EXTERNAL EVALUATION PANEL
REPORT FY 2001
BEAN/COWPEA COLLABORATIVE 
RESEARCH SUPPORT PROGRAM
May 2002
This publication was made possible through support provided to the Bean/Cowpea
Collaborative Research Support Program (CRSP) by the Office of Agriculture and Food
Security, Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade, U.S. Agency for
International Development, under the terms of Grant No. DAN-G-SS-86-00008-00. The
opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the U.S. Agency for International Development.
ii
THE BEAN/COWPEA COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH SUPPORT PROGRAM (CRSP)
An international community of persons,
institutions, agencies and governments committed
to collectively strengthening health and nutrition in
developing countries by improving the availability
and utilization of beans and cowpeas.
Bean/Cowpea CRSP
200 International Center
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1035 U.S.A.
Phone: (517) 355-4693
Fax: (517) 432-1073
E-Mail: defouw@msu.edu
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................... 1
THE ROLE OF THE EEP IN CONCEPT AND PRACTICE ......................... 1
Background of the EEP .......................................... 1
Administrative Management Review Recommendations and the
Miller/Rubin Report ........................................ 2
Bean/Cowpea CRSP EEP Response ................................. 3
Survey Findings ............................................... 4
Implications for the Bean/Cowpea CRSP EEP .......................... 4
PROGRESS IN REGIONAL PROJECTS .................................... 5
West Africa .................................................. 5
East Africa .................................................. 8
Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) ............................. 11
RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS EEP RECOMMENDATIONS ........................ 13
ISSUES RAISED BY THE MO RELATIVE TO THE IMPLEMENTATION
AND MANAGEMENT OF THE CRSP IN THE NEXT PHASE ................ 13
Regional Project Composition and Implementation under
Budget-limiting Conditions ................................. 13
Enhancing Institutional Capacity and a Comprehensive 
Training Plan ........................................... 13
Extending CRSP Knowledge and Outputs ............................ 14
Management and Fiscal Issues in the Next Phase ...................... 14
EXTERNAL EVALUATION PANEL REPORT FY2001
BEAN/COWPEA CRSP
MAY 2002
INTRODUCTION
This report of the External Evaluation Panel (EEP) of the Bean/Cowpea Collaborative Research
Support Program (CRSP) is a product of a meeting at the Management Office (MO), January
20-23, 2002 at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Participants in this 
meeting included John Stovall (Chair), Carolyn Brooks, Carlos Magno Campos da Rocha,
Lowell Satterlee, and Jiryis Oweis, the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) Cognizant Technical Officer (CTO), along with the MO staff.
The purpose of the meeting, the first since January 2001, was to:
(1) review and evaluate progress in the three regional projects as reflected in the
most recent Annual Report, 
(2) review proposed plans for the next five-year grant period, 
(3) discuss and advise on management issues of concern to the MO and 
(4) reexamine the role and function of the EEP and suggest modifications for the
future.
Unlike other meetings of the EEP, no in-depth evaluation was deemed appropriate as the CRSP
is in transition and undergoing change. A proposal for the next five-year grant is under
consideration, having been reviewed by the Strategic Partnership for Agriculture Research and
Education (SPARE) in November 2001 and favorably reported to the Board of Food and
Agricultural Development (BIFAD). While the overall aims of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP remain
the same, several important changes in program foci, activities and participating United States
(U.S.) and Host Country (HC) scientists and institutions will be implemented at the start of the
new grant (FY 2002–07).
This transition period provided an opportunity for the EEP to critique its own role and suggest
changes that will make it more effective in the next phase.
The EEP gave special recognition to Dr. Lowell Satterlee, who will be rotating off the EEP
before the next meeting. Dr. Satterlee’s judgment, knowledge and scientific expertise in food
science will be greatly missed.
THE ROLE OF THE EEP IN CONCEPT AND PRACTICE
Background of the EEP
One of the first undertakings of BIFAD, after being established and organized in the 1970s,
was to design and operationalize the CRSPs. The role of the EEP was an integral component
of the CRSPs in the original design of this collaborative research mechanism. The EEP was
believed by BIFAD to be an essential element for the long-term viability of the CRSPs for at
least two reasons: (1) to help ensure its long-term scientific integrity and (2) provide some
degree of assurance to donors and critics that there was a built in mechanism for independent
and continuous evaluation. 
2
The “CRSP Guidelines” were developed by BIFAD and USAID to provide operating instructions
and guidelines. They were adopted as a part of the official procurement regulations. The
“CRSP Guidelines” spell out the role of the EEP and how it is to be organized and function. 
Although the “CRSP Guidelines” have been revised several times over the years, including
most recently in 2000, the basic role and functions of the EEP are largely unchanged from the
early days of the CRSPs. 
The main functions and activities of the EEP established in the CRSP Guidelines include:
Overall function: “to evaluate the status, funding, progress, plans and prospects of the
research program.” (p. 11).
Continuous review and evaluation: “Evaluations should be scheduled over a five-year period
with an annual evaluation at varying depths.” (p. 11).
Performance and productivity: “The EEP must play a strong role in judging the balance of a
CRSP and relevance of each project to the program goals. It should evaluate the performance
and productivity of each institution on each project annually, and assess the appropriateness
of projected resource allocations.” (p. 11).
Continuous interaction: “Panel members should be invited to attend important meetings of the
PIs and CRSP organizations in order to keep abreast of progress and be familiar with problems
and issues. . . . . There also should be adequate opportunities for interaction of the TC
[Technical Committee] and Board with the EEP.” (p. 12).
In summary, the EEP is expected to:
Track scientific progress and compare it to research objectives and goals
Assess the application of the science and impact on target countries
Review and assess U.S. institutional commitment
Advise the MO on the management of the program
Administrative Management Review Recommendations and the Miller/Rubin Report
Two recent reports have raised questions about the role of the EEPs in general and the Bean/
Cowpea CRSP EEP in particular. In a draft report submitted to USAID in September 2001,
entitled “Making Good Programs More Effective,” Ray Miller and Deborah Rubin (both also
members of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP Administrative Management Review (AMR) team) put
forth a number of “lessons learned.”
The “lessons learned” report includes specific observations and recommendations concerning
the EEP. The authors recommended that the activities of the EEP be scaled back to reduce
the level of overhead costs. Specifically, they concluded, “The EEP should not be conducting
yearly evaluations.” Instead, they suggest that an expanded TC should perform this annual
evaluative function. Budget savings appear to be the underlying motivation for this
recommended change.
After reviewing several reports from various CRSPs, the authors concluded that the most
effective EEPs were those that applied a wide range of disciplinary perspectives, formed their
own conclusions and provided clear evidence for their recommendations, taking into account
1Somewhat aside, one of the surprising discoveries in this informal survey was that this
apparently was the first attempt to gather information about how the EEP functions in practice
and how the role differs among the nine CRSPs.
3
the program’s goals, the larger environment and priorities of host countries. The least
effective were those that "reprocessed annual reports and added little of their own
impressions or analysis."
The AMR draft report (November 1, 2001) had essentially these same conclusions and
recommendations for the Bean/Cowpea CRSP: “In conclusion, the AMR team questions the
need for such frequent and extensive EEP reviews. If the TC is doing its job in evaluating
workplans, and the MO, CTO and BOD [Board of Directors] are providing appropriate
oversight, there should be sufficient oversight on a yearly basis. The site visits and report
writing should be limited to once during a five-year period.” The AMR team recommended
that the EEP carry out one in-depth review of Bean/Cowpea CRSP research activities during a
five-year period. 
Bean/Cowpea CRSP EEP Response
The Bean/Cowpea CRSP EEP considers it timely and appropriate to reexamine its role and
welcomes the opportunity to respond to the issues raised by the AMR team as well as the
recommendations in the "lessons learned" draft.
In preparation for this reexamination of the EEP role, an informal survey was conducted by
John Stovall in advance of the January 2002 meeting to understand how the EEPs of other
CRSPs functioned and to learn from their experiences. The information was gleaned from
interviews with representatives of each of the other eight CRSPs who were asked to respond
to a number of issues, including: 
Overall role of the EEP
Respondent's views about value of advice
Composition of EEP and appointment process
Frequency of meetings
Reports and their nature 
Interaction of the EEP with other CRSP entities such as the TC and the BOD
Site visits and frequency
Compensation and budget for the EEP
The CRSP representatives interviewed included persons with a variety of responsibilities,
including USAID CTOs, CRSP Directors, and chairpersons or members of the EEPs. Although
this "non-scientific" selection of persons interviewed did not constitute a statistical sample, it
did provide varied perspectives that added richness to the information on which our discussion
was based. None of the phone conversations were recorded and all information gleaned
remains anonymous.1
4
Survey Findings
All of the CRSPs have an EEP and generally follow the CRSP guidelines but each EEP functions
somewhat differently. Thus, there are commonalities and differences.
Commonalities of nearly all of the EEPs:
Meet or report at least once per year
Make site visits, generally visiting each U.S. and HC site during a five-year
cycle
Have an essential role and make a positive contribution to the CRSP 
Have regular or frequent interactions with the TC, Principal Investigators (PIs)
and sometimes with the BOD
Have more intensive activity during years 3-4 of the 5-year cycle
Attempt to have a range of disciplines and an international flavor among
membership
Differences were noted with respect to:
Extent to which the Management Entity (ME)/MO relies on the EEP for advice
Perceived strength of the EEP
Activities of the EEP over a five-year cycle
Amount budgeted for EEP activities ($50k/year appeared normal)
Degree of interaction with CRSP entities such as the TC and BOD
Appointment procedures, terms of service, compensation, etc.
Implications for the Bean/Cowpea CRSP EEP
One of the implications of this review, contrary to the AMR report, is that it is important for
the the Bean/Cowpea CRSP EEP to have sufficient opportunity for interaction with U.S. and
HC PIs to be able to make meaningful assessments of the regional research and training
projects and its management. In order to be in a position to give sound and useful advice to
the Management Office, members of the EEP need to understand what the components are
trying to accomplish, appreciate the constraints under which researchers work, have a general
knowledge of networking activities and be able to track progress over time.
To achieve these objectives, the Bean/Cowpea CRSP EEP should have opportunity to:
Gain first-hand knowledge of the research activities of the PIs
Interact more with the TC and PIs
Be informed on a regular basis of research progress
Utilize site visits to better understand the program
Some specific recommendations on the role of the Bean/Cowpea CRSP EEP during the next 
five-year cycle are offered:
The MO, in consultation with the EEP, should develop an activity plan of work
for the next five years that includes a scope of work, a schedule of site visits,
and reports to be issued.
Activities should be planned in such a way that the EEP accumulates a
knowledge base that can be drawn upon to make a more in-depth evaluation in
year four.
5
The MO, in collaboration with the EEP and the TC, should identify a few special
issues that the EEP should address during the course of the five-year grant
cycle.
In order to make the best use of the expertise in the EEP, some degree of
specialization should be worked out and incorporated into the scope of work. 
For example, a member with extensive experience in Latin America with
disciplinary expertise in a particular area (i.e., biotechnology, plant breeding,
pest management, food science, socio-economics, etc.) would be asked to take
leadership for the review of the LAC regional project as well as specific
research activities which relate to their specific expertise. To further illustrate,
the EEP member who happens to have a background in Post Harvest
Technology (PHT) would be asked to take special responsibility of reviewing the
regional project in LAC and assessing the PHT work globally.
In summary, our reexamination of the mandate to the EEP and critique of what we need to do
to fulfill that mandate leads in the opposite direction from that recommended by the AMR
report, i.e., the EEP should become more active, not less. The proposed budget for the EEP in
the next grant (FY 2002–07), about 1.5% of the total CRSP budget, appears to be well within
norms for expenditures for evaluation and should be sufficient for the EEP to do its job.
PROGRESS IN REGIONAL PROJECTS
The MO requested that the EEP review the FY 2001 Annual Regional Project Report and make
an assessment of technical progress since the 1997-2001 Five-Year Technical Review of the
Bean/Cowpea CRSP by the EEP. The procedure adopted was to assign a member of the EEP
to review and critique each regional project using a set of evaluation criteria provided by the
MO. During the meeting, the responsible member led a discussion of progress, problems and
shortcomings. Based on this discussion, a consensus evaluation was prepared.
West Africa
The project in West Africa continues to show excellent progress and the quality of the
research conducted by the U.S. and HC scientists are of high scientific standard.
During the past year, CRSP scientists together with other collaborators contributed to an
updated version of the original CRSP cowpea genetic linkage map. The updated map has a
total of more than 400 AFLP, RFLP (restriction fragment length polymorphism) and RAPD
(random duplicated polymorphic DNA) markers. Progress is being made toward utilizing this
marker-assisted technology in West Africa. No progress was reported on the laboratory work
to develop a genetic transformation system for cowpea. A new cowpea variety (ISRA-819)
has been developed by ISRA (Institut Sénégalais de Recherches Agricoles) in Senegal. In
California, promising lines have resistance to Fusarium, root-knot nematodes, heat tolerance at
flowering, and chilling tolerance at emergence.
It was reported that genes conferring heat tolerance at the reproductive stage are effective in
hot subtropical conditions in California, but apparently not under the high temperature regions
in the Sahel of Senegal. Progress is being made toward the development of cowpea
germplasm with resistance to lygus bug, the major cowpea insect pest, and in developing
6
cowpea lines with recovery resistance to the cowpea aphid, the second most important insect
pest of cowpea in California. 
Participatory varietal selection studies in Ghana demonstrated that for cowpea traits, farmers
most value yield potential followed by maturity period. This is a very important finding that
must be considered in the cowpea breeding program in future initiatives. Farmers’ and
consumers’ preferences must always be borne in mind, especially regarding the cowpea sweet
trait originally identified in Cameroon. Despite the scientific novelty, it could be of little
importance to cowpea producers and consumers, in particular to the hungry poor people in
West African countries. 
Regarding neem, it appears that this botanical insecticide continues to have promise. There is
no doubt that neem or other botanicals, such as Hyptis spicigera, could be used as an
alternative to chemical insecticides. The abundance of neem trees in West Africa and the
voluminous literature on the efficacy of neem against insect pests are important issues to be
considered in redirecting integrated pest management (IPM) research in the future. Year after
year in the Bean/Cowpea CRSP annual progress report, results are presented on the efficiency
of neem application in laboratory conditions. However, when experiments are conducted
under field conditions, the results cannot be validated. 
A suggestion by the EEP is to suspend support for laboratory research and to encourage the
IPM research teams to work on technological development of neem-derived products. The
main challenge is to find standardized methods for extraction, formulation and application of
neem in West Africa that farmers would be willing to use as a sound technology.
Food science teams carried out detailed analyses of several new cowpea cultivars of Ghanaian
or IITA (International Institute of Tropical Agriculture) origin. Most cultivars had roughly
similar levels of crude protein, fat, ash, tannins, and carbohydrate; but differed in the
following ways. Interestingly, the cultivar Emosue contained relatively high levels of
flatulence-causing stachyose and raffinose. It was reported that cowpea-based weaning
foods can be stored at ambient temperatures for long periods of time and that Akara, a
cowpea paste deep fried in oil with about 32 percent fat, could be developed for the American
market with a lower fat content.
The regional economics team continued its price and quality studies in Cameroon, Ghana and
Senegal and expanded the work to include markets in Nigeria, Niger and Mali. Understanding
of cowpea grain types in markets and of the factors that affect the value of the grain are keys
that breeders can use to focus their efforts on crop improvement. Moreover, to guide
research and extension, it is important to understand the structure of cowpea markets, and
constraints to these markets, trade and demand for cowpea. Trade and marketing-related
studies were reported this year in Cameroon, Gabon, Mauritania, Nigeria, Niger and Senegal. 
The West Africa regional project has beneficially impacted farmers and consumers through the
release of new cowpea varieties in Senegal, Cameroon, Ghana and Sudan. An InterCRSP
project managed by World Vision International has been extending these cowpea varieties to
other African countries. 
It would be wise to have more detailed information not only on the agronomic requirements of
new varieties, but also on quantitative benefits derived by U.S. farmers and resource-limited
7
farmers in West Africa. Research funding continuity is highly dependent on research data
being understood by decision-makers. Important questions need to be asked, such as, What
are the benefit/cost ratios? Who is benefitting from the released technology? Such simple
questions are always on the minds of decision-makers, planners and politicians all over the
world. Nowadays, the research program must be presented as a “house of solutions.”
The project in West Africa continues to show excellent collaboration and cooperation among
the African scientists with their U.S. counterparts. A good example that deserves
commendation is the NGICA (Network for the Genetic Improvement of Cowpea for Africa)
community, which grew out of the Dakar meeting. This is a real embodiment of an
international, multidisciplinary effort to bring the tools of biotechnology to bear on the genetic
improvement of cowpea. Above all, this type of initiative makes the top cowpea research
leaders to take a more systems approach to agriculture research rather than focusing on their
own discipline capabilities. CRSP scientists are still working bilaterally, even though they
have established some new interactions, consistent with a regional approach. 
A good example of interaction and collaboration in the region is the Ghanaian work on transfer
of technical information from research to farmers and extension workers. Ghana has served
as a center the development of farmer field schools and collaboration/cooperation on the
compositional analysis of varieties. 
The West Africa regional project reports interactions between CRSP scientists and personnel
from IITA, CERAAS (Centre d’Etudes Régional pour l’Amélioration de l’Adaptation à la
Sécheresse), FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), CSIRO, Rockefeller Foundation,
PROMONO, SAILD (Service d’Appui aux Initiatives Local de Développment), GTZ (Deutsche
Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit), USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture)
Vegetable Laboratory (Charleston, SC), PRONAF, INRAN (Institut National de Recherchés
Agronomiques de Niger) and WVI (World Vision International) on projects related to cowpea
variety development, seed production and distribution, as well as training. 
Six Ph.D. students are continuing in training. Five of them plan to complete their degree
requirements during 2002. One student plans to finish in December 2003. Another student
has been proposed for degree training. All degree programs show a good gender balance (four
males and three females). These students are being trained in several strategic disciplines:
Food Science (2), Agricultural Economics (2), Entomology (1), Agronomy (1), and Plant
Physiology/Genetics (1).
Non-formal educational methods are being used to train farmers and Agricultural Extension
Officers in Farmer Field Schools (FFS) and Training of Trainers (TOT). A total of 238 people
participated in those activities. Researchers, extensionists, NGOs (non-governmental
organizations) and farmers participated in activities in the field to help them understand the
“process” of IPM. Emphasis is always given on “packages” of technology. The TOT/FFS
approach has now been expanded to Cameroon and it should be expanded into other major
cowpea production areas of West Africa. 
8
The West Africa research team has leveraged funds from the following agencies and groups:
1. Rockefeller Foundation ($40,000), Anonymous Donor ($23,000) and
contributions in kind (covering travel costs of participants) by FAO and IITA for
the Dakar Cowpea Meeting;
2. Purdue scientists received $36,295 as part of the InterCRSP East Group project
entitled, “Restoration and Maintenance of Degraded Range and Farmlands for
Increased Productivity in the Sudano-Sahelian Zones of West and Central
Africa”;
3. University of California-Riverside received grants providing $15,500 and
$15,000 of direct cost funding from the California Dry Bean Advisory Board for
research on “Blackeye Varietal Improvement”;
4. University of Georgia students and technical staff, who were supported on
other funds, made regular contributions to this CRSP project; the amount was
not reported. 
The reported leverage of funds represents 18.5% of FY 01 CRSP funds for the West Africa
regional project. 
The West Africa research team published 11 refereed scientific publications, 2 non-refereed
publications and made 11 scientific presentations. Two scientists of this team received
special recognition/awards for their contribution on cowpea research. The EEP recognizes that
the West Africa regional project team has outstanding scientific capabilities, however, this is
not reflected in the number of publications or scholarly activities. 
East Africa
The East Africa project has demonstrated annual improvements in achieving commendable
scientific results over the last four years of CRSP funding. However, the region has continued
to experience difficulties because of in-country infrastructure deficiencies/problems (i.e.,
electricity outages, low cash-flow). This year the difficulties included the loss of Dr. Mercy
Ngwira and the loss of the CRSP truck because of a major vehicular accident. 
Even though explanations can be given for not being on schedule, those who approve funding
for the East Africa Bean/Cowpea CRSP will begin/have begun to doubt if the funds will ever
have the impacts promised. Performance, not need, is the primary basis for evaluation by
USAID. As has been recommended in the past, there should possibly be less activities (a few
select initiatives) for which the scientists can claim success and thus, appear worthy of
continued investments. The U.S. and the HC leadership must live up to their responsibility of
fostering and ensuring productivity. Strong management, including difficult decision-making,
better oversight, and problem-solving are expectations of the East Africa regional project
leadership. The regional group should also come to realistic decisions when formulating the
next budget. The recurring constraints and the characteristics of the regional research domain
must first be recognized. Then, the levels of funding should be determined so that viable and
sustainable research activities are established in East Africa. Within reason, the budget
should also reflect capacity building needs.
9
Research Achievements/Progress/Status
The bruchid resistant work continues, but in response to a recent publication indicating that
arcelins may not confer bruchid resistance, new arcelin-related resistance studies are
underway in Oregon in addition to the backcrossing project. Oregon’s final bean selections,
based on the arcelin screen and the arcelin + phaseolin lines, will be sent to Sokoine
University of Agriculture (SUA) for screening studies that would result in a release of an
Acanthoscledies resistant variety. Variety development continues; it is the highest funded
research activity. Commendably, variety development is influenced by preferences, needs and
practices of farmers and consumers. While lines of preferred seed types that show good
disease resistance are frequently mentioned, Rojo, SUA 90, Kalima and Nasaka are still the
prevalent varieties being disseminated. Thus, few new varieties are emerging from the East
Africa Regional Project in spite of years of investment in variety development.
Information on the genetics of bean breeding lines is being contributed to a CRSP database. 
PCR (polymerase chain reaction) is an efficient and effective tool for marker-assisted selection
by breeders and much of the information gained on host-pathogen interactions can be used to
influence breeders’ choices of parents when breeding for resistance. It is useful to know if
the CBB (common bacterial blight) primers detected all of the African strains, and also
whether microsatellites as genetic markers were not working because of the high variability in
Andrean and MesoAmerican lines. There is still no evidence that any PCR work at Malawi is
underway.
For regional impacts to be gained, technology transfer is essential. For this reporting period,
41 professional workers were trained in IPM cultural practices and can now influence farmers
to improve production practices for beans. In terms of impact in the Tanga region of
Tanzania, Rojo was sold at 500-600 Tshs/kg this season compared to 200-300 Tshs/kg for
other bean varieties. The Malawi breeder noted that an increased number of farmers planted
the varieties of Kalima and Nasaka during the 2000-01 growing season. 
Insufficient access to improved seed remains a major constraint. The dissemination schemes
presently tried are ineffective. Currently, the amount of seed produced by farmers is too small
to determine marketing issues. Two smallholder seed multiplication schemes have been
implemented. The first scheme was supported primarily by the government and was
commercially oriented. It only reached 11 farmers. The second scheme resulted in seed
supplies to smallholder farmers, contributing seed to about 5,000-6,000 farmers. The first
scheme produced certified seed and the second scheme produced seed without following the
prescribed practices. NGOs in Malawi (ActionAid and Concern Universal) are still playing a
major role in seed multiplication and the CRSP is the primary seed supplier. In Tanzania,
1,800 kg of Rojo and 523 kg of SUA 90 were produced; seeds of 7 nematode resistant
advanced lines were multiplied to produce 5-10 kg per line; seeds of 27 drought resistant
lines were also increased (4.5-10kg per line) along with 4-5 kg per line of arcelin-containing
lines. Selian Agriculture Research Institute and Uyole Agriculture Center lines were also
multiplied. Research findings indicate that small-scale farmers in Tanzania are not storing
seed of improved CRSP varieties to plant during the next season. Instead, they market their
grain, which limits the availability of seed for planting and the dissemination to other districts. 
Therefore, medium-scale farmers will now be targeted. In Malawi, the NGOs target their
programs to women farmers since the women-headed households are more highly represented
10
among the small-scale resource-poor farmer category. The smallholder seed farmers being
trained in Malawi in seed multiplication are mostly women.
Fast cooking lines adapted to a wide variety of water types have been identified and therefore
should be marketed accordingly.
Collaborations
Other than joint planning and implementation of the 2001 East Africa Regional Bean
Workshop, it is not clear in this report that the various units are working better as a team. 
Efforts to extend CRSP partnership to include other countries in the region (i.e., Mozambique,
Uganda) is also minimal. There is, however, strong evidence that a regional focus is being
maintained. The January 2001 workshop was attended by SUA and Bunda researchers, the
U.S. collaborators, three Tanzanian NGOs and two Malawian NGOs, Tanzania and Malawi
National Program bean breeders, CIAT (Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical)
representatives and a potential collaborator from Mozambique. To institutionalize and
coordinate the bean nurseries in the region, the yield trials were coordinated through the
Southern African Bean Research Network (SABRN). The Tanzanian National Drought Nursery
included material from Tanzania, Uganda and the Malawi National Programs. The Malawi
drought nursery was grown in three locations with materials from the Malawi National
Program, the CRSP Latin America and Carribean (LAC) regional project, CIAT, Tanzania, RSA,
Southern African Zonal Bean Evaluation Nursery (SAZBEN) and Southern Africa Regional Bean
Yield Trial (SAZBYT). In the varietal development activities, trial materials were used from the
Selian Agriculture Research Institute (SARI) and Uyole Agriculture Research Institutes (UARI). 
Malawian advanced bean yield nurseries contained varieties from the African Bean Yield and
Adaptation Nursery (AFBYAN), SAZBYT and SAZBEN. 
FAO and the Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture used the SUA PCR lab to conduct a short
course attended by 16 participants. Mabagala was invited to represent SUA in the National
Biotechnology Stakeholders’ Workshop. This event was organized by the Commission for
Science and Technology and the Office of the Vice President. The Ministry of Agriculture and
Food Security use SUA facilities to train phytosanitary inspectors and quarantine officers to
strengthen phytosanitary services in the country. Thus, the Bean/Cowpea CRSP is involved in
the development and utilization of biotechnology in Tanzania. 
Extension officers in the villages are collaborating with CRSP scientists by advising farmers,
visiting farm plots and creating awareness of the new bean varieties and their superior
qualities. New potential seed producers are primary and secondary school teachers, and one
teacher’s training college in Tanzania. All received and were impressed with SUA 90 and Rojo
seeds.
The Farmer Field School approach used by the CRSP in Ghana has been adopted as a model
for the East Africa Regional Project. Four extension field staff from Malawi have now been
trained in Ghana.
11
Training
The EEP has serious concerns about the meager requests for investment in human capital
development in East Africa. The CRSP takes pride in its investments in training which have
resulted in long lasting impacts. Since 1997, the LAC and the West Africa regional projects
have trained 93 students compared to only 12 for the East Africa regional project. A limited
cadre of expertise in several academic disciplines is clearly recognized as this region’s major
constraint. In the 2001 report only two students were in training, one in rural development in
Malawi for a masters degree and the other is training at MSU in community nutrition. This
region’s critical mass of scientists needs to be bolstered and more funding should be provided
to do so, otherwise not only research capacity building, but institutional and regional capacity
building will be short-lived. It was noted, however, that the overall budget for the East Africa
Regional Project is substantially less than that of the other two regional projects, explaining in
part the relatively low training output.
Leverage Funding and Scholarship
The virus detection program at the University of California-Davis has been widely acclaimed in
California. Consequently, the California Crop Improvement Association (CCIA) partially funds
their program ($8,000) and utilizes their lab as the center for its virus detection program. The
Menomin Seed Company contributed $5,000 for management of CBB on red kidney beans.
Also, $50,000 was received from the Oregon Processed Vegetable Commission for green
bean breeding and $5,000 from the National Plant Germplasm System to screen for white
mold resistance. Such leverage funding attests to the success of the project in benefitting
U.S. bean production. DANIDA provided funding ($7,000) for the printing of the Tanzanian
technical bulletin on bacterial diseases in beans. These are all very commendable efforts in
acquiring leverage funding but as is obvious, the needs of the HC far exceed the funding
available from the CRSP. It is hoped that the CRSP will continue to be considered as a worthy
investment for other contributors. It is recommended that the U.S. scientists in particular
seek funding from other federal granting agencies, i.e., USDA, National Science Foundation,
etc. Mission buy-ins and foundation support should also be sought to fund training.
There has been evidence of scholarship and professional recognition for this group of
scientists, but as the scientific community utilizes publications and presentations as indicators
of high scientific accomplishment, the EEP will look forward to more of such outputs from
both the U.S. and HC scientists. The researchers published 6 refereed articles, 12 non￾refereed articles and made 6 presentations in this reporting period. Brochures were produced
for dissemination by extension staff. Papers from the January workshop were posted on the
East Africa Regional Project website and a proceeding is expected this year. Robert Mabagala
is now a Founding Member of the Tanzanian Association of Phytopathologists and appointed
Senior Editor of the association’s newsletter and member of its Executive Committee. Susan
Nchimbi-Msolla was promoted to Associate Professor at SUA in 2001. 
Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC)
The Latin America/Caribbean regional project continues to show excellent technical quality in
its research efforts. The quality of research has been high over the past five years. This
excellence is evidenced in the development of dry bean varieties adapted to the many climatic
conditions that exist throughout this region. The development of new varieties has been
12
accomplished using traditional breeding techniques, but has also taken advantage of the use
of genetic markers to facilitate the introduction of new genes. Ongoing efforts within this
CRSP project to transform the bean plant, thus allowing the insertion of select genes, i.e.,
BCMV, have been largely unsuccessful to-date. The success of the Brazilian Empresa
Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria (EMBRAPA) Rice and Bean Research Center to transform
the bean plant, has been transferred to the laboratories of the University of Wisconsin, thereby
greatly expanding future opportunities for CRSP scientists. Maxwell’s lab is thought to be on
target to transform bean for BCMV resistance by the end of the current grant in 2002.
Much of the technical success of the LAC regional project can be attributed to the strong
integration and collaboration between scientists within the U.S. and the HCs. The scientists
have focused their research and outreach programs on the priority needs of bean farmers
within the LAC region and across the U.S., e.g. the development of heat and drought resistant
varieties that allow farmers in areas of lower rainfall to grow beans successfully. It is also
commendable that the drought nursery was sent to the East Africa regional team for testing in
Malawi. Another factor that has led to the research and development success of new
varieties in the region has been the partnering of CRSP HC and U.S. scientists with various
non-CRSP groups for variety testing, seed production and seed dissemination. Some of these
partners include: CIAT, USAID (Honduras), CURLA (a Honduran university in La Ceiba), non￾CRSP scientists at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, PROFRIJOL and VICARIBE. National
Bean Researchers, NGOs and LAC university personnel collaborated with CRSP scientists on
the field trials for new varieties.
CRSP scientists have begun to evaluate variety adoption and the impact of new bean varieties
on production in specific areas in the LAC region. Economic analysis has shown that the new
varieties significantly increase the income of farmers ($60/farmer). This important data can
be used to help convince farmers to raise beans as both a source of food for the family as
well as a cash crop. Such detailed impact studies are needed for other areas of ongoing
research, e.g., the adoption of new bean varieties in other countries across the LAC region,
the commercialization of bean-based snack foods, nutritional information to increase bean
consumption in Costa Rica, and the use of bean-based weaning foods throughout the region. 
This regional project has a history of commitment to the training of young scientists at both
the undergraduate and graduate levels. The education of HC students and their return to their
home countries has strengthened the LAC institutions and sustained research programs across
the region. In 2001, this regional project had 17 students (5 Ph.D., 3 M.S. and 9 B.S. )
complete degrees in areas across production agriculture and in the food sciences. The
scientists in the project were also active in non-degree training of farmers, extension
personnel and NGOs in the HCs. In addition, a key scientific journal (Field Science) will be
devoting one entire issue in 2002-03 to describing the plant science research that has been
completed since the inception of this CRSP. Additional outputs of the ongoing research and
outreach efforts of scientists in this regional project have been the publication in 2001 of 34
refereed scientific journal articles, 38 non-refereed publications, 40 scientific presentations in
the U.S. and across the LAC. Nine CRSP sponsored scientists were recognized by either their
professional societies, local or federal governments, and/or grower groups for excellence in
research to develop and adapt new bean varieties to the LAC region and the U.S. A final form
of recognition has been the success of CRSP scientists in procuring additional funding from
outside the CRSP. Scientists working within this regional project brought in over one half
13
million in additional grant dollars to aid research in genetic improvement of dry bean and to
enhance dry bean consumption in the LAC.
RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS EEP RECOMMENDATIONS
During the January 2001 EEP meeting, it was noted that the MO had made no written
response to the previous EEP report, as had been the practice in earlier years. The EEP
requested that the MO make a written response to EEP recommendations in the future.
The EEP is pleased that the MO took this request seriously. A detailed written response to the
recommendations contained in the January 2001 EEP report was approved by the BOD and
attached to the proposal for the next phase (2002-07). In addition to the response to the EEP
recommendations, the MO produced an Annual Report of the Management Office in which it
detailed the many actions taken during the year including some of those suggested by the
EEP. The EEP commends the MO for being so responsive especially given the extraordinarily
busy year.
The MO responded to all of the EEP recommendations quite positively, although not all of
them have as yet been implemented. This is understandable because of the heavy workload
imposed upon the MO by the extension process. The EEP will follow progress during the next
year as these plans are implemented.
ISSUES RAISED BY THE MO RELATIVE TO THE IMPLEMENTATION AND 
MANAGEMENT OF THE CRSP IN THE NEXT PHASE
Regional Project Composition and Implementation under Budget-limiting Conditions
The MO asked the EEP for advice on how to respond if the USAID grant provides less funds
than anticipated in the grant proposal. Individual members of the EEP offered informal advice
and comments but the EEP made no formal recommendation. Two common themes running
through the comments were: 1) PIs and project leaders should be given an opportunity to
prioritize research activities and components within their respective region in such a way that
lower priority work could be identified and not funded if budget reductions became necessary;
and 2) Across the board cuts should be avoided. The EEP agreed to review and rate proposed
component five-year workplans in the event that reductions are required and if the MO deems
it useful to do so.
Enhancing Institutional Capacity and a Comprehensive Training Plan
The MO shared ideas on how to respond to an AMR recommendation that a global training
plan be developed for the Bean/Cowpea CRSP, and on the implementation of cross-cutting
activities. The MO shared their thinking about approaches to these issues and received
informal comments from members of the EEP.
The recommendation for a global training plan came from the AMR team. The EEP discussed
the value of such a plan but proposed that training needs and approaches would be better
defined in a regional context. 
14
The training plans contained in the extension proposal are the product of expressed needs and
priorities within each component. It is questionable whether global plans generated by any
other process would be superior. On the other hand, there are good reasons for looking
carefully across the board at the training component of the CRSP: expenditures for training,
balance among disciplines, equality among regions and whether global training needs are
being met. Although the EEP generally felt that the MO had given sufficient attention to its
training plans and should not undertake a more elaborate process, EEP members did suggest a
closer examination of training needs across regions to see if current plans reflect the relative
needs of each region.
The EEP also discussed and gave informal feedback on responses to SPARE concerning post￾degree training and AMR recommendations about the integration of social sciences and gender
issues. 
Extending CRSP Knowledge and Outputs
The MO shared some of their ideas for doing a better job of extending knowledge beyond the
research community and for improving efforts related to extension and technology transfer. 
This is a challenge that all CRSPs face and the EEP applauds the MO for seeking ways to
better meet these challenges. Although the CRSP is primarily a research activity, the research
achievements and technological outputs will have little value unless farmers, marketers or
processors use them.
The EEP would like to be helpful to the Bean/Cowpea CRSP in any way it can to improve its
performance in technology transfer and knowledge extension.
Management and Fiscal Issues in the Next Phase
The MO discussed a number of management and fiscal issues with the EEP, some of which
were cited in the AMR report. The MO, which is making a good faith effort to streamline
procedures and reduce the administrative burden, invited the EEP to offer informal comments
and advice on how best to respond to these challenges. Individual members of the EEP
offered their comments but no formal recommendations were made.
One of these issues related to the fact that the MO makes two funding allocations each year--
one for 7 months and a second for 5 months. The AMR report questioned the need for more
than one allocation each year. Although this does clearly increase the reporting burden and
the reasons may not be well understood, the MO believes, after an examination of
alternatives, that the twice-a-year allocation is necessary for fiscal management and is the
most efficient way of collecting the information it needs. The MO clearly needs to do a better
job of articulating the reasons for this procedure to project leaders and PIs.
The MO has also been reexamining the fiscal reporting forms used to collect data from sub￾granting institutions with the aim of simplifying reporting. The AMR report questioned the
need for a “12 column” form instead of a “5 column” form. The MO’s analysis concluded
that the 12-column form was the most efficient format, given that it could be filled in using an
Excel spreadsheet.
15
BEAN/COWPEA CRSP FY 2001 EXTERNAL EVALUATION PANEL
Dr. John G. Stovall (Chair)
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy
1616 P Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 328-5081
Fax: (202) 328-5133
E-Mail: stovall@ncfap.org
Dr. Carolyn B. Brooks
School of Agricultural and Natural Sciences
University of Maryland Eastern Shore
Early Childhood Research Center
Room 1120
Princess Anne, MD 21853
Phone: (410) 651-6344
Fax: (410) 651-7657
E-Mail: cbrooks@mail.umes.edu
Dr. Carlos Magno Campos da Rocha
EMBRAPA Cerrados
P. O. Box 08.223
CEP 73301-970
Planaltina, DF
Brazil
Phone: 55 61 388-9971 or 388-9898
Fax: 55 61 388-9879
E-Mail: cmagno@cpac.embrapa.br
Dr. Lowell D. Satterlee
Professor Emeritus, Oklahoma State University
Oklahoma Food and Agricultural Products Research and Technology Center
32505 Sunnybrook Drive
Vergas, MN 56587
Phone: (218) 342-2305
E-Mail: slowell@eot.com