some projects do acknowledge DFID funding, this is not always the case. Discussions are ongoing to address this issue, taking into account wording used in other government/private sector initiatives, for example: “'working with DFID and IUK”.

• R4D: IUK do not have systems in place to aggregate publications from across all programmes for uploading to R4D. In addition, there are commercial sensitivities with respect to some project outputs.

OFFICIAL

F: DELIVERY, COMMERCIAL & FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE (1-2 pages) Performance of partners and DFID, notably on commercial, and financial issues (1-2 pages) DFID will make available up to £20,000,000 over 8 years to the Agri-tech Catalyst programme. In October 2018 an amendment to the existing MoU between DFID and IUK increased the funding available to the programme to £20 million. To date, DFID has committed £13.2m in grant funding which supports 34 projects across rounds 1 – 7.

Grant utilisation rates vary across funding programmes at IUK, and the typical pattern for projects is to underspend by between 9% (Early- and Late-stage awards) and 11% (Industrial Research awards). IUK account for this Underspend in their financial forecasts.

As projects go live and grantees upload financial forecasts on to _Connect (the digital portal used by IUK to track and follow projects for project monitoring and financial claims), the historical accuracy of forecasts vs actual claims is analysed, and future forecasts are risk adjusted based on past performance to help increase the accuracy of future forecasts. IUK have experienced greater challenges with project work through the overseas nature of the project partners and new relationships with UK firms, and therefore a degree of caution in forecast vs incurred costs may still be observed over the programme in the coming years. The Monitoring Officer also reviews grantees’ finance claims each quarter to ensure that costs being claimed are for eligible project work. Grant payments are only made when the Monitoring Officer is satisfied that all costs being claimed for work undertaken in the previous quarter are eligible and for incurred and defrayed claims. Copies of invoices are also required for the end of project external audit, which must be carried out by an independent accountant before the final 15% grant payment can be made to project partners.

DFID funded projects started in April 2015, and therefore there was no spend in the 2014/15 financial year. IUK has provided a financial profile (Table 2) for DFID spend with actuals for up to 18/19 and forecast for 19/20 onwards. The forecasts include the programme management charges associated with project monitoring and assessment for Round 7-9, in addition to project grant funding. Table 2: Financial Profile

Actuals Forecast 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 Total

Grants 853,697 1,811,468 2,171,301 2,051,786 3,481,728 4,733,003 2,548,853 985,913 61,905 18,699,653 Monitoring 23,347 52,913 67,241 56,377 35,034 36,685 16,305 8,567 553 297,023 Assessment 31,620 2,320 40,800 42,000 42,000 158,740 Total: 877,044 1,896,001 2,240,862 2,148,963 3,558,762 4,811,688 2,565,158 994,480 62,457 19,155,416

The forecast is updated regularly, most significantly when new projects come on stream. However, providing timely and accurate forecast figures that meet DFID’s corporate timeline remains challenging, due to the set-up of IUK’s financial management system, which has changed in the past year. A meeting is scheduled for late June 2019 to agree actions to improve forecasting.

Date of last narrative financial report(s) May 2019 Date of last audited annual statement (s) July 2019

OFFICIAL

OFFICIAL

G: MONITORING, EVIDENCE & LEARNING (1-2 pages) Monitoring (1/2 page) During this reporting period, the DFID Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) and Deputy Programme Manager for the Agri-Tech Catalyst have been in regular contact with the IUK Lead for the Agri-Tech Catalyst. This has provided an opportunity for emerging issues to be discussed and tackled at an early stage enabling programme activities to move forward.

DFID staff have not visited individual projects in the UK or overseas. However, IUK have continued to monitor individual projects on a quarterly basis, reviewing project progress against five core criteria: Scope; Time; Cost; Risk Management; Project Management. During the past year any issues that have been identified have been addressed through the monitoring process.

The Monitoring Officer also reviews partner finance claims each quarter to ensure that costs being claimed are for eligible project work. Grant payments are only made when the Monitoring Officer is satisfied that all costs being claimed for work undertaken in the previous quarter are eligible and for incurred and defrayed claims. Copies of invoices are also required for the end of project external audit, which must be carried out by an independent accountant before the final 15% grant payment can be made to project partners.

For new projects, funded under Round 7, there will be change in the monitoring process. Monitoring Officers will visit overseas partners in addition to attending quarterly monitoring meetings in the UK. This will provide DFID and IUK with greater assurance that projects are delivering contracted outputs. A risk based approach will take into account the size of the project, the amount of funding going to a partner and the track record of the UK partner in managing IUK projects. The probable frequency of visits is as follows.

• For 12 month projects - 1 overseas visit, at Q2

• For 18 month projects - 2 overseas visits, at Q2 and Q6

• For 24 month projects - 2 overseas visits, at Q2 and Q6

• For 36 month projects – 3 overseas visits, at Q2, Q6 and Q10

Evidence (1/2 page) There are have been no changes to the evidence underpinning the programme. There is continued need for agricultural innovation and, as reported in the last Annual Review, the evidence that the Catalyst model accelerates innovation a UK context remains strong. The evaluation of the programme will provide further evidence in this area.

Learning (1/2 page) Engagement with the Evaluation Team has provided an excellent opportunity for the DFID and IUK Teams working on the AgriTech Catalyst to think through the implicit and explicit assumptions of the programme and consider areas where more detailed analysis is needed. This will also contribute to DFID’s wider thinking on supporting innovation as new programmes are developed.

OFFICIAL

OFFICIAL

Progress on recommendations from previous reviews (1/2 page) Due to resource constraints over the past year, less progress has been made on implementing recommendations than was hoped. They will be taken forward in the coming year.

1. DFID Agriculture Research Team to engage more proactively with Country Offices to raise awareness of Catalyst success stories, to increase uptake and raise interest in future competition rounds (on-going).

Although a number of adhoc activities have arisen to profile Catalyst projects, notably with DFID Kenya, it has not been possible to raise awareness of funded projects. However, Rounds 7 and 8 were publicised widely within DFID.

2. DFID and IUK to continue discussions around the new funding rounds to develop options for more regular reporting of project outputs. This should take into account the cost of collecting and managing this information (by October 2018).

This recommendation is now being taking forward as part of the programme evaluation, taking into account IUK’s new monitoring framework.

3. DFID to consider options for more end-to-end support for business-led innovation in developing countries, which could include stronger links with the Department for International Trade and Country Offices (on-going).

This recommendation has been taken forward as part of broader discussions on support to innovation and efforts to develop stronger links between different DFID funded innovation programmes. For example, the new partnership with the Shell Foundation on agricultural innovation.

4. DFID Agriculture Research Team to discuss compliance with Branding Guidance with DFID Communications leads with respect to the Agri-Tech Catalyst branding in the context of private sector co-funding of projects (September 2018).

This was not taken forward and is rolled over to 2019.

5. DFID Agriculture Research Team will discuss compliance with IATI and R4D with IUK for future project rounds (August 2018).

This was not taken forward due to the challenges outlined above.

6. IUK Finance to set out the Budget lines for the additional £10m funding and agree with DFID the future invoice format to capture this. This was agreed in October 2018 and formed part of the MOU amendment between DFID and IUK.

Smart Guide (version February 2018) i

OFFICIAL

Smart Guide The Annual Review is part of a continuous process of review and improvement and a formal control point in DFID’s programme cycle. At each formal review, the performance and ongoing relevance of the programme are assessed and the spending team needs to decide whether the programme should continue, be restructured or stopped. Teams should refer to the section on annual reviews in the Smart Rules and may also like to look at relevant Smart Guides e.g on Reviewing and Scoring Projects. When planning a review, re-read the 10 Delivery Questions in the Smart Rules and when writing the findings reflect anything relevant related to them. The Annual Review includes specific, time-bound recommendations for action, consistent with the key findings. These actions – which in the case of poor performance will include improvement measures – are elaborated in further detail in internal delivery plans.

The Annual Review assesses and rates outputs using the following rating scale. The Aid Management Platform (AMP) and the separate programme scoring calculation sheet will calculate the overall output score taking

account of the weightings and individual output scores

Description Scale Outputs substantially exceeded expectation A++ Outputs moderately exceeded expectation A+ Outputs met expectation A Outputs moderately did not meet expectation B Outputs substantially did not meet expectation C

Teams should refer to the considerations below when completing this template. Suggested section lengths are indicative. Teams can delete spaces between sections on the template as needed, but the headings and sub-headings must not be altered or removed unless otherwise indicated in the template. Some reviews may need to be longer and others can be shorter (eg first year of a programme which has largely focused on mobilisation activities) – it is for the SRO and Head of Department to decide. All text needs to be suitable for publication. Bullets rather than full narrative may make sense for some sections. A: Summary and Overview Programme Code is the AMP I.D. number (same on Devtracker) Enter risk rating (Minor, Moderate, Major or Severe) at the time of the review, taken from AMP Describe the programme in 1-2 paras including what it is aiming to achieve. You might want to include headline points on changes in the operating context, partner performance, DFID management of the programme or other points relevant to the 10 Delivery Questions in the Smart Rules. Describe –without repeating detail from Section B- progress in the past year and why the programme has scored as it has against the output indicators. Capture the key recommendations for the year ahead factoring in all the text from the report. You don’t need to include the detail of all lessons and recommendations from each output.

B: Detailed Output Scoring Output Title, Number, Weighting, Indicators and milestones Use the wording exactly as is from the current logframe. This will need to be entered on AMP as part of loading the Annual Review for approval. Indicate (Yes or No) if the impact weighting has been revised since last Annual Review and if Yes in which direction (up or down). Input progress against the milestone for this review

Output Score Enter the rating (using the scale A++ to C) exactly as generated on the programme scoring calculation sheet

Provide a brief description of the output (unless obvious from the information in the box above) and supporting narrative for the score Lessons and recommendations linked to this output. Some of these may inform or need to be included in the summary of recommendations on page 1. For anything that can’t be published please use the Delivery Plan Repeat above for each Output in the logframe and add new sub-sections for additional outputs.

Smart Guide (version February 2018) ii

OFFICIAL

C: Theory of change and progress towards outcomes Theory of Change (ToC). You might want to use a diagram to summarise it. You should flag any major changes in the past year. You should consider if the steps to achieving outcome and impact are still valid e.g. are the ToC logic, supporting evidence and assumptions holding up against implementation experience? Is there any new evidence which challenges the programme design or rationale? If relevant you might also want to flag any major changes since the programme started rather than just over the year in question. Is the programme on track to contribute to the expected outcomes and impact? Review this in view of the overall programme score; but it is possible that outputs are being delivered but the envisaged outcomes or impact may not be achieved – or vice versa – and consider reasons for this. It is not unusual for programmes to be off track against at least some of the expected outcomes or impact: just set out what you plan to do about it. You should refer to the indicators in the logframe. Are there any unexpected outcomes emerging? Have there been any significant changes in the planned timetable for delivery of the programme? Are there any changes to expected outcomes or impact on gender equality compared to what was described in the approved Business Case? Logframe. Describe major changes in the past year –including when they were made and why- and what their implications are for the programme. Ideally changes should not be made to any targets or indicators less than six months before they are being reviewed unless agreed with the Head of Department. All changes should be recorded as part of the programme’s documentation (there is a ‘change frame’ tab on the logframe template). If relevant you might also want to flag any major changes since the programme started. Flag any planned changes (impact, outcome, output etc) as a result of the review and once agreed at the approporiate level record them in the change frame tab.

D: Value for Money VfM assessment compared to the proposition in the business case You should refer to VfM measures and metrics from the Business Case and/or previous annual review. Changes in cost drivers (e.g costs of major inputs) and the theory of change may be relevant. The assessment should encompass the 4 E’s of DFID’s value for money framework – economy, efficiency, effectiveness and equity, including gender equality (referring back to the relevant text in the approved Business Case’s Strategic Case may be relevant), disability and leaving no one behind. Explain whether it makes sense to continue with the programme from a VfM perspective Based on the above analysis of outcome and output attainment, theory of change, VfM and evidence analysis, is there sufficient evidence for the programme to continue, or should it be restructured or closed down? You should also consider the programme as part of the wider portfolio in your department (e.g Business Plan) and if relevant for this document, DFID as a whole (e.g. Single Departmental Plan) or HMG as a whole

E: Risk Provide an overview of the programme’s risk (noting the rating from page 1) and mitigation Note the overall risk rating now as captured in AMP and on p1. Flag any changes to the overall risk environment/ context and how they impact on the programme, along with key risks that affect the successful delivery of the expected results. Use DFID’s standard risk terminology where possible eg categories of risk and risk appetite. Are there any different or new mitigating actions that will be required to address these risks and whether the existing mitigating actions are directly addressing the identifiable risks? Remember to take account of any relevant recommendations from Due Diligence Assessments on implementing partners. Some relevant information may not be suitable for publication but ensure the risk register on AMP and Delivery Plan are updated as necessary following this review Update on Partnership Principles. For programmes for where it has been decided (when the programme was approved or at the last Annual Review) to use the PPs for management and monitoring, provide details on:

a. Were there any concerns about the four PPs over the past year, including on human rights?

Smart Guide (version February 2018) iii

OFFICIAL

b. If yes, what were they?

c. Did you notify the government of our concerns?

d. If Yes, what was the government response? Did it take remedial actions? If yes, explain how.

e. If No, was disbursement suspended during the review period? Date suspended (dd/mm/yyyy)

f. What were the consequences?

For all programmes, you should make a judgement on what role, if any, the Partnership Principles should play in the management and monitoring of the programme going forward. This applies even if when the BC was approved for this programme the PPs were not intended to play a role. Your decision may depend on the extent to which the delivery mechanism used by the programme works with the partner government and uses their systems. F: Delivery, Commercial and Financial Performance Issues to consider for both the implementing partner(s) and DFID include: quality and timeliness of narrative reporting and audited financial statements; proactive dialogue on risks and updating of delivery chain maps; quality of financial management eg accuracy of forecasting; monitoring of assets. Consider also how DFID could be a more effective partner to help deliver the programme. If there is a contract involved, set out:

- Delivery against contract KPIs (and Terms and Conditions) - Compliance with the Supply Partner Code, where applicable, drawing on advice from PCD. - Compliance with the new cost and transparency requirements, where applicable (i.e. highlighting any

profit variance and challenge and use of Open Book Accounting) - Performance of Partners. Where applicable, an annual summary of the new SRM scorecard assessment

for each delivery partner involved in delivering this programme.

G: Monitoring, Evidence and Learning Monitoring. Summarise monitoring activities throughout the review period (field visits, reviews, engagement with stakeholders including beneficiary feedback) and how these have informed programming decisions. Where there is an external M&E supplier, how are they engaging with the programme implementer(s) and DFID. Briefly describe the Annual Review process itself including any inputs from outside the programme team (within or beyond DFID). Evidence Describe any changes in evidence and implications for the programme. Any relevant comments on the quality/breadth of the evidence. Monitoring data, evidence and learning should consider the ‘Leave no one Behind’ agenda and as far as possible disaggregate information by age, sex, disability, geography (update geocoding information on AMP as needed) and other relevant variables. Where an evaluation is planned set out what progress has been made. Learning What learning processes have been used over the past year to capture and share lessons, new evidence and know-how? What are the key lessons identified over the past year for (i) this programme (ii) wider DFID and development work? Any specific implications of that learning for this programme and priorities for follow-up in the year ahead may be best captured in the recommendations part of Section A Do you have any learning aims for the programme for the coming year? Progress on recommendations from previous review(s) It is important to keep track of this. Some may not be publishable and feature in the Delivery Plan. But a brief update on progress against any recommendations from previous ARs (unless this is the first) should be provided

Smart Guide (version February 2018) iv

OFFICIAL