Partnership for Impact Event_Brussels Ruel


Published on

"Partnering for Impact: IFPRI-European Research Collaboration for Improved Food and Nutrition Security" presentation by Marie Ruel, IFPRI, 25 November 2013 in Brussels, Belgium.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • CRP4’s strategic goal: Accelerate progress in improving the nutrition and health of poor people by leveraging agriculture and enhancing the synergies in joint efforts between agriculture, health and nutritionFOOD: focus on staples; perishables (and nutritious foods); diets in systemsIMPACTS AT SCALE: program implementation; gender; policy/investmentHEALTH RISKS: food safety; intensification; poverty/healthSee notes for slide 2
  • This impact pathway logic then drives the A4NH partnership strategy with partners for each of the 3 pathways. The role of A4NH in capacity development also follows – to support capacities of key actors (individuals and institutions) in these impact pathways. We also include the essential role of research partners.
  • What are we learning about how agricultural interventions can improve nutrition and health? We have been building on work that we and others have been doing for several years to better understand the impact pathways of how agriculture (and agricultural programs in particular) can improve nutrition – both directly and indirectly. Our analyses have identified 7 key paths that can be influenced to improve nutrition outcomes. Women’s status (social, health, nutrition) and empowerment are critical issues and 3 of the 7 paths focus on the key role of women for improving nutrition. We are now investing in a much better elaboration of theories of change for different paths with our partners. We see more knowledge on the details of impact pathways and theories of change as an essential contribution we can make to support our development partners in their implementation and enabling efforts. Currently they have only relatively general frameworks and guidelines to use.
  • Some highlights of results and impacts in this new area of CGIAR emphasis. One of the best kept secrets in the CGIAR is the influence we have had on the new global agenda for nutrition-sensitive development. The Copenhagen Consensus expert panel in 2012 stated that fighting malnourishment should be the top priority for policy makers and philanthropists. The challenge paper, shown in the top left, that led to this strong statement came from CGIAR scientists. This and other CGIAR research has been very influential in making the economic case for nutrition interventions, both nutrition specific and nutrition sensitive. The Lancet series on maternal and child nutrition sets the evidence base for nutrition actions. It first appeared in 2008 and was influential in the establishment of the Scaling Up nutrition or SUN movement. For the second series in 2013, CGIAR scientists led two of the four papers, one on nutrition-sensitive interventions and one on creating an enabling environment for accelerating progress in tackling maternal and child malnutrition. Our gender research has also been critical in setting the agenda – the latest publication providing an evidence review of women’s empowerment and nutrition.Influencing an agenda is one thing – supporting large scale impact is another. We have good experience working with some development implementers – most notably with the international NGO Helen Keller on integrated programs for agriculture and nutrition and with the World Food Program including work just finished on nutrition outcomes and program costs in comparing food aid versus cash transfers. We want to extend our relationships and reach with a wider range of implementing partners – governmental and non-governmental. Likewise, our knowledge and evidence is available to a variety of enablers. We have probably had the greatest influence on donors. We need to expand our engagement with inter-governmental and governmental processes such as the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) and the Scaling up Nutrition Movement. One strategy is to work more closely with development banks, who have much greater influence with governments than researchers. This year we started a partnership with IFAD on improving nutrition. The other and more complicated influence and engagement story is with the private sector, which we are exploring through several initiatives
  • BiofortificationThe much better known CGIAR nutrition impact story is biofortification. There are a number of activities across several Centers, many but not all coordinated through the HarvestPlus program. Biofortification research has followed a very systematic, impact-oriented approach, setting the agenda and targets in a discovery phase and developing a portfolio of top-yielding biofortified varieties with evidence of nutritional efficacy in a development phase. This has set the stage for the next 5 year delivery phase, focusing on 8 African and Asian countries and seeking to move from 500,000 beneficiaries today to 25 million in 2018. One biofortified crop, orange flesh sweet potato, was developed 4 years earlier than others and has provided many key lessons on the opportunities and challenges of effective delivery at scale. There are lots of other lessons from the biofortification experience in terms of managing cross-Center partnerships and doing good ex-ante feasibility and cost effectiveness studies. We are extending the ex-ante feasibility and cost-effectiveness methods to assess impact at scale for integrated agriculture nutrition programs and for food safety research areas. Notes on nutrition studies completed:Bioavailability studies for vitamin-A maize (Nigeria) published in 2009 and 2010; efficacy study underway in 2013.Bioavailability study for high-iron beans (Rwanda) published in 2012; efficacy study completed in 2013.  Preliminary analysis shows promising results!Efficacy evidence for OFSP (Uganda) published in 2012.Efficacy studies for vitamin-A maize (Zambia) completed in 2013. Wheat bioavailability study published in 2009; efficacy studies started in 2013 (India). Efficacy study for high-iron pearl millet (India) completed in 2013; results expected by end of 2013.Bioavailability study for high-zinc rice (Bangladesh) completed in 2013; efficacy study planned for 2014.
  • Food SafetyWe see great demand for scaling out food safety. Clearly the private sector will do most of the scaling out. We see the role of the CGIAR as understanding where market-based solutions can work for the poor and what other options might be needed.In accelerating our food safety research, we are planning in 3 focal areas: 1. microbial hazards in animal source foods 2. chemical and microbial hazards in fruit and vegetable value chains irrigated with reused water and 3. managing the risks of mycotoxins between the Maize, Grain Legumes and A4NH programs. In aspiring to accelerate this work, we have good building blocks. One is the experience in assessing and managing risks and establishing incentives and capacities in the smallholder dairy sector. A second is a range of aflatoxin control and diagnostic options that are currently being tested and scaled out, most notably biocontrol. These will need to be combined with appropriate policies, regulations and actions to better manage health and market risks. We have summarized the current state of knowledge in a set of policy briefs being launched later today. ASF/perishables: Wet market, poultryFruits/Veg: Man selling fruits + veg in IndiaAflatoxin: maize
  • Integrated Programs and PoliciesWhile the core responsibility of the CGIAR for nutrition is in improving diet quality, we want to actively engage with partners in other sectors to eliminate stunting. Food, water and sanitation, public health, social protection and gender empowerment are all needed to eliminate stunting. Cross-sectoral alignment is a challenge. We have some evidence for subsets of joint actions but need to more aggressively co-locate interventions from different sectors. In Africa, one place to start is aligning our research is within the 2 important political and investments processes – CAADP and SUN. We see research evaluation and evidence as a critical connector in cross-sectoral processes. To be credible, especially in the health sector, specific interventions at scale need high-quality randomized trials to assess them. For broader processes, randomized trials are not an appropriate tool. For these, we are investing in the better specification of impact pathways and theories of change as a core approach to guide planning, implementation and evaluation with our partners in different sectors.
  • Looking ahead – Greater Focus on Food SystemsCurrently CGIAR research largely focuses on the farm. In considering improving nutrition and health, we need to start at consumption and work backwards. Huge agriculture development investments are being made to transform value chains and increase incomes – for example from the situation on the left to that on the right. In these transformations, there will be important effects on gender power relations, women’s time and household food allocation, and other important determinants of nutrition and health. The tradeoffs between benefits and harm are largely ignored at present. As economic development progresses, market-based food systems are increasingly involving poor people as consumers, producers and market agents. Consumption of processed foods by the poor will increase and provide opportunities for food fortification and for improving the nutrition of young children through better complementary foods. How engaged should the CGIAR get in food systems? Where do we start? There is much work to be done in understanding and clarifying roles between the public and private sector – especially around value addition and value capture. Our starting place in engaging the private sector has been largely with intermediaries between agriculture and food including GAIN a public private partnership for improving nutrition. It has an interesting marketplace approach to engaging small and medium-sized enterprises in low and middle income countries,EMBRAPA, which leads biofortification efforts in Latin America and is making food products using biofortified crops with private partners. Business schools who can help with business analysis and other opportunities such as social entrepreneurship.Business to business firms that link the agriculture and food industries. Our initial efforts with a view to scaling up nutrition-sensitive food chains will be in improving value chains for nutrient dense foods, especially for young children as well as exploring cereal-pulse foods for poor consumers looking at different food technologies as well as value chain and business models.
  • Partnership for Impact Event_Brussels Ruel

    1. 1. Partnership for Impact IFPRI-European Research Collaboration for Improved Food and Nutrition Security November 25, 2013 - Brussels Marie Ruel Director Poverty, Health and Nutrition Division
    2. 2. A4NH Conceptual Framework Health Health Value Chains for Nutrition Biofortification Integrated Integrated Programs & Policies Programs & Policies Nutrition Nutrition Agriculture Agriculture AgricultureAssociated Diseases Social Behavior Change and Communications All components Improved diet quality and diversity Empowered women and communities Better xsectoral programs and policies Reduced exposure to AAD RESULT: Improved nutrition and health, especially among women and young children
    3. 3. Figure 1: Partnership types Building Partnerships Global Regional National ENABLERS DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTERS VALUE CHAIN ACTORS & RESEARCH PARTNERS REPRESENTATIVES Farmers associations, agricultural boards, consumer associations, private sector companies MOA, MOFA, and donors (global and country missions) MOA, Rural Development, Social Development and MOH TISS, IIDS, National Universities, PHFI, BRAC WAHO, RECs, FARA, AU-NEPAD, AfDB, ADB Regional development implementers SACIDS, FARA, RUFORUM SCN, SUN, REACH, WHO, WFP, FAO, OIE, World Bank, IFAD Global Horticulture Initiative, CRS, HKI, WV, BRAC, Concern Worldwide, Save the Children Advanced research institutes & Universities (LSHTM, Gent, SLU, Wageningen, LCIRAH, LSHTM) IARCs, EMBRAPA
    4. 4. Understanding Agriculture-Nutrition Pathways Adapted from: Gillespie, Harris, & Kadiyala, 2012
    5. 5. Influencing Nutrition, Globally Supporting impact at scale Implementers Enablers Public/private partnerships
    6. 6. Delivering Biofortified Crops at Scale 2011 2007 Sweet Potato Provitamin A Uganda Mozambique 2012 2012 2003 Discovery 2008 Development Cassava Provitamin A DR Congo, Nigeria 2012 Pearl Millet Iron (Zinc) India Beans Iron (Zinc) DR Congo, Rwanda 2013 Rice Zinc Bangladesh, India Maize Provitamin A Zambia Wheat Zinc India, Pakistan 2013 2013 Delivery 2018 *GOAL: delivery-atscale to 25 million people from 8 target countries
    7. 7. Improving Nutrition & Food Safety trough Value Chains Fruit/Vegetable contamination Microbioal hazards- animal source foods Photo credits, clockwise from top left: FAO/J.Domenech, CIAT/N.Palmer, and IITA Mycotoxins
    8. 8. Achieving Impact Through Integrated Programs Agriculture and Food Direct Nutrition Interventions Water and Sanitation Social Protection Gender Empowerment Photo credits, clockwise: Flickr/newbeatphoto (top row), CIAT/N.Palmer, DFID/Russell Watkins, CIAT/N.Palmer
    9. 9. Moving Forward: Focusing on Food Systems Photo credit: Jemimah Njuki