This document summarizes the results of an analysis of the impacts of high food, fuel, and fertilizer prices resulting from the Russia-Ukraine war on poverty and food security in 19 countries. Key findings include: - 27 million more people fell into poverty, 22 million more became undernourished, and diets deteriorated for 50 million people across the 19 countries. - Cash transfers were the most cost-effective way to reduce poverty, while fertilizer subsidies best reduced hunger by offsetting declining food availability. - A balanced portfolio of short- and long-term policy responses is needed to address each country's unique impacts, including both immediate relief and lasting agricultural investments.

1. Results: Aug 22, 2022
Russia-Ukraine War and the Global Crisis
Policy Responses to Address Poverty and Food Security Impacts
Acknowledgments: This work is funded by
the BMGF, FCDO and USAID, and by the
donor group that funds the CGIAR’s
Foresight and Metrics and National
Policies and Strategies research initiatives
(see final slide for details and disclaimers).
Xinshen Diao, Paul Dorosh, James Thurlow, and others
International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC
IFPRI Policy Seminar | August 31, 2022
Xinshen Diao (x.diao@cgiar.org) | Paul Dorosh (p.dorosh@cgiar.org) | James Thurlow (j.thurlow@cgiar.org)
Foresight and Metrics to
Accelerate Food, Land
and Water Systems
Transformation
National Policies and
Strategies for Food, Land
and Water Systems
Transformation

2. Results: Aug 22, 2022
19%
-7%
113%
68%
44%
102%
106%
27%
5%
125%
50%
Maize Rice Wheat Palm oil Crude oil Natural gas Fertilizers
Change in nominal world prices
(June 2021 to April/July 2022)
Jun 2021 - Jan 2022
Jan 2022 - Apr 2022
Jun 2021 - Apr 2022
Jun 2021 - Jul 2022
Impact Analysis | Modeling World Price Shocks
World price shocks Analytical approach
Country studies use RIAPA economywide model
• Captures entire agri-food system and broader economy
• Tracks impacts from products/sectors to households
• Peak changes in world prices for food, fuels and fertilizers
(i.e., June 2021 to April 2022 | note that food and fertilizer prices fell to pre-war levels
by July 2022, but remain higher than in mid-2021)
• Effect of higher fertilizer prices on fertilizer use in the
current cropping season
19 country studies completed

3. Results: Aug 22, 2022
3.2%
1.3%
1.2%
1.8%
2.1%
0.3%
2.0%
1.2%
2.5%
2.0%
0.4%
1.9%
1.5%
1.4%
4.4%
0.7%
1.9%
1.1%
0.9%
Bangladesh
Cambodia
DRC
Egypt
Ethiopia
Ghana
Kenya
Mali
Malawi
Myanmar
Niger
Nigeria
Nepal
Philippines
Rwanda
Senegal
Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia
Food prices Fertilizer prices Fuel prices
3.3%
2.4%
1.3%
1.8%
3.2%
0.6%
2.6%
3.3%
2.4%
7.6%
0.9%
0.9%
4.5%
2.3%
3.8%
2.6%
2.1%
0.9%
0.9%
Bangladesh
Cambodia
DRC
Egypt
Ethiopia
Ghana
Kenya
Mali
Malawi
Myanmar
Niger
Nigeria
Nepal
Philippines
Rwanda
Senegal
Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia
Food prices Fertilizer prices Fuel prices Increase in poor
population (1000s)
1,783
1,272
2,441
485
419
1,241
388
159
209
390
1,118
1,832
4,260
153
1,411
702
442
5,078
4,100
Impact Analysis | Poverty & Food Security Impacts
Poverty headcount rate (%-point) Prevalence of undernourishment (%-point) Population with worse diet deprivation (%-point)
Increase in
undernourished
population (1000s)
3,910
420
1,475
555
105
1,137
491
162
97
212
1,082
1,901
2,336
74
1,093
261
462
4,922
1,053
7.5%
3.3%
1.3%
13.0%
1.7%
0.9%
3.0%
0.2%
0.4%
11.8%
0.7%
4.5%
6.1%
0.6%
3.8%
5.5%
1.6%
0.2%
0.3%
Bangladesh
Cambodia
DRC
Egypt
Ethiopia
Ghana
Kenya
Mali
Malawi
Myanmar
Niger
Nigeria
Nepal
Philippines
Rwanda
Senegal
Tanzania
Uganda
Zambia
Food prices Fertilizer prices Fuel prices
Population with
deteriorating diets
(1000s)
8,350
1,730
589
476
881
912
72
45
178
533
1,159
13,510
1,915
273
1,641
49
72
11,700
6,348

4. Results: Aug 22, 2022
Impact Analysis | Headline Findings
• Agri-food systems are adversely affected, but there is wide
variation across countries
• Large impacts on household consumption or welfare,
especially amongst rural households
• Poverty and food insecurity deteriorates, mainly due to rising
fertilizer prices (poverty and hunger) and rising food prices
(diet quality)
Combined impacts across the 19 countries
Poor population increases
by 27 million people
Undernourished
population increases
by 22 million people
Diet quality deteriorates
for 50 million lower- and
middle-income people
7,358
9,798
10,034
Food prices
Fertilizer prices
Fuel prices
10,666
7,866
3,218
38,265
9,127
3,042
IFPRI website
AgriLinks
website
Detailed country-level results

5. Results: Aug 22, 2022
Policy Analysis | Modeled Interventions
Food tax relief
• Reduce import tariffs and other taxes on wheat, wheat flour, oilseeds, and
edible oils. Subsidize consumption of some of the affected food products.
Fertilizer subsidies
• Reduce tariffs on imported fertilizers and increase subsidies to offset rising
fertilizer costs and limit any decline in fertilizer use and crop productivity.
Fertilizer use efficiency (e.g., via farmer advisory services)
• Reduce fertilizer wastage so that farmers can minimize any decline in
production caused by rising fertilizer costs and lower fertilizer use.
Fertilizer supply chains (e.g., via loans & credit provision)
• Support to producers to increase production & to midstream traders to
lower transaction costs, thereby increasing supply and lowering prices.
Cash transfers
• Provide direct cash transfers to poor rural and urban households.
Five broad interventions Scenario design
Modeling approach
• Interventions are overlaid on top of the
world price shocks for each country
Focus on cost-effectiveness of
interventions
• Allocate 1% of government revenues to
each of the five interventions
• Measure the reduction in poverty, hunger
and diet quality impacts
Sequencing and implementation
• Impact analysis focused on near-term
outcomes (i.e., 2022)
• Policy analysis considers a slightly longer
timeframe (e.g., 2022-2024)

6. Results: Aug 22, 2022
Policy Analysis | Avoided Poverty & Food Security Impacts
Share of total impact avoided by allocating 1% of revenues to each intervention
Poverty
Cash transfers are most cost-effective
(by design, they target the poor)
Hunger
Fertilizer options are often most effective
(offset declining food availability)
Diet deprivation
Food & fertilizer options are most effective
(increase overall food supply, and reduce
prices for the most-affected products)

7. Results: Aug 22, 2022
Impact Analysis | Headline Findings & Caveats
• All policy options are effective (to some degree) in offsetting
poverty and food security impacts
• But no policy is the most cost-effective in addressing all outcomes
• Even for specific outcomes, the most effective policy varies by country
• Cash transfers, fertilizer use efficiency, and fertilizer supply chains
are usually more effective than food or fertilizer subsidies
• Cash transfers, like subsidies, generate large but temporary benefits
• Efforts to improve fertilizer efficiency take longer to implement, but may
have more lasting benefits
• Having a balanced portfolio of policy responses is critical
• i.e., combination of immediate and lasting investments designed to
address countries’ unique poverty and food security impacts
Caveats & Areas for Improvement
Country-specific interventions
• We considered broad interventions, but are now engaging
national governments and partners to tailor policy options
Costing interventions
• Governments in the model finance the interventions, but
we do not yet account for administrative/overhead costs
• Investments in fertilizer use efficiency and supply chains
are not fully costed (assumed to be mainly donor-financed)
Falling prices since June 2022
• Recent declines in some world prices are not modeled
• Food prices have returned to pre-crisis levels, and so we
may overstate the benefits of food tax relief
Compounding crises
• We do not (yet) model concurrent macroeconomic and
climate shocks facing many countries

8. Results: Aug 22, 2022
Acknowledgements
Funding: This research and seminar were made possible through support provided by the Office of Policy, Analysis and Engagement, Bureau for Resilience and Food Security, U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID), under the terms of the Strengthen Evidence-based Policy Making in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean (IFPRI/ReSAKSS) Award # AID-BFS-
I0-17-00001 and the Policy, Evidence, Analytics, Research and Learning (PEARL) Award# 720RFS22IO00003. Joint funding was also received from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
(BMGF), the United Kingdom’s Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), and the donor group funding the CGIAR’s Foresight and Metrics, and National Policies and Strategies
initiatives. The opinions expressed in this seminar are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of BMGF, CGIAR, FCDO or USAID.
Country researchers:
• Kibrom Abay (Egypt)
• Fadi Abdelradi (Egypt)
• Kwaw Andam (Nigeria)
• Seth Asante (Ghana)
• Gilberthe Benimana (Rwanda)
• Clemens Breisinger (Egypt, Kenya)
• Antony Chapoto (Zambia)
• Jan Duchoslav (Malawi)
• Mia Ellis (Cambodia, Nepal, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia)
• Mekamu Kedir Jemal (Ethiopia)
• Kristi Mahrt (Myanmar)
• Juneweenex Mbuthia (Kenya)
• Bart Minten (Myanmar)
• Serge Mugabo (Rwanda)
• Edwin Ombui Oseko (Kenya)
• Lensa Omune (Kenya)
• Karl Pauw (Cambodia, D.R. Congo, Egypt, Ghana, Malawi, Myanmar, Philippines, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia)
• Josee Randriamamonjy (D.R. Congo, Egypt, Mali, Myanmar, Niger, Senegal)
• Pranav Patil (Ghana)
• Angga Pradesha (Kenya, Nigeria, Philippines)
• Mariam Raouf (Egypt)
• Gracie Rosenbach (Rwanda)
• Jenny Smart (Nepal, Senegal)
• David Spielman (Rwanda)
• Mitelo Subakanya (Zambia)
• Hiroyuki Takeshima (Nepal)
• John Ulimwengu (D.R. Congo)