Design and management of sustainable built environments

The United Nation Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) makes it clear that climate change is due to human activities and it recognises buildings as a distinct sector among the seven analysed in its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. Global concerns have escalated regarding carbon emissions and sustainability in the built environment. The built environment is a human-made setting to accommodate human activities, including building and transport, which covers an interdisciplinary field addressing design, construction, operation and management. Specifically, Sustainable Buildings are expected to achieve high performance throughout the life-cycle of siting, design, construction, operation, maintenance and demolition, in the following areas: • energy and resource efficiency; • cost effectiveness; • minimisation of emissions that negatively impact global warming, indoor air quality and acid rain; • minimisation of waste discharges; and • maximisation of fulfilling the requirements of occupants’ health and wellbeing. Professionals in the built environment sector, for example, urban planners, architects, building scientists, engineers, facilities managers, performance assessors and policy makers, will play a significant role in delivering a sustainable built environment. Delivering a sustainable built environment needs an integrated approach and so it is essential for built environment professionals to have interdisciplinary knowledge in building design and management . Building and urban designers need to have a good understanding of the planning, design and management of the buildings in terms of low carbon and energy efficiency. There are a limited number of traditional engineers who know how to design environmental systems (services engineer) in great detail. Yet there is a very large market for technologists with multi-disciplinary skills who are able to identify the need for, envision and manage the deployment of a wide range of sustainable technologies, both passive (architectural) and active (engineering system),, and select the appropriate approach. Employers seek applicants with skills in analysis, decision-making/assessment, computer simulation and project implementation. An integrated approach is expected in practice, which encourages built environment professionals to think ‘out of the box’ and learn to analyse real problems using the most relevant approach, irrespective of discipline. The Design and Management of Sustainable Built Environment book aims to produce readers able to apply fundamental scientific research to solve real-world problems in the general area of sustainability in the built environment. The book contains twenty chapters covering climate change and sustainability, urban design and assessment (planning, travel systems, urban environment), urban management (drainage and waste), buildings (indoor environment, architectural design and renewable energy), simulation techniques (energy and airflow), management (end-user behaviour, facilities and information), assessment (materials and tools), procurement, and cases studies ( BRE Science Park). Chapters one and two present general global issues of climate change and sustainability in the built environment. Chapter one illustrates that applying the concepts of sustainability to the urban environment (buildings, infrastructure, transport) raises some key issues for tackling climate change, resource depletion and energy supply. Buildings, and the way we operate them, play a vital role in tackling global greenhouse gas emissions. Holistic thinking and an integrated approach in delivering a sustainable built environment is highlighted. Chapter two demonstrates the important role that buildings (their services and appliances) and building energy policies play in this area. Substantial investment is required to implement such policies, much of which will earn a good return. Chapters three and four discuss urban planning and transport. Chapter three stresses the importance of using modelling techniques at the early stage for strategic master-planning of a new development and a retrofit programme. A general framework for sustainable urban-scale master planning is introduced. This chapter also addressed the needs for the development of a more holistic and pragmatic view of how the built environment performs, , in order to produce tools to help design for a higher level of sustainability and, in particular, how people plan, design and use it. Chapter four discusses microcirculation, which is an emerging and challenging area which relates to changing travel behaviour in the quest for urban sustainability. The chapter outlines the main drivers for travel behaviour and choices, the workings of the transport system and its interaction with urban land use. It also covers the new approach to managing urban traffic to maximise economic, social and environmental benefits. Chapters five and six present topics related to urban microclimates including thermal and acoustic issues. Chapter five discusses urban microclimates and urban heat island, as well as the interrelationship of urban design (urban forms and textures) with energy consumption and urban thermal comfort. It introduces models that can be used to analyse microclimates for a careful and considered approach for planning sustainable cities. Chapter six discusses urban acoustics, focusing on urban noise evaluation and mitigation. Various prediction and simulation methods for sound propagation in micro-scale urban areas, as well as techniques for large scale urban noise-mapping, are presented. Chapters seven and eight discuss urban drainage and waste management. The growing demand for housing and commercial developments in the 21st century, as well as the environmental pressure caused by climate change, has increased the focus on sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS). Chapter seven discusses the SUDS concept which is an integrated approach to surface water management. It takes into consideration quality, quantity and amenity aspects to provide a more pleasant habitat for people as well as increasing the biodiversity value of the local environment. Chapter eight discusses the main issues in urban waste management. It points out that population increases, land use pressures, technical and socio-economic influences have become inextricably interwoven and how ensuring a safe means of dealing with humanity’s waste becomes more challenging. Sustainable building design needs to consider healthy indoor environments, minimising energy for heating, cooling and lighting, and maximising the utilisation of renewable energy. Chapter nine considers how people respond to the physical environment and how that is used in the design of indoor environments. It considers environmental components such as thermal, acoustic, visual, air quality and vibration and their interaction and integration. Chapter ten introduces the concept of passive building design and its relevant strategies, including passive solar heating, shading, natural ventilation, daylighting and thermal mass, in order to minimise heating and cooling load as well as energy consumption for artificial lighting. Chapter eleven discusses the growing importance of integrating Renewable Energy Technologies (RETs) into buildings, the range of technologies currently available and what to consider during technology selection processes in order to minimise carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels. The chapter draws to a close by highlighting the issues concerning system design and the need for careful integration and management of RETs once installed; and for home owners and operators to understand the characteristics of the technology in their building. Computer simulation tools play a significant role in sustainable building design because, as the modern built environment design (building and systems) becomes more complex, it requires tools to assist in the design process. Chapter twelve gives an overview of the primary benefits and users of simulation programs, the role of simulation in the construction process and examines the validity and interpretation of simulation results. Chapter thirteen particularly focuses on the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulation method used for optimisation and performance assessment of technologies and solutions for sustainable building design and its application through a series of cases studies. People and building performance are intimately linked. A better understanding of occupants’ interaction with the indoor environment is essential to building energy and facilities management. Chapter fourteen focuses on the issue of occupant behaviour; principally, its impact, and the influence of building performance on them. Chapter fifteen explores the discipline of facilities management and the contribution that this emerging profession makes to securing sustainable building performance. The chapter highlights a much greater diversity of opportunities in sustainable building design that extends well into the operational life. Chapter sixteen reviews the concepts of modelling information flows and the use of Building Information Modelling (BIM), describing these techniques and how these aspects of information management can help drive sustainability. An explanation is offered concerning why information management is the key to ‘life-cycle’ thinking in sustainable building and construction. Measurement of building performance and sustainability is a key issue in delivering a sustainable built environment. Chapter seventeen identifies the means by which construction materials can be evaluated with respect to their sustainability. It identifies the key issues that impact the sustainability of construction materials and the methodologies commonly used to assess them. Chapter eighteen focuses on the topics of green building assessment, green building materials, sustainable construction and operation. Commonly-used assessment tools such as BRE Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ( LEED) and others are introduced. Chapter nineteen discusses sustainable procurement which is one of the areas to have naturally emerged from the overall sustainable development agenda. It aims to ensure that current use of resources does not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Chapter twenty is a best-practice exemplar - the BRE Innovation Park which features a number of demonstration buildings that have been built to the UK Government’s Code for Sustainable Homes. It showcases the very latest innovative methods of construction, and cutting edge technology for sustainable buildings. In summary, Design and Management of Sustainable Built Environment book is the result of co-operation and dedication of individual chapter authors. We hope readers benefit from gaining a broad interdisciplinary knowledge of design and management in the built environment in the context of sustainability. We believe that the knowledge and insights of our academics and professional colleagues from different institutions and disciplines illuminate a way of delivering sustainable built environment through holistic integrated design and management approaches. Last, but not least, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the chapter authors for their contribution. I would like to thank David Lim for his assistance in the editorial work and proofreading.

Simple and effective technical procedures for the packing and application of nanospray PicoFrit HPLC columns for proteomic analyses

A simple procedure was developed for packing PicoFrit HPLC columns with chromatographic stationary phase using a reservoir fabricated from standard laboratory HPLC fittings. Packed columns were mounted onto a stainless steel ultra-low volume precolumn filter assembly containing a 0.5-mu m pore size steel frit. This format provided a conduit for the application of the nanospray voltage and protected the column from obstruction by sample material. The system was characterised and operational performance assessed by analysis of a range of peptide standards (n = 9).

The researcher-farmer interface in the rice-wheat system: moving from agricultural productivity to livelihoods

This chapter explores some of the implications of adopting a research approach that focuses on people and their livelihoods in the rice-wheat system of the Indo-Gangetic Plains. We draw on information from a study undertaken by the authors in Bangladesh and then consider the transferability of our findings to other situations. We conclude that if our research is to bridge the researcher-farmer interface, ongoing technical research must be supported by research that explores how institutional, policy, and communication strategies determine livelihood outcomes. The challenge that now faces researchers is to move beyond their involvement in participatory research to understand how to facilitate a process in which they provide information and products for others to test. Building capacity at various levels for openness in sharing information and products–seeing research as a public good for all–seems to be a prerequisite for more effective dissemination of the available information and technologies.

Biogas innovation processes and innovation system: lessons from Davao del Sur, Philippines

This paper examines biogas innovation system and processes in two farming communities in Davao del Sur, Philippines. Innovation histories were traced through workshops, semi-structured interviews, observations and document analysis. The paper shows that there were diverse innovation actors both from public and private sectors. Restrictive attitudes and practices resulted in weak and limited interactions among actors. Multi-actor interaction was weak, signifying a lack of innovation actors that focus on creating, developing and strengthening linkages, networks and partnerships. The lack of support in the socio-organisational institutions that constitute the enabling environment within which innovation actors operate may lead to systemic failure.

The ICL CAFS-ISP System

Special issue of the ICL Technical Journal on the theme of the Content-Addressable File Store: editor Guy Haworth. Twelve invited papers covering hardware, software, system integration, patents, applications and futures.

Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: a scientific assessment

Black carbon aerosol plays a unique and important role in Earth’s climate system. Black carbon is a type of carbonaceous material with a unique combination of physical properties. This assessment provides an evaluation of black-carbon climate forcing that is comprehensive in its inclusion of all known and relevant processes and that is quantitative in providing best estimates and uncertainties of the main forcing terms: direct solar absorption; influence on liquid, mixed phase, and ice clouds; and deposition on snow and ice. These effects are calculated with climate models, but when possible, they are evaluated with both microphysical measurements and field observations. Predominant sources are combustion related, namely, fossil fuels for transportation, solid fuels for industrial and residential uses, and open burning of biomass. Total global emissions of black carbon using bottom-up inventory methods are 7500 Gg yr�-1 in the year 2000 with an uncertainty range of 2000 to 29000. However, global atmospheric absorption attributable to black carbon is too low in many models and should be increased by a factor of almost 3. After this scaling, the best estimate for the industrial-era (1750 to 2005) direct radiative forcing of atmospheric black carbon is +0.71 W m�-2 with 90% uncertainty bounds of (+0.08, +1.27)Wm�-2. Total direct forcing by all black carbon sources, without subtracting the preindustrial background, is estimated as +0.88 (+0.17, +1.48) W m�-2. Direct radiative forcing alone does not capture important rapid adjustment mechanisms. A framework is described and used for quantifying climate forcings, including rapid adjustments. The best estimate of industrial-era climate forcing of black carbon through all forcing mechanisms, including clouds and cryosphere forcing, is +1.1 W m�-2 with 90% uncertainty bounds of +0.17 to +2.1 W m�-2. Thus, there is a very high probability that black carbon emissions, independent of co-emitted species, have a positive forcing and warm the climate. We estimate that black carbon, with a total climate forcing of +1.1 W m�-2, is the second most important human emission in terms of its climate forcing in the present-day atmosphere; only carbon dioxide is estimated to have a greater forcing. Sources that emit black carbon also emit other short-lived species that may either cool or warm climate. Climate forcings from co-emitted species are estimated and used in the framework described herein. When the principal effects of short-lived co-emissions, including cooling agents such as sulfur dioxide, are included in net forcing, energy-related sources (fossil fuel and biofuel) have an industrial-era climate forcing of +0.22 (�-0.50 to +1.08) W m-�2 during the first year after emission. For a few of these sources, such as diesel engines and possibly residential biofuels, warming is strong enough that eliminating all short-lived emissions from these sources would reduce net climate forcing (i.e., produce cooling). When open burning emissions, which emit high levels of organic matter, are included in the total, the best estimate of net industrial-era climate forcing by all short-lived species from black-carbon-rich sources becomes slightly negative (�-0.06 W m�-2 with 90% uncertainty bounds of �-1.45 to +1.29 W m�-2). The uncertainties in net climate forcing from black-carbon-rich sources are substantial, largely due to lack of knowledge about cloud interactions with both black carbon and co-emitted organic carbon. In prioritizing potential black-carbon mitigation actions, non-science factors, such as technical feasibility, costs, policy design, and implementation feasibility play important roles. The major sources of black carbon are presently in different stages with regard to the feasibility for near-term mitigation. This assessment, by evaluating the large number and complexity of the associated physical and radiative processes in black-carbon climate forcing, sets a baseline from which to improve future climate forcing estimates.

The greater whole: towards a synthesis of system dynamics and soft systems methodology

This paper makes a theoretical case for using these two systems approaches together. The theoretical and methodological assumptions of system dynamics (SD) and soft system methodology (SSM) are briefly described and a partial critique is presented. SSM generates and represents diverse perspectives on a problem situation and addresses the socio-political elements of an intervention. However, it is weak in ensuring `dynamic coherence'. consistency between the intuitive behaviour resulting from proposed changes and behaviour deduced from ideas on causal structure. Conversely, SD examines causal structures and dynamic behaviours. However, whilst emphasising the need for a clear issue focus, it has little theory for generating and representing diverse issues. Also, there is no theory for facilitating sensitivity to socio-political elements. A synthesis of the two called ‘Holon Dynamics' is proposed. After an SSM intervention, a second stage continues the socio-political analysis and also operates within a new perspective which values dynamic coherence of the mental construct - the holon - which is capable of expressing the proposed changes. A model of this holon is constructed using SD and the changes are thus rendered `systemically desirable' in the additional sense that dynamic consistency has been confirmed. The paper closes with reflections on the proposal and the need for theoretical consistency when mixing tools is emphasised.

Science for Humanitarian Emergencies and Resilience (SHEAR) scoping study: Annex 3 - Early warning system and risk assessment case studies

This report provides case studies of Early Warning Systems (EWSs) and risk assessments encompassing three main hazard types: drought; flood and cyclone. The case studies are taken from ten countries across three continents (focusing on Africa, South Asia and the Caribbean). The case studies have been developed to assist the UK Department for International Development (DFID) to prioritise areas for Early Warning System (EWS) related research under their ‘Science for Humanitarian Emergencies and Resilience’ (SHEAR) programme. The aim of these case studies is to ensure that DFID SHEAR research is informed by the views of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and communities engaged with Early Warning Systems and risk assessments (including community-based Early Warning Systems). The case studies highlight a number of challenges facing Early Warning Systems (EWSs). These challenges relate to financing; integration; responsibilities; community interpretation; politics; dissemination; accuracy; capacity and focus. The case studies summarise a number of priority areas for EWS related research: • Priority 1: Contextualising and localising early warning information • Priority 2: Climate proofing current EWSs • Priority 3: How best to sustain effective EWSs between hazard events? • Priority 4: Optimising the dissemination of risk and warning information • Priority 5: Governance and financing of EWSs • Priority 6: How to support EWSs under challenging circumstances • Priority 7: Improving EWSs through monitoring and evaluating the impact and effectiveness of those systems

Beneath a learning management system: understanding the human information interaction in information systems

Studies on learning management systems have largely been technical in nature with an emphasis on the evaluation of the human computer interaction (HCI) processes in using the LMS. This paper reports a study that evaluates the information interaction processes on an eLearning course used in teaching an applied Statistics course. The eLearning course is used as a synonym for information systems. The study explores issues of missing context in stored information in information systems. Using the semiotic framework as a guide, the researchers evaluated an existing eLearning course with the view to proposing a model for designing improved eLearning courses for future eLearning programmes. In this exploratory study, a survey questionnaire is used to collect data from 160 participants on an eLearning course in Statistics in Applied Climatology. The views of the participants are analysed with a focus on only the human information interaction issues. Using the semiotic framework as a guide, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic and social context gaps or problems were identified. The information interactions problems identified include ambiguous instructions, inadequate information, lack of sound, interface design problems among others. These problems affected the quality of new knowledge created by the participants. The researchers thus highlighted the challenges of missing information context when data is stored in an information system. The study concludes by proposing a human information interaction model for improving the information interaction quality issues in the design of eLearning course on learning management platforms and those other information systems.

Mapping Educational Specialist knowHow (MESH): the building of a knowledge management system for research informed practice

In this invited article the authors present an evaluative report on the development of the MESHGuides project (http://www.meshguides.org/). MESHGuides’ objective is to provide education with an international knowledge management system. MESHGuides were conceived as research summaries for supporting teachers’ in developing evidence-based practice. Their aim is to enhance teachers’ capacity to engage actively with research in their own classrooms. The original thinking for MESH arose from the work of UK-based academics Professor Marilyn Leask and Dr Sarah Younie in response to a desire, which has recently gathered momentum in the UK, for the development of a more research-informed teaching profession and for the establishment of an on-line platform to support evidence-based practice (DfE, 2015; Leask and Younie 2001; OECD 2009). The focus of this article is on how the MESHGuides project was conceived and structured, the technical systems supporting it and the practical reality for academics and teachers of composing and using MESHGuides. The project and the guides are in the early stages of development, and discussion indicates future possibilities for more global engagement with this knowledge management system.

Decadal predictability of regional-scale peak winds over Europe using the Earth System Model of the Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology

The predictability of high impact weather events on multiple time scales is a crucial issue both in scientific and socio-economic terms. In this study, a statistical-dynamical downscaling (SDD) approach is applied to an ensemble of decadal hindcasts obtained with the Max-Planck-Institute Earth System Model (MPI-ESM) to estimate the decadal predictability of peak wind speeds (as a proxy for gusts) over Europe. Yearly initialized decadal ensemble simulations with ten members are investigated for the period 1979–2005. The SDD approach is trained with COSMO-CLM regional climate model simulations and ERA-Interim reanalysis data and applied to the MPI-ESM hindcasts. The simulations for the period 1990–1993, which was characterized by several windstorm clusters, are analyzed in detail. The anomalies of the 95 % peak wind quantile of the MPI-ESM hindcasts are in line with the positive anomalies in reanalysis data for this period. To evaluate both the skill of the decadal predictability system and the added value of the downscaling approach, quantile verification skill scores are calculated for both the MPI-ESM large-scale wind speeds and the SDD simulated regional peak winds. Skill scores are predominantly positive for the decadal predictability system, with the highest values for short lead times and for (peak) wind speeds equal or above the 75 % quantile. This provides evidence that the analyzed hindcasts and the downscaling technique are suitable for estimating wind and peak wind speeds over Central Europe on decadal time scales. The skill scores for SDD simulated peak winds are slightly lower than those for large-scale wind speeds. This behavior can be largely attributed to the fact that peak winds are a proxy for gusts, and thus have a higher variability than wind speeds. The introduced cost-efficient downscaling technique has the advantage of estimating not only wind speeds but also estimates peak winds (a proxy for gusts) and can be easily applied to large ensemble datasets like operational decadal prediction systems.

Climate change projections using the IPSL-CM5 Earth System Model: from CMIP3 to CMIP5

We present the global general circulation model IPSL-CM5 developed to study the long-term response of the climate system to natural and anthropogenic forcings as part of the 5th Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). This model includes an interactive carbon cycle, a representation of tropospheric and stratospheric chemistry, and a comprehensive representation of aerosols. As it represents the principal dynamical, physical, and bio-geochemical processes relevant to the climate system, it may be referred to as an Earth System Model. However, the IPSL-CM5 model may be used in a multitude of configurations associated with different boundary conditions and with a range of complexities in terms of processes and interactions. This paper presents an overview of the different model components and explains how they were coupled and used to simulate historical climate changes over the past 150 years and different scenarios of future climate change. A single version of the IPSL-CM5 model (IPSL-CM5A-LR) was used to provide climate projections associated with different socio-economic scenarios, including the different Representative Concentration Pathways considered by CMIP5 and several scenarios from the Special Report on Emission Scenarios considered by CMIP3. Results suggest that the magnitude of global warming projections primarily depends on the socio-economic scenario considered, that there is potential for an aggressive mitigation policy to limit global warming to about two degrees, and that the behavior of some components of the climate system such as the Arctic sea ice and the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation may change drastically by the end of the twenty-first century in the case of a no climate policy scenario. Although the magnitude of regional temperature and precipitation changes depends fairly linearly on the magnitude of the projected global warming (and thus on the scenario considered), the geographical pattern of these changes is strikingly similar for the different scenarios. The representation of atmospheric physical processes in the model is shown to strongly influence the simulated climate variability and both the magnitude and pattern of the projected climate changes.

CGIAR research program on grain legumes

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background and context The Grain Legumes CRP was established to bring all research and development work on grain legumes within the CGIAR system under one umbrella. It was set up to provide public goods outcomes to serve the needs of the sustainable production and consumption of grain legumes in the developing world, capitalising upon their properties that enhance the natural resource base upon which production so unequivocally depends. The choice of species and research foci were finalised following extensive consultation with all stakeholders (though perhaps fewer end users), and cover all disciplines that contribute to long-lasting solutions to the issues of developing country production and consumption. ICRISAT leads Grain Legumes and is partnered by the CGIAR centers ICARDA, IITA and CIAT and a number of other important partners, both public and private, and of course farmers in the developed and developing world. Originally in mid-2012 Grain Legumes was structured around eight Product Lines (PL) (i.e. technological innovations) intersecting five Strategic Components (SC) (i.e. arranged as components along the value chain). However, in 2015, it was restructured along a more R4D output model leading to Intermediate Development Outcomes (IDOs). Thus five Flagship Projects (FP) more closely reflecting a systematic pipeline of progression from fundamental science, implementation of interventions and the development of capacity and partnerships to promote and adopt impactful outcomes: FP1) Managing Productivity through crop interactions with biotic and abiotic constraints; FP2) Determination of traits that address production constraints and opportunities; FP3) Trait Deployment of those traits through breeding; FP4) Seed Systems, post-harvest processing and nutrition; FP5) Capacity-Building and Partnerships. Another three cross-cutting FPs analyse the broader environment surrounding the adoption of outputs, the capitalising of investments in genomics research, and a focus on the Management and Governance of Grain Legumes: FP6) Knowledge, impacts, priorities and gender organisation; FP7) Tools and platforms for high throughput genotyping and bioinformatics; and FP8) Management and Governance. Five FPs focus on R4D; FPs 5 and 6 are considered cross-cutting; FP 7 has a technical focus and FP 8 has an overarching objective. Over the three year period since its inception in July 1012, Grain Legumes has had a total budget of $140 million, with $62M originally to come from W1/W2 and the remaining $78M to come from W3/bilateral. In actuality only $45M came from W1/W2 but $106M from W3/bilateral corresponding to 106% of expectation. Purpose, scope and objectives of the external evaluation Principally, the evaluation of Grain Legumes is to ensure that the program is progressing in an effective manner towards addressing the system-level outcomes of the CGIAR as they relate to grain legumes. In essence, the evaluation aims to provide essential evaluative information for decision-making by Program Management and its funders on issues such as extension, expansion and structuring of the program and adjustments in relevant parts of the program. Subsequent to the formal signing of the agreed terms of reference, the evaluation team was also invited to comment upon the mooted options for merging and/or disaggregating of Grain Legumes. The audiences are therefore manifold, from the CGIAR Fund Council and Consortium, the Boards of Trustees of the four component CGIAR centres, the Grain Legumes Steering, Management and Independent Advisory Committees, to the researchers and others involved in the delivery of R4D outcomes and their partner organisations. The evaluation was not only summative in measuring results from Grain Legumes at arm’s length; it was also formative in promoting learning and improvements, and developmental in nurturing adaption to transformational change with time. The evaluation report was written in a manner that allows for engagement of key partners and funders in a dialogue as to how to increase ownership and a common understanding of how the goals are to be achieved. We reviewed research undertaken before the CRPs but leading to impacts during Grain Legumes, and research commenced over the past 2.5 years. For related activities pre- and post-commencement of Grain Legumes, we reviewed the relevance of activities and their relation to CGIAR and the Grain Legumes goals, whether they were likely to lead to the outcomes and impacts as documented in the Grain Legumes proposal, and the quality of the science underpinning the likelihood to deliver outcomes. Throughout, we were cognisant of the extent of the reach of CGIAR centres’ activities, and those of stakeholders upon which the impact of CGIAR R4D depends. Within our remit we evaluated the original and modified management and governance structures, and all the processes/responsibilities managed within those structures. Besides the evaluation of the technical and managerial issues of Grain Legumes, we addressed cross-cutting issues of gender sensitivity, capacity building and the creation and nurturing of partnerships. The evaluation also has the objective to provide information relating to the development of full proposals for the new CRP funding cycle. The evaluation addressed six overarching questions developed from the TOR questions (listed in the Inception Report, 2015 [http://1drv.ms/1POQSZh] and others including cross-cutting issues, phrasing them within the context of traditional evaluation criteria: 1. Relevance: Global development, urbanisation and technological innovation are progressing rapidly, are the aims and focus of Grain Legumes coherent, robust, fit for purpose and relevant to the global community? 2. Efficiency: Is the structure and effectiveness of leadership across Grain Legumes developing efficient partnership management and project management across PLs? 3. Quality of science: Is Grain Legumes utilising a wide range of technologies in a way that will increase our fundamental understanding of the biology that underpins several PLs; and are collected data used in the most effective way? 4. Effectiveness: Are Product Lines strategic contributors to the overarching aims and vision for Grain Legumes? 5. Impact: Are the impact pathways that underlie each PL well defined, measureable and achievable; and are they sufficiently defined in terms of beneficiaries? Does progress towards achieving outputs and outcomes from the major research areas indicate a lasting benefit for CGIAR and the communities it serves? 6. Sustainability: Is Grain Legumes managing the increasing level of restricted funding in terms of program quality and effectiveness, including attracting and retaining quality staff? Questions for the evaluation of governance and management focused on accountability, transparency, the effectiveness and success of program execution, change management processes and communication methods, taking account of the effects of CGIAR reform. The three crosscutting issues were considered as follows: i) gender balance in program delivery, e.g. whether each PL is able to contribute to the increased income, food security, nutrition, environmental and resource conservation for resource-poor women and men existing in rural livelihoods; ii) are internal and external capacity gaps identified/met, is capacity effectively developed within each product line, and are staff at all levels engaged in contributing ideas towards capacity building; and iii) is there effective involvement of partners in research and activity programming, what are the criteria for developing partnerships, how they are formalised and how is communication between partners and within Grain Legumes managed? It was not in remit to search for output, outcomes or impact, however as highlighted later, much of our time was spent on searching for information to support claims of impact, since Grain Legumes had no effective dedicated M&E in place at the time of undertaking the review. Approach and methodology The evaluation was conducted when Grain Legumes had been operational for approximately 3 years. The approach and methodology followed that outlined in the Inception Report [http://1drv.ms/1POQSZh]. The CCEE Team based its findings, conclusions and recommendations on data collection from several sources:  review of program documents, communications with the CO, minutes and presentations from all management and governance committee meetings  review of previous assessments and evaluations  sampling of Grain Legume projects in 7 countries1  more than 66 face to face interviews, a further 133 persons in groups and 4 phone/Skype conversations: ICRISAT, ICARDA, CIAT and IITA staff, partners and stakeholders. Meetings with one Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC) member.  meetings with over 100 people in 16 external groups, such as farmers’ groups  online survey completed by 126 (33.4%) scientists who contribute to Grain Legumes and a number of non-CGIAR partners and Management representatives  bibliometric review of 10 publications within each PL to qualitatively assess the design, conduct, analysis and presentation of results  quantitative and qualitative self-assessment of the contributions of each of the PLs to the six criteria and 3 cross-cutting issues of evaluation mentioned above completed by PLCs (see below). We reviewed the Logical Framework that underpins the desired Goals, or Impacts of Grain Legumes, and the links between the outputs and inputs as they related to the organisational units of Grain Legumes. The logical framework approach to planning and management of Grain Legumes activities implies a linear process, leading from activities, outputs, outcomes, to impacts, but within such an approach there may be room for a more systems dynamics approach allowing for feedback at every step and within every step, in order to refine and improve upon the respective activities as new results, ideas, and directions come to light. We then developed a matrix that summarised quantitatively and qualitatively the contributions of each of the PLs to the six criteria and 3 cross-cutting issues of evaluation mentioned above. Main findings and conclusions Grain legume production and consumption remain of great importance to the food security of not inconsiderable populations in the developing world, and merit sustained research investment. We conclude that Grain Legumes continues to contribute significant returns to research investments by the CGIAR, and such investment should continue. The global research community looks to the CGIAR for leadership in Grain legumes, but needs to be assured of value adding when bringing CGIAR centres under the expected umbrella of synergy. However, there is considerable scope for improving the efficiency with which outcomes are achieved. We note that an absence of an effective M&E has hampered the assessment of the effectiveness of proposed impact pathways. Likewise progress has been hampered by the limited numbers of research partnerships with Advanced Institutes and by budgetary constraints (lamented for their stifling effects on continuation of ongoing exciting research). The unworkable management structure constrains the CRP Director’s leadership role; responsibility without authority will never lead to effective outcomes. Good fortune is responsible for many of the successes of Grain Legumes, underpinned by a devoted work force across the participating CGIAR centres and partners. The quality of the science is not uniformly high, and we believe that mentoring of scientists should be given priority where quality is poor. Simplified yet informative reporting is an imperative to this. World class science underpins the identification of, and molecular basis for, traits important for yield improvement and this expertise should be extended to all grain legume species, capitalising upon the germplasm collections. The linking of Grain Legumes with regional research and development consortia has been very successful, with outcomes aligning with those of Grain Legumes. We see that with declining funding consolidation of research effort based on likely successes will be necessary, and welcome the move afoot to incorporate grain legumes into an agri-food system focused on successful value chains that deliver sustainable outcomes. Relevance and Strategy Grain Legumes has geographic and disciplinary relevance, addressing the major supply chain issues of variety development seed system and agronomy, with some attention to quality and postharvest marketing systems. The CRP has provided the opportunity to cut ongoing and to initiate new research. Research funded by the Gates Foundation (Anon, 2014) suggests that the need for improvement is greatest in Africa and advocates reducing the number of crop by country combinations when resources are sparse. The lesser research investment in Latin America, however, is not in line with the regions’ dependency on legumes. In spite of the fact that there is no evidence of strong inter-partner CGIAR centre or internal synergy, the program is still moving ahead on most fronts in line with the overall project logframe. This is in spite of continual pushing and pulling by in particular donors and the CO. However, to quantify real impact, we believe Grain Legumes must have access to reliable baseline data on production and consumption, and this is missing. Similarly, there is little evidence of the proposed ‘Inclusive Market Oriented Development’ (IMOD) framework being used to assist with priority setting. The product lines, eight of which cover most of the historical programmes in place in the partner CGIAR centres at the commencement of the Grain Legumes, do not cover all the constraints for formal constraints analysis was not undertaken at the inception of the Grain Legumes, and some of this additionally identified research is undertaken under the umbrella of the FPs; this needs to be rationalised. We found the PLs to be isolated in activity, even with minimally-integrated activities within each PL, with little evidence of synergy between PLs. Even though the SCs should ensure a systems approach, as with the new FPs, we did not get a feel that this is so. The underplaying of agronomy, and production practices may be one reason for this. We believe that treating legume crops as if they were horticultural crops will increase farmer returns from investment. The choice of Flagship Projects makes sense, with the flow of activity firstly around crop management and agronomy followed by the logical sequence of trait discovery, incorporation into improved varieties, dissemination of those varieties through appropriate seed chains leading to market impacts, and the capacity building required at all steps. One obvious omission, however, is the lack of a central and strategic policy on the role of transgenics in Grain Legumes. We found four notable comparative advantages for Grain Legumes: the access to germplasm of component species, the use of the phenotyping facility at ICRISAT, the approach for village level industry for IPM, and the emphasis on hybrid pigeonpea. Efficiency Each centre has strong control of, and emphasis on, their ‘species’ domains, and ownership of the same detracts from possible synergy. Without synergy or value add, the Grain Legumes brings with it no comparative advantage over each centre continuing their own pre-CRP research agendas. We found little evidence of integration of programmes between centres and almost no cross-centre authorship of publications, such as could have occurred with the integrated cross-centre approaches to stress tolerance including crop modelling: the one publication (Gaur et al., 2015) on heat tolerance by ICRISAT, CIAT and ICARDA does not provide any keys to inter-centre collaboration. The integration of each centre with NARS and university research programmes is good, but the cross-centre links with NARS are poor. A better coordinated integration with Grain Legumes, , rather than through the individual centres, may reduce transactions costs for NARS, Monitoring and evaluation is, as noted throughout our report, one area of Grain Legumes research management that has not been given the attention it should have received. If it had have received proper attention, some of the issues of poor efficiency might have been nipped in the bud. A strong monitoring and evaluation system would have provided the baseline data and set the milestones that would have allowed both efficiency and effectiveness to be better appraised. We found no attempt to define comparative advantages of the CGIAR centres and their R4D activities, although practice showed the better grasp of CIAT in developing innovative seed distribution systems. During field visits and interviews, the CCEE Team observed shortcomings in the communication processes within Grain Legumes and with the broader scientific community and the public. For example, the public face of the program on the internet is out of date. Survey findings, however, suggest that information is shared freely and routinely within the PL within which scientists work. Some external issues, such as those with funding, low W1/W2 and poor sustainability of funding (especially if funding is top heavy with a few agencies), undermine research investment and confidence of partners in the system (e.g. as voiced by researchers working on crops and countries not included in TL III and the cessation of ongoing competitively-funded projects especially in India), but other issues attributable to the governance and management of the Grain Legumes, such as opaque integration of W3/bilaterals with W1/W2 funding require attention. Offsetting this, the existence of the Grain Legumes did mobilise additional funding [that it would not have if Grain Legumes did not exist]. We were concerned that Grain Legumes is simply not recognised outside of the CRP, with a limited www presence and centres promote themselves, rather than Grain Legumes (with exception in IITA). This is not a good move if one wishes to increase investment in the Grain Legumes. Although funding agencies require cost:benefit ratios, for example for each PL we faced difficulty in determining comparative value for money between investment in different types of research, and in being able to clearly attribute research and development outcomes to financial investment. There was also a time CCEE frame issue too. There is poor interaction with the private sector, notably in areas where they have a comparative financial advantage. We questioned in particular the apparent lack of interaction with the major agro-chemical companies, with respect to the development of herbicide tolerant (HT) grain legumes and the lack of evidence that the regulatory and trade aspects related to herbicide tolerant crops had been considered. Quality of science The quality of the science is highly variable across Grain Legumes, with pockets of real excellence that are linked to good levels of productivity, whereas other PLs are struggling to deliver quality publications, and outputs and outcomes that are based on these. There is much evidence of gradualism in terms of research output and outcomes, i.e. essentially the same activities that were ongoing at the time of the launch of Grain Legumes are still in place. However, there are examples of game changers including those from valuable investments in genomics, phenotyping, and bio-control. We were pleased to see large proportions of collaboration on publications with non-CGIAR centres, reflecting cooperation with partners in developed and developing countries. The value of collaboration when ensuring quality of science cannot be stressed highly enough both within the CRP, and with other global and national partners. PLs should be given incentives to collaborate with other CRPs and external institutions. There is little cohesion between PLs and with other CRPs as evidenced by publications, although there are some exceptions. We suspect the reasons for this are driven by funding. Productivity from the different PLs is also highly variable and it is not clear what other activities staff are engaged in since, in some PLs, they do not appear to lead to quality publications. Effectiveness Grain Legumes has been very effective in addressing component issues of research, but not the continuum from variety development to legumes on someone’s dinner plate. Our overall assessment of the effectiveness of Grain Legumes in stimulating synergy, innovation and impact indicate that gradualism is more prevalent than innovation. It also shows, as do publications, that there is little integration of disciplines or a focus on ‘systems’. The absence of socio-economists from research teams is evident in the general lack of an end user focus. However, research on genomics, plant breeding and seed systems have made great strides forward, on the brink of delivering impact. Agronomy has been a poor sister, but some of the competitive grants within Grain Legumes have unearthed some potential game changers, such as objective use of transplanting as an agronomic practice. As mentioned earlier, the lack of effective M&E (however, this was part of some major projects such as TL II/TL III), and therefore the ability to monitor impact pathways and achievement of impact, implies no systematic management of data. This creates difficulty when attempting to evaluate the achievement of the Grain Legumes objectives. One might have expected at least one attempt to try to develop publications between centres arguing for similar biologies/research approaches, bringing species together under one umbrella, but we did not find any evidence for this. It is most unfortunate that, due to budgetary cuts, the new ‘schemes’, e.g. competitive grants and scholarships, were cut off before gaining a foothold. With 8 species addressed by Grain Legumes, it is not unexpected that there will be little evidence of shared protocols across centres/species. One rare example was that hosted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on shared methods for phenotyping of legume germplasm. Researchers from CIAT, IITA, ICRISAT and three USDA stations attended, focusing in simple canopy temperature and root morphology measurements. It is our belief that as a set of research centres, the CGIAR centres should be focusing on the research for which they have a comparative advantage. While imposing the restructure to FPs, which is fine for development objectives and outcomes (funded through W3/bilateral), it is less so for a research institute, and the structure should not detract from the more basic work expected of an international CGIAR centre (or set of centres as in a CRP). Impact It is well known that research does not always lead to scientific breakthroughs. Also, activities such as plant breeding are long term; making impacts difficult to assess. We believe that sufficient progress with genomics and associated research has been made to warrant impact, but we are unable to quantify the levels of impact, or the timeframe for the same. Work in Grain Legumes has enormous potential for real impact in scientific research, commercial, farming, smallholder and household communities, much of which is being realised. However, the PLs need to become more adept at providing convincing cases that are strongly evidenced for these impacts, as this is likely to be a key factor in leveraging future funding. Claimed gains must be referenced against baseline data, and these are not always readily available. The CCEE Team realises that such impact evaluation represents a significant drain on resources, and Grain Legumes should determine whether the balance of costs to benefits favours such investment. Interviews conducted by the CCEE during site visits showed that PLs are quantifying the area of adoption of varieties, but in most cases they are not measuring the impact on environment, health/nutrition. Since the health and nutritional benefits and the environmental gains from growing legumes are major arguments for supporting grain legume research, the community is currently missing substantial opportunities to strengthen its own case for continued support. Whilst there are some impressive examples of considering the whole value chain, e.g. white beans from production through to export; in the main, the pipeline to end user is somewhat piece-meal, with no clear definition of the end user nor differential responsibility of Grain Legumes and of partners. The lack of robust time-defined impact pathways is highlighted in Section 7.4, and even though developed for PL5, timeframes are essential for measuring progress against prediction. Sustainability In summary, there is general acknowledgement that future funding is likely to become more limited, specifically in W1&2 and there is understandable concern over the support for the staff and basic infrastructure that underpin the Grain Legumes programme. For example, it is reported that staffing in parts of CIAT has been dependent on W1&2 and that this is too unstable to re-establish a critical mass. The present system whereby W3 and bilateral projects do not pay a realistic level of overheads means that such projects are being effectively subsidised by W1&2. This position is not sustainable in the long term as there will be a progressive but definite loss of basic skills and resources in the core centres. The only obvious options to prevent this outcome include a severe reduction in the fixed costs of the centres and/or a refusal to accept W3 and bilateral funding with an inadequate overhead component. In the latter case, there is an obvious danger that funders will move their resources away from the CGIAR system towards other, perhaps less expensive, suppliers of research, and possibly more relevant development expertise. This issue must be addressed. As the Grain Legumes moves into the future, and if sustainable funding cannot be assured, decisions must be made concerning a reduction in activities, keeping some caretaker breeding maintenance, and focus (as has TL III) on fewer species and a reduced geographic focus. Cross cutting issues: Gender, capacity building and partnerships Gender is not mainstreamed, but there is some evidence that this is improving, especially with dedicated gender specialists and the slow integration of gender across CRPs. There is a need to approach gender through the vision of agriculture as a social practice, with recognition of what changes will be acceptable culturally and what not, and capitalising upon the perceived and actual features of production and processing that grain legumes are primarily women-based crops. Gender awareness may be high among Scientists, but it appears to be a predominantly passive attribute with few proactively seeking opportunities for gender equity. It is, however, a sound sensitivity base on which to build. Nevertheless, examples of notable gender initiatives were identified during field visits. For example, in Benin, the development of biocontrol technologies has enthusiastically integrated diversity, engaging with women farmers’ and youths while maintaining cultural norms. Women are gathering and processing, youths are taking the product to market. The implication is that several groups benefit, rather than domination by the majority group. In Malawi, innovative approaches have been developed to improving nutrition for children, such as incorporating nutrient enriched bean flour products into snacks. In India, scientists collaborating with gender scientists and socio-economists are identifying the impact of mechanical harvesting on agricultural labour and the potential displacement of female labourers. In Kenya, a novel initiative is improving the accessibility of certified seed for new varieties. Seed suppliers have introduced small packs of grain legume seed at low unit cost, which are being purchased by young people and women. Capacity building efforts for external partners are not clearly aligned with the research mandate and delivery of Grain Legumes. However, there are a number of training activities that are being undertaken by Grain Legumes, largely through the W3/bilateral project. Gender balance never reaches parity, but it appears that efforts are made to include female participants. Within the evaluation timeframe it was not possible to conduct external surveys to further validate or review external capacity building efforts in Grain Legumes. Training of scientists is significant, with >40 benefiting. Postgraduate training is varied across PLs, and there is some opportunity to increase the numbers being supervised. We consider that support for postgraduates at ICRISAT could be better coordinated, satisfying more of the students’ needs. It is important, however, to follow up investments in capacity building by monitoring effectiveness, career progressions and so on. Training activities appear to be rather centre-specific, not following a coordinated programme managed by, nor at the level of, the Grain Legumes. Numbers of persons trained and their gender are important, but a measure of the effectiveness of the training is more important. Although optimism is expressed by the great majority of Research Managers that partnerships were working well to leverage knowledge and research capacities, scientists have a less favourable view, particularly in terms of their incentives to participate. It seems likely that the activities taking place within Grain Legumes were, in the most part, continuations of previous collaborations. This is not surprising in light of the reduction in the emphasis on partnerships as Grain Legumes evolved to a funded project, and the consequent lack of opportunity and ambition for establishing novel partnerships. Where they exist, partnerships are good on the whole, especially with US. They could be expanded where comparative advantages exist (for example with Canada and Australia for machine harvestable legumes), but some earlier identified partnerships, e.g. with Turkey, have not been capitalised upon. Others experience problems of variety access (the embargo on exports of some sources of materials from India), yet others do have relevance e.g. imported Brazilian varieties in pre-release in Ethiopia (even though two of the three are from CIAT materials). Governance and Management The standard format of committee structure and responsibilities is common to other CRPs, as are the attendant problems. One of the major problems is that the Grain Legumes Director has responsibility but no authority; hence, even with the support of the RMC, the Director is unable to ‘direct’ in the literal sense of the work the activities of Grain Legumes. We also see the same sense of helplessness with the role of the PLCs. They have responsibility but no authority in managing the affairs of their PL, and they have no access to funds with which to promote intellectual collaboration and cooperation. Minutes from governance and management meetings do not reflect the compromised weak position of the Director and the associated difficulties in the management of Grain Legumes. Nor do the minutes reflect concerns about the amount of time spent by scientists in meetings for planning, integration, evaluation and reporting. Many scientists reported significant opportunity costs in participating in the ongoing imposed [by the CO] evolution of Grain Legumes and CRPs in general. The changes brought in by the CO have not helped promote any greater authority and capacity of the Grain Legumes Director to direct. Likewise, they do not address any of the issues with the conflict of interest in having the Lead Centre chair the Steering Committee. Indeed, we believe that the combining of the Steering Committee with the Independent Advisory Committee, besides becoming unwieldy in number, annuls any sense of independence in advice offered to the Grain Legumes management. We have concerns with the declining proportion of W1/W2 funds (as expressed in the section on Sustainability), and believe that when basic financial planning takes place, integration of W1/W2 and W3/bilateral sources must occur, and be linked to anticipated outcomes and impacts. This will ensure a close alignment of collaborators’ and partners’ objectives and contributions to that of the Grain Legumes. We also queried the process for, and the formality, or lack of, surrounding, the approval of annual budgets, and the level of priority setting when budgets are cut. Recommendations for Grain Legumes The CCEE Team makes the following recommendations, critical issues are highlighted in bold, and those that require action by an entity other than the Grain Legumes Research Management Committee or Project Management united are identified in a footnote. Relevance and Strategy Recommendation 1: A period of consistency is necessary to raise confidence, morale and trust across scientists, managers and partners to foster the assembly of enduring Grain Legumes outcomes2.  There needs to be a concerted effort to undertake baseline studies and to implement a robust M&E activity during this period. Without these data the foundation for integrated research in grain legumes is jeopardised.  There is a strong need to link more closely with the private sector, especially where there are financial and other comparative advantages to do so. Recommendation 2: The agronomic and physiological trait targets of Grain Legumes (tolerance to changing climate patterns, to the pests and diseases of today and of the future, incorporation of quality traits and adaptations to intensive production systems [machine-harvestability and herbicide tolerance], and short season high yielding characters) are all worthy of continued investment when selecting for improved varieties.  There needs to be a common strategy, implemented across centres and species, as to how to address these trait targets through conventional and modern breeding approaches, but only if adequate funding is assured and secured and if a consistency and unity of purpose can be achieved across a large-scale. This should take the form of cross-species coordinated research programmes to address these breeding targets that cooperate across centres and make efficient use of facilities and other resources.  The CRP should undertake a detailed strategic review of the role of transgenics across the range of targets in the mandate crops. Efficiency Recommendation 3: The lack of an effective M&E process is a significant omission, not least in terms of more efficient use of resources and the lack of baseline data with which to measure impact, and must be rectified.  Reinforcing Recommendation 1, an effective M&E system initially directed towards baseline studies must be implemented.  Transaction costs may be reduced through bilateral projects, which are seen as more cost effective than W1/W2 where transaction costs are disproportionately higher. Recommendation 4: To improve communication and coordination within the CRP, and with a broader audience:  There is a priority need for a central database containing, names of staff associated with Grain Legumes and their time commitments, their responsibilities, and involvement in CRP activities, their progress and achievements, their publications, plans of training, travel, and other opportunities for interaction.  Regular global meetings of staff involved in managing PLs, the entire CRP management staff and the IAC are essential for effective coordination of all activity within Grain Legumes.  The website must be given a complete overhaul and improvement and then regular maintenance must be provided to keep it current. Quality of Science Recommendation 5: It is essential to continue investment in good science and to institute a change from gradualism in research output and outcomes to an expectation of innovative and concrete achievements that can be attributed clearly to people, centres and core facilities.  A cost:benefit analysis and subsequent strategic planning must be undertaken to justify further investment in the genomics and phenotyping facilities at ICRISAT especially as such technologies advance rapidly. Strategic planning and coordination must also be implemented for capitalising on the investment in crop simulation modelling. (The phenotyping facility of ICRISAT needs to focus on delivering some outcomes, not only outputs.)  PLs should be given incentives to collaborate with other CRPs and external institutions. The CCEE recommends special recognition of high quality collaborative papers, thereby encouraging increased quality of the research programmes and widening the penetration of research impacts.  More importance should be placed on the quality of publication, rather than quantity of outputs and there should be recognition of other types of outputs from Grain Legumes. The CRP Director must be party to this.  If staff are engaged in activities that relate more to impact than publication then this needs to be monitored and recorded and a clearer understanding developed of what constitutes a pathway to impact and how success of such activities can be evaluated. A system must be devised and incorporated into the M&E to enable recognition of other types of outputs (non- publication based) from Grain Legumes, e.g. varieties for breeders. Effectiveness Recommendation 6: To develop greater synergy, Grain Legumes should review management processes and the direction of research activities. In particular, far more extensive integration of research and knowledge exchange should take place across both African and Asian continents so that the best aspects of both can be shared. A multidisciplinary approach is recommended that considers processing solutions, as well as breeding solutions, to capitalise upon the nutritional benefits of the grain legume crops. We recommend:  A better collaboration with social scientists at the design stage of experiments in order to improve the utility of the work carried out and to understand its reach.  Supporting3 the adoption of best practice electronic data collection, central storage and open access, particularly of genomic data, for public use.  Given the focus on the link between phenotyping and genotyping, we note that there is a lack of congruence between the populations that are being phenotyped and those being genotyped, and therefore these could be better aligned within each species.  Concentrating investment external to Grain Legumes on scaling up production of varieties with the most promising trait profiles to meet the basic seed requirement.  Developing a more holistic approach that coordinates an understanding of the disease pathology and epidemiology, and of new chemicals before they become commercially available, together with agronomic practice such that recommendations can be made for growers. Continuing work to establish whether agronomic factors hold true in different environments and to assess GxE effects within breeding programmes. Such rigorous trial practices should be used to inform the evaluation of breeding lines and to provide phenotype data to associate with markers for traits such as heat, drought and herbicide tolerance.  Considering grain legumes as if they were vegetable crops in terms of the strategy for intensification of production, both from the management perspective and for seed systems, will be a useful development objective into the future. This will bring about more rapid intensification and is likely to increase farmer returns from investment. Recommendation 7: The CGIAR centres should focus in on the research for which they have a comparative advantage. While imposing the restructure to FPs, which is fine for development objectives and outcomes (funded through W3/bilateral) it is less so for a research institute, and should not detract from the more basic work expected of an international CGIAR centre (or set of centres in a CRP).  Collaborative approaches should be explored within Grain Legumes, e.g. similar biologies/research approaches, bringing species together under one umbrella. Similarly better alignment is needed to address the lack of congruence between the populations that are being phenotyped and those being genotyped.  Despite positive impacts from research in genomics, plant breeding and seed systems, the lack of an effective M&E, already mentioned elsewhere, has reduced the ability to monitor impact pathways. This must be addressed.  The absence of socio-economists from research teams is evident in the general lack of an end user focus. Responsibilities of the different actors in the whole value chain must be considered and identified when developing impact targets, and the pathway leading to them, for individual projects. People with socio-economist skills must be part of the team from project inception so that appropriate frameworks are incorporated for measuring and influencing sociological and economic changes brought about by Grain Legumes research. Impact Recommendation 8: PLs need to become more adept at providing convincing cases in which impact is strongly evidenced, as this is likely to be a key factor in leveraging future funding.  Claimed gains must be referenced against baseline data, and these are not always readily available. The CCEE Team realises that such impact evaluation represents a significant drain on resources, and Grain Legumes should determine whether the balance of costs to benefits favours such investment.  It is essential that Grain Legumes provides training to staff on what constitutes impact and how it can be recorded.  Specific, rather than generalised, potential impacts arising from activity within Grain Legumes should be defined at the time of justifying the programme of work and a pathway to impact should form part of the documentation prepared ahead of a piece of research commencing. . In other words, centres should submit work plans to Grain Legumes before they are undertaken using W1/W2 funds Recommendation 9: The reporting activity must be streamlined to a single (brief) format that can be used to report to Grain Legumes, Centres and to donors for special project activities4. Sustainability Recommendation 10: As Grain Legumes moves into the future, and if sustainable funding cannot be assured, decisions must be made concerning a reduction in activities, keeping some caretaker breeding maintenance, and focus (as has TL III) on fewer species and a reduced geographic focus. Zeigler (Director General of IRRI) states “…time and effort would be better spent … making tough decisions about which programs deserve the precious support.”  The present system whereby W3 and bilateral projects do not pay a realistic level of overheads means that such projects are being effectively subsidised by W1&2 and there will be a progressive but definite loss of basic skills and resources in the core centres. To prevent this outcome it is necessary to significantly reduce the fixed costs of the centres and/or refuse to accept W3 and bilateral funding without an adequate overhead component.  In the absence of long term certainty, the scale of the budget allocated to each of the new CRPs should be very conservative, a feature that can only be achieved by restricting/reducing the scope, probably quite significantly. Cross cutting issues: Gender, capacity building and partnerships Recommendation 11: The challenge for Grain Legumes is to achieve pro-active gender mainstreaming, which facilitates opportunities for gender diversity within all activities, from employment processes through research to end users.  Strategic measurable gender indicators need to be embedded in research design, for instance, through specific IDOs for each of the flagships projects. Accurate baseline data are also required to facilitate M&E reviews of progress.  Implementation of the Gender Strategy is the responsibility of everyone, not solely the Gender Team. Thus, ownership could be encouraged by setting personal development for key personnel objectives with specific outcomes, e.g. employment practices or research outcomes.  Recognising the positive gender initiatives in progress or planned, feedback must be communicated and integrated into broader research planning to share opportunities, methods and outcomes.  In addition to promoting gender equity in research, Grain Legumes also needs to ensure that working environments are gender sensitive and that recruitment processes, including promotion opportunities are equitable. Gender imbalance in management should be actively examined to identify further opportunities for developing female leadership. Recommendation 12: It is recommended that a training plan be devised to ensure that capacity building efforts are more clearly aligned with the research mandate, delivery and timeframe of Grain Legumes. Moreover, we recommend that ICRISAT develop a strategy to treat their new cohort of researchers more equitably in the future. Recommendation 13: To develop a more coherent strategic programme designed to eliminate overlap and promote synergy between programmes with common aims, Grain Legumes should hold a meeting with a range of partners. Governance Recommendation 14: Governance processes should be re-assessed and the structure altered to ensure that the Grain Legumes Director has the authority and budget control to drive the execution of strategy.  The ISC should be truly independent and given the power to influence strategic decisions before they become final. We also recommend that PLCs are provided with the authority to manage the direction and finances of their PL; and that ring-fenced funds are provided for the promotion of collaboration, coordination and staff training5. The way ahead In our view, having seen the ineffectiveness of much of the attempts [or lack of attempts] to harness synergies between multiple centres, and of the strength in few or sole centre partnerships, we believe that there is little to justify a full retention of the 8 legume species and 4 CGIAR centres in a CRP. TL I and II and PABRA have shown to be reasonably good cross-centre and single centre integrated programmes, but even they suffer from incomplete value chain approaches to increasing rural incomes while increasing food and nutritional security; they both need multi-faceted solutions which are not immediately forthcoming from Grain Legumes. It is important to embed Grain Legumes research within the agri-food systems these crops serve. Figure ES1 broadly shows the perceived current and potential degrees of synergy between centres, PLs and species, and is discussed more in the text. It is clear that the value chains for individual species from trait determination to nutritional impact have more cohesion than do the individual activities (e.g. trait deployment) across species. For this reason we believe that the future for research in Grain Legumes is best addressed by focusing on each of the species separately, and within an ecosystem framework; any synergy for research across species can be effected through communication and not necessarily through obligatory cooperative research. The ecosystem framework will allow for strengthening of agronomy type systems research, the arguments for benefits of inclusion of grain legumes in cropping systems, which is notable by its absence in much of what Grain Legumes currently undertakes. Figure ES1. Current and potential degrees of synergy between centres, PLs and crop species We therefore agree with the innovation in agri-food systems approach of the CG, and believe that Grain Legumes rightly belongs in the Dryland Cereals and Legumes Agri-food Systems. We believe that the option of combining the crops of dryland cereals and legumes in the cereal-legume-livestock systems of subsistence farming communities for whole-farm productivity is closest to the best way forward. Indeed the inclusion of grain legumes may not warrant even a CRP alone, rather the legume components should fit in with the major crops that determine the production systems. Legumes will always be subservient to the major cereals, as necessary adjuncts to the whole production system, providing both nutritional diversity and environmental services, neither achievable from cereals alone. Figure ES2. Most suitable option for integration of Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals into an Agri-Food Systems CRP Most suitable option for integration of Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals into an Agri-Food Systems CRP, which  Incorporates ex-Dryland Systems, Dryland Cereals, Grain Legumes, some HumidTropics, some ex-Livestock &Fisheries into a new CRP  Will cover full agri-food system VC for all 8 legumes in all ecologies, but must interact (dock) with the relevant AFS-CRPs for the dominant cereal in the relevant ecology  Hence, will need to negotiate with other Agrifood Systems-CRPs on who does what for legumes  In addition, responsible for sorghum and millet in the mixed dryland crop-livestock agro-ecologies For major game changers to be effected, we believe that the game has to change, and there is little evidence of this. The direction of CRPs is the correct route, but the journey has not yet come to its destination. A major change of game [such as the adoption of a Flagship Project approach as exemplified by the Australian CSIRO – where flagships contract services from centres of research excellence] would be painful to implant. The CGIAR system is going down the right pathway but it has not gone far enough.

Analyses of cataract surgery performed by the Unified Health System in Brazil, 2006-2007

Objective. Estimate cataract surgical rates (CSR) for Brazil and each federal unit in 2006 and 2007 based on the number of surgeries performed by the Unified Health System to help plan a comprehensive ophthalmology network in order to eliminate cataract blindness in compliance with the target set by the World Health Organization (WHO) of 3 000 cataract surgeries per million inhabitants per year. Methods. This descriptive study calculates CSR by using the number of cataract surgeries carried out by the Brazilian Unified Health System for each federal unit and estimates the need for cataract surgery in Brazil for 2006-2007, with official population data provided by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. The number of cataract surgeries was compared with the WHO target. Results. To reach the WHO goal for eliminating age-related cataract blindness in Brazil, 560 312 cataract surgeries in 2006 and 568 006 surgeries in 2007 needed to be done. In 2006, 179 121 cataract surgeries were done by the Unified Health System, corresponding to a CSR of 959 per million population; in 2007, 223 317 were performed, with a CSR of 1 179. With the Brazilian Council of Ophthalmology estimation of 165 000 surgeries each year by the non-public services, the CSR for Brazil would be 1 842 for 2006 and 2 051 for 2007. The proportions needed to achieve the proposed target were 38.6% in 2006 and 31.6% in 2007. Conclusions. Human resources, technical expertise, and equipment are crucial to reach the WHO goal. Brazil has enough ophthalmologists but needs improved planning and infrastructure in order to eliminate the problem, aspects that require greater financial investment and stronger political commitment.

Optimizing the nipple-areola sparing mastectomy with double concentric periareolar incision and biodimensional expander-implant reconstruction: Aesthetic and technical refinements

Although the biodimensional anatomical expander-implant system (BEIS) is a reliable technique, little information has been available regarding outcome following nipple-areola sparing mastectomy (NSM). To perform the resection of glandular tissue, while improving the surgical access and maintaining the nipple-areola vascularization we have developed a new approach for NSM based on the double concentric periareolar incision (DCPI). The purpose of this study is to analyze the feasibility, surgical planning and its outcome following NSM. 18 patients underwent NSM reconstructions. Mean time of follow-up was 29 months. The technique was indicated in patients with small/moderate volume breasts. Flap complications were evaluated and information on aesthetic results and patient satisfaction were collected. 83.3% had tumors measuring 2 cm or less (T1) and 72.1% were stage 0 and 1. All patients presented peripherally tumors located (at least 5 cm from the nipple). Skin complications occurred in 11.1%. One patient (5.5%) presented small skin necrosis and a wound dehiscence was observed in one patient (5.5%). The aesthetic result was good/very good in 94.4 percent and the majority of patients were very satisfied/satisfied. No local recurrences were observed. All complications except one were treated by a conservative approach. DCPI-BEIS is a simple and reliable technique for NSM reconstruction. The success depends on patient selection, coordinated planning with the oncologic surgeon and careful intra-operative and post-operative management. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.