impact of food security interventions

1. Improving Food & Nutrition Security
Systematic Review on Impact of Food Security Interventions
Ruerd Ruben
Chair Impact Analysis & Food Security

2. Outline
1. Context of the study
2. Systematic review approach
3. Key findings on food security pathways
4. Effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability
5. Lessons & Outlook
2PEGNET Dakar

3. Context
 2000-2015: Rapid reduction in poverty, but sluggish reduction
of number of malnourished people
 Renewed attention for agriculture and food security (WDR
2008, G8, Malabo declaration, CAADP)
 OECD-DAC EvalNet/3ie: systematic review procedures
(Cochrane handbook, Campbell protocol, EPPI)
 Donor community: Growing demand for operational guidelines
on Food Security (‘what works, where and when?’)
 Other SRs: Microfinance (Duyvendack, 2011), Cash Transfers
(Kabeer, 2013), Input subsidies (Dorward, 2014), Child
Nutrition (Masset, 2011), Innovation grants (Ton, 2013)
3

4. Systematic review approach
1. Clear delimitation of subject (food/nutrition)
2. Define inclusion criteria (robust evidence)
3. Transparent search strategy (inclusion/exclusion)
4. Selected cases: coding & analysing
 Reduction of bias & better comparison between studies
Hybrid methodology: combining case studies with meta analyses
 Analyzing interventions in their context
4

5. Resilience
Buffer:
Assets, $
Local
food
prod.
Local
market
Local
food
stocks
Food aid
/ safety
net
National
food
availability:
National
food
prod.
Import /
export
National
food
stocks
Internat.
food aid
IndividualHouseholdNational-Local
farm
income
HH food purchasing power
non-farm
income
Household food access stability
Individual food utilisation (nutritional status)
Individual food access Food
quality
Health,
WASH.
food
production
Resilience
Buffer:
Food
Individual food access stability
Household food access
Food
price
Food security: impact pathways

6. Impact indicators: food utilisation, access and stability
nr Aspect Ideal indicators* Accepted for review Rejected for review (examples)
1 Hunger
index
Combination of
indicators 2+3+4
2 Food
utilisation
 % population
malnourished (2)
3  % children <5y
malnourished (2)
4  % child mortality
under 5y.
5 Food
access
 % population
meeting energy
requirements (1)
 Avg energy intake (5).
 % eating 3 meals/day
(1)
 % FS extrapolated income
 % FS extrap. nat. prod.
6 Food
access
stability
 % households
being food secure
all year
 Months per year FS
(self declared) (6)

7. nr Aspect* Ideal indicators Accepted for review Rejected for review (examples)
7 Household
income,
purchasing
power (20)
 % living above / below
poverty threshold (6)
 Average annual total
income ($/p/y; $/hh/y)
(9)
 Average annual farm
income (8)
 Income from one
commodity, neglecting
other income
 Crop value, neglecting
production costs
8 Household
food
production
(9)
 % hh producing sufficient
food (threshold) (1)
 Staple food prod.
(kg/p/y) (5)
 Production value
($/hh/y) (6)
 Production of main
staple (kg/p/y) (3)
 Production of one crop, not
the staple crop
9 Food price
(4)
 Trends in food price (%
increase/decrease /yr) (3)
 Food price relative to
wages (kg/day) (1)
 Food price ($/kg)
10 Household
buffer (4)
 Buffer food stock, above a
minimum stock (kg/p)
 Buffer capital or assets,
above a min. capital ($/p)
 Food buffer (kg/p)
 Capital ($/p) (4)
 Assets that do not serve to
bridge a period of food
shortage (housing, farm
equipment, land) 7
Proxy impact: hh production, hh income, food price, buffer

8. Evaluation quality: Indicators
Good examples:
 Child malnutrition
 Population meeting energy requirements
 Poverty rate
 Minimum wage / food price
8
Poor examples:
 Average calorie intake
 Income from one crop
 HH food security extrapolated
from national production
Objective: Quantify impact on FS (aggregate and compare)
Requirement: Small set of agreed-on indicators :
• Robust link to FS impact
• Head count indicators
• Thresholds

9. Selection criteria
 Evaluation subject: Focus on 4 impact pathways
● Production (staple crops, livestock)
● Value chains
● Market (institutional) reforms
● Land tenure security
 Evaluation quality (proof for attribution):
● Indicators up to (proxy) impact level
● Counterfactual: with-without comparison
99

10. 10
Systematic
review
screening

11. Key findings on evaluation quality: Counterfactual
what would have happened without intervention?
11
300 pre-selected studies  only 38 qualified for systematic review.
• Unsuitable indicators
• Absence or unconvincing counterfactual
(wrong assumption: nothing would happen without intervention)
Robust

12. A. Increasing agricultural production
 Convincing results:
● Crop genetic improvement (esp. Asia; seeds upgrading Africa)
● Reducing production losses (also in Africa)
 Production increase in Asia:
● Increased yield and reduced production costs
● Lower food prices (relative to wages: indirect impact large scale)
 Stagnating intensification in Africa:
● More diversity in agro-ecological zones
● Less and later efforts in research;
● Less and underuse irrigation potential
● Limiting conditions: markets, extension, credit; input costs
12

13. B. Value chains (private sector linkages)
 Quite effective for increasing prices and (farmer) net income
 Domestic and regional markets: potential for many farmers
 International markets: limited effects of certification
 Organizational requirements (project; producer organisation)
 Poorest or most vulnerable only benefit as wage labourers
 Reduction of post-harvest losses (storage, warehouse receipts, etc)
 Large effects of infrastructure investments (feeder roads)
13

14. C. Reforming markets (governance)
 Poor results where simple reduction of trade barriers was combined
with abandoned state support to agriculture (structural adjustment):
● Good for competitive export crops
● Not good for domestic food production
 Better results with gradual & negotiated reforms:
● Cotton sector Burkina Faso: creating new institutions
● Rice trade in Vietnam; private domestic, state external trade
● Contract farming (F&V, tea, cocoa)
 Positive effects of reduced price volatility:
● Private tube well imports Bangladesh: recovery from flood
● Rainfall index insurance (Benin, Rwanda, Mozambique)
14

15. D. Land tenure security
 Land use rights, as part of economic reform (China and Vietnam) :
spectacular results
 Formalising land use rights or land ownership: encouraging farmer
investments (Rwanda, Guatemala, Peru, Mozambique)
 BUT: sometimes limited effect on access to credit (supply)
+ demand-side constraints (risk aversiveness)
 Poorest farmers need additional support
15

16. Costs and benefits per household
Potential coverage:
 Available ODA for agriculture (2010): $8.4 billion
 Malnourished people (2010): 0.9 billion  $45 /hh
16
Cost ($/hh) Benefit ($/hh/y) B/C
Disease resistant cassava (Mozambique) $9 $25 +++
Organic certified coffee (Uganda) $90 $95 ++
Irrigation (India) $1,840 $225 +
Dairy sector (Zambia) $3,660 $340 -
Rust resistance in wheat $2/y $13 +++
Seed and fertiliser pack (Zimbabwe) $37 /y $20 -

17. Summary / Overview
1717

18. Lessons & Outlook
18
• Harmonisation of impact indicators
– Head-count & proxy indicators
– Judgement criteria (quality)
– Efficiency: simplify costs + benefits
• Counterfactual analysis
– Localised interventions: control group
– National trends: meta analysis
• Sustainability & Upcaling
– Farmers’ involvements (demand-led)
– Uscaling depends on institutions
● Coordination between donors

19. Acknowledgements
Authors:
Ruerd Ruben
Ferko Bodnar (IOB)
Jisse Kranen (IOB)
Bart de Steenhuijsen Piters (KIT)
Advisory group:
Eric Smaling (KIT)
Henri Jorritsma (IOB)
Bart de Steenhuijsen Piters (KIT)
External reviewers:
Prem Bindraban (WUR)
Andrew Dorward (Imperial College)
19

20. Thanks for your attention
20
Ruerd.ruben@wur.nl
RRuerd