RESEARCH PROGRAM ON

Agriculture forNutrition and HealthSubmitted by IFPRI

PROPOSAL FOR PHASE II

2017–2022

PROPOSAL FOR PHASE II 2017-2022

Submitted by IFPRI

March 2016

Cover photo credits, from top to bottom, left to right: CIAT/N. Palmer; UNICEF/B. Kurzen; ILRI/S. Mann; CIAT/N. Palmer; IRRI/A. Javellana; World Fish; CIAT/N. Palmer

Abbreviations and Acronyms

3C Capacity, Collaboration, Convening A4NH Agriculture for Nutrition and Health ACIAR Australian Center for International Agricultural Research AFS-CRP Agri-Food Systems - CGIAR Research Program AIM Amsterdam Initiative for Malnutrition AMR Antimicrobial resistance ANGeL Agriculture, Nutrition, and Gender Linkages ANH Agriculture, nutrition and health ANLP Africa Nutrition Leadership Programme ARENA Advancing Research on Nutrition and Agriculture ASF Animal source foods AU African Union AUC African Union Commission AVRDC World Vegetable Center AWARD African Women in Agriculture Research and Development BIDS Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies Bioversity Bioversity International BMGF Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation BPI Biofortification Prioritization Index CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program CapDev Capacity development CCAFS Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security CCE Country Coordination and Engagement CCEE CRP-Commissioned External Evaluation CCNFSDU Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods of Special Dietary Use CCT Conditional cash transfer CDI Centre for Development Innovation at Wageningen UR CEA Cost-effectiveness analysis CEO Chief Executive Officer CFP Center Focal Points CIAT International Center for Tropical Agriculture CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center CIP International Potato Center CKM Communications and Knowledge Management Division CoA Cluster of Activity COMESA Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa CoP Community of practice CRP CGIAR Research Program CSA Climate Smart Agriculture CSSP Country Strategy Support Program CTA Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation

1

DANS Data Archiving and Network Services DC Dublin Core DCL Dryland Cereals and Legume Agrifood System DDG Deputy Director General DFID Department for International Development, UK DG Director General DHS Demographic and Health Survey DRC Democratic Republic of Congo EAC East African Community ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States EU European Union EVIDENT Evidence-informed Decisionmaking in Nutrition and Health FAIR Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Re-usable FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FBD Foodborne disease FERG Foodborne Disease Epidemiology Reference Group FP Flagship Program FTA Forests, Trees and Agroforestry GAAP2 Second phase of the Gender, Assets, and Agriculture Program GAIN Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition GAP Good Agricultural Practices GCARD Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development GEE Gender, Equity and Empowerment GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GMO Genetically modified organism GREAT Gender-responsive Researchers Equipped for Agricultural Transformation HANCI Hunger and Nutrition Commitment Index HFPP Homestead food production program HKI Helen Keller International IAC Independent Advisory Committee IARC International Agency for Cancer Research ICDDR,B International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh ICN2 2nd International Conference on Nutrition ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics ICRP Integrated CRP IDO Intermediate Development Outcome IDRC International Development Research Centre IDS Institute of Development Studies IEA CGIAR Independent Evaluation Arrangement IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture

2

ILRI International Livestock Research Institute IMMANA Innovative Methods and Metrics for Agriculture and Nutrition Actions INGO International Nongovernmental Organization IPES International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems IPG International Public Good IPM Integrated pest management ISC Independent Steering Committee ISPC Independent Science and Partnership Council ITM Institute of Tropical Medicine IVM Integrated vector management JCR Journal Citation Reports JEV Japanese Encephalitis virus KM Knowledge Management LAC Latin America and the Caribbean LANEA Leveraging Agriculture for Nutrition in East Africa LANSA Leveraging Agriculture for Nutrition in South Asia LCIRAH Leverhulme Centre for Integrative Research on Agriculture and Health LMIC Low- and middle-income countries LOD Linked Open Data LSHTM London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine LSMS Living Standards Measurement Survey M&E Monitoring and evaluation MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning MELIA Monitoring, Evaluation, Learning, and Impact Assessment MERS Middle East respiratory syndrome MLA Monitoring, Learning and Assessment (HarvestPlus) MoU Memorandum of Understanding NWO Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research N4G Nutrition for Growth NARS National Agricultural Research System NGO Non-Governmental Organization NSAP Nutrition-Sensitive Agricultural Programs OA Open Access OADMP Open Access and Data Management Policy OARPS Open Access and Research Publication Support team OIE World Organization for Animal Health OPAC Online Public Access Catalog PACA Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa PIM Policies, Institutions and Markets PMC Planning and Management Committee PMU Program Management Unit POSHAN Partnerships and Opportunities for Strengthening and Harmonizing Actions on

Nutrition in India

3

PPA Program Participant Agreement PPP Public-private platforms Pro-WEAI Project level Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index RBM Results-based management RDM Research Data Management REACH Renewed Efforts Against Child Hunger and undernutrition REC Regional Economic Community ReSAKSS Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support Systems RVF Rift Valley fever SARS Severe acute respiratory syndrome SCORE Supporting Countries through Research on Enabling Environments SDG Sustainable Development Goal SLO System Level Outcomes SMART specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, time bound SME Small and medium-sized enterprises SPEAR Supporting Policies, Programs, and Enabling Action through Research SRF Strategy and Results Framework SSRN Social Science Research Network SUN Scaling Up Nutrition SUSFANS European Sustainable Food And Nutrition Security T&C Training & Certification TDR Trusted Digital Repositories ToC Theory of Change ToR Terms of Reference TSC The Sustainability Consortium UN United Nations UNFCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNICEF United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund UNSCN United Nations System Standing Committee on Nutrition USAID United States Agency for International Development USDA United States Department of Agriculture VC Value Chains VCN Value Chains for Enhanced Nutrition W1 Window 1 W2 Window 2 W3 Window 3 Wageningen UR Wageningen University and Research Centre WASH Water, sanitation and hygiene WEAI Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index WELI Women's Empowerment in Livestock Index WINGS Women Improving Nutrition through Group-based Strategies WFP World Food Program WHO World Health Organization

4

WLE Water, Land, and Ecosystems WTO World Trade Organization ZARI Zambia Agriculture Research Institute ZELS Zoonosis and Emerging Livestock Systems

5

March 31, 2016 The International Food Policy Research Center (IFPRI) is pleased to submit the proposal for Phase II of the CGIAR Research Program (CRP) on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) on behalf of the six other managing partners: Bioversity International, the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA), the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), and Wageningen University and Research Center (Wageningen UR). This proposal covers research to be undertaken in the period of 2017-2022. A4NH conducts innovative research on the relationships between agriculture, nutrition, and health, and has already made significant contributions to CGIAR’s knowledge, technologies, and evidence for improving nutrition and health outcomes through agriculture. Building on strong existing partnerships and new partnership arrangements, A4NH will contribute to equitable outcomes for millions of poor smallholders and consumers. A4NH has an important integrating role, as CGIAR’s lens on nutrition and health through the second System Level Outcome (SLO2) on improved food and nutrition security for health. A4NH’s research activities are designed to directly contribute to all aspects of SLO2, and to contribute to the other SLOs on poverty and natural resource management, and all priority cross-cutting issues (climate change, gender and youth, policy and institutions, and capacity development). A4NH has experienced considerable success in Phase I, yet there remains even more potential for CGIAR to improve nutrition and health for all people. Additional work is needed to identify and develop nutrition-enhancing production technologies, institutional innovations that support sustainable access to and/or application of these technologies, and program and policy options to increase the contribution of agri-food systems to nutrition and health. There is also an urgent need for new research on how proven approaches to improving nutrition and health through agriculture can be scaled and sustained in specific countries and contexts. While we maintain a strong focus on undernutrition—one of the greatest development challenges—research activities in Phase II will also embrace emerging challenges, such as the epidemic of obesity and overweight in low and middle income countries, the large and growing burden of foodborne disease, and antimicrobial resistance associated with animal agriculture. The CRP-Commissioned External Evaluation recognized A4NH’s leadership and comparative advantage on nutrition and health issues in CGIAR, as well as the relevance of the research agenda, the quality of researchers, and progress made in delivering high-quality outputs and adding value to ongoing CGIAR work. Recommendations by the external evaluation panel provided very useful advice for CRP research and management, which we have incorporated in three main ways in this proposal.

• Distinguishing the core, collaborative research agenda of A4NH in the five flagship programs (FPs) and the role of A4NH in integrating and adding value to CGIAR research more broadly. For each FP, core research issues and questions are defined in each FP section, along with integration activities, which are also noted generally in Template 1 and in more detail in Template 2a of Annex 3.6.

6

• Strengthening management through close collaboration with managers in Centers and Partners on human resource management, research quality, ethics, resource mobilization, and country engagement. This is reflected in the concept of Managing Partners, who will have greater roles and responsibilities to co-manage A4NH with IFPRI in Phase II. The objective is to gain synergies by the management capacities of Centers/Partners and the A4NH PMU.

• Strengthening cross-cutting research – particularly for research on equity and for strengthening monitoring, evaluation, and learning across A4NH. This is reflected in a strengthening of A4NH cross-cutting units for Gender, Equity, and Empowerment (GEE), Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) and Country Collaboration and Engagement (CCE). These units support research in all A4NH FPs as well as A4NH integrative activities.

Other activities proposed for Phase II take into consideration lessons learned in Phase I, including recommendations from external evaluations, and input from the Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC). The A4NH portfolio will include five FPs in Phase II. FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets will contribute to the goal of healthier diets for poor and vulnerable populations through better understanding of food system-diet dynamics and through identifying and enabling innovations in value chains and polices. This FP focuses on catalyzing innovative partnerships between researchers, both within and outside of CGIAR, as well as private, public, and civil society actors in national and sub-national food systems in four target countries. FP2: Biofortification will contribute to reducing micronutrient malnutrition by reaching 100 million people in 20 million households with biofortified crops and by researching how delivery can be scaled and sustained, and how biofortification can be mainstreamed into public policy and crop breeding. FP3: Food Safety addresses the growing burden of foodborne disease through research on technological and institutional solutions and by identifying appropriate policy and regulatory options that align public health goals with country priorities to ensure that food is both safe and equitable for the poor. This FP will focus on mitigating aflatoxin contamination in key staples, and on managing risks in informal markets for nutrient-rich perishables like meat, milk, fish, and vegetables. FP4: Supporting Policies, Programs, and Enabling Action through Research (SPEAR) will contribute to better nutrition outcomes for nutritionally-vulnerable populations, especially mothers and young children, by understanding, evaluating, and strengthening nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs and policies, analyzing the political economy of leveraging agriculture for nutrition and health, and cultivating enabling environments for nutrition in South/Southeast Asia and Africa. FP5: Improving Human Health is an innovative collaboration between public health and agriculture researchers to mitigate risks and optimize benefits for human health from agricultural systems. It will focus on managing diseases in intensifying agricultural landscapes, on emerging and neglected zoonotic diseases, and on emerging global challenges, such as antimicrobial resistance. The five FPs will work with all three cross-cutting units: GEE; CCE; and MEL. In Phase II, we will prioritize greater country-orientation and support to country leadership, capacity, and performance for healthier food systems and more effective cross-sectoral policies and investments. These efforts will align with CGIAR coordination efforts (known as Site Integration). A4NH’s initial focus will be in five countries – Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria, and Vietnam – with the greatest total nutritional deficiency and health burdens. All five of these countries are designated priority countries for CGIAR Site Integration. A4NH activities in each country will be supported by the capacity and networks of at least one A4NH managing partner (or Lead Center), as well as specific financial and coordination support at CRP level. In other countries, FP teams and managing partners will provide country leadership and coordination.

7

The A4NH research portfolio for 2017-2022 builds on the results framework and impact logic of Phase I. While the logical framework remains, there will be major changes, based on lessons from Phase I in how we work. We have developed a strong core of managing partner institutions, from inside and outside CGIAR, to implement our research agenda and research-for-development partnerships more effectively. These include two non-CGIAR managing partners: LSHTM, bringing in links with public health; and Wageningen UR, leading new research on food systems. Both will join four CGIAR Centers: Bioversity, CIAT, IITA, and ILRI as managing partners of A4NH. IFPRI remains the Lead Center. All managing partners commit to specific research and country engagement leadership roles and to building and co-managing the human and financial resources of A4NH. Beyond the managing partners, there is an influential group of strategic partners that dedicate human and financial resources in important research areas, and actively engage in planning and implementing research with others in A4NH. Potential strategic partners come from CGIAR (Centers and CRPs) and from the broader research community (for example, the Institute of Development Studies, Public Health Foundation of India, and Hanoi School of Public Health), actors in value chains (such as, seed companies, the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition, and the Pulse Innovation Platform), development implementers (such as, BRAC, Helen Keller International, and World Vision), and enablers (such as, national governments, the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme, Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa, International Fund for Agricultural Development, World Health Organization , World Organization for Animal Health, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and World Bank). Collaborative partners include hundreds more entities with which A4NH works on specific research, capacity building, or stakeholder engagement activities. A4NH looks forward to strengthening links with other CRPs in Phase II. In our proposal, we describe our joint plans to engage others in CGIAR through existing mechanisms, such as HarvestPlus and the gender-nutrition community of practice, as well as new initiatives, such as learning platforms and convening events. A4NH presents a proposal with a six-year base-budget of $618 million, of which $134 million (22%) is sourced through Windows 1 (W1) and 2 (W2) of the CGIAR Fund, and the remainder through Window 3 (W3) and bilateral contracts. We also provide additional outcomes that could be accomplished depending on the availability of additional (uplift) funding (50% of base budget). Actual levels of funding and the indicative allocation among FPs may vary in the course of implementation in response to realized funds and priorities of partners. The indicative budget presented in this proposal shows 96% for research, and 4% for management and cross-cutting functions performed by the A4NH Program Management Unit (PMU). The on-line budget tool does not allow us to reflect the budgets for the 3 cross-cutting A4NH research units recommended by the A4NH external evaluation ($18M over 6 years) to ensure the overall A4NH impact exceeds the sum of the FP contributions. These will be supported by a mixture of W1/W2 (60%) and W3/bilateral funding (40%) in the base budget. Among the contributing CGIAR Centers, approximately 63% of research funds are budgeted to the Lead Center (46% of W1/W2 and 67%% of W3/bilateral), and 37% to Participating Centers and managing partners (54% of W1/W2 and 33% of W3/bilateral). Of the funds allocated to all Centers, approximately 34% of total costs flow through to external partners on a contractual basis for research, capacity development, and monitoring of outputs and outcomes. Cross-cutting theme budget shares of total budget are gender (11%), youth (2%), capacity development (10%), impact assessment (5%), and communications (4%). Furthermore, if additional funding can be secured, A4NH proposes new research areas and additional activities for speeding up and scaling A4NH research to contribute to impact.

8

The budgets take into account recommendations from the ISPC’s review of the A4NH pre-proposal. Relative allocations of W1/W2 are more evenly spread across FPs. The limited W1/W2 funds for FP2: Biofortification are focused purely on research on efficacy, evaluation and scaling out and on new varietal development; W3/bilateral funds support delivery activities with country partners. The overall A4NH resource mobilization strategy has been and will be to develop a strong and coherent portfolio of W3/bilateral research grants for all the FPs. This will be even more necessary given the availability and volatility of W1/W2 funding in Phase II. We have prepared a summary of W3/bilateral research grants (secured and unsecured) in A4NH for Phase II along with how the A4NH research agenda aligns with important bilateral donors’ agendas in agriculture, nutrition and health. The “Funding the A4NH Agenda” summary can be found in Other Annexes in the full proposal. The IFPRI Director General (DG) and IFPRI Board of Trustees are responsible for the overall governance and performance of A4NH. The Program Director manages a small PMU within IFPRI, chairs the Planning and Management Committee (PMC), and is accountable to the DG of the Lead Center and the Lead Center Board. The current Independent Advisory Committee (IAC) will be replaced by an Independent Steering Committee (ISC). As per CGIAR guidance, the ISC will be delegated a stronger governance role by the IFPRI Board of Trustees in Phase II. ISC will meet more frequently, both face-to-face and virtually, to decide on annual work plans and budgets, to commission external evaluations, and to review the annual performance of the Program Director. The PMC consists of the Program Director, FP leaders, a representative from both the GEE and MEL units, and a senior leader from each of the managing partners. A4NH will report to and be guided by relevant consortium entities, per guidelines to be established for Phase II implementation. IFPRI is the Lead Center for two CRPs – A4NH and Policies, Institutions and Markets (PIM). This allows for close coordination between A4NH and PIM, especially around value chains, social protection, foresight, and policy processes. More details are provided in the proposal, which also responds to questions from the ISPC on how A4NH aligns with IFPRI’s operational structure through its coordination, for example, with HarvestPlus and the Poverty, Health, and Nutrition Division, leaders of two A4NH FPs. IFPRI expresses thanks to all who have contributed to the extensive preparation. The A4NH PMU has led development of this proposal with significant input from the current and future FP leaders, the wider A4NH team of researchers, IFPRI DG’s office, A4NH’s IAC, the IFPRI Board of Trustees, CGIAR Science Leaders, invited external experts, and representatives of external partners too numerous to name (both individually and through regional and country consultations). Comments on the pre-proposal from ISPC are acknowledged with gratitude and have been addressed. The specific actions taken to the address comments from the ISPC, can be found in “Actions Taken to Address Reviewers’ Comments” in Other Annexes of the full proposal. We look forward to receiving comments on the full proposal. We express our appreciation in advance to all supporters and partners who will join with us in implementing this important and exciting program over the next six years. If you have any questions about the A4NH Phase II submission, please contact Shenggen Fan, DG of IFPRI, and John McDermott, Director of A4NH.

9

SECTION 1 CRP SECTION

10

SECTION 1: THE CRP RATIONALE AND SCOPE Overarching case for a CRP on agriculture, nutrition and health Agricultural development has enormous potential to make significant contributions to reducing malnutrition and ill health. With a growing global population, rising incomes, and increased constraints on the natural resources available for the production of food, realizing this potential in increasingly urgent. The need for agriculture to support better nutrition and health is reflected in the discussions leading up to the United Nations’ (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development1 and in the new CGIAR Strategy and Results Framework2 (SRF). Regionally, it is reflected in the initiative to support countries in integrating nutrition interventions into their Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) investment plans, from design through implementation. Since beginning in 2012, the CGIAR Research Program (CRP) on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) has provided an innovative perspective on the relationships between agriculture, nutrition, and health through research that strengthens the knowledge base and through new partnerships that lead to outcomes. Annual reports on the progress of A4NH research, partnerships, and other efforts to support development outcomes are available at www.a4nh.cgiar.org. Listed below are some examples of our achievements to date.

• New frameworks and tools for understanding the multiple pathways through which agricultural development influences nutrition outcomes: (Gillespie, Harris, and Kadiyala 2012; Kadiyala et al. 2014) and how gender mediates the pathways (Herforth and Harris 2014). The findings have implications for how to support nutrition-sensitive interventions in value chains (Gelli et al. 2015), and enabling policy environments (Gillespie et al. 2013). Researchers, donors, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and governments have widely adopted these frameworks and tools to inform and guide programs and investments. The agriculture-nutrition pathways have informed agriculture-nutrition strategies in the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). The World Food Programme (WFP) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) are piloting the nutrition-sensitive value chain framework.

• More evidence of the impacts of agriculture on nutrition- and health-related outcomes: Rigorous impact evaluations documented the effects of nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs, including orange flesh sweet potato, on maternal and child diets and nutrition and child health outcomes (Hotz, Loechl, Lubowa, et al. 2012; Hotz, Loechl, de Brauw, et al. 2012; Olney et al. 2015), women’s empowerment (Quisumbing et al. 2015; N. L. Johnson et al. 2016; van den Bold et al. 2015). Nutritional efficacy has been demonstrated for crops biofortified with vitamin A (maize (Gannon et al. 2014), cassava (Talsma et al. 2016)) and iron (bean (J. Haas et al., n.d.), pearl millet (Finkelstein et al. 2015), rice (J. D. Haas et al. 2005)), with zinc efficacy results expected in 2016.

• Support to evidence-based decisionmaking for agriculture-health programs and investments: A4NH has conducted evidence reviews and analysis for the UK Department for International Development (DFID) on priority zoonoses for the Zoonosis and Emerging Livestock Systems (ZELS) initiative, livestock and fisheries-linked antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and food safety in developing countries for DFID Livelihood Officers (Grace 2015b; Grace 2015a; Grace et al. 2012).

• Partnerships with the public and private sectors for making innovations available and used at scale: The two most promising cases to date relate to the development and application of

1 The new Agenda calls on countries to begin efforts to achieve 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) over the next 15 years. Two SDGs are focused on nutrition and health: #2 End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture and #3 Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages and others are related to parts of A4NH work (#1, #5, 6, #13, #15, and #17). 2 The new System Level Outcome (SLO) devoted to nutrition and health is: #2 improved food and nutrition security for health.

11

aflasafe,TM a biocontrol technology designed to control aflatoxin in maize production, in two countries in Africa, and the delivery of biofortified planting materials to 2 million farmers in nine countries in Africa and South Asia.

• Integrating gender and nutrition into agricultural research for development: A4NH convened a community of practice (CoP) on gender, agriculture, and nutrition to support gender researchers and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) specialists in other CRPs achieve their nutrition-related Intermediate Development Outcomes (IDOs). The CoP held two workshops which were attended by about 40 researchers from A4NH, 11 other CRPs and 10 partner organizations. A monthly Gender-Nutrition Idea Exchange (GNIE) blog hosted on the A4NH website featured contributions from researchers inside and outside A4NH on how to conduct high-quality agricultural research that considers gender and nutrition issues. The blog had over 12,500 unique page views in 2015.

Despite these many successes of A4NH, much of CGIAR’s potential to improve nutrition and health for all has yet to be realized. More work is needed to identify and develop nutrition-enhancing production technologies, institutional innovations that support sustainable access to and/or application of these technologies, and policy options that can increase the contribution of agri-food systems to nutrition and health. There is also an urgent need for additional research on how proven approaches to improving nutrition and health can be scaled and sustained in specific countries and contexts. Key challenges in achieving the agriculture, nutrition, and health development goals by 2030 A4NH has positioned the CGIAR as being an important contributor to reducing undernutrition, both micronutrient deficiency and child growth, through integrated agriculture-nutrition programs and policies and biofortification. Important progress is being made, however, as summarized in the Global Nutrition Report (International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) 2014; IFPRI 2015), achieving the nutrition and health-oriented targets in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030 will require sustained investment, informed by research. While a focus on undernutrition will continue, the SDGs, CGIAR SRF, and other development processes have identified additional challenges. Through expanded research on agriculture, nutrition, and health in Phase II, A4NH will support CGIAR to respond to additional challenges, including:

• Overweight and obesity. Even as undernutrition has declined in some parts of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the proportion of children and adults who are overweight or obese has increased (Ng et al. 2014). At the Second International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2), ministers of health and agriculture from 170 countries agreed that under- and overnutrition should be addressed together, by promoting diversified, balanced and healthy diets in sustainable, equitable, accessible and resilient food systems (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) 2014). CGIAR work on value chains and agri-food systems needs to be informed by and aligned to this approach.

• Food safety. In 2015, a global study by WHO Foodborne Disease Burden Epidemiology Reference

Group (FERG) confirmed that foodborne disease (FBD) is a significant health burden, comparable to malaria, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis and largely borne by developing counties (Havelaar et al. 2015). The FBD burden is likely to grow in the future as incomes rise, demand for high-risk, perishable foods like meat, milk, fish and vegetables grows, and climate change affects the growth and distribution of pathogens (Grace and McDermott 2015). Managing food safety in developing country contexts and in informal markets, within a healthy and sustainable food systems framework, will be essential to achieving both nutrition and health goals.

• Infectious diseases. There is increasing emphasis on mitigating important health risks from animals.

Many emerging diseases have reservoirs in animals (Ebola, Middle East respiratory syndrome

12

(MERS), avian influenza) and animal agriculture practices have given rise to emerging health challenges, such as AMR. Also agriculture will need to intensify, particularly in Africa, where growing demand for food cannot be met just by expanding land and water use. This could lead to health benefits from higher incomes and better diets but also to increased risk of vector-borne and zoonotic diseases. Understanding and optimizing overall benefits from agriculture and health will require close partnership between researchers in clinical medicine, agriculture, public health and social science.

• Inequality. It is increasingly recognized that inequality related to gender or other social categories is

a development objective in its own right (SDG5)3 and an important condition for achieving other development objectives (Meinzen-Dick et al. 2011), particularly related to nutrition (Smith and Haddad 2014) and health (Krishna 2004).

Box 1.1. Definitions for concepts in A4NH4 Nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs

Agriculture programs that have specific nutrition goals and integrate nutrition interventions (e.g. behavior change communications, distribution of micronutrient-fortified products, etc.) to achieve them (Ruel and Alderman 2013). They may or may not also integrate other types of interventions from other sectors such as water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) or health (e.g. immunization, promotion of use of health services, etc.).

Food system The full set of processes, activities, infrastructure, and environment that encompass the production, processing, distribution, waste disposal, and food consumption. Food systems are multidimensional, including sociocultural, economic, environmental, and political aspects, and complex, with multiple actors (food producers, food-chain actors, and consumers) managing multiple linked and nested agri-food value chains within dynamic and interactive food environments.

Gender Social category usually associated with being a man or a woman. It encompasses economic, social, political, and cultural attributes and opportunities as well as roles and responsibilities.

Equity Based on the idea of moral equality i.e. the principle that people should be treated as equals and that despite many differences, all people share a common humanity or human dignity. The three principles of equity are: equal life chances, equal concern for people’s needs and meritocracy.

Empowerment Expansion of people’s ability to make strategic life choices, particularly in contexts where this ability had been denied to them.

Implications for how A4NH will work in Phase II To meet the challenges CGIAR has prioritized in the new SRF (2016-2030), A4NH is committed to strengthening the contribution of CGIAR to nutrition and health outcomes in three ways: though joint research with other CRPs, particularly in a subset of priority countries identified by CGIAR; through networking and mutual learning with other CRPs and partners; and by bridging the space between CGIAR and the nutrition and health research, development, and policy communities. These Phase II activities are part of our responsibilities as an Integrating CRP (ICRP) to create and enhance the enabling conditions for delivery of CGIAR research outcomes in terms of nutrition and health. For its second phase, A4NH proposes five flagship research programs (FPs) and three cross-cutting units (see Figure 1.1).

3 SDG #5 is: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. 4 Sources for definitions: Nutrition-sensitive (Ruel and Alderman 2013) gender (Rubin, Manfre, and Barrett 2009) equity (Jones 2009) and empowerment (Kabeer 2001).

13

Figure 1.1. A4NH Program Structure

FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets will contribute to the goal of healthier diets for poor and vulnerable populations through better understanding of food system-diet dynamics and through identifying and enabling innovations in value chains and polices. This FP has a strong focus on building innovative partnerships between researchers inside and outside CGIAR, as well as private, public, and civil society actors in national and sub-national food systems in four target countries. FP2: Biofortification will contribute to reducing micronutrient malnutrition by reaching 20 million households with biofortified crops, and by doing research on how delivery can be scaled and sustained and on how biofortification can be mainstreamed into public policy and crop breeding. FP3: Food Safety addresses the growing FBD burden through research on technological and institutional solutions and appropriate policy and regulatory options that align public health goals with country priorities and capacities to ensure that food is both safe and equitable for the poor. The FP will focus on mitigating aflatoxin contamination in key staples, and on managing risks in informal markets for nutrient-rich perishables like meat, milk, fish, and vegetables. FP4: Supporting Policies, Programs, and Enabling Action through Research (SPEAR) will contribute to better nutrition outcomes for nutritionally-vulnerable populations , especially mothers and young children, through understanding, evaluating, and strengthening nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs and policies, analyzing the political economy of leveraging agriculture for nutrition and health, and on cultivating and sustaining enabling environments for nutrition in South/Southeast Asia and Africa. FP5: Improving Human Health is an innovative collaboration between public health and agriculture researchers to mitigate risks and optimize benefits for human health from agricultural systems. It will focus on managing diseases in intensifying agricultural landscapes, on emerging and neglected zoonotic diseases, and on emerging global challenges such as anti-microbial resistance.

14

Country priorities are driving the 2030 development agenda and national leadership, in concert with regional and global initiatives, will be the key to delivering on it. With scarce resources and a broad range of development objectives, policymakers will need to carefully consider how to maximize synergies and minimize trade-offs associated with alternative policy and investment options. Appropriate strategies will vary by country depending on the priorities and resources as well as political, social, economic, and agro-ecological contexts. A4NH’s role is to generate knowledge, develop technologies, and design innovative approaches that will support decisionmakers in making informed choices that help them achieve development goals and priorities. In order to improve our country engagement on nutrition and health issues and fulfill our ICRP role, we will designate three cross-cutting units: Country Coordination and Engagement (CCE), Gender, Equity and Empowerment (GEE), and Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL). The CCE unit will initially support in-country research teams comprised of partners from inside and outside CGIAR in five of the CGIAR Site Integration countries – Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria, and Vietnam. The GEE unit will conduct strategic research and support a CoP on gender and nutrition to strengthen capacity within A4NH FPs, other CRPs and key partners. The MEL unit will work with FPs and units on results-based management (RBM) and learning, driven on theories of change, and will work closely with the other ICRPs and the CGIAR MEL CoP. IFPRI will continue as Lead Center for A4NH in Phase II. Our managing partners will be four CGIAR Centers: Bioversity International, the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), and the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) – plus two non-CGIAR institutions: Wageningen University and Research Centre (Wageningen UR) and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM).

GOALS, OBJECTIVES, TARGETS Goals and Objectives The goal of A4NH is to strengthen the capacity of CGIAR to contribute globally to the second System Level Outcome (SLO2) on improved food and nutrition security for health and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Table 1.1). A4NH will contribute to all four IDOs under the SLO on improved food and nutrition security for health (Figure 1.2). Through four of its FPs, A4NH will contribute to specific IDOs under SLO1 on reduced poverty. Together with the CRPs on Water, Land, and Ecosystems (WLE) and Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS), we will contribute to specific IDOs under SLO3 on improved natural resource management and ecosystem services. The four CGIAR cross-cutting issues — gender and youth, policies and institutions, climate change and capacity development—will be integrated into all A4NH FPs. We will collaborate with the other ICRPs on cross-cutting issues - CCAFS on climate change, with special emphasis on healthy, sustainable food systems, WLE on sustainability of food systems, and Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM) on gender and youth and policies and institutions. The cross-cutting issues of gender and youth, as well as policies and institutions have been central to the A4NH Results Framework since Phase I and we have had a strong emphasis on capacity development for agriculture, nutrition and health research, program implementation and enabling.

15

Table 1.1. A4NH contributions, by FP, to the SDGs and the CGIAR SRF

SDGs SLOs IDOs Sub-IDOs Expected A4NH Flagship Contributions

by 2022 (x) and beyond (*) FP1 FP2 FP3 FP4 FP5

Reduced poverty

Enhanced smallholder market access

Reduced market barriers x

Increased incomes and employment

Diversified enterprise opportunities x Increased livelihood opportunities x

Increased productivity

Closed yield gaps through improved agronomic and animal husbandry practices

x

Improved food and nutrition security for health

Improved diets for poor and vulnerable people

Increased availability of diverse nutrient-rich foods x x x Increased access to diverse nutrient-rich foods x x x Optimized consumption of diverse nutrient-rich foods x x

Improved food safety

Reduced biological and chemical hazards in the food system

x *

Appropriate regulatory environment for food safety x * Improved human and animal health through better agricultural practices

Improved water quality * Reduced livestock and fish disease risks associated with intensification and climate change

* x

Increased safe use of inputs * x

Improved natural resource systems and ecosystem services

More sustainable managed agro-ecosystems

Increased resilience of agro-ecosystems and communities- especially those including smallholders

x

Enhanced adaptive capacity to climate risks * x

Climate Change

Mitigation/ adaptation achieved

Enabled environment for climate resilience x

Gender and youth

Equity and inclusion achieved

Gender-equitable control of productive assets and resources

x x

Improved capacity of women and young people to participate in decisionmaking

x x x x

Policies and institutions

Enabling environment improved

Increased capacity of beneficiaries to adopt research outputs

x x

Increased capacity of partner organizations… x x Conducive agricultural policy environment x x x Conducive environment for managing shocks and vulnerability…

x

Capacity development

National partners and beneficiaries enabled

Enhanced institutional capacity of partner research organizations

x x x x x

Enhanced individual capacity in partner research organizations…

x x x

Increased capacity for innovation in partner research organizations

x x

Increased capacity for innovation in partner development organizations…

x

16

FIGURE 1.2. A4NH PHASE II RESULTS FRAMEWORK

During Phase II, A4NH will make significant contributions to three of the SRF’s SLO targets for 2022, as described in Table A of the Performance Indicator Matrix:

• 20 million more farm households in at least 12 countries (in Africa: Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia, and in Asia: Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan) will have adopted improved varieties, breeds or trees and/or improved management practices (FP2: Biofortification and FP3: Food Safety);

• 150 million more people, of which 50% are women, in at least 14 countries (in Africa: Burkina Faso, DRC, Ethiopia, Malawi, Mali, Nepal, Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia, and in Asia: Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Pakistan) will be without deficiencies of one or more of the following essential micronutrients: iron, zinc, iodine, vitamin A, folate, and vitamin B12 (FP2: Biofortification and F4: SPEAR); and

• 10% fewer women of reproductive age will be consuming less than the adequate number of food groups in Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Vietnam and Nigeria (FP1: Food Systems).

To achieve these and future goals, A4NH FPs will achieve the following outcomes by 2022 (as described in Table B of the Performance Indicator Matrix and in more detail in the FP sections in Section 2): FP1: Food Systems will ensure that:

• Partners and other CRPs incorporate nutrition, health, and gender in agri-food value chains and food systems programs;

• Stakeholders (investors, civil society, policymakers) consider healthier diets in processes related to food systems; and

• Partners implement A4NH strategies for agri-food value chain/food system innovations at scale. FP2: Biofortification will demonstrate that:

• High-yielding micronutrient enhanced varieties are developed and released in target and expansion countries;

• Biofortification is mainstreamed into CGIAR and National Agricultural Research System (NARS) breeding efforts;

17

• High-yielding micronutrient enhanced varieties are delivered at scale in target and expansion countries;

• Evidence on nutritional efficacy and impact informs value chain actors, as well as national and international investors; and

• Biofortification is supported by global institutions and incorporated into plans and policies by stakeholders.

FP3: Food Safety will demonstrate that:

• Key food safety evidence users (donors, academics, international NGOs (INGOs), national policymakers, civil society, and industry) are aware of and use evidence to formulate and/or implement pro-poor and risk-based food safety approaches;

• Market-based food safety innovations are delivered at scale in key countries, along with understanding of their impact and appropriate use; and

• Biocontrol and good agricultural practices (GAP) delivered at scale in key countries, along with understanding of their impact and appropriate use.

FP4: SPEAR will demonstrate that:

• Development program implementers and investors (governments, NGOs, UN institutions) use evidence, tools, and methods to design and implement cost-effective nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs at scale;

• Researchers and evaluators, including in CGIAR and other CRPs, use evidence, tools, and methods to design high-quality evaluations of nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs and other multisectoral programs, and continue to build evidence;

• Regional, international, and UN agencies and initiatives as well as investors use evidence, tools, and methods to inform decisions and investment strategies to guide and support nutrition-sensitive agricultural programming and nutrition-sensitive policies;

• National policymakers and stakeholders from different sectors, civil society, and industry use evidence to design effective nutrition-sensitive policies and strategies to enable effective programming; and

• Stakeholders from different sectors, civil society, and industry, including CGIAR and other CRPs, have improved capacity to generate and use evidence to improve nutrition-sensitive agricultural programming, nutrition-sensitive policymaking, and implementation.

FP5: Improving Human Health will demonstrate that:

• Agricultural research initiatives, including those in farming communities, measure health risks and benefits;

• Agricultural and public health policymakers and implementers deliver coordinated and effective solutions to cysticercosis and other zoonotic threats; and

• Public and private sector policymakers implement measures to reduce health risks from AMR in hotspot livestock systems.

IMPACT PATHWAY AND THEORY OF CHANGE The A4NH Results Framework (Figure 1.2) describes our impact pathways, reflecting the different ways in which A4NH research activities and outputs, including knowledge, technologies, capacity, and stakeholder engagement, contribute to outcomes in food systems. In some cases, A4NH research provides value chain actors with technologies and capacity to enhance and protect the nutritional content of foods, while mitigating key food safety risks (agri-food value chains pathway). We also provide evidence and tools to development implementers to increase the effectiveness of their nutrition- and health-sensitive agricultural programming (development programs pathway). Finally, we support governments and donors to improve an enabling environment and create better-informed, better-targeted, and better-implemented policies (policies pathway). Value chains, policies and programs are key components of the food system,

18

and while we seek to have impact through individual pathways, it is always with an eye toward how the changes in the pathway(s) will influence the system as a whole. The three food system pathways are mutually reinforcing, with the policy pathway underlying and sustaining the other two. Agri-food value chains pathway There are several points along agri-food value chains where actors can use A4NH research outputs to contribute to nutrition and health outcomes. At the farm level, a traditional area of strength in CGIAR, two FPs work closely with public- and private-sector actors, mainly in input supply, to demonstrate and learn from the delivery at scale of two technologies to improve nutrition and health (biofortified varieties by FP2: Biofortification, and biocontrol and GAP by FP3: Food Safety). The delivery at scale of biofortified varieties represents an important part of A4NH’s contribution to the SRF targets on micronutrient deficiency, but together, the two technologies represent our main contribution to this target. The impact pathways for these farm-level technologies go from on-farm production either directly to consumption by the farm household members or through sale to traders and, in some cases, processors, to eventual purchase and consumption by target consumers. All along the pathway, there are important assumptions underlying expected outcomes. Gender and equity issues are key in most of the outcomes, from deciding what crops to plant and sell or what foods to purchase, to determining intra-household food allocation. The detailed ToCs developed for each of these cases (N. Johnson, Guedenet, and Saltzman 2015; N. Johnson, Atherstone, and Grace 2015), together with assessments of the strength of existing evidence for the assumptions, will guide decisions about delivery and support learning about the potential for on-farm technologies to contribute to improvements in nutrition and health. This work will take place within each FP and in collaboration with the agri-food system CRPs (AFS-CRPs), and with CCAFS to consider the impacts of climate change on the effectiveness of technologies and practices. Another point along the value chain where A4NH research can contribute to improved nutrition and health outcomes is through improving trader practices. 5 This is especially important in value chains for perishable foods, which can lose their nutritional value or even become a risk for foodborne infections or zoonotic pathogens, such as avian influenza, if not handled properly. FP3: Food Safety is working on proof of concept of an institutional innovation for traders called ‘training and certification’ (T&C), designed to improve the quality and safety of livestock products in informal and formalizing value chains. T&C provides traders with the capacity and incentives to improve their practices in contexts where enforcement of regulations through penalties is challenging. The ToC describes the conditions under which T&C can lead to increases in consumption of safer animal source foods (ASF) by target consumers, as well as the conditions under which such a scheme can be sustainable and scalable (N. Johnson et al. 2015). The T&C innovation is currently being implemented at scale in dairy value chains in India and Kenya, reaching 6.5 million consumers. Based on lessons learned from this experience, A4NH is adapting the approach to markets for other livestock products in collaboration with the CRPs on Fish, Livestock, and, with WLE, on vegetables. Gender and equity issues are important along the pathway, in particular because risk of FBD often varies by gender when men and women play different roles along the value chain, from production through slaughter and processing, to sale. Agricultural value chain analysis and interventions have typically focused on the supply side, but if the goal of value chain development is to improve diets, then analysis needs to extend to the demand side. Changing consumer behavior will need to become a key entry point for improving value chain performance (keeping in mind that in many of our contexts, consumers may also be producers and traders). In Phase I, a conceptual framework was developed (Gelli et al. 2015) and is being validated with development partners such as WFP and IFAD. In Phase II, more research will build upon these initiatives. FP1: Food Systems will work closely with public and private actors (through Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), business

5 We use the term traders, but this could be any group of intermediaries between what’s produced on the farm and the consumer.

19

schools (e.g. Desautels Faculty of Management at McGill University) and other CRPs to integrate diet into the indicators used to assess value chain performance and food system interventions and innovations. Our work with CCAFS on sustainable food systems and on the environmental implications for changing diets (Gill et al. 2015) will be particularly important, and is expected to have impacts on both under- and over-nutrition. It will be through this consumer-oriented work on improving value chains in a food systems context that we expect to achieve our SRF target on improving dietary quality and diversity. Development programs pathway Markets are the drivers of agricultural development, but development programs that successfully integrate agriculture, nutrition, and health also represent an important avenue for reaching key target beneficiaries cost-effectively (Masters et al. 2014). Nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs are important for reaching two critical target populations: pregnant women and children under two years of age. These groups are particularly vulnerable to poor nutrition, and improvements in nutrition can have life-changing impacts on a child’s physical and cognitive development and future potential. Similarly, integrated agriculture and health programs can be cost-effective options for achieving both public health and agricultural development objectives, especially in poor, rural areas. The disease, cysticercosis, is a priority example, where elimination is possible with coordinated and sustainable control efforts between public health and agricultural programs linked with value chain incentives and interventions (Maurice 2014). During Phase I, FP4: SPEAR (known then as Integrated Programs and Policies) began building an evidence base on how and how much integrated agriculture and nutrition programs can improve nutrition outcomes, working closely with both development programs and with the governments and donor agencies that fund them. Findings from these studies are being incorporated into the design of new programs and the scale-up of future programs, enhancing their coverage and effectiveness. For example, on the basis of emerging evidence on gender-agriculture-nutrition linkages, the Ministry of Agriculture of Bangladesh is investing in a large-scale evaluation of alternative approaches to integrating nutrition and gender into agricultural extension. This work constitutes an important part of A4NH’s contribution to the SRF target on reducing micronutrient deficiencies. Policies pathway A4NH research provides the evidence base, knowledge, tools, and technical inputs to help decisionmakers make smarter policy choices and better (and bigger) investments. All FPs have policy objectives, but these vary. For example, the first three FPs will focus on national and sub-national policies and regulations that influence farmers, market agents and small and medium enterprises along and, especially, across agri-food value chains to support safe, healthy and sustainable food system transformation. FP4: SPEAR will focus on national processes and capacities of national actors to shape public policy and programs so that improved nutrition and health outcomes can be achieved through agriculture. Key assumptions that underlie the pathway from policy commitment to implementation and impact on the ground relate to the availability of (1) knowledge and evidence, especially about implementation at scale, (2) cross-sector political commitment both from supporting integrating ministries such as finance, planning and science and technology and fostering understanding on potential synergies from ministries that compete for funding such as social development, health and agriculture, and (3) sufficient capacity and resources, which often requires careful prioritization of actions (Gillespie et al. 2013; Gillespie, Menon, and Kennedy 2015). A4NH expects that that half of its commitment to the SRF target on reducing micronutrient deficiencies (as well as to other country priorities such as stunting and anemia) will come from improvements in the enabling environment. While the challenge for undernutrition is converting policy commitment to action, the challenge for other health and nutrition issues is to get on the policy agenda. The agriculture sector has not seen health as a priority (and vice versa), but this is changing as more evidence becomes available on the burden of agriculture-associated diseases, the incidence and impacts of FBDs (Havelaar et al. 2015), and on the

20

availability of cost-effective policy options. Similarly, the availability of better data on changes in diets at the national and subnational level and on links between diets and food systems is expected to influence policies that shape food systems. Getting these issues on the policy agenda will be a key objective for FP1: Food Systems, FP3: Food Safety and FP5: Improving Human Health in Phase II and will involve engaging with key stakeholders in agriculture, health, and other sectors. It will also involve building country-level capacity for cross-sector policy analysis so that analysts can identify and assess appropriate policy options. The policy pathway is expected to lead to important reductions in exposure to FBDs and other agriculture-associated diseases and in overnutrition. Indicators and targets will be set for these impacts. In addition to the three food systems pathways described above, as an ICRP A4NH contributes indirectly to outcomes through the support it provides to other CRPs, by facilitating networking and mutual learning through CoPs and learning platforms. While we expect these contributions to be reported through other CRPs, following the advice of the A4NH external evaluation and true to the role of an ICRP, we will develop ToCs for our investment in networking, co-learning and bridging work in order to be more systematic about monitoring and learning from these investments. This has already been done for the gender-nutrition CoP which was established in Phase I and will be done for others once they are operational. GENDER Gender is widely recognized as an integral part of the different systems of agriculture, nutrition, and health. Women are traditionally thought of as the guardians of household food security and nutrition, yet decisions about what foods to produce and how to produce them, which foods are sold and purchased, and how foods are prepared and allocated to different household members can be made by both men and women. These household decisions have varying effects on agricultural outcomes and on the health and nutritional status of household members, and are therefore fundamental to A4NH research and impact. This section is based on the A4NH Gender Strategy, which summarizes existing (A4NH and other) research on the role of gender in agriculture-nutrition-health (ANH) pathways to identify evidence gaps and research priorities. The Gender Strategy sets out the ways in which the GEE unit6, one of the three cross-cutting units within the Program Management Unit (PMU), will ensure that gender is integrated into the research and activities of the CRP. This section should be read along with the gender annex (Annex 3.3), which provides more details on how research and evidence on gender in Phase I informed A4NH’s research priorities for Phase II, the gender milestones A4NH research hopes to achieve in Phase II, and the resources needed to do so. How is gender reflected in the A4NH agenda? All A4NH FPs expect to contribute to the IDO on gender, and in particular, to the sub-IDOs on gender-equitable control of productive assets and resources and improved capacity of women and young people to participate in decisionmaking. Findings from Phase I research revealed three priority areas for research where evidence gaps remain about how agricultural research can contribute to outcomes (details can be found in the A4NH Gender Strategy):

• Impact of gender-based differences on nutrition- and health-related outcomes; • Improving nutrition through women’s empowerment; and • Avoiding unintended consequences to women’s well-being and empowerment.

These translate into specific research questions in each FP (see Table 1.2 for a summary of the key gender research questions for each FP).

How is gender operationalized in A4NH?

Gender research in FPs

6 In Phase I, GEE was referred to as the Strategic Gender Unit. The name change reflects a recommendation of the A4NH External Evaluation to pay more attention to equity issues. See Annex 3.3 for definitions and additional information.

21

Many FP research teams include gender expertise, and they are responsible for framing gender research questions for the overall FP and for ensuring that gender is integrated within the FP. The GEE unit supports these researchers through workshops, webinars, blogs and other gender-related capacity development activities. FPs with weaker gender capacity can use funds allocated for gender research to hire gender experts or to establish strategic partnerships with other FPs or with other external institutions with the required gender skills. The external evaluation of A4NH noted that the reported gender focus of projects in A4NH increased over the course of Phase I. More details of how each FP has set its gender research priorities can be found in Annex 3.3. In addition to gender researchers in each FP team, A4NH has worked with other CRPs to recruit gender postdoctoral fellows, funded in part by the Consortium. One fellow is working with the CRPs PIM and HumidTropics on building capacity within CGIAR on indicators of empowerment; another fellow is working with CRPs Livestock and Fish and Grain Legumes on evaluating the gender and nutrition impacts of value chains; and a third fellow will work with the CRPs Grain Legumes and Dryland Cereals to investigate gender issues in varietal selection, breeding, and adoption processes. Gender at the CRP level In addition to supporting gender research in the FPs, the GEE leads cross-cutting research on strategic issues relevant to the overall research program. These topics fill major knowledge gaps, build evidence on key conceptual and methodological questions (such as survey experiments on decisionmaking), and develop and validate indicators, tools, and metrics that can be used to measure gender outcomes. An example of such cross-cutting research is the second round of the Gender, Assets, and Agriculture Program (GAAP2) which is working towards adapting the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) and validating it for the use in agricultural development projects, including nutrition-sensitive agricultural interventions. Along with this validated tool (pro-WEAI), lessons from GAAP2 on how agriculture projects can empower women and improve gender equity and nutrition and health outcomes will be useful for research projects across A4NH FPs. Four priority research themes have been identified for cross-cutting research. Across these themes, explicit attention will be paid to how gender interacts with other sources of inequity, including:

• How women’s empowerment affects nutrition and health; • How to engage men in nutrition and health; • How to target youth, especially adolescent girls (see also Annex 3.4); and • Linkages between gender, agriculture, health, and nutrition.

For background research and further details on how these areas were selected, please refer to the A4NH Gender Strategy. Strengthening research capacity on gender, nutrition, and health A4NH will build on the internationally recognized research capability of IFPRI and its partners in studying the implications of gender for agricultural research, and food and nutrition security.7 The gender specialists in A4NH work closely with those in PIM, ensuring there is cross-CRP exchange of methods and learning; a number of projects cut across both CRPs. In line with recommendations from a recent portfolio review, which emphasized the need to continue building gender research and M&E capacity across CGIAR and its

7 Notable examples include a multicountry program on gender and intrahousehold research that “shifted the burden of proof” by demonstrating that households do not behave as monolithic units with common interests and preferences (Alderman et al. 1995; Quisumbing 2003); the background research drawn upon for the FAO SOFA 2011 (Quisumbing et al. 2014); the background paper on gender for GCARD1 (Meinzen-Dick et al. 2011); and the development of the WEAI, and numerous guides for collecting sex-disaggregated data and conducting gender analysis.

22

external partners, A4NH will continue providing gender methods training and support through the following activities: • Annual Gender-Nutrition Methods Workshop: A4NH has conducted two workshops to date, attended

by about 40 researchers belonging to A4NH, other CRPs with a nutrition focus, and partner organizations. The first workshop focused on establishing common frameworks, while the second workshop focused on women’s empowerment and decisionmaking. These workshops were well attended, and participants expressed continued demand for future workshops.8 In lieu of a third workshop in 2016, A4NH participants were invited to the GAAP2 Inception Workshop, which focused on different approaches to empowerment in agricultural projects and developing project-level indicators for measuring women’s empowerment (pro-WEAI). Selected sessions from the workshop were recorded and shared with A4NH gender researchers and the larger gender CoP within CGIAR.

• Gender Nutrition Idea Exchange (GNIE): A monthly blog hosted on the A4NH website features contributions from researchers on how to conduct high-quality agricultural research that considers gender and nutrition issues. The blog has a large and growing readership9 and offers a space for highlighting newer research topics, such as the relationship of gender to agriculture and health and linkages between agriculture, climate change, and gender (a post which was cross-posted on the Agrilinks USAID website).

• Learning events and other outreach activities for gender researchers: A4NH will reach out to gender researchers in A4NH and other CRPs to help identify and support specific needs for capacity building. Activities could include, for example, holding workshops on specific topics or methods, organizing panels at major conferences to showcase gender research in A4NH, and establishing a rotating webinar series.

• Small grants for gender research: A number of small grants will be provided to A4NH-mapped research projects that will build the evidence base around strategic gender research priorities. These grants will be combined with technical advising from the GEE unit. A more detailed process for providing targeted support will be developed for Phase II in consultation with the Planning and Management Committee (PMC) conditional on the availability of an uplift budget.

Tracking gender Gender in ToC In addition to gender being integrated in FP-level ToCs, a ToC was developed specifically for the support to gender research10 carried out at the CRP-level to clarify how our gender activities are expected to make changes that lead to desired outcomes (Figure 1.3). The primary target audience for our gender activities and outputs will be the CGIAR gender researchers, who will be reached through various modes of communication, including direct participation in A4NH events [1]11. We will use web analytics, attendance lists, and evaluation forms to track access and participation for each type event or output. These activities will help increase the capacity of these target researchers to conduct high-quality gender-nutrition-health research [2]. To achieve these first two outcomes—reaching researchers and improving their capacity – we need to make sure that we are reaching the right people in the FPs and other CRPs and that our activities are designed to address their most pressing capacity gaps. Details on how we will use our monitoring system to track progress are outlined in the following section, and our capacity-strengthening plans have already been discussed above [a1, a2].

8 In the future, we will explore alternative ways of extending the reach of these trainings, including providing access to workshop videos, webinars, and other virtual platforms. 9 The blog had 12,500 unique page views in 2015 10 This was one of the recommendations for the GEE by the external evaluation. 11 Numbers in brackets in this section refer to the numbers in the ToC diagram (Figure 1.3)

23

Once researchers have increased their capacity to conduct high-quality gender research, we expect that they will incorporate new knowledge, skills, and tools into their work [3]. However, if they are engaged in projects that are unable to incorporate new gender components, perhaps due to resource constraints or other reasons, then there may be a significant lag between the time that capacity is built and the integration of gender into projects [a3]. To help shorten this lag and to maintain momentum and interest in our capacity-building activities, we propose to provide a number of small grants combined with technical advising from the GEE unit, targeted to A4NH-mapped research projects that participate in the CoP. This will provide immediate opportunities for researchers to incorporate gender considerations in existing projects. As they gain more experience in using their new skills and tools, we also expect that this will increase the likelihood that researchers will propose and design future projects that are more gender-responsive.

If researchers conduct more gender-responsive research, their research outputs will be more likely to benefit women and promote gender equity [4]. This implies that using a gender-responsive approach yields new insights that would otherwise not be revealed [a4], which is very likely given the growing evidence that shows that inattention to gender is not benign, and may even derail success. Even if new insights exist, however, decisionmakers in A4NH FPs and other CRPs must be willing to use this information in their programming decisions [a5]. More details on how this will be monitored can be found in the following section.

Monitoring and evaluation of gender integration in A4NH research Gender research priorities and fundamental gender research questions aim to close evidence gaps (Table 1.2), informed by each FP’s ToC. While gender is well-integrated at the planning stage for Phase II, we will continue to monitor projects throughout the research process to ensure that gender dimensions do not get lost in implementation and are appropriately reflected in research outputs. Monitoring will also help us gather periodic feedback from projects to identify what types of support they may require from the GEE unit. In 2014, A4NH started systematically collecting information on the gender research focus of projects mapped to A4NH (from all funding sources). All projects are asked to report whether or not there is a gender research dimension to the project (and if not, why not), the gender research questions to be addressed, the types of sex-disaggregated data collected, the level of gender focus of each project deliverable (none, some, significant), and the name of the person responsible for gender research12. Responses to these questions enabled us to assess how well the gender research questions identified are reflected in project deliverables, and track progress over time. The information gathered at the work planning stage will be reviewed by the GEE to help advise research teams on improving gender research before research plans are implemented. As deliverables are completed, the GEE will review completed deliverables to assess the quality of gender analysis in our research products.13 A4NH is also working with PIM to harmonize its M&E systems for tracking progress on the integration of gender in research. Further guidelines and updates to the gender section of the work plan template are expected to be used as part of future work planning processes. See more in Annex 3.5.

Beyond monitoring the gender focus of research outputs, projects that focus solely on women or that collect but do not analyze sex-disaggregated data are particularly important to identify because they have the potential for doing more gender analysis, such as expanding analysis to include men and/or using sex-

12 We have developed standardized definitions for each category and plan to expand the “levels of gender analysis” in deliverables to reflect increasing depth in gender analysis: 0) None, 1) Woman-focused, 2) Sex-disaggregated data reported but no gender research questions, 3) Some gender analysis but not main focus of research, and 4) Significant gender analysis is main focus of research. 13 This will be based on a random sample of completed deliverables per flagship; actual sample size will depend on available resources.

24

disaggregated data to conduct gender analyses. Such projects can be targeted for additional technical assistance, linking up researchers with gender experts and providing small grants to add a gender component or to collect gender-relevant data.

Table 1.2. Gender research priorities in each of the A4NH FPs A4NH FP Fundamental gender research questions

FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets

How can healthy food systems benefit both women and men, as consumers and value chain agents (Gender-based differences; Women’s empowerment), while avoiding harm to women’s time, work burden, and health status (Unintended consequences)? Does information about healthier diets reach target beneficiaries and do their knowledge changes lead to behavior changes? (Gender-based differences; women’s empowerment)

FP2: Biofortification How can we ensure that delivery of biofortified crops meets men, women, and girls’ preferences and nutritional needs (Gender-based differences), supports gender-equitable decisionmaking in production and consumption decisions (Women’s empowerment), and avoids harm to women’s time, work burden, and health status (Unintended consequences)? How can we promote adoption of biofortified crops by targeting appropriate household decisionmakers, including women and men?

FP3: Food Safety How do exposure to agricultural diseases, strategies to manage risk, and the impacts of disease vary by gender? (Unintended consequences; Gender-based differences)? How can measures to improve food safety proactively include women and support them to engage in emerging formal markets? (Gender-based differences)?

FP4: Supporting Policies, Programs and Enabling Action through Research (SPEAR)

How are gender dynamics (relations between women and men) and women’s decisionmaking power associated with improved child and women’s nutrition outcomes (Women’s empowerment)? How can agricultural development interventions enhance women’s status (Women’s empowerment) while avoiding harm to women’s empowerment, time, and health (Unintended consequences)? How can policymakers develop cross-sectoral, gender-responsive policies? (Gender-based differences; Women’s empowerment; Unintended consequences) How can nutrition-sensitive agriculture programs engage men and sensitize them about the importance of gender equity? (Gender-based differences)

FP5: Improving Human Health

How do the health risks and benefits of agriculture vary by gender (Unintended consequences; Gender-based differences)? How can measures to improve human health proactively include women (Gender-based differences)? How can women be more involved in decisions about how to improve management of agricultural intensification to improve health outcomes (Gender-based differences)? How can integrated agricultural and health development interventions engage women and girls while avoiding harm to women’s time and health (Unintended consequences) and engage men to play a greater role in supporting better health (Gender-based differences)?

25

FIGURE 1.3. THEORY OF CHANGE FOR INTEGRATION OF GENDER IN A4NH RESEARCH

YOUTH The recognition and integration of youth14 issues in agriculture, nutrition, and health research is an under-explored topic. A4NH can learn from and build on experiences with sex- and age-disaggregated data collection, analysis and targeting, and with integrating gender issues, in order to make A4NH research teams more cognizant of incorporating youth issues when defining outcomes, setting and implementing the research and partnership agendas, and identifying and validating impact pathways. Within agri-food systems, young people play a range of roles (e.g. producers, employees, consumers). Youth is a time of transition and is a crucial window for interventions focusing on changing knowledge, attitudes, and practices about dietary choices, gender roles, agricultural production, and other issues that could influence for nutrition and health outcomes. Adolescent nutrition, specifically for girls, is important with respect to the life cycle approach to nutrition because it has implications for maternal nutrition. Age is also an important factor in intra-household decisionmaking, as young people, especially young wives or daughters-in-law, may not be empowered to make decisions that affect nutritional and health outcomes. Some A4NH projects already use age-sensitive approaches (e.g. innovative behavior change communication strategies targeted at different age groups); in Phase II, we aim to make age-sensitive methodologies more explicit and informative. A4NH youth issues will fall under the mandate of the GEE unit. To develop and implement our youth strategy (Annex 3.4), we will build on our experience integrating gender conceptually (e.g. through agriculture-nutrition pathways) and operationally in A4NH research projects. Projects will be expected to treat youth as a distinct social group, reporting if data collected and analyzed are disaggregated by age groups, and identifying the youth-centered research questions in their study design.

14 Youth is defined as ages 15 – 24

26

PROGRAM STRUCTURE AND FLAGSHIP PROGRAMS A4NH has made some important changes in program structure that reflect lessons learned from Phase I and the increased emphasis on health in the new SRF. As a result, we have three aims for Phase II of A4NH:

• Increase the attention to consumption and diet quality, and expand the value chains for enhanced nutrition approach to a food systems approach that look across individual commodities and value chains. Thus, we will launch a new partnership with Wageningen UR, and benefit from its disciplinary expertise and experience in food system analysis and private sector partnerships.

• Give greater importance to engaging with countries around nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs and policies, and on new food systems research. This builds on major successes in Phase I creating and supporting an enabling environments for nutrition. Important IFPRI policy vehicles, such as Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) and Country Strategy Support Programs (CSSPs) are increasingly being asked for knowledge and evidence on agricultural solutions for improving nutrition and health. We will also provide support to country M&E activities, strengthen capacity for cross-sectoral nutrition and health engagement, and support leadership in national policy processes.

• Expand our work on agriculture and human health to respond to emerging threats where agriculture may have a role, such as the use of antibiotics in livestock and its contribution to AMR. Consequentially, we need to strengthen CGIAR’s relationships with public health research institutions. The new partnership with LSHTM will help us engage the public health research community in joint research with CGIAR. Appropriately, the four A4NH FPs from Phase I will be adjusted to form five FPs in Phase II (Figure 1.1), which fit together to create a portfolio of research designed to catalyze the development of nutrition- and health-sensitive agriculture and food systems.

FP1: Food Systems will focus on food systems through a value chain impact pathway and the associated policy enabling required to accelerate food system innovation, scaling, and anchoring. This FP responds to concerns about global diet trends, and demands from countries for systemic solutions that address problems, such as food insecurity, undernutrition, and overnutrition. By focusing on how food systems establish the food environment in which consumers make dietary choices, A4NH will engage with the AFS-CRPs and complement the sustainable food systems approaches of CCAFS and WLE. It will build upon and expand the research progress from the Phase I FP on Value Chains for Enhanced Nutrition, such as the framework on value chains for nutrition (Gelli et al. 2015) as well as mechanisms for strengthening integration of nutrition into other CRPs (e.g. work with systems CRPs around nutrition-sensitive landscapes and the small-grants scheme). This FP will play an important role in building capacity within CGIAR in food systems approaches and in integrating diet, nutrition, and equity concerns through a learning platform, which will draw upon expertise from across A4NH and partners. Since food systems lies outside CGIAR’s traditional expertise, A4NH has invited Wageningen UR to lead this FP. FP2: Biofortification will continue building on its highly successful phases of discovery (2003-2007) and development (2008-2013), and progress on the ambitious delivery phase, which started in 2014. While this FP still has important nutrition efficacy and effectiveness research to do, the main research questions for Phase II are not around whether biofortification works, but rather, how it can work at scale for specific crops and crop-country combinations. Innovative research in the delivery phase will focus on identifying and addressing technical, social (including gender), and institutional constraints associated with reaching hundreds of millions of micronutrient-deficient women and children, learning lessons for reaching 1 billion by 2030. Rarely have agricultural researchers, especially in CGIAR, focused on delivery science, and the HarvestPlus experience represents important opportunities to generate lessons and methods with potential application well beyond biofortification to other issues in A4NH. This FP works with crop AFS-CRPs with CCAFS and PIM.

27

FP3: Food Safety builds on Phase I achievements related to cross-Center (IFPRI, ILRI, IITA, the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)), and cross-CRP (Fish, Grain Legumes, Livestock, MAIZE) collaboration, and on new global evidence of the burden of FBD. This FP takes an impact-oriented approach to food safety in markets for staples and perishables through appropriate technologies, market innovations, policies, and regulations. While there are proven strategies for managing food safety in commercial food systems, these are often inappropriate and ineffective in informal markets, where the majority of poor people buy and sell food—especially nutrient-rich perishable, like meat, milk, fish, and vegetables. FP3: Food Safety will conduct research on technological and institutional solutions and appropriate policy and regulatory options that align public health goals with country priorities to ensure that food is both safe and equitable for the poor. FP4: SPEAR will continue important research in strengthening the evidence base for agricultural solutions to improve nutrition and health. It will build on faster-than-expected progress on ANH policy, and will pro-actively respond to demands for cross-sectoral capacity and engagement at country and global levels. This FP includes a solid portfolio of evaluations that will help answer key questions about program impacts and cost-effectiveness in Phase II. Methods and findings from impact and process evaluations will have an important influence on future directions of research and investment in this area. FP4: SPEAR builds on Phase I research on creating and sustaining enabling environments that deliver impact at scale as well as on Phase I involvement with the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) movement, the Africa Union’s CAADP investment planning process, and the 2014 and 2015 Global Nutrition Reports. This FP will provide greater guidance to other FPs and CRPs on cross-sectoral policy process analysis and engagement, and play a greater role in representing CGIAR in national and regional nutrition and health policy processes. Phase I included limited research on human health risks associated with agricultural production. Starting in the Extension Phase, A4NH began engaging with a select group of public health research institutes and donors to explore (and ultimately confirm) interest in partnering on a new FP on agriculture and health. We conducted a series of regional consultations with public health partners, which culminated in a consultation in London in June 2015. To bridge agriculture and public health research and facilitate integrated actions to improve human health, A4NH has invited LSHTM to co-lead FP5: Improving Human Health with ILRI. Research priorities include health effects of ecosystem changes (e.g. large-scale agricultural water use), shared disease risks and their control between people and animals, and opportunities to increase health benefits, in addition to emerging challenges, such as AMR and chemical resistance, requiring coordinated health and agriculture actions. While each FP has distinct research questions, impact pathways, and partnerships, cross-FP collaboration is expected to enhance efficiency and effectiveness. FPs will also work closely with three cross-cutting units: CCE, GEE, and MEL. CROSS-CRP COLLABORATION AND SITE INTEGRATION A4NH has a dual role in providing a strong research program on ANH in CGIAR’s portfolio as well as an integrating role as the CGIAR lens on nutrition and health (SLO2). For this integrating role, A4NH seeks to work with CGIAR Centers and other CRPs in three main ways:

• Joint research with other CRPs, particularly in CGIAR Site Integration countries; • Networking and mutual learning, including capacity strengthening, conducted through FP-led

learning platforms or CRP-led communities of practice; and • As a bridge to global, regional, and national nutrition and health communities.

All of A4NH’s FPs in Phase II will collaborate with other CRPs in one or more of the ways listed above. The specific activities are described in detail in Annex 3.6. Some illustrative examples for each FP are listed below.

28

• FP1: Food Systems will conduct joint research with several AFS-CRPs linking value chain innovations to changes in diet quality, including with CCAFS and WLE on sustainability issues in food systems, and with PIM on agriculture and economic development issues in food systems. This FP will also host a new learning platform for networking and mutual learning around food systems for healthy diets with other CRPs.

• For FP2: Biofortification, this CGIAR-wide function pre-dated A4NH (Challenge Program) and has continued with strong and well-funded joint research and, in Phase II, a focus on mainstreaming nutrition into breeding.

• FP3: Food Safety will add a food safety perspective to value chain research conducted by the AFS-CRPs on Dryland Cereals and Legume Agrifood System (DCL), Fish, Livestock, and MAIZE.

• FP4: SPEAR will collaborate with two FPs in PIM to do research on integrating social protection with complementary agricultural interventions and on understanding and supporting cross-sectoral policy processes.

• FP5: Improving Human Health will host a Platform for Public Health and Agriculture Research Collaboration, convened by LSHTM, which will serve as a resource for other CRPs looking to collaborate on agriculture and health. For its work on irrigated cropland and health, research sites will be coordinated with RICE, and scientists from WLE will consult with scientists from this FP on health risks and benefits in expansion of irrigation in Africa.

CGIAR Site Integration intends to improve the alignment of research, the coordination of delivery, and improve country-level collaborations. Improving partnerships with country-level stakeholders is also a central objective of the second phase of A4NH. A4NH has identified five focus countries for Phase II, four of the highest priority countries for CGIAR Site Integration (Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Vietnam) plus India. In these countries, the new A4NH CCE unit will support country teams comprised of A4NH FP researchers, other CRPs, and partners who will carry out joint research and take responsibility for the Site Integration Plans (when developed). The country teams will each be managed by one A4NH managing partner (IITA in Nigeria, ILRI in Ethiopia, CIAT in Vietnam, and IFPRI in Bangladesh and India). Given our strong emphasis on country strategy and planning, we will coordinate with IFPRI’s CSSPs (in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Nigeria), and in the focus countries in Africa through the ReSAKSS network. For the other Site Integration countries where A4NH is active, responsibility for the Site Integration Plans will be managed by individual FPs. For example in Kenya, most A4NH research is in FP3: Food Safety and FP5: Improving Human Health, which are led or co-led by ILRI; ILRI will be responsible for linking A4NH with Site Integration. All of this is detailed in Annex 3.6. PARTNERSHIPS AND COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE A4NH partners with four broad categories of individuals or organizations: researchers, actors in value chains, development program implementers, and enablers. The relative level of involvement varies (e.g. grows, reduces, or maintains) based on the stage of research (Figure 1.4).

29

Figure 1.4. Partner involvement at each stage of research

More than 30% of the total budget was expended by non-CGIAR partners in Phase I, and this is expected to continue to increase as A4NH scales up its work and invests in strengthening national partnerships, especially in our five focus countries. In terms of CRP functions, partners fall into three categories in Phase II: managing partners, strategic partners, and collaborating partners. Managing partners will include the five CGIAR Centers (Bioversity International, CIAT, IFPRI [as Lead Center], IITA, and ILRI) plus Wageningen UR and LSHTM. They will be represented on the A4NH PMC, will recruit and co-manage FP and cluster leaders and researchers, and will actively support CRP-level resource mobilization, communication, and advocacy. Strategic partners will conduct joint research and will carry out country coordination activities in our five focus countries. They will participate in at least one FP, dedicate human and financial resources to the FP, and will actively engage in research with other A4NH partners. Collaborating Partners represent all others working with A4NH to make research for development contributions. These are usually partnerships for specific research, country activities, or communication. For more detail on partners and partnership modalities, see Annex 3.1 Comparative advantage of CGIAR and A4NH on nutrition and health The A4NH external evaluation cited A4NH’s considerable comparative advantage in ANH research. CGIAR is the world’s leading international agricultural research for development organization, and IFPRI, our Lead Center, has a unique comparative advantage within CGIAR as having a critical mass of leading nutritionists and economists evaluating nutrition-sensitive programs and policies that link to global processes, such as SUN. For regional and national policy engagement and relevance on nutrition-sensitive agriculture, A4NH is well-positioned to work through IFPRI’s ReSAKSS and CSSPs. The other managing partners have experience

30

managing multi-institutional programs in particular sectors and regions. To address the emerging challenges in Phase II, A4NH will go outside the CGIAR to seek expertise in two key areas: food systems and public health. As described above, Wageningen UR and LSHTM will play leadership roles in two FPs, bringing with them research excellence, partnership skills and collaborator networks. Delivering International Public Goods (IPGs) Our Phase I FPs delivered important IPGs in the form of publications, technologies, and datasets, which are described in the respective FP sections of this proposal. In Phase II, we expect our IPG potential to expand, as more advanced FPs (including FP2: Biofortification, FP3: Food Safety, and FP4: SPEAR) begin to produce comparative and meta-analyses and syntheses based on breeding, nutrition, and impact work. Scientific results will be translated into tools and guidelines to facilitate widespread uptake and use. For FP1: Food Systems, there will be multi-country assessments and analyses of food systems to better understand the drivers of diet change, food system and nutrition transformation for improved health, as well as innovative methods and metrics for looking at nutrition and health issues in value chains and food systems. Research from FP5: Improving Human Health will fill important evidence gaps on key global issues, such as agriculture’s role in AMR and generating important data sets such as linking detailed spatial data from agriculture and health. A4NH will also support three platforms and a community of practice to share findings, strengthen capacity and build stronger networks between the CGIAR and nutrition and public health communities. EVIDENCE OF DEMAND AND STAKEHOLDER COMMITMENT Nutrition is at an historic high on the global policy agenda. Through the SUN movement, donors and national leaders from 56 countries have made commitments to reducing malnutrition. Agriculture and food systems play key roles in the solution. In Africa, there has been an explicit recognition of the important role of agriculture, as evidenced by the food and nutrition security pillar of CAADP, which represents 20 of the 34 countries with the highest burden of malnutrition. These high-level commitments are stimulating demand for evidence of what works and what can be cost-effectively scaled out. In Phase I, even intermediate A4NH research products such as presentations of initial results and discussion papers were quickly translated into guidance and manuals by platforms such as Ag2Nut and Secure Nutrition, nutrition strategies of donors and countries, and the Global Nutrition Report that supports countries to monitor and improve nutrition performance. Despite obvious linkages between agriculture and health, and between health and nutrition outcomes, the health sector is not as closely aligned to agriculture development as nutrition currently is. The one exception is around One Health thinking, particularly on the control of zoonoses that have human epidemic or pandemic potential (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), avian flu). The new SRF increases the focus on generating evidence and raising awareness of the potential for agriculture to contribute to improved health outcomes. Collaboration between the agriculture and health sectors, not only on food safety issues—which are likely to move quickly up the global health agenda during Phase II on the basis of new evidence on the size of the burden of FBD (Havelaar et al. 2015) —but also on other emerging global health threats, such as AMR, vector and pest resistance, and misuse of chemicals, can help meet the growing demand for better evidence and more effective, sustainable solutions. Our public health partners have expressed strong interest in engaging agriculture not only for its role in reducing the risk of diseases, but also for more sustainable prevention of disease in the face of drug and chemical resistance. As a reflection of demand for A4NH research, our bilateral funds have grown dramatically from roughly $30 million in 2012 to over $70 million in 2015. Much of this has been in our proven research areas, such as FP2: Biofortification, FP3: Food Safety, and FP4: SPEAR. We have documented this expanded grant portfolio to show how the current grants fit into a coherent research program and included it with our full proposal (see “Funding the A4NH Agenda” in Other Annexes). Our Phase II portfolio addresses demands from target countries for solutions that are not yet identified, but urgently needed. Given the complexity of the

31

challenges, the solutions will likely lie outside the traditional areas of CGIAR expertise, requiring new partnerships and investment to build capacity and networks among researchers and other stakeholders. Countries are looking for comprehensive food system solutions, including options for leveraging private sector investments that not only combat undernutrition, but also address food safety concerns in domestic markets and mitigate the growing problem of overweight and obesity. FP1: Food Systems will engage directly with these issues. Countries and donors are also placing high priority on preventing and treating infectious disease, an area with minimal effective collaboration between public health and agricultural researchers to date. LSHTM in FP5: Improving Human Health will convene a platform of public health and agriculture researchers to collaborate in research areas such as EcoHealth and AMR in which collaboration is essential, but has been limited.

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT 1. CapDev role in impact pathway

Capacity development is a critical part of the overall A4NH impact pathway and the impact pathways of individual FPs. The A4NH Capacity Development Strategy (Annex 3.2) is based on the A4NH results framework and places particular emphasis on building capacity among researchers to develop and use the innovative methods and metrics necessary for the multi-sectoral nature of ANH research; among actors in value chains, including farmers, to test and use technologies and other innovations that improve the nutritional quality and safety of crops and food; among development program implementers to apply evaluation results, including technologies, practices, and programming modalities, in the design of more effective ANH programs; and among policymakers, including research leaders and policy analysts in national institutions, to build and sustain enabling environments that support country performance for improving nutrition and health through agriculture.

A4NH cannot achieve these results alone. In Phase II, we will invest in working with partners, other CRPs, and those outside CGIAR, through a variety of mechanisms, which are described more fully in Annexes 3.1, 3.2, and 3.6. As an ICRP, A4NH has a role to play in strengthening capacity across CGIAR and adding value to other CRPs to enhance contributions and reduce risk of unintended negative consequences to the SLOs. Our commitment to strengthening capacity is demonstrated by the CoPs and learning platforms we will host and our co-investments in the ANH Academy. A sample of the strategic capacity development actions A4NH will prioritize in Phase II are summarized below and described in more detail in Annex 3.2.

2. Strategic CapDev actions (see CapDev Framework)

Indicators that can be used to track progress and contribute to CapDev Sub-IDOs

3. Intensity of implementation of chosen elements (Please indicate High, Medium, Low)

Give an indication of how chosen elements will be implemented

1.Capacity needs assessment and intervention strategy design

Medium Provide more focused response to countries and networking between countries on essential capacities that will allow key nutrition champions to participate more actively in strategy design (FP4: SPEAR); inform activities of learning platforms and CoPs.

Proportion of FP4 focus countries with identified nutrition champions reporting participation in country strategy designs

# of countries that have engaged in or plan to engage in processes to address barriers and constraints (including capacity) to an enabling

32

environment for nutrition-sensitive agriculture among focus countries.

2. Design and delivery of innovative learning materials and approaches

High Working groups (TBD) on metrics and methods through the ANH Academy (all FPs)

# of training institutions in focus counties who adopt the tools/methods used as part of professional training programs, long or short term

3.Develop CRPs and Centers’ partnering capacities

Medium Identify and build the capacity of partners at the national, regional, and global levels to work across sectors to increase the effectiveness of research and development partnerships (all)

# of collaborations (e.g. joint research, joint training/workshops, shared funding arrangements, common membership of multi stakeholder platforms) with partner organizations

4. Developing future research leaders through fellowships

Medium Support future multi-disciplinary research leaders, in partnerships with regional academic institutes and programs and form a community of practice across this broad research area through the ANH Academy (all)

# of scientific publications accepted with co-authorship with fellows

# of post-doc (or early career researchers) citing membership or participation in the ANH Academy in bio/CV

# of AWARD fellows or CGIAR gender research fellows affiliated with A4NH

5. Gender-sensitive approaches throughout capacity development

Medium Expand gender and nutrition CoP to help evaluation and gender staff in other CRPs apply state-of-the-art methods and tools (all)

# of CRP research projects/evaluations using state-of-the-art methods and tools

6. Institutional strengthening

High Convene annual global and regional events to look at both innovation and on development outcome demands between agriculture research and nutrition and health policy and advocacy communities with European Union- UN Children’s Fund (EU-UNICEF), SUN Civil Society and other networks (FP5: Improving Human Health).

As part of new Phase of CAADP, work with selected countries in

# of countries who have developed or are developing evidence generation and use cycles/systems by collaborative engagement involving two or more stakeholders.

CRPs and CGIAR Centers reporting enhanced nutrition sensitivity of programs.

# of national agriculture strategies that include nutrition as specific development outcome and integrate nutrition goals in agriculture.

33

developing the National Agricultural strategies part of country strategy support programs

7.M&E of capacity development

Medium A4NH will monitor its capacity contribution using the indicators identified in this table as part of its M&E

We will keep track of participation in and conduct evaluations of CapDev events. In some FPs, like FP3 and FP4, the effectiveness of alternative means of building capacity is actually a research issue and will be tracked and assessed.

8.Organizational development

Low Strengthen national level nutrition taskforces and committees to better integrate nutrition in the national agricultural investment plans in selected countries (e.g. through CAADP)

Collaborate with NARS in select countries to change knowledge, attitudes and practices as they relate to mainstreaming biofortification (FP2: Biofortification) and managing food safety risks (FP3: Food Safety)

# of CAADP investment plans that incorporate A4NH research results in selected country programs

National systems with better organizational capacity for bio-fortification

National systems with improved organizational capacity for food safety research

9.Research on capacity development

Low Learn from current capacity building approaches (in Evidence Informed Decision-making in Health & Nutrition (EVIDENT) and African Nutrition Leadership Programme (ANLP), for example) and apply to approaches in this FP and across CGIAR

Review methods used for strengthening capacity in A4NH to improve their effectiveness and scalability

10. Capacity to innovate

Medium Innovation opportunities to strengthen nutrition policy process will be explored as part of FP4: SPEAR; food system innovation in FP1: Food Systems.

# of collaborators / partner who are using innovative approaches in their research outreach and communication activities during and after collaboration with A4NH researchers

34

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE The Lead Center for A4NH will continue to be IFPRI. This choice reflects IFPRI’s research excellence and global leadership in nutrition and its demonstrated capacity to govern and manage A4NH in Phase I. A4NH’s governance arrangements will follow CGIAR principles, including the CRP governance and reporting structure described, and practices recommended by the A4NH external evaluation. IFPRI will continue to have overall fiduciary and operational responsibility for the implementation of A4NH. The Board of Trustees and Director General (DG) of IFPRI will be accountable for the overall execution and for the effective engagement of the different partners in A4NH. IFPRI will be responsible for the overall CGIAR reporting requirements. Along with the other six managing partners (Bioversity, CIAT, IITA, ILRI, LSHTM, and Wageningen UR), IFPRI will have responsibilities for FP management and country coordination. All the managing partners will have members on the A4NH PMC and agree upon responsibilities and budgets with IFPRI through program participant agreements. The member composition of A4NH’s current Independent Advisory Committee (IAC) fits CGIAR’s requirements of an Independent Steering Committee (ISC). In Phase II, the IAC will be reconstituted as the ISC to enable it to take on a more active governance role. The ISC will not only provide advice on strategic direction and priority-setting for the overall program as the IAC did, but it will undertake a formal review and approval of A4NH’s annual plan of work and budget, plans for program evaluations, and strategies. Per the CGIAR principles, the ISC will take part in assessing the performance of the CRP Director by providing advice to the IFPRI DG, who is responsible for the CRP Director’s review. As in Phase I, there will be eight independent members of the ISC. There will be three ex-officio members: the IFPRI DG, one Director from among the six managing partners, and the CRP Director. The ISC will report to the IFPRI Board annually with recommendations and proposed management responses. Potential conflicts between the governance role of the ISPC and the IFPRI Board will be managed and documented based on CGIAR principles. In Phase II, a larger PMC for A4NH is proposed. We plan to enhance the role of CGIAR managing partners by having the five CGIAR managing partners represented on the PMC at the Deputy DG (DDG) or Program Director level. The two external managing partners—Wageningen UR and LSHTM—will also have high-level institutional representatives on the PMC. Each managing partner’s representative will report on the managing partner’s responsibilities, which would include FP/CoA and country coordination leadership to the PMC. The five FP leaders, plus the A4NH Director, as well as one member of the GEE unit and one member of the MEL unit, will be members. The 15 members of the PMC will meet face-to-face twice annually and virtually on a monthly basis. Individual FPs will be encouraged to have their own management groups. For the three FPs with continuing leadership from Phase I, management will build on past systems. For the two FPs with external leaders (Wageningen UR) or co-leaders (LSHTM), the FP leader will have a reporting relationship to the lead institution(s) and the CRP Director. The A4NH external evaluation found that in Phase I most FP leaders had limited authority and incentive to manage aspects of their FP that fell outside their own institution or research program. To address this in Phase II, FP and CoA leaders will have more control over budgets and over which projects are mapped to the FP than they did in Phase I. Phase II RBM and MEL systems will help and support them to manage programmatically, based on FP and CoA ToCs. FP leaders will have the support of research coordinator. John McDermott will continue as A4NH Director and leader of the PMU. The PMU has two main functions: to support FP leaders, the ISC, and the PMC in all aspects of program implementation, and to coordinate CRP-level programming for monitoring, evaluation, reporting, and learning; strategic partnerships; capacity development; knowledge management; and communications. Following advice from the A4NH external evaluation, we plan to specifically strengthen MEL to support our RBM approach and our internal CRP communications in Phase II. Key members of the PMU will continue in their positions, specifically senior staff Nancy Johnson, Hazel Malapit, and Agnes Quisumbing (see CVs in Annex 3.7).

35

Two of the five FP leaders who are currently leading existing programs will continue as leaders: Delia Grace, and Stuart Gillespie. Both are outstanding research leaders with demonstrated capacity for leading multi-institutional research for development partnerships. In November 2015, Howdy Bouis announced his retirement as director of HarvestPlus. The search for his replacement is ongoing, but his successor will be hired before or soon after Phase II begins, and will lead FP2: Biofortification. For FP5: Improving Human Health, the co-leads, ILRI and LSHTM, have proposed Eric Fèvre, who currently holds a joint appointment with ILRI and the University of Liverpool, as the FP leader. For FP1: Food Systems, we have proposed new partnership arrangements across multiple institutions and will recruit a new FP leader (see draft Terms of Reference (ToRs) in Annex 3.7). INTELLECTUAL ASSET MANAGEMENT IFPRI is in compliance with the CGIAR Principles on the Management of Intellectual Assets, which deal with the dissemination of intellectual assets for maximizing global accessibility and impact. The majority of A4NH intellectual assets include knowledge, databases, publications, and other information products. All FPs may produce intellectual assets that include improved germplasm, plant variety rights, trademarks, diagnostic tests and other technologies. Management of those intellectual assets takes place at the managing or strategic partner level, in compliance with CGIAR Principles. All information products produced by A4NH are, wherever possible, disseminated using open access principles, with clear branding to recognize those responsible for producing the intellectual asset. In the cases where particular copyrights apply (e.g., in the case of some high impact journal articles), A4NH abides by the copyright rules of the publishing party. When working with private sector entities, A4NH will clarify that it is committed to open access on knowledge products and will abide by any rules that are placed on the partnership. Final products will be made public in accordance with the agreements. For FP2: Biofortification, intellectual assets are managed through the Centers contracting with HarvestPlus. For FP3: Food Safety, intellectual assets related to food safety technologies and innovations (e.g. aflasafe™) are managed by IITA and ILRI. For FP1: Food Systems and FP5: Improving Human Health, intellectual asset management would be through the managing partners, Wageningen UR, ILRI, LSHTM, and their partners. ILRI’s intellectual assets policy and guidelines provide a good model for managing partner responsibility and compliance with CGIAR principles. More details are in Annex 3.9. OPEN ACCESS MANAGEMENT A4NH seeks to ensure that all research data and other information products produced by A4NH are managed to enable further research, development, and innovation, leading to the best possible impact on target beneficiaries in accordance with our mission. Our approach is consistent with the CGIAR Open Access and Data Management Policy (OADMP), meaning that information products generated under A4NH will be made available for indexing and interlinking, so that research outputs are open via FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Re-usable) principles. More details are in Annex 3.8. At the CRP-level, open access management will include making partners aware of policies and providing systems and structures for partners to follow the policies. This will be operationalized through FPs and CoAs where research outputs will follow CGIAR requirements and primarily be hosted on existing platforms that CGIAR, IFPRI, or other partners manage (e.g. CGSpace, Dataverse, etc.). A4NH will continue to rely on IFPRI, as the Lead Center, and their dedicated resources and capacities through the Knowledge Management team, and will work more closely with technical experts from our participating Centers in Phase II to overcome some of the Phase I challenges described in Annex 3.8. Of particular importance is strengthening partner data collection and archiving to facilitate the rapid availability of high-quality data.

36

COMMUNICATION STRATEGY Strategic communication is central to A4NH and CGIAR as a whole. Rigorous, high-quality research and evidence must first be accessible, then shared, discussed, adapted, and used to achieve outcomes outlined in the SRF. The A4NH communication strategy plays a key role in achieving this, not only by raising visibility and demonstrating accountability, but also by making evidence, tools, and resources available to those who can use them to design more nutrition-sensitive policies and programs and to create enabling environments for nutrition and health. Four communications objectives developed during Phase I with input from the PMC and IAC help guide the A4NH: 1) Influence food and agriculture development agenda; 2) support decisionmakers with the information, evidence, and tools they need to make change; 3) generate and promote high quality evidence on nutrition-sensitive agriculture; and 4) increase visibility and demonstrate accountability of A4NH and CGIAR. A4NH employs a combination of six communication elements in its communication strategy: engaging in policy dialogue to scale up results; engaging with actors on the ground to scale out technologies and practices; communicating the program, the science, results, and progress towards targets; communicating and engaging with partners for effective development impact; promoting learning and sharing of information to improve collaboration within and across CRPs; and making CRP information and resources open and accessible. Within these elements and others, A4NH implements the following types of activities: participating in high-level policy engagement platforms (e.g. policy briefings, discussions, webinars, and research dissemination events); translating A4NH knowledge and findings into useful formats (e.g. briefs, slides, posters, blogs, and videos) tailored for specific audiences; making A4NH evidence, tools, and resources open and accessible; and ensuring consistent and accurate CRP visibility, among others. RISK MANAGEMENT Based on Phase I experience and Phase II expectations, three main risk classes are expected in A4NH: partnerships, funding, and operational practices and procedures. Partnerships are both a great opportunity and a large source of risk. In Phase II, there will be more emphasis on country-level engagement, which will complement the broader CGIAR Site Integration effort. A key factor in country coordination success will be the presence of in-country A4NH team members who can work effectively with national partners and within the overall CGIAR Site Integration effort. This will require A4NH to align better with CGIAR Centers in specific countries and to manage partnership expectations through a clear plan that appropriately manages expectations and provides sufficient human and financial resources. Engagement plans for our five focus countries will be developed with partners, in the context of the finalizing the CGIAR Site Implementation plans during 2016 and early 2017. More detail is in Annex 3.6. Several important new research partnerships have been proposed for Phase II. Wageningen UR will lead a new area of research on food systems. For agriculture and human health, there will be a new partnership with public health research institutes, coordinated by LSHTM. The new partners are high-performing and create comparative advantage for A4NH in newer research areas. Beyond their research quality, Wageningen UR and LSHTM have excellent experience leading and participating in research consortia, but, as with any new partnership, considerable care will be required to clarify roles, responsibilities, and joint working relations. In Phase I, the importance of aligning participating Centers to agreed objectives, outcomes, and operations was a critical challenge. More recently, A4NH has made considerable investment in documenting Center performance and key facets of participation in A4NH for such alignment discussions. Given the importance of effectively mobilizing partners to manage for results, we will engage a smaller group of partners to be

37

actively engaged in A4NH management (managing partners). This arrangement should strengthen partners’ commitment to plan, effectively manage human and financial resources, enhance research quality and monitor, evaluate and learn more effectively together. From Phase I, a major risk in 2015 and 2016 was the volatility of funding. Funding from Window 3 (W3)/bilateral sources was consistently obtained for more mature research areas, but this comes from considerable effort and organization. However, funds for newer research areas have been much more difficult to obtain and thus planning is more difficult. A number of actions have been put in place to increase fundraising success, most importantly improving A4NH’s comparative advantage with new external partners. CGIAR funding, particularly Window 1 (W1) funding, has been extremely volatile, particularly in 2016. Despite consistently effective resource mobilization from W3 and bilateral grants and relatively consistent support from Window 2 (W2) donors in Phase I, A4NH funding has been volatile, particularly for new research areas in 2016, due to much greater cuts in W1 funding. The practice of blending W1 and W2 funding is a disincentive for donors and researchers and a major constraint to more predictable funding. We can expect this will be resolved in Phase II.

38

SECTION 2 FLAGSHIP SECTIONS

39

SECTION 2.1

40

SECTION 2: Flagship Program (FP1) on Food Systems for Healthier Diets RATIONALE AND SCOPE Food systems, encompassing the production, processing, distribution, waste disposal, and consumption of food (see Box 2.1.1 and Figure 2.1.1) can help ensure that people have access to affordable, nutritious foods at all stages of life (Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition 2014). Limited access to and consumption of healthy diets among the poor are at the root of the triple burden of malnutrition: persistent chronic undernutrition and micronutrient deficiencies in early childhood exist in the poorest segments of populations, especially in low- and middle-income countries in Africa and South Asia, alongside rapidly rising rates of overweight, obesity, and diet-related non-communicable diseases (Lim et al. 2012; Popkin and Hawkes 2015). Food systems and the natural resource base are under increasing pressure to provide sufficient, safe, nutritious, and affordable food for all. In recent decades, food systems have undergone major transformations (Reardon et al. 2012). Food production has become more capital-intensive and supply chains have grown longer as basic ingredients undergo multiple transformations towards becoming final food products (Hawkes et al. 2012). At the same time, diets are changing quickly, often driven by the rapid urbanization in many developing countries (D. L. Tschirley et al. 2015).

Box 2.1.1. Definitions for concepts in FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets The term Food System refers to the full set of processes, activities, infrastructure, and environment that encompass the production, processing, distribution, waste disposal, and food consumption. Food systems are multidimensional, including sociocultural, economic, environmental, and political aspects, and complex, with multiple actors (food producers, food-chain actors, and consumers) managing multiple linked and nested agri-food value chains within dynamic and interactive food environments (Figure 2.1.1). Food system thinking is an approach that considers how all components and actors of the food system are interrelated and can be affected by (targeted) incentives or interventions that change final (nutrition) outcomes (Herforth, Lidder, and Gill 2015). Food system research includes the governance and political economy of food production and consumption (access and equity), sustainability, effects on health and well-being (nutrition and food safety), and links between food production and the natural environment. Diet quality is central to healthy diets and encompasses aspects of both adequacy and moderation. Adequacy refers to getting enough of desirable foods or food groups (whole grains, fruits, vegetables, fish, meat, nuts and seeds, beans and legumes, milk, eggs, and dietary fiber), energy, macro- and micronutrients. Moderation refers to restriction of unwanted foods, food components or nutrients such as fat (especially saturated fat), cholesterol, sugar, sugar-sweetened beverages, and sodium(Herforth et al. 2014; Alkerwi 2014).

Figure 2.1.1. Food systems, actors, and drivers

41

The urban poor and emerging middle-class households tend to reduce their consumption of cereals, roots, and tubers while increasing demand for refined grains and flours, sugar, salt, and fats. Demand for processed and convenient foods at supermarkets, fast-food restaurants, and for informal street foods becomes increasingly important. For middle-class population groups, demand for fruits, vegetables, and animal-source foods (ASF), such as dairy, poultry, eggs, meat, and fish, strongly increases(D. Tschirley et al. 2015). Especially in high- and middle-income countries, consumption of healthier foods has grown in the past two decades, but particularly in low-income countries, consumption of less healthy foods, such as processed meats and sugars, is rising even faster (Imamura et al. 2015). Improving diet quality by changing interactions and feedbacks between food systems components is considered an essential element of sustainable efforts to alleviate malnutrition and nutrition-related diseases worldwide (Popkin and Hawkes 2015). As they undergo transformation and seek to respond to dietary changes, local and regional food systems must resolve tradeoffs between nutritional, social, economic, and environmental objectives and constraints. In particular, food systems must: (1) meet consumers’ food quality and safety demands; (2) develop effective value-chain linkages; and (3) reduce pressure on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, while increasing their capacity to respond to climate change. Strategic rationale and scope The dietary implications of food system transformations for health in developing countries and the need to support food systems to produce and supply appropriate nutritious, safe foods for healthy lives are increasingly recognized by governments, businesses, and civil society groups (WHO/FAO 2003; International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) 2014; Access to Nutrition Foundation 2016) and by international forums, including the 2nd International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2) in 2014, the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES Food) in 2015, the Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition in 2014, and the WEF Global Agenda Council on Food and Nutrition in 2015. These forums generally seek some input from CGIAR to gain a better understanding of (1) how food systems can be guided to become healthier and more sustainable; (2) the driving forces and the dynamics of food system changes, including foresight tools; and (3) of how the private sector and civil society can collaborate to identify food system innovations at different scales and nutrition-sensitive scaling approaches at the national food system level. FP1 will directly address Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 and SDG 3. Better nutrition boosts adult productivity (Strauss and Thomas 1998), and better nutrition of females is associated with empowerment of women in agriculture (Malapit et al. 2015; Malapit and Quisumbing 2015). Improvements in nutrition, including reduction in undernutrition, micronutrient deficiencies, and overweight and obesity, all lead to declines in nutrition-related mortality, infectious diseases at a young age, and non-communicable diseases later in life (Black et al. 2013). This FP will also contribute to SDG 4 and SDG 5: better nutrition is vital for early child development and education, and it improves the ability of girls, adolescents, and women to perform well at school and become empowered in the workforce and wider society (Victora et al. 2008). FP activities will also contribute to SDG 14 and SDG 15 by aiming to reduce pressure of food systems on these aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. In this context, this FP will focus on a dynamic analysis of the transformation of food systems and diet transitions. It will seek to understand not only the impacts and effectiveness of specific types of policy interventions and business innovations in relation to the food system for different target populations, but also their possible environmental and economic trade-offs. Our research will be organized in three clusters of activities (CoA):

42

• CoA 1: assessing regional and subregional drivers of food system transformation, and options and constraints for dietary change (diagnosis and foresight),

• CoA 2: testing concrete agri-food value chains innovations and interventions for improving diet quality and diversity (food system innovations), and

• CoA 3: supporting the scaling up of successful actions through effective engagement of multi-stakeholder platforms and multisectoral mechanisms (scaling up and anchoring).

OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS The overarching goal of FP1 is to understand how changes in food systems can lead to healthier diets, and to identify and test entry points for interventions to make those changes. We focus on measuring changes in diet quality among (young) women, their children, and vulnerable populations, who are most at risk for malnutrition. This FP’s contribution to the 2022 CGIAR target is a 10% reduction in consumption of less than the adequate number of food groups among women of reproductive age and their children in the four target countries (Performance Indicator Matrix – Table A). In addition, this FP will contribute to development outcomes in three ways: 1. By providing evidence on drivers of and constraints to diet changes among target populations and

food system performance related to healthier diets, to inform policy discussions and multi-stakeholder dialogues in target countries;

2. By improving the performance of multiple nutrient-rich agri-food value chains and identifying options to upscale effective food system innovations to large segments of target populations; and

3. By supporting agri-food system CGIAR Research Programs (AFS-CRPs) through communities of practice (CoP) that can guide researchers in using food-system pathways and strategies for strengthening and leveraging agri-food systems for healthier diets in CGIAR research.

This knowledge will support scaling up through targeted capacity building, knowledge dissemination, and policy engagement. Through an agri-food value chains pathway and a policies pathway, the FP directly addresses the second system level outcome (SLO2) on improved food and nutrition security for health, through the sub-intermediate development outcome (IDO) on improved diets for poor and vulnerable people. It also has important links with the SLO on reduced poverty, through the contributions to the sub-IDO on diversified enterprise opportunities, and to SLO3 on improved natural resource systems and ecosystem services, through the contribution to the sub-IDO on enhanced adaptive capacity to climate risks. Given the wide-ranging implications of food system changes, it also contributes to three of the cross-cutting issues (see Figure 2.1.2 and Performance Indicator Matrix – Table C).

43

Figure 2.1.2. Impact pathways for FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets

By 2022, this FP expects its research to contribute to three main outcomes, as described in Performance Indicator Matrix – Table B): • Partners and other CRPs, like AFS-CRPs, food producers, and agri-food value chains actors

incorporate nutrition, health, and gender in agri-food value chains and food system programs. • Stakeholders (corporate investors, civil society, academia, industry, policymakers) consider healthier

diets in processes related to food systems. • Strategies for agri-food value chains innovation are implemented at scale by partners.

By 2022, the following outcomes will be achieved in all four target countries (see geographies below): • Portfolio of validated metrics and tools for assessing diet quality and characterizing food systems as

well as for foresight and scenario analysis applied • Key leverage points for improving diets through food systems identified and at least four

interventions co-designed, tested and evaluated with local platforms, partners, and stakeholders • Active policy engagement on improving food systems for healthier diets (concerted actions) • Knowledge dissemination among important decision makers and across larger networks of

stakeholders accomplished. • Capacity developed among key individuals and groups in relation to improving food systems from a

dietary perspective Target Geographies FP1 will focus on two regions: Africa south of the Sahara, and South and Southeast Asia. In addition, complementary studies may be conducted in Latin America on specific experiences with food system innovations and dietary change. In the focal regions, we will examine trends and variability in healthier diets within and across countries and population segments, linking them to changes in food system dynamics. To provide a deeper understanding of diets and food system interactions at national and subnational levels, we will conduct more detailed analysis of diets and food systems in four target

44

countries: Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Vietnam. These countries provide a range of diet and (sub)-national food system contexts at various stages of food system transformation and urbanization, and they are all CGIAR Site Integration ++ countries. In other countries, specific interventions may be piloted and scaled up, but not research on the national and sub-national food-systems. IMPACT PATHWAY AND THEORY OF CHANGE FP1 contributes to development outcomes through two primary impact pathways: Agri-food Value Chains Pathway and Policies Pathway. Both pathways are linked and synergies and trade-offs are recognized. While the first pathway provides the necessary evidence to make policy decisions, in turn, policy decisions may also influence the pathway. Both are strongly context specific; and the diagnosis/foresight work and testing of identified food system innovations are important for adjusting the Theories of Change (ToCs) to national level.

In the first pathway, diet quality is improved and human well-being increased through changes in multiple nutrition-relevant agri-food value chains. For target populations with low dietary diversity, we will explore how to support more rapid development of (in)formal agri-food value chains for nutritious foods—whether single foods (e.g. fruits, vegetables, ASF, grain legumes, and biofortified staples) or combinations of foods (e.g. processed foods)—to enhance diet quality among women and children. The ToC in Figure 2.1.3 has both supply (left) and demand (right) components. In the focus countries, this FP will identify the best leverage points for entry into food system dynamics from a dietary perspective. On the demand side, changes in diets can occur in response to changes in cultural or social norms, preferences, education, and access to information, relative prices of foods, income, or through behavior change. Changing behavior requires five steps: making new behaviors understood, easy, desirable, rewarding, and habitualized (Weed 2012). On the supply side, entry points include the types of products and their key characteristics, such as affordability and accessibility. To attain the IDOs, it is important to identify the agri-food value chains and partners most relevant for healthier diets. The goal of CoA 2: food system innovations, is to test the effectiveness of such interventions (see below). The supply side offers several key testable assumptions. For example, do producers or agri-food value chains actors have the resources and perceive benefits from opportunities for new, healthier products? We will measure available endowments and attitudes among key groups for specific, identified opportunities and then test whether producers/actors are willing to take the risk embedded in these new opportunities by investing in new crops or products. On the supply side, it is particularly important to pay attention to the role of gender; when specific crops are produced, processed, and/or sold by either men or women, gender relationships along the food production side of the chain can influence welfare, bargaining, and, ultimately, nutritional outcomes. Finally, FP1 will assess how beneficial, detrimental, or vulnerable a specific innovation is to the environment and integrate those insights into decision-making processes. On the demand side, this FP will test whether or not information about healthier diets reaches targeted beneficiaries or those who purchase food for them (especially mothers), as well as whether those knowledge changes are leading to behavior changes. This FP will also measure the relative cost of more nutritious foods to understand whether these foods fit income constraints and whether decisionmakers have the agency, information, resources, and desire to purchase and consume more nutritious foods. If these assumptions can be met, improved accessibility of nutritious foods could lead to improved diet quality among (young) women, children, and vulnerable populations. Being the future workforce, leaders and bearers of the next generation, needs and aspirations of the adolescent girls and young women are important to consider as in this period of life youth is receptive to new ideas and make

45

lifestyle (including diet) choices determining their future health. If they cannot be met, it is important to trace where assumptions break down so that projects can adapt. In the second impact pathway, this FP will contribute to development outcomes through policy processes, initially in target countries and later in other countries. National and sub-national governments, and other local and regional actors, can influence policy and regulatory frameworks to promote healthier foods and reduce unhealthy components and to make food systems more environmentally sustainable and resilient to climate-change. To inform policy discussions and regulatory options, this FP will conduct policy analysis and provide evidence on diet and food system changes and their links to national and sub-national policy processes, in relation to direct domains (e.g. food safety, health, agriculture subsidies) and indirect domains (e.g. urbanization, infrastructure planning, environment or climate change). Key decisionmakers and stakeholders (i.e. from private sector and consumer organizations) will be identified and engaged early in target countries. Results of the diagnostic work can help frame policy debates. Later, evidence on specific policy interventions can help shape the policies themselves or how they are implemented (e.g. through public-private investments). The ToC of this policy pathway is described in Figure 2.1.4. We will work closely with FP4: SPEAR, which works on public good program pathways and looks at country SDG indicators for nutrition and health, while this FP concentrates on food policy, regulations, and investments linked to the agri-food value chains pathway. While in both pathways, diet quality for (young) women and children is the main outcome, we will also work closely with the CRPs on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS) and Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM) to ensure that we consider synergies and tradeoffs between impacts of food system innovations on diets with other outcomes, such as equity, empowerment, economic performance, and sustainability.

46

Figure 2.1.3. Theory of Change of the Agri-Food Value Chains Pathway

Reach/reaction: Consumers, both men and women, hear about importance of nutritious foods and healthy diets and consider it relevant,

Capacity changes: Consumers want to make healthier food choices.

Impact: Increased diet quality of young women, children and vulnerable

populations

Assumptions: • Healthier food choices are seen

as desirable • Main household food purchaser

understands the importance of diet quality for healthy diets

• Food purchaser has decision making power to purchase more nutritious foods

Practice changes: Consumers make it a habit to make healthier food choices

Assumptions: • Practices are feasible to adopt

(easy, i.e. available, affordable & convenient)

• Consumers see it as rewarding and are supported and reminded by their environment to make healthier food choices.

Assumptions: • Behavior change

communication plan is set up and targets consumers who need to hear about nutritious foods and healthy diets

• Behavior change communication reaches the consumers whose diets need to be improved, especially mothers and children

Impact: Increased availability and accessibility of

nutritious food and food products

Assumptions:

• Practices are effective

FP1 Output: •Understanding of diets, food system and their trends and linkages •Leverage points for agri-food value chains innovations identified •Principles of agri-food value chains interventions for healthier diets understood

Reach/reaction: Farmers/chain agents learn about profitable opportunities to grow, process, and trade more nutritious foods and food products

Capacity changes: Farmers/ chain agents have increased capacity to use opportunities to grow, process, and trade more nutritious food and food products

Practice changes: Farmers produce nutritious foods; private sector uses knowledge and skills in their business practices

Assumptions: • Information on leverage

points and principles reaches right actors and stakeholders

Assumptions: • Farmers and chain

actors have the resources to try the identified opportunities

Assumptions: • Farmers/chain actors are

willing to risk pursuing identified opportunities

• Private sector is willing to embed innovations as business practices

• No large big changes to the environment affecting profitability or productivity of new crops

• Growing more nutritious food does not occur at the expense of natural resource base

Assumptions: • Practices are effective

47

Figure 2.1.4. Theory of Change of the policies impact pathway

Impact: Increased diet quality of consumers

Impact: Increased availability and accessibility of nutritious food and food

products

FP1 Output: •Tools and metrics to assess and evaluate sustainable food systems, diet quality •Evidence base on diet and food system status, trends, and policy frameworks at national and subnational levels •Leverage points identified, tested, and evaluated

Reach/reaction: Policy makers and stakeholders become aware of the food system changes needed to lead to healthier diets

Capacity changes: Policy makers consider the evidence and understand the appropriate policy levers for improving diets

Practice changes: Policies are more conducive to healthier diets and do not have detrimental impacts on environment and are climate-sensitive

Assumptions • Right information reaches

right policy makers and stakeholders

• Information is relevant • Policy makers and

stakeholders are receptive

Assumptions • Policy changes related to

diet improvements fit the policy agenda

• Policy changes support gender equity

Assumptions • Political climate is

conducive to policy changes related to improving diets

• Some policy maker(s) are willing to expend political capital to champion new policies

• Policymakers understand any relevant trade-offs between heathier diets and climate impacts

Assumptions • Policies are enforced and

effective

48

SCIENCE QUALITY This FP builds upon lessons learned from the Phase I flagship on Value Chains for Enhanced Nutrition (VCN), whose main goals were to build a framework to assess single-product value chains from a nutrition perspective, to pilot innovations for improving value chains, and to test local opportunities to improve consumption of nutrient-dense foods. The framework analyzes value chains from the consumer, rather than producer perspective, and provides an understanding of how to fill dietary gaps with nutrient-dense foods, such as ASF, fruits, vegetables, and pulses (Gelli et al. 2015). It suggests both nutrition and agricultural performance indicators to understand whether agri-food value chains are functioning properly to deliver nutritious foods. It also develops tools for better understanding the role of gender in terms of food choices and bargaining at different points in the chain. Using this framework, the research team has made considerable progress analyzing value-chain improvements from a nutrition perspective, and experimenting with incentives to increase demand for nutritious foods. Value-chain assessments show how markets can be relevant for filling gaps in the diets of poor consumers, based on the analysis of value chains for indigenous fruits in Kenya and Peru, animal-source foods in the slums of Nairobi, and beans and amaranth in East Africa (Kehlenbeck, Asaah, and Jamnadass 2013; Penny et al. 2015). Projects with World Food Programme (WFP) focus on food system metrics, taking a multi-chain approach for structured demand (e.g. schools and hospitals). Other ongoing work for food systems and nutrition analysis at national and subnational levels is funded by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), and the European Union (EU). The CRP on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) partners are collaborating with AFS-CRPs to assess national and local food systems, including linkages and trade-offs between nutritional, environmental, and socioeconomic performance, in Ethiopia, Kenya, Vietnam, and Zambia. The work on nutrition sensitive landscapes led to a conceptual framework and methods and tools for assessing potential synergies and trade-offs between agricultural production, the environment, and food and nutrition security in selected landscapes (Groot et al., in press; Kennedy et al., in press). Recently, the framework extended to consider agri-food value chains from both a nutrition and sustainability lens (Allen, de Brauw, and Gelli 2016). A4NH began to experiment with methods of stimulating demand for nutritious foods. In Bangladesh, studies focused on specific value chains, placing nutrition messages on seed packets given to randomized groups, and trying to understand factors stimulating demand for yogurt. In another project, women were organized into cooking contests that required the use of more nutrient-dense foods, as an effort to stimulate the use of more nutritious ingredients in selected communities. Also in Bangladesh, a project planned for 2016 will measure the change in people’s willingness to pay for specific pulse products when nutrition information is displayed on the packaging. In India, A4NH is testing an intervention for getting unsold vegetables into the hands of relatively poor consumers. In Colombia, Honduras, and Nicaragua, research co-financed by the Ford Foundation, focusses on how to stimulate demand for heathier diets by poor consumers. In Phase I, research focused on assessing value chains and their contributions to improved nutrition. In Phase II, this will expand to include the wider food system. Taking a diet quality perspective, the scope must broaden from analysis of single commodity value chains, to innovations at the whole food system level. This widens the scope of research to consider, while continuing to focus on linkages between food consumption and agricultural production. Specifically, decisionmaking on business practices in the private sector that could affect the food system at different levels (household, municipality, region, country) must be considered, and the policy scope must include food system, environment, and other scaling policies.

49

This FP will therefore pursue a novel line of research by studying food systems comprehensively, within the broader socio-economic, political economy, and environmental systems in which they are embedded (McDermott et al. 2015; Ingram, Erickson, and Leverman 2010). This FP will develop generic frameworks and integrated metrics to assess food-system performance and drivers for diet change at individual, household, (sub)regional levels in different national contexts. Institutional and regulatory frameworks, and power relations—in particular those formed along gender or similar lines—are considered crucial in determining how food systems are performing. We cannot rely on unidirectional flows of knowledge from scientists to decision-makers, but need reciprocal flows between science, policy, and practice, building transdisciplinary science (Foran et al. 2014; Hammond and Dubé 2012). Understanding feedbacks between food system actors (as complex adaptive systems) and nonlinear interactions (through multi-agency simulation) offers opportunities for a new generation of food and nutrition foresight models for pursuing healthier and sustainable diets. CGIAR has considerable capacity in many elements of food systems research including primary agricultural production, agro-food value chains, natural resources and environmental sustainability, and policies and institutions. In 2012, CGIAR added improved nutrition and health as a high-level goal (or System Level Outcome). A4NH has developed a strong basis for this proposed research: it has validated dietary diversity indicators (Fiedler et al. 2012; Martin-Prével et al. 2015), developed a framework for nutrition-sensitive value-chain interventions (Gelli et al. 2015), analyzed agriculture-nutrition pathways (Gillespie, Harris, and Kadiyala 2012), developed gender-nutrition tools and methods (Johnston et al. 2015), and assessed diet transitions (Headey et al. 2015; Arimond et al. 2010). However, the nutrition transition requires diet quality indicators beyond simple dietary diversity scores to evaluate diet composition (both healthy and unhealthy components), and dietary patterns, and to develop and validate new assessment tools (Ocke 2013; Imamura et al. 2015; Marshall, Burrows, and Collins 2014; Waijers, Feskens, and Ocké 2007). Beyond A4NH’s experience developing research on value chains for enhanced nutrition, Wageningen University and Research Centre (Wageningen UR) brings experience and leadership in international projects related to food systems, and a strong capacity component of training young researchers from lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The EU-funded Sustainable Food and Nutrition Security (SUSFANS) project provides a conceptual framework and analytical tools for underpinning food policies and their impact on consumer diet, implications for nutrition and public health, the environment, and the competitiveness of the agri-food sectors. The FOODSECURE project provides a set of analytical instruments to experiment, analyze, and coordinate the effects of short and long term policies to achieve food security, and can be operationalized into the EU-Africa Research & Innovation Partnership, with a focus on food and nutrition security and sustainable agriculture. Multi-stakeholder partnerships between food system actors (business, research organizations, government and civil society) are essential to identify and test innovations at a scale. Experiences in public private partnership platforms (e.g. the Amsterdam Initiative against Malnutrition) suggest key action areas to establish effective upscaling networks and pathways for institutional anchoring (Reid, Hayes, and Stibbe 2014). This also broadens the scope for innovations on incentives (nudging) to motivate individual consumers and the private sector towards healthier food choices. LESSONS LEARNT AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES As discussed above, FP1 builds and expands upon lessons learned from the Phase I VCN flagship. This flagship will also continue the consumer perspective, in this case studying the food system from the perspective of the diet, in alignment with CGIAR’s Strategy and Results Framework (SRF). The primary emphasis on food systems will be at the national level, since national governments play an important

50

role in determining policies and investments to help meet their agricultural potential, and such investments have important implications for what farmers grow and what people eat within a national context. Next, one can consider subnational agro-ecological zones, and how the food systems of each fits together. One can build up national food systems to consider regional food systems, which may be particularly important in countries with a great deal of agricultural trade.

Phase I research focused primarily on individual value chains for more nutritious foods (ASF, fruits and vegetables, and pulses). By broadening the focus to food systems, this FP can incorporate multiple value chains that come together within the context of food systems, spanning multiple crops and food products that are the focus of AFS- CRPs and other potential partners. The goal in Phase II is to better complement the supply side emphasis of value chain research conducted by AFS-CRPs, and to enhance the tools for value chain analysis that have been developed in FP3 of PIM, from a healthy diets perspective.

In order to make diets healthier through food systems, a deep engagement with the private sector in focus countries is necessary; in Phase I, private sector engagement was limited to interactions mediated through business schools. To ensure dietary improvements are anchored in the food system, research programming must address how private actors in the economy account for dietary quality in their decisionmaking, and understand how dietary quality trades off against profits and sustainability considerations. Through its strong partnership with the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), this FP will engage in action research projects with the private sector to build an understanding of these tradeoffs in focus countries.

It is first important to understand the diet from a more holistic perspective, understanding the drivers that lead to both undernutrition and overnutrition, from a systems perspective. As those drivers are understood, this FP can then consider and pilot test interventions to improve the diet from a health perspective, while considering economic and environmental tradeoffs. Alternatively, this FP can suggest policy changes that could lead to healthier diets based on modeling. As successful interventions and policies are identified, they can be considered for scale up at a national level.

Wageningen UR will lead this FP, using its experience in bringing together multiple disciplines in previous food systems projects (e.g the SUSFANS project) and its strong track record of research on human health and diet quality in relation to food systems. It has also brought together multiple disciplines in previous food systems projects and has strong linkages with the private sector. Additionally, GAIN and its Amsterdam Initiative against Malnutrition will be an important partner in this FP, strengthening partnerships with the private sector. To limit the otherwise broad focus of food systems, this FP will focus its work in four countries, developing partnerships and relationships with important actors in the food systems of those countries. CLUSTERS OF ACTIVITY FP1 strengthens the analytical capacity on food systems for healthier diets in CGIAR and beyond by revisiting and advancing concepts, recasting and testing evidence, conducting rigorous analysis, and engaging stakeholders. The FP is organized in three CoAs: in CoA 1: diagnosis and foresight, the initial focus is to fill crucial knowledge gaps on the dynamics of interactions between food systems and diet quality at national and subnational levels. The knowledge will be used to identify actions needed to address diet gaps through food systems, while accounting for possible environmental and economic trade-offs. Concrete opportunities to improve diet quality and policies/regulatory frameworks will be identified and tested in CoA 2: food system innovations, by identifying and testing interventions that work through food systems to provide a diversity of healthier foods. Through the compilation of results

51

generated from the first two CoAs, CoA 3: scaling and anchoring, will identify lessons for scaling up within focus countries. CoA 1: Diagnosis and foresight: Linking dietary and food systems transformations Despite food systems’ critical role in people’s diets, limited information about both food system transformations and diet changes exists and the theoretical and empirical understanding of the interactions between food systems and diets is incomplete. A thorough understanding of the current status and dynamic interaction between food systems, diets and their drivers (e.g. urbanization, demographic transition, climate change, new food retail and prepared food outlets) is required to guide transformations of food systems toward healthier diets for poor populations and to address future environmental, social and economic trade-offs. This CoA will be structured around five main research questions (see Box 2.1.2).

Box 2.1.2. Main research questions in CoA1: Diagnosis and Foresight 1. What are the crucial gaps (including deficiencies, excesses, imbalances) in diet quality in the focus

countries (and subregions), and how are those gaps linked to the present state of their food systems?

2. How are diet quality changes influenced by food system transformations and vice versa, and how does this interaction play out for the different target groups (women and children)?

3. Which constraints and enablers within national and subnational food systems hinder or support key actors (including consumers, public and private food actors, and producers) in making diets healthier?

4. What are environmental, social, and economic trade-offs and synergies of improving food systems and diets to ensure sustainability of sufficient diet quality for human well-being?

5. What are the key leverage points to support food systems in focus countries in ways that lead to improved diets?

The research will have three interlinked sets of activities. The first set involves concept development, metrics, and tools. The research will focus on reviewing and refining existing conceptual frameworks, including relationships and interactions between consumers, value chain actors (retailers, wholesalers, food processors), and primary producers, from a nutrition lens. The resulting framework will be used to develop testable hypotheses on how a range of food system activities contribute—positively or negatively—to diet quality and how they are influenced by environmental, economic, social, cultural, and policy processes. Relevant qualitative and quantitative metrics, data collection, and analytical tools will be developed to assess diet quality and characterize food systems using primary and existing secondary data. This work will be supported by analytical tools and foresight techniques used to analyze drivers shaping the linkages between food systems and diet quality, and the role of policies in influencing food system–diet relations locally and nationally. The second set of activities focuses on characterization and assessment. Metrics, methods, and tools identified in the first set of activities will be used in focus countries (and subnational regions/landscapes) to characterize diets, determine crucial diet quality gaps, and link findings to current food systems. We will assess drivers of existing diets and food systems and their interlinkages, specifically investigating how demand- and supply-side drivers influence diet trends for nutritious foods, such as fruits, vegetables, and ASF, and how diet transitions influence local food systems. Special attention will be paid to trade-offs and synergies, in terms of nutritional, environmental (land and water use, biodiversity), and equity outcomes. This work will also examine the influence of policies (international, national and

52

subnational) and the political economy of policy changes, especially the implications for different socioeconomic and gender groups. Based on results of the first two areas of work and priorities arising from the other two CoAs (see below), the third set of activities will be structured around foresight and scenario analysis. Modeling and scenario techniques will be used at three main scales to support foresight on food system development from a diet perspective, while considering sustainability and climate change constraints. First, dynamic micro-level models will be used to operationalize healthy diets and to understand their feasibility, affordability, convenience, and desirability. Farm household modeling will be used to understand the environmental, climatic, and economic trade-offs of focusing the food supply on optimized diets. At the meso-level, country/landscape-level modeling will build understanding of the drivers and interlinkages between diets, food systems, and agro-ecosystem conditions. This area of work will build on economy-wide models developed under FP2 in PIM and by LEI-Wageningen UR (Magnet) with the objective of assessing how key drivers, such as urbanization and income growth, interact with domestic farming systems, natural resources, and climate, leading to changing relative food prices and production patterns, particularly for more nutritious foods. Finally, macro-level modeling will aim at improving current global models being applied to trade, agricultural policy, biofuel policy, and climate change issues. The three levels of modeling will be implemented in close cooperation with PIM and CCAFS to reinforce the coherence with the other CRPs' portfolios. Major outputs and outcome ones are described in Box 2.1.3.

Box 2.1.3. Major outputs and outcomes of CoA1 (see Perf. Indicator Matrix – Table D for more) 2017 • a full framework conceptualizing the interactions between food systems and diet quality

and their environmental, economic, social, cultural and policy drivers • the portfolio of validated metrics and tools for assessing diet quality and characterizing

food systems developed and use started in Ethiopia and Vietnam 2019 • Detailed analytical reports and publications will be produced on food system and diet

quality linkages and dynamics , and foresight and scenario analysis for the four focus countries). —Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Vietnam

• Portfolio of validated metrics and tools for assessing diet quality and characterizing food systems, applied in the four key countries and used by other CRPs

2022 • Evidence delivered on key leverage points for improving diets through food systems in all four key countries

• Partners and other CRPs incorporate nutrition, health and gender in value chain and food systems programs

CoA 2: Food System Innovations This CoA will identify concrete opportunities to improve diet quality and develop solutions in partnership with food systems stakeholders, referred to as “co-development,” and then analyze these innovations to study their dietary impacts. Innovations may occur in the public or private sector, and can involve specific nutritious agri-food value chains or broader elements of the food system. Such innovations need a proof of concept to validate their technical, organizational, socioeconomic, and environmental feasibility, and to assess food-system actors’ incentives to implement them. Research in this CoA will be guided by the results generated in CoA 1: diagnosis and foresight, for the focus countries and augmented by targeted opportunities in additional countries. Activities will be structured around three main research questions (see Box 2.1.4).

53

Box 2.1.4. Main research questions in CoA 2: Food System Innovations 1. Which demand-side innovations stimulate consumers to choose foods that make them healthier

(across all food groups or for specific nutritious food groups)? 2. What supply-side innovations will promote the affordability, availability and sustainability of

nutritious foods (across all food groups or for specific nutritious food groups)? 3. How do these innovations influence the diet; e.g., what are the net nutritional impacts of specific

innovations, and are there gender-related, income and/or environmental trade-offs? These research questions will be answered through three sets of activities. The first focuses on identifying and assessing demand-side innovations. Without proper incentives, consumers will not necessarily purchase healthier foods, and even if they do, targeted individuals (women, children, youth, and the poor) may not consume them. Building on studies conducted or begun in Phase I, we will study ways to stimulate demand among food purchasers in households and among individuals within households. At a micro level, different methods of advertising, packaging, store placement, pricing, or behavior change communication (including public policy campaigns) can all potentially improve demand for readily available healthier foods. Methodologies used include lab-in-the-field experiments and randomized control trials designed in collaboration with implementing partners. This research will generate knowledge about how to stimulate demand for healthier foods. The second set focuses on identifying and assessing supply-side innovations. Value chains—for one product or multiple products—are a major channel for interventions to improve diets. For example, we can safely assume that fruit and vegetable consumption is lower than optimal, and increasing seasonal and overall availability, affordability, convenience, and desirability of fruits and vegetables would improve diets (Siegel et al. 2014). We will address the relative lack of production of nutritious foods with implementing partners from the private and public sectors. Innovations may relate to inputs (seed or seedling quality, fertilizer use, credit), postharvest handling and management (storage, transport), or market outlet frameworks (daily delivery, contracts, preferred suppliers). In value chains combining several foods, innovations can help make nutritious foods more available and affordable relative to less nutritious foods. Such innovations may include improving fresh markets for food safety and availability, establishing nutritional profiling systems as a basis for regulatory and fiscal food system policies, or guiding food processors on maintaining nutrients during processing and/or limiting levels of fat, sugar and salt in processed foods. Such interventions will be assessed using tools developed by PIM’s FP on Inclusive and Efficient Value Chains, and during A4NH’s first phase. The third set relates to evaluating the influence of these innovations on the diet. Outcomes of studied innovations will be assessed through base- and end-line dietary assessments, and analyzed in terms of their effectiveness, cost, and practical feasibility for addressing dietary gaps in targeted groups. Evaluations will be designed to learn about gendered and environmental impacts (biodiversity, water quality, soil fertility, land degradation, climate change), so innovations that would negatively affect either gender balance or the environment if scaled up would not be recommended. Assessment tools developed during Phase I of the CRPs on CCAFS, Water, Land, Soils, and Ecosystems (WLE), and A4NH and by CoA 3: scaling and anchoring, will be used to assess interventions. The process ownership will be shared by food system stakeholders and researchers, so that all are involved in the development and evaluation of innovations. Early and full stakeholder engagement increases the likelihood that innovations are implemented and adopted by consumers. We will focus on working through public-private platforms (PPPs) in focus countries, to identify incentives that encourage positive shifts by the private sector. The goal is to build up contextual evidence to use in CoA 3: scaling

54

and anchoring. For each of the research questions, research generated by individual activities will be synthesized into reports and policy briefs that discuss any generalizable lessons. Datasets generated as part of the research on specific innovations, will be made publically available. CoA 3: scaling and anchoring, offers a major area of joint research with AFS-CRPs. Major outputs and outcome ones are described in Box 2.1.5.

Box 2.1.5. Major outputs and outcomes of CoA2 (see Perf. Indicator Matrix – Table D for more) 2017 • Identification and co-design of at least two opportunities for food systems innovations

with AFS-CRPS, local platforms, partners, and stakeholders in Ethiopia and Vietnam 2019 • Identification and co-design of additional two opportunities for food systems

innovations in Ethiopia and Vietnam and at least four opportunities in Nigeria and Bangladesh with AFS-CRPs, local platforms, partners, and stakeholders in the four countries

• At least two food systems innovations tested and evaluated with local platforms, partners, and stakeholders in the four focal countries.

2022 • At least four food systems innovations tested and evaluated with local platforms, partners, and stakeholders in the four focal countries.

• Stakeholders (investor, civil society, policy makers) consider healthier diets in processes related to food systems

• Small and medium agri-food enterprises implement increased value addition CoA 3: Upscaling and Anchoring Food System Transformation This cluster aims to identify and better understand drivers and innovations enabling food system transformation for healthier diets at scale, building on knowledge gains from system analysis in CoA1, and small-scale innovations studied in CoA2. Research will focus on influencing food systems' performances at two levels. First, actors in agri-food value chains will be supported in scaling up innovations for healthier foods and improving the nutritional quality and safety of already distributed foods. Second, research will focus on how public policy and investment decisions enable food system transformations for healthier diets at scale, building on the first CoA. This research will use PPPs to anchor innovations in the food system, where anchoring is a process of making multiple connections to increase the chance that sustainable change is realized (Elzen, van Mierlo, and Leeuwis 2012; Leeuwis et al., n.d.; Linn 2012). Research into options for scaling up and anchoring food system transformation for healthier diets is based on the premise that policy processes vary by country and can be influenced by several national strategies, enabling conditions for private sector innovation. The research will (a) systematically assess country experiences in food system transformation strategies at different points in time and (b) draw on relevant examples from countries (like Brazil), which made significant progress in reducing hunger and undernutrition with a combination of agricultural productivity growth, social protection, and new dietary guidelines. Policies and strategies that will be explored include:

• Major agri-food system policies (such as smallholder or larger farm-based growth, value addition of food products, and spatial focus on growth corridors, rural towns, and remote areas) (Hartmann et al. 2013).

• How food chain policies (pricing/taxation, labeling, and reducing transaction costs) account for economic, health, and environmental trade-offs, including their implications for equity; and

55

• Mainstreaming healthier food in food systems, through dietary guidelines, nutrient profiling, food grades and standards, and regulation and taxation of unhealthy foods (Tara Garnett et al. 2015).

Particular attention is paid to the dynamic role of agri-food business networks (small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) enterprises, business incubators) and connections to scaling agents (supermarkets, agri-food processors, finance and banking, and trading/logistics firms). Within this broader food system analysis, four key research questions relevant for scaling and anchoring are formulated (see Box 2.1.6).

Box 2.1.6. Main research questions in CoA 3: Scaling and Anchoring 1. In specific national contexts, what specific policies can enable food systems to sustainably shift

toward healthier diets at scale? 2. What innovations at scale are successful at supporting food systems for healthier diets for specific

target populations? 3. Can engaging consumers and civil society/advocacy groups effectively influence demand for

healthier and more sustainable diets, and more sustainable food systems? 4. Will agri-food businesses include sustainability and health considerations in their decisions, and

does this influence the accessibility and consumption of healthier food? The research will have three linked sets of activities. The first set focuses on comparative learning, systematically assessing different scaling and anchoring options for food system transformation linked to changing dietary patterns within and across countries. The goal is to compare different pathways toward healthier and more sustainable diets in relation to varying market and institutional conditions. The second set involves participatory scenario analyses. Here we will analyze different scenarios of possible food system changes (generated in CoA 1: diagnosis and foresight) together with key societal partners, to identify effective informative arrangements and appropriate policy incentives for upscaling. This activity will collaborate with CCAFS CoA 1.2 to generate combined climate, food and nutrition scenarios at national and subnational levels, linked to global scenarios. Attention will be paid to both horizontal (cooperative) networks and vertical (supply) chains for innovations that enhance food quality (Ruben et al. 2007), improve reliable logistic conditions, and support PPPs for anchoring food system change (Hartwich et al. 2008). Third, identified options will be tested through concerted actions. The emphasis will be on aligning healthier food chain innovations with consumer choice, which requires an understanding of the role of diet information, sector-wide standards, commodity labels, and certification in food system transformation. Main research approaches will include comparative case studies, participatory scenario analysis, robust impact assessment and interactive adaptive system methods. Consumer response surveys, non-experimental approaches, and experiment-based methods may be used to assess broader feasibility of food system innovations (Kiesel, McCluskey, and Villas-Boas 2011). Major outputs and outcome are described in Box 2.1.7.

56

Box 2.1.7. Major outputs and outcomes of CoA3 (see Perf. Indicator Matrix-Table D for more) 2017 • Systematic assessments of scaling up and anchoring options for food systems

transformation with a diet perspective in Ethiopia and Vietnam 2019 • Participatory analysis, and foresight and scenario analysis Ethiopia and Vietnam

• Systematic assessments of scaling up and anchoring options for food systems transformation with a diet perspective in Bangladesh and Nigeria

• Active policy engagement in the focus countries 2022 • Dissemination activities among key decision makers in the four countries and among

larger networks • Partners implement A4NH strategies for value chain/food system innovation at scale

PARTNERSHIPS To address the challenges of convening and integrating diverse partners in a food systems and diet transition research program, A4NH will launch a partnership with Wageningen UR as leader of this FP. Wageningen UR currently partners with most CGIAR Centers and AFS-CRPs and has a portfolio of food system projects (total contracted value of 15M€). It provides broad expertise across all food system analysis elements and longstanding experience in linking technical, behavioral and policy analysis beyond what currently exists within CGIAR. It also adds considerable experience with (inter)national PPPs. Research will be carried out with a wide range of research institutes, including: - Within A4NH, FP4: SPEAR, related to CoA3, to develop methods for cross-country and multi-level

analysis of drivers of food system changes. Similar collaborations are planned for FP2: Biofortification and FP3: Food Safety.

- Other AFS-CRPs and CGIAR Centers (e.g. WorldFish, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), International Potato Center (CIP), International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)) to jointly identify key leverage points in specific agri-food value chains, and to compliment ongoing AFS-CRP research.

- Other ICRPs: for economic, environmental, and policy perspectives with PIM’s FP on Inclusive and Efficient Value Chains (e.g. trade and subsidies; value chain hubs). For natural resource and climate change research with the sustainability and resilience of food systems under WLE’s FP on Rural-Urban Linkages, and with CCAFS.

- Universities and (public health) research institutes to align research on, for example, dietary assessments (e.g., Tufts University INDEXX project with IFPRI and FAO) and on the health consequences of dietary change (e.g. Tufts, Harvard).

As agri-food chains actors, especially private companies, play a large role in food systems, operational research on the types of PPPs that can best lead to healthier diets will occur through existing PPPs (e.g. Amsterdam Initiative for Malnutrition (AIM), the GAIN Marketplace for Nutritious Foods, COLEACP, The Sustainability Consortium (TSC), the Pulse Innovation Partnership led by McGill University) and through collaboration with private companies, such as Nutreco, Unilever, DSM and FrieslandCampina. Collaboration will be sought with SMEs in the key countries in developing healthier food products and portfolios. Opportunities for consumer labels will be worked out with, for example, Choices International Foundation, Fair Trade, and Eco. Co-development and testing of food system interventions and innovations will be done with national partners, especially in the focus countries (see initial consultation in Ethiopia). Examples of local

57

partners are the Ethiopian Public Health Institute, University of Ibadan (Nigeria), ICDDR,B and BIDS (Bangladesh), and National Institute of Nutrition and Can Tho University (Vietnam). In focus countries, we will work closely with local agriculture, public health, and policy agents to identify appropriate incentives and regulatory responses. We will cooperate with the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) national multi-stakeholder platforms to support national leadership for pursuing nutrition-specific interventions and promoting good nutritional practices and enhancing nutrition-supportive policies and regulations. For increased uptake at the global level, we will engage with the United Nations system (e.g., WFP), IFAD, the global SUN Movement, the Milano Urban Food Policy Pact, and the EAT initiative and will complement FP4: SPEAR working with SUN on monitoring and evaluation of public programs and country performance for the SDGs/WHA targets. This FP will cooperate more with the GAIN coordinated SUN Business Alliance. CLIMATE CHANGE Climate change is an important factor in research proposed in this FP. Concerning CoA1, climate change is a key potential driver of food systems transformations and will affect productivity, quality, availability, stability, and affordability of food for many agricultural products. This will influence how value chain and other food system actors will respond and interact. Climate change will also affect priorities related to agricultural investments and therefore directly to the food system through the 'policy' impact pathway. Diagnostic tools and forecasting models for food system dynamics and their trade-offs will be developed in close collaboration with the CCAFS FP on Priorities and policies for climate-smart agriculture, to assess likely scenarios for climate change that apply to different settings, ensuring proper integration of climate change into our diet and food systems analyses, as well as ensuring diet and food system scenarios are included in climate change analysis (see Annex 3.6). In CoA2, climate change is key when selecting pilot food system innovations to test. Some nutrient dense foods are resource intensive, so resource use must be considered in planning interventions that may lead to increased consumption of such foods. Specifically, ASF are both land- and water-intensive, and fruits and vegetables are typically water-intensive. Our proposed innovations to promote production and consumption of these foods will consider climate-smart varieties and animal breeds, and nutrient dense crops that may be more adapted to heat, drought tolerance, and other climate effects. We will work with agri-food value chains actors to develop and test innovations for post-harvest handling and storage, for example on cold chain technology. CoA3, will scale up interventions deemed successful in the second CoA, to ensure tradeoffs related to climate change are well understood. GENDER Gender issues are of critical importance throughout this FP. Access to nutrition, food choices and dietary outcomes (CoA 1: diagnosis and foresight) are strongly influenced by gender bargaining power at intra-household and community level. We will register gender-associated trends in nutrients and energy intake for gender dietary profiles to enable gender-specific analysis of food choices. Similarly, gender engagement into commercialization (CoA 2: food system innovations) is frequently accompanied by exclusionary practices, and benefits from agri-food value chains innovations do not automatically accrue to women and children. Consequently, gender equity requires a precise tracing of revenue streams and targeting of welfare effects throughout the agri-food value chains. Due attention is also given to implications for gender-based differences in labor use associated with particular food system innovations. Fostering women’s participation in food systems co-innovation partnerships will require gender-specific strategies to ensure gendered control over assets, including technology and women’s employment. This also holds for the upscaling strategies (CoA 3: scaling and anchoring) that are based

58

on steering consumer choice towards healthier diets and tend to rely strongly on gender-based food selection decision-making frameworks. Similarly, preferences and response reactions will reflect gender-related differences that should be acknowledged to enable gender equity at scale. Priority will be given to ensure both women and men benefit from healthy food systems, especially as consumers and food chain actors, while avoiding unintended negative consequences, such as harm to women’s time in child care, food processing, storage, and to work burden, control over income and resources, and health status. Where appropriate, we will suggest ways gender roles can be modified to improve food systems outcomes. CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT For the design and implementation of the capacity strengthening activities (e.g. for producers, chain agents, consumers, and policymakers), the elements identified by the CGIAR CoP on capacity strengthening will be used (CRP Section 1.10 and Annex 3.2). Key to our strategy is co-learning across CGIAR, Wageningen UR, and national partners, encompassing two interrelated components: joint learning and formal training. Joint learning will occur through co-development and testing of food system innovations with national partners and in collaborative and cross-country research with AFS-CRPs and GI-CRPs. Specific gaps at national partner level will be assessed in collaboration with the CGIAR CapDevCoP and then addressed with individual, formal learning through short-term training courses (e.g. at Centre for Development Innovation at Wageningen UR (CDI), and long-term PhD programs at Wageningen UR and/or other universities). This dual strategy will help develop individual and institutional food system champions, building capacity of partners in the analysis of diet and food systems change data, and building capacities amongst public and private agents to design, implement, and assess interventions and approaches. The Wageningen UR sandwich PhD program suits this process well, as it allows joint supervision between Wageningen UR and CGIAR staff, and includes a 2.5 year research period at the partner institute, ensuring joint learning and embedding in the partner countries. Joint learning activities will also build capacity among policymakers and actors in the policy process to support the willingness and ability to use evidence in policymaking and implementation, including commitment to collecting and analyzing diet-related data to inform policy decisions and monitor progress towards outcomes. The free public access to learning materials by the partner institutions increases the multiplier effects in capacity development. INTELLECTUAL ASSETS AND OPEN ACCESS MANAGEMENT Intellectual assets will be designed based on CGIAR open access and open data principles. In Phase II, researchers from this FP will contribute a number of intellectual assets, such as decisionmaking tools, new databases, evidence of cost effectiveness, and impact evaluation analysis. CGIAR researchers associated with this FP will make their data available to other researchers through their Center-specified platform, such as the IFPRI Dataverse platform. Publications related to evidence and analysis will also be made open access in following the CGIAR open access policy. Wageningen UR in all its activities will obey the Netherlands Code of Conduct for Academic Practice governing the correct exercise of duties for staff members at institutions that fulfil a societal role, developed by the Association of Universities in the Netherlands. Data are deposited into the Data Archiving and Network Services (DANS) of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO). More details on the A4NH management of both open access and open data and intellectual assets can be found in Annexes 3.8 and 3.9, respectively. FP MANAGEMENT Project management will be based on activity-based budgeting like EU programs, see Figure 2.1.5) and programmatic management identified at three levels: FP, CoA, and focus country.

59

Wageningen UR will be the overall FP leader and will employ an experienced FP leader responsible for scientific leadership, coordination, and management (to be recruited, see ToR for the position in Annex 3.7). Together with finance/admin support provided by LEI-DLO, the FP leader will constitute the Daily Management Team (DMT). The FPMT will cooperate with the Amsterdam Initiative against Malnutrition (AIM/GAIN) for involving private sector partners in food system co-innovations. For each CoA, joint leadership will be established with representatives of two institutes, for example CoA 1: diagnosis and foresight (Wageningen UR/Bioversity International), CoA 2: food system innovations (IFPRI/AIM (GAIN)), and CoA 3: scaling and anchoring (Wageningen UR/International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)), guaranteeing research coherence, policy relevance, and cross country learning. For each focus country, one partner is assigned as the responsible Country Team Leader, for example Ethiopia (Bioversity International/ILRI); Nigeria (International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA)); Bangladesh (IFPRI); Vietnam (CIAT), responsible for embedding the research in respective countries. Chaired by the FP leader, the FP management team (FPMT) is comprised of one representative of each CoA and Country Team, and of key institutions involved (CGIAR Centers, Wageningen UR, GAIN/AIM, other business partners) and will meet at least once annually to review overall progress. The FPMT will be responsible for major strategic decisions and for determining long term FP strategy and direction (steering). This FP will convene regular food systems events within the framework of the Agriculture, Nutrition and Health (ANH) Academy linked to the CoP.

Figure 2.1.5. Organization of clusters and set of activities

60

SECTION 2.2

61

SECTION 2: Flagship Program (FP2) on Biofortification RATIONALE AND SCOPE Micronutrient deficiency affects approximately 2 billion people globally. Children who are micronutrient deficient in early childhood are at a much higher risk of infections, and less able to recover than healthy children. It is estimated that 150 million years of healthy life were lost to poor nutrition in 2004—five times that lost to malaria (Department for International Development 2009). A major cause of micronutrient deficiencies is poor-quality diets resulting in low intakes of key micronutrients. Vitamin A deficiency, which increases susceptibility to infection and can cause irreversible blindness, remains a significant public health challenge across Africa and Asia and in parts of South America. An estimated 33% of preschool-aged children (190 million) and 15% of pregnant women (19 million) do not have enough vitamin A in their daily diet (World Health Organization 2009). Iron deficiency, which causes anemia, lethargy, and reduced cognitive performance, affects about 25% of the world’s population, most of them women and preschool-aged children. The proportion of developing-country populations at risk of inadequate zinc intake is estimated to be 25–33%. Zinc deficiency is associated with poor growth and impaired response to infection. Biofortification uses plant breeding to improve the nutritional content of food crops. It addresses Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2, to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. By focusing on staple foods that poor people already eat, biofortification provides a comparatively inexpensive, cost-effective, sustainable, long-term means of delivering more micronutrients to the poor. Breeding staple crops for higher levels of vitamin A, zinc, and iron is technically feasible with conventional breeding. All biofortified crop varieties that have been released to date are competitive with or better than the best varieties farmers currently grow, in terms of productivity and other traits that farmers and consumers value. The long-run solution to micronutrient deficiency is to improve the quality and diversity of diets. Improving dietary diversity is a complex and long-term undertaking that involves reshaping food systems. In the CGIAR Research Program (CRP) on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH), FP2: Biofortification is undertaking this work. In the meantime, increasing the micronutrient content of staple commodities that the poor consume can reduce inadequate intakes and reducing micronutrient deficiency. Conventional approaches to tackling vitamin and nutrient deficiencies, like supplementation and fortification, require continual financial outlays, and there are challenges ensuring coverage, particularly in areas where services and markets are weak. Biofortification complements these approaches and is available to rural populations, and nutritionally vulnerable urban ones, who are difficult to reach through other nutrition interventions. Even as evidence to biofortification grows, more research is needed to support scaling out and learning about delivery of biofortified crops through a systematic approach, especially to assess effectiveness and delivery at scale through markets, and to mainstream biofortification into crop improvement research, nutrition and agriculture policy, and partner activities. Using a Theory of Change (ToC) for each country-crop combination, we identified evidence gaps and research questions relevant to delivery. In Phase II, strategic research will include impact assessments of delivery channels; efforts to better understand intrahousehold dynamics around adoption and consumption; and studies to identify mechanisms to maximize adoption and consumption of biofortified crops. As countries demand more biofortified crops, we need to better understand the nutritional impact and potential synergies of the biofortified “food basket” in which people consume a combination of biofortified crops. Partners are increasingly taking up and distributing biofortified crops, and it is important to assess the impact of these delivery efforts.

62

Determining the full impact at scale of biofortification can currently be estimated using ex ante models to simulate the impact of the intervention, and these suggest that biofortification is a cost-effective intervention, per World Bank standards. Effectiveness studies are planned for Phase II, to better understand the impact of biofortification and changes in the nutritional status of populations in real-world conditions. HarvestPlus, which leads FP2, will strengthen its emphasis on mainstreaming biofortification into partners’ crop development work and shift its long-term focus to scale up biofortification, retaining a focus on evidence, knowledge production and sharing, monitoring and evaluation, and technical assistance to assure impact at scale. This FP builds on a strong history of strategic CGIAR crop breeding for important traits combined with nutrition evaluation to develop biofortified food crops, and is a logical extension of engagement with national implementing and enabling partners to extend these crops at scale. The clusters of activity (CoA) in this FP will build on previous research to mainstream biofortified traits into crop development research, while also focusing on learning about delivery in a contextually rich world of markets, farmer behaviors, and dietary practices. In Phase II, filling key evidence gaps and capturing lessons learned is critical, and will involve intensifying the work of promoting production and consumption in target countries as a “proof of concept” of the approach, analyzing the effectiveness of delivery mechanisms, and developing lessons for scaling up. This evidence will contribute to promoting an enabling environment for biofortification and developing tools to facilitate delivery by others. OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS FP2 addresses the problem of micronutrient deficiency due to inadequate dietary intake of micronutrients, contributing to the second system-level outcome (SLO2) on improved food and nutrition security for health through the intermediate development outcomes (IDOs) of improved diets for poor and vulnerable people, increased productivity (Figure 2.2.1 and Performance Indicator Matrix-Table C) and all three cross-cutting IDOs. Improvements in productivity will also contribute to the SLO on reduced poverty.

During Phase II, this FP aims to: 1. Assess the viability, cost-effectiveness, and impact of scaling up in the nine priority countries

(Bangladesh, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Ethiopia, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia) where HarvestPlus and national partners are taking the lead, in addition to those reached by partners working in other countries;

2. Develop and submit for national release biofortified varieties in target and expansion countries, while mainstreaming biofortification into CGIAR and national agricultural research system (NARS) breeding efforts; and

3. Provide evidence and analysis, and strengthen capacity and leadership to integrate biofortification into policy, program development, and implementation, to support the scaling up of biofortification.

63

FIGURE 1.2.1. IMPACT PATHWAYS FOR FP2: BIOFORTIFICATION

By 2022, FP2 expects to have achieved the following (see Performance Indicator Matrix – Tables B and D for more):

• 20 million households will be growing and consuming biofortified crops (14 million reached directly by HarvestPlus and delivery partners [8.5 million in Africa and 5.5 million in Asia]; 6 million reached directly through partners and institutions);

• Varieties with the full target micronutrient content will be released in target countries and will be in release pipelines in partnership countries;

• Biofortified traits will increasingly be mainstreamed into CGIAR Centers’ crop development work for target crops/agroecologies, annually increasing by 2.5% of breeding efforts

• Effectiveness evidence will be published for bean, wheat, and multi-crop system (orange sweet potato and bean) and will inform scaling efforts;

• Delivery lessons learned in target countries will be documented and applied in scaling up biofortification;

• Capacity will be built in at least 12 partner organizations to implement technically strong, cost-effective, and gender-sensitive programs that drive the uptake of biofortified crops;

• 20 countries with biofortified crops will be included in nationally or externally funded programs, with an array of public and/or private partners;

• Codex Alimentarius will adopt criteria for use of biofortification terms on food labels; and • Biofortification will be included in national and regional policies, as well as WHO guidelines on

micronutrient deficiencies. More specifically, FP2 will make contributions to two 2022 CGIAR targets: 20 million more farm households that have adopted biofortified varieties and 43.1 million more people, of which 50% are women, without deficiencies of one or more of the following essential micronutrients: iron, zinc, iodine, vitamin A, folate, and vitamin B12 (Performance Indicator Matrix – Table A).

64

Target Geographies HarvestPlus’s delivery science work focuses on the nine target countries (Bangladesh, DRC, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia) where HarvestPlus and national partners are taking the lead. Target countries represent a variety of market environments for biofortified crops, from a primarily commercial private sector approach (India, Zambia), to various mixed public-private delivery systems (Bangladesh, Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda), to primarily public or social marketing systems (DRC). HarvestPlus also works closely with government-sponsored biofortification programs in Brazil, China, and India. Through the HarvestPlus Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) program, led by EMBRAPA, HarvestPlus provides technical assistance and support to government-driven biofortification programs in Bolivia, Colombia, Guatemala, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Panama and is exploring efforts in several additional countries. Increasingly, HarvestPlus is seeking partners to take the lead in scaling up biofortification in partnership countries, a growing list that includes Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe, and is expected to include several additional countries, such as Cambodia, Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Vietnam by the end of Phase II. By 2030, HarvestPlus’s aspirational goal is for 1 billion people to be regular consumers of biofortified staple foods. The roadmap to reaching 1 billion is still under development, and continues to be informed by lessons learned in target countries, detailed value chain analyses, and capacity assessment and strengthening of key actors, all of which will be a focus in the first years of Phase II. Key considerations for sustainability and scaling up are discussed in the next section. IMPACT PATHWAY AND THEORY OF CHANGE Available evidence and experience suggests that the goal of reaching 1 billion people by 2030 is audacious, but not impossible. To date, HarvestPlus has facilitated the release of biofortified varieties of six staple crops (vitamin A orange sweet potato, iron beans, vitamin A cassava, vitamin A maize, zinc rice, and zinc wheat), and several secondary staples (vitamin A banana/plantain1, iron cowpea, zinc and iron lentils, iron and zinc potato, and iron and zinc sorghum). Biofortified varieties have now been released in 30 countries and are in multi-location testing in 42 countries. In 2015, biofortified planting materials reached more than 2 million farmers in HarvestPlus priority countries. The pathway from research—through seed dissemination, adoption, and consumption—to improved diet and micronutrient status is long, complex, and context-specific. This FP has a good understanding of the pathway, specifically in contexts where delivery is taking place. In Phase I, we developed a series of country-by-crop-combination ToCs to identify key outcomes, underlying assumptions and risks for each, and availability of evidence to test them (Johnson, Guedenet, and Saltzman 2015). ToCs identify key areas for research in Phase II, guide country-level delivery and monitoring, and provide a framework for country-level and cross-country learning. ToCs inform scaling approaches in market environments, from the commercially oriented delivery of vitamin A maize in Zambia, to mixed public-private delivery models used in Nigeria and Rwanda. They help identify key areas for further research, like the role of youth in biofortification activities; gender-based differences in preferences and adoption; and unintended consequences of introducing biofortified crops. Scaling and sustaining impact in target countries during delivery will require: (1) mainstreaming biofortification in agricultural research, together with crop CRPs; (2) learning from existing delivery efforts and developing operational partnerships in new countries; and (3) establishing a policy environment conducive to biofortified crops, in cooperation with the CRP on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM). Based on lessons learned in the first years of delivery and potential risks identified by the ToCs, these

1 Provitamin A-rich banana varieties are naturally high in pVACs. They are being introduced from their center of origin in the Pacific to Eastern Africa.

65

activities are critical to attaining the 2022 and 2030 goals. They align with the three critical elements involved in scaling up biofortification: supply (agricultural research entities recognize high mineral and vitamin content as core plant breeding objectives), demand (consumers see the value of, and demand, high mineral and vitamin content in their staple foods), and policy (a wide range of public officials recognize the impact of biofortification to improve public health, and the high economic return to investments and commercial feasibility of biofortification). Scale in Phase II can be achieved only by working with other organizations and institutions to pilot, expand, and manage biofortification initiatives. Investments in this FP have launched breeding pipelines in CGIAR Centers and NARS with biofortified varieties that are agronomically competitive, disease resistant, have preferred end-use qualities, and have full target levels of micronutrients. To sustain this investment, CGIAR Centers and NARS partners must mainstream biofortification, using micronutrient-dense materials throughout their breeding programs. In 2014, Director Generals (DGs) of CGIAR Centers made a commitment to mainstream biofortification, but this commitment requires concrete planning. To support adoption in target countries and beyond, Phase II will focus on expanding knowledge in key areas, such as farmer and consumer acceptance, youth involvement, nutritional efficacy for a wider range of age and gender groups, and cost-effectiveness assessments (discussed further below). This evidence of lessons learned will be valuable, both to adjust delivery strategies for efficiency, and to help stakeholders decide whether and where to invest in biofortification. We will develop operational partnerships with development organizations interested in mainstreaming biofortified crops. In new partnership countries, we will facilitate multi-location testing by NARS and provide technical assistance and training for NARS. Once a crop is released, partners will take the lead in introducing and using the biofortified varieties. Significant progress has already been made in mainstreaming biofortification into regional and national policies. At the Second International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2) in 2014, representatives from Bangladesh, Malawi, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Uganda highlighted the role of biofortification in their national strategies to end malnutrition by 2025. Panama and Colombia were among the first countries to include biofortification in their national food security plans. Since the 2nd Global Conference on Biofortification in 2014, biofortification has been included in national nutrition strategies in Nigeria, Rwanda, and Zambia. HarvestPlus is engaged with regional and global processes, like the African Union’s Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement, to ensure an enabling environment for biofortification. Efforts are underway to include biofortification in global standards and guidelines for food products and labeling, such as the Codex Alimentarius, the food standards-setting agency administered jointly by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and recognized by the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS) of the WTO as its reference organization. This work will be linked to work in A4NH’s FP4: Supporting Policies, Programs and Enabling Action through Research (SPEAR). SCIENCE QUALITY In Phase I of A4NH, our research agenda focused on testing hypotheses to provide proof of concept that biofortification is feasible without affecting yield and other positive crop characteristics; that farmers would be willing to adopt, and consumers to consume, biofortified crops; and that consumption would lead to an improvement in the nutritional status of target populations. That evidence is now available for many crop, country, and nutrient combinations. Evidence of the effects of nutrition-sensitive agriculture on nutritional outcomes in real world conditions, however, is limited. The effectiveness of biofortified vitamin A–rich orange sweet potato for increasing maternal and child vitamin A intake and status has been demonstrated, but evidence of effectiveness is not yet available for other micronutrient and crop combinations. Phase II of A4NH offers a unique opportunity not only to develop effectiveness evidence for iron and zinc crops, but also to develop vital lessons on cost-effective delivery channels, public-private partnerships

66

(PPPs), gendered effects of adoption and consumption decisions, and synergies of delivering and consuming multiple biofortified crops. Developing an understanding of the effects of nutrition-sensitive agriculture on livelihood and nutritional outcomes—across several countries, crops, and types of commercial and social marketing arrangements—will vastly deepen the body of knowledge on agriculture-nutrition linkages. In parallel with efforts to mainstream breeding for vitamin and mineral traits and provide evidence to support incorporation of biofortification into agriculture and nutrition policies and investments, the Phase II research will lay the foundation for global scaling of biofortified crops.

FP2 is committed to science quality and has a strong track record in developing a robust evidence base to support the biofortification concept (Bouis et al. 2013; Saltzman et al. 2013; Johnson, Guedenet, and Saltzman 2015). The success of the discovery phase of HarvestPlus (2003–2008) and the development phase (2009–2013) demonstrated that the team has the technical and institutional capacity to bring people together across institutions, countries, and disciplines to forge partnerships and deliver high-quality technical outputs and immediate development outcomes.

Crop development research has not only produced new varieties of biofortified crops, but also contributed greatly to the field of knowledge, with findings about vitamin and mineral heritability in different crops, adaptation of rapid-throughput technologies to use in screening, and identification of new markers to use in marker-assisted selection. Vitamin and mineral traits can be effectively combined with other desirable agronomic traits, and all biofortified crop varieties that have been released to date are competitive with or better than the best varieties farmers currently grow. Effectiveness evidence is available for orange sweet potato (Hotz, Loechl, de Brauw, et al. 2012; Hotz, Loechl, Lubowa, et al. 2012). Nutritional efficacy has been demonstrated for vitamin A crops (maize (Gannon et al. 2014), cassava (Talsma et al. 2016)) and iron crops (bean (J. Haas et al., n.d.), pearl millet (Finkelstein et al. 2015), rice(J. D. Haas et al. 2005)), with zinc efficacy results expected in 2016. Research publications for 2014 provide insight into the depth and breadth of the HarvestPlus research program, which supports and informs delivery activities.

In addition to the ex post cost-effectiveness data that are available for vitamin A orange sweet potato, ex ante cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) have been carried out for other biofortified crops. These CEAs have long time horizons (about 30 years), as it takes time for the suitable biofortified varieties to become available and to be adopted and consumed on a large scale, and then for health benefits to materialize within the consuming population. The CEAs show that for all crop-country combinations, biofortification can be rated as very cost-effective. Moreover, biofortification is found to be more cost-effective than fortification for all crop-country-micronutrient combinations and more cost-effective than supplementation for all cases except one (Birol et al. 2014; Lividini and Fiedler 2015). The cost advantage of biofortification comes from the economies of scale (once a new crop has been developed, its benefits can be spread relatively cheaply over time and space) and its ability to reach a high number of rural farming households that produce and consume large amounts of staple food crops and whose members suffer from micronutrient deficiencies. A combination of biofortification, supplementation, and fortification may be best for achieving the desired objective—large-scale or targeted impact—in a cost-effective way.

In Phase II, research will build on Phase I evidence and focus on developing new evidence on speeding and scaling delivery, as well as unintended consequences that may result. A robust Monitoring, Learning, and Action (MLA) system is now in place in the HarvestPlus target countries, and analysis of the data collected through that system is expected to provide a great deal of insight into audiences reached through various delivery channels, including through informal diffusion and the seed market. Results will be used to inform and speed scaling strategies, particularly through a range of private-sector partnerships. Monitoring surveys will also provide information about the consumption of biofortified crops, particularly among the women and children for whom FP2 seeks to reduce micronutrient deficiency. To support scaling up of biofortification, the nutrition unit will place greater emphasis on knowledge translation for evidence sharing

Impact research will also generate new evidence, including results from effectiveness trials in at least two additional countries (zinc wheat in Pakistan and iron beans in Guatemala). Strategic research will provide

67

insight into how gender influences decisions within households about producing and consuming biofortified crops, and into how the market can best support sustainable investment in developing biofortified seeds as well as promote awareness, access, and consumption of biofortified foods by target populations. Aiming to generate useful information for planning in this FP, as well as for external stakeholders, impact research will build on previous research to estimate the long-run impact and cost-effectiveness of biofortification across country-crop-micronutrient combinations, and compare the cost-effectiveness of biofortification to and in combination with other interventions in these countries.

LESSONS LEARNT AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES In Phase I, the research team built in mechanisms for ongoing learning, systemically gathering lessons through annual reporting and business planning cycles, which HarvestPlus reports through research publications and an annually updated set of progress briefs. External evaluations, such as a 2012 evaluation by Abt Associates (Abt Associates Inc. 2012) and a Strategic Gender Assessment (SGA), completed in 2013-2014, have also provided strategic feedback that was used to improve FP performance during Phase I. Lessons learned in Phase I help inform the Phase II research agenda. For example, lessons from countries with rapid expansion of biofortification, like Nigeria and Rwanda, can be applied to delivery strategies in later countries. As this FP achieved its projected outcomes in Phase I, it learned more about risks and gaps that can affect the impact of biofortification. Country- and crop-specific ToCs (Johnson, Guedenet, and Saltzman 2015) consolidated evidence that biofortification can work and helped identify gaps and potential unintended consequences to be addressed in Phase II. Remaining issues include managing identity preservation of biofortified seed and grain in the market, combating consumer perception that biofortified crops are genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and improving understanding of farmer and consumer behavior. HarvestPlus also developed lessons on engagement with the private sector. For example, in Zambia, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Zambia Agriculture Research Institute (ZARI) and private seed companies licensed three released hybrids and allocated those hybrids to the seed companies; HarvestPlus was involved as ‘’interested party,’’ but faced a challenge when initial seed production was lower than expected, setting back projected delivery targets. To address this issue, HarvestPlus recruited a Maize Seed System Specialist position for Africa south of the Sahara to assist with technical production issues and strengthened its contracts for seed production with seed companies. HarvestPlus also adjusted its growth projections based on feedback from seed companies. With a better understanding of how the private sector assesses and responds to market conditions, HarvestPlus is exploring different models of private sector engagement, as well as various incentive and risk mitigation tactics. Partnerships are increasingly central to scaling up biofortified crops. Partnership activities in Phase I will inform efforts in Phase II, including addressing key capacity gaps. Identifying key allies and advocates in partnership organizations to help build trust with program staff was found to be essential to obtaining organization-wide buy in. Even as enthusiastic allies take up biofortification, challenges remain in standardizing systems for monitoring and reporting, which will continue to be a focus in Phase II. Recognizing that a lack of expertise in gender-sensitive delivery strategies could result in unintended consequences for farmers adopting biofortified crops, HarvestPlus commissioned an external SGA to review and assess current programs, identify gaps in gender knowledge and implementation, and identify successful efforts that can be built upon or scaled up. Based on the SGA recommendations, HarvestPlus leadership endorsed an approach to promote the integration of gender-responsive programming into HarvestPlus’s current work. HarvestPlus undertook changes to organizational structure and staffing as the FP grew. For example, the Program Management Committee structure, which had grown to include more than 25 people, including all country managers and unit heads, was replaced by an Executive Committee, which includes the Director,

68

Deputy Directors for Operations and Programs, and head of Strategic Alliances. Both the Deputy Director for Programs and head of Strategic Alliances positions were new in Phase I, developed on the recommendation of the 2012 external evaluation. CLUSTERS OF ACTIVITY FP2 is structured around three interacting CoAs, described below. Earlier phases of HarvestPlus focused on breeding and nutritional evaluation, bringing together scientific research evidence with an impact orientation. Through 2020, HarvestPlus is building on previous research to mainstream crop development (CoA1: Crop development mainstreaming and capacity building) while also focusing on delivery in a contextually rich world of markets, farmer behaviors, and dietary practices (CoA2: Delivery science and developing lessons learned). Filling key evidence gaps and capturing lessons learned is of great strategic importance in this phase. This will involve intensifying work to promote production and consumption of crops in target countries as a “proof of concept” of the approach, analyzing the effectiveness of different delivery mechanisms, and developing lessons for scaling up. This evidence will contribute greatly to promoting an enabling environment for biofortification and developing tools to facilitate delivery by others (CoA3: Promoting an enabling environment). The delivery phase offers an opportunity to learn about what works, what does not, and how delivery strategies can be refined to enhance impact. The biofortification research agenda builds on previous work with partners throughout CGIAR, including Centers that carry out crop development work and other A4NH FPs. In Phase II, in addition to collaborating with FP4: SPEAR around policy and the enabling environment at the national and international scales, we will collaborate with FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets and FP3: Food Safety to address research questions on production (e.g. aflatoxins), opportunities and risks associated with value addition (e.g. processing, storage), and reaching target consumers in specific crops and countries. CoA1: Crop development mainstreaming and capacity building Mainstreaming nutrition into breeding requires a two-pronged approach: (1) annually increasing the percentage of biofortified germplasm in Centers’ breeding programs, which are then distributed to NARS for further adaptation and eventual release, and (2) developing methods to reduce costs of breeding for biofortified varieties (through marker-assisted selection and low-cost, high-throughput methods of measuring vitamin and mineral content). This FP also continues to lead training and capacity development with NARS for the development and eventual release of biofortified varieties. Mainstreaming biofortified traits into breeding parental lines is a strategy to ensure that as new climate-adaptive varieties are developed, they will also contain higher levels of micronutrients. During Phase II, we will work with CGIAR to realize its 2014 commitment to develop and implement a plan for mainstreaming. The specific research questions that this CoA will address during Phase II include the following: • Can HarvestPlus and its partners breed target levels of nutrients into staple crops adapted for an

increasingly wide range of climatic conditions, without compromising other farmer-preferred traits and crop characteristics?

• What methods can reduce the cost and/or improve the efficiency of breeding for biofortified varieties? • How can biofortified crops be mainstreamed in international and national breeding programs? To accomplish this, researchers working on the crop development cluster will focus on the following primary activities:

1. Develop second and third waves of high-yielding, biofortified germplasm with higher nutrient content. These new lines will be distributed globally to NARS for further crossing, testing, and eventual release. Crop development activities will focus on Tier 1 biofortified staple crops (wheat, rice, maize, bean, cassava, and pearl millet), with some investment in secondary staples (banana/plantain, cowpea, lentil, potato, and sorghum).

69

2. Develop (i) cost-saving breeding methods, such as marker-assisted selection (identifying specific genes associated with high mineral and vitamin content); and (ii) improved low-cost, high-throughput methods for measuring the mineral and vitamin content in seeds (in collaboration with universities in Australia, Europe, and North America).

3. Negotiate with CGIAR Centers and national breeding programs the eventual inclusion of biofortified traits within regular breeding programs, independent of specific FP funding.

Outputs:

• Biofortified varieties; cost-effective tools and techniques for mainstreaming nutrition in breeding • By 2017: Second-wave releases in all target countries; recommendations of molecular marker

external review implemented • By 2019: Third-wave releases in all target countries; multi-location testing of biofortified crops in 75

countries; application of molecular markers for rice, wheat, maize, and cassava • By 2022: 2.5% annual increase in crop development efforts for target crop/ecologies that

mainstream biofortified traits Outcomes: Farmers will have access to biofortified varieties well suited to their farming systems; crop breeders will have the incentive and capacity to incorporate nutritional traits into their breeding strategies. CoA2: Delivery science and developing lessons learned In this CoA, operational partnerships are developed for countries where biofortified crops are released, and a wide variety of partners are sought, including private seed companies, international NGOs, multilateral institutions, food processing companies, and national governments. Important research questions remain about which approaches work best to reach target beneficiaries (within farm households), how gender influences consumption and production decisions within households, and how the market can best support, not only sustainable investment in developing biofortified seeds, but also awareness, access, and consumption of biofortified foods by target beneficiaries. The nine target countries offer a rich source of information about how to effectively deliver biofortified crops, and allow for comparisons between countries to understand how delivery modalities can vary across market environments. Where full-target varieties are available, rigorous impact evaluations will measure impacts on outcome variables, such as micronutrient intake and nutritional status of target beneficiaries. These efforts will be complemented by targeted research in key areas, such as gender, markets, and technology adoption specifically designed to answer important questions about the FP2 ToC, and about potential for scaling up biofortification and other agricultural interventions. The specific research questions that this CoA will address during Phase II include: • What drives uptake of biofortified crops in target countries? What is the role of research tools,

evidence, and ex ante cost analysis in increasing investment and scaling? What are the determinants of farmer and consumer acceptance of biofortified varieties?

• Will biofortified crops improve nutritional status for infants, prior to conception through infancy, and how do multiple biofortified crops improve nutritional status?

• Which delivery models are most cost-effective, including for reaching women, in different market environments?

• What is the impact of biofortification on key outcome variables (adoption, diffusion, micronutrient intake, and deficiency status, all disaggregated by sex) under non-controlled conditions?

• What guidelines for approaches and processes can be replicated by stakeholders who are interested in scaling up biofortification in other countries or environments?

To accomplish this, researchers working on the delivery science cluster will focus on the following primary activities:

70

1. Assess scalability of biofortification through direct intervention in target countries, developing lessons learned about delivery modalities, consumer acceptance, and private sector engagement. Identify the factors that drive farmer and consumer acceptance and behavior change, including differences by age, gender, and other relevant social variables.

2. Conduct nutritional efficacy trials for a wider range of age groups (including infants); for a longer time frame (for example, prior to conception through infancy); and combining multiple biofortified crops with different nutrients (for example, high-iron and high-zinc pearl millet combined with orange sweet potato).

3. Implement ex ante and ex post cost-effectiveness assessments, and expand ex ante cost-effectiveness analysis to include food-basket approaches.

4. Conduct impact assessment studies in target countries, and implement at least two effectiveness studies (iron beans, Guatemala; zinc wheat, Pakistan).

5. Combine short-term monitoring with medium-term progress indicators to track adoption by farmers, as well as to estimate consumption and public health impacts.

Outputs:

• Evidence on nutritional efficacy and impact; delivery in target countries and lessons learned • By 2017: Bioavailability and efficacy evidence published for zinc rice; zinc wheat effectiveness trial

initiated in Pakistan; ex ante analysis for more countries and food-basket approach; impact assessment surveys completed in at least three countries (Nigeria – cassava, Rwanda – beans, Zambia – maize); monitoring and forecasting models validated for country-crop combinations

• By 2019: Efficacy evidence published for multiple biofortified crops in a single study; effectiveness trial for Guatemala completed

• By 2022: Assessment of the efficacy of multiple biofortified crops in culturally accepted combinations for women of child-bearing age and for children 6–24 months of age; zinc wheat and iron bean effectiveness study results published

Outcomes: Farmers will be aware of and have access to biofortified varieties well suited to their farming systems; agents will incorporate biofortified planting materials and crops into their value chains; consumers will be aware of biofortified varieties that satisfy their needs; evidence on cost-effectiveness, nutritional efficacy, and consumer acceptance will be used by implementers in the design and implementation of investments in biofortification. CoA3: Promoting an enabling environment In Phase II, this FP will undertake a broad agenda of developing regulatory standards, partnerships, and policy analysis and tools to support a policy environment conducive to a broad range of nutrition interventions, including scaling up biofortified crops. This engagement, and the translation of efficacy and effectiveness evidence to be understood as relevant by policymakers and regulators, must continue in order to sustain the momentum for biofortification. Recently, HarvestPlus has increased its efforts to convene other actors around biofortification, including at the 2nd Global Conference on Biofortification in 2014. The Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition released a policy brief in early 2015 reviewing the evidence on biofortification and recommending that policymakers take steps to scale up biofortified crops. HarvestPlus will continue to develop tools, like the Biofortification Prioritization Index (BPI), to help partners identify high-potential country-crop combinations for expansion, as well as implementing and evaluating biofortification projects (Asare-Marfo et al. 2013). Policy research will help identify the best mix of nutrition interventions for specific country contexts, considering the contributions of complementary interventions to addressing micronutrient deficient populations, and disseminate evidence through decision support systems like ReSAKSS. HarvestPlus LAC is demonstrating the importance of linking government-supported biofortification programs together across countries, and with CIAT and other CGIAR

71

Centers working in LAC, producing lessons that can be applied elsewhere as biofortification scales up. Many activities in this area will have significant synergies with FP4: SPEAR. A primary international standards vehicle is the Codex Alimentarius, the food standards-setting agency administered jointly by the WHO and FAO and recognized by the SPS of the WTO as its reference organization. Recognition and standardization of biofortification requires consensus from the 184 member governments of the Codex Alimentarius. In close cooperation with IFPRI, which has been accorded observer status within Codex, HarvestPlus is working with the Codex Committee on Nutrition and Foods of Special Dietary Use (CCNFSDU) to develop an internationally accepted definition of biofortification. Without an internationally accepted definition, national governments are unable to include biofortification in national legislation and cannot set regulations and related policies specific to biofortified foods. This is an impediment to harmonization and international trade. The specific research questions that this CoA will address during Phase II include the following:

• What are the barriers and constraints to creating cross-sectoral policy and institutional environments that better support the inclusion of biofortified crops in agriculture, nutrition, and development policies and programs?

• What standards, guidelines, and recommendations for biofortified foods and regulations are internationally accepted, supported by evidence, and can be taken up by Codex Alimentarius and national governments?

• What can be learned from countries that are successfully incorporating biofortification into their policies and programs (including Brazil and others in LAC)?

To accomplish this, researchers working on the enabling environment cluster will focus on the following primary activities:

1. Seek inclusion of biofortification in strategies, policies, and programs on global, regional, and national levels through multilateral and regional organizations. This will include the CAADP and SUN policies, as well as other collaborative bodies, in coordination with CoA3: Capacity, Collaboration, Convening (3C) in A4NH FP4: SPEAR

2. Engage in developing biofortification standards and regulations through formal global normative, regulatory, and donor agencies and global technical, scientific, and implementing agencies, including: (i) develop a definition and standards for biofortification within the Codex Alimentarius and (ii) establish links to national nutrition policies to share standards, guidelines, and recommendations developed by international bodies

3. Evaluate and synthesize knowledge and lessons learned in HarvestPlus LAC countries 4. Identify and develop tools to help partners implement and evaluate biofortification projects,

including biofortification priority indices at the subnational level

Output: • By 2017: 3rd Global Conference on Biofortification, including dissemination of evidence and lessons

learned • By 2019: Tools to assess the cost-effectiveness of different portfolios of complementary

interventions to address micronutrient deficiency, including biofortification; national and international standards and guidelines on biofortification

• By 2022: Synthesis of lessons learned from countries incorporating biofortification into their policies and programs; Building country capacity to develop and monitor national standards on biofortification

Outcomes: National governments will have the capacity to incorporate biofortification into cross-sectoral policies and implementation plans; national and international regulatory agencies will use the evidence on biofortification to set appropriate standards and guidelines for food products and labeling. Standards for

72

biofortified foods are developed and approved by Codex Alimentarius and biofortification is included in WHO guidelines on micronutrient deficiencies. PARTNERSHIPS As HarvestPlus seeks to mainstream and scale up biofortification, its types of partnerships will expand from predominantly academic institutions, CGIAR Centers, and NARS, to new types of partners throughout to achieve SLOs 1 and 2. This FP will develop a wide range of international public goods at each step of the impact pathway, from discovery to development to delivery. Lessons learned on partnerships in different countries will inform partnership strategies for scaling in Phase II. Learning from PPPs, in particular, may offer new approaches that can be used throughout CGIAR. Scaling will require building new and expanding existing partnerships, maintaining engagement, and increasing partner capacity. Earlier phases of HarvestPlus focused on building an evidence base for biofortified crops, working with research partners to initiate studies on agronomic characteristics, nutritional efficacy, and consumer acceptance, investing specifically in upgrading equipment and training technical staff in 22 labs. As HarvestPlus shifted into delivery, it launched delivery partnerships with private seed companies, local and international NGOs, government extension programs, and school feeding programs. In Phase I, this F2 developed capacity in more 100 delivery partners, trained thousands of extension staff on agronomic practices and nutrition messages for biofortification, and developed technical packages for partners to use in delivery programming. Through these experiences, the FP learned to effectively engage different types of partners, find mutually beneficial areas for collaboration, and maintain momentum in partnerships. We also learned about the challenges of coordinating, influencing, and gathering data from partners with different priorities and systems, In Phase II, this FP will add new and diverse partners, including private food companies and retailers, UN agencies, regional organizations, and innovative financing mechanisms and development banks. A focus in Phase II is building capacity for evidence sharing and policymaking at national and regional levels, including through the SUN platform and CAADP nutrition initiatives. Upstream partners include private sector seed and food companies, from small start-up companies to large multinationals. Involving private sector seed companies to develop and test biofortified varieties shortens the time to market and lays the groundwork for the proof-of-concept stage. Food companies test biofortified crops for use in processed foods, evaluating mineral and vitamin retention for different types of processing. Many different types of partners are involved in proof of concept work, including private seed companies, international NGOs, and multilateral agencies. In countries with robust private seed systems that reach smallholder farmers, private seed companies are a natural partner, which is particularly advantageous in crops where hybrid seeds predominate (e.g. Seed Co. in Zambia (hybrid maize) and Nirmal Seeds in India (hybrid pearl millet) and where seed companies operate regionally). An MOU was developed with World Vision to introduce biofortified crops into its agricultural programs, which are then linked to its health and nutrition programs. The World Food Programme’s (WFP) Purchase for Progress program is very interested in local purchasing of biofortified crops, and partnerships are being developed in several countries. In Rwanda, local bean production is purchased and stored in WFP warehouses for later emergencies. As this FP scales up biofortification, it will expand its delivery partnerships and pursue different ways of working with a wide variety of partners, including FAO, WHO, World Bank, the International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD), WFP, Africa Union, CAADP, and the SUN Movement. CLIMATE CHANGE Biofortified crops can contribute to improve the resilience of farmers and rural communities to climatic changes and weather extremes by improving the quality of diets (at no extra cost to the consumer), and

73

thus their nutritional status. Other things being equal, projections indicate that food price levels will rise and that prices will be more variable, due to climate change. Biofortified staples ensure that farmers and their families can access essential micronutrients, even if rising food prices reduce their access to more micronutrient-dense non-staples. Climate change may have an impact on the nutritional quality of the crop itself. While rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels may accelerate plant growth initially, some studies suggest that the nutrient content of crops is likely to decline, especially as plants adapt to higher atmospheric CO2 levels. One review found a decline in micronutrient content. Overall, the evidence on effects of climate change on nutritional quality is mixed; other climate-related factors may influence nutrient density in the opposite direction. Further research is needed, as there is variability in how plants will respond to the different effects of climate change. Biofortification could offer a solution in those instances where crop nutritional quality will decline. Breeding for nutrient traits is and must be strongly linked to breeding for adaptation to climate change. Increasingly, FP2 must consider other programmatic adaptations that might be required due to changing climatic conditions. Less predictable weather patterns may affect farmers’ varietal preference in ways that are not yet known. Inconsistent weather can affect seed production, and as this FP scales up its partnership in seed production, it will consider measures to mitigate the risks posed by climate change. GENDER FP2 will specifically promote gender equality by identifying how biofortification can be effective in targeting the nutritional status of women and children, by targeting interventions and gathering evidence on the impact of different approaches to scaling up biofortified crops. The independent SGA will help ensure this FP reaches its goal to improve micronutrient intakes for 20 million households by 2020. As delivery scales up, FP2 will be more systematic in understanding how gender dynamics can affect the adoption and consumption of biofortified crops. It is clear that men and women engage differently with new crop varieties and the path from adoption to consumption is not always direct. We are beginning to understand the full implications of how specific activities may affect men and women differently, and the best pathways through which to achieve equitable access to biofortified crops and foods. The SGA highlighted the importance of deepening understanding of gender dynamics for delivery issues, including household decisionmaking processes. FP2 will identify practical examples where unintended gender consequences may negatively affect program impact. A version of the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) is included in impact assessment and effectiveness studies to investigate the role of gender in adoption of biofortified varieties and the impact of varietal adoption on various women’s outcomes (e.g. iron intake, time allocation, and income). We are working to understand the gendered dynamics of delivering biofortified crops through research. Country teams are thinking critically about how to better reach target consumers: micronutrient-deficient women and children. We are asking whether men and women access biofortified planting materials differently and what the implications of any difference may be. A gender advisor to coordinate gender activities and conduct gender analysis for specific situations will be recruited in Phase II.

74

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT Phase II will continue to emphasize and invest in capacity building in NARS and national research partners and in training at existing labs, in addition to expanding lab support to the LAC region. The ToCs for target countries (Johnson, Guedenet, and Saltzman 2015) identify capacity gaps in the seed value chain as a potential bottleneck for biofortification. This FP supports increasing public and private sector capacity to deliver biofortified seeds. The FP assesses the seed and grain value chains for each crop-country context and develops a delivery strategy. Our approach is determined by the normal operation channels for a particular crop in a given country or subregion; private sector partners are preferred when a developed market exists, but in less-developed markets, value chain activities may be supported by government, NARS, or civil society partners. In some countries, we provide technical assistance to NARS to increase seed production. In others, like Uganda, we support strong PPPs for maintaining production and supply of clean planting materials so they are easily accessible to farmers. In selected countries, coordination with IFPRI country programs will be used to identify opportunities to increase the capacity for the priority setting process in the NARS and develop seed policy capacity to speed up the process of seed multiplication. In contrast to earlier phases of HarvestPlus, which focused on building capacity to support the research agenda, development of expertise is now shifting to support the mainstreaming and scaling up objectives. Staff in target countries and regional teams support capacity development in seed systems, marketing, nutrition, monitoring and evaluation, and policy in country offices and with national delivery partners. New and strengthened partnerships, both public and private, will be critical to achieving capacity at national and global levels to scale biofortification. INTELLECTUAL ASSETS AND OPEN ACCESS MANAGEMENT In Phase II, researchers from FP: Biofortification will contribute a number of intellectual assets, such as genetic characterization of staple crops and underutilized plant genetic resources; improved biofortified varieties suitable to a broad range of target environments; decisionmaking tools; and evidence, including cost-effective analysis and impact evaluations. Intellectual assets will be designed with CGIAR open access (OA) and open data principles in mind. For example, researchers will make their raw data available to other researchers through their Center-specified platform in a timely manner. For IFPRI, from which all nutrition and impact data in this FP is generated, this platform is Dataverse. Tools to support improved decisionmaking developed by this FP will follow OA and open data principles, minimizing the hurdles to scaling out. More details are on both open access and intellectual assets are included in Annexes 3.8 and 3.9, respectively. FP MANAGEMENT The current HarvestPlus director, Howdy Bouis, will soon be retiring, and recruitment is underway for his replacement, who will begin by the 3rd quarter of 2016. FP2 links with crop breeding programs of the agri-food system CRPs (AFS-CRPs)/Centers through a coordinated and well-managed program unit. Day-to-day management decisions are determined through a consultative process within the Executive Committee, composed of the Director, Deputy Director of Operations (Wolfgang Pfeiffer), Deputy Director of Programs (Ina Schonberg), and Head of Strategic Alliances (Thom Sprenger). CVs are in Annex 3.7. Management tasks include six broad mandates: A. Provide strategic planning and managerial direction to program initiatives, in consultation with IFPRI

and CIAT management and the Program Advisory Committee. B. Provide appropriate leadership, oversight, and support to country programs and supporting technical

and administrative functions/units. C. Mobilize sufficient resources to meet project and organizational objectives. D. Plan, track, and manage financial resources effectively. E. Perform administrative and coordination functions in a timely and effective fashion.

75

F. Facilitate knowledge sharing within the project, through intranet and other information technologies. These activities have important synergies. For example, documenting progress in target countries will assist in partnership activities. Success in breeding varieties is also required for rapid scale-up. Monitoring, evaluation, and learning will inform planning and implementation inside and outside of HarvestPlus. Close coordination across organizational functions is critical to achieve the ambitious outcomes of FP2 and A4NH. Using lessons from the first half of Phase II, we may seek alternative arrangements for working with partners, who will increasingly scale biofortified crops independent of HarvestPlus. Discussions of the types of institutional arrangements needed to support this work are already underway.

76

SECTION 2.3

77

SECTION 2: Flagship Program (FP3) on Food Safety RATIONALE AND SCOPE The enormous burden of foodborne disease in developing countries The first global assessment of foodborne disease (FBD) found a human health burden comparable to that of malaria, HIV/AIDS, or tuberculosis (Havelaar et al. 2015) with an estimated 410,000 deaths per year. Most of the global burden of FBD (98%) is borne by developing countries: 35% in South Asia, 35% in Africa, and 9% in Southeast Asia (Havelaar et al. 2015). Most FBD is the result of microbes (79%), though macro-parasites also contribute to the burden (18%) as do chemicals and plant toxins (3%). Most FBD is caused by fresh foods sold in informal markets of Africa and Asia (Grace 2015b). FBD may worsen as value chains rapidly develop The last decades have seen dramatic declines in most infectious diseases, but FBD is a troubling exception (Grace 2015b). Countries with good health records in the Americas and Europe have seen no decline in FBD. Although records in developing countries do not allow trend monitoring, several factors are increasing risks: (1) consumption of animal source foods (ASF) and vegetables, the most risky foods, is accelerating ((Tschirley et al. 2015); (2) value chains are growing longer and branching out, allowing greater spread of hazards; and (3) price volatility and low margins are putting pressure on actors to sacrifice food safety (Grace and McDermott 2015). Higher average temperatures and extreme weather events due to climate change may favor fungal and other biological contaminants (Tirado et al. 2010). Unsafe foods threaten opportunities for the poor and for women Beyond health impacts, unsafe food also brings economic, trade, and equity impacts. Poor farmers and countries are already excluded from some export markets partly because of inability to assure food safety. They may also be excluded from high-value domestic markets (Unnevehr and Ronchi 2014). Countries and farmers lose out on local food aid purchase programs for maize or groundnuts when farmers fail to meet aflatoxin standards. Through women may dominate in traditional food processing, they tend to drop out of more complex value chains that demand greater food safety assurances, missing opportunities from more profitable value chains (Roesel and Grace 2014). Supporting informal markets to provide safer food and supporting women to engage in emerging formal markets can achieve multiple outcomes of improved health, livelihoods, nutrition, and equity. Rising concern over FBD Consumers and policymakers are paying more attention to food safety in developing countries. Cross-country studies find that safety is often among consumers’ most important food concerns (Jabbar et al. 2010). Experimental evidence from developing countries suggests consumers are willing to pay significantly more (at least for a short time) for food that is certified as safe (Birol et al. 2015), though consumers often do not trust certification, with good reason. Policymakers are concerned about FBD but have limited understanding of how to attain food safety and manage trade-offs with other development objectives. They may react to food scares by proposing draconian regulations (Grace and McDermott 2015), which can threaten the livelihoods of poor value chain actors and increase the cost of nutritious foods for consumers. Attempts to create markets for safe food may lead to a concentration of unsafe food in poor populations (Moser and Hoffmann 2015). “Safe food, fair food” Despite the growing severity of food safety problems and increasing attention from policymakers, there are still painfully few standards and approaches to address challenges in informal markets, where most of the world’s poor buy and sell food, where the risks are pervasive, costs of compliance are high, and enforcement capacity is currently weak (Unnevehr and Grace 2013).

78

This flagship program (FP) proposes bold changes that include: (1) risk based, pro-poor approaches that can shift governance away from doomed attempts to enforce regulation and toward enabling actors to meet important food safety demands; (2) market-based approaches that provide value chain actors with immediate incentives for behavior change; and (3) technologies that dramatically reduce the costs of ensuring food safety. Previous initiatives to improve food safety in domestic markets have focused on Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), farmer field schools, installation of milk plants and abattoirs, and upgrading markets. These approaches have been constrained by high delivery costs, an inability to develop markets that reward quality, and extremely low scalability and sustainability (Grace 2015b). Thus, the CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) plans to rigorously test our theory on how food safety research will lead to development impact, assuming that sustainable impact is possible (Grace, Mahuku, et al. 2015; Baker and Omore, 2011), while acknowledging the researchable constraints and committing to serious research on overcoming constraints. The logic for engaging agricultural research to improve food safety is that FBD is responsible for an enormous health burden and negative livelihood, nutritional, and economic impacts. One consideration in determining the strategic importance of our research areas is the size of health and other burdens; another is the role of agriculture in creating and addressing the problem. In Phase II, FP3: Food Safety will have two main areas of focus: Evidence that Counts, and Solutions that Scale. There will be three clusters of activity (CoA). CoA1: Evidence that Counts will generate evidence on questions at the interface of agriculture and FBD and will build capacity to assess and manage FBD. Solutions that Scale focuses on two approaches that have shown promise for reaching millions of consumers: market-based solutions to improving safe food (CoA2: Safe Fresh Foods) and aflatoxin mitigation through biocontrol and GAP (CoA3: Aflatoxin Mitigation). OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS This FP addresses the problem of poor health due to the production and consumption of contaminated foods, contributing to the second system-level outcome (SLO) on Improved food and nutrition security and health through the intermediate development outcomes (IDOs) on Improved food safety1, Enhanced smallholder market access, and to three cross-cutting IDOs (Equity and inclusion achieved, Enabling environment improved, and National partners and beneficiaries enabled) (Figure 2.3.1). The bulk of activities in this FP are oriented toward improving the performance of value chains and their supporting policy environments, while smaller research activities explore the potential of programs to improve food safety. In doing so, it targets the first three Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to “end poverty in all its forms everywhere,” “end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture” and “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages.”

1 FP3: Food Safety will contribute to improved water quality (sub-IDO2.3.1) however their contributions are captured in the sub-IDO on reduced biological and chemical hazards in the food system (sub-IDO 2.2.1).

79

Figure 2.3.1. Impact pathways for FP3: Food Safety

FP3: Food Safety will work primarily through two impact pathways:

• Agri-food Value Chains Pathway (primarily through CoAs 2 and 3): This pathway has a target population of the moderately poor earning between $1.25 and $10 per day, a population which makes up a majority of the global poor, shows high levels of undernutrition and stunting (The World Bank 2015), and has an increasing intake of risky, fresh foods purchased in informal markets. The focus of this pathway is market-based solutions driven by consumer demand, public health concern, and direct, near-term incentives for value chain actors. The main outcome sought is reduced exposure of consumers to hazards, which requires an appropriate regulatory environment and improved capacities of all partners. Underpinning the approach is a focus on safeguarding or improving access to markets and thus supporting the livelihoods of women, who dominate most informal markets but are often excluded from formal markets, and providing opportunities for youth. The latter is especially critical in Africa, where the population is predicted to double by 2050, yet many are pessimistic on the prospects of the formal sector or agriculture to provide the hundreds of millions of acceptable jobs that need to be created. This FP will work closely with FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets to ensure that its value chain development work is done within a food systems perspective, and also to ensure that food safety is appropriately considered in food systems work.

• Policies Pathway (primarily through CoA1): This pathway targets investors and decisionmakers. Food safety is a relatively new focus for international agriculture research, and the informal food sector has been long neglected. Hence, it is important to generate information on food safety burden and management, to build capacity to access and understand this information, and to encourage investors and policymakers to support appropriate food safety–specific and food safety–sensitive policies and interventions.

By 2022, this FP expects its research to contribute to three main outcomes, as described in the Performance Indicator Matrix – Table B:

80

• Key food safety evidence uses (donors, academics, INGOs, national policymakers, civil society, and industry) are aware of and use evidence in the formulation and/or implementation of pro-poor and risk-based food safety approaches

• Market-based food safety innovations delivered at scale in key countries, along with understanding of their impact and appropriate use

• Biocontrol and GAP delivered at scale in key countries, along with understanding of their impact and appropriate use

This FP’s contribution to the 2022 CGIAR target is approximately 469,000 more farm households that have adopted biocontrol, GAP, or improved varieties that reduce aflatoxin contamination (Performance Indicator Matrix – Table A). In addition, we expect up to 12,000 traders and 3 million on-farm consumers and 23 million other consumers in Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, and Vietnam will benefit from improved food safety practices in target value chains by 2022. Target Geographies Research in CoA1: Evidence that Counts will look at global, regional, and foresight issues, focusing in countries where A4NH has a track record and good partnerships, but flexible in identifying new and important issues. CoA2: Safe Fresh Foods will focus on value chains in partnership with the CGIAR Research Programs (CRPs) on Fish and on Livestock, emphasizing dairy in Tanzania and pork in Uganda and Vietnam. Future collaborations with CRP Livestock will be explored in Kenya, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, and India and with CRP Fish’s work in Bangladesh. In Uganda and Vietnam, we will link with the CRP on Water, Land, and Ecosystems (WLE) on issues related to water and livestock waste. We will prioritize the young, old, pregnant women, malnourished, and immune-suppressed who are most at risk of infectious FBD. CoA3: Aflatoxin Mitigation will focus on Africa, which has the highest levels of exposure and an increasing aflatoxin-associated health burden. This cluster will benefit from strong existing alliances, notably with the Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa (PACA). Currently, this FP has large projects in three countries: Kenya, Nigeria, and Senegal, and project activities with partners in nine other countries in Africa where the aflatoxin burden is greatest (Burundi, Ghana, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Zambia). We will explore opportunities to collaborate in India during Phase II. IMPACT PATHWAY AND THEORY OF CHANGE Impact will occur through two main pathways: (1) generating evidence to influence key decisionmakers and policy processes (mainly CoA1) and (2) taking food safety solutions from successfully tested pilots to scale (mainly CoAs 2 and 3). The theory of change (ToC) identifies critical assumptions that underlie the outcomes along the pathways. A ToC for CoA1 will be developed with FP4: Supporting Policies Programs and Enabling Action through Research (SPEAR) in 2016-17. ToCs for the other CoAs have already been developed, peer reviewed, and published. While ToCs are living documents that are regularly updated based on new evidence and experience, it is important to make them publically available to build understanding of how agricultural research contributes to nutrition and health outcomes in practice. The ToC for CoA2 (Safe Fresh Foods) is largely based on behavioral change rather than changes in technology, infrastructure, or market structure. It looks at how an institutional innovation – training and certification (T&C) – can improve the quality and safety of fresh foods (Johnson et al. 2015). The relatively small number of fresh meat and produce sellers (thousands as opposed to millions of consumers and farmers) means market agents are leverage points where low-cost interventions can have profound up- and downstream impacts. Moreover, informal markets have low barriers to entry and are important sources of employment for women and youth, added justifications for investments.

81

Initial evidence from a relatively small number of A4NH projects supports the assumption that informal sector market agents change their practices as a result of participating in the program and experience social and economic benefits, even if they do not receive a higher price from consumers (Table 2.3.1). Some pilots have also shown that food safety and quality improved for substantial numbers of customers, however there have not yet been studies on their health outcomes. Likewise, though food sold was initially safer, no studies assess longer-term safety or sustainability. There are significant challenges in attaining political acceptability for initiatives in informal markets. Attaining real, rather than token, compliance with standards at scale and over long periods of time has not been demonstrated. Although there are several examples of food currently being certified as safe in niche developing country markets, there are no examples of credible food safety assurance in mass domestic markets in developing countries.

Table 2.3.1. Theory of change for CoA2: Safe Fresh Foods (adapted from Johnson et al. 2015) Outcomes Assumptions Evidence* Exposure decreases if perishable food is safer

Currently fresh foods are mostly unsafe Most fresh foods are bought in wet markets

Fair to strong Strong

Food is safer if traders change practices

Practices are effective Fair short-term, weak long-term

Practices can be changed Practices are feasible and generate benefits Traders and consumers are motivated

Fair Weak

Traders buy in to scheme

Traders can access training Materials and approaches are effective, relevant

Fair Fair

Traders are reached by scheme

Most traders can be reached Policy environment can be made enabling

Weak to fair Fair

Addressing research constraints will require multi-disciplinary teams. We will build on existing partnerships in CRP Livestock and CRP Fish value chains, with public health researchers in FP5: Improving Human Health (on health risks and benefits), and with academic partners such as the International Institute on Environment and Development (IIED) who recognized expertise in informal markets in developing counties. Partnerships with government regulators will be crucial for scaling up, and even for piloting innovations, in places where the informal sector is currently banned. New partnerships may be needed to implement market-based innovations at scale, for example, by the government (e.g. dairy in Kenya) or by an NGO or private firm (e.g. supplier of business development services). The ToC on CoA3 (Aflatoxin Mitigation ) looks at how use of farm level mitigation technologies and practices (GAP, resistant varieties, and/or biocontrol (aflasafe™) could reduce exposure among consumers ((Johnson, Atherstone, and Grace 2015). Where economic incentives are sufficient, farmers readily adopt technologies, however evidence to date suggests there are significant challenges to ensuring incentives and reaching target consumers (Table 2.3.2). Unlike the case for perishables, aflatoxin contamination often originates on farms, so reaching farm households and changing post-harvest practices on farms and in markets will be important. Improving the ability of consumers to recognize and demand safe food risks increasing exposure through concentration of contaminated grain in markets used by the poor.

Table 2.3.2. Theory of change for CoA3: Aflatoxin Mitigation (Johnson, Atherstone, and Grace 2015) Outcomes Assumptions Evidence Exposure to aflatoxins significantly decreases if staples are safer

Currently staples are often contaminated Staples most important source of aflatoxins

Strong Strong

Consumers eat aflatoxin-safe products

Aflatoxin-safe foods are available Consumers can identify safe foods

Weak to fair Weak

Consumers are aware and convinced of risks

Information gets to consumers Information is appropriate and useful

Fair Fair

Traders buy from farmers with adopted practices

Staples produced meet market needs Staples below standards find other use

Weak to fair Very weak

82

Farmers adopt technologies and practices

Technologies and practices are accessible/affordable Technologies and practices deliver visible and desired benefits

Weak to fair Very weak

Farmers are aware and convinced of benefits of aflatoxin mitigation

Information reaches farmers Information is appropriate and useful

Weak to fair Weak to fair

Although there is a strong case that aflasafe™ and GAP may reach millions of farmers in the next five years, it may not be sustainable or affordable. A4NH will actively research how the formal private sector can overcome this challenge. Agronomic benefits of GAP, and bundling of yield-enhancing inputs with aflasafe™ will help motivate farmer adoption. The intensive livestock sector is a promising market for aflatoxin-safe grain that may require less regulatory oversight than markets for human food due to the deleterious impact of aflatoxins on animal health. More research is needed on the costs and benefits of aflasafe™ compared to other, less expensive means of aflatoxin mitigation. Aflatoxins are responsible for a relatively small proportion of the overall known health burden in developing countries (although the likely health impacts are much greater), but more research is needed on the full public health benefits of aflatoxin mitigation, and the relative advantage of agriculture-based interventions in delivering these. Key research partnerships will be with CRPs on Dryland Cereals and Legumes Agri-Food Systems (DCL), Livestock and MAIZE on technology adoption, with A4NH FP1: Food Systems on consumer demand for low-aflatoxin products, and with other A4NH flagships (4 and 5) on nutrition and health impacts. Partnerships with governments will ensure that the technologies are available, for example in the case of aflasafe,™ whose commercial production requires regulatory approval, and to support production of low-aflatoxin grain in target areas The private sector and NGOs will be crucial for scaling out to smallholders, and filling the research gaps related to farmer and consumer awareness and acceptance will be important to defining their roles. SCIENCE QUALITY Novelty and soundness of proposed research Agricultural and food systems are intimately connected to health outcomes, but health policy and programs often stop at the clinic door while agriculture rarely includes “maintaining or enhancing health” as an articulated objective. The disconnect between agriculture, health, and nutrition is at least partly responsible for the disease burden associated with food and farming. FP3 : Food Safety draws on the following areas of research that promise to reconnect human, animal, and environmental health:

• One Health and Ecohealth are related approaches that grew out of the huge concerns raised by waves of emerging disease starting in the 1990s (such as bird flu, SARS, and Ebola) on the one hand, and by the increasing burden of disease associated with degraded ecosystems on the other hand. Both approaches are multidisciplinary and emphasize the importance of agriculture- and ecosystem-based interventions in order to attain health goals. They have been central to successes in improving control of neglected and emerging zoonoses (Grace 2014). This type of approach underlies both FP3: Food Safety and FP5: Improving Human Health.

• The risk-based approach to food safety focuses on the severity and likelihood of human health impacts. People (including policymakers) are notoriously poor judges of risk, and research is critical to better evidence. Optimal solutions are often counterintuitive (e.g. differences between hazards and risks are frequently misunderstood), and uninformed actions can make things much worse, especially for the poor. Risk analysis emerged in the 1990s as the internationally accepted approach for assessing food safety and trade issues (Vose 1998). Rather than focusing on the presence or absence of a hazard in the food system, risk analysis looks at whether the hazard poses a risk to human health. All hazards do not pose significant risks, and removing or reducing a hazard may not reduce risk. Risk analysis offers a systematic, science-based process for organizing and integrating quantitative and qualitative information about risks. The International Livestock

83

Research Institute (ILRI) has been developing methodologies for applying risk assessment to the data and resource-scarce informal value chains in developing countries, conducting more than 30 risk assessment and risk management studies (Grace, Baker, and Randolph 2010).

• Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard method for generating scientific evidence. RCTs will be utilized to test new approaches to reducing food safety risk, and to evaluate the impact of solutions at scale.

Most FBD research and development has focused on formal markets and exports, neglecting the informal value chains that supply most of the fresh foods eaten by poor people and provide markets for most poor livestock keepers and market gardeners. Drawing on the two strands of research described, this FP will help fill this knowledge gap in a novel way. At the same time, it is a natural extension of past CGIAR research. Although food safety was not an initial focus of CGIAR research, by the first official mention in 2000, CGIAR Centers had already started small-scale research focusing on pest-resistant crops, biocontrol for aflatoxin, reducing cyanide in cassava, and milk quality and safety (Kassam and Barat 2003). In the last 15 years, strong research agendas have developed around aflatoxins and hazards in ASF. An independent CRP-Commissioned External Evaluation (CCEE) of A4NH food safety research found that Phase I research was highly relevant, had generated important evidence and had generally met expectations; however, there were still challenges to be overcome in going to scale and opportunities to improve communication and build private sector links (Sridharan, Tschirley, and Stark 2015). Track record of research team Science quality in Phase I has been reflected in a high number of peer-reviewed articles in well-respected journals (n=126); graduate and post-graduate theses (n=125); the first book on food safety in informal markets (Roesel and Grace 2014); participation of researchers in high-level processes such as PACA, the Foodborne Disease Epidemiology Reference Group (FERG) of the World Health Organisation (WHO), WHO’s International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) Working Group on aflatoxin control measures, and the UN Committee of Food Security High Level Panel of Experts writing groups; requests for evidence syntheses (Grace 2015a; Grace, Roesel, et al. 2015), commentaries (Fèvre 2015) contributions (Grace and McDermott 2015) and presentations to donor groups; and integration of food safety into high-impact health and agriculture research for development papers (PNAS, Lancet, Animal, PLOS). For the external evaluation of food safety, the panel reviewed multiple published papers on food safety research conducted as part of A4NH. Some of the research is of very high quality, but not all. The A4NH external evaluation found a lack of consistency in systems to assure quality across the CRP, largely due to the fact that sequence quality is managed at Center, not CRP level. We will address this in Phase II by providing stronger support to junior scientists, developing CRP guidelines, and actively engaging CRP management with core partners on science. This FP builds on the work and expertise of four CGIAR Centers. The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) emphasized biocontrol research for aflatoxins in early 2000 and has developed an effective product, aflasafe™ (Bandyopadhyay and Cotty 2013), and a systematic approach to large-scale production, ensuring conducive policies and supporting dissemination for scale-up (Grace, Mahuku, et al. 2015). Another major focus of IITA has been to breed aflatoxin-resistant maize (Menkir, Ajala, and Badu-Apraku 2015). The use of on-farm, low-cost aflatoxin mitigation methods has been documented by the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) in West and in Southern Africa (Waliyar et al. 2006; Waliyar et al. 2013; Waliyar et al. 2007). In Phase I, ICRISAT made remarkable progress in identifying groundnut genotypes that are resistant to pre-harvest Aspergillus infection and aflatoxin contamination. The International Food Policy Research Institute’s (IFPRI) work on aflatoxins has included randomized evaluations of the impact of aflatoxin exposure on child growth (Hoffmann, Jones, and Leroy 2015), farmers’ adoption of technologies to reduce contamination, and consumer response to third-party aflatoxin labeling (Hoffmann, Moser, and Herrman 2015), as well as policy analysis of aflatoxin control strategies (Florkowski and Kolavalli 2013). ILRI’s work on aflatoxins has focused on assessments in ASF,

84

impacts on livestock health and production, and policy and management related to aflatoxins in feed and ASF. LESSONS LEARNED AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES Since the inception of Phase I, there have been major developments in food safety. A key event was the long-awaited publication of WHO’s global assessment of FBD in 2015 (Havelaar et al. 2015). Key findings and estimates, acknowledged to be conservative, include the following:

• The burden of FBD is similar in magnitude to malaria, tuberculosis, or HIV/AIDS. • Overall, 98% of the burden is borne by developing countries, with highest burden in Asia and

highest incidence in Africa. • Children under 5 years of age bear 40% of the burden, even though they make up just 9% of the

population. • Most of the known burden (97%) is due to microbial hazards and parasites.

In Phase I, the A4NH flagship on Agriculture-Associated Diseases generated evidence on FBD in developing countries, finding that most FBD was due to biological hazards in fresh foods sold in informal markets, noting that, although we do not yet have solutions proven to be scalable and sustainable, some approaches to food safety are clearly unsatisfactory whereas others are promising. During Phase I, considerable advances were also made in biological control of aflatoxins along the delivery pathway. There is good evidence that CGIAR food safety research has influenced donors, decisionmakers, and national policies, though the 2015 CCEE of food safety identified A4NH branding and recognition as an area for improvement (Sridharan, Tschirley, and Stark 2015). There is less evidence that CGIAR has developed food safety solutions that are sustainable and scalable. However, impact assessments and evaluations suggest the potential impact is high. A4NH is identifying research questions based on specific assumptions identified in the ToC. These research questions include the following:

• Projects for biological control of aflatoxins are being taken to scale by the private sector with funding from donors. In Nigeria 260,000 tons of low-aflatoxin maize will be produced by 2018, equivalent to around 3% of current maize production. Another aflasafe™ plant is under construction in Kenya, where the government has allocated $10.7 million for implementing aflatoxin mitigation plans. However, health impacts have not been assessed and to determine whether large-scale introduction and adoption can be stimulated and replicated across the continent, ongoing research is needed on the multiple benefits of biocontrol, institutional innovations, funding mechanisms, and incentives for uptake.

• GAP can improve yield, productivity, worker safety, product quality, and food safety. Although pilot and boutique projects often show impacts (Omore and Baker 2011) and initiatives have enabled small farmers to comply with GAP for export, there is little evidence of success at scale in domestic markets (Schreinemachers et al. 2012; Viet Nam News 2013; Waddington and White 2014). We will research the constraints to adoption; incentives that can improve uptake of tested, effective GAP; and innovations for easier, cheaper, and more attractive GAP.

• In Kenya and the Indian state of Assam, initiatives to train milk traders and provide an enabling environment were effective, economically attractive, scalable and sustainable, and highlighted in CGIAR impact assessments (CGIAR Standing Panel on Impact Assessment 2008). Currently, an estimated 6.5 million consumers are benefiting from safer milk sold by trained and certified traders in the two countries, as described previously. However, the health impacts of these solutions were never assessed, and in the absence of sustained follow-up, it appears some of the proven benefits of the Kenyan smallholder dairy initiative may erode. We will increase research into the costs, benefits, sustainability, and potential application of these initiatives.

CLUSTERS OF ACTIVITY

85

FP3 focuses on two parallel streams of research: generating evidence that counts, and delivering impact at scale. Food safety has not been a major focus area in agricultural research. While the first WHO global assessment shows that the health impacts are enormous, many unanswered questions remain about the assessment of the FBD burden, the priorities in different food systems, approaches and technologies for improving food safety, and their relative costs, benefits, and feasibility. CoA1: Evidence that Counts This CoA will focus on generating evidence to increase investments in food safety and shifting investments in a pro-poor direction. It is well known that decisionmakers and the general public are poor judges of foodborne risk. Lay people generally have a greater fear of novel technologies used in value chains than most experts consider warranted by the actual health risk. For example, 88% of scientists in the USA agree that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are safe to eat, but this position is shared by only 37% of the general public (Pew Research Center 2015); likewise consumers fear chemicals more than biological hazards, yet 97% of the known health burden from food is due to biological hazards and only 3% due to chemicals (Havelaar et al. 2015). Risk perception is complex and driven only partly by factual evidence. Food technologies often involve “fear factors” or emotional characteristics that make them seem more worrisome than other, willingly accepted, risks, (Slovic 2010). These factors include distrust of large companies, dislike of “unnatural” processes, and uncertainty over unfamiliar dangers. The tension between consumer and expert perceptions and between food access, food quality, and desired production methods is a challenge to sustainable agriculture. We can reduce this tension by generating evidence on actual, rather than perceived, risk, by building capacity to understand and assess risk, and by improving decisionmaking in contexts of multiple and competing objectives. Traditionally, food safety has focused on reducing hazards without considering the health risks caused by these hazards, the feasibility of implementing hazard control, or the possibility that implementation will lead to undesired effects on food safety or other outcomes, like gender equity, livelihoods, or nutrition. Researchers in this FP will continue to provide evidence and build decisionmakers’ capacity to help them better understand the importance of distinguishing risk from hazard and of considering trade-offs among development objectives. Specific research questions: We will answer demands for better evidence around food safety and agriculture issues and explore emerging issues where there is great concern but little or ambiguous evidence (e.g. chemicals in food), thus influencing the behavior of donors and decisionmakers. Foresight activities will include studying cross-country trends with major implications for food safety such as increasing demand for risky foods (e.g., ASF, vegetables), the spread of food safety standards, “supermarketization,” and sustainable intensification. Research questions will focus on the following:

• Health and other burdens: What are the full health, economic, and social burdens of FBD? • Technology discovery and development: What existing or emerging technologies have potential

for reducing FBD? These include genetic resistance, biocontrol, vaccines, hygiene technologies, food processing, decontamination, toxin binders, and others.

• Food safety and other IDOs: How does attaining food safety synergize and address trade-offs with nutrition, livelihood, market access and equity outcomes?

• Regulations and standards: How can regulations to improve the safety of food for all consumers be effectively designed and implemented in markets characterized by large numbers of small, informal firms and weak capacity to detect hazards? What are the most appropriate standards for markets where currently a large proportion of foods sold do not meet standards?

• Emerging FBD: While most human infectious diseases are declining, FBD appear to be increasingly driven by changes in food systems. What are the drivers and how can they be mitigated?

Major outputs and outcomes are described in Box 2.3.1.

86

Box 2.3.1. Major outputs and outcomes of CoA1 (see Perf. Indicator Matrix-Table D for more) 2017 • Evidence on linkages between food safety and nutrition presented at high-level fora and as a

peer-reviewed publication; Quantitative risk assessment models for impact of different aflatoxin standards on health and nutrition

• National authorities in 2 countries agree to engage in a gender-sensitive policy/regulatory review process on food safety in informal markets to identify major barriers and incentives related to specific risks of concern, such as pesticides, chemicals, and aflatoxin exposure in infants; Livestock policy platforms established in 4 countries and use A4NH evidence on food safety in informal markets (ILRI)

2018 • East African Community (EAC) countries adopt standardized and harmonized policies and regulations for aflatoxins following policy support process (IITA, ILRI)

2019 • Food safety priorities identified in 1-3 CGIAR integration countries based on risk and taking multiple objectives (gender, nutrition, livelihoods) into consideration; National authorities in 2 countries build capacity and use tools from A4NH to implement gender-sensitive risk-based approaches in managing food safety

2020 • Intergovernmental agencies (WHO, FAO, OIE) adapt evidence on policy and regulatory advice for food safety in informal markets to member state

2021 • Through PACA, standardized regulations related to food safety and alternative uses are adopted in at least focus countries.

2022 • Review of evaluations summarizes impact of CGIAR food safety research and inform ongoing strategy

CoA2: Safe Fresh Foods In this cluster, the key interventions to be tested are based on T&C of informal traders or other value chain actors. Implementation will be with bilateral funding and partners from the private or public sectors. In countries A4NH has studied, thousands to tens of thousands of traders supply millions of urban consumers, who constitute the largest market for fresh foods. Following the logic of the ToC, A4NH funding will be directed toward generating evidence that is currently lacking or weak (Figure 2.3.2). Figure 2.3.2. Standard of evidence for links in chain from market-based intervention to improved health

The scientific approach is participatory risk analysis for hazard detection and socio-economic studies for assessing costs of food hazards and incentives for risk management options. Small controlled experiments will explore biological and behavioral constraints and solutions (Box 2.3.2). Given the importance of women in the informal sector, research into gender-based barriers to technology adoption, and unanticipated effects on women will be important.

Box 2.3.2. Food Safety Trials A Food Safety Trial laboratory will conduct short, field-based, low-cost experiments on biological and behavioral aspects of food safety. Through “lab-in-the-field” experiments, value chains actors will be

Efficacy T&C

Trader response

Consumer response

Exposure reduction

Health impact

Evidence: FAIR

Evidence: FAIR

Evidence: WEAK

Evidence: FAIR

Evidence: WEAK

87

faced with real choices that mirror the food safety decisions they make on a day-to-day basis, but where key parameters can be experimentally varied and consequences can be monitored.

In addition to filling evidence gaps through evaluation of interventions, CoA2: Safe Fresh Foods will synthesize findings to address the following: • Enabling environment: Which policies are currently constraining or facilitating the provision of safe

food in target markets? How can policy be influenced to better facilitate this in the informal sector, especially in contexts where the formal sector is poorly governed?

• Market-based approaches to food safety: What is the potential of differentiated markets, where premiums exist for quality, to deliver safe foods? What is the size and value of these markets? How can the potential risks that such markets direct contaminated food to the poor be mitigated? What are the ethical and economic risks of market-based approaches to food safety?

A4NH funding will also be used to support ancillary research into products and processes needed to support continued investment by donors and delivery at scale. Specific research questions are: • Which populations can best be served through market-based approaches? How can food safety be

improved for populations not well served by market-based approaches? How can institutions, gendered approaches and technologies best support behavior change in informal markets?

A4NH funding will also support upstream research into technologies to improve food safety, specifically diagnostics needed to support quality assurance and risk mitigating processing technologies. CoA2 will work closely with other CRPs (Fish, Livestock, WLE) and with A4NH FP1: Food Systems. Specifically, we will work with CRP Livestock on pork value chains in Uganda and Vietnam and dairy in Tanzania. Activities will align with their flagships on “Livelihoods and Agri-food Systems” and “Animal Health.” We will explore collaboration with CRP Livestock in Kenya, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, and India and with CRP Fish in Bangladesh. With WLE, we will work on water and livestock waste, specifically to: (1) assess risks and risk-mitigation options for water- and foodborne disease associated with peri-urban vegetable farming in Vietnam and elsewhere; and (2) optimize resource recovery in urban abattoirs in Kampala for application in other locations. There are also links with the CRP on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM) through its FP3: Inclusion and Efficient Value Chains. Agricultural growth is increasingly concentrated in high-value commodities and markets, which are likely to increasingly demand food safety as a prerequisite for participation. Building the capacity of smallholders to comply with food safety standards enables them to take advantage of opportunities for income growth and avoids their exclusion from modernizing value chains. Major outputs and outcomes are described in Box 2.3.3.

Box 2.3.3. Major outputs and outcomes of CoA2 (see Perf. Indicator Matrix-Table D for more) 2017 • 1-2 CRP value chains identified for scaling up and out T&C

• Book on food safety in low- and middle-income countries provides guidance 2019 • Novel food safety technologies and/or diagnostics deployed in value chains

• Evidence from Phases I and II is turned into gender-sensitive guidelines for traders and policy/regulators in at least two types of VCs (dairy, fish, vegetables) in target countries

2020 • 3 more CRP value chains identified for piloting and testing a T&C scheme coordinated with CRP Livestock and CRP Fish

2021 • Ex-post gender-sensitive impact assessments of sustainability and compliance in the training and certification schemes adapted for use in food safety systems in 2 target VCs/countries

2022 • Greater understanding of the role of food safety in informal markets and impacts on human health and well-being

88

• VC/food safety actors implementing and tracking performance, benefitting up to 12,000 traders and 3 million on-farm consumers and 23 million other consumers in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Vietnam

CoA3: Aflatoxin Mitigation In this CoA, implementation of aflatoxin mitigation at scale will be delivered through action research with partners in focus countries. Mitigation approaches will be both farm-based and market-based. Currently, a large research-for-development initiative is scaling out biocontrol and GAP in several countries. This provides an opportunity to direct A4NH funding toward generating evidence that is needed to link agricultural research to health and development outcomes (Figure 2.3.3). Key research questions include the following:

• Health impacts: To what extent does aflatoxin contribute to stunting and immunosuppression in children? Do human health impacts justify subsidies and if so how can they be designed to be effective and financially supported? To what extent can on-farm technologies reduce human exposure, and what will be the effect on health? This research will be undertaken in collaboration with nutrition and health researchers.

• Farmer/producer awareness: How can farmers be made aware and convinced of the benefits of risk-mitigating technologies and practices? To what extent can other benefits of hazard control (higher yields, profits, reduced waste) drive adoption? How can various mitigation strategies be integrated? Is the existing premium offered by firms demanding aflatoxin-safe inputs sufficient to cover farmers’ costs of inputs to reduce contamination?

• Scaling out of technologies: What can we learn from the new scaling out efforts and how can these lessons inform other scaling out efforts? What are appropriate models for engaging public and private sector in tech transfer and commercialization?

• Formal sector linkages: Phase I found formal sector millers in Kenya had strong demand for improving aflatoxin detection; can this be leveraged to reliably improve the safety of formal sector maize without concentrating contaminated maize in informal markets? Likewise, can the strong demand for aflasafe™-treated maize by the poultry sector in Nigeria be leveraged to increase uptake of biocontrol and amounts of aflasafe™-treated maize consumed by people? Can small farmers be directly linked to the formal sector? Can differentiated markets deliver aflatoxin safe food without leading to concentration of unsafe food in the food consumed by the poorest?

Figure 2.3.3. Standard of evidence for links in chain from aflatoxin mitigation on-farm to improved health

A4NH funding will also be used to support ancillary research into products and processes needed to support continued investment in aflatoxin mitigation by donors and delivery at scale. Specific research questions are the following:

• Diagnostics: Given that aflatoxins are expensive and difficult to reliably measure, how can basic and applied research improve diagnosis?

• Alternate use of aflatoxin contaminated crops: Given that a proportion of crops will continue to be contaminated, how can these be safely used?

While biocontrol combined with GAP is currently the approach closest to achieving impact at scale, there is also a need to discover and develop new, additional options for aflatoxin control, pilot in different food

Efficacy GAP Farmer response

Consumer response

Exposure reduction

Health impact

Evidence: GOOD

Evidence: WEAK

Evidence: WEAK

Evidence: GOOD

Evidence: VERY POOR

89

systems, and understand the changing dynamics of aflatoxin under land use and climate change. Some questions are the following:

• Genetic resistance and biocontrol: How can we discover and develop novel strategies? What are the impacts of deploying current strategies?

• Integrated control: How effective are various integrated aflatoxin management techniques (agronomic practices, resistant/tolerant varieties, market solutions)?

• Climate change: What are the effects of climate change on contamination and management? Several CGIAR Centers have research programs related to CoA3, the largest being IITA. As in Phase I, A4NH funding will be used to help coordinate efforts across centers (IITA, ICRISAT, IFPRI, ILRI) and link to bigger food system efforts in MAIZE, DCL, and CCAFS. Specifically, we will work with DCL on on-farm aflatoxin mitigation in its FP6: Integrated land, water, and crop management technologies. There will also be links to its FP1: Priority setting and impact acceleration and FP5: Improved rural livelihood system. With CRP Maize we will explore collaboration with the flagship on value addition, looking in particular at gender issues and postharvest losses. Like CoA2, CoA3 will also work with PIM on value chains. CoA3 will work with A4NH FP2: Biofortification where relevant (e.g. orange maize in Zambia). Major outputs and outcomes are described in Box 2.3.4.

Box 2.3.4. Major outputs and outcomes of CoA2 (see Perf. Indicator Matrix-Table D for more) 2017 • 39,000 farmers adopt biocontrol across 8 countries in Sub Saharan Africa, producing 155,000

tons of low-aflatoxin maize and groundnut (with 48,000 tons for consumption) 2018 • Regulatory authorities in Kenya adopt guidelines for use of binders in animal feed and Gov’t

of Ethiopia undertakes gender-sensitive action research on aflatoxins in dairy feed based on A4NH evidence

2019 • Maize millers in up to 6 countries participate in aflatoxin proficiency and/or verification testing

2020 • 156,000 farmers adopt biocontrol across 8 countries in Sub Saharan Africa, producing 548,000 tons of low-aflatoxin maize and groundnut (with 159,000 tons for consumption)

2021 • At least 40 public sector agencies and agri-businesses adopt aflatoxin mitigation technologies (aflasafe™, post-harvest practices and aflatoxin testing) for reducing aflatoxin in crop value chains

2022 • Millers have capacity to monitor the safety of food supplied to 50 million non-farm maize meal consumers and private firms produce aflasafe™ in 3 countries

PARTNERSHIPS We will have a small number of key partners with whom we work closely in relations of high trust, and a broader range of partners where we work on areas of mutual interest. There will be a strong emphasis on ensuring science quality and building the capacity of partners. Different partners will make different contributions along our impact pathways. Generating evidence. We will work with key research partners to generate high quality, relevant evidence to influence global and national enablers and their future investments.

• We conduct joint research with other A4NH flagships (especially 1, 4 and 5) and CRPs (Livestock, Fish, DCL, WLE, CCAFS), national universities in our target countries (for example University of Nairobi and Sokoine University of Agriculture) and elsewhere (e.g., Royal Veterinary College and the Leverhulme Centre for Integrative Research on Agriculture and Health), plus national research institutes such as the Public Health Foundation India, the Hanoi School of Public Health, and the Centre Suisse de Recherches Scientifiques in Cote d’Ivoire.

• Global partners set the overarching agenda, recognize the importance of food safety, endorse CGIAR solutions for food safety, and make use of evidence provided by CGIAR to change approaches to food safety in ways that make them more effective and equitable. Ongoing

90

partnerships around food safety with WHO, OIE, FAO, IARC and the World Bank will continue. We are raising awareness and sharing evidence on the aflatoxin agenda through regional and continental level policy institutions such as African Union Commission (AUC), Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), East African Community (EAC), and Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) through PACA.

• Donors are important enablers who fund pilots and jumpstart out-scaling of the most promising approaches, and reduce investments in approaches which are not helpful. Key donor partners are BMGF, USAID, USDA, GIZ, DFID, and ACIAR. We are actively seeking to broaden this group.

• In addition to working through regional organizations, we are also working directly with governments in key counties such as Kenya, Nigeria, and Senegal.

Partners play an important role in making sure that evidence reaches and is understood by target audiences. Key partners for other communication and outreach include CTA, PACA, and public services and NGOs to engage with media in countries we work. Piloting and delivery at scale: Research partners generate evidence on the importance of the problem and ways to mitigate it. We partner with the researcher partners mentioned above to pilot solutions for improving food safety. Successfully piloted solutions require implementation and scale-out through funders and partners: these partnerships build on existing relations, maintaining engagement through generation of evidence on impacts and costs. We will work with other CRPs, in particular, to pilot solutions, and will work with specific partners identified by them.

• National, regional, and continental public sector partners provide an enabling policy environment and invest in out-scaling.

• Development partners are involved in implementing pilots and supporting out-scaling. • Private sector (large- and small-scale) partners respond to policies and incentives by changing

structure and behavior and support development efforts through corporate social responsibility.

CLIMATE CHANGE Climate change can increase FBD by bringing novel vectors and pathogens into temperate regions or by contributing to temperature-associated changes in contamination levels. Many animal pathogens either live in soils and waters, are spread by insect vectors or rodents, or pass from one animal to another when humidity is high. As the world gets warmer and wetter, conditions become better for diseases to flourish and spread. Extreme events, like floods and droughts, allow sporadic diseases to become common. A recent extensive literature review concluded that several important FBDs were likely to increase due to increasing air and water temperature, annual precipitation, and precipitation events (Tirado et al. 2010). The impact of climate change on aflatoxins is not well known, though unpredictable rainfall patterns associated with climate change may favor fungal growth, as droughts cause plant stress during cultivation and excessive rainfall leads to unfavorable conditions for drying after harvest. Hotter, drier conditions favor some toxigenic strains, which can expand. Long-term climate changes may also create zones suitable for fungal growth, making aflatoxins a problem in larger parts of the world. Any negative impacts of climate change on food availability are likely to increase exposure to mycotoxins and the impact of aflatoxins (Tirado et al. 2010) Likewise, non-poor tropical areas, like Singapore and northern Australia, tend to have disease levels comparable to non-tropical rich countries. Improved living standards, health care, public awareness, and infrastructure can build resilience to diseases. Our approach to the interface of FBD and climate change will focus on better understanding of the epidemiology and distribution of FBD due to climate change and to develop adaptation strategies to improve resilience under climate change, like disease forecasting, all done in collaboration with CCAFS and WLE.

91

GENDER Women’s participation in value chains is high, but activity and resource-use by women and men varies between cultures, systems, and stage in a value chain. A review of 21 informal value chains in Africa and India (Grace, Roesel, et al. 2015) found that men caught fish, shot game, slaughtered large animals, and predominated in meat sales, while women predominated in traditional processing, slaughter of chickens, and sale of fish and street food. Food systems are rapidly evolving in developing countries and new structures may exclude women unless additional efforts are made to retain or include them. Across the value chains studied, both women and men consumed ASF, but consumption patterns varied by gender. There are many taboos around consumption of food (especially nutritious food) that tend to disadvantage women. Worldwide, meat is the main target of taboos for pregnant women (Fessler 2002). In some countries, men have more access to ASF because they predominate in bars that serve meat and alcohol and are at higher risk than woman for FBD (Roesel and Grace 2014; Han et al. 2013). Women and men also have different knowledge, awareness, and responsibilities when it comes to consumption-related decisions, which may affect the risks they are exposed to. In general, women are the key risk managers for FBD in the house and important risk managers along value chains and on farms. Understanding gender roles in pre- and post-harvest management on farms is especially important for mitigating exposure to aflatoxins since contamination originates on farms and affects production for home consumption and markets. In order to achieve gendered outcomes (Table 2.3.3), we will seek to understand gendered health risks and benefits of participation in food value chains, test targeted interventions to reduce vulnerability of women and men to FBD, and ensure that market-based food safety interventions do not exclude women from emerging value chains.

Table 2.3.3. Gender and equity outcomes from clusters’ theories of change Outcomes Assumptions Status of

Evidence Better women’s and men’s health

Women and men are have different risks from FBD Gendered interventions can improve health more effectively than gender-blind interventions

Strong Very weak

Better child nutrition and health outcomes

Women target more resources they control to children Participation of women in informal food value chains improves child outcomes

Fair Very weak

Greater equity

As value chains develop, women and the poor tend to be excluded Gendered interventions can improve inclusion Greater inclusion provides significant benefits to women and the poor

Fair Weak Fair

Greater health resilience to illness

Sickness is a major cause of falling into and remaining in poverty FBD is an important cause of poverty-inducing illness Interventions targeting FBD will build resilience to illness

Strong Weak Very weak

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT In Phase I, this FP developed capacity in more than 100 high-level regulators, graduated dozens of PhD and MSc students, trained technical staff on biocontrol research, and helped upgrade university curricula. A4NH supports a national food safety policy task force in Vietnam and is establishing food safety in commodity policy platforms in four countries. The BecA-ILRI Hub, a shared agricultural research and bioscience platform, is increasing access to world-class research facilities to build capacity in African scientists.

92

The CGIAR Capacity Development CoP has identified ten core elements of capacity building. This FP will focus on the following elements with partners whose involvement is key to the impact of evidence generation and delivery (see Annex 3.2).

• Developing skills and tools to improve decisionmaking and inform investment in FBD management, specifically through learning materials and short training courses for the public sector.

• Collaborating with development partners to build capacity in understanding, implementing, and evaluating measures for FBD management.

• Raising awareness on the importance of food safety issues within CGIAR, advanced research institutes, and local universities, and developing future research leaders through direct outreach to undergraduates.

• Participating in A4NH-supported communities of practices and/or learning platforms on food systems (through FP1: Food Systems), agriculture and health (through FP5: Improving Human Health), nutrition (through FP4: SPEAR), gender, and other initiatives like the Agriculture, Nutrition and Health Academy, to share food safety methods and metrics.

• Developing or evaluating materials designed to increase capacity in value chain actors (e.g. prototype curricula for T&C of traders) with partners, and generating evidence to encourage development partners or private sector to invest in training value chain actors.

INTELLECTUAL ASSETS AND OPEN ACCESS MANAGEMENT The FP’s open access (OA), open data, and research data management (RDM) are guided at CGIAR-level by CGIAR’s Open Access and Data Management Policy and CGIAR’s Open Access and Data Management Implementation Guidelines. OA and open data actions and platforms are key mechanisms to implement CGIAR intellectual assets principles. Robust intellectual assets management and OA data management help in promoting uptake and achieving outcomes, while also contributing to the FP’s effectiveness, learning, and accountability. Most Phase I outputs are already accessible through CGSpace and other online portals (e.g. http://data.ilri.org/tools/ for ILRI and Dataverse for IFPRI). In Phase II, researchers from this FP will contribute a number of intellectual assets, such as improved varieties, novel and improved diagnostics, improved production technologies, decisionmaking tools, cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses, impact evaluations, data or databases, online platforms, learning and capacity-building materials, and scientific publications—all of which will be designed with CGIAR OA and open data principles in mind. For example, peer-reviewed papers will be published in an OA format. Researchers will make raw data available to other researchers through their Center-specified platform in a timely manner. Tools to support improved decisionmaking developed by this FP will follow OA and open data principles, minimizing hurdles to scaling out. Further upstream, genome sequencing generates large amounts of data that will be put into an open database. For more information, see Annex 3.9. In the long term, bilateral projects in this FP will budget for making information and data OA and to have a dedicated communications budget. In the short term, we will reserve a small budget ($15,000) to support making information accessible and communicating research. FP MANAGEMENT In Phase I, food safety was combined with neglected zoonoses and emerging infectious disease into a single flagship on Agriculture-Associated Diseases, led by ILRI. In Phase II, food safety is proposed as a separate FP, justified by its great importance to value chain performance and the high burden of FBD. In Phase I, A4NH funding was used to coordinate four meetings to help build an aligned research agenda around aflatoxins. The development of ToCs was also an opportunity to build researcher capacity in

93

understanding impact pathways, to identify research areas where A4NH could add the most value, and to identify comparative advantages and appropriate roles for different partners. Whereas Phase I started with four centers that had widely separated research agendas and reported separately to the A4NH Program Management Unit (PMU), going into Phase II, we envisage a more joined-up FP that can deliver an integrated food safety research agenda. ILRI will serve as the lead Center and will identify a FP leader responsible for coordinating planning and reporting across the FP. He/she will be supported by a part-time program management officer based at ILRI and will draw on communication and gender expertise in the PMU. The three CoAs will likewise have cluster leaders: the first two based in ILRI and the third in IITA, all of whom will meet monthly with the FP leader, either face-to-face or virtually. Different partners will play different and critical roles in FP management. Some A4NH resources will be used to support integrated activities and internal learning within and across clusters. Partners will also agree upon and report against key objectives (for example, under gender impact, OA, or integration).

94

SECTION 2.4

95

SECTION 2: Flagship Program (FP4) on Supporting Policies, Programs, and Enabling Action through Research (SPEAR) RATIONALE AND SCOPE Agricultural development has enormous potential to make significant contributions to reducing malnutrition and associated ill health. With its close links to both the direct causes of undernutrition (diets, feeding practices, and health) and the underlying factors (e.g. income, food security, education, access to water, sanitation, hygiene [WASH] and health services, and gender equity), the agriculture sector can play a much stronger role in improving nutrition outcomes (Kadiyala et al. 2014; Pinstrup-Andersen 2012). Yet to date, there is little evidence that agricultural interventions are benefiting nutrition (Ruel and Alderman 2013) or that agricultural growth consistently leads to nutritional improvements (Webb and Block 2012). In many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where a high dependence on agriculture-based livelihoods coexists with a high burden of undernutrition, large changes in agricultural policy and practice have generated relatively small changes in nutrition (Headey, Chiu, and Kadiyala 2012; Ecker, Breisinger, and Pauw 2011). In short, there is a disconnect between agriculture and nutrition (Box 2.4.1). This disconnect represents a challenge—but also an opportunity. The many links between agriculture and nutrition suggest that agricultural policies, interventions, and practices can be better designed to enhance nutrition and health benefits. In FP4: Supporting Policies, Programs, and Enabling Action through Research (SPEAR), we seek to understand why the disconnect persists, and more importantly, how we can turn agriculture into a powerful lever for raising people’s health and nutritional status, while at the same time contributing to other outcomes, such as food security, income, equity, and sustainability. Leveraging agriculture for nutrition implies: (a) making agricultural programs more nutrition-sensitive and therefore more effective in improving nutrition and health, (b) creating and strengthening policy environments that enable agriculture to support nutrition and health goals, and (c) developing capacity and leadership to use evidence-informed decisionmaking to enhance the impact of agriculture on nutrition and health. We have more to learn in all of these areas, and FP4 is designed to address such knowledge gaps.

Box 2.4.1. Definitions for concepts in FP4: SPEAR The agriculture-nutrition disconnect describes the paradox of persistent undernutrition in a rapidly growing economy. From 2010–2012, members of the FP4 team were engaged in the Tackling the Agriculture-Nutrition Disconnect in India (TANDI) project that, among other activities, investigated the causes of this disconnect and the possible responses. The conceptual framework developed by TANDI (Gillespie, Harris, and Kadiyala 2012; Kadiyala et al. 2014) has since become very widely used and adapted for a USAID/SPRING brief. Nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs are agriculture programs that have specific nutrition goals and integrate nutrition interventions (e.g. behavior change communications, distribution of micronutrient-fortified products, etc.) to achieve them (Ruel and Alderman 2013). They may or may not also integrate other types of interventions from other sectors such as water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) or health (e.g. immunization, promotion of use of health services, etc.).

Nutrition and health are complex challenges, driven by factors and processes that require inputs and contributions from many sectors and at many levels, including both direct (nutrition-specific) interventions usually delivered by the health sector and indirect (nutrition-sensitive) programs implemented by a variety of sectors, underpinned by enabling policy environments (Black et al. 2013). Even if the recommended package of nutrition-specific interventions put forward by the Lancet Nutrition Series was scaled up to 90% population coverage in the 34 countries with the highest burden of undernutrition, child stunting would fall by only 20% (Bhutta et al. 2013). This means that efforts to scale up nutrition-specific interventions need to

96

be paired with investments in nutrition-sensitive development programs and policies that address the underlying drivers of malnutrition. Given the multi-sectoral nature of nutrition, agriculture needs to work in harmony with other sectors to maximize its impacts on nutrition. For example, social protection can protect the nutrition and health of poor smallholder households as they grapple with seasonality and climate shocks and stresses. Improved WASH can increase the nutrition benefits of improved diets by reducing disease. And linkages between local agricultural production and school feeding may generate win-win benefits: income for small producers and their families, and nutrition and cognitive gains (and likely future income) for school-age children. FP4 seeks to fill major gaps in our understanding of the agriculture-nutrition disconnect, and to identify and evaluate global and local actions to successfully connect the two sectors.1 In doing so, it directly targets the second Sustainable Development Goal (SDG2) to “end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture.” We will build on current involvement of the CGIAR Research Program (CRP) on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) staff and partners with global and regional initiatives in Africa and Asia to support countries in addressing these gaps and tackling these goals. To address the previously mentioned challenges, this FP is structured in three interacting and mutually reinforcing Clusters of Activity (CoAs):

1. CoA1: Nutrition-Sensitive Agricultural Programs (NSAP) focuses on understanding, documenting and enhancing the contribution of nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs to improvements in maternal and child nutrition.

2. CoA2: Supporting Countries through Research on Enabling Environments (SCORE) focuses on understanding how enabling environments (policies, institutions, governance) for nutrition and health are created and sustained, and testing approaches for cultivating such environments.

3. CoA3: Capacity, Collaboration, Convening (3C) focuses on strengthening capacity to demand, use and act upon relevant evidence, as well as providing a crucial bridge to other FPs, CRPs, and relevant national, regional, and global processes and opportunities to maximize the impact of CGIAR work to improve nutrition and health.

1 Challenges relating to the agriculture-nutrition disconnect have been discussed in the 2013 Lancet Nutrition Series, the 2014 and 2015 Global Nutrition Reports, and high-level fora such as the Nutrition for Growth (N4G) event (June 2013), Global Gatherings of the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement (2013-15), the CGIAR’s Science Forum in Bonn (September 2013), the International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2) in Rome (November 2014), and within the African Union’s Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) investment planning process.

97

OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS The main objective of FP4 is to understand and enhance agriculture’s contribution to improving nutrition at scale, aiming to:

1. Understand, document, and enhance the impact of nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs on dietary quality and health- and nutrition-related outcomes in children, adolescent girls, and women of reproductive age;

2. Understand and document the barriers and opportunities, and test approaches for strengthening enabling environments for agriculture to support nutrition and health goals; and

3. Strengthen capacity and leadership to promote evidence-informed decisionmaking along the policy, program development, and implementation continuum, to enhance the impact of agriculture on nutrition- and health-relevant policy and programming.

This FP will impact the second system-level outcome (SLO2) on improved food and nutrition security for health (Figure 2.4.1), with the potential to contribute to SLO1 on reduced poverty. We will focus primarily on undernutrition, and also consider the growing challenge of overweight and obesity. The three CoAs will contribute indirectly to all three intermediate development outcomes (IDOs) under SLO2. We envision short term impact through the IDO on increased incomes and employment and long term impact by building human capital.2 Figure 2.4.1. Impact pathways for FP4: Supporting Policies, Programs and Enabling Action through Research (SPEAR)3

Impact will be achieved through four cross-cutting IDOs, with direct relevance for the IDO on enabling environment improved, defined as, “the wider political and policy processes which build and sustain momentum for the effective implementation of actions that reduce undernutrition” (see blog post and (Gillespie et al. 2013). Since sustainability is a key element of an enabling environment for nutrition and

2 Improving nutrition in utero and the first few years of life can improve cognitive development, educational achievement, employment and wages, and health and nutrition at adulthood and in future generations (Prendergast and Humphrey 2014; Addo et al.; Hoddinott et al. 2013). 3 In this figure, NSA is shorthand for “nutrition-sensitive agriculture”.

98

health, this FP, in collaboration with the CRP on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Safety (CCAFS) and other Integrating CRPs (ICRPs), will also contribute to the sub-IDO on mitigation and adaptation achieved by re-viewing policies, programs, and interventions through a climate lens. Our focus on gender equity and empowerment of men and women, and on youth (school-age children and adolescent girls in particular) will contribute to the cross-cutting IDO on equity and inclusion achieved (see Section 2.9). We will contribute directly to the fourth cross-cutting IDO on national partners and beneficiaries enabled. Our contributions to the IDOs are summarized in Performance Indicator Matrix – Table C. By 2022, this FP will contribute to five main outcomes (Performance Indicator Matrix – Table B):

• Development program implementers and investors (governments, non-governmental organizations [NGOs], United Nations [UN] institutions) use evidence, tools and methods to design and implement cost-effective nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs at scale;

• Researchers and evaluators, in CGIAR and other CRPs, use evidence, tools, and methods to design high-quality evaluations of nutrition-sensitive agricultural and other multisectoral programs, and continue to build evidence;

• Regional, international, and UN agencies and initiatives, and investors use evidence, tools, and methods to inform decisions and investment strategies to guide nutrition-sensitive agriculture programming and nutrition-sensitive policies;

• National policymakers and stakeholders from different sectors, civil society, and industry use evidence to design effective nutrition-sensitive policies and strategies to enable effective programming; and

• Stakeholders from different sectors, civil society, and industry, in CGIAR and other CRPs, have improved capacity to generate and use evidence to improve nutrition-sensitive agriculture programming, nutrition-sensitive policymaking, and implementation.

These outcomes will contribute to the 2022 CGIAR target of 73 million people being without deficiencies in key micronutrients in 10 focal countries (Performance Indicator Matrix – Table A). Target countries. The primary geographic focus of this FP is on countries where poverty and high burdens of malnutrition and ill health coexist; we will therefore focus on Africa south of the Sahara and South/Southeast Asia. Our central focus is on enabling and sustaining country-level impact, thus aligning with the Busan declaration for aid effectiveness that fosters country ownership and a focus on results, transparency, and accountability. Within countries, we will “zoom in” to optimize the impact of nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs and to understand the policy-implementation nexus at a subnational level. In selecting target areas for subnational analysis and engagement, we will emphasize the role of gender relations in influencing agriculture and nutrition outcomes, and on climate vulnerability, liaising with the CCAFS. Given rapid urbanization, we will expand in Phase II to look at programs and policy issues as they apply to urban-rural linkages and urban/peri-urban/urbanizing environments, including their potential impacts on overweight, obesity, and the double burden of under- and overnutrition, where relevant. We will also focus on populations affected or displaced by ongoing agrarian change and agricultural intensification. Geographically, our focus will initially4 be on 10 countries in Africa (Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Malawi, Mali, Tanzania, and Zambia) and Asia (Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Vietnam) that are home to nearly 1 billion people within landholding households (and more from agriculture-dependent but landless households). An estimated 82 million stunted young children (over 50% of the global total) reside in these 10 countries, all

4 If and when funds become available and opportunities arise, we will explore options for working in additional CGIAR/A4NH priority countries.5 With 120 citations in just over two years, this paper is rated in the top 3 percent of all Lancet articles of its age and remains the second most influential paper by IFPRI, as per Altmetric.

99

of which are among the 20 priority countries for CGIAR, and four of which are among the six highest-priority (++) countries. IMPACT PATHWAY AND THEORY OF CHANGE FP4: SPEAR seeks to achieve impact via outcomes generated through the Policies Pathway and the Development Programs Pathway (Figure 2.4.1). More elaborate theories of change (ToCs) will be developed in which the roles of, and synergies between, the three CoAs will clarified, building on ToCs that originated in Phase I. A set of ToCs will be developed, contextualized, and validated in a participatory manner with stakeholders. Policies Pathway. Scaling and sustaining research impact requires creating and supporting an enabling environment for nutrition- and health-sensitive agricultural development and policy. This requires policy dialogue and adaptation to different national and sub-national contexts, informed by evidence, guided by stakeholder analysis, and implemented through partnerships. Promoting the development of nutrition-sensitive agricultural policies will support adequate implementation strategies and resource commitments. We will build on recent work on scaling up impact on nutrition (Gillespie, Menon, and Kennedy 2015) and the fourth paper of the Lancet Maternal and Child Nutrition Series (Gillespie et al. 2013) to apply lessons learned from past attempts to create and sustain large-scale enabling environments. We will deepen our ongoing engagement, via CoA3: 3C, with regional and global platforms, such as Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) and the Scaling Up Nutrition Movement (SUN), as well as directly engaging with other CRPs, the other A4NH FPs, and partners, including governments, in our focal countries. Through CoA3: 3C, this FP will represent CGIAR as a convener in nutrition and health policy and program processes, bringing information about what CGIAR has to offer to national and global processes, and feeding back information and guidance to CRPs about where and how their work can contribute. This will allow sharing of lessons learned in agriculture and nutrition, which will optimize the collective impact of CGIAR on improving diet quality and nutrition in focus countries and regionally. In sum, this will help enhance the impact of investments in CGIAR and individual CRPs on nutrition and health outcomes. By bringing agriculture and nutrition and health stakeholders together, FP4 will help stimulate an enabling environment for partnerships and joint program and policy-making in the area of agriculture and nutrition. Development Programs Pathway. CoA1: NSAP seeks to facilitate improved design, targeting, implementation, and scale-up of nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs, by development implementers. Building on Phase I work, it will continue to translate evidence on what program design and implementation modalities work, into actionable recommendations, and disseminate them to a broad range of implementers (including governments) nationally and internationally, to ensure that lessons learned are used to inform decisionmaking about program choice, targeting, design, and scale-up. This type of decisionmaking is often influenced by investors, with whom we work closely to ensure that evidence supports and informs strategies and investment choices. Examples include the U.S. Government’s Feed the Future initiative, which promotes the improvement of nutrition through multi-sectoral approaches linking agriculture, health and nutrition in 19 target countries, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s newly launched nutrition strategy, which includes a strong focus on leveraging agriculture and food systems to improve nutrition. Uptake also requires that program implementers can operationalize findings and adapt them to their own contexts. To facilitate uptake of our research outputs by programs, this FP will work closely with program implementers to formulate research questions, define program impact pathways, and discuss findings from process and impact evaluations. Through CoA3: 3C, it will work with knowledge brokers, defined here as communication experts or other specialized staff who work closely with researchers on evidence synthesis, knowledge translation, and knowledge mobilization. They will work with program implementers,

100

policymakers, and investors to stimulate demand for information and feed contextual knowledge back to research teams. They will create and moderate a dialogue between researchers and policy and program actors and decisionmakers. In Phase I, researchers in this FP worked closely on dissemination and capacity-strengthening activities with external institutions (e.g. the FANTA and SPRING projects and select NGO and UN institutions). In Phase II, we will work more closely with a mix of in-house and external knowledge brokers and engage with in-country staff and institutions who can support A4NH’s work and that of other relevant CRPs. Knowledge mobilization activities will include connecting different stakeholders to tailored and relevant nutrition information, data, knowledge, and tools; targeted policy and media engagement; and the translation of knowledge and evidence into lessons learned, guidance, and actionable recommendations. We will draw from successful work connecting stakeholders with nutrition knowledge in India through our Partnerships and Opportunities for Strengthening and Harmonizing Actions on Nutrition in India (POSHAN). In Phase II, we will continue to collaborate with researchers and mentor students from academic institutions and across CGIAR to further the reach and use of our outputs, continue to build a multi-disciplinary research culture, and to benefit from the methods, tools, and evidence generated by a broad range of researchers working in the agriculture, nutrition, and health development continuum. In Phase II, researchers from this FP will continue to play an important role supporting the A4NH gender-nutrition community of practice (CoP) and other A4NH-supported CoPs or learning platforms. SCIENCE QUALITY This FP builds and expands on more than a decade of CGIAR work focused on understanding, evaluating, and strengthening nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs and policies, on analyzing the political economy of leveraging agriculture for nutrition and health, on policy process research, and on cultivating and sustaining enabling environments for nutrition in South/Southeast Asia and Africa. Tackling the agriculture-nutrition disconnect requires innovation on outcomes and to the systems and processes through which innovations are generated and delivered to their target audience (World Bank 2012). A key innovation of this FP’s work on nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs (CoA1: NSAP) is the use of rigorous impact evaluation methods, such as experimental designs complemented by process evaluations and cost-effectiveness assessments. In the past, researchers have shied away from experimental approaches, which led to a deplorable lack of solid evidence of their impact on nutrition or other development outcomes (e.g. income, food security, diets, women’s empowerment), (Ruel and Alderman 2013). As pressure mounts for agriculture to deliver on nutrition, stakeholders (including investors, governments, and program implementers) increasingly demand evidence, successful models, lessons learned, and guidance for designing, implementing, and scaling up agricultural programs that drive improvements in nutrition. CoA1: NSAP started to fill this knowledge gap in Phase I, by using state-of-the art methods and developing tools and indicators to generate a rich body of evidence on what works in leveraging agriculture for nutrition. Research in Phase II will focus on extensive synthesis work to compile lessons from Phase I, contextualized with findings of other relevant research in recent years. It will investigate new program modalities and agriculture platforms (e.g. self-help groups in India, national agricultural extension services in Bangladesh), and will document impacts on a broader range of indicators along the program impact pathways to nutrition, with a strong focus on women’s empowerment (e.g. Project-level Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index [pro-WEAI]). In collaboration with CoA3: 3C, the team will intensify its efforts in knowledge translation, dissemination, mobilization, and capacity strengthening.

101

CoA1: NSAP’s multi-disciplinary team first developed its strong reputation for impact evaluations by assessing the impact of large-scale social protection programs (e.g. Mexico’s path-breaking conditional cash transfer [CCT] program) on a variety of outcomes, such as poverty, food security, diet quality, women’s empowerment, and child nutrition (Skoufias 2005). Since this high-profile impact evaluation, the team has evaluated the nutritional impact of a variety of complex nutrition-sensitive programs in agriculture and other sectors, such as health and social protection, in a number of developing countries (Hidrobo et al. 2014; Ruel et al. 2008; Quisumbing et al. 2015; D. K. Olney et al. 2015; D. Olney et al. 2015; D. K. Olney et al. 2013; De Brauw et al. 2014). The team’s strong multi-disciplinary focus, combined with more than a decade of experience using experimental designs to evaluate complex development programs around the world, puts CoA1: NSAP in a unique position to generate a rich body of evidence on successful programming in agriculture and nutrition and documenting impacts on a wide range of indicators on households and individuals at all stages of the life cycle. Through the CoA2: SCORE and CoA3: 3C, this evidence will be fed into country, regional, and international program and policy design processes. CoA2: SCORE’s innovations in Phase I included the development of a framework to characterize enabling environments for nutrition (Gillespie et al. 2013) 5. Subsequently applied successfully in Africa and South Asia, the framework highlights two stages (building momentum for nutrition, and translating it into implementation and ultimately impact) and three cross-cutting domains (knowledge and evidence, politics and governance, and capacity and resources). Other innovations to be built on in Phase II include the adaptation of tools for monitoring nutrition-relevant commitment and accountability, such as through the use of the Hunger and Nutrition Commitment Index (HANCI), co-developed by Transform Nutrition, which has attracted much media and government attention, and at the global level, through the Global Nutrition Report. Phase II will also build on the use of the innovative Stories of Change methodology to understand the drivers and pathways of change in our focal countries, and at state-level in India. With regard to nutrition-relevant policy analysis, CoA2: SCORE’s leadership role is evidenced by the Copenhagen Consensus, The Lancet Maternal and Child Nutrition Series, the Global Nutrition Report, the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS), and multi-partner consortia such as Transform Nutrition, Leveraging Agriculture for Nutrition in South Asia (LANSA), and POSHAN. The Gillespie et al (2013) framework was used in the Phase I work of the LANSA and Leveraging Agriculture for Nutrition in East Africa (LANEA) initiatives (Gillespie et al. 2015)(Gillespie et al. 2015) and was adopted by the Global Nutrition Report (2015). This report, which originated in Phase I, is now widely regarded as the most comprehensive, up-to-date compendium of data, evidence, and insight on international nutrition. Other work on policy included papers in World Development and Food Policy on innovative research on the role of governance among other cross-country predictors of nutrition outcomes and on the role of leadership and capacity in country constraints and success. The team has developed with the CRP on Policies, Institutions and Markets (PIM) a toolkit and bibliography on understanding, engaging, and evaluating policy processes in agriculture, nutrition and health. During Phase I, Transform Nutrition achieved specific impacts, including revisions to the Productive Safety Net Programme in Ethiopia on the basis of research on the program’s limited nutritional impact. Members have been invited to join nutrition policy development working groups in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and India (at the national level and in Maharashtra state). The Government of India used Transform Nutrition’s situation analysis documents on nutrition-sensitive policies, and the December 2015 launch of the first India Health Report (with a focus on nutrition) generated a raft of media coverage, after a joint launch by two ministers.

5 With 120 citations in just over two years, this paper is rated in the top 3 percent of all Lancet articles of its age and remains the second most influential paper by IFPRI, as per Altmetric.

102

Phase II will include a new CoA on “capacity, collaboration, and convening.” Although capacity development is critical to the success of current initiatives, such as SUN and CAADP, it is often undertaken without adequate documentation for meaningful lesson sharing and development of guidelines. CoA3: 3C will use a participatory qualitative research approach to ensure systematic documentation of capacity strengthening processes, and thus will contribute to global public goods for nutrition action within the SUN and CAADP frameworks. It will also test mechanisms and strategies to increase the capacity and leadership needed for effective evidence-informed decisionmaking along the policy, program development, and implementation continuum. LESSONS LEARNT AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES This FP will build on progress on understanding nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs and policies and creating an enabling environment for nutrition. We cite here a few examples of how learning from Phase I shaped new areas of research for Phase II. Targeting and measuring impacts on different age groups (including adolescent girls): Phase I showed that a nutrition-sensitive homestead food production program (HFPP) in Burkina Faso improved mothers’ and children’s diets and nutritional status (D. Olney et al. 2015; D. K. Olney et al. 2015). New evidence emphasizes the need to focus on adolescent girls to accelerate nutrition progress because they are nutritionally vulnerable (e.g. high iron requirements due to menses; early pregnancy) and need to be better prepared for pregnancy, childbirth, and lactation (Bhutta et al. 2013). In Phase II, the team will explore the use of agriculture platforms to reach and support the nutrition of adolescent girls, in addition to mothers and children. Based on Phase I research showing that linear growth faltering continues beyond the first 1,000 days (Leroy, Ruel, and Habicht 2014), we will also include preschool children (2–5 years old) in our research where appropriate. Assessing long-term impacts and intergenerational effects: Preliminary results from Phase I suggest that the Burkina Faso HFPP had sustained impacts on mothers’ nutritional status two years after the program ended and benefited their new babies (Bliznashka et al., unpublished data). In Phase II, we will explore opportunities to assess the sustainability of impact and test whether improvements in outcomes, such as maternal empowerment and nutrition and health knowledge, confer long-term benefits for themselves and their future children. New platforms and approaches to empowering women in agriculture: In Phase I, most of our research focused on filling knowledge gaps regarding the potential of HFPP to empower women and improve nutrition. In Phase II, our larger agriculture portfolio will explore a variety of new platforms, including self-help group networks focused on agriculture, livelihoods, and financial services (India) and women-focused agricultural credit programs and government agricultural extension services (Bangladesh). We will also test and evaluate new approaches to sensitize men/communities on gender equity. Preventing overweight and obesity: In Phase II, we will explore new opportunities to work on nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs (including value chains with FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets), where overweight and obesity, especially among women is rapidly increasing. We will work with program implementers, policymakers, knowledge brokers, and other stakeholders to design programs (e.g. promote production and consumption diversity and incorporate behavior change communication) to ensure income gains from agriculture translate into more nutritious diets and help prevent overweight and obesity. In its work on enabling environments, CoA2: SCORE will investigate options for countering emerging “obesogenic” environments. Capacity, collaboration, convening: Phase I learning indicated a need for dedicated activities on capacity and leadership, collaboration, and convening. The recent independent evaluation of the SUN Movement and the 2015 Global Nutrition Report both highlighted these areas as critical in the next phase of SUN

103

implementation to support progress. In addition, there is recognized need for greater coherence among CGIAR centers and CRPs to enhance the nutrition sensitivity and impact of the system’s overall work. In Africa, new requirements to mainstream nutrition within CAADP monitoring processes via ReSAKSS have also created a unique opportunity to promote research uptake for greater impact of agriculture on nutrition. CoA3: 3C will also aim to help countries demand and use evidence, and to strengthen the capacity for enhanced nutrition sensitivity of CGIAR as a whole. CLUSTERS OF ACTIVITY FP4 is structured around three interacting CoAs. They are not silos, but rather, interdependent and synergistic entities – in a sense, a three-legged stool that supports this FP. Put simply, the benefits of knowledge generated on programs and policies by CoA1: NSAP and CoA2: SCORE will be maximized through the interactions with CoA3: 3C. Links between the first two CoAs relate to national ownership, scale, and sustainability. Program innovations can influence policy, and policy (and enabling environments in general) can incentivize and enable the implementation and scaling of successful programs and interventions. Dialogues between program designers, policymakers, and stakeholders—and their resulting actions and outcomes—can be improved over time through the convening of learning events and through strengthening capacity and leadership, which is the focus of CoA3: 3C. Each CoA is thus linked, and the three clusters, working in harmony, are all essential for maximizing FP4’s impact. CoA1: Nutrition-Sensitive Agricultural Programs (NSAP) Nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs underpinned by nutrition-sensitive agricultural policy are now considered key elements of comprehensive strategies to support achievement of the ambitious global nutrition targets. As a result, there is strong demand from governments, investors, and program implementers for evidence on (1) the impact of agricultural programs on nutrition outcomes and the role of women in supporting achievement of nutrition goals, (2) how the design and implementation of agricultural programs can be strengthened so that they empower women and deliver on nutrition targets, and (3) the cost and cost-effectiveness of nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs (Ruel and Alderman 2013). CoA1 is designed to fill these gaps by generating and synthesizing evidence on what works, where, how and at what cost to improve the impact of agriculture on nutrition and health. This CoA focuses on the most nutritionally vulnerable population groups: adolescent girls, pregnant and lactating women, and young children, all of whom have high nutrient requirements, are particularly susceptible to infections, undernutrition, and increasingly, overweight and obesity. In addition, we seek to build capacity in this area among investors and implementers by generating guidance documents, and among researchers within and outside of CGIAR, by providing methods and tools for the rigorous evaluation of nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs. The specific research questions that CoA1 will address in Phase II are: 1. How can nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs be optimized to improve diet quality and health and

nutrition outcomes—including prevention of both undernutrition and obesity—especially in children, adolescent girls, and women of reproductive age?

2. How can nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs be optimized to empower women in agriculture and ensure that this empowerment translates into better nutrition and health outcomes for women, children, and other household members?

3. How can new nutrition-sensitive agriculture delivery platforms be leveraged to improve diets, health, nutrition and women’s empowerment (e.g. experimenting with value chains; self-help groups focused on agriculture, livelihoods or financial services; government agricultural extension services)?

4. What are the key pathways of impact of nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs that are particularly important and should be leveraged to optimize impacts on health and nutrition outcomes (e.g. agricultural production and household food availability, access to nutrient-rich foods, hygiene, health and nutrition related-knowledge and/or practices, income and/or women’s/men’s empowerment, culture)?

104

To accomplish this, we will undertake the following activities in the associated timeline (Performance Indicator Matrix – Table D):

1. Synthesize results and draw lessons from Phase I’s portfolio of evaluations and other recent literature on nutrition-sensitive agricultural and other multi-sectoral programs including from other relevant sectors (e.g., social protection, health, gender), (2017-18).

2. Broaden the scope and depth of Phase I’s work to include measuring impacts over longer time horizons to examine longer-term, spillover, and/or intergenerational effects; a greater focus on children beyond the first 1,000 days and on adolescent girls; additional outcomes and impact indicators (e.g. early child development outcomes, overweight, obesity, non-communicable diseases, new indicators of women’s empowerment (pro-WEAI); and new information on cost-effectiveness (2017-21).

3. Test a variety of new nutrition-sensitive agricultural program models and platforms for delivery (e.g. link with FP1: Food Systems’ CoA2: Food System Innovations); explore incorporating nutrition into national agricultural extension systems; test new program models in urban/peri-urban areas); expand our range of implementing partners (e.g. PRADAN in India, a strong agriculture NGO working on women’s self-help groups); and incorporate WASH, optimal management of human and animal feces, aflatoxin (with the International Livestock Research Institute [ILRI]), and malaria prevention and treatment in agricultural programs to maximize potential impacts on nutrition through reductions in disease burdens (in partnership with FP1: Food Systems, FP3: Food Safety, and FP5: Improving Human Health), (2017-21).

4. Conduct synthesis work on the whole portfolio and relevant additional literature; generate, publish and disseminate a rich body of evidence on what works, where, how, and at what cost with nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs (2022).

CoA2: Supporting Country Outcomes through Research on Enabling Environments (SCORE) Better evidence will not lead to better outcomes if evidence-informed policy changes are not adopted and implemented. Evidence on existing policy, other available options, and the likely impacts on key target groups needs to be framed and communicated effectively so that it is accessible and useful to decisionmakers. But new evidence must also be accompanied by an understanding of the political economy of agriculture and agri-food systems and of the politics of policy processes, including the prevailing incentives, disincentives, opportunities, constraints, trade-offs, and potential synergies (Gillespie et al. 2015). This CoA is fundamentally about rigorously researching and supporting enabling environments and policy change in order to enhance the nutrition sensitivity of agriculture. It is essential for understanding where further political or policy leverage might be applied to the technical leverage gained from our work. As an example , to get an insight into policies and the policy processes in case-study countries, and to identify areas for further action, the LANSA and LANEA (Leveraging Agriculture for Nutrition in East Africa) projects conducted reviews of evidence on agriculture-nutrition pathways and of agriculture, nutrition and integrated agriculture-nutrition polices, along with mapping exercises and in-depth interviews with stakeholders (government, INGOs, NGOs, private sector, donor agencies, researchers). Some examples of policies or institutions that were highlighted include the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) in Ethiopia, National Rural Livelihood Mission in India and the Country Investment Plan on Agriculture, Food Security, and Nutrition in Bangladesh. Drawing on Phase I activities like these, we will continue to use different policy change models to structure our work and bring political and wider social science perspectives to our examination of agriculture-nutrition-health linkages in different contexts.6 We will structure such work to enable investigation of policy drivers of overweight/obesity as well as undernutrition.

6 For example, Sumner and colleagues from IDS disaggregate policy change into changes in framing, agenda-setting, content, resource allocation and, crucially, implementation, while Resnick and colleagues working in Policies, Institutions and Markets CRP (PIM) have developed the “kaleidoscope model” of policy change in agriculture, nutrition, and health (Sumner et al. 2011; Resnick et al. 2015).

105

The overarching research questions that CoA2 seeks to address are as follows: 1. Policy coherence: Why are agricultural policies and programs not aligned with nutrition and health

goals, and what needs to be done to achieve alignment? 2. Policy processes: What are the barriers and constraints to (and the opportunities for) creating cross-

sectoral policy and institutional environments that better support nutrition and health goals for the poor and vulnerable?

3. Policy learning: What are the wider lessons from examples where political momentum for nutrition has been successfully linked to effective, large-scale implementation of relevant agricultural and other programs?

We will address these questions through core activities that fall into three overlapping stages, in the associated timeline: 1. Understanding: Undertake/update stakeholder mapping and policy landscaping in focal countries, using

participatory approaches (e.g. NetMap). Linking with CoA3: 3C’s focus on capacity assessment, such in-country participatory mapping will involve a prioritization of policies for more in-depth policy research. Apply the Phase I conceptual framework (for characterizing enabling environments) and select policy change models in different contexts to investigate policy and implementation-related challenges, constraints, incentives, trade-offs, opportunities/windows using mixed qualitative and quantitative Stories of Change and other approaches. The Stories of Change methodology is a means to document changes in the relationship between agriculture and nutrition—and to inspire and inform action by stakeholders at national and regional levels (Gillespie and van den Bold 2015). A series of state-level Stories of Change will be developed in India. This will include formative research into “mental models” or mindsets of key decisionmakers regarding agriculture and nutrition, building on earlier work in Africa and South Asia (Gillespie et al. 2015) Policy analysis will also draw on CoA1: NSAP’s analysis of hitherto unexplored but high potential impact pathways linking agriculture and nutrition (2017-18).

2. Operationalizing: Work with stakeholders (in liaison with CoA3: 3C) to develop and apply diagnostic and priority-setting tools. Document real-time policy and program engagement processes, including CAADP and SUN processes, in focal countries. Investigate approaches for ensuring horizontal (cross-sectoral) as well as vertical (intra-sectoral) coherence in nutrition-sensitive agri-food systems and policy processes. Conduct policy research to identify and resolve emerging context-specific challenges and trade-offs, and to understand the relative roles and benefits of different tactics in catalyzing change.7 (2018-20)

3. Evaluating: Continue to document and evaluate real-time policy influence and engagement processes, and synthesize outputs and lessons learned. CoA2 will become a repository of global and local knowledge on policy processes to be accessible to all CRPs with a country presence (2019-22)

CoA3: Capacity, Collaboration, Convening (3C) This CoA has three core functions, captured in its title – namely, capacity and leadership, collaboration and engagement, and convening and knowledge translation. CoA3 aims firstly to strengthen capacity and leadership for promoting evidence-informed decisionmaking along the policy, program development, and implementation continuum in order to enhance the impact of agriculture on nutrition-relevant policy and programming. In doing this, it will promote the effective use of research outputs from the first two CoAs. Second, it will foster collaboration with different stakeholders in the generation and use of evidence to influence decisions on policy, programming and implementation. And third, it will translate, frame and present knowledge and evidence generated by the first two CoAs in ways that are useful to policy and decisionmakers. This CoA will thus support CoA1: NSAP and CoA2: SCORE, as well as being responsive to other core constituencies (including other A4NH FPs, CRPs, focal countries and regional initiatives). CoA3 is largely intended to support and maximize impact of research, but it will also address the following research questions:

7 For example, as undertaken in recent work by te Lintelo and Lakshman in IDS (te Lintelo and Lakshman 2015).

106

1. What individual, organizational and systemic capacity8 and leadership gaps limit collaborative engagement, evidence generation and use across the policy, program development, and implementation continuum in focal countries and regionally?

2. What are effective mechanisms and innovative strategies to increase the capacity and leadership needed for effective evidence-informed decisionmaking?

3. What can be learnt from this FP’s approach (internal process documentation) to change? The following planned activities for focus countries and regions will be responsive to the work done by CoA1: NSAP and CoA2: SCORE (years of milestone achievement in brackets).

1. Document and evaluate capacity and leadership gaps in evidence-informed decisionmaking by (i) retrospectively auditing Phase I at CGIAR and FP level, (ii) interviewing stakeholders, (iii) systematically reviewing the literature (2017). After a prioritization exercise (with stakeholders) an initial capacity strengthening plan will be developed. On an ongoing basis, we will develop, document, and conduct activities to strengthen and sustain capacity and leadership, liaising with the first two CoAs for selected country programs. Training materials and related guidelines will be developed and shared through knowledge brokers, country and regional level platforms.

2. Support multisectoral, multistakeholder collaboration (2017 onwards). In liaison with CoA2: SCORE, work with country knowledge institutions, SUN and CAADP knowledge networks, and explore factors and processes that influence evidence demand, generation, and use for decisionmakers. Promote collaborative networks and institutional arrangements to support evidence generation and use cycles. Convene regional learning events (2019 and 2022) in focal countries.

3. Leverage A4NH’s convening role, and explore ways this FP could help other CRPs address knowledge, capacity and leadership gaps along agriculture-to-nutrition impact pathways. Synthesize lessons and develop guidelines for CGIAR (2019 and revised in 2022). Disseminate knowledge generated through CGIAR–convened learning events for CRPs (2019 and 2022) to help enhance the nutrition-sensitivity of research programs.

4. Consolidate and synthesize evidence on key learnings on what works at country, regional, and CRP levels to increase demand, use and uptake of evidence through a systematic process documentation of 3C. The process documentation will use an innovative participatory qualitative research approach – the content of group discussions before and during learning events being analyzed for emerging themes and subsequently used to inform capacity development activities. This is an adaptation of an approach successfully used by the Africa Nutrition Leadership Programme (ANLP). The co-lead of CoA3, EVIDENT, uses a similar approach responding to expressed needs of decisionmakers. In addition to this approach, Skype or WebEx recordings will be used to collect data. The documented process will serve as a learning guide to increase the impact of nutrition-sensitive agriculture programs and policies 2022).

8 We will apply the Potter and Brough (2004) framework with its differentiation of capacity into individual, organizational and systemic levels, building on its adaptation by Gillespie and Margetts (2013)to nutrition-sensitive agricultural settings.

107

PARTNERSHIPS The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) will lead this FP, with two of the three CoAs being co-led by strategic partners – the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) will co-lead CoA2: SCORE and the Institute of Tropical Medicine (ITM) University of Antwerp will co-lead CoA3: 3C. Bioversity will be actively involved in two CoAs as convener with Rome-based food agencies (Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN [FAO], International Fund for Agriculture Development [IFAD], World Food Programme [WFP], UN Standing Committee on Nutrition [UNSCN], REACH). FP4 has extensive experience working with three of A4NH’s four broad categories of partners: development implementers, enablers (policymakers/decisionmakers/investors), and researchers. We rely heavily on strong partnerships with high-quality development implementers, such as international NGOs (INGOs) and NGOs, governments, and UN institutions. Examples include long-lasting partnerships with Helen Keller International (HKI) in several countries and with BRAC in Bangladesh. In some countries we interact with the national and community health systems through partner NGOs. In others, we work directly with governments to generate country-specific evidence for decisionmaking. We will expand partnerships with NGOs, such as PRADAN in India, which works through self-help groups. We work closely with enablers, such as governments and investors, who decide which programs are implemented or scaled up. Examples include the Zambian National Food and Nutrition Commission and IFAD. We will continue the collaboration with IFAD, which started in Phase II, to strengthen joint research on nutrition-sensitive agriculture. Enablers also share evidence with international agencies, governments, and investors. The team has been effective in building an evaluation culture and increasing demand for rigorous evidence within networks of program implementers and investors.

FP4 already has strong links with a range of national research partners, including in the four CGIAR high-priority countries where we will work: Addis Ababa University and the Ethiopian Public Health Research Institute, International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (ICDDR,B) and BRAC University (Bangladesh), National Institute of Nutrition (Vietnam), and Sokoine University (Tanzania). In Phase II, we will build on partnerships with other A4NH FPs. We will collaborate with FP2: Biofortification on testing and documenting different crop dissemination approaches, and studying how countries translate evidence into national policy and results on the ground. We will collaborate with FP1: Food Systems, exploring synergies in countries where obesity is an increasing concern, and collaborating on characteristics of enabling environments for nutrition-sensitive agriculture in different food system contexts, at both national and subnational levels in common focal countries. We will continue work with FP1: Food Systems on understanding which policy environments support homegrown school feeding programs, plus expand work to other value chains. FP3: Food Safety has already applied the CoA2: SCORE conceptual framework to its analysis of national food safety regulations and will build on this in Phase II around aflatoxins and informal markets for meat, milk, and fish. With regard to other CRPs, we will collaborate with PIM in its CoA 2.3 (Political Economy and Policy Processes) within its FP2 (Economy-wide Factors affecting Agricultural Growth and Rural Transformation in Low- and Low-Middle-Income Countries); and with its CoA 4.1 (Social Protection Delivery and Outcomes) of FP4 (Social Protection Strategies and Programs) on integrating social protection with complementary agricultural interventions and nutrition to enhance poverty and nutrition impacts. We will also engage with CCAFS as discussed later. This FP will play a convening role for CGIAR, retaining the flexibility to engage with CRPs, based on expressed demand and comparative advantage. Where relevant and feasible, CoA3: 3C will address capacity gaps identified by other FPs and CRPs.

108

CLIMATE CHANGE Both A4NH and CCAFS are concerned with issues of vulnerability and of sustainability, and it will be important to harmonize our work as far as possible, especially in countries in which both are active. A climate lens will be applied to our work in all three clusters. We will explore options for adopting the conceptual work recently undertaken by the Global Panel on Agriculture, Food Systems, and Nutrition, in structuring this work, in addition to our team’s Phase I work on developing a sectoral brief on climate, food, and nutrition security as part of a collaboration with FAO. Building on discussions with CCAFS in the FP4 proposal development workshop, we will seek to address the following questions: Is nutrition-sensitive agriculture always climate-smart? Can the joint pursuit of climate-smart and nutrition-relevant objectives for agriculture open up potential synergies, and highlight areas for productive partnership, and possibly joint research? Can partnerships of key actors focusing on climate and nutrition respectively generate win-win gains? Are there situations where these two objectives do not align—where, for example, the pursuit of climate-smart agriculture may be at odds with the nutrition-sensitivity objective? Why does this happen, where does it happen, and how can such a dilemma be resolved? What trade-offs are revealed? A three-way link between us, CCAFS, and A4NH FP1: Food Systems, may help explore the meaning and viability of a “sustainable diet” in different contexts. Our engagement with CCAFS will be via CoA 1.3 (Enabling Policy Environments for CSA) within its FP1 (Priorities and Policies for Climate-Smart Agriculture). In CoA2: SCORE and CoA3: 3C clusters we will also explore the option of undertaking joint policy/governance work with CCAFS—for example, developing case studies for synthesizing lessons on good practice (engagement, implementation) in select countries. GENDER Phase I research highlighted the key role of women in fostering impacts of agriculture on nutrition (Gillespie, Harris, and Kadiyala 2012; Herforth and Harris 2014). We identified women’s health, nutrition, empowerment, and time use as key factors to ensure agriculture leads to improved diets and optimal use of income to protect the health and nutrition of vulnerable household members. In Nepal, we saw that low production diversity was associated with poorer maternal and child diets and poorer child nutritional status, while women’s empowerment mitigated these negative effects (Malapit et al. 2015). Results from our study in Burkina Faso with HKI showed that a nutrition- and gender-sensitive agricultural program improved women’s nutritional status and empowerment (D. Olney et al. 2015), including control and ownership of assets, and reduced the male-female asset gap (van den Bold, Quisumbing, and Gillespie 2013; Quisumbing et al. 2015). Preliminary evidence shows that increases in women’s empowerment mediated impact on reducing the prevalence of wasting among young children (Heckert, Olney, and Ruel 2015). We will continue work, with the A4NH Gender, Equity, and Empowerment (GEE) unit, and using the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) and pro-WEAI, in the context of impact evaluations, and program design aimed at empowering women and reducing gender gaps in agriculture. Our Phase II will be consistent with the A4NH Gender Strategy, taking into account women’s position as disadvantaged economic agents in many contexts. This approach is embedded within current agri-nutrition conceptual frameworks (Gillespie, Harris, and Kadiyala 2012) that highlight the balance between women’s wider livelihoods, unpaid care, optimal infant feeding practices, and women’s nutritional and health status. We will identify new ways to empower women and sensitize men and communities about the importance of supporting women in their multiple roles and in reducing gender bias.

109

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT Capacity is front and center to our proposed work. It is the essential rationale and basis for CoA3: 3C that seeks to ensure country-level contextualization of our work—and providing a conduit for engagement with other FPs, CRPs, and platforms. The other CoAs will generate evidence on what is needed for more effective policy, planning, and implementation processes relating to agriculture, nutrition and health, and their links to other sectors. This will identify capacity and leadership gaps that limit uptake of research outputs towards impact for sustained progress. 3C will build on the conceptual work by Gillespie and Margetts (2013) in terms of system, institutional and individual capacity strengthening, and practical work undertaken by the EVIDENT team on nutrition-relevant capacity in Africa, to develop, test, and document approaches for strengthening capacity and leadership of key actors and organizations. It will also build on the capacity assessments undertaken in selected African countries under the ReSAKKS program. The CGIAR Capacity Development CoP has identified several core elements. Through the work of 3C, and through the process of undertaking research in the other CoAs with different partners, we will focus on all these elements. For example, Transform Nutrition has a strong record of capacity strengthening, having designed and implemented a series of Transform Nutrition short courses for policymakers and decisionmakers held in the UK and India; the Transform Nutrition alumni network for these courses now stands at nearly 200 members. The annual global and regional events this FP describes in 3C are designed to strength institutional capacity to look at both innovation and on development outcome demands between agriculture research and nutrition and health policy and advocacy communities with European Union- UN Children’s Fund (EU-UNICEF), SUN Civil Society, and other networks. Specific activities are described more detail in Annex 3.2. INTELLECTUAL ASSETS AND OPEN ACCESS MANAGEMENT FP4 will contribute intellectual assets, such as evidence on impacts of nutrition-sensitive agriculture programs, cost-effectiveness; methods and tools for rigorous impact evaluations; datasets; decisionmaking, diagnostic and priority setting tools; policy process analysis; success stories; training materials and guidelines; and capacity needs assessments made available in peer-reviewed articles, books, reports, briefs and other print outputs; audio-visual and multimedia outputs; web and social media; and in-person seminars, presentations and workshops. Details are in Annexes 3.8 and 3.9. These outputs will be fed into networks of stakeholders through existing knowledge platforms including IFPRI e-library and Institute of Development Studies OpenDocs repositories; Transform Nutrition, LANSA, Eldis, POSHAN and Africa Nutrition Leadership Programme, the Global Nutrition Leadership Platform, the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Health Academy, the EVIDENT network, the SUN Communities of Practice on functional capacity for nutrition, and on social mobilization and communication, the SUN Civil Society Network, CAADP via ReSAKKS, and Dataverse for datasets. Transform Nutrition and LANSA have developed particularly strong policy engagement in their focal countries. India and Ethiopia have recently hosted major conferences. Knowledge mobilization activities will be led by knowledge brokers, drawing on the expertise of our partners, supplemented by specialist inputs and in-house knowledge translators. We will monitor the success of this global dissemination using online tools, like Altmetrics and Google scholar citations, recognizing that these measures of global availability and access will not capture all types of use. We will work directly with government partners to generate and disseminate country-specific evidence for decisionmaking and through the tailoring of knowledge and evidence generated by FP4 to support our capacity and leadership strengthening activities. FLAGSHIP MANAGEMENT FP4 will adopt a distributed leadership approach in which clusters will have the following co-leaders (CVs are included in Annex 3.7):

110

CoA1: NSAP: Marie Ruel, Jef Leroy, Deanna Olney (IFPRI); CoA2: SCORE: Stuart Gillespie (IFPRI), Nicholas Nisbett (IDS) CoA3: 3C: Namukolo Covic (IFPRI), Roos Verstraeten (ITM/EVIDENT) Two of the three CoAs are institutionally co-led: CoA2: SCORE will build on collaborations between IDS and IFPRI (e.g. Transform Nutrition, LANSA, Global Nutrition Report). IDS is a leading global institution for development research at the University of Sussex in the UK. IDS was ranked no. 1 for Development Studies in the QS World University Rankings in 2015. Through its leadership of the Future Agricultures Consortium and the STEPS Centre, IDS brings considerable interdisciplinary expertise and experience in the analysis of policy processes and the political economy of agricultural policy, as well as in nutrition and health policy through its leading researchers in political science, anthropology and geography. CoA3: 3C will be co-led by IFPRI and EVIDENT (Evidence-informed Decision-making in Health and Nutrition), which brings its considerable experience in connecting African researchers and decision-makers. Strong links will be forged with the Africa Nutrition Leadership Programme (ANLP, linked to the Global Nutrition Leadership Platform) and the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Health Academy, which aims to foster a global community of interdisciplinary researchers working on agriculture and food systems for improved nutrition and health. The FP leader, Stuart Gillespie, will ensure CoA collaboration via monthly calls and periodic meetings. We will adopt an adaptive, results-based management approach in which we periodically review FP governance in the context of our ToC and work plan. We will be adaptive to seize new opportunities for national and regional impact, as and when they arise—as well as being responsive to other flagships and other CRPs.

111

SECTION 2.5

112

SECTION 2: Flagship Program (FP5) on Improving Human Health RATIONALE AND SCOPE Agriculture enhances access to food and livelihoods, but may also have less desirable outcomes, such as increased risks of disease transmission. Over the past decades, CGIAR research has explored health interactions related to irrigation and vector-borne diseases, use of wastewater in agriculture, integrated pest management (IPM), and emerging and neglected zoonotic diseases (Grace et al. 2012; Boelee, Konradsen, and Hoek 2002; WHO/FAO/UNEP/UNCHS Panel of Experts on Environmental Management for Vector Control 1996). Past CGIAR initiatives, like the Agriculture and Health Research Platform (2008-2012) facilitated cooperation between research, policymakers, and practitioners working in agriculture and health. Research that bridges disciplinary divisions and enhances links between agriculture and health provides a largely untapped opportunity to improve the health and livelihoods of poor people, especially in rural areas where ill health may be the most critical pathway for staying or becoming poor, and undermines the benefits of agricultural development. To meet the challenge of effectively linking agriculture and health research, FP5: Improving Human Health, will launch a joint research partnership between leading public health research institutes, convened by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and CGIAR, led by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). Together, we offer the best methods, procedures, and tools from the agriculture and health sectors in disciplines such as biology, ecology, epidemiology, economics, risk assessment, and operational research. Public health research partners engaged through this FP will be encouraged to contribute to other public health-related issues across other FPs, and provide CGIAR with a platform for cross-sector agenda-setting and research to support health-related intermediate development outcomes (IDOs). Research outcomes from this FP will also contribute to addressing the third Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) to “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages” and the sixth to “ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.” The development of this FP was informed by a series of three regional consultations and one global consultation convened by A4NH in 2015 to obtain advice from agriculture and public health research communities on research content and process. Focused on Africa and Asia, we identified strong regional networks working on challenges that this FP can support and build upon. Across the large portfolio of potential agriculture and health research that A4NH can enhance, we have prioritized three broad challenges critical to these regions. The first challenge is to identify and manage important health risks and optimize important health benefits for rural communities associated with agricultural change and intensification. In agricultural landscapes, rural and peri-urban, farming practices affect health and its social and environmental determinants, but their impact is poorly understood. For instance, introducing irrigation often increases the abundance of vectors of diseases, like malaria, schistosomiasis, and Japanese encephalitis, while also improving livelihoods and capacity of households to prevent or manage infection. Wastewater use in agriculture poses potential infectious disease threats to farmers and consumers, but may be critical to urban food supply. How do we develop and deploy irrigation and other farming interventions with farming communities to minimize health risks while maximizing agricultural outcomes? The second challenge is to anticipate, prevent and manage emerging and neglected zoonotic diseases. Three quarters of new human infectious diseases have originated in animals and, in this century, seven out of the eight major and costly human pandemic threats have arisen from livestock (Jones et al. 2013;

113

Cleaveland, Laurenson, and Taylor 2001; Grace 2014; World Bank 2012). Cysticercosis, for example, is responsible for 2.7 million Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) lost in humans (Havelaar et al. 2015) and is ranked by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) as the most important foodborne parasitic disease globally (FAO/WHO 2014). It has a high disease burden in poor pig-keeping communities, but can be effectively controlled through on-farm interventions like improved sanitation, pig-keeping practices, and vaccination of pigs. For such neglected zoonotic diseases, how can we devise integrated interventions between the agriculture and health sectors to prevent the substantial health burden posed by these diseases, while maximizing the benefits to livelihoods and nutrition of animal production? The third challenge is to identify solutions to common problems arising for agriculture and health in a development context. About 10 million human deaths per year may be attributable to antimicrobial resistance (AMR), (Grace 2015) and this risk is rising. As much as two thirds of global antibiotics are used in livestock and fish production (Van Boeckel et al. 2015) and yet we have a very poor understanding of the significance of agricultural use to human health, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The development of insecticide resistance in mosquitoes threatens global goals to reduce the burden of malaria (Reid and McKenzie 2016; World Health Organization 2012). While this resistance has historical origins in pesticides used in agriculture, we know very little about the influence of agricultural use on vector resistance today. How can we manage these common interventions in health and agriculture so as to maximize beneficial outcomes for both? In response, FP5 will address these three challenges through three clusters of activity (CoA): CoA1: Diseases in Agricultural Landscapes, CoA2: Emerging and Neglected Zoonotic Diseases; and CoA3: Global Challenges on Agriculture and Health. OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS This FP is designed to directly contribute to the system level outcome (SLO) on improved food and nutrition security for health and the IDO on improved human and animal health through better agriculture practices (and its sub-IDOs), (Figure 2.5.1). It will also contribute to SLO3 on improved natural resource systems and ecosystem services. Importantly, this is a cross-disciplinary activity between sectors (agriculture/animal health and public health), with added value benefits achieved by joint actions. CoA1: Diseases in Agricultural Landscapes will address the IDO on improved human and animal health through better agricultural practices and the IDO on more sustainably managed agro-ecosystems. CoA2: Emerging and Neglected Zoonotic Diseases directly and jointly addresses the IDO on improved human and animal health through better agricultural practices and its sub-IDOs by focusing on human health benefits achieved by targeting transmission from livestock. A major emphasis is on sustainable control of cysticercosis in poor communities in Africa and South Asia, a defined World Health Organization (WHO) priority, and it will also make major contributions to the cross-cutting IDOs on equity and inclusion achieved, enabling environment improved, and national partners and beneficiaries enabled (see Fig 1 for main sub-IDOs under these cross-cutting IDOs). CoA3: Global Challenges on Agriculture and Health will work mainly on AMR and will focus on human health benefits of better-managed antibiotic use in animals (livestock and fish) and align with the CRP on Livestock that will focus on animal health benefits and risks of better managed antibiotic uses. Work on insecticide resistance will also generate human health benefits in terms of resistance events averted. Both will contribute to the IDOs on more sustainably managed agro-ecosystems, at national and community levels. Contributions are summarized in Performance Indicator Matrix – Table C.

114

FIGURE 2.5.1. IMPACT PATHWAYS FOR FP5: IMPROVING HUMAN HEALTH

This FP aims to:

1. Understand and manage the gendered human health impacts (both risks and benefits) arising from intensification and changes in land-use;

2. Deliver gender-sensitive interventions targeted at livestock systems that improve health outcomes for zoonotic diseases with livestock reservoirs (with CRP on Livestock); and

3. Understand and manage interacting health and agriculture interventions, including AMR and insecticide resistance.

By 2022, this FP expects to contribute to three main outcomes, as described in the Performance Indicator Matrix – Table B:

• Agricultural research initiatives, including farming communities, measure health risks and benefits;

• Agricultural and public health policymakers and implementers are delivering coordinated and effective solutions to cysticercosis and other zoonotic threats; and

• Public and private sector policymakers are implementing measures to reduce health risks from AMR in hotspot livestock systems.

Key milestones to be achieved include:

• Field trials of methods to reduce disease risks in irrigated crop production systems, based on gendered assessments of knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAPs) of household farming communities in relation to vectors and vector-borne disease problems, completed in sites in West and East Africa;

• Better use of available evidence to inform policy and implementation processes for zoonoses prevention and control in livestock communities evidenced in national, regional, or global contexts;

115

• National policy guidelines for cysticercosis control, in collaboration with WHO, for key countries (China, India, Kenya, Uganda, and Vietnam) developed within the framework of neglected tropical disease and agricultural development programs; and

• Evidence of cross-sectoral cooperation on efforts to manage pesticide use in agriculture and disease control in key countries.

Target Geographies For diseases in agricultural landscapes, particularly expansion of irrigation, we will build on current projects in Benin and Kenya and may expand later to other countries in West Africa (Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, and Nigeria) and East Africa (Tanzania and Uganda). Uganda will likely be one of the initial countries for work on insecticide resistance. Additional target geographies, aligned with irrigation expansion projects, will be determined in consultation with colleagues from the CRPs on RICE (AfricaRice) and Water, Land, and Ecosystems (WLE) (through the International Water Management Institute [IWMI]). For our initial target zoonotic disease – cysticercosis – our geographic targets are based on WHO targets and livestock opportunities (World Health Organization 2011), and include Kenya/Uganda, India, and Vietnam. For work on AMR in humans and animals, initial biological work (collecting bacterial isolates from humans and livestock and using state of the art molecular tools to characterize population level diversity) will build on established sites in Tanzania and Kenya (an existing aligned, bilateral project). Further work will be based on work already started on assumptions and geographies in China, India, Kenya, Thailand, and Vietnam. Three of the countries where this FP will work are among the highest priority countries for CGIAR Site Integration (++) and five more are among the list of high priority countries (+). This FP will also deliver research outputs at global and regional levels for Africa and Asia (South, Southeast, East). IMPACT PATHWAY AND THEORY OF CHANGE For FP5: Improving Human Health, the two primary impact pathways are through programs and policies (Figure 2.5.1). Evidence generated by this FP will influence agriculture and health program implementers in designing and implementing more cost-effective programs, while also helping enablers, like policymakers, decisionmakers, and donors, to make sound policy and investment decisions to improve human health. This research will build on theories of change (ToCs) already developed in A4NH, such as how research influences program implementers and how to create an enabling cross-sectoral policy environment. For CoA2: Emerging and Neglected Zoonotic Diseases, there is complementarity with FP3: Food Safety, which focuses on interventions through the agri-food value chains impact pathway and this FP, which works through agriculture or public health program interventions. The partners for enabling policies and regulations include FAO, World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), WHO, and with food, public health, and veterinary agencies in countries. ILRI has an important role in these policy and regulatory convenings through its participation in the Livestock Global Alliance. Policy relevant research will link to policy analysis and process research in FP4: SPEAR. One key assumption underlying both the program and policy ToCs is that agriculture and health researchers must work productively together. The usefulness of outputs and outcomes from interdisciplinary research in this FP will largely depend first on researchers, then on governments’ willingness to break down sectoral silos and establish effective institutional arrangements between sectors, as envisaged in the SDGs. To date, the greatest agriculture-health cross-sectoral successes have come through the application of a One Health approach, which describes the integrated effort of multiple disciplines working together to attain optimal health for people, animals, and the environment.

116

One Health has been successfully implemented at scale, for example, in the control of rhodesiensis sleeping sickness (a zoonosis) in Uganda, brucellosis in Mongolia, and for avian influenza in a number of countries. Researchers in this FP have developed frameworks to consider the cross-sectoral benefits of managing brucellosis using One Health (McDermott, Grace, and Zinsstag 2013) and more broadly, WHO (2011) has highlighted the added benefits from the One Health approach, which goes well beyond researchers cooperating effectively and into the adoption of an integrated approach by policymakers. For example, our work in Kenya contributed to two kinds of achievements: structural, in the establishment of a Kenyan One Health office, which is jointly funded by health and agriculture government ministries, and functional, in that the collaboration resulted in the design of a joint integrated response to Rift Valley fever (RVF) outbreaks (Mbabu et al. 2014). Methods of joint work between sectors will be a key secondary output of this FP, linked closely with policy work planned in FP4: SPEAR. We have already explored the potential for cross-sectoral ToC development in a series of regional consultations with agriculture and health researchers held in 2015, where A4NH’s overall approach to impact pathways and ToCs (Mayne and Johnson 2015) was enthusiastically endorsed. Initial ToCs were developed for cysticercosis and AMR, for further development and integration into the research process, summarized in the consultation report. Beyond direct health benefits, outcomes across all proposed research will likely integrate equity, gender, youth and vulnerability issues. For example, emerging zoonoses often cause panic and lead to market disruption, reduced access to inputs, and diversion of funding to emergency responses, that can be much more harmful to poor producers and consumers than direct losses from the disease (McDermott and Grace 2011). Key assumptions in the ToCs include the acceptability and accessibility of solutions for intended beneficiaries and the degree to which program implementers and enablers can jointly design and adapt interventions that are feasible, scalable and sustainable. In newer areas of research, this FP will generate research outputs through evidence gap mapping and systematic reviews supported by epidemiological studies, analysis of geospatial data on changing patterns of agriculture and health, formally assessed intervention trials in multiple countries, and bacterial genetics studies on AMR to assess and quantify risks. We will also undertake innovative economic assessments of health costs of agricultural practices, intersectoral cost-benefits of different interventions, and how the benefits and costs are distributed by gender, age and other social categories. This will provide guidance, and an economic justification, for implementing proposed outcomes. New research approaches will be developed, including innovative ways to combine existing agriculture and health data and synthesize evidence across sectors and contexts. SCIENCE QUALITY The major gap this FP fills is the lack of coordinated agriculture and health research expertise on human health challenges associated with agriculture. By linking CGIAR experts in agricultural systems in LMICs with health experts in the same regions and at the international level, we will create and apply interdisciplinary tools and methods to identify research priorities and design coordinated interventions that can mitigate the negative effects of agricultural activities on human health and/or maximize opportunities for agriculture to benefit human health. Our work will involve integrating datasets collected and maintained by different sectors in addition to developing new tools and metrics. As a result, there will be several important practical applications: • Economists will collaborate with epidemiologists to create innovative ways to measure combined

agriculture and health benefits and costs of interventions in target populations;

117

• Agro-ecosystem experts will work with epidemiologists and social scientists to understand and manage agricultural processes for positive health benefits;

• Animal health and human health epidemiologists and evaluation specialists will work together to model and measure cross-sectoral risks (e.g. for zoonotic disease or AMR and ACR); and

• Molecular biologists will develop and apply genomic methods to measure the movement of pathogens and pathogen resistance between livestock and humans.

Work on improving human health draws on many years of CGIAR research and existing close partnership with public health institutions. In East Africa, ILRI research has focused on emerging infectious diseases and neglected zoonoses and researchers have worked closely with civil society and government partners. To date, some of the generated evidence that is influencing policymakers includes: (1) Vector-borne and zoonotic diseases are important, under-reported causes of illness and often misdiagnosed; (2) Degraded landscapes have more disease, but the relation between biodiversity and disease is not straightforward; (3) Gender is an important determinant of human exposure to mosquito-borne infections in irrigated and non-irrigated regions; (4) Domestic pigs are important reservoirs for a number of emerging disease issues, and increases in pig production increases the risk of transmission to humans; and (5) Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS)-Coronavirus has been circulating in camels for decades undetected in Kenya. Researchers in this FP have been working closely with government partners in several countries to improve surveillance and response to zoonotic disease issues, including through providing evidence and tools for decisionmakers – like risk maps, decision support tools, and modeling of vaccination strategies – that increases their capacity to compare different control options. In Asia, ILRI partnered with the Hanoi School of Public Health, Chiang Mai University, and the Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI) and others to conduct capacity building and research in EcoHealth. Like One Health, but newer, EcoHealth describes a field of study researching how changes in the earth's ecosystems affect human health. It also encourages disciplines to work together to create joint solutions. To date, key EcoHealth achievements by our researchers and their partners include the establishment of two EcoHealth Research Centers at universities in Thailand and Indonesia, engagement with provincial-level decisionmakers leading to the scale out of community-based rabies management in villages across Bali in Indonesia, and the introduction of systematic prioritization for zoonoses in Vietnam. In India, our collaboration with the (Phase I) CRP on Livestock and Fish supported the assessment of bovine reproductive diseases (including zoonoses) in Bihar, India. Although the link with the public health research community, led through LSHTM, is new and now formalized, it builds on previous work. LSHTM is a key partner in the Leverhulme Centre for Innovative Research on Agriculture and Health (LCIRAH). Established in 2010, LCIRAH is a unique inter-institutional, interdisciplinary, and inter-sectoral collaboration for research and capacity building in agri-health. During Phase I, LCIRAH and A4NH worked closely together on several initiatives, including the development of the Agriculture, Nutrition and Health Academy (ANH Academy), to accelerate innovative research on methods and metrics for designing and evaluating agricultural interventions, which A4NH and LCIRAH officially launched in June 2014. Over the past five years, LCIRAH has built a unique interdisciplinary academic research consortium with research and capacity building initiatives linking human health and agriculture, including work on human-animal interfaces, through projects with the Royal Veterinary College (RVC), LSHTM, and ILRI. This proposal expands this LCIRAH-A4NH involvement, and draws in a range of other public health research sector partners, to bring in new areas of public health research, including malaria and other infectious diseases, AMR, vector management, epidemiological modelling, health policy, medical anthropology, and gender and public health. LSHTM

118

and the other partners have an outstanding track record in these subject areas and extensive links with other globally recognized leaders, including institutions in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Our role as evidence providers is increasingly recognized. The United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID) commissioned researchers from this FP to undertake the first systematic mapping of poverty and zoonoses, and evidence summaries on AMR and MERS. The OIE-commissioned us to develop estimates of the impacts of livestock diseases (including zoonoses and diseases of most importance to women and poor livestock keepers). The CRP on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS) requested that we develop a paper on climate-sensitive livestock pests, which was presented to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC); and, currently, some researchers are contributing to a Lancet commission on climates change and health (Grace et al. 2012; Jones et al. 2013; Grace 2015; Watts et al. 2015; Jores 2015; Grace et al. 2015). LSHTM has emerged in recent years as a center for research on interactions between health, agriculture, and environment, contributing to novel evaluations of health and environmental co-benefits from agricultural change, including the Rockefeller Foundation-Lancet Commission on Planetary Health, co-chaired by LSTHM/LCIRAH member Sir Andy Haines. LSHTM currently holds four of the ten international research grants awarded by the Wellcome Trust in its new program, Our Planet Our Health, which seeks to link environmental change, including agricultural change, with health outcomes. During Phase I, the A4NH flagship on Agriculture-Associated Diseases had a high ratio of peer-reviewed publications in Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) journals compared to the overall research budget. Most partners also have processes in place for internal reviews for research outputs not sent for peer-review (though we emphasize that most of our evidence outputs will be peer reviewed, Open Access [OA] publications). ILRI has an institute committees on ethics, animal welfare and biosafety which ensure projects meet best practices. LSHTM is one of the leading public health champions in promoting ethical evaluation of lab- and field-based research. IFPRI has an institutional review board, and as Lead Center of A4NH, has agreed to share its subscription in the online Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (CITI Program) with A4NH affiliated researchers outside of IFPRI to complete online training courses on the historical development of protections of human subjects involved in research and current information on regulatory and ethical issues. LESSONS LEARNT AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES Moving into Phase II, we plan to continue working on areas, such as zoonoses, using One Health and Ecohealth approaches in Africa and Asia. At the same time, we will develop a research agenda with new public health partners, facilitated by LSHTM, to bring strong health research expertise into ongoing activities in particular vector-borne diseases, AMR in humans, and socio-economic health systems and policy research, which are relevant to research challenges addressed by CoAs in this FP. In developing FP5: Improving Human Health, we sought advice from our external evaluators on the past history of agriculture and health research and opportunities for the future and we conducted a series of consultations with agriculture and health researchers. From this, it emerged that cross-sectoral collaboration requires a strong appreciation of the benefits and a respect for the valuable knowledge held by each sector. The public health researchers consulted welcomed agricultural research collaboration on health issues associated with ecosystem change and global challenges, such as AMR and chemical resistance to help the health community move beyond response and into mitigation and prevention. To succeed, this cross-sectoral convergence approach must be agreed upon and supported by implementers from government agencies, for example, as well as enablers, like donors and policymakers.

119

Much of the success of previous work on the human side of public health, and the basis for planned outputs and outcomes in the first three years of Phase II, is the result of long-standing collaborations with national champions, both inside and outside CGIAR. This resource, especially strong in East Africa, Southeast Asia, and West Africa is key to obtaining credibility and impact in the Phase II. See, for example, participation lists from our regional consultations. We will rely on lessons learned from past collaborations between CGIAR Centers and public health research, for example, between WHO and IWMI, AfricaRice, International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) and IFPRI, and system-wide initiatives on malaria, IPM, and wastewater in agriculture. LSHTM, through its five-year experience in LCIRAH, brings to Phase II important experience on building effective research programs across these sectors. Lessons learned include: • It takes time to establish interdisciplinary relationships, mutual understanding, and effective ways of

collaboration; • Evidence generated must be validated by both the agricultural and health research perspectives,

and communicated in both communities through their respective journals and institutions; and • Research should be policy relevant to both sectors and to the concept of intersectoral action.

We will apply these lessons to develop and strengthen links between public health research and agricultural research within the new CGIAR research portfolio. Given the importance of cross-CRP collaboration, and the position of A4NH as an integrating CRP (ICRP), we will work closely with the AFS-CRPs, such as Fish; Forest, Trees, and Agroforestry (FTA); and Livestock on topics like zoonoses and AMR. We will also collaborate with the ICRPs, CCAFS and WLE, and with the AFS-CRP on Rice, on issues related to agricultural intensification and health risks in communities, for example, of irrigation expansion in Africa, and of the impact of climate change on disease distribution. Partnerships already exist with colleagues researching livestock value chains in Asia and Africa, fish value chains in Africa, and vegetable value chains in Asia, which we will build upon through joint fundraising and shared use of epidemiological and laboratory facilities. CLUSTERS OF ACTIVITY CoA 1: Diseases in Agricultural Landscapes Agriculture is a primary driver of landscape change in rural settings, which have important consequences for infectious disease. This CoA will examine the disease-related effects of agriculture, both as ecological/biological processes, and as social/cultural/economic processes. The overall aim of this CoA, which is supposed by previous IFPRI research (Wielgosz et al. 2012), is to identify modes of agricultural practice that may enable farming communities to enjoy the benefits of intensification, while avoiding or minimizing unintended negative consequences. We will consider a range of diseases, vectors, and settings, but will initially focus on irrigated cropland, given its expansion in Africa, and its major source of vector breeding sites. Focus settings will be: • Mosquito vectors of malaria and RVF in African rice fields; • Malaria vectors in market gardening in urban and semi-arid parts of Africa; and • Mosquito vectors of Japanese Encephalitis virus (JEV) in Asian rice fields. Changes in agriculture can affect disease transmission by (1) creating vector breeding sites, (2) altering adult vectors’ access to humans, and (3) affecting the ability of humans to defend themselves from vectors and pathogens. In each setting, the work will have two strands: community and ecology. On the community side, the social factors affecting use of nets and other forms of personal protection is already

120

a major focus of health research, but we know nothing about farmers’ attitudes toward their role in growing mosquitoes. To develop the foundation for participatory development of agronomic practices to reduce disease transmission, we will study farmers’ understanding of: • Mosquito breeding and attitudes to it, • Methods of protection including nets, • House design and the keeping of livestock, • Household decisionmaking and the role of women, and • Externalities and inequities The ecology side has two aspects. One is understanding how we can maximize crop productivity, but minimize mosquito productivity. There is preliminary evidence that methods of field preparation, water management, transplanting methods, weeding, and application of fertilizers and pesticides can all impact mosquitoes. We will identify rice research settings where we can add indicators of mosquito productivity to existing sampling routines to measure productivity. If promising culture methods are identified in this way, experimental field trials will begin to confirm their potential. CRP RICE (through Africa Rice) has agreed to collaborate in this effort, which will take place in East and West Africa. The other ecological element concerns other vector characteristics – such as host choice and longevity – that can affect transmission intensity even more than vector numbers. These can have a major effect. For example, in Kenya, more livestock was reported in villages with irrigation, which reduced malaria. Conversely, other reports have speculated that higher levels of humidity may increase vector longevity, and thus could promote transmission. We will use classical and new tools for measuring longevity to understand how changing agricultural landscapes can influence transmission, in order to learn whether there are farming practices that can prevent an increase in transmission despite an increase in mosquito numbers. We will also ask a more open and large-scale question about the links between agriculture and vector borne disease. Crops and malaria both vary with climate and season, but we do not know whether there is any significant association between agro-ecosystem change and the change in malaria and other vector borne diseases in a given area. We will work with HarvestChoice at IFPRI, which has an exceptionally detailed dataset on crops, and the Malaria Atlas Project (MAP) of Oxford University, which has extensive geospatial data on malaria, to address this question using hypothesis-driven analysis. A national-scale CGIAR study in Uganda (Wielgosz, Kato, and Ringler 2014) suggests that this analysis may produce interesting hypotheses to merit further investigation. Major outputs and outcomes of this CoA will be: potential interactions between health and agriculture identified through linked geospatial analysis of irrigated crop production systems in West and East Africa (2017), and field trials of methods to reduce disease risks in irrigated crop production systems, based on intial assessments of KAPs of household farming communities in relation to vectors and vector-borne disease problems, completed in sites in West and East Africa (2022). More detail can be found in Performance Indicator Matrix – Table D. CoA2: Emerging and Neglected Zoonotic Diseases ILRI research to date (Gilbert et al. 2015) has helped to identify priority zoonotic and emerging diseases and countries where they are particularly problematic. Our focus will be to integrate agricultural and health data to analyze the effects of livestock systems change on zoonotic and emerging disease burden, and to test agricultural actions that can mitigate these disease risks. We will maintain a strong emphasis on existing Phase I research that have or will soon generate successful outcomes (Ng’ang'a, Bukachi, and Bett 2016; Gray et al. 2015; Munyua et al. 2016)(Deem et al. 2015), and broader One Health and

121

Ecohealth approaches to control. Focus countries will be Kenya, Uganda, Vietnam and India (Prasad et al. 2008), and our initial target zoonoses will be the neglected tropical disease, cysticercosis, caused by infection with the helminth tapeworm Taenia solium. It has been prioritized internationally at the highest level by FAO/OIE and WHO (Havelaar et al. 2015; FAO/WHO 2014; Maurice 2014). Its control is primarily focused in the pig reservoir, with human health benefits, thus making it ideal for One Health research. Successful control will rely on joint public health programs and pig value chain interventions and thus fits well in this FP although there is a clear interface with FP3: Food Safety. Our work will contribute to pig keeping systems which are growing rapidly in many countries in Africa and Asia. Our applied research, in collaboration with partners, will develop community-wide cysticercosis control at scale. WHO, partnered with CGIAR, has spearheaded efforts at international coordination (Maurice 2014), and highlighted the following new tools of note: a pig vaccine (Assana et al. 2010) to prevent infection with cysts in the pig host; the licensing of oxfendazole (Gonzalez et al. 2001), an anti-helminthic drug used to kill cysts in the pig; novel point-of-care diagnostic assays for cysticercosis diagnosis in the field; and improved understanding of the infection’s epidemiology and public health burden (Wardrop et al. 2015; Thomas et al. 2015). Proposed activities will include:

1. Development of diagnostic assay: Building on existing CGIAR work to optimize a pen-side assay system, we will test it widely with farmers and field vets. This validation will include implementing a field study to quantify diagnostic parameters in field conditions in Kenya, Uganda, and Vietnam.

2. Policy formulation for cysticercosis: In both Asia and Africa, we will work closely with stakeholders, under a WHO umbrella, to develop national policy guidelines for cysticercosis control. The priority is to integrate the required activities within the framework of countries’ neglected tropical disease and agricultural development programs. Our target countries will be China, India, Kenya, Uganda, and Vietnam.

3. Intervention trials including vaccine delivery: A number of intervention options are available to fit with country specific priorities (Thomas 2015), including use of the new vaccine together with oxfendazole treatment, value chain interventions, treatment of human carriers and improved sanitation in rural communities. The choice of control tools will depend on the local disease, social and policy landscape. We will trial combinations of control tools in an Asian and African site (e.g. Uganda/Kenya and Vietnam/China), with expansion when successful. We will work closely with partners to produce a proof-of-concept of control on a large scale, which will then provide the evidence base to attract significant development funding for implementing control.

Major outputs and outcomes of this CoA will be: quantitative gold standard data on diagnostic assay performance (2017); a validated and semi-commercialized diagnostic assay in use by stakeholders (2018); and tested intervention strategies backed by region-specific policy advice (2022). CoA3: Global Challenges on Agriculture and Health Rapid changes in both agricultural development and efforts to address disease burdens in LMICs are bound to interact. New challenges which arise for each may be more effectively addressed if actions are coordinated, particularly where there may be an interaction between specific interventions. In recent years, two such challenges have arisen: the rapid development of AMR in human and animal health, and the development of insecticide resistance in crop pests and disease vectors. From a health sector perspective, both problems are of enormous significance.

122

Our research will address the question, “what is the relationship between the development and spread of AMR in animal and human health systems in LMICs, and what measures will best minimize health risk?” This CoA will focus on the role that a changing livestock sector in LMICs may play as an incubator for development of AMR in both livestock and humans. Ensuring effective antimicrobials for humans is just one dimension of protecting health and livelihoods. Livestock are a critical resource in many poor households, and AMR can therefore undermine both livelihoods and health. Our research will generate an understanding of these complex relations, as well as the implication for health and livelihoods of AMR management interventions in both sectors. This CoA will have three components:

1. We will significantly improve estimates of levels and trends in antimicrobial consumption in livestock production in LMICs. Relatively few estimates of antimicrobial use in livestock currently exist outside OECD countries and information on use in LMICs is very poor. We will build on existing mapping work at ILRI (Van Boeckel et al. 2015), working with organizations like OIE to extend collection of data, reconcile existing estimates across a range of spatial scales, and bridge the gap between the bottom-up approaches based on treatment guidelines (e.g. in China) and top-down approaches based on sales data.

2. We will explore the biology, ecology and epidemiology of AMR in order to understand and quantify the contribution of antimicrobial use in agriculture to the development of AMR in medically important pathogens. We will develop experimental sites where we will evaluate antimicrobial sales, product quality and usage in the human and animal health sectors, and link these to biological studies on appropriate pathogens and resistance genes, using molecular techniques to map AMR distribution across hospitals, clinics, animal production facilities, households, livestock and connecting environmental pathways. We will use whole genome sequencing to reveal and begin to quantify the two-way traffic of AMR bacteria between the farm and the clinic and will identify key drivers of AMR exposure and evolution in low income settings. We have identified several potential sites for initial work in Kenya and Tanzania where platforms are established for linked veterinary and medical research; we will extend work later to Asia.

3. We will research potential interventions for reducing AMR risks through managing antimicrobial use in the livestock sector in LMICs. This work will begin with an exercise involving biologists, epidemiologists, social scientists, economists and policy specialists to identify potential animal-human AMR hotspots where interventions could have the greatest impact on human and animal health and be most amendable to policy interventions in one or both sectors. Once identified, we will draw on existing experience in both human and animal systems to design experiments on the effects of regulatory and behavior change interventions. These might include ‘lab-in-the-field’ experiments, where farmers and value chain actors will be faced with real choices that mirror the drug use decisions they make day-to-day, but where key parameters can be experimentally varied and consequences can be monitored.

Major outputs and outcomes of this CoA will be detailed information to policymakers and multi-stakeholder platforms including: current and projected consumption of antimicrobials in livestock under different growth scenarios (2017); a framework and monitoring system for antimicrobial use in livestock, disaggregated by production system, purpose of use, dosage and antimicrobial type (2018); phylogenetic analysis of bacterial and genes isolates indicating the evidence for and pathways of resistance flow between animals, food systems, environment and humans (2019); and the benefits and costs (including trade-offs) of different interventions to reduce the use of antimicrobials and to interrupt transmission pathways in developing country agriculture (2022),

123

Insecticide resistance in agricultural and health systems In recent years, resistance to pyrethroid insecticides used in malaria control has been evolving rapidly; in some parts of Africa it has reached very high levels (1000-fold) (Hemingway 2014). In its Global Plan for Insecticide Resistance Management in Malaria Vectors, the WHO estimates that this resistance problem could eventually lead to an additional 259,000 child deaths every year in Africa, and calls for inter-sectoral action involving local agricultural authorities (World Health Organization 2012). Historically, agricultural insecticide use in Africa has contributed to the generation of insecticide resistance in mosquitoes in several cases (World Health Organization 2012; Reid and McKenzie 2016), but there are other cases where anti-malaria spraying was instead the main selective force (Lines 1988). Understanding the crop systems and conditions under which agricultural insecticide use contributes to vector resistance is needed, particularly in light of major new donor investment in the development of novel insecticides for use against insect disease vectors. Working initially in East Africa with researchers studying insect vector resistance, we will evaluate the role of agriculture in its origin and maintenance. This will involve studies on the cross-resistance spectra of the main resistance genes in adults and larvae, and the associations between resistance gene frequency and the timing and location of insecticide use. Our research will inform and catalyze cooperation between initiatives on IPM and integrated vector management (IVM). The main outputs will be an understanding of whether and how agricultural insecticide use contributes to vector resistance (2018) and how best to integrate agricultural and medical use so as to minimize resistance, particularly for new products now in development (2020). PARTNERSHIPS Our research partners include both advanced and developing country research institutes and academic institutions at the national and international level. In each focal region, we have identified a group of agriculture and health research champions, many already engaged in One Health research through programs. These regional actors will help facilitate joint research, networking, and mutual learning. In addition, LSHTM will convene a cross-sectoral learning platform between agricultural and public health researcher communities, with the following aims: • Convening - establishing through A4NH an international learning platform and interactions space for

agriculture and health research communities working in international development, including the funder of that research;

• Capacity – developing understanding and appreciation of research approaches and methods across sectors, and ideas for inter-sectoral research approaches; and

• Collaboration - jointly identifying research problems where collaborative research will improve outcomes and impacts of interventions in either or both sectors.

Through theme-based symposia involving natural and social scientists from both sectors, we will identify and develop joint research areas. LSHTM and other public health partners (PHFI, the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, and the Institute of Infection and Global Health at the University of Liverpool) will coordinate symposia. We will engage non-academic health bodies, including WHO, Wellcome Trust, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Global Fund, and the Lancet. ILRI, IFPRI, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), IWMI, and other CGIAR Centers/CRPs will represent the agricultural research community. Short studies commissioned from inter-sectoral teams will guide development of new methods and research programs. We will build consensus around action in both sectors to generate added value through joint research. We will prepare joint funding calls to targeted bilateral donors, including the Wellcome Trust, the Swiss Science Foundation, the UK Research Councils, National Institutes of Health/ National Science Foundation (NIH/NSF), and DFID. LSHTM has unique experience in

124

successful research collaborations with the agricultural sector through its membership in LCIRAH, with RVC, and the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. We rely heavily on partnerships with program implementers, including government departments and ministries, the United Nations, and other global initiatives, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil society organizations, and farmers’ groups, that all play critical roles in development programming. A4NH helps development implementers increase the effectiveness of their joint agriculture-health programming. For example, we have worked closely with the Kenya Government Zoonotic Disease Unit, supporting their evidence generation to directly inform policy (Obonyo et al. 2016; Wardrop et al. 2015; Thomas et al. 2015), WHO work on food-borne parasites (Torgerson et al. 2015), and DFID work on AMR (Grace 2015). Many of our national partners have developed relationships with important civil society and community groups, which enhances the likelihood research outputs can contribute to achieving outcomes. There is a unique role for engaging the private sector in FP5. The pharmaceutical industry and pesticide companies (including those based in target countries) have an important role in improving antibiotic and pesticide use, and in producing and distributing diagnostic assays. This flagship will build on its experience working with enablers, such as policymakers and decisionmakers, and investors involved in creating enabling environments for agriculture and health at national, regional, and global levels, including Phase I linkages with global enablers, such as DFID, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), OIE, FAO and WHO. CLIMATE CHANGE Climate change mediates a strong interaction between agriculture and human health outcomes in several ways. Firstly, it will influence health outcomes through its effects on agriculture, e.g. through changes in patterns of irrigation and livestock production and consequent impacts on vector borne disease. Secondly, climate change will impact directly on the ecology and epidemiology of disease, affecting the distribution and dynamics of vectors and pathogens, for instance the evidence, which has been challenged, that climate contributes to altitudinal distribution of vectors and malaria. Finally, climate effects will have separate but concurrent effects on both agriculture and health, the interactions of which are uncertain, e.g. the demonstrated effects of El Nino periods on both crop production and malaria. We will investigate in particular the potential of climate change to drive a great expansion of irrigation-water reservoirs and on-farm dams and its effects on water-related disease like schistosomiasis and malaria. Livestock production and intensification will also be linked to climate change and through zoonotic disease to health outcomes. RVF, a subject of study by ILRI in Phase I of A4NH, is a clear example of how changing rainfall patterns influence disease dynamics and reservoirs in livestock, with implications for human health. We plan to explore linkages with the CRP on Livestock and with CCAFS on this topic during Phase II. GENDER Past research has shown gender differences in disease risk and outcomes (Rathgeber and Vlassoff 1993; Wang et al. 2006). An important research topic in this flagship will be to see how women’s empowerment and gender-based differences in roles and responsibilities influence differential risk, prevention of disease, and management of health. In CoA1: Diseases in Agricultural Landscapes, for example, we want to explore in detail how more specific routine tasks such as providing water for drinking and cleaning and exposure to vector-borne disease during farming and other activities in agricultural landscapes impact health outcomes.

125

Key research questions of to help understand the unintended consequences of agriculture on health outcomes and gender-based differences are: 1. How do the health risks and benefits of agriculture vary by gender (unintended consequences;

gender-based differences)? 2. How does gender influence decisionmaking about agricultural intensification, and how can women

be more involved in decisions about how to improve management of agricultural intensification to improve health outcomes? (gender-based differences),

3. How can integrated agricultural and health development interventions engage women and girls while avoiding harm to women’s time and health (unintended consequences)?

4. How can they engage men to play a greater role in supporting better health? Some examples of the gendered outcomes that we hope to influence are:

• Water development and irrigation planning and practice for agriculture take into account evidence of gender and disease risks in prioritizing actions (CoA1: Diseases in Agricultural Landscapes).

• National and/or regional emerging disease response plans take into account evidence on the gender and equity impacts of past emerging disease outbreaks like avian influenza (CoA2: Emerging and Neglected Zoonotic Diseases and CoA3: Global Challenges on Agriculture and Health)

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT Strengthening capacity of agricultural researchers to understand the potential impact—positive and negative—of their research on health outcomes, is a key activity and responsibility of this FP. We will contribute to four of the nine elements of CGIAR capacity development. We will develop CRP and Center capacity to partner (Element #3) with public health research through the Platform for Public Health and Agriculture Research Collaboration, and through specific project collaborations. Through the ANH Academy, we will design and deliver innovative learning materials and approaches (Element #2) and develop future research leaders through fellowships (Element #4) which provide inter-sectoral supervision and mentoring. In Phase I, the flagship on Agriculture-Associated Diseases had an excellent track record of engaging in country postgraduates (50%+ female) in our research activities. This FP partners with strong intersectoral capacity development institutions and networks in Africa and Asia. In India, PHFI integrates both research and public health capacity development with a focus on Ecohealth. In Southeast Asia, effective regional networks and platforms, such as the One Health/Ecohealth Resource Center and Veterinary Public Health Center for Asia Pacific (VPHCAP) at Chiang Mai University (Thailand) and the Hanoi School of Public Health, will be active partners. Past investments by Wellcome Trust have established two agriculture-health networks, Southern African Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance (SACIDS) and Afrique One, in Eastern and Southern, and West and Central Africa, respectively. We will link these with research through the IITA-convened Agro-Ecohealth Platform, ILRI-coordinated zoonoses research efforts in East Africa, and LCIRAH’s One Health program between the Royal Veterinary College and. These partners provide this FP with expertise and models for institutional strengthening (Element #6) in agricultural research for improving human health. INTELLECTUAL ASSETS AND OPEN ACCESS MANAGEMET In Phase II, researchers in this FP will contribute a number of intellectual assets, such as spatial maps of livestock and fish systems, antibiotic use in livestock and data on microbes; evidence for policy and

126

regulation to engage governments and inter-governmental organizations; microbial isolates frozen in curated OA biobank (ILRI-BecA Azizi); genome sequence data in GenBank; DNA and serum samples and parasite/microbe isolates as part of ILRI-BecA Azizi OA BioBank; and databases merging human and agricultural data on agricultural intensification, pathogen risks, morbidity and mortality, disaggregated by sex, linked to socio-economic data. These intellectual assets will be designed with CGIAR OA and open data principles in mind, for example: peer-reviewed papers will be published in an open-access format; researchers will make their raw data available to other researchers through their Center/Institute-specified platform in a timely manner; and tools to support improved decision making developed by FP5 will follow OA and open data principles. All of these actions minimize the hurdles to scaling out. More details on both A4NH management of open access and open data and on intellectual assets are found in Annexes 3.8 and 3.9, respectively. FP MANAGEMENT FP5 will be co-led by two A4NH managing partners: ILRI and LSHTM. LSHTM is based in London with global projects on health issues and is a global convener of the international public health community. ILRI in Nairobi works with a network of livestock and health related projects across the tropics, with in house expertise on zoonoses (partly due to co-location of University of Liverpool scientists on the campus in Nairobi). The co-leaders have jointly recruited a leader for this FP, Eric Fèvre, a Joint Appointee of the University of Liverpool and ILRI for the past seven years based at ILRI in Nairobi. ILRI and LSHTM will support him in convening a FP management team of senior researchers from different institutes to work together to plan, implement, and evaluation the research. LSHTM will lead CoA1: Diseases in Agricultural Landscapes (Jo Lines) and the networking of public health and agricultural research, ILRI (Eric Fevre) will lead CoA2: Emerging and Neglected Zoonotic Diseases and LSHTM and ILRI will jointly lead CoA3: Global Challenges on Agriculture and Health (Tim Robinson and Jo Lines). For each CoA, a large number of academic and development partners already exist, and these ongoing collaborations will be further built upon. IITA in West Africa and ILRI in East Africa will play a critical role in facilitating regional partnerships. From CGIAR, researchers in A4NH (mainly from ILRI and IITA) have produced key priority-setting and systematic evidence reviews to inform proposed Phase II research. CVs can be found in Annex 3.7 A Program Manager working for ILRI will be responsible for coordinating the co-lead partners and having the primary interface with A4NH. The FP management team will meet physically at least twice per year, and will convene monthly virtually to ensure activities are on track. The administrative support at ILRI will maintain a formal Risk Register, and will regularly report on progress against a detailed program of agreed timelines.

127

SECTION 3 REQUIRED ANNEXES

128

SECTION 3.1

129

Annex 3.1 PARTNERSHIPS OVERVIEW The CGIAR Research Program (CRP) on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) is the CGIAR research program (CRP) specifically designed to address the CGIAR System Level Outcome (SLO) on improving nutrition and health. In taking on this challenge, A4NH recognizes that transformative partnerships will be central for success. Transformative change is required to: • Forge cooperation between agriculture, nutrition, and health sectors based on the contributions

that each sector can make to shared objectives; • Strengthen the capacity of national research organizations and scientists in these sectors to

provide knowledge, evidence, and direction to multi-sectoral actions to achieve country, regional and global development goals; and

• Build new relationships between researchers and development implementers and enablers for faster progress in achieving development outcomes and impacts.

Our assumption is that better nutrition and health outcomes and impacts cannot be achieved without transforming current partnership approaches. The intent of this annex is to explain the A4NH strategy for selecting and engaging with partners in Phase II. TYPE OF PARTNERS AND ROLES OF PARTNERS IN A4NH A4NH partnerships in Phase II will continue to be driven by the three impact pathways through which we expect A4NH research to deliver results: agri-food value chains, development programs, and policies. A4NH also recognizes that partners are critical at all stages of research from discovery through proof-of-concept to delivery at scale. A4NH’s current partnership strategy summarizes the core principles and processes that A4NH will continue to build upon in Phase II. A4NH classifies partners into four broad categories, depending on their role in the impact pathway: researchers, actors in value chains, development program implementers, and enablers. The categories are not mutually exclusive; some individuals or organizations may fall into more than one partner category, often depending on the stage of research. • Research partners include other CGIAR Centers and CRPs, advanced research institutes, and

academic institutions that are involved in agriculture, nutrition and health research. Research partnerships are central in the A4NH theory of change (ToC) mainly for generating research outputs and enhancing capacity to do this (evidence, technologies and other innovations) with potential to go to scale but also for generating information about impact pathways and underlying assumptions that can inform how research is designed and delivered.

• Agri-food value chain partners include individuals, firms, public-private initiatives, and the organizations and association that represent them, all along the value chain, including input suppliers, producers, processors , transporters, wholesalers, retailers, marketers, regulators, and consumers. A4NH works with value chain partners in two main ways: (1) to develop and test value chains innovations (through the agri-food value chains impact pathway) and (2) to create and sustain an enabling environment for health, nutritious food systems (through the policies pathway).

• Development implementers include government ministries, the United Nations, and other global initiatives, NGOs, civil society organizations, and farmers’ groups that all play roles in designing and implementing nutrition- and health-sensitive agricultural development programs. By generating evidence on what works and translating it into operational guidance, A4NH supports development implementers to increase the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of their programming.

130

• Enablers include policy- and decisionmakers, as well as investors involved in creating enabling environments at national, regional, and global levels. Where political will already exists to support nutrition-sensitive agriculture, A4NH works with initiatives like the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement, governments, and with regional organizations (e.g., the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP)) to enhance the capacity to develop and implement strategy and policy options.

Partner Roles in A4NH The roles of A4NH partners will fall into three groups in Phase II: managing partners, strategic partners, and collaborating partners. The relative role of a partner can change over time with partners moving between the different groups. Partner performance will be monitored and evaluated and both the Independent Steering Committee (ISC) and Planning and Management Committee (PMC) will review partnership status annually. Managing partners will be part of the A4NH PMC, recruit and co-manage flagship program (FP) and cluster leaders and key Center researchers, and actively support CRP-level resource mobilization, communication, and advocacy. Each managing partner will have a program participant agreement (PPA) with IFPRI that will include expectations for its responsibilities in A4NH overall and in specific FPs, and how both will be monitored and evaluated. There will be seven managing partners: IFPRI, as the Lead Center, plus Bioversity International, CIAT, IITA, ILRI, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), and Wageningen University and Research Centre (Wageningen UR), (Table 1).

Strategic partners will not participate in program management, but they will dedicate human and financial resources to a FP(s), and actively engage in planning and implementing research with others in A4NH. Potential strategic partners come from CGIAR (Centers and CRPs) and from other research institutes (e.g., Public Health Foundation of India, Hanoi School of Public Health), actors in value chains (e.g., seed companies, GAIN, Pulse Innovation Platform), development implementers (e.g., BRAC, Helen Keller International, World Vision), and enablers (e.g., national governments, CAADP, FAO, IFAD, OIE, PACA, WHO, World Bank). In some cases, strategic partners are engaged to lead clusters of activities in particular FPs, like the Institute of Development Studies and the Institute for Tropical Medicine, Antwerp will do for FP4. Each strategic partner will have a PPA or similar formal agreement (e.g., MoU) that describes annual expected results and how these will be monitored and evaluated. While in some cases strategic partners have been identified, in other cases they will be identified once Phase II begins and A4NH and the partner have reached a shared understanding of the responsibilities involved (Table 1). Collaborating Partners include hundreds more entities with which A4NH works including those from within CGIAR with a valuable, but limited role in A4NH. Collaborating partners will not actively participate in CRP or flagship-level management. Collaborating partners, like strategic partners, can include all four A4NH partner types. Examples of potential collaborating partners include CGIAR Centers, NARS, universities or think tanks, NGOs, and the private sector. Some collaborating partners will have formal contracts with managing or strategic partners through which their contributions will be documented and monitored. Other collaborating partners may engage with A4NH through less formal arrangements, for example through participating in an A4NH community of practice (CoP). PARTNERSHIP MODALITIES How we will work with partners falls into three broad categories: • Joint research with other CRPs on the priority topics identified in the five FPs and on strategic

gender and equity issues undertaken by the Gender, Equity, and Empowerment (GEE) unit;

131

• Networking and mutual learning, including capacity development, conducted through FP-led activities like learning platforms or CoPs; and

• As a bridge between CGIAR and global, regional, and national nutrition and health communities.

KEY PARTNERSHIP ACTIVITIES Some key partnership activities A4NH will undertake in Phase II are introduced briefly below and more are described in detail in Table 2. The activities we are highlighting here relate mainly to our plans in five focus countries and our role as an integrating CRP (ICRP). Aligning and engaging with country processes. A4NH has identified five focus countries for Phase II, four of the highest priority countries for CGIAR Site Integration (Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Vietnam) plus one high priority country (India). In these countries, the new A4NH Country Coordination and Engagement (CCE) unit will support country teams comprised of A4NH FP researchers, other CRPs, and partners who will carry out joint research and take responsibility for the Site Integration Plans (when developed). For example, in Ethiopia, we would like to engage the Ethiopian Public Health Institute, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ethiopian Institute for Agricultural Research, and the Ethiopian Development Research Institute in the team to work with the managing partners in Ethiopia to develop joint research. The country teams will be managed by one A4NH managing partner (IITA in Nigeria, ILRI in Ethiopia, CIAT in Vietnam and IFPRI in Bangladesh and India). The country teams will work on behalf of A4NH to ensure that our research complements national government strategies and investments, and that we have mechanisms or partnerships for tracking national-level indicators related to nutrition and health. Partner consultation. The Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development 3 (GCARD3) process was conducted in 2015-2016 and A4NH researchers participated in the consultations with the national governments and other stakeholders. Our priorities are aligned with country priorities for our focus countries. For more information about A4NH engagement in the GCARD3 processes, please refer to Annex 3.6. A4NH held stakeholder consultations related to the Phase II proposal, primarily related to our new FPs, such as a series of regional consultations on agriculture and health and a workshop with Ethiopian stakeholders on the food systems agenda in Ethiopia. Aligning and engaging with regional organizations to strengthen leadership. At the country level, SUN and CAADP teams are expected to work collaboratively with A4NH; the need to mainstream nutrition within CAADP monitoring processes via ReSAKSS has created a unique opportunity to promote research uptake with the related country and regional structures for greater impact of agriculture on nutrition in Africa. A4NH, and specifically the third cluster on Capacity, Collaboration, Convening (3C) in FP4, will have responsibility to support countries to demand and use evidence. Activities will include the promotion of collaborative networks and institutional arrangements to support evidence generation and use cycles and regional learning events in focal countries. Aligning and engaging with global initiatives and processes. More global coordination around agriculture-nutrition and agriculture-health is important. In Phase I, A4NH invested in a joint position with IFAD, with a view to strengthening agriculture-nutrition investment for countries. IFAD has placed much greater emphasis on nutrition in its Country Strategies, Grants and Loan portfolios for IFAD10 (2017-19). Through Bioversity and IFPRI, we plan to strengthen joint work with IFAD and with the other Rome-based food agencies, like FAO, WFP, REACH, and UNSCN. Other linkages A4NH will strengthen in Phase II will be with the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) network and with WHO’s Strategic and Technical Advisory Group on the control of zoonotic NTDs.

132

Networking and mutual learning, including capacity strengthening. A4NH will work with partners to support networking and mutual learning around agriculture, nutrition and health. Another example comes from the Agriculture, Nutrition and Health (ANH) Academy. A4NH and LCIRAH co-invested in the launch of the ANH Academy in 2015. Designed as an initiative to build capacity of ANH researchers, particularly those from the South, the ANH Academy will provide another avenue by which A4NH can engage with partners, primarily researchers, to support integrated research through development, testing and dissemination of improved methods and metrics. The A4NH external evaluation identified a demand from A4NH-afilliated researchers for opportunities to focus on the scientific research on nutrition and health. In response, A4NH will host an annual scientific event for our partners to engage with one another. To promote country engagement, the event will be held in one of the five focus countries in turn with associated side events around particular themes to engage sets of stakeholders. SUSTAINING PARTNERSHIPS The key principles to guide partnerships in A4NH will include: • Agreement of all partners on key goals and objectives; • Commitment to engage in an inclusive, transparent, and trustworthy manner; • Commitment to ensure that the partnership adds value to A4NH impact pathways; • Identification of clear, mutual benefits for each partner; • Adherence to mutual accountability and respect; • Acknowledgement that roles and expectations are clearly understood among all partners; and • Practice that shows that value addition matters, not seniority and hierarchy. PARTNERING CAPACITY The A4NH external evaluation found that partnership brokering skills were “unevenly distributed” in A4NH. Some Centers had strong partnership strategies while others approached partnership in a more ad hoc manner. Our approach in Phase II will be to increase our partnership capacity, through new managing and strategic partners who bring strong partnership capacity and address these inequities across the CRP. A4NH managing and strategic partners are well positioned to develop strong partnerships, particularly in areas where A4NH plans to expand, such as in food systems (Wageningen UR), with public health (LSHTM), the private sector (GAIN), in capacity and leadership (EVIDENT & ANLP), or in particular countries (BRAC in Bangladesh). In addition, A4NH will leverage our CGIAR managing partners’ existing networks and skills in our focus countries, in particular. APPROPRIATE RESOURCING OF PARTNERSHIPS Resource commitments are critical to developing and maintaining partnerships. A4NH uses a mix of co-funding approaches and modalities to accommodate different partnership purposes and partner co-funding abilities. More than 30% of the total budget was expended by non-CGIAR partners in Phase I. In Phase II, Our estimated budget for partners is 33.5% of the total CRP budget from all funding sources and approximately 20% of the W1/W2 budget for the six-year Phase II period. This allocation will cover the activities described in Table 2 at the end of this Annex. PMU FP1 FP2 FP3 FP4 FP5 Total % of total Partnership (in US$ millions) 1.0 16.98 154.05 16.41 12.38 6.29 207.11 33.5%

133

Table 1. List of managing partners and potential strategic partners involved in Phase II of A4NH Flagship Programs (FPs)

Managing Partners Involved (lead in bold)

Potential Strategic Partners Involved

FP1: Food Systems Bioversity, CIAT, IFPRI, IITA, ILRI, Wageningen UR

Researchers: other CRPs and their key Centers Enablers: national governments in focus countries Actors in value chains: (public-private platforms), GAIN Marketplace for Nutritious Foods, AIM, The Sustainability Consortium, Pulse Innovation Platform

FP2: Bioversity IFPRI/CIAT (HarvestPlus) Researchers: AFS-CRPs and their key Centers, NARS Implementers: World Vision, WFP, Mercy Corps Actors in value chains: Seed Co. (Zambia), Nirmal Seeds (India)

FP3: Food Safety IFPRI, IITA, ILRI Researchers: Royal Veterinary College, LCIRAH, University of Nairobi, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Public Health Foundation India, Hanoi School of Public Health, CRP Livestock, CRP Fish Enablers/Implementers: WHO, OIE, PACA, CTA

FP4: SPEAR Bioversity, IFPRI Researchers: IDS, University of Antwerp Implementers: BRAC (Bangladesh), Helen Keller International, PRADAN (India)

FP5: Improving Human Health

IITA, ILRI, LSHTM Researchers: Swiss TPH, University of Liverpool, LCIRAH, Makerere University, Hanoi School of Public Health, Public Health Foundation of India Enablers/Implementers: Zoonotic Disease Unit (Gov’t of Kenya), FAO, OIE, WHO

134

Table 2. Potential strategic partnership activities in Phase II of A4NH Title of Partnership Improving Private Sector Engagement Convener of the partnership and their role

GAIN (Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition)

Specific focus and objective To leverage existing collaborations and identify new opportunities for research collaborations with private companies involved in food systems.

Science agenda To conduct operational research on the effectiveness of public-private partnerships in the context of healthier food systems and to collaborate with SMEs in the four key countries to develop healthier food products and portfolios.

Geographical focus / location

Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Vietnam

Role of the CRP/FP in the partnership

FP1’s role will be to convene research with CGIAR and existing public-private platforms. GAIN is also one of the cluster leaders of CoA2 in FP1.

Key CGIAR partner(s) and their role(s)

Bioversity, CIAT, IITA, and IFPRI roles in identifying the opportunities and then conducting operational research with private companies that leads to strategies for developing healthier food products and portfolios with potential to go to scale in target countries. AFS-CRPs have a role in joining the collaborative opportunities with private companies for healthier food products and portfolios involving AFS-CRP staple crops in target countries.

Key ‘external’ partner(s) and their role(s)

Existing public-private platforms include the Amsterdam Initiative for Malnutrition (AIM), the GAIN Marketplace for Nutritious Foods, COLEACP, The Sustainability Consortium (TSC), and the Pulse Innovation Partnership led by McGill University. Potential private companies include Nutreco, Unilever, DSM and FrieslandCampina may participate in operational research with researchers from FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets. Opportunities for consumer labels will be worked out with, for example, Choices International Foundation, Fair Trade, and Eco, to do the same within FP1.

Contribution to ToC and impact pathways

Evidence has shown that using public-private partnerships to anchor innovations in the food system – the process of making multiple connections – increases the chance that sustainable change can be realized. Operational research will be shared by food system stakeholders and researchers, so that all are involved in the development and evaluation of innovations. Early and full stakeholder engagement increases the likelihood that innovations are implemented by private companies and adopted by consumers in the focus countries.

Title of Partnership Mainstreaming biofortification into partners’ crop development work Convener of the partnership and their role

HarvestPlus

Specific focus and objective To mainstream biofortification in agricultural research within CGIAR and NARS, together with AFS-CRPs, in order to scale and sustain the impact achieved in target countries during the delivery phase. More specifically, mainstreaming nutrition into breeding requires a two-pronged approach: (1) annually increasing the percentage of biofortified germplasm in CGIAR Centers’ breeding programs, which are then distributed to NARS for further adaptation and eventual release, and (2) developing methods for reducing the costs of breeding for biofortified varieties (through marker-assisted selection and low-cost, high-throughput methods of measuring vitamin and mineral content).In addition, HarvestPlus will look at the incentives for mainstreaming, for example, estimates of potential benefits (net of costs) including supportive policies where needed.

135

Science agenda To develop second and third waves of high-yielding, biofortified germplasm with higher nutrient content. These new lines will be distributed globally to NARS for further crossing, testing for adaptation to local conditions, and eventual release. Crop development activities will focus on Tier 1 biofortified staple crops (wheat, rice, maize, bean, cassava, and pearl millet), with some investment in secondary staples (banana/plantain, cowpea, lentil, potato, and sorghum). To develop (i) cost-saving breeding methods such as marker-assisted selection (identifying the specific genes associated with high mineral and vitamin content); and (ii) improved low-cost, high-throughput methods for measuring the mineral and vitamin content in seeds (in collaboration with universities in Australia, Europe, and North America).

Geographical focus / location

Nine target countries (for HarvestPlus) initially

Role of the CRP/FP in the partnership

FP2’s role is to lead training and capacity development with NARS for the development and eventual release of biofortified varieties and work with CGIAR to realize its 2014 commitment to develop and implement a plan for mainstreaming.

Key CGIAR partner(s) and their role(s)

AFS-CRPs and key Centers have a role in the science agenda described above and in carrying out the training and capacity development activities.

Key ‘external’ partner(s) and their role(s)

The NARS and national breeding programs have a role in working with FP2 to strategize how to reach the eventual inclusion of biofortified traits within regular breeding programs, independent of specific FP2 funding.

Contribution to ToC and impact pathways

By developing and delivering cost-effective tools and techniques for mainstreaming nutrition in breeding, we expect a 2.5% annual increase in crop development efforts for target crop/ecologies that mainstream biofortified traits by 2022. As a result, crop breeders will have the incentive and capacity to incorporate nutritional traits into their breeding strategies.

Title of Partnership Scaling out biocontrol for aflatoxins in Africa Convener of the partnership and their role

PACA (Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa)

Specific focus and objective To provide leadership and coordination for Africa’s aflatoxin control efforts, acting primarily as catalyst, facilitator, partnership and knowledge broker, project developer and information clearinghouse. To also advocate for the establishment of enabling policies and institutions, increased investment and the mobilization of resources, and ultimately, act as a grant maker to support priority aflatoxin control activities.

Science agenda Developing and adapting technologies, generating evidence on effectiveness and potential impact, policy and political economy analysis. Geographical focus / location

Target countries in Africa

Role of the CRP/FP in the partnership

FP3’s role is provide evidence to PACA on the scale of aflatoxin contamination and the cost-effectiveness and impacts of different control options, like GAP or biocontrol. FP3 may collaborate with PACA and other partners to develop innovative capacity building packages.

Key CGIAR partner(s) and their role(s)

IFPRI, IITA, and ILRI: Researchers participate in high-level processes convened by PACA and conduct joint research with one another and with other CRPs (DCL and Maize) that inform PACA.

Key ‘external’ partner(s) and their role(s)

Governments in target countries approve large-scale production of aflasafeTM initially for research and later for commercial use. Private firms and industry associations participate in setting research agenda and in pilot testing innovations.

Contribution to ToC and impact pathways

By delivering evidence at high-level fora convened by PACA, we expect that standardized regulations related to aflasafe™ will be adopted in ECOWAS and PACA focus countries by 2021. As a result, at least 40 public sector agencies and agri-businesses will adopt aflatoxin

136

mitigation technologies for reducing aflatoxin in crop value chains and private firms will be producing aflasafe™ in 3 countries. Title of Partnership Capacity building for country ownership and leadership Convener of the partnership and their role

EVIDENT Network (Evidence-informed Decision-making in Nutrition and Health) and IFPRI through 3C cluster in FP4

Specific focus and objective To enhance evidence-informed decisionmaking and policy-driven research in health and nutrition through North-South partnerships, by addressing the priority concerns and questions of decisionmakers from low- and middle-income countries through reviews of evidence, health technology assessments and locally-appropriate guidance, and facilitating the translation of evidence into policy.

Science agenda There are three main questions: (1) What individual, organizational and systemic capacity and leadership gaps limit collaborative engagement, evidence generation and use across the policy, program development, and implementation continuum in focal countries and regionally; (2) What are effective mechanisms and innovative strategies to increase the capacity and leadership needed for effective evidence-informed decisionmaking; and (3) What can be learnt from the approach (internal process documentation) to support change.

Geographical focus / location

Ten target countries

Role of the CRP/FP in the partnership

In FP4, the CoA3 (3C) will build on the conceptual work by Gillespie and Margetts (2013), and practical work undertaken by the EVIDENT team on nutrition-relevant capacity in Africa, to develop, test, and document approaches for strengthening capacity and leadership of key actors and organizations. It will also build on the capacity assessments undertaken in selected African countries under the ReSAKKS program.

Key CGIAR partner(s) and their role(s)

IFPRI will co-lead the 3C cluster in FP4 along with EVIDENT and include other partnership platforms, such as the African Nutrition Leadership Programme (linked to the Global Nutrition Leadership Platform) and the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Health Academy.

Key ‘external’ partner(s) and their role(s)

12 institutes make up the EVIDENT team. These institutes individually and collectively carry out the objectives of the EVIDENT network. North-West University in South Africa hosts the ANLP. EVIDENT and ANLP will work collaboratively with IFPRI to convene and facilitate learning processes and events at country and regional levels.

Contribution to ToC and impact pathways

The partnership between EVIDENT and FP4 will strengthen capacities necessary to address the disparity between research and local needs in nutrition and health in Africa. The process ensures societal relevance so that decisionmakers can make recommendations for policies adapted to their local context.

Title Establishing a Platform for Public Health and Agriculture Research Collaboration Convener of the partnership and their role

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM)

Specific focus and objective To carry out a specific program of engagement between agricultural and public health research communities in order to provide a cross-sectoral learning platform and opportunities for bridging activities and networking between CGIAR and public health.

Science agenda To develop understanding and appreciation of research approaches and methods across sectors, and ideas for inter-sectoral research approaches and to jointly identify research problems where collaborative research will improve outcomes and impacts of interventions in either or both sectors.

Geographical focus / location

TBD among the list of target countries in FP5

137

Role of the CRP/FP in the partnership

FP5 will be co-led by ILRI and LSHTM. The initial activities of the Platform will take the form of theme-based symposia involving natural and social scientists from both sectors to identify and develop research areas that have been identified by the three clusters in FP5.

Key CGIAR partner(s) and their role(s)

ILRI, IFPRI, IITA and a selection of their appropriate partners will represent the agricultural research community

Key ‘external’ partner(s) and their role(s)

LSHTM and other public health partners including the Public Health Foundation of India, the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, and the Institute of Infection and Global Health at the University of Liverpool will coordinate public health engagement in this platform, drawing on close links with non-academic health bodies, including WHO, Wellcome Trust, BMGF, Global Fund and The Lancet.

Contribution to ToC and impact pathways

Studies commissioned from inter-sectoral teams will guide development of new methods and research programs and consensus around action in both agriculture and public health will be reached to generate added value through joint research. An important part of this process will be the preparation of joint funding calls to targeted bilateral donors, which will provide more opportunities beyond these initial Centers within CGIAR to engage on agriculture-health issues.

Title Targeting and Measuring Nutrition Impacts across the CAADP Results Framework (2015-2025) Convener of the partnership and their role

ReSAKSS, (Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System)

Specific focus and objective ReSAKSS supports efforts to promote evidence and outcome-based policy planning and implementation as part of the CAADP agenda. More specifically, ReSAKSS provides data to facilitate monitoring under the CAADP Results Framework, as well as related analytical and knowledge products to facilitate benchmarking, review and mutual learning processes. ReSAKSS is organized as a network of three nodes among the major RECs in Africa. Each node, at the country level and Africa-wide, has set up a network of national, regional, and international partners that provide policy-relevant and timely analysis, data, and tools of the highest quality. The goal is to promote evidence-based decisionmaking, improve awareness of the role of agriculture for development in Africa, fill knowledge gaps, promote dialogue, and facilitate the benchmarking and review processes associated with the CAADP agenda. The CAADP Results Framework in 2015 included nutrition indicators creating an opportunity to enhance agriculture to nutrition linkages in the programme and related monitoring as part of the ReSAKSS process.

Science agenda To conduct strategic analysis to fill knowledge gaps and assess policy and investment options for accelerating agricultural growth and reducing poverty and hunger and now also monitoring possible impact of agriculture on nutrition at country level.

Geographical focus / location

Africa

Role of the CRP/FP in the partnership

FP4 will cooperate with ReSAKKS to explore factors and processes that influence evidence demand, generation, and use for decisionmakers and will promote collaborative networks and institutional arrangements to support evidence generation and use cycles and convene regional learning events in focal countries. In addition, FP4 will work with stakeholders to develop and apply diagnostic and priority-setting tools, document real-time policy and program engagement processes, including CAADP, in focal countries, investigate approaches for ensuring horizontal (cross-sectoral) as well as vertical (intra-sectoral) coherence in nutrition-sensitive agri-food systems and policy processes, and conduct policy research to identify and resolve emerging context-specific challenges and trade-offs, and to understand the relative roles and benefits of different tactics in catalyzing change.

Key CGIAR partner(s) and their role(s)

At the regional level, ReSAKSS is supported by three Africa-based CGIAR centers: ILRI in Kenya, IWMI in South Africa, and IITA in Nigeria. IFPRI, as leader of FP4, will conduct research that ensures systematic documentation of capacity strengthening processes, and thus also

138

contribute to global public goods for nutrition action within the CAADP frameworks. Key ‘external’ partner(s) and their role(s)

African Union Commission, the NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency (NPCA), the leading regional economic communities (RECs), and IFPRI facilitate ReSAKKS.

Contribution to ToC and impact pathways

FP4’s partnership with ReSAKKS will generate key lessons on what works at country, regional, and CRP levels to increase demand, use and uptake of evidence through a systematic process documentation. The documented process will serve as a learning guide to increase the impact of nutrition-sensitive agriculture programs and policies. Furthermore, although capacity development is critical to the success of CAADP to impact nutrition, it is often undertaken without adequate documentation for meaningful lesson sharing and development of guidelines. FP4 research will ensure systematic documentation of capacity strengthening processes, and thus contribute to global public goods for nutrition action within the CAADP framework. It will also test effective mechanisms and innovative strategies to increase the capacity and leadership needed for effective evidence-informed decisionmaking along the A4NH impact pathways of policies and programs (development and implementation).

Title Conducting joint research on agriculture-gender-nutrition in Bangladesh Convener of the partnership and their role

Ministry of Agriculture, Bangladesh

Specific focus and objective The Agriculture, Nutrition, and Gender Linkages (ANGeL) project is a three-year pilot project from 2015-2018 being implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture in Bangladesh. Its objective is to identify actions and investments in agriculture that can leverage agricultural development for improved nutrition, and make recommendations on how to invigorate pathways to women’s empowerment—particularly within agriculture

Science agenda The pilot is being implemented among 4000 households in 16 districts. The project’s impact on agriculture production, improved nutrition and hygiene and women’s empowerment will be measured.

Geographical focus / location

Bangladesh

Role of the CRP/FP in the partnership

Past research results and outcomes through the IFPRI-led Bangladesh team in FP4 were used by the Ministry of Agriculture in the design of this project. It is partially funded by USAID and the IFPRI-led CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH)

Key CGIAR partner(s) and their role(s)

IFPRI helped design the project and will provide support in analysis. The project will receive support through the second phase of the Gender Agriculture and Assets Project (GAAP2) coordinated by the Gender, Equity and Empowerment Unit of A4NH.

Key ‘external’ partner(s) and their role(s)

The Ministry of Agriculture is implementing the project. IFPRI’s Bangladesh Policy Research and Strategy Support Program (PRSSP) and Helen Keller International (HKI) provide technical assistance.

Contribution to ToC and impact pathways

The ANGeL project explicitly recognizes the importance of gender along agriculture-nutrition impact pathways. It includes gender sensitization activities, based on a tool called Nurturing Connections, developed by HKI for use in Bangladesh at the community level with adult male and female household members (including grandparents) to foster communication, negotiation skills, mutual respect, and appreciation within families, even addressing topics such domestic violence and child marriage, and how they can be harmful to overall family health.

139

SECTION 3.2

140

Annex 3.2 CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW Capacity development is an outcome in and of itself and often critical to the achievement of other development outcomes, as described in the Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) results framework and individual flagship impact pathways. As an integrating CRP (ICRP), A4NH has a vital role to play in supporting networking and learning within CGIAR and bridging the space between CGIAR and the nutrition and health communities. Strategic investment in capacity development will be crucial to fulfilling these roles. A4NH cannot achieve these results alone, and how we will invest in working with partners, like other CRPs and those outside CGIAR, through a variety of mechanisms, is described more fully in the Annexes Partnerships (3.1) and Linkages with other CRPs and Site Integration (3.6). The purpose of this annex is to describe the role capacity development will play in the second phase of A4NH, including its expected outputs and outcomes. This annex describes in more detail the strategic capacity development actions A4NH will prioritize which are in line with the 10 elements of the CGIAR Capacity Development Framework. This annex supplements CRP Section 1.10 in the Full Proposal. For more information, see the A4NH Capacity Development Strategy. CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT IN IMPACT PATHWAYS AND THEORIES OF CHANGE Capacity development is a critical part of the three impact pathways through which A4NH research outputs and other activities contribute to development outcomes. A4NH contributes to the cross-cutting issue on Capacity Development through all four of the sub-IDOs (see Table C in the Performance Indicator Matrix). Within each impact pathway, capacity development also features among the research outcomes that are necessary to achieve the development outcomes (Figure 1). In addition to identifying capacity development outcomes along its nested impact pathways (at CRP, flagship and cluster levels), A4NH also needs to take steps to ensure that the outcomes will be realized. A4NH may invest in:

• contributing to the capacity change outcome directly; • identifying and working with partners who can ensure that capacity change outcomes happen at

scale; or • doing research on what type of interventions are effective in strengthening capacity or in testing

the assumptions that underlie capacity change in the impact pathway(s). Table 1 provides examples of the actions A4NH will take, by flagship, to implement the 10 elements of the CGIAR Capacity Development Framework. In addition to building capacity for development outcomes, A4NH, as an ICRP, plays a role in building capacity of agricultural researchers, inside and outside the CGIAR, to do agriculture, nutrition, and health research and to engage with nutrition and health research and development communities. To fulfill this role, A4NH plans to support communities of practices (CoPs) or learning platforms on gender and nutrition, on food systems, and on agriculture and health that work with other CRPs and partners to identify capacity needs and engage in targeted research and capacity strengthening to meet them. Following the advice of the A4NH external evaluation, ToCs will be developed for these CoPs in collaboration with the AFS-CRPs. For an example of what this could look like, see the part of CRP Section 1.9 on “Monitoring and evaluation of gender integration in A4NH research.”

141

STRATEGIC CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT ACTIONS AND ALIGNMENT WITH OTHER ANH INITIATIVES While A4NH invests in all elements of the Capacity Development Framework, two are of highest priority for the CRP: design and delivery of innovative learning materials and approaches (Element #2) and institutional strengthening (Element #6). A4NH will work with partners to strengthen the capacity of national and CGIAR researchers and research institutes to conduct high-quality agriculture, nutrition and health research. A4NH will do this through the design and delivery of innovative learning materials and approaches (Element #2). All of A4NH’s flagships will be engaged in some degree in designing and delivering learning materials and approaches. For example, through FP3: Food Safety, we will work with universities to upgrade curricula to include training on risk-based approaches for improving food safety. Based on recommendations from a study on how large INGOs use research results and evaluation findings, FP4: SPEAR will work more with in-house and external knowledge brokers, the communication specialists or other specialized staff who work in close collaboration with researchers on evidence synthesis, knowledge translation and knowledge mobilization, in order to communicate operational implications of evaluation findings to development program implementers in this case. This makes it more likely that the findings on how and how much integrated agriculture and nutrition programs can improve nutrition outcomes can be incorporated into the design of new programs and the scale-up of future programs, enhancing their coverage and effectiveness. The A4NH Gender, Equity and Empowerment Unit (GEE) unit will develop curricula and training materials based on the project-level Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (also known as the pro-WEAI). The curricula and training materials will be developed in collaboration with African Women in Agriculture Research and Development (AWARD), BRAC University, and the new Gender-responsive Researchers Equipped for Agricultural Transformation (GREAT) initiative funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and organized by Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences in conjunction with Makerere University. The outputs will then be used by their affiliated researchers to reach more researchers working on agriculture, nutrition and health topics in our A4NH target regions of Africa south of the Sahara and South Asia. Lastly, A4NH has co-invested with LCIRAH in the launch of the Agriculture, Nutrition and Health Academy (ANH Academy). The ANH Academy is a global research network in agriculture and food systems for improved nutrition and health to serve as a platform for learning and sharing. The ANH Academy aims to facilitate the sharing and adapting of methods and metrics developed through IMMANA Grants and Fellowships1, in addition to fostering a community of researchers, particularly young researchers from the South, working at the intersection of agriculture, nutrition, and health. In addition, the ANH Academy will be leveraged to provide capacity strengthening to the efforts of the African Union Commission to mainstream and monitor nutrition related indicators as part of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) process at country and regional levels through the CAADP Results Framework. In its work on institutional strengthening (Element #6), A4NH focuses on two groups: (1) enablers, such as policymakers and other stakeholders engaged in national policy processes in target countries or regional organizations, and (2) CGIAR researchers. A4NH’s work with these two groups spans from national to global levels.

1 Innovative Methods and Metrics for Agriculture and Nutrition Actions (IMMANA) is a new research initiative funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) and coordinated by the Leverhulme Centre for Integrative Research on Agriculture and Health (LCIRAH). IMMANA aims to accelerate the development of a robust scientific evidence base needed to guide changes in global agriculture and food systems to feed the world’s population in a way that is both healthy and sustainable. More information: http://immana.lcirah.ac.uk/about-us

142

Enablers at national level. For FP4: Supporting Policies, Programs and Enabling Action through Research (SPEAR), capacity strengthening will be an explicit component of their research framework and of their third cluster, Capacity, Collaboration, Convening (3C). The team will focus on strengthening capacity to use and demand relevant evidence, as well as providing a crucial bridge to other flagships, CRPs, and relevant national, regional, and global processes and opportunities to maximize the impact of our work and unleash the potential of agriculture to improve nutrition and health. Part of this will include building capacity of national champions, including research leaders and policy analysts in national institutions, which is aligned with global and regional efforts – such as the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement and CAADP – to support country performance for improving nutrition and health and hosting learning events in focal countries. In addition, FP4: SPEAR will work with country SUN and CAADP teams to enhance leadership capacity and capacity for collaborative engagement. In this work, national level knowledge/academic institutions will be strategically involved to impact curriculum development and long term sustainability. In its four target countries – Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Vietnam – FP1 will work with national partners to build capacity in the analysis of diet change data and in the use of nutrition-sensitive agriculture and healthy diet tools. It is expected that the strengthened capacity will lead to the development of individual and institutional food system champions in the focus countries. Also in Vietnam, FP3 will continue to work with animal and human health officials to build capacity to understand and use risk-based approaches in the management of food safety. These have already been accepted as the standard in international and national policy, however unless national staff can appropriately implement them they will not lead to expected benefits in terms of cost-effective reduction in the burden of food safety. FP2 will, in selected countries, coordinate with IFPRI country programs to identify opportunities to increase the capacity for the priority setting process in the NARS and develop seed policy capacity to speed up the process of seed multiplication. Enablers at regional level. FP3 will invest in building capacity of policymakers in the East Africa Community (EAC) to understand and appropriately manage aflatoxins across a range of relevant policy areas from trade to agriculture maternal and child health. During Phase I, researchers in FP3 working on the mitigation and control of aflatoxins in Africa south of the Sahara responded to an invitation from the EAC to develop a set of technical briefs. In Phase II, these initial efforts will be extended to translate evidence on aflatoxin risk into innovative capacity building packages for the EAC, plus networks in the African Union and the Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa (PACA). CGIAR Researchers. The successful A4NH gender and nutrition CoP that started in 2013 will be expanded in Phase II under the GEE unit in order to provide more support to the evaluation and gender staff in other CRPs. The goal is help make CGIAR researchers more aware of gender and agriculture and nutrition linkages and state-of-the-art frameworks, methods and tools for assessing gender and nutrition in agricultural projects and to increase the appropriate use of these tools. This is done through the Gender-Nutrition Idea Exchange blog, an annual workshop on topics that are identified by the CoP, and technical assistance to agriculture and nutrition research projects looking at gender issues. To date, the CoP has included a mix of researchers (including training institutions) and development implementers, which has helped ensure tools are being used and programs are better designed, so we can achieve equitable nutrition and health improvements. FP4: SPEAR will host annual learning events for other CRPs to disseminate knowledge generated through the CGIAR system and help enhance the nutrition-sensitivity of research programs. In addition, FP4 will synthesize lessons and develop guidelines for the CGIAR system to help other CRPs address knowledge gaps, capacity and leadership along the agriculture-to-nutrition impact pathways.

143

INDICATORS THAT TRACK PROGRESS AND CONTRIBUTION TO CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT SUB-IDOs All five of the A4NH FPs have identified capacity development sub-IDOs to which their 2022 outcomes will contribute (see PIM Table C). A4NH research will make contributions to all four of these sub-IDOs during Phase II. Indicators for the sub-IDOs are still being identified at CGIAR level. Our Phase II Results Based Management (RBM) system will include SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, time bound) indicators that CRP and flagship leaders can use to assess progress in achieving capacity development outcomes. Here are some potential indicators that A4NH could use in Phase II to track progress and contribution to the capacity development sub-IDOs (see also CRP Section 1.10).

• For Element #2, we could track annually the number of universities or training institutions reporting curricula upgrades or adoption of tools/methods (like pro-WEAI or risk-based approaches to food safety), in their academic, certificate, or other short- or long-term training programs.

• For Element #6, we could track annually the number of countries who have developed (or are developing) evidence generation and use cycles or systems by collaborative engagement involving two or more stakeholders and the number of CRPs (or CGIAR Centers) which are reporting enhanced nutrition sensitivity of programs.

CAPDEV BUDGET AND RESOURCE ALLOCATION Resources required to implement a robust and credible capacity development strategy have been included in the CRP's budget. It is recommended that a credible share of the total CRP budget for capacity development is around 10%, although the amounts may vary in individual flagship budgets. Our estimated budget for capacity development is 10% of the total CRP budget from all funding sources and 10% of the W1/W2 budget for the six-year Phase II period. This allocation will cover the activities described in Table 1 at the end of this Annex.

PMU FP1 FP2 FP3 FP4 FP5 Total % of total Capacity Development (in US$ millions) 0.6 9.33 13.8 11.88 18.43 8.21 62.26 10.1%

144

Figure 1. A4NH Phase II Results Framework

145

Table 1. Examples of capacity development actions in A4NH linked to the ten elements in the CGIAR Capacity Development Framework Element 1: Capacity Needs Assessment and Intervention Strategy Design Medium intensity FP2 • Implement recommendations to strengthen capacity to improve the design of delivery systems that would be effective not just in disseminating seed but in

reaching target consumers (male and female), in response to the Strategic Gender Assessment (2015) FP2 and FP4 • Conduct evaluations of alternative approaches to building capacity within nutrition-sensitive programs, looking at both effectiveness and cost effectiveness, and

synthesize results FP3 • Adapt and validate the training and certification approach, an approach to food safety in informal value chains that focuses on training and certifying informal

traders in better hygiene practices FP4 • Provide more focused response to countries and networking between countries on essential capacities that will allow key nutrition champions to participate

more actively in strategy design • Build on the capacity assessments undertaken in selected African countries under the CAADP/ReSAKKS program

GEE Unit • Plan activities based on assessment of needs and capacities in gender researchers across CGIAR Element 2: Design and Delivery of Innovative Learning Materials and Approaches High intensity All FPs • Establish working groups (on topics TBC) on metrics and methods through the ANH Academy FP1 • Develop and/or adapt learning materials developed under flagship training programs to improve capacity of partners in the analysis of diet change data and in

the use of nutrition-sensitive agriculture and healthy diet tools FP2 • Develop and/or adapt tools for country planning and implementation of breeding and delivery of biofortified varieties FP3 • Upgrade university curricula for risk-based approaches to food safety

• Develop capacity for outreach and communication as well as develop innovative capacity-building packages with key partners including ANH Academy, CTA, PACA, and public services and NGOs

FP4 • Co-develop, with knowledge brokers, evidence synthesis, knowledge translation and knowledge mobilization outputs to create and moderate dialogue between researchers and policy and program actors and decisionmakers

• Design and implement short-courses in a variety of locations for policymakers and practitioners, to introduce new ways of thinking about undernutrition and what to do about it in particular country contexts

• Develop curricula and training materials based on project-level Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture (pro-WEAI) and related concepts and tools, working with AWARD, BRAC University and GREAT (a new BMGF, Cornell, Makerere grant on gender and ag in capacity development) (with GEE unit);

FP5 • Upgrade university curricula for risk-based approaches for multi-disciplinary methods, tools, and approaches for agriculture and health issues Element 3: Develop CRPs and Centers’ Partnering Capacities Medium Intensity All FPs • Identify and build the capacity of partners at the national, regional, and global levels to increase the effectiveness of research and development partnerships Element 4: Develop Future Research Leaders Medium Intensity All FPs • Develop research leaders with good disciplinary skills in nutrition, public health, agriculture, veterinary science and socio-economics who are strong in their own

disciplines and able to work well in a multi-disciplinary, multi-sectoral approach. One example is the BecA-ILRI Hub, a shared agricultural research and biosciences platform that increases access to affordable, world-class research facilities and provides capacity building in research for African scientists.

• Support future multi-disciplinary research leaders, in partnerships with regional academic institutes and programs, and form a community of practice across this broad research area through the ANH Academy (all)

• Collaborate with existing initiatives, including but not limited to, those led by: the African Nutrition Leadership Program, Afrique One, AgroEcoHealth Platform for the West and Central African Region, EVIDENT, Federation of African Nutrition Societies, One Health/Ecohealth Research Centres, Public Health Foundation of India, SACIDS, sandwich research or PhD programs through North-West University (South Africa) and Wageningen UR, and many others, for building research leaders, who are interested in health-sensitive and nutrition-sensitive agriculture research.

146

Element 5: Gender Sensitive Approaches Medium Intensity GEE Unit with input from all FPs

• Expand gender and nutrition CoP led by the GEE unit to help evaluation and gender staff in other CRPs apply state-of-the-art methods and tools • Project partners trained in WEAI methods and tools through formal and informal means (led by GEE unit) • Reflection/learning events to refine pro-WEAI implementation and share findings (led by GEE unit)

Element 6: Institutional Strengthening High Intensity FP1 • Develop individual and institutional food system champions by building the capacity of partners in the analysis of diet change data, the use of nutrition-sensitive

agriculture and healthy diet tools, plus the design and appraisal capacities amongst public and private agents to design, implement and assess innovations and interventions approaches

FP3 • Extend initial efforts with the EAC on evidence for aflatoxin risk and control options through the AU-PACA networks • Provide support to national and regional food safety policy and advocacy forums in key countries and built on current initiatives such as support to the national

food safety policy task force in Vietnam and the regional work on informal dairy markets in East Africa. FP4 • Convene annual global and regional events to look at both innovation and on development outcome demands between agriculture research and nutrition and

health policy and advocacy communities with EU-UNICEF, SUN Civil Society and other networks • Build on past work undertaken by the EVIDENT team on nutrition-relevant capacity in Africa, to develop, test, and document approaches for strengthening

capacity and leadership of key actors and organizations in target countries. FP5 • Link past investments in agriculture-health networks (like from Wellcome Trust in Africa - SACIDS and Afrique One) with coordinated research in the

AgroEcoHealth Platform for the West and Central African region and the LCIRAH One Health program (RVC and LSHTM) to share expertise and models for institutional strengthening among medical and veterinary partners, in particular

Element 7: Monitoring and Evaluation of Capacity Development Medium Intensity All FPs • Monitor A4NH and flagship-level contributions to capacity in a variety of ways as part of the program’s M&E and report on achievement of milestones through

case studies that describe capacity levels in target audiences in the beginning of the Phase II and changes in capacity and institutional strengthening in selected countries.

• Link A4NH M&E to existing systems that monitor capacity development at the Center level (IFPRI Capacity Strengthening program) and country levels (IFPRI Country Strategy Support Programs).

Element 8: Organizational Development Low Intensity FP2 and FP3 • Collaborate with NARS in select countries to change knowledge, attitudes and practices as they relate to mainstreaming biofortification (FP2) and managing food

safety risks (FP3) FP4 • Strengthen national level nutrition taskforces and committees to better integrate nutrition in the national agricultural investment plans in selected countries

(e.g., through CAADP) Element 9: Research on Capacity Development Low Intensity FP4 • Learn from current capacity building approaches (in EVIDENT and ANLP, for example) and apply to approaches in this flagship and across CGIAR Element 10 Capacity to Innovate Low Intensity FP1 and FP4 • Explore innovative opportunities, in country contexts, to strengthen nutrition policy processes as part of food systems (FP1) and nutrition-sensitive agriculture

(FP4)

147

SECTION 3.3

148

Annex 3.3 GENDER STRATEGY Introduction The objective of this annex is to summarize gender-related research and activities in Phase I carried out by the CGIAR Research Program (CRP) on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH), and to describe how it has informed priority-setting in Phase II. This section discusses the role of A4NH’s cross-cutting Gender, Equity and Empowerment (GEE) unit, along with a plan on how gender research will be operationalized in Phase II at both the CRP- and the flagship-levels. Additional details on flagship-specific gender research questions, capacity development activities, and monitoring of gender in A4NH research projects can be found in CRP Section 1.4. A detailed Gender Strategy for A4NH is also available. In Phase I, the GEE unit, based in the A4NH Program Management Unit (PMU), was referred to as the Strategic Gender Unit. The name change reflects a recommendation of the A4NH External Evaluation to pay more attention to equity issues and to highlight A4NH’s increased focus on empowerment issues. See Box 1 for definitions of the terms ‘gender,’ ‘equity,’ and ‘empowerment.’ CRP-level research priorities As a research program that focuses on nutrition and health, women have always been at the forefront of A4NH research because inadequate nutrition affects not only women’s own health, but also the health of their children. Children of nutrition-deficient women are more likely to experience poor physical and cognitive development and a higher risk of morbidity and mortality throughout their lives (Black et al. 2008; Victora et al. 2008). For biological and social reasons (e.g. lack of education, poverty, disempowerment) women are more likely to suffer from nutritional deficiencies than men. At the start of the CRP, most flagship programs (FPs) in A4NH—especially those focused on nutrition—targeted women and collected sex-disaggregated data. However, as Phase I research progressed, A4NH researchers became increasingly aware that gender matters not just for women’s own nutritional status, but also for the pathways linking agriculture to nutrition and health (Box 2) (Kadiyala et al. 2014; Hawkes and Ruel 2006; Herforth and Harris 2014). Thus, gender issues had to be fully incorporated into their research plans. To assist flagship teams in identifying key gender questions and evidence gaps, and in some cases re-orient their research priorities, the GEE unit provided technical assistance to research teams, organized gender workshops, and conducted its own research on strategic gender issues. In Phase I, A4NH’s PMU conducted a detailed inventory of gender research being done in A4NH projects to document the types of gender research questions being asked, and to identify gaps. The inventory highlighted key constraints researchers faced integrating gender into their projects. This was used by the GEE unit to design appropriate capacity building activities, outreach, and technical assistance for A4NH researchers. The inventory also led to the redesign of A4NH’s monitoring system to enable the PMU to track gender integration within projects and their deliverables—a practice that will continue in Phase II. The information generated by the gender monitoring system will be used by flagships and the GEE unit to revise and update research priorities as needed. Although consensus on the pathways exists, as a guiding framework for research and practice on leveraging agriculture for nutrition and health, a number of systematic reviews have pointed to the lack of documentation on the effects of these pathways in practice (Hawkes, Turner, and Waage 2012; Herforth, Jones, and Pinstrup-Andersen 2012; Masset et al. 2012; Ruel and Alderman 2013). The pathways can thus be grouped into three strands of research: (1) impact of gender-based differences on

149

nutrition- and health-related outcome, (2) improving nutrition through women’s empowerment; and (3) avoiding unintended consequences to women’s well-being and empowerment.

A4NH has addressed these research themes in Phase I and will continue to investigate and refine them in Phase II, using diagnostic gender analysis, gender impact studies, and explicit gender-based targeting. The research themes translate into specific research priorities for each flagship, as outlined in CRP Section 1.4. The A4NH Gender Strategy contains the background research on these priorities. Flagship-level research priorities The Value Chains for Nutrition flagship from Phase I (which has now been incorporated in FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets) started off integrating gender into their research by recognizing women as a target group for nutritious products, by collecting sex-disaggregated data, and by studying value chains of products that are of nutritional value. However, no significant gender research questions were being addressed. In Phase I, a framework for studying nutritious value chains was developed (Gelli et al. 2015), recognizing gender as an important variable of analysis. This framework will be used in Phase II to design value chain interventions for achieving improved nutrition and to help explain how gender interacts with different points of the food chain, including in food choices. The GEE unit supported this flagship in Phase I by targeting capacity building activities such as Gender-Nutrition methods workshops to researchers from CGIAR Centers working on nutritious value chains (e.g. ICRAF (fruits), ICRISAT (pulses), and WorldFish (fish-based complementary foods)). GEE also gave small grants and technical assistance to help new research studies to incorporate gender into their design. In Phase II, FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets will support other CRPs through a learning platform (or Community of Practice) to ensure that food system research and food chain assessments examining impacts on diet-related indicators incorporate sex-disaggregated data and gender in their analysis. In this flagship, a detailed review of food systems in target countries will be undertaken, where gender relationships will be viewed as crucial to understanding how food systems work, along with implications of agriculture and food policies on different gender groups. An Associate Research Fellow hired as part of the CGIAR Gender Post-doctoral Fellowship will help integrate gender and nutrition into agro-food value chains research. The HarvestPlus program under FP2: Biofortification undertook an ex-ante analysis in its initial phase (pre-dating the start of A4NH) (Lividini and Fiedler 2015; Birol et al. 2014), which incorporated sex-disaggregation, setting the overall priorities for the HarvestPlus program. At that stage, the focus of HarvestPlus was on technical feasibility and not much weight was given to gender concerns apart from recognizing women as a key group in consumer acceptance studies. As it shifted towards delivery of biofortified crops, the flagship commissioned gender experts to carry out a strategic gender assessment (SGA) of the HarvestPlus program. The findings of the SGA suggested opportunities to improve the integration of gender considerations in hypothesis development, data collection, and analysis. These are being continuously implemented and gender-responsive programming will continue into Phase II. This includes re-analyzing previously collected data through a gender lens, and recognizing intra-household dynamics and gender issues by including the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI) in assessment studies on the adoption of biofortified crops. The HarvestPlus Monitoring, Learning and Assessment (MLA) team has started collecting sex-disaggregated data with the intention of closely tracking gender issues and identifying gender-related concerns to improve program design and delivery methods. A gender consultant was hired in Phase I and there are plans for hiring a gender coordinator in Phase II in order to improve gender integration in the program.

150

Technical assistance was also provided to projects within FP3: Food Safety which resulted in a paper on gender and food safety (Grace et al. 2015) and the construction of the Women’s Empowerment in Livestock Index (WELI) as part of a project in Tanzania. There is now a greater understanding of men’s and women’s differential exposure to agriculture-related risks and health outcomes and these findings have been used to formulate research questions for Phase II (see CRP Section 1.4). In Phase II, there will be greater integration of gender issues in aflatoxin research, recognition of the importance of involving women to achieve food safety impacts and of supporting them to engage in emerging formal markets, and the development of tools and metrics on assessing food safety which will consider gender-based barriers to adoption of technologies that reduce foodborne disease risks. In Phase I, FP4: Supporting Policies, Programs, and Enabling Action through Research (SPEAR) has made considerable progress in mainstreaming gender, as projects have evolved from merely targeting women, to incorporating gender issues in evaluation design and analysis, and conducting research on approaches to empower women. Projects within this flagship have generated datasets, online tools, and journal publications with a significant gender focus, which have been disseminated to stakeholders through workshops and learning sessions. In Phase II, this knowledge will be used to explore a variety of new platforms to empower women in agriculture and new approaches to sensitize men about gender roles and women’s equity while acknowledging the diversity and complexity of social and gender relations embedded within current agri-nutrition conceptual frameworks. For example, joint research on women’s empowerment and nutrition with the CRP on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM) (Sraboni et al. 2014; van den Bold, Quisumbing, and Gillespie 2013) has informed the development of a pilot study being implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture in Bangladesh in which different modalities for nutrition and gender-sensitive agriculture will be evaluated. The different roles men and women play in agricultural systems indicate their differential exposure to agriculture-associated health risks (Grace et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2006). This area still remains under-researched within A4NH, and one of the knowledge gaps we aim to fill in Phase II is the interaction of gender with agriculture and health linkages. GEE began paying closer attention to these linkages in Phase I. A seminar was held on the influence of health on gender dynamics in rural livelihoods and blog posts on this topic have been published on the A4NH Gender Nutrition Idea Exchange. The new flagship on Improving Human Health (FP5) provides an opportunity to explore questions around gender differentials in exposure to health risks, gender differences in health benefits from agriculture, how decisionmaking around agricultural intensification can be made gender-inclusive, and how men can be engaged to play a greater role in supporting better health outcomes. This flagship is jointly managed by an external partner, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), and A4NH hopes to draw upon their extensive research expertise on gender issues in public health. Strategic cross-cutting gender research In addition to gender research within the five flagships, in Phase I, GEE conducted its own research on strategic issues and developed tools and methods which are being utilized by A4NH research projects and have helped flagships develop research. Four priority themes (see CRP Section 3.4) have been identified which fill important knowledge gaps (both globally and within flagships) on gender, nutrition, health, and agriculture. A summary of background research on themes can be found in the A4NH Gender Strategy. A4NH will continue to invest in research that builds evidence on key conceptual and methodological questions, and develop and validate indicators, tools, and metrics that can be used to measure impact along the pathways. A significant stream of strategic gender and nutrition research in A4NH will be

151

conducted in 2015-2020 as part of the second phase of the Gender, Agriculture, and Assets Project (GAAP2), which will adapt and validate a project-level Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (pro-WEAI) that agricultural development projects can use to diagnose key areas of women’s (and men’s) disempowerment, design appropriate strategies to address deficiencies, and monitor project outcomes related to women’s empowerment. GAAP2 research will generate the first systematic body of evidence on how different types of agriculture projects can improve gender equity and improve nutrition and health outcomes, to be utilized in future A4NH research projects and to inform new A4NH research priorities. Operationalization of gender in A4NH Objectives and outcomes of gender research A4NH research will contribute to the cross-cutting issue on Gender and Youth, and in particular, to the sub-IDOs (Intermediate Development Outcomes) on gender-equitable control of productive assets and resources, and improved capacity of women and young people to participate in decisionmaking. Table 1 presents some proposed outcomes of the gender research undertaken by A4NH and how these will be verified and tracked as research progresses. The A4NH gender theory of change (CRP Section 1.4) outlines how we expect gender research to be taken up by flagships, other CRPs, and research users outside CGIAR. Budget Although A4NH has made good progress on gender research in Phase I, as noted by the external evaluation, more human and financial resources will need to be invested in implementing the gender strategy for Phase II. The proposed annual base budget is about $367,000 of Window 1/Window 2 (W1/W2) funds and more than $8 million in total from bilateral funds, to support cross-cutting work on gender1, in addition to dedicated funds allocated for gender research for each flagship. About 25% of the base W1/W2 budget ($560,000 in total) will co-finance strategic gender and nutrition research as part of GAAP2 in 2015-2020. The remaining 75% of this base W1/W2 budget ($273,000 annually) will be used to support coordination and capacity building work, including a core gender team2 and for funding workshops and other outreach activities. An expanded team will be formed, subject to additional funds from an uplift budget. See Table 2 for team composition for the two different budget scenarios. With an expanded mandate, the GEE unit intends to add expertise on equity and empowerment, to ensure adequate attention is given to equity issues. Other major expenditure areas subject to the uplift budget include workshops, outreach and other capacity-building activities, and small grants to A4NH-mapped research projects. In the research flagships, gender funds may be used to hire gender experts, add gendered research components to existing studies, and establish strategic partnerships to complement CRP-level efforts. Table 3 shows the estimated distribution of funds from the base budget allocated for gender across the flagships and CRP-level cross-cutting programs for Phase II.

1 This includes $5 million for GAAP2 plus additional funds that the A4NH PMU plans to raise in Phase II 2 Detailed descriptions of these positions can be found in the A4NH Gender Strategy

152

Box 1: Definitions of gender, equity and empowerment

Gender Social category usually associated with being a man or a woman. It encompasses economic, social, political, and cultural attributes and opportunities as well as roles and responsibilities

Equity Based on the idea of moral equality i.e. the principle that people should be treated as equals and that despite many differences, all people share a common humanity or human dignity. The three principles of equity are: equal life chances, equal concern for people’s needs and meritocracy

Empowerment Expansion of people’s ability to make strategic life choices, particularly in contexts where this ability had been denied to them

Source: Gender (Rubin, Manfre, and Barrett 2009), Equity (Jones 2009), Empowerment (Kabeer 2001)

Box 2: Pathways from agriculture to nutrition and health

1. Agriculture as a source of food: Farmers produce for own consumption. 2. Agriculture as a source of income for food and non-food expenditures: As a major source of

rural income, agriculture influences diets and other nutrition- and health-relevant expenditures.

3. Agricultural policy and food prices: Agricultural conditions can change the relative prices and affordability of specific foods and foods in general.

4. Women’s roles in agriculture and intrahousehold decision making and resource allocation may be influenced by agricultural activities and gendered control of assets, which in turn influences intrahousehold allocations of food, health, and care.

5. Maternal employment in agriculture and child care and feeding: A mother’s ability to care for her child may be influenced by her engagement in agriculture.

6. Women in agriculture and maternal nutrition and health status: Maternal health and nutritional status may be compromised by the often arduous and hazardous conditions of agricultural labor, which may in turn influence child nutrition outcomes.

Source: Kadiyala et al., 2014

153

Table 1: Selected proposed milestones of gender research

Flagship Research Milestones Means of verification FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets

• Identification and design of gender-sensitive interventions to improve diets in key countries

• At least four gender-sensitive interventions co-designed and tested with local platforms, partners, and stakeholders in key countries and/or additional countries

Proposals for 2 interventions in each country developed (with gender analysis components) and submitted for funding Age- and sex-disaggregated datasets generated as part of intervention testing made available; Reports on key leverage points available; policy briefs on evidence of key food systems innovations available

FP2: Biofortification

• Lessons learned about factors (e.g., gender, equity) facilitating and hindering adoption and consumption developed and widely disseminated for use in decisionmaking by partner and implementing organizations

• Efficacy of multiple biofortified crops in culturally accepted combinations for women of child bearing age and for children 6-24 months of age, and results are incorporated into decisionmaking tools

Publications (include gender and equity analysis); Head of Impact Head of Nutrition; Publications (include gender analysis)

FP3: Food Safety • Evidence from Phases I and II is turned into gender-sensitive guidelines for traders and policy/regulators in at least two types of value chains (dairy, fish, vegetables) in target countries

Monitoring reports; publications which include a section on gender

• At least 40 public sector agencies and agri-businesses adopt gender-sensitive aflatoxin mitigation technologies (Aflasafe, post-harvest practices and aflatoxin testing) for reducing aflatoxin in crop value chains

Partner reporting; tracking (including gender indicators) of implementation of regulations and policy

FP4: Supporting Policies, Programs and Enabling Action through Research (SPEAR)

• Discourse, attitudes, behaviours, practices on cross-sectoral nutrition-sensitive agriculture incorporate new knowledge/ approaches on climate change and gender relations

• Program implementers (governments, INGOs, NGOs, UN institutions) have increased understanding of (gendered) impact of nutrition-sensitive agriculture programs and improved capacity to use evidence, tools and methods in program design resulting in 16.8 million women and children in target countries benefitting from improved nutrition-sensitive programs being implemented by partner organizations and governments

Annual reporting (which include gender) from partners; citations in official policy statements and documents Tracking of program implementing partners through targeted interviews and reviews of documents on nutrition-sensitive agriculture programming, investments and best practices in 2018, 2021 and 2024

FP5: Improving Human Health

• Third theme-based symposia involving natural and social scientists from health and agriculture held to identify and develop research areas, recognizing gender and equity issues

• Field trials of methods to reduce disease risks in irrigated crop production systems, based on initial assessments of Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of household farming communities in relation to vectors and vector-borne disease problems (including household decisionmaking and role of women), completed in sites in West and East Africa

Event reports; gender sessions in symposia Monitoring and evaluation reports that include gender indicators

Cross-cutting: Gender, equity & empowerment

• A4NH flagships and other CRPs use A4NH tools and approaches to measure gender, assets and empowerment

• Institutions incorporate pro-WEAI tools and approaches into their academic and certificate programs for development professionals

Monitoring database; GAAP2 annual monitoring and final evaluation; web searches on "pro-WEAI" to identify other users

Source: A4NH Phase II proposal, Performance Indicator Matrix Table D

154

Table 2: GEE Gender Team composition under different budget scenarios (FTE = Full time equivalent)

Position Core gender team (base budget)

Expanded gender team (uplift budget)

Gender research coordinator 33% FTE 67% FTE IFPRI-based Senior Research Assistants/Research Analysts

20% FTE 200% FTE

Region-based Research Assistants - 150% FTE

Gender postdoctoral fellow 50% FTE - Senior gender advisor 8% FTE 25% FTE Senior equity consultant $20,000 annually $50,000 annually

Table 3: Distribution of proposed Phase II gender budget by flagship

Flagships Budget (in US$ millions) FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets 4.7 FP2: Biofortification 4.6 FP3: Food Safety 0.8 FP4: SPEAR 43.5 FP5: Improving Human Health 2.7 Cross-cutting: Gender, Equity and Empowerment 10.9 Total budget for gender 67.2 % of total A4NH Phase II base budget 11%

155

SECTION 3.4

156

Annex 3.4 YOUTH Introduction The recognition and integration of youth issues in agriculture, nutrition, and health is an under-explored topic, providing an opportunity for the CGIAR Research Program (CRP) on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) to better understand this relationship and to contribute evidence on this theme. A4NH can learn from and build on its experiences with gender targeting and integrating gender issues into agriculture and nutrition, in order to make A4NH research teams more cognizant of incorporating youth issues into their research design and analysis. A4NH will contribute to the Gender and Youth cross-cutting Intermediate Development Outcome (IDO) on equity and inclusion achieved’ specifically the sub-IDO on improved capacity of women and young people to participate in decision-making. Rationale Demographic transitions in developing countries have raised concerns about the burgeoning youth population (aged 15 – 24)1. This brings challenges for young people, especially with respect to unemployment, underemployment, and poverty (International Fund for Agricultural Development 2014) and in rural areas. The agricultural sector is seen as an important avenue for addressing these challenges. Sumberg et al. 2012 use the phrase ‘opportunity space’ to describe the options available to a young person, which they may exploit to create an independent life. Within agri-food systems, young people can take up a range of roles (e.g. as producers, employees, and consumers). Changes in agri-food systems and agrarian relations impact this opportunity space and influence the ability of youth to take advantage, thus affecting their capacity and willingness to engage with agriculture as a source of livelihood. Youth is a time period of transition from childhood into adulthood, and is crucial window for interventions focusing on changing knowledge, attitudes, and practices about dietary choices, food safety, and agricultural production, since young people are forming opinions and building their ability to make independent decisions. Adolescent nutrition, specifically for girls, is important with respect to the life cycle approach to nutrition because it has implications for maternal nutrition. Age is also an important factor in intra-household decisionmaking, as young people, especially young wives or daughters-in-law, may not be empowered to make decisions on factors such as food, healthcare, and childcare, which affect nutritional and health outcome. Integrated programs in agriculture and nutrition are increasingly taking this into consideration while designing programs. How does the youth strategy contribute to A4NHs overall objectives? Indicators and targets The A4NH Results Framework, which describes the development outcomes to which A4NH contributes, includes nutrition and health outcomes (second System Level Outcome or SLO2). For biological reasons, both sex and age matter for identifying beneficiary populations and defining indicators and targets for these outcomes. Young women in their adolescent years are an important target group of A4NH due to their roles in reproduction and in the 1,000 day window of opportunity (time between a child’s conception and second birthday). Recent research has highlighted adolescence as a key window to reach girls and invest

1 A4NH is using the United Nations’ definition of youth

157

in their health and nutrition, including education on infant and young child feeding practices (IYCF) (Hackett et al. 2015). Moreover, adolescent girls are a nutritionally vulnerable group, as they are more susceptible to micronutrient deficiencies, such as anemia (Black et al. 2013). Pregnancies during adolescence have a high risk of complications in mothers and children, along with poorer birth outcomes. This is especially concerning in developing countries where adolescent pregnancies are three times as common as in high-income countries (Black et al. 2013). Overnutrition, a growing concern in developing countries and an increasing priority in A4NH, affects men, women, and children of all ages. However, more research is needed to define target groups, and age is likely to be an important factor. Similarly, age will also be an important factor in defining health indicators and identifying target populations at risk for specific diseases. Impact pathways Youth, like gender, is a relevant consideration along the three A4NH impact pathways, which include:

1. Supporting value chain actors to enhance and protect the nutritional content of nutritious foods along the value chain, while mitigating key food safety risks (agri-food value chains pathway);

2. Supporting development implementers to increase the effectiveness of their programming that brings together agriculture, nutrition, and health (development programs pathway); and

3. Supporting governments and donors to improve the enabling environment and create better informed, targeted, and implemented policies (policies pathway).

There is a growing body of evidence which states that stage-of-life and position in the household and community (both of which are related, but are socially, rather than biologically determined) influence decisionmaking about adoption of specific technologies or livelihood strategies (farm or non-farm) and also in decisions about food purchase, preparation, and consumption (Duflo and Udry 2004; Doss 2011; Sraboni et al. 2014). Marketers have long known this and have targeted their products and services to specific demographic categories. Agricultural research aiming to improve value chain and food system performance will need to do the same thing. Since A4NH is particularly focused on demand, rather than supply of food, it is crucial to understand how age-related factors shape consumer food choices and how interventions can influence outcomes. In the development programs pathways, A4NH research outputs support implementers of integrated agriculture-nutrition programs to be more cost-effective in reaching their objectives. These programs increasingly focus on gender issues in household decisionmaking about food, care, and health (Olney et al. 2015). A recent innovation is to focus not just on mothers, but also to consider how other households and even community members (husbands, mothers-in-law, elders) influence these decisions and to engage with all of them to change behavior and empower younger women to make more informed choices. Research also looks at how adolescent boys can be engaged, along with adolescent girls, to address issues, such as early marriage and childbearing (Ricardo and Verani 2010). In the policies pathway, youth can feature as a group with distinct concerns that should be highlighted in the development of agriculture, health, and other cross-sectoral policies.

158

Youth issues in A4NH: entry-points to be explored in Phase II Recognizing youth as a social category The starting point of integrating youth issues into research on ANH is to recognize youth as a group that needs to be studied. Several A4NH research projects already collect data disaggregated by age and sex. A first step would be to use existing data to look for systematic differences between youth and other groups, in terms of research questions or project outcomes. Since youth is socially defined, it will be important to include qualitative work, and to understand how age-related norms influence behavior and outcomes. Research projects that are yet to start may be asked to think about whether and how youth issues are relevant to their objectives and how they could incorporate them, even in exploratory ways, into their data collection and analysis. As youth is not a socially homogenous group (Anyidoho et al. 2012), our youth strategy intersects with our gender strategy, taking into consideration gender and other forms of inequity (such as class or ethnicity), all of which affect the ‘opportunity space’. For example, in Flagship Program (FP) 3: Food Safety, ongoing research on informal markets in Africa will recognize youth as a group that is more likely to find employment in informal markets where food safety concerns are higher. Evaluations done in FP4: SPEAR on integrated agriculture and nutrition programs will expand their focus from children beyond 1,000 days to adolescent girls, and will measure impacts over longer time horizons to capture intergenerational effects. Defining health-related outcomes, indicators, and targets An important area of work in Phase II will be refining targets for health-related IDOs, and age is likely to be an important factor in terms of indicators and targets. This research will be done under Flagship 5: Improving Human Health, which will engage with the wider CGIAR community to support the development of these indicators. Raise the profile: current research on age-sensitive approaches Young people tend to be more receptive to change than older generations (The United Nations Population Fund 2008). One argument for prioritizing research on youth and agriculture discussed in the CGIAR Workshop on youth in agriculture was: “Research can propose age-sensitive methodologies for awareness raising, capacity building and decisionmaking processes, which is crucial for a socially inclusive and sustainable adoption of new technologies and access to markets.” Research on this aspect of youth can contribute to the sub-IDO of ‘improved capacity of women and young people to participate in decisionmaking.’ There are several areas within current A4NH research that already use an age-sensitive approach. For example, the flagship on integrated programs and policies in Phase I uses innovative ways of behavior change communication to raise awareness on nutrition issues in young girls. HarvestPlus recognizes the appeal of local musicians to young people in their multimedia campaign to promote biofortified products under the current flagship on biofortification. In Phase II, our goal is to make age-sensitive methodologies more explicit and informative, linking to well-defined research questions. HarvestPlus, under their research on delivery science, will focus on youth involvement in adoption of biofortified crops as one of the key areas where evidence is needed to facilitate and improve delivery. FP4: SPEAR will further explore the use of agriculture platforms, such as homegrown school feeding programs, to reach adolescent girls. Research under FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets on the impact of transforming food systems on diets can gain additional insights by applying an age-sensitive lens and recognizing youth as consumers. Demographic changes can be viewed as one force contributing to the evolving nature of food systems, as tastes and preferences of younger

159

people may differ from older generations. Youth can also be viewed as a catalyst for bringing about positive changes in food systems, to make them more responsive to nutrition and health concerns. Operationalizing youth in research The previous section outlines some preliminary ways of incorporating youth issues into A4NH research. A first step in exploring these entry-points is to identify a well-defined methodological framework for incorporating youth into agriculture-nutrition-health linkages. A4NH will draw on existing literature on this topic, in consultation with the CRP on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM) and with others who have done extensive research on youth issues, in order to formulate a coherent framework for research, identify important evidence gaps, and develop potential research questions. Based on these priorities, A4NH will seek appropriate partnerships to raise funds and conduct more in-depth youth-specific research to fill these evidence gaps. A4NH views youth as a potential source of inequity, which falls under the mandate of the Gender, Equity and Empowerment unit (GEE). Thus, the A4NH PMU will be responsible for coordinating and implementing the youth strategy across the CRP. To provide additional expertise on broader equity issues, including youth issues, a Senior Gender and Equity Advisor will be recruited as part of the expanded gender team proposed in the Gender Strategy (Annex 3.3). An analysis of youth issues will be included in a review of social equity in A4NH, recommended by the external evaluation, and planned for early 2017 (refer to Annex 3.5). Links with other CRPs Studies on young people’s perspective on farming as a means of employment show that youth have a negative attitude towards farming, which raises concerns about the exit of young people from farming (Leavy and Hossain 2014; Sumberg et al. 2015). CRPs, such as PIM and WHEAT, focus their youth strategies on promoting opportunities for rural young people, understanding the impacts of the youth employment challenge and engaging youth with farming and agri-food system development. A4NH will add to the work being done by these CRPs by focusing on how agricultural employment for youth can be made nutrition-sensitive, how to ensure that it is not detrimental to health, how transforming food systems can be made youth-inclusive, and ensuring agricultural interventions targeted towards youth recognize their unique health and nutritional needs.

160

SECTION 3.5

161

Annex 3.5 RESULTS-BASED MANAGEMENT

A4NH APPROACH TO RESULTS-BASED MANAGEMENT (RBM) AND MONITORING, EVALUATION,

LEARNING, AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT (MELIA) STRATEGY FOR PHASE II1 I. A4NH Results-Based Management (RBM) Framework

A. Purpose Annex 3.5 provides the conceptual underpinnings and operational approaches that guide how decisions will be made within the program based on a clear intent to achieve specific results, including how the program will learn and adapt to retain its relevance and focus. Annex 3.5 also explains the role of monitoring, evaluation, and impact assessment within a results-based management (RBM) system, providing an evidence base to inform decisions. B. A4NH results framework and nested approach to impact pathways and theories of change The current A4NH results framework (Figure 1) describes the main components of the program and the main research and development outcomes and impacts to which activities and outputs of our collaborative research program are expected to contribute. Each of the five A4NH flagship programs (FPs) has its own impact pathway, a sequence of outcomes, which describes how its activities and outputs, together with contributions from cross-cutting units such as Gender, Equity and Empowerment (GEE),2 are expected to contribute to immediate and intermediate development outcomes. Within each FP, another set of impact pathways are nested, which provide more detail on the causal chain from specific outputs and related activities to outcomes. For these pathways, most of which are at cluster of activity (CoA) level, we also identify and assess the assumptions and risks that underlie anticipated linkages in the sequence of outcomes. Cluster-level theories of change (ToCs) include impact pathways and assumptions, and are based on the current portfolio of projects in the FP, allowing them to be useful tools for real-time management and monitoring. As an integrating CRP (ICRP), A4NH has a mandate to engage not only in collaborative research, but also to support networking, learning, and bridging activities to support other CRPs in achieving their nutrition and health outcomes. Following the suggestion of the A4NH external evaluation panel, we will develop separate ToCs to plan and monitor progress of A4NH investment in these networking, learning, and bridging activities. These initial ToCs will be further developed as specific activities are identified together with other CRPs during Phase II.

C. Approach to RBM According to the 2nd Call Full Proposal Guidance, RBM is “the proactive gathering of information on performance and progress towards results, providing managers at different levels with the needed flexibility to be able to use that information to manage towards results, and to reallocate resources (budget, staff) in order to maximize results.” Both accountability and adaptive management are central

1 Annex 3.5 is based on a template recommended by the CGIAR Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Community of Practice (MEL CoP). The outline follows the general outline of that document. Italicized text is taken directly from it or from other common sources (e.g., the commitment by ICRPs to develop an integrated online platform for monitoring and evaluation). 2 The GEE unit contributes both to A4NH core research and to supporting other CRPs. For the former, the contributions are included in the FP impact pathways. For the latter, they are included in a separate ToC, found in the gender strategy.

162

to RBM. Since RBM is fundamentally about management, it requires a way to link results to real-time decisions that CRP managers make in the implementation of a collaborative, multi-institutional, multi-donor, research-for-development program. Annex 3.5 describes the CRP-level framework and strategy, however it is important to keep in mind that management occurs at multiple levels, including the FP level, which is key. While the principles and processes are the same, the implementation of RBM will differ across FPs depending on the nature and stage of research, and on how research is organized and managed. In research, the timeframe for management decisions is often very different from the timeframe in which results (outcomes and impacts) can be observed. Nonetheless, the ToCs, as described above, can be useful for RBM in all stages of research. While the actual outcomes and impacts at scale occur after research is complete, it is often possible to track more immediate research outcomes in real-time. In addition, the plausibility of the ToC and the likelihood of longer-term outcomes and impacts can be assessed and revised as research progresses. The A4NH approach to RBM focuses on a combination of documenting evidence of achievements, including outputs and research outcomes—a focus of the monitoring strategy—and on building a convincing case that longer-term development outcomes and impacts are likely to be achieved cost-effectively—a focus of the learning strategy. To support RBM and to comply with the requirement for “Interoperable Tools to Support RBM Implementation,” A4NH is participating in a joint effort with the other ICRPs to develop an online monitoring and evaluation (M&E) tool. A4NH, CCAFS, PIM and WLE have agreed on the fundamental conditions of a single, integrated online platform to be in place from 2017 onwards. The process of designing this platform began in February 2016. The advantages of cross-CRP collaboration on a single platform include reduced transaction and management costs, standardization of nomenclature and frameworks, and, with time, the integration and aggregation of data across the participant CRPs. This is expected to benefit both the CRPs involved, and the CGIAR system as a whole (with and through the System Office), in terms of providing automated data and information on planning through the annual plan of work and budget, reporting, and with time, on progress towards the system level outcomes (SLOs) in the CGIAR Strategy and Results Framework (SRF). The system will be interoperable, enabling data to be accessible and usable by other CRPs and the System Office. The online tool covers the CRP program and project management cycles, including pre-/ and planning, monitoring, reporting, and synthesis. The platform is structured around the ToC at programmatic, cluster and project levels enabling the inclusion and review of key results and assumptions on a periodic basis. It is primarily a program management tool designed to address the requirements from a programmatic (CRP) perspective, as well as contribution to the CGIAR SRF. The platform being developed is based on the existing CCAFS planning and reporting system which is being modified to meet the requirements of each CRP while adhering to common principles. II. Monitoring, Evaluation, Learning and Impact Assessment (MELIA)

A. Monitoring The A4NH monitoring plan will consist of a continuous process of data collection and analysis based on the major outputs and outcomes expected each year, and on key assumptions and risks identified in the ToCs. The monitoring plan will be updated annually based on each year’s results. In Phase II, A4NH monitoring will move towards a programmatic approach, which forms the core of the integrated online platform for M&E we are co-developing with the other ICRPs. Given the share of the budget taken by Window 3/bilateral financing, and the associated monitoring and reporting

163

requirements contained within these separate contracts, the focus of A4NH’s monitoring will be more intense for Window 1/Window 2 (W1/W2) financing, and on the contribution of all projects (regardless of funding source) to key outputs and outcomes in the program-level ToCs. This approach avoids duplication as Centers, not CRPs, monitor the achievement of deliverables and outcomes produced by individual W3/bilateral projects. It also enables us to better understand how the W3/bilateral projects contribute to FP- and CRP-level outputs and outcomes. This approach allows A4NH to focus on the programmatic results achieved through coordination across projects, Centers, and partners. We anticipate that, with time, project- and program-level monitoring will be harmonized, as Center researchers become more familiar with RBM processes and are able to develop projects that map directly to A4NH research questions, outputs, and ToCs. Responsibility for implementing the monitoring plan will be shared between FP leaders, the cross-cutting unit on Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL), and other members of the A4NH Program Management Unit (PMU). In most cases, documenting progress on outputs and immediate outcomes is part of A4NH projects and therefore the regular work of FP leaders, researchers, and project teams (including partners). In some cases, however, additional technical or financial resources will be required to adequately document an outcome. These resources will come from the MEL unit. A set of indicators for intermediate development outcomes (IDOs) to which A4NH will be contributing is included in Other Annexes (Potential Indicators for Key IDOs to which A4NH Contributes). Indicators at other levels will be developed during the operational phase after proposal submission, working together with other ICRPs and the CGIAR MEL CoP as appropriate. B. Evaluation Following guidance from the CGIAR Independent Evaluation Arrangement (IEA): A4NH will operationalize a rolling evaluation plan to build credible evaluative evidence to support decisionmaking and lessons for improved and more cost-effective programming. This rolling plan will include CRP Commissioned External Evaluations (CCEEs), impact assessments, and other studies identified by CRP management. In Phase I, A4NH conducted FP-level external evaluations on food safety, gender in biofortification,3 as well as an overall CRP evaluation. Several large bilaterally-funded projects in A4NH also underwent external evaluations commissioned by donors, including HarvestPlus (Abt Associates Inc. 2012), LANSA, and Transform Nutrition.4 Selection of CCEEs in Phase II will comply with IEA guidance5 and will focus on areas not covered in Phase I. We will coordinate with other CRPs where possible. Our proposed plan for CCEEs and reviews is presented in Table 1. A4NH management and governance bodies will review this plan annually to ensure it meets its needs for accountability and learning purposes. C. Impact assessment Globally, impacts are defined as the positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. Within the CGIAR, impacts are described as the consequences of the CRPs on the state of selected development variables concerning the SLOs, which are themselves related to the Sustainable Development Goals.

3 The Strategic Gender Assessment (2014) is not a public document. It can be obtained upon request from HarvestPlus. 4 Reports available upon request 5 The CCEEs will cover at least half of the budgeted activities of a flagship in a cycle in line with the CGIAR IEA’s Guidance for CCEEs (January 2015).

164

There is increasing recognition that interventions that contribute to complex, indirect causal chains, with multiple partnerships, and with data limitations require a broad range of methods to evaluate effectively, especially at the impact level. Therefore, A4NH will adopt a mixed-methods approach to evaluate its performance, including impact evaluations, adoption studies, and ex-ante and ex-post impact assessments, defined as follows.

• Impact evaluations allow for the rigorous estimation of the impact of an intervention based on CGIAR research on IDO- or even SLO-level outcomes (See “Potential Indicators for Key IDOs to which A4NH Contributes” in Other Annexes). The goal of these studies is to get an accurate and unbiased estimate of the size of the impact on development outcomes; to achieve this, a rigorous and costly methodology (e.g., an experimental or quasi experimental design) is generally required. As a result, the studies are usually done at small scale (hundreds or thousands of participants). These studies are more appropriate for some types of research (e.g., technologies that can be adopted at the individual, household or possibly community level) than others (e.g., policy research). These types of studies are generally conducted as part of the research agenda of a specific FP. Given the cost of the studies, they tend to be funded largely through W3/bilateral grants.

• Adoption studies focus on uptake of research outputs at scale. They do not generate estimates

of impacts on impact indicators; however they are important for documenting uptake and for understanding the factors that facilitate and constrain uptake (such as gender) among particular target groups (including women). In this sense, they are complementary to impact evaluations, and the combination of adoption studies and impact evaluations can make a convincing case for impact at scale. While household surveys are a common approach for tracking uptake of research outputs by ultimate beneficiaries, adoption studies can be done with other types of methods to document use of research outputs by different types of users.

• Impact assessments estimate the IDO- and SLO-level benefits of use at scale of research

outputs. A variety of methods are possible, generally based on secondary data, modeling or on expert opinion.

This section describes the studies that A4NH has planned for Phase II (Table 2). Additional studies may be identified as part of the monitoring plan as well as by the programming needs for prioritization of research and improved performance. The types of indicators that will be assessed, mainly at IDO and SLO level, can be found in “Potential Indicators for Key IDOs to which A4NH Contributes” in Other Annexes. D. Reporting The annual CGIAR reporting process will be the key method for A4NH to describe its progress and results achieved as established in the FP ToCs. Reporting of results will be conducted at the output and outcomes levels, and when possible, at the impact level. A review of data collected on indicators, assumptions and risks will serve as guides for reporting on results. As part of this process, A4NH will also document any lessons and changes to the implementation of the program, including to the ToCs and monitoring plan. The integrated online platform is designed to support the reporting process across all partners involved in A4NH. For example, the interoperability features of the platform will reduce some of the reporting burdens cited during Phase I and will make information products produced by A4NH more discoverable in the multiple online repositories hosting A4NH generated information products, a

165

principle of open access/open data management.6 By introducing a common system across all ICRPs, the system will be more user-friendly, will reduce transaction costs, and will minimize error and double-counting. E. Learning Learning takes place continuously in a research program, so our strategy focuses specifically on learning to support RBM. RBM-focused learning will take place at all levels of the program, however the focus in A4NH will be on FPs, where detailed ToCs can be tested and validated, with results contributing to RBM. In line with RBM principles, A4NH will operationalize a variety of measures to support learning from information collected during M&E and from external evaluations. A4NH will integrate these measures as part of its planning and reporting cycle with clear roles and responsibilities. Some specific measures are described below. Annually reviewing and revising ToCs based on evidence collected, and to the extent possible, conducting contribution analysis to reflect and strengthen A4NH performance. Analysis of information generated by the integrated online platform is a key source of learning, and will generate lessons about particular outputs and outcomes. These results, together with information from other sources gathered from researcher and partner experience, will be used to regularly assess and update the ToC. Part of this assessment involves whether the pathway itself is appropriately specified. Another part is whether the links in the pathway are likely to hold, something that can be assessed by looking at underlying assumptions and risks. As part of developing A4NH ToCs, an initial assessment of evidence for assumptions and the likelihood of outcomes has already been conducted (Johnson, Atherstone, and Grace 2015; Johnson et al. 2015; Johnson, Guedenet, and Saltzman 2015). The status of evidence will be regularly re-assessed and updated by FP and cluster teams, with support from MEL specialists. Over time, the ToCs of the individual FPs and the overall CRP will become more robust. The ToC papers produced in Phase I reflect one approach to assessing the strength of ToCs. Other approaches are also possible, and FP teams, working together with MEL specialists, will identify an approach, or approaches that work best for their FP, considering what will be most useful for internal FP management and what will be viewed as most credible for external CRP and FP stakeholders.

Annually reflecting on performance and risk information collected throughout the year, adjusting and prioritizing implementation in line with the evidence collected, and implementing and adjusting mitigation measures to properly manage risk. In all FPs, learning will be built into regular, annual planning and reporting. FP work plans will explicitly detail learning objectives for the coming year and reporting will include changes to the FP that were made on the basis of lessons learned from the previous year. How the FP operationalizes learning will vary depending on the stage of research and the nature of each FP. For example, FP2: Biofortification has formal management structures through HarvestPlus that regularly review progress (see FP2 Section for more detail). Starting in 2015, a Monitoring, Learning, and Action (MLA) functional team with an annual budget of $1 million was formed and is specifically charged with supporting learning from the program’s delivery at scale in nine target countries. In other FPs, learning is likely to be less formal, though in FPs with a larger number of Centers and external partners, learning events may need to be more deliberately planned than in FPs where there are fewer Centers and where FP and Center management responsibilities are closely aligned.

6 We will explore harmonizing approaches with Centers to facilitate this. Some Centers are planning to use the same system being developed by ICRPs.

166

Documenting lessons learned and best practices, including knowledge management and information sharing. In Phase I, we held semi-annual meetings of center focal points (CFP) and planning and management committee (PMC) members. However, the external evaluation revealed dissatisfaction with these events due to the heavy focus on management and administrative issues, leaving limited time for discussion of science. Therefore, in Phase II, we will transfer the CFP management functions to management representatives from the seven A4NH managing partners. Technical focal points and/or A4NH-affiliated researchers from partnering centers and institutes will be invited to attend an annual scientific meeting with specific learning objectives, hosted by A4NH. The CoPs and other learning platforms that A4NH supports through specific FPs and cross-cutting units will contribute to the learning agendas of other CRPs and our own. Ensuring that our investments in CoP activities are aligned with the priorities and learning objectives of other CRPs is a key assumption in the ToC for our integrative work. CoP activities will be co-developed with other CRPs, and their usefulness to and influence on other CRPs will be tracked and assessed. Once FP-level learning plans are developed, a CRP-level plan will also be developed with the goal of facilitating cross-FP and CGIAR-system level learning. One way that we will contribute to system-level learning about RBM and MEL is through participation in the CGIAR MEL CoP.

III. Budget Allocation to MELIA Resources required to implement a robust and credible MELIA strategy have been included in the CRP's budget (Table 3 - below). This allocation will cover the elements included in the table. For the MEL elements (excluding impact assessment) of the strategy, it is recommended that the budget be between 2 to 5% of the CRP budget. Our estimated MEL budget is 2.1% of the full CRP budget from all funding sources and 9.4% of the W1/2 budget. The MEL share of the full budget is an underestimate since it includes some but not all of the center-level MEL expenditures associated with W3/bilateral funds. Table 3. Estimated annual budget for MELIA, in thousand USD Element

Total Budget Amount

In MEL or Management Budget

In Flagship Budget

Development and implementation of a stronger integrated online platform for M&E

· System maintenance · RBM and learning in clusters, flagships, and

overall CRP

25 200

25 0

0 200

Management of data collection measures in various geographies to implement the monitoring plan effectively

1200 200 1000

Annual conduct of CCEE(s), which is estimated [at up to] USD 300,000 of consulting fees per evaluation

100 100 0

MEL specialists to provide expertise to CRP and project leads, build capacity across the lead centers and partners, and coordinate the implementation of the MEL modules

350 350 0

Impact assessment 4800 4800 Total (should be 2-5% of total) 6675 675 6000 MELIA as share of total CRP budget (91 million) 7.4% MEL as share of total CRP Budget (91 million) 2.1% MEL as a share of CRP W1/2 budget (20 million) 9.4%

167

Figure 1. A4NH Phase II Results Framework

168

Table 1. Tentative plan for A4NH external evaluations and reviews in Phase II

Review or Evaluation Dates Evaluation Focus Geographic

Focus (tbc) Budget (USD)

Participating Centers/CRPs

Review Early 2017 Cross-cutting:

Social equity across the portfolio

N/A 30K All partner centers/CRPs

CCEE/Impact Assessment 2017/2018

CoA1 in FP4: Supporting Policies, Programs and

Enabling Action through Research (SPEAR) -

Integrated Programs to Improve Nutrition

Bangladesh, India, Burkina Faso, Zambia 100K

CIP, IFPRI Joint with IFPRI impact

assessment

Rapid Assessment 2018

Integrative work of I-CRPs -

Integrating tools and mechanisms7

Global 10K Joint with all I-CRPs All A4NH managing

partners

CCEE Late 2018

CoA1 in FP2: Biofortification -

Progress on mainstreaming of nutrition in CGIAR

breeding

Africa/S Asia 60K Crop centers in

HarvestPlus; Crop AFS-CRPs

CCEE 2019

CoA2 and CoA3 in FP4: SPEAR -

Policy and enabling environment

FP target countries in S Asia and Africa 75K

IFPRI and IDS plus other partner centers; CCAFS;

PIM

CCEE 2019 Cross-cutting –

A4NH management and governance

N/A 25K Lead center and managing centers

CCEE 2021 FP1: Food Systems for Healthy Diets

Nigeria, Ethiopia, Bangladesh Vietnam 75K Bioversity, CIAT, IFPRI,

Wageningen UR

CCEE 2021 FP4: Improving Human Health TBD 25K IFPRI, ILRI, IMWI

CCEE/possible Impact

Evaluation?

2022 FP3: Food Safety – possible focus on outcomes and

impacts of aflatoxin work

TBD 60K ILRI, IFPRI, IITA Joint with IITA impact

assessment CCEE 2022 FP2: Biofortification -

Learning from delivery, (if not covered as part of a

donor evaluation)

9 target counties TBD AFS-CRPs and partners

CCEE 2022 Integrative work of I-CRPs: Integrating tools and

mechanisms

Global 40K Joint with all I-CRPs

7 Progress on open data and on linking data across sectors could be a topic for this evaluation and/or in FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets.

169

Table 2. Proposed plan for A4NH impact studies, by flagship program, in Phase II Flagship Program (FP) Impact Evaluations Adoption Studies Impact Assessments FP1: Food Systems Uptake of data and methods

by: policymakers, other food system stakeholders, other CRPs

FP2: Biofortification8 Iron beans in Guatemala; zinc wheat in Pakistan; multi-crop (iron beans and OSP); others to follow towards the end of Phase II

Iron beans in Rwanda, iron pearl millet in India; vitamin A cassava in Nigeria; mainstreaming nutrition in breeding and of biofortification in policy

Ex ante ongoing (e.g., Birol et al. 2014; Lividini and Fiedler 2015), updating past work with new information and assessing the cost-effectiveness of food basket approaches

FP3: Food Safety Funding being sought for rigorous evaluations of food safety outputs, such as aflasafe™ and training & certification (T&C)

Funding being sought for an ex post Impact of T&C in Kenya

FP4: SPEAR Agriculture, Nutrition, and Gender Linkages (ANGeL) project in Bangladesh, measures impact, including on women’s empowerment

Uptake and use of evidence, methods and tools, new knowledge and skills by program implementers, policymakers and other key stakeholders

Possible assessment of IFPRI’s “Diet quality, agriculture and health program” (GRP24), precursor to CoA1: Integrated Programs to Improve Nutrition in FP4

FP5: Improving Human Health

Influence on research programs and on governments

8 FP2: Biofortification uses slightly different terminology: effectiveness, impact assessment, cost-effectiveness/cost-benefit analysis)

170

SECTION 3.6

171

Annex 3.6 LINKAGES WITH OTHER CRPS In Phase II, Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH), one of the four Integrating CRPs (ICRPs), will work in a complementary, joint relationship with the other ICRPs and with the eight major Agri-food System CRPs (AFS-CRPs) to contribute to the CGIAR system-level outcomes (SLOs) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While A4NH has its own set of research questions, impact pathways, and outcome targets against which we must report progress, in most cases we will plan and implement research in close collaboration with other CRPs. As an ICRP, A4NH will, in addition to its mandate for joint research, have coordination and support functions for CGIAR related to context setting, synthesis, engagement in specific policy processes (convening), and supporting networking and mutual learning through communities of practice (CoP) and other learning platforms. The first half of this annex describes the assumptions that drive our integrating role, followed by a summary of the areas of collaboration between A4NH and other CRPs where there is joint planning, investment, and reporting. The last part describes A4NH’s planned involvement in CGIAR Site Integration. ASSUMPTIONS ON THE INTEGRATING ROLE OF A4NH Our focus on the drivers of food demand and on diets complements CGIAR strengths on supply and on individual commodities. A4NH will integrate individual value chains into multi-chain food system approaches, and will assess outcomes in relation to changes in the quality of diets. We will look at gender-sensitive approaches and options that can both improve individual and multiple food chains with research on food safety, biofortification, and multi-chain food system innovations that can be aligned with value chain research in the AFS-CRPs. We hope to align with and build on value chain research in other CRPs (largely the AFS-CRPs but also with the ICRP on Policies, Institutions and Markets (PIM) who leads methodological work on value chains in CGIAR) and in A4NH FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets, FP2: Biofortification and FP3: Food Safety. We will also work closely with the ICRP on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) to ensure that we consider synergies and tradeoffs between impacts of food system innovations on diets and equity with other outcomes such as economic performance and sustainability. Our research activities can foster willingness and capacity to work across sectors. A4NH provides evidence for global and national policy processes for enabling agriculture to help achieve better nutrition and health outcomes. Clearly, specific research elements on diet quality and consumption data and knowledge and evidence linking agriculture, nutrition and health will be important. However, there is an important role for A4NH in bringing broader and more systematic cross-sectoral research processes to the new CGIAR portfolio. The HarvestPlus program, which leads FP2: Biofortification, is an excellent example of how CGIAR strengths (plant breeding and germplasm delivery) can be combined with public health (nutritional efficacy trials) and economics (cost-effectiveness studies) to provide implementation and impact evidence for development investments, and supportive policies and regulations at scale. In Phase II, we will develop and promote theories of change (ToCs) and contribution analysis for policy enabling including cross-sectoral (agriculture, nutrition, health and economic and social development) policy, policy process research including stories of change, and monitoring, evaluation and learning associated with enabling environments. There is strong interest from other CRPs in engaging with A4NH in more systematic approaches to integrating agriculture and nutrition and health policy. FP4: Supporting Policies, Programs and Enabling Action through Research (SPEAR) will respond to this

172

demand by hosting annual learning events, for example, that strengthen linkages within CGIAR and build bridges to key nutrition and public health communities in countries where we work. In addition, FP5: Improving Human Health, will support a cross-sectoral learning platform for bridging activities and networking between agricultural and public health researcher communities, led by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). Driven by these assumptions, we envisage three types of strategic links within the new CGIAR portfolio.

1. Joint research, or closely aligned research, between A4NH and other CRPs will help each CRP and CGIAR as a whole achieve its ambitious SLOs and make a worthwhile contribution to the SDGs. Joint research is characterized by joint planning, investment, and reporting.

2. Networking and mutual learning, through learning platforms and CoPs, to catalyze learning on commonly required research approaches, methods, tools and their application so that nutrition, health, gender and equity issues can be integrated effectively into agricultural research across CGIAR.

3. As a bridge, between global, regional, and national nutrition and health communities and CGIAR. In particular, A4NH can convene and represent CRPs in national, regional, and global nutrition and health policy processes, adding value to A4NH’s own work and the collective work of CGIAR.

Our approach to collaboration with other CRPs in Phase II will build on lessons learned from past experiences and anticipate new needs in the future. Some significant examples of past partnerships with other CRPs that will evolve in Phase II include: Mainstreaming of biofortification. The HarvestPlus Challenge Program (2003-2011) and its continuation as an A4NH flagship program (FP), FP2: Biofortification (2012- present), has managed agreements across Centers (and subsequently also CRPs) on priorities and led a focused research agenda that integrates crop breeding for micronutrients as well as economic impact assessments and nutritional efficacy research. This research provided convincing evidence to investors of the plausibility of the hypothesized ToCs for biofortification and the potential for scaling-out delivery to prevent micronutrient deficiencies cost-effectively to 100 million people in high-burden target countries by 2022. In 2014, the CGIAR Centers agreed to mainstream biofortification in their cross-Center/CRP breeding efforts. Mainstreaming needs to be accelerated to include high levels of micronutrients in the varietal development and delivery programs for all food crops. From A4NH, FP2 will support mainstreaming through new joint research and networking, supporting cross-crop methods for cost-effective selection of high micronutrient varieties. It will also continue to strengthen the partnership it has built between the agriculture and nutrition communities to implement and enable delivery of biofortified varieties to achieve food security, higher incomes and micronutrient sufficiency at scale. Integrating food safety research into CGIAR value chains. In Phase I, researchers in different Centers working on food safety, across perishable and staple foods, came together to conduct coordinated research. Coordinating food safety research within A4NH has brought together a critical mass of key research disciplines such as agronomy, plant pathology, epidemiology, risk assessment, and economics so they can be integrated into CGIAR value chain research that assures safer and fairer (more equitable) food supply for consumers. Key technologies, such as aflasafeTM for aflatoxin control, and food safety

173

management approaches, such as training and certification of market agents, have been successfully pilot tested. An external evaluation of A4NH food safety research in 2015 provided recommendations for how this research could be strengthened for impacts at scale, including generating more rigorous evidence of impact and developing a more explicit scaling ToC. Coordination across A4NH, and with AFS-CRPs, like DCL, Fish, Livestock, and Maize will continue from Phase I and we will seek greater engagement with, WLE on wastewater use for vegetable value chains. Following a recommendation from our CRP external evaluation, we will be more explicit about tracking influence on other CRPs through this coordination work. Improving agriculture and nutrition and gender methods in CGIAR research. The Gender and Nutrition CoP developed into a successful mechanism to engage gender researchers and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) specialists in all CRPs with nutrition outcomes during Phase I. The A4NH Gender Strategy initially envisioned significant joint research with other FPs and CRPs, however it quickly became apparent that there was interest among the CRPs working on gender and nutrition for knowledge on specific topics about which the CRPs themselves had little capacity or methodological expertise, for example women’s time use or household decisionmaking. Thus, A4NH invested resources in conducting or commissioning gender research on key cross-cutting topics. The implication for Phase II is that CoPs need to include both capacity building and scope for strategic research in support of key issues prioritized by the community. As was the case with coordination on aflatoxin research, in Phase II we will be more explicit in monitoring our investments in the Gender-Nutrition CoP, guided by a ToC. In Phase II, A4NH will make some important changes in its own structure to fulfill our integrating role, which has implications for our partnership strategy, inside and outside CGIAR. One major change will be the shift from focusing on value chains for nutrition to food systems for healthier diets and partnering outside the CGIAR with Wageningen University and Research Centre (Wageningen UR) to lead the new FP. The second change will be greater emphasis on supporting countries with research on integrated agriculture and nutrition programs, and policies. The third major change will be greater emphasis on the positive and negative effects of agriculture on human health issues with a consortium of public health research institutes. Fourth is that A4NH will commit to host an annual event with nutrition and health groups for CGIAR researchers in order for the agricultural research community to hear what research results and outcomes are needed by the nutrition and health communities and for agricultural researchers to share the opportunities they are pursuing to improve nutrition and health through agriculture. Finally the 3C cluster of SPEAR focuses on capacity and leadership, collaboration and convening to position research outputs for uptake and use for policy impact. More details on these new activities are described below. 1. Food Systems for Healthier Diets. Given the increasing emphasis on nutrition and health outcomes

through agriculture in the CGIAR portfolio, a critical integrating role is to understand the quality of diets consumed and how food supply can improve diet quality. Such a strategy cuts across the challenges of micronutrient deficiency, nutritional insufficiency and overnutrition. It also nicely integrates research on value chains in the AFS-CRPs in a food systems context and provides opportunities for joint research with the other I-CRPs on food system transformation within national economic transformation and tradeoffs between healthy and sustainable diets. A4NH builds on its initial research (frameworks and actions for improving nutrition in value chains) to develop a new research area in food systems under the leadership of Wageningen UR, which has integrative capacity in food systems and considerable experience in partnerships with private and public food system actors.

174

2. Supporting national and global efforts to achieve health and nutrition goals through agriculture.

Country ownership and leadership is critical to improve nutrition and health outcomes and many countries, within the Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) Movement, are planning and implementing coordination platforms across sectors and development stakeholders. Through both FP1: Food Systems and particularly FP4: SPEAR, we will put more emphasis on supporting national stakeholders to plan, implement, monitor, and evaluate. This builds on faster than expected progress in supporting country enabling of nutrition in Phase I and there is a large demand for both research and capacity development in this area. Research from phase 1 determined the importance of an enabling environment to translating momentum on nutrition action into impact and both the Global Nutrition Reports (2014 and 2015) highlighted this as a critical factor holding up progress on scaling up nutrition at country level despite increased political will. A4NH researchers have considerable credibility and convening power through their on-going evidence contributions as well as central role in global processes such as SUN and the Global Nutrition Report and will bring this experience to the wider CGIAR system

3. Partnerships with public health. In the new Strategy and Results Framework (SRF), there is much

greater emphasis on agriculture’s influence on human health, both positive and negative. To do this effectively, A4NH has established a new FP, FP5: Improving Human Health, planned and implemented as a partnership between agriculture and public health research, co-led by ILRI and LSHTM. Within FP5, LSHTM will convene a cross-sectoral learning platform between agricultural and public health researcher communities. Through theme-based symposia involving natural and social scientists from both sectors, FP5 will identify and develop joint research areas, such as the health benefits and risks of agricultural intensification, control of infectious diseases shared by animals and people – both emerging and neglected, and new challenges such as antimicrobial resistance.

Based on these experiences and the realignment of the CRP portfolio in Phase II, we are proposing some very specific, strategic links with both AFS-CRPs and ICRPs, as described in Template 1. In each case, we are proposing the nature of the linkage and what is needed from A4NH and our partner CRPs and what resources will be required. Some of the linkages will need to be formal and well-resourced. Others will be more informal, though in all cases they will need clear ToCs to support planning and monitoring. We describe the proposed activities with other CRPs in Template 2a. CGIAR Site Integration CGIAR Site Integration intends to improve the alignment of research, the coordination of delivery, and improve country-level collaborations. Improving partnerships with country-level stakeholders is also a central objective of the second phase of A4NH. A4NH has identified five focus countries for Phase II, four of the highest priority countries for CGIAR Site Integration (Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Vietnam) plus India. The five focus countries build on strong foundations of A4NH work from Phase I. In Bangladesh, IFPRI, CIAT, CIP and WorldFish researchers involved in A4NH actively engaged government in agriculture-nutrition-gender policy and planning. There are joint projects, such as the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Gender Linkages (ANGeL) project implemented by government and CGIAR researchers. In India, the Partnerships and Opportunities to Strengthen and Harmonize Actions for Nutrition in India (POSHAN) initiative is intimately aligned with policy and actions by national and state governments (for example, the Together for Nutrition initiative) with a number of joint projects (for example, WINGS) with national

175

partners. Country coordination is at an intermediate stage in Ethiopia (Together for Nutrition meeting in June 2015, CGIAR Site Integration National Consultation Workshop in December 2015 and food systems consultation in February 2016) and at an earlier stage in Nigeria and Vietnam. In the A4NH focus countries, there will be research in multiple FPs with national partners and systematic engagement with national food systems (FP1: Food Systems) and nutrition- and health-sensitive programs, implementation, policy and capacity (FP4: SPEAR). One of the CGIAR managing partners will manage partnerships and Site Integration in each A4NH focus country (IITA in Nigeria, ILRI in Ethiopia, CIAT in Vietnam and IFPRI in Bangladesh and India). CIAT, IITA and ILRI also have CGIAR-level Site Integration responsibilities. Given the strong emphasis on country strategy and planning, we will rely on IFPRI Country Strategy Support Programs (CSSP) and the Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) network (for the focus countries in Africa). For example, in both Bangladesh and India, IFPRI has a substantial CSSP that is intimately engaged with policymakers in agriculture, nutrition and health strategy and planning. The IFPRI CSSP teams will also actively support policy engagement and country coordination in other focus countries in which they are present (Nigeria and Ethiopia in collaboration with IITA and ILRI respectively). In the five countries listed above, there will be an A4NH country coordination team representing multiple FPs that will make up the new Country Coordination and Engagement (CCE) unit in the A4NH Program Management Unit (PMU). Each team will prepare a three-year plan, an annual work plan and budget with deliverables, which will be included as part of the formal agreement with the managing partner leading that team. The country coordination team will coordinate with FP leaders and with the CGIAR Site Integration leader in convening joint research and partnership activities. For example, in Ethiopia, the A4NH country coordination team consists of members from Bioversity, IFPRI, Wageningen UR and ILRI working across A4NH FPs. The team held a meeting with the ILRI site integration leader, the FP development team, and with national and international partners on food systems in Ethiopia. This assured alignment with national priorities (useful for all A4NH FPs), opportunities for strengthening coordination of CGIAR research within food systems (Centers, AFS-CRPs, CCAFS and PIM) and to begin planning joint research and capacity development with national partners. The outcomes of these interactions have been used in the planning process of the IFPRI Compact 2025 roundtable discussion (scheduled for March 2016 in Ethiopia), thus already demonstrating the value of the site integration activities that have taken place. In other CGIAR Site Integration countries where A4NH is actively engaged, links with CGIAR Site Integration will be managed by FPs and their managing partners. For example in Kenya, most A4NH research is in FP3: Food Safety and FP5: Improving Human Health, which are led or co-led by ILRI; ILRI will be responsible for linking A4NH with Site Integration. These FPs will provide focal persons for working with the Site Integration leader. For the national consultations held as part of Site Integration, A4NH prepared materials describing our plans for Phase II, generally, and when applicable, country-specific plans. Our plans for the CGIAR Site Integration countries are described in Template 2b and will be updated through 2016 and into Phase II.

176

In CGIAR Site Integration countries in which A4NH does not have active research projects, we will engage countries through multi-country learning networks. Such co-learning countries will be able to engage with A4NH researchers and researchers in other countries to exchange knowledge and information. An existing example, to be continued in Phase II is the multi-country effort on food basket approaches for biofortification led by EMPRABA in eight Central and South American countries. We will explore the options for extending the reach of A4NH research through other networks that A4NH actively participates in such as the Agriculture, Nutrition and Health (ANH) Academy or through networks of others, both CGIAR and non-CGIAR. In these countries, A4NH will explore how to actively share information and knowledge and link those countries to A4NH research in focus or key countries as appropriate. While there is much emphasis on CGIAR site integration at country level, A4NH will actively engage with regional and continental organizations, which are critical for both support to countries and learning from cross-country comparisons and synthesis. Such an approach is critical in Africa, given the importance of CAADP, coordinated continentally by the AUC and in regions by regional economic communities (RECs). In phase I, we worked through the ReSAKSS network to engage with policy and planning processes in AU (led by IFPRI) and RECs (especially the ReSAKSS hub with ECOWAS coordinated by IITA and the hub with COMESA coordinated by ILRI). ReSAKSS is a trusted partner in policy processes and supporter of continental and regional results frameworks and monitoring and evaluation for CAADP. Through the RECs, ReSAKSS is also actively engaged with country CAADP strategies and implementation plans. In Phase I, we invested in supporting ReSAKSS with nutrition expertise as CAADP embraced nutrition-sensitive agriculture as a high-level goal demanded by Heads of State. We will expand this relationship in phase II and also links with FARA and SROs in Africa within this overall continental coordination. In South Asia, countries are larger and regional organizations less important. We will continue to engage through regional networks such as APAARI and regional bodies such as SARC and ASEAN; but with less emphasis on regional organizations than in Africa. Likewise, more global coordination around agriculture-nutrition and agriculture-health is important for country processes. Of particular importance is the identified role of nutrition sensitive agriculture as part of recommended SUN interventions. The SPEAR flagship is closely linked to SUN and its leading organizations. In phase I, we also invested in a joint position with IFAD, with a view to strengthening agriculture-nutrition investment for countries. IFAD has placed much greater emphasis on nutrition in its Country Strategies and Grants and Loan portfolios for IFAD10 (2017-19). Through Bioversity and IFPRI, we plan to strengthen joint work with IFAD and with the other Rome-based agencies – FAO and WFP.

177

Template 1: Overview of Inter-CRP Collaboration: What A4NH Provides and Receives Explanation: Summary rows (in gray) explain in general how A4NH will engage with the AFS-CRPs and the ICRPs, respectively. This is followed by specific joint research activities with specific CRPs.

Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) FP1. Food Systems FP2. Biofortification FP3. Food Safety FP4. SPEAR FP5. Improving Human

Health Cross-cutting Units

AFS-CRPs (Summary)

Learning platform and some joint research projects on improving diet quality through multi-chain food systems both globally and in the site integration ++ countries of Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nigeria and Vietnam. Receives: examples of value chain innovations (technological, institutional, policy) Provides: data and analysis of diet quality; analysis of food and diet transitions; implication of proposed VC innovations for food systems and diets.

Evidence of effectiveness and uptake at scale of biofortified varieties; mainstream nutrition in future breeding (joint research, networking and bridging) Receives: Breeding, genetics, varietal development (conventional and GM); delivery networks in target countries. Provides: ex-ante and ex-post impact assessments; bioavailability and nutritional efficacy; networks for nutrition and biofortification delivery; policy and regulatory enabling

Food safety for high priority risks in perishable and staple food chains - special emphasis in informal food chains for the poor (joint research) Receives innovations for production and processing of foods, from specific value chains Provides: food safety expertise (epidemiology, economics, risk assessment) and food safety risk mitigation technologies and approaches

Convening agriculture and nutrition communities. Events for knowledge exchange and mutual learning (brokering with potential for joint research) Receives: agricultural innovations and research results of interest to nutrition Provides: Convening with global and national nutrition partners; Methods and tools.

Convening of public health and agricultural research communities (brokering with potential for joint research) Receives: agricultural innovations and research results of interest to health community Provides: Convening with global and national public health partners

Gender Equity and Empowerment Community of Practice on agriculture-nutrition-gender methods, tools and evaluation approaches bringing together gender and evaluation specialists in different CRPs.

DCL Joint research

Receives: dryland cereal and pulse value chain actors and innovations including food processing and dryland cereal and pulse-related system changes Provides: analysis of diet quality and implications for food system transformation Joint: engagement in public-private pulse innovation

Receives: Breeding, genetics, varietal development; delivery and processing networks in target countries. Provides: ex-ante and ex-post impact assessments; bioavailability and nutritional efficacy; networks for nutrition and biofortification delivery; policy and regulatory

Receives groundnut value chain innovation and development for productivity and processing of foods Provides: food safety expertise (epidemiology, economics, risk assessment) and food safety risk mitigation technologies and approaches

178

Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) FP1. Food Systems FP2. Biofortification FP3. Food Safety FP4. SPEAR FP5. Improving Human

Health Cross-cutting Units

platforms (Global, India, Ethiopia)

enabling new nutrient-dense traits Joint: Assessment of dryland cereal and pulse value chains for nutrition and health.

Fish Joint research

Fish FP Enhancing the impact of fish for nutrition and health of the poor Receives: fish value chain actors and innovations including fish processing and fish-based system changes in Bangladesh Provides: analysis of diet quality and implications for food system transformation

Potential for food safety inclusion in fish value chains in Bangladesh

TBD – possible role in AMR research

FTA Joint research

Receives: knowledge and evidence on Food supply, quality and links to livelihoods in FTA landscapes. Sustainable supply of fruits. Provides: national and sub-national diet quality and food system transformation information to link with livelihoods in FTA sites. links to food system innovation platforms and links to national and food system anchoring and scaling processes

Joint: emerging diseases associated with bush meat hunting and supply chains (tbd)

Livestock Joint research

Livestock FP Livelihoods and Agri-Food Systems

Livestock FP Livelihoods and Agri-Food Systems

Livestock FP Animal Health Convening with livestock sector actors “ Global Livestock Alliance” including

Development of a livestock module for pro-WEAI

179

Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) FP1. Food Systems FP2. Biofortification FP3. Food Safety FP4. SPEAR FP5. Improving Human

Health Cross-cutting Units

Receives: livestock value chain actors and innovations including food processing and livestock livelihoods in households and systems Convening with livestock sector actors “ Global Livestock Alliance” including tradeoffs in animal-source foods between nutrition and sustainability Provides: diet quality and food system transformation

Receives: Livestock value chain innovations in target regions; integration of food safety teams in value chain planning.

Provides: Risk management and analysis; evaluation of food safety pilot interventions; development of large-scale food safety interventions linked to value chain interventions. Joint: co-development of innovations and shared research outputs.

risks of emerging diseases, AMR Receives antibiotic use and efficacy in livestock systems. Provides: links between antimicrobials in animals and AMR in humans; policy, regulatory and behavior change studies

Maize Joint research

Receives: Maize value chain actors and innovations including food processing and maize-based system changes Provides: analysis of diet quality and implications for food system transformation

Receives: Breeding, genetics, varietal development; maize-based delivery and processing networks in target countries. Provides: ex-ante and ex-post impact assessments; bioavailability and nutritional efficacy; networks for nutrition and biofortification delivery; policy and regulatory enabling new nutrient-dense traits Cooperation on food basket approaches to biofortification in LAC and Africa

Receives maize value chain innovations mainly biocontrol and post-harvest management Provides: food safety expertise (epidemiology, economics, risk assessment) and food safety risk mitigation technologies and approaches

Rice Joint research

Receives: Rice value chain actors and innovations and rice-based system changes

FP on New rice varieties

Receives: linkages with rice production networks in selected locations and data

180

Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) FP1. Food Systems FP2. Biofortification FP3. Food Safety FP4. SPEAR FP5. Improving Human

Health Cross-cutting Units

Provides: analysis of diet quality and implications for food system transformation

Receives: Breeding, genetics, varietal development (conventional and GM); rice delivery networks in target countries. Provides: ex-ante and ex-post impact assessments; bioavailability and nutritional efficacy; networks for nutrition and biofortification delivery; policy and regulatory enabling new nutrient-dense traits and pre-breeding lines for mainstreaming into rice breeding pipelines, cooperation on agronomic biofortification for zinc.

on agriculture production and practices Provides: data on health risks and benefits of people in selected rice irrigation systems and evidence of health status and irrigation practice changes

RTB Joint research

Receives: RTB value chain actors and innovations including food processing and RTB-based system changes Provides: analysis of diet quality and implications for food system transformation

Receives: Breeding, genetics, varietal development; delivery and processing networks in target countries. Provides: ex-ante and ex-post impact assessments; bioavailability and nutritional efficacy; networks for nutrition and biofortification delivery; policy and regulatory enabling new nutrient-dense traits Joint: Assessment of RTB value chains for nutrition and health.

181

Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) FP1. Food Systems FP2. Biofortification FP3. Food Safety FP4. SPEAR FP5. Improving Human

Health Cross-cutting Units

Wheat Joint research

Receives: Wheat value chain actors and innovations and wheat-based system changes Provides: analysis of diet quality and implications for food system transformation

Receives: Breeding, genetics, varietal development; wheat-based delivery and processing networks in target countries. Provides: ex-ante and ex-post impact assessments; bioavailability and nutritional efficacy; networks for nutrition and biofortification delivery; policy and regulatory enabling new nutrient-dense traits; cooperation on agronomic biofortification for zinc

ICRPs (Summary)

Joint research on national food systems futures (CCAFS, PIM, WLE) Learning platform on food system futures linked to PIM and CCAFs learning platform on food systems futures, bringing together agriculture, health and climate data, foresight modelling, FNS scenario research and A4NH on food system, nutrition transformations.

Convening agriculture and nutrition communities. Events for knowledge exchange and mutual learning (bridging with potential for joint research) Receives: agricultural innovations and research results of interest to nutrition Provides: Convening with global and national nutrition partners; Methods and tools.

Convening of public health and agricultural research communities (brokering with potential for joint research)

Gender Equity and Empowerment Community of Practice on agriculture-nutrition-gender methods, tools and evaluation approaches bringing together gender and evaluation specialists in different CRPs.

CCAFS Joint research

CCAFS FP Priorities and Policies for CSA Receives: climate information on food systems futures / tradeoffs; scenario analysis and modeling for food systems under climate change

CCAFS FP Priorities and Policies for CSA Receives: Platforms, policy processes and methods and tools to support enabling for CSA. Receives: Platforms, policy processes and methods and

TBD – joint research arising from Convening of public health and agricultural research communities

182

Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) FP1. Food Systems FP2. Biofortification FP3. Food Safety FP4. SPEAR FP5. Improving Human

Health Cross-cutting Units

Provides: Diet quality information linked to and food systems futures / tradeoffs; scenario analysis and modeling of food systems linked to food innovations and scaling up. Joint – participation in learning platform of these 2 CCAFS and A4NH FPs

tools to support enabling for nutrition-sensitive agriculture.

PIM Joint research

PIM FP - foresight Receives: foresight models for economic and agri-food systems transformation. FP on Value chains: Tools and methods for VC research applied to food systems TBD on modelling of food loss and waste? Provides: Diet quality information linked to and food systems futures / tradeoffs; scenario analysis and modeling of food systems linked to food innovations and scaling up. Methods for multi-chain food systems research

Work on mainstreaming biofortification in national policy, with ReSAKSS

PIM FP on Value Chains Receives: expertise on value chain analysis and assessment Provides: expertise on food safety in value chains

PIM FP on Development Strategy and Governance Receives: methods and tools for policy processes and policy engagement Provides: case studies of application of methods and tools for policy processes in ANH. Methods for engaging policy actors such as Stories of Change PIM FP on Social Protection Receives: studies on social protection interventions Receives: evaluation of nutritional outcomes

TBD – joint research arising from Convening of public health and agricultural research communities. Collation and joint modeling of detailed spatial agriculture and health data. .

PIM provides support to Gender-Agriculture- Nutrition Community of Practice from its Gender research flagship Jointly work with IFPRI country strategy support programs (CSSPs) in A4NH and PIM focus countries and ReSAKSS in Africa with AU and RECs on CAADP.

WLE Joint research

TBD – WLE input into sustainability in food systems research (food systems focus countries in which we are working with CCAFs (Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Vietnam)

WLE FP Sustaining Rural-Urban Linkages Wastewater re-use and vegetable value chains. Receives: Coordination and information sharing on target sites and on plans for developing large-scale, integrated interventions.

TBD – joint research arising from Convening of public health and agricultural research communities (WLE has focal points engaged in this).

183

Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) FP1. Food Systems FP2. Biofortification FP3. Food Safety FP4. SPEAR FP5. Improving Human

Health Cross-cutting Units

TBD – interest (through CIAT) through WLE FP Sustaining Rural-Urban Linkages Receives: research in rural-urban linkages for food systems under natural resource constraints Provides: food systems diagnostics, foresight, transformation and scaling

Provides: Developing and validating innovations with potential to improve food safety in pilot trials and at scale in target value chains and regions. Integrating of food safety teams in value chain planning of other CRPs. Shared research outputs.

Genebank Platform

A4NH participates indirectly through AFS-CRPs

Genetic Gains Platform

A4NH participates indirectly through AFS-CRPs

Big Data platform

Receives: TBD Provides: primary and secondary data on diet quality and food systems

Receives: TBD Provides: primary and secondary data on nutritional surveys

Receives: TBD Provides: TBD

Receives: TBD Provides: primary and secondary data on nutritional quality and food systems

Receives: TBD Provides: primary and secondary data on health data and pathogens at detailed spatial scale (linkages with Harvest Choice agricultural data)

Receives: TBD Provides: primary and secondary data on diet quality and food systems

184

Template 2a. Partnerships with other CRPs (activities, mode, geographies and outcomes sought).

PARTNERING MODALITY – JOINT RESEARCH

FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets

Partner CRP ACTIVITY [COUNTRIES IN WHICH THIS TAKES PLACE]

A4NH ROLE COLLABORATING CRP ROLE COLLABORATION MODE OUTCOMES; ADDED VALUE; TARGET COUNTRIES

AFS-CRPs: Maize, Rice, and Wheat,

Contribution of staples to food prices and food system innovations Rice – Bangladesh MAIZE - Ethiopia

Diet quality and consumption studies; food systems analysis including options for scaling up and anchoring

Value chain innovations (breeding, marketing, processing) for improved nutrient quality and safety of foods from staple crops

Joint Research Projects linked to food systems learning platform based on joint fundraising (base and/or uplift)

Bangladesh and Ethiopia • Partners and other CRPs

incorporate nutrition, health and gender in agri-food value chains and food systems programs

• Stakeholders (investors, civil society, policymakers) consider healthier diets in processes related to food systems

• Stakeholders (investors, civil society, policymakers) consider healthier diets in processes related to food systems

CCAFS Development and quantification of food and nutrition security futures Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Vietnam

Diet quality and consumption studies; food systems analysis including options for scaling up and anchoring

Climate change and food system scenarios; estimates of climate impacts for different food systems scenarios

Joint research – foresight on food systems futures Base budget – use of existing models, scenarios and secondary data; uplift – additional primary data collection

Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Vietnam • See first row for outcomes

DCL Pulse Innovation in Food Systems – Ethiopia, India

Diet quality and consumption studies; food systems analysis including options for scaling up and anchoring

Value chain innovations (breeding, marketing, processing) for improved nutrient quality and safety of foods from staple crops

Joint Research Projects linked to food systems learning platform in based on joint fundraising base and/or uplift)Pulse Innovation Partnership with business schools

Ethiopia and India and potentially Nigeria • See first row for outcomes

Fish Improving diet quality through greater consumption of fish in Bangladesh

Diet quality and consumption studies; food systems analysis including

Fish production and value chains development in Bangladesh

Joint Research Projects linked to food systems learning

Bangladesh • See first row for outcomes

185

options for scaling up and anchoring

platform in based on joint fundraising base and/or uplift)

FTA (and ICRAF)

Sustainable food systems; Food innovations for fruits and for more sustainable diets

Diet quality and consumption studies (CoA1); food innovations (CoA2); food systems analysis including options for scaling up and anchoring (CoA3)

FTA 4.3 Healthy diets from diverse FTA landscapes

Joint research Uplift budget (overlap between FTA and 4 food systems focus countries? Analysis of food systems in FTA countries (and more generally)

• See first row for outcomes

Livestock Improving diet quality through greater consumption of livestock in Ethiopia and Vietnam

Diet quality and consumption studies (CoA1); food innovations (CoA2); food systems analysis including options for scaling up and anchoring (CoA3)

Livestock production and value chains development in Ethiopia, Vietnam

Livestock production and value chains development in Ethiopia and Vietnam (through joint fundraising, base and/or uplift)

Ethiopia, Vietnam and possibly Tanzania, Uganda, India with uplift • See first row for outcomes

PIM Development and quantification of food and nutrition security futures Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Vietnam and more global analyses

Diet quality and consumption studies; food systems analysis including options for scaling up and anchoring

Foresight and food systems scenarios; value chain tools and approaches

Joint research – foresight on food systems futures Base budget – use of existing models, scenarios and secondary data; uplift – additional primary data collection

Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Vietnam and more global analyses • See first row for outcomes

RTB Contribution of staples to food prices and food system innovations Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Vietnam

Diet quality and consumption studies; food systems analysis including options for scaling up and anchoring

Value chain innovations (breeding, marketing, processing) for improved nutrient quality and safety of foods from staple crops

Joint Research Projects linked to food systems learning platform in based on joint fundraising base and/or uplift)

Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Vietnam • See first row for outcomes

WLE Development and quantification of food and nutrition security futures Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Vietnam

Diet quality and consumption studies; food systems analysis including options for scaling up and anchoring

Foresight on rural-urban linkages changes and tradeoffs for land and water use for different food at subnational and national levels

Joint research – foresight on food systems futures Base budget – use of existing models, scenarios and secondary data; uplift – additional primary data collection

Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Vietnam • See first row for outcomes

FP2: Biofortification Partner CRP ACTIVITY [COUNTRIES IN WHICH

THIS TAKES PLACE] A4NH ROLE COLLABORATING CRP ROLE COLLABORATION MODE OUTCOMES; ADDED VALUE;

TARGET COUNTRIES

186

AFS-CRPs: 5 crops

Mainstream higher-levels of micronutrients into staple crop breeding; delivery of planting material

CGIAR-level program coordination for biofortification – priority setting, targeting, nutritional efficacy, MEL, regulatory aspects and policy. Co-development of biofortified staple crops and joint research with AFS-CRPs (Wheat, Maize, Rice, DCLAFS, and RTB), at least through 2019.

Co-development of biofortified staple crops and joint research; mainstream nutritious traits into its breeding programs

Joint investment in biofortification In 2015, approximately $16 million was provided through FP2.Biofortification to AFS-CRPs and Centers to supplement their own budgets for mainstreaming. Will continue at approximately $10-12M per annum through 2017-2019 and be reassessed for 2020 onwards.

Reaching 20 million people globally with biofortified varieties Outcome from mainstreaming work: 2.5% annual increase in mainstreaming as a percentage of total CGIAR Center efforts for target crop/agroecology by 2022

DCL India, Rwanda, DRC, Uganda As above Co-development of biofortified pearl millet and beans and joint research; mainstream nutritious traits into its breeding programs

Joint research with a funding contribution from A4NH at least through 2019

Reaching 1 million people in India (high iron Pearl Millet), 1.2 million people in Rwanda, 0.5 million in Uganda, and 0.5 million people in DRC (high iron beans)

MAIZE Ethiopia, Nigeria, Zambia, DRC As above Co-development of biofortified maize and joint research; mainstream nutritious traits into its breeding programs

Joint research with a funding contribution from A4NH at least through 2019

Reaching 0.5 million in Ethiopia, 0.5 million in DRC, 0.6 million in Nigeria and 0.6 million in Zambia

PIM All Work with ReSAKSS on policy issues in target countries

Provide policy and political economy analysis

Joint research

RICE Bangladesh, India As above Co-development of biofortified rice and joint research; mainstream nutritious traits into its breeding programs

Joint research with a funding contribution from A4NH at least through 2019

Reaching 3.4 million people with conventional rice varieties in Bangladesh and 0.3 million in India. IRRI will conduct on much higher levels of iron and zinc rice through genetic medication.

187

RTB DRC, Nigeria, Uganda As above Co-development of biofortified cassava and joint research on delivery (cassava and OSP); mainstream nutritious traits into its breeding programs

Joint research Reaching 1.6 million in DRC, 2.2 million in Nigeria and 1.1 million in Uganda

WHEAT Pakistan, India As above Co-development of biofortified wheat and joint research; mainstream nutritious traits into its breeding programs

Joint research with a funding contribution from A4NH at least through 2019

Reaching 1.6million in India, 0.75 million in Pakistan

FP3: Food Safety Partner CRP ACTIVITY [COUNTRIES IN WHICH

THIS TAKES PLACE] A4NH ROLE COLLABORATING CRP ROLE COLLABORATION MODE OUTCOMES; ADDED VALUE;

TARGET COUNTRIES DCL Joint research on food safety in

value chain work (aflatoxin control)

Provide food safety expertise (epidemiology, risk assessment, microbiology, economics) (CoA3)

Research and coordination of value chain actors and incorporation of food safety into broader value chain development

Joint research and investment: Senegal, Malawi

Senegal, Malawi • Key food safety evidence

users (donors, academics, INGOs, national policymakers, civil society, and industry) are aware of and use evidence to in the support, formulation and/or implementation of pro-poor and risk-based food safety approaches

• Biocontrol and GAP delivered at scale in key countries along with understanding of their impact and appropriate use

Fish Research on food safety in fish value chains (Bangladesh)

Provide food safety expertise (epidemiology, risk assessment, microbiology, economics) (CoA2)

Research and coordination of value chain actors and incorporation of food safety into broader value chain development

Joint research and investment: Uplift budget (Bangladesh)

Bangladesh • Key food safety evidence

users (donors, academics, INGOs, national policymakers, civil society, and industry) are aware of and use evidence to in the support, formulation and/or

188

implementation of pro-poor and risk-based food safety approaches

• Market-based food safety innovations delivered at scale in key countries along with understanding of their impact and appropriate use

Livestock Research on food safety in livestock value chains (Ethiopia, India, Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam)

Provide food safety expertise (epidemiology, risk assessment, microbiology, economics) (CoA2)

Research and coordination of value chain actors and incorporation of food safety into broader value chain development

Joint research and investment: Base budget (Ethiopia, India, Tanzania, Uganda and Vietnam) Uplift budget (Burkina Faso, Kenya)

(Ethiopia, India, Tanzania, Uganda and Vietnam) Uplift budget (Burkina Faso, Kenya) • Key food safety evidence

users (donors, academics, INGOs, national policymakers, civil society, and industry) are aware of and use evidence to in the support, formulation and/or implementation of pro-poor and risk-based food safety approaches

• Market-based food safety innovations delivered at scale in key countries along with understanding of their impact and appropriate use

MAIZE Joint research on food safety in value chain work

Provide food safety expertise (epidemiology, risk assessment, microbiology, economics) (CoA3)

Research and coordination of value chain actors and incorporation of food safety into broader value chain development

Joint research and investment: Base budget: Kenya, Nigeria, Malawi, Uganda, Zambia,

Kenya, Nigeria, Malawi, Uganda, Zambia • Key food safety evidence

users (donors, academics, INGOs, national policymakers, civil society, and industry) are aware of and use evidence to in the support, formulation and/or implementation of pro-poor and risk-based food safety approaches

189

• Biocontrol and GAP delivered at scale in key countries along with understanding of their impact and appropriate use

PIM Joint research on food safety in

value chain work Provide food safety expertise (epidemiology, risk assessment, microbiology, economics) (CoA3)

Value chain tools and approaches

Complementary outputs and outcomes. Potential for joint research TBD

• Key food safety evidence users (donors, academics, INGOs, national policymakers, civil society, and industry) are aware of and use evidence to in the support, formulation and/or implementation of pro-poor and risk-based food safety approaches

• Biocontrol and GAP delivered at scale in key countries along with understanding of their impact and appropriate use

WLE Joint research on food safety in

value chain work Provide food safety expertise (epidemiology, risk assessment, microbiology, economics) (CoA2)

Research and coordination of value chain activities for vegetables linked to work on resuse of contaminated water

Joint research and investment: Uplift budget (Uganda, Vietnam and potentially other countries TBD)

Uganda, Vietnam • Key food safety evidence

users (donors, academics, INGOs, national policymakers, civil society, and industry) are aware of and use evidence to in the support, formulation and/or implementation of pro-poor and risk-based food safety approaches

• Market-based food safety innovations delivered at scale in key countries along with understanding of their impact and appropriate use

FP4: SPEAR

190

Partner CRP ACTIVITY [COUNTRIES IN WHICH THIS TAKES PLACE]

A4NH ROLE COLLABORATING CRP ROLE COLLABORATION MODE OUTCOMES; ADDED VALUE; TARGET COUNTRIES

CCAFS Policy process research; assessing and documenting processes for enhancing nutrition-relevant policy and investment

National and global policy engagement with ANH community; analysis of cross-sectoral policy processes and enabling; methods such as Stories of Change; national capacity development enabling for ANH

National and global policy engagement with CSA community analysis of cross-sectoral policy processes and enabling; national capacity development enabling for CSA

Joint research – globally (base) and in Ethiopia, India, Bangladesh, …(uplift)

globally (base) and in Ethiopia, India, Bangladesh, …(uplift) • Regional, international and

UN agencies and initiatives and investors use evidence, tools and methods to inform decisions and investment strategies to guide and support NSA programming and nutrition-sensitive policies

• National policymakers and shapers, and stakeholders from different sectors, civil society and industry use evidence to design effective nutrition-sensitive policies and strategies to enable effective programming.

• Stakeholders from different sectors, civil society and industry listed in the other four outcomes, including CGIAR and other CRPs, have improved capacity to generate and use evidence to improve NSA programming, nutrition-sensitive policymaking and implementation.

PIM Policy process research Nutrition outcome from social protection interventions

ANH case studies for policy process research Nutrition evaluation

Policy platforms – ReSAKSS and IFPRI CSSP Policy process research (with DSG – FP2, CoA3 on Policy process and political economy Social protection interventions

Joint research – globally (base) and in Ethiopia, India, Bangladesh,…(uplift)

– globally (base) and in Ethiopia, India, Bangladesh,…(uplift) • Regional, international and

UN agencies and initiatives and investors use evidence, tools and methods to inform decisions and investment strategies to guide and

191

support NSA programming and nutrition-sensitive policies

• National policymakers and shapers, and stakeholders from different sectors, civil society and industry use evidence to design effective nutrition-sensitive policies and strategies to enable effective programming.

• Stakeholders from different sectors, civil society and industry listed in the other four outcomes, including CGIAR and other CRPs, have improved capacity to generate and use evidence to improve NSA programming, nutrition-sensitive policymaking and implementation.

FP5: Improving Human Health Partner CRP ACTIVITY [COUNTRIES IN WHICH

THIS TAKES PLACE] A4NH ROLE COLLABORATING CRP ROLE COLLABORATION MODE OUTCOMES; ADDED VALUE;

TARGET COUNTRIES Livestock Livestock systems and vector-

borne and zoonotic disease emergence and impact Control of zoonoses linked to livestock systems (with Animal Health); Antimicrobial Resistance

Zoonoses disease risk and joint control programs with public health Public health data Antimicrobial resistance in humans linked to use in livestock

Livestock systems modelling Joint diagnostics and vaccine with Animal health Antimicrobial efficacy in animals

Joint research Livestock provides links to platform for responsible livestock and A4NH to public health platforms

Zoonoses risks globally and Kenya, Vietnam, China AMR – China, India, Thailand, Vietnam, Kenya and Tanzania • Agricultural and public health

policymakers and implementers deliver coordinated and effective solutions to cysticercosis and other zoonotic threats

• Public and private sector policymakers implement measures to reduce health risks from antimicrobial

192

resistance in hotspot livestock systems

PIM Joint modelling of agriculture and health outcomes using detailed spatial data

tbd HarvestChoice provides spatially disaggregated crop and production system data

Uplift Emphasis on Africa • Agricultural research

initiatives, including farming communities, measure health risks and benefits

RICE Health risks and benefits in irrigated rice

Public health Rice systems Benin, Côte d’Ivoire Joint research

Benin, Côte d’Ivoire • Agricultural research

initiatives, including farming communities, measure health risks and benefits

WLE Joint agriculture and health research (FP4)

Coordinate and share information between CRPs and public health researchers

??? Joint investment in agriculture and health research; uplift Locations TBD

• Agricultural research initiatives, including farming communities, measure health risks and benefits

PARTNERING MODALITY – NETWORKING AND MUTUAL LEARNING THROUGH LEARNING PLATFORMS AND COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE, INCLUDING CAPDEV FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets Partner CRP ACTIVITY [COUNTRIES IN WHICH

THIS TAKES PLACE] A4NH ROLE COLLABORATING CRP ROLE COLLABORATION MODE OUTCOMES; ADDED VALUE;

TARGET COUNTRIES AFS-CRPs CoP to support the integration of

agriculture, nutrition, and health and the use of methods and metrics in CRP research linked to an average of two projects integrating nutrition and gender into value chain research as part of food systems research, such as diet diversification through nutrient-dense foods (animal source, legumes, vegetables, fruits, dryland cereals)

A4NH would support meetings on best practices for methods and metrics for diet nutrition, health and gender in food systems research bringing together AFS-CRPs, A4NH and nutrition and health partners; joint research

Participation in the CoP; joint research

Joint investment in food systems research; expecting approx. $3 million per annum from A4NH

• Partners and other CRPs incorporate nutrition, health and gender in agri-food value chains and food systems programs

ICRPS Participation in CoP / learning platforms to support the integration of agriculture, nutrition, and health and the use

A4NH would support meetings on best practices for methods and metrics for diet nutrition, health and gender in food systems

Participation in the CoP; joint research

Joint investment in food systems research; expecting approx. $1 million per annum from A4NH

• Partners and other CRPs incorporate nutrition, health and gender in agri-food value chains and food systems programs

193

of methods and metrics in CRP research (FP1) Joint research on synergies and trade offs between health, economic, and sustainability dimensions of food systems (PIM CCAFS and WLE), (FP1)

research bringing together GI-CRPs, A4NH and nutrition and health partners; joint research

FP2: Biofortification AFS-CRPs Mainstreaming nutrition into

CGIAR and partner breeding programs

Rapid screening tools for micronutrient levels; investment and enabling for biofortification (e.g., policy Codex)

Breeding platforms Joint and complementary funding

Global and in support of national breeding platforms in specific countries • Biofortification

mainstreamed into CGIAR and NARS breeding efforts

Cross-Cutting – Gender Equity Empowerment Unit AFS-CRPs Sharing tools and approaches for

research evaluation of agriculture-nutrition-gender outcomes

Expertise, tools and approaches for evaluation and gender in ANH research Support to AFS-CRP projects seeking to improve nutrition to improve research quality

Contribute experiences and issues in ANH research Provide projects for joint learning

Basic A4NH support to community of practice. AFS-CRPs fund participation of staff. Some joint project funding and potential expansion (uplift)

Africa and South Asia primarily • Partners and other CRPs

incorporate nutrition, health and gender in agri-food value chains and food systems programs

Cross-Cutting – Monitoring Evaluation and Learning Unit ICRPs Common RBM platform RBM and MEL experience in

A4NH RBM and MEL experience in other ICRPS

Sharing costs of RBM system operation; Shared participation costs for co-learning

• Faster learning for improved RBM and MEL

PARTNERING MODALITY – BRIDGING FP4: SPEAR Partner CRP ACTIVITY [COUNTRIES IN WHICH

THIS TAKES PLACE] A4NH ROLE COLLABORATING CRP ROLE COLLABORATION MODE OUTCOMES; ADDED VALUE;

TARGET COUNTRIES All CRPs Convene annual meeting with

global, regional and key national actors in nutrition

Ability to convene nutrition community and articulate linkages between agriculture and nutrition.

Contribute experiences and issues in ANH research and potential insights for new research

Basic A4NH support to convening. Other CRPs fund participation of staff. Some joint project that might arise (TBD uplift)

• Stakeholders from different sectors, civil society and industry listed in the other four FP4 outcomes, including CGIAR and other CRPs, have improved capacity to generate and use evidence to

194

improve NSA programming, nutrition-sensitive policymaking and implementation.

FP4: Improving Human Health

All CRPs

Convene annual meeting with global, regional and key national actors in public health

Contribute experiences and issues in ANH research and potential insights for new research

Basic A4NH support to convening. Other CRPs fund participation of staff. Some joint project that might arise (TBD uplift)

• Agricultural research initiatives, including farming communities, measure health risks and benefits

• Agricultural and public health policymakers and implementers deliver coordinated and effective solutions to cysticercosis and other zoonotic threats

• Public and private sector policymakers implement measures to reduce health risks from antimicrobial resistance in hotspot livestock systems

195

Template 2b: Plans for site integration in 20 CGIAR ++ and + countries.

Target country (++ and + countries

relevant to your CRP)

Define steps taken so far (March 2016) to establish national level engagement with other CRPs towards site

integration

Define plan and schedule through which your CRP will provide relevant elements for development of CGIAR site integration in this country

CGIAR Site Integration ++ Countries with A4NH activities in Phase II Bangladesh (A4NH Focus Country)

CGIAR centers plus AVRDC and IFDC meet with NARS and Ministry officials twice a year. The coordinator rotates annually. Further details are posted at http://gcard3.cgiar.org/national-consultations/bangladesh/. In Phase I, A4NH held 2 meetings with CGIAR Centers and partners on coordination for ANH research. For Phase II, an in-country A4NH Bangladesh team was formed in late 2015. This team was provided with a brief on Phase II plans as well as a document on on-going and planned projects in Bangladesh for Phase II and slides for country consultation meetings.

The IFPRI country office will coordinate A4NH Site Integration in Phase II with support from the A4NH PMU and flagship leaders. IFPRI-Bangladesh coordinates a number of current and planned projects in A4NH and is closely aligned with government policy and planning through its Policy Research and Strategy Support Program for Food Security and Agricultural Development (PRSSP). A document on ongoing and planned research in A4NH for Phase II in Bangladesh was prepared in late 2015 and will be updated at least annually. All flagships except FP5 have or plan to have projects in Bangladesh. FP2 and FP4 have large multi-project portfolios that are already well integrated into government and partner planning. BRAC is a key strategic partner in these. Bangladesh will be one of the 4 focus countries for FP1. We plan to hold a country consultation meeting for planning FP1 in late 2016, similar to the process followed in Ethiopia (see below). As with other A4NH focus countries, we will allocate a small budget for coordination of A4NH activities and engagement with the managing partner in that country – in this case IFPRI.

Ethiopia (A4NH Focus Country)

ILRI leads the CGIAR Site integration and held a national consultation in December 2015. Further details are posted at: http://gcard3.cgiar.org/ethiopia/. For Phase II, an in-country A4NH Ethiopia team was formed in late 2015. This team were provided with a brief on Phase II plans as well as a document on ongoing and planned projects in Ethiopia for Phase II and slides for country consultation meetings.

ILRI, one of the A4NH managing partners, will coordinate A4NH site integration in Phase II with support from the A4NH PMU and flagship leaders. ILRI also leads the CGIAR site integration efforts and this will ensure close alignment of A4NH. A document on ongoing and planned research in A4NH for Phase II in Ethiopia was prepared in late 2015 and will be updated at least annually. All flagships except FP5 have and plan projects in Ethiopia in Phase II. Ethiopia will be one of the 4 focus countries for FP1. The Ethiopia A4NH in-country team held a country consultation meeting for planning FP1 and its activities in Ethiopia in February 2016 (see agenda, participant list, background document and a summary of key issues). In June 2015, researchers in FP4, held a national meeting Together for Nutrition, which will guide plans and partnerships for Phase II.

196

As with other A4NH focus countries, we will allocate a small budget for coordination of A4NH activities and engagement with the managing partner in that country – in this case ILRI.

Nicaragua

CIAT convened a national consultation in November 2015. Further details are posted at http://gcard3.cgiar.org/nicaragua/ A4NH was represented by a national partner in the LAC Biofortification network. We shared the A4NH Phase II brief and information on the Biofortification network for the consultation.

CIAT will be the A4NH managing partner ensuring connections with and alignment to the CGIAR site integration plan, which is also leads. EMBRAPA with CIAT support leads the Biofortification country network for LAC and will continue support to Nicaragua through linkages with other countries in the region as well as HarvestPlus resources more broadly.

Nigeria (A4NH Focus Country)

IITA leads the CGIAR Site integration and held a national consultation in November 2015. Further details are posted at http://gcard3.cgiar.org/nigeria/ For Phase II, an in-country A4NH Nigeria team was formed in late 2015. This team were provided with a brief on Phase II plans as well as a document on on-going and planned projects in Nigeria for Phase II and slides for country consultation meetings.

IITA, one of the A4NH managing partners, will coordinate A4NH site integration in Phase II with support from the A4NH PMU and flagship leaders. IITA also leads the CGIAR site integration efforts and this will ensure close alignment of A4NH. IFPRI’s CSSP in Abuja will ensure that A4NH policy research is appropriately aligned with research in PIM. There will also be connections for national and regional networking with the ReSAKSS-ECOWAS hub. A document on ongoing and planned research in A4NH for Phase II in Nigeria was prepared in late 2015 and will be updated at least annually. FP2 has a large portfolio that is already well integrated into government and partner planning. Nigeria will be one of the 4 focus countries for FP1. We plan to hold a country consultation meeting for planning that flagship in late 2016 or early 2017, similar to the process followed in Ethiopia (see above). As with other A4NH focus countries, we will allocate a small budget for coordination of A4NH activities and engagement with the managing partner in that country – in this case IITA.

Tanzania

IITA leads the CGIAR Site integration and held a national consultation in December 2015. Further details are posted at http://gcard3.cgiar.org/tanzania/ For Phase II, an in-country A4NH Tanzania team was formed in late 2015. This team were provided with a brief on Phase II plans as well as a document on on-going and planned projects in Tanzania for Phase II and slides for country consultation meetings.

IITA, one of the A4NH managing partners, will coordinate A4NH site integration in Phase II with support from the A4NH PMU and flagship leaders. IITA also leads the CGIAR site integration efforts and this will ensure close alignment of A4NH. A document on ongoing and planned research in A4NH for Phase II in Tanzania was prepared in late 2015 and will be updated at least annually. FP3 led by ILRI, with aflatoxin research led by IITA, will continue with a number of research projects in Tanzania. FP4 and FP5 will also have continuing and new projects in Phase II.

Viet Nam (A4NH Focus Country)

CIAT leads the CGIAR Site integration and held a national consultation in November 2015. Further details are posted at http://gcard3.cgiar.org/vietnam/

CIAT will coordinate A4NH site integration in Phase II with support from the A4NH PMU and flagshipo leaders. CIAT also leads the CGIAR site integration efforts and this will ensure close alignment of A4NH. A document on ongoing and planned research in A4NH for Phase II in Viet Nam was prepared in late 2015 and will be updated at least annually. FP4 has ongoing and

197

For Phase II, an in-country A4NH Viet Nam team was formed in late 2015. This team were provided with a brief on Phase II plans as well as a document on on-going and planned projects in Viet Nam for Phase II and slides for country consultation meetings.

planned projects in Viet Nam. FP3 and FP5 have current and planned projects in Viet Nam that will be coordinated by the ILRI country office. Viet Nam will be one of the 4 focus countries for FP1. We plan to hold a country consultation meeting for planning that flagship in June 2016, similar to the process followed in Ethiopia (see above). As with other A4NH focus countries, we will allocate a small budget for coordination of A4NH activities and engagement with the managing partner in that country – in this case CIAT.

CGIAR Site Integration + Countries with A4NH activities in Phase II Burkina Faso

CIFOR leads the CGIAR Site integration. Further details are posted at http://gcard3.cgiar.org/burkina-faso/ The site integration process arose from a collaborative process of a group of Centers working in a common site. A4NH has not been involved in the site integration process.

FP4 has had a large trial with HKI and partners on small-scale / homestead food production and nutrition and health outcomes for mothers and infants. We plan to provide information to the site integration team to see how local partners might contribute to CGIAR site integration in Burkina Faso.

Cameroon

ICRAF leads the CGIAR Site integration and a meeting was recently held. No information yet on the site integration website http://gcard3.cgiar.org/cameroon/

A4NH activities are very limited, working with national partners in FP5 through IITA. IITA will explore potential alignment with the Cameroon site integration team.

DRC

IITA leads the CGIAR Site integration and held a national consultation in February 2016. Further details have been circulated and will be posted at http://gcard3.cgiar.org/drc/ The focal point was provided with a brief on Phase II plans and slides for country consultation meetings.

IITA will manage A4NH site integration activities in DRC. DRC is a target country for FP2 and the HarvestPlus country manager is hosted by IIITA and the A4NH focal point for DRC.

Ghana

IWMI leads the CGIAR Site integration and held a national consultation in February 2016. Further details are posted at http://gcard3.cgiar.org/ghana/ One of the A4NH researchers from IITA will be the focal point with the Ghana site integration team. The focal point was provided with a brief on Phase II plans and slides for country consultation meetings.

IITA will manage the A4NH site integration activities in Ghana as it is the major managing partners involved in research in Ghana through FP5 and FP3. There might be one or two projects in FP1 that IITA is also involved with. Both IITA and IFPRI have country offices in Ghana. The IFPRI CSSP will play an important role in any policy pathway research.

India (A4NH Focus Country)

ICRISAT leads the CGIAR Site integration and a one-day meeting will be held in March 2016. Further details of the site integration process are available and updates will be posted at http://gcard3.cgiar.org/india/ A4NH will manage its participation in the site integration process through the IFPRI regional office in New Delhi which hosts a large portfolio of A4NH projects. A brief of Phase II plans has been provided.

India is a focus country for A4NH, and there is a large portfolio of A4NH projects. Both FP4 and FP2 have a large portfolio of research with partners in India. In October 2014, researchers with FP4 held a national meeting Together for Nutrition, which will guide plans and partnerships for Phase II. We also plan research in all other flagships in India in Phase II. We will prepare a document on ongoing and planned research in India. As with other A4NH focus countries, we will allocate a small budget for coordination of A4NH activities and engagement with the managing partner in that country – in this case IFPRI.

198

Kenya

ICRAF leads the CGIAR Site integration and a meeting was recently held. No information yet on the site integration website http://gcard3.cgiar.org/kenya/ ILRI is coordinating A4NH input into the Kenya site integration process. The team were provided with a brief on Phase II plans and we will update the list of ongoing and planned projects.

ILRI will manage the A4NH site integration activities in Kenya as it is the major managing partners involved in research in Kenya through its leadership of FP3 and co-leadership of FP5. A4NH researchers in Kenya are working through the ILRI Kenya manager for site integration.

Malawi

CIP leads the CGIAR Site integration and a two-day meeting was held in February 2016. Further details are posted at: http://gcard3.cgiar.org/malawi/ IFPRI participated in the site integration meeting and will coordinate linkages with the site integration process.

The IFPRI CSSP in Malawi will manage the A4NH site integration activities. There are 2 main sets of A4NH activities planned, one under FP4 and the other under FP3 (aflatoxin control led by IITA, which also have a Malawi Office and contribute to the site integration development).

Mali

ICRISAT leads the CGIAR Site integration and a two-day meeting was held in February 2016. Further details are posted at: http://gcard3.cgiar.org/mali/ A4NH did not participate in the consultation meetings but will link with the site integration team through IITA.

A4NH activities in Mali are relatively limited. IITA leads work in aflatoxin control in FP3 and IFPRI teams from outside Mali work with in-country partners on research in evaluation of ANH interventions. We will provide the IITA Mali focal point with the brief on A4NH in Phase II and descriptions of on-going and planned projects and ask IITA to manage the alignment of A4NH with site integration planning.

Mozambique

CIP leads the CGIAR Site integration and a meeting will be held in late March. Information will be provided at: http://gcard3.cgiar.org/cameroon/ A4NH is not participating in the planned meeting but will provide information through IITA.

A4NH activities in Mozambique are limited in Phase II. IITA will leads work in aflatoxin control in FP3. We will provide the IITA Mozambique focal point with the brief on A4NH in Phase II and descriptions of on-going and planned projects and ask IITA to manage the alignment of A4NH with site integration planning.

Nepal

IWMI and CIMMYT co-lead the site integration and a meeting was held in January 2016. Further details are posted at: http://gcard3.cgiar.org/nepal/ A4NH was not actively involved in the meeting.

A4NH research is limited to one project in FP4. We will provide information and coordinate with the site integration team through the IFPRI focal point for Nepal site integration.

Niger

ICRISAT leads site integration. Further details at http://gcard3.cgiar.org/niger/

A4NH has no planned activities in Niger for Phase II.

Rwanda

Rotating site integration leadership with CIP followed by CIAT. A number of meetings have been held and a national consultation is scheduled for late March. Further details will be posted at: http://gcard3.cgiar.org/rwanda/ CIAT is providing information into the site integration process for A4NH.

CIAT will manage the A4NH site integration activities in Rwanda. There is a very large FP2 program in Rwanda managed by CIAT. Other research in Rwanda is aflatoxin control, led by IITA. A4NH will provide a brief on Phase II plans as well as an updated list of on-going and planned research to CIAT for inclusion in the site integration.

Uganda

Bioversity and CIP co-lead the site integration on a rotational basis. Meetings with staff of Centers with offices in Uganda have been held and a

A4NH has a large portfolio of research on-going and planned for Phase II in Uganda. This includes substantial activities in FP2, FP3, and FP4. At the moment we plan that the lead Centers for these FPs (FP2 – IFPRI/CIAT; FP3 – ILRI/IITA and FP4 – IFPRI) will contribute to site integration at flagship level.

199

national consultation meeting will be held on March 9. Further details are posted at: http://gcard3.cgiar.org/uganda/ A4NH will provide its brief on plans for Phase II as well as an updated list of projects to the site integration team and to all its managing partners working in Uganda (Bioversity, CIAT, ILRI, IITA and IFPRI (lead Center).

Zambia

CIMMYT leads the site integration and a number of meetings including a national consultation in Feb 2016. Further details are posted at: http://gcard3.cgiar.org/zambia/ For Phase II, an in-country A4NH Zambia team was formed in late 2015. This team were provided with a brief on Phase II plans as well as a document on on-going and planned projects in Zambia for Phase II and slides for country consultation meetings.

CIAT / HarvestPlus will coordinate A4NH site integration in Phase II with support from the A4NH PMU and flagship leaders. A document on ongoing and planned research in A4NH for Phase II in Zambia was prepared in late 2015 and will be updated at least annually. FP2 has a large program in Zambia. FP3 has activities both for aflatoxins and food safety in animal source foods. FP5 also have current and planned projects in Zambia.

200

SECTION 3.7

201

Annex 3.7 STAFFING OF MANAGEMENT TEAM AND FLAGSHIP PROJECTS A summary of the skills, experience and capacity of each flagship leader and up to 10 senior scientists are organized starting with the A4NH Program Management Unit, followed by each flagship. The flagship leader is listed first, followed in alphabetical order by last name.

Name Affiliation Program Management Unit John MCDERMOTT IFPRI-A4NH Nancy JOHNSON IFPRI-A4NH Hazel Jean MALAPIT IFPRI Agnes QUISUMBING IFPRI Flagship 1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets ToR for Flagship Leader Wageningen University Christophe BÉNÉ CIAT Inge D. BROUWER Wageningen University Imke J.M. DE BOER Wageningen University Alan DE BRAUW IFPRI Guy HENRY CIAT Gina KENNEDY Bioversity Roseline REMANS Bioversity /Earth Institute, Columbia University Ruerd RUBEN Wageningen University Martine RUTTEN Wageningen University Marrit VAN DEN BERG Wageningen University Flagship 2 – Biofortification Howarth BOUIS HarvestPlus-IFPRI Ekin BIROL HarvestPlus-IFPRI Erick BOY-GALLEGO HarvestPlus-IFPRI Wolfgang PFEIFFER HarvestPlus-CIAT Ina SCHONBERG HarvestPlus-IFPRI Thom SPRENGER HarvestPlus-IFPRI Parminder VIRK HarvestPlus-CIAT Manfred ZELLER HarvestPlus-IFPRI Flagship 3 – Food Safety

Delia GRACE ILRI Ranajit BANDYOPADHYAY IITA Jagger J W HARVEY ILRI Barbara HÄSLER LCIRAH Vivian HOFFMANN IFPRI Amos Ochieng OMORE ILRI Alexander SAAK IFPRI Hari Kishan SUDINI ICRISAT Fred UNGER ILRI Barbara WIELAND ILRI Name Affiliation Flagship 4 – Supporting Policies, Programs and Enabling Action through Research (SPEAR) Stuart GILLESPIE IFPRI Namukolo COVIC IFPRI James GARRETT IFPRI Lawrence HADDAD IFPRI

202

Jef LEROY IFPRI Nicholas NISBETT Institute of Development Studies (IDS) Deanna OLNEY IFPRI Marie RUEL IFPRI John THOMPSON Institute of Development Studies (IDS) Roos VERSTRAETEN Institute of Tropical Medicine Antwerp Flagship 5 – Improving Human Health Eric FÈVRE University of Liverpool/ILRI Bernard BETT ILRI Rousseau DJOUAKA IITA Delia GRACE ILRI Jo LINES LSHTM Stephen MSHANA Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences Hung NGUYEN-VIET ILRI Timothy ROBINSON ILRI Richard STABLER LSHTM Philip TOYE ILRI Jeff WAAGE LCIRAH/LSHTM

203

Program Management Unit

204

John MCDERMOTT

Current position and affiliation: Director, CRP on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health, IFPRI, USA Profile: Before joining IFPRI in 2011 to lead A4NH, John was Deputy Director General and Director of Research at ILRI in Nairobi from 2003-2011. John has lived and worked in Africa for 25 years. As a researcher, John’s research career has focused on public health, animal health and livestock research in developing countries, primarily Africa. He has led projects on zoonotic and emerging diseases in Asia and Africa. John has a strong background in quantitative methods (modeling, study design, statistics). During his research career, John authored or co-authored 200 peer-reviewed publications, book chapters and conference papers and has advised over 30 post-graduate students, including 20 PhD graduates. He was a visiting Lecturer at the University of Nairobi and a Professor at the University of Guelph. He has also served as an advisor to FAO, WHO, OIE, and other international agencies, and currently serves as a member of the International Union of Food Science and Technology food security committee. Employment 2011-present Director, CRP on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health, IFPRI, USA 2003-2011 Deputy Director General – Research, ILRI, Kenya 1997-2003 Epidemiologist, ILRI, Kenya 1999-2009 Professor of Epidemiology, University of Guelph, Canada (Assistant 1990-92; Associate 1992-1997; Full

1997-2009) Education 1990 PhD, Quantitative Epidemiology - University of Guelph, Canada 1981 Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (DVM) - University of Guelph, Canada Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • McDermott, J., N. Johnson, S. Kadiyala, G. Kennedy, and A.J. Wyatt, 2015. Agricultural research for nutrition

outcomes – rethinking the agenda, Food Security, 7:593–607 • Jha, S. K., McDermott, J., Bacon, G., Lannon, C., Joshi, P. K., & Dubé, L. 2014. Convergent innovation for affordable

nutrition, health, and health care: the global pulse roadmap. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1331(1), 142-156.

• McDermott, J., Aït-Aïssa, M., Morel, J., & Rapando, N. 2013. Agriculture and household nutrition security—development practice and research needs. Food Security, 5(5), 667-678.

• McDermott, J., Grace, D., & Zinsstag, J. (2013). Economics of brucellosis impact and control in low-income countries. Revue scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics), 32(1), 249-261.

• Jones, B.A., Grace, D., Kock, R., Alonso, S., Rushton, J., Said, M.Y., McKeever, D., Mutua, F., Young, J., McDermott, J. and Pfeiffer, D.U., 2013. Zoonosis emergence linked to agricultural intensification and environmental change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(21), pp.8399-8404.

Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Alliance Deputy Executive Chair (DDG group including research and finance) 2009-2010; Managed grant to establish the public-private partnership - Global Alliance for Livestock Vaccines and Medicine (GALVmed) and served as a non-executive Director (2006-2010). Awards: Peter Ellis Award – International Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics 2015 (for international contributions); Doctor of Laws (honoris causa) – University of Guelph 2012. Role in A4NH: Director

205

Nancy JOHNSON

Current position and affiliation: Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI, USA Profile: Nancy is an agricultural economist with 20 years of experience in conducting, managing, and evaluating the impacts of agricultural and natural resource management research. Nancy has expertise with different methods and approaches for assessing outcomes and impacts related to productivity, poverty, nutrition and health, gender and women’s empowerment, and sustainability and experience managing external evaluations. Employment 2013-present Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI, USA 2010-2013 Adjunct Prof/Lecturer, University of Minnesota, USA 2008-2012 Program Leader, ILRI, Kenya 1999-2007 Scientist and program manager, CIAT, Colombia Education 1997 PhD, Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, USA 1992 MS, Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, USA Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Johnson, N. Kovarik, C. Meinzen-Dick, R. Njuki, J. and Quisumbing, A. 2016. Gender, assets, and agricultural

development: Lessons from eight projects. World Development, • Mayne, J. and Johnson, N. 2015. Using Theories of change in the Agriculture for Nutrition and Health CGIAR research

program. Evaluation 21(4): 407-428. • McDermott, J., Johnson, N., Kadiyala, S., Kennedy, G., and Wyatt, A.J. 2015. Agricultural research for nutrition

outcomes – rethinking the agenda. Food Security 7: 593–607. • Kristjanson, P., A., Waters-Bayer, A., Johnson, N., Tipilda, A., Njuki, J., Baltenweck, I., Grace, D. and MacMillan, S.

2014. Livestock and women’s livelihoods. In: Gender in Agriculture: Closing the Knowledge Gap. (Agnes R. Quisumbing, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Terri L. Raney, André Croppenstedt, Julia A. Behrman, and Amber Peterman, Eds.). Springer.

• Meenakshi, JV, N Johnson, V. Manyong, H. De Groote, J. Javelosa, D. Yanggen, F. Naher, C. Gonzalez, J.Garcia and E. Meng, 2010, “How cost-effective is biofortification in combating micronutrient malnutrition? An ex-ante assessment,” World Development 38(1): 64-75

Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Experience with two system-wide programs (CAPRI, PRGA) and two challenge programs (HarvestPlus and CPWF); Member of Executive Committee of CAPRi; Theme leader in CPWF. Role in A4NH: Leader of Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) unit, which was part of PMU in Phase I and will be a cross cutting unit in Phase II.

206

Hazel Jean Lim MALAPIT

Current position and affiliation: Gender Research Coordinator, IFPRI, USA Profile: Hazel coordinates research, training, and technical assistance on the implementation of the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI), manages and coordinates the integration of gender into the research of the CRP on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH), and conducts research on gender, women’s empowerment, agriculture, health and nutrition issues. She has eight peer-reviewed publications. Employment 2012-present Gender Research Coordinator, IFPRI, USA 2010-2012 Economist (Extended Term Consultant), PREM Gender and Development, The World Bank, USA. 2009- 2010 Herman Postdoctoral Fellow in Gender and Economics, Department of Economics and Department of

Women’s Studies, University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, USA. 2004- 2005 Senior Policy Analyst, Action for Economic Reforms, Philippines. 2004 Field Research Collaborator, IFPRI, Bukidnon/Cagayan de Oro, Philippines. Education 2009 PhD Economics, American University, USA 2001 MA Economics, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Philippines. Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Malapit, H. J., Kadiyala, S., Quisumbing, A. R., Cunningham, K., and Tyagi, P. 2015. “Women’s empowerment

mitigates the negative effects of low production diversity on maternal and child nutrition in Nepal,” Journal of Development Studies, 51(8): 1097-1123.

• Malapit, H. J. and Quisumbing, A.R. 2015. “What dimensions of women’s empowerment in agriculture matter for nutrition in Ghana?” Food Policy, 52: 54-63.

• Rao, S. and Malapit, H. J. 2015. “Gender and access to financial services in the United States.” Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 36(4): 606-620.

• Sraboni, E., Malapit, H. J., Quisumbing, A. R., and Ahmed, A. 2014. “Women’s empowerment in agriculture: What role for food security in Bangladesh?” World Development, 61: 11-52.

• Malapit, H. J. 2012. “Are women more likely to be credit constrained? Evidence from low-income urban households in the Philippines,” Feminist Economics, 18(3): 81-108.

• Malapit, H. J. 2012. “Why do spouses hide income?” Journal of Socio-Economics, 41(5): 584-593. Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Coordinates the research and technical assistance for the WEAI, 2012-present; Herman Postdoctoral Fellowship in Gender and Economics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 2009-2010; Poverty and Economic Policy (PEP) Research Grant (Project No: pr-pmma-229), 2004-2005 Role in A4NH: Gender Research Coordinator for A4NH in Phase I and Phase II

207

Agnes QUISUMBING

Current position and affiliation: Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI, USA Profile: Agnes is a Senior Research Fellow and Theme leader of the cross-cutting gender research theme at IFPR. An applied microeconomist with experience in intrahousehold and gender analysis, analysis of panel data, impact evaluation of integrated agriculture-nutrition programs, her research areas are in gender and intrahousehold issues, poverty, women’s empowerment; and intergenerational transfers. She has 68 peer-reviewed publications. Employment 1999-present Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI, USA 1995-1999 Research Fellow, IFPRI, USA 1993-1995 Economist, World Bank, USA 1991-1993 Consultant, World Bank, USA Education 1985 PhD, Economics, University of the Philippines, Philippines 1982 MA, Economics, University of the Philippines, Philippines Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • van den Bold, M., A. Dillon, D. Olney , M. Ouedraogo, A. Pedehombga, A. Quisumbing. 2015. Can integrated

agriculture-nutrition programs change gender norms on land and asset ownership? Evidence from Burkina Faso, Journal of Development Studies 51(9): 1155 – 1174.

• Quisumbing, A. R., D. Rubin, C. Manfre, E. Waithanji, M. van den Bold, D. Olney, N. Johnson, and R. Meinzen-Dick. 2015. Gender, assets, and market-oriented agriculture: learning from high-value crop and livestock projects in Africa and Asia. Agriculture and Human Values 32(4): 705-725.

• Malapit, H.M. and A. R. Quisumbing. 2015. What dimensions of women’s empowerment in agriculture matter for nutrition in Ghana? Food Policy 52: 54–63.

• Malapit, H., S. Kadiyala, A. R. Quisumbing, K. Cunningham, P. Tyagi. 2015. "Women’s empowerment mitigates the negative effects of low production diversity on maternal and child nutrition in Nepal" Journal of Development Studies 51 (8): 1097-1123.

• Sraboni E., Malapit, H. J., Quisumbing, A., Ahmed, A. 2014. “Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture: What Role for Food Security in Bangladesh?” World Development, Vol 61: 11-52.

• Hoddinott, J., J. R, Behrman, J. A. Maluccio, P. Melgar, A. R. Quisumbing, M. Ramirez-Zea, A. D. Stein, K. M. Yount, and R. Martorell, 2013, Adult consequences of growth failure in early childhood, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 98:1170–8.

Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Co-PI, Gender, Agriculture, and Assets Project Phase 1, 2010-2014 ($3 million research program with a portfolio of 8 agricultural development projects in 6 countries); Co-team leader, IFPRI Pathways from Poverty Research Program, 2003-2009 ($2 million research program); Team Leader, IFPRI Gender and Intrahousehold Research Program, 1995-2003 ($4 million research program in 4 high-concentration countries and 8 supplementary study countries) Role in A4NH: In Phase I: Senior Gender Advisor, led efforts to write the initial A4NH Gender Strategy; provided strategic guidance and technical input into integrating gender into A4NH research programs. In Phase II: Will continue this role as part of the Gender, Equity, and Empowerment (GEE) unit

208

Flagship 1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets

209

Draft Terms of Reference (ToR) for leader of the A4NH flagship on Food Systems for Healthier Diets

Wageningen University and Research Center (Wageningen UR) as a managing partner in the CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) is recruiting a leader for the flagship program, Food Systems for Healthier Diets. Wageningen UR is the collaboration between Wageningen University and the DLO foundation. Its mission is to explore the potential of nature to improve the quality of life, working everywhere around the world in the domain of healthy food and living environment for governments and the business community. A4NH, led by the International Food Policy Research Institute, provides evidence, practical solutions and support to countries for improving nutrition and health outcomes through agriculture, primarily in Africa and South Asia. The flagship on Food Systems for Healthier Diets aims to improve the diets of poor and vulnerable populations through enabling interventions and innovations by private, public and civil society actors in national and subnational food systems. It looks at food system transformation from a diet and nutrition outcome perspective, seeking to identify practical options and policy strategies for increasing healthy and reducing unhealthy diet components. It builds on research on dietary assessment and methods for improving nutrition through value chains and places these in a broader agricultural, environmental, social, economic and political decisionmaking framework. We have a new partnership arrangement to implement this research and link to food system actors through a variety of platforms. In the long term, progress will be evaluated through improvements in diets, particularly for women and vulnerable populations. Essential Qualifications: • Acknowledged research leader in food systems and food policy as they influence diet quality • Experience in international development • PhD in agricultural economics, economics, or quantitative social science and knowledge of nutrition and health or

PhD in public health, epidemiology, nutrition • 10+ years of post-PhD experience relevant to the job with experience leading and managing diverse, geographically

distributed teams • Demonstrated ability to critically assess own and others’ research • Excellent publication record in peer-review journals Essential Duties: • Lead a globally-recognized research program on food systems for healthier diets. • Lead strategy, planning, management and monitoring and evaluation for the program • Contribute to the planning and management of A4NH as a member of the management committee. Work in a team

of research leaders in A4NH. • Develop a network of research, development implementer (public, private and civil society) and policy partners for

innovative research on food systems and how this research supports development outcomes in focus countries in Africa and Asia.

• Identify and cultivate relationships with key donors and partners and lead development of new proposals and partnerships

• Work closely with donor and senior government stakeholders on programs and projects • Publish research in peer-review publications and communicate research in various forms • Communicate research to the broader agriculture, nutrition and health communities in various forms • Develop and oversee implementation of a capacity development strategy, based on the A4NH capacity development

strategy that supports the achievement of the flagship objectives related to both development outcomes and adding value to research across the CGIAR and partners.

210

Christophe BÉNÉ

Current position and affiliation: Senior Policy Expert – Decision and Policy Analysis Program (DAPA) – CIAT, Colombia Profile: Dr. Béné has 15 years of experience in conducting/directing inter-disciplinary research and advisory/assessment work focusing on poverty alleviation, vulnerability and food security. His relevant expertise includes: vulnerability and resilience analysis; decentralization and governance reforms; policy processes and institutional changes, food and nutritional security with field experience in sub-Sahara Africa, South and Southeast Asia, Caribbean, and Pacific. Employment 2015-Present Senior Policy Expert – Decision and Policy Analysis Program (DAPA) – CIAT, Colombia 2010-2015 Senior Research Fellow – Vulnerability and Poverty Reduction team – Institute of Development Studies,

University of Sussex, UK 2006-2010 Senior Policy Advisor - Policy, Economics and Social Sciences, WorldFish Center 2003-2006 Portfolio Director Water and Fisheries resources - WorldFish Center, Regional Offices for Africa and

West Asia, Egypt 1999-2003 Research Fellow - Centre for the Economics and Management of Aquatic Resources, Department of

Economics, University of Portsmouth - UK Education 1997 PhD, Environment and Life Sciences University of Paris VI, France 1992 MSc in Marine Environmental Sciences - University of Aix-Marseille II – France Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Béné C., Headey D., Haddad L. and von Grebmer K. 2016 Is resilience a useful concept in the context of food security and

nutrition programmes? Food Security 8(1), 123-138 • Béné C. Arthur R., Norbury H., et al.. 2016 Contribution of fisheries and aquaculture to food security and poverty

reduction: assessing the current evidence. World Development 79: 177–196. • Béné C., Barange M., Subasinghe R., Pinstrup-Andersen P., Merino G., Hemre G-I., Williams M. 2015. Feeding 9 billion by

2050 – Putting fish back on the menu. Food Security 7(2): 261-274. • Béné C., Cannon, T,. Gupte J., Metha L., and Tanner T. (2014) Exploring the Potential and Limits of the Resilience Agenda

in Rapidly Urbanising Contexts, Evidence report No.63, Policy Anticipation, Response and Evaluation, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, 61 p.

• HLPE (2014) Sustainable fisheries and aquaculture for food security and nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition, commissioned by the Committee on World Food Security, Rome, 119 p.

Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Team leader of the ITAD evaluation team commissioned by DFID to assess US$50 million Adaptive Social Protection Program implemented by the World Bank in West Africa (£500,000) (Aug.2015-Dec 2017); Programme leader of Adaptive Social Protection in the Context of Agriculture and Food Security project funded by UK DFID (£463,000). (Dec 2010 – Nov. 2012); and Leader of the team commissioned by the Word Bank to design the fishery module of the Living Standards Measurement Study-Integrated Surveys on Agriculture in Sub-Sahara Africa, with pilot surveys in Malawi and Uganda (US$100,000). Role in A4NH: In Phase II, PI for activities in FP1, CoA1, and collaborator for CoA3 activities related to policy and economic analysis; linkages between food system transformations and dietary transitions.

211

Inge D BROUWER

Current position and affiliation: Associate Professor International Nutrition, Division of Human Nutrition, Wageningen University and Research Centre, The Netherlands Profile: Dr. Brouwer has thirty years of work experience in the field of international nutrition. Her research interests include food-based approaches, nutrition-sensitive agriculture, nutrition behavior, micronutrients, household food security and nutrition, dietary assessment in international settings (including dietary quality index development and validation), monitoring and evaluation. She coordinates large EU funded programs like INSTAPA, nutrition work packages, and supervises several nutrition related PhD and post-doc projects in Africa and Asia. Employment 2014 – present Associate Professor, Division of Human Nutrition, Wageningen UR 2001 – 2014 Assistant Professor, Division of Human Nutrition, Wageningen UR 1999 – 2001 Project Officer Nutrition, UNICEF, Ghana 1995 – 1999 Nutrition Consultant, Wageningen UR, attached to UNICEF, Ghana Education 1994 PhD, Human Nutrition, Wageningen UR, The Netherlands 1986 MSc, Human Nutrition, Wageningen UR, The Netherlands Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Talsma, E. F., Brouwer, I. D., Verhoef, H., Mbera, G. N., Mwangi, A. M., Demir, A. Y., ... & Melse-Boonstra, A. (2016).

Biofortified yellow cassava and vitamin A status of Kenyan children: a randomized controlled trial. The American journal of clinical nutrition, 103(1), 258-267.

• Brouwer, I.D. 2014. Agriculture and nutrition: linkages and complementarities. In: Diging deeper: inside Africa’s agricultural, food and nutrition dynamics. (Akinyinka Akinyoade, Wijnand Klaver, Sebastiaan Soeters, and Dick Foeken, Eds.). Brill. 2014.

• Cercamondi, C. I., Icard-Vernière, C., Egli, I. M., Vernay, M., Hama, F., Brouwer, I. D., ... & Mouquet-Rivier, C. (2014). A higher proportion of iron-rich leafy vegetables in a typical Burkinabe maize meal does not increase the amount of iron absorbed in young women. The Journal of nutrition, 144(9), 1394-1400.

• Koreissi, Y., Fanou-Fogny, N., Hulshof, P.J.M., Brouwer, I.D. 2013. Fonio (Digitaria exilis) landraces in Mali: Nutrient and phytate content, genetic diversity and effect of processing. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 29: 134-143

• Talsma, E.F., Melse-Boonstra, A., Kok, B. de, Mbera, G., Mwangi, A.M., Brouwer, I.D. 2013. Biofortified cassava with pro-vitamin A is sensory and culturally acceptable for consumption by primary school children in Kenya. PLoS ONE 8(9)

Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Leader of International Nutrition research, Division of Human Nutrition and project leader of nine PhD research projects in the area of agriculture-nutrition; Overall Coordinator of large EU funded FP7 project, INSTAPA, focusing on food based approaches to alleviate micronutrient deficiencies in women and children in Africa; Work package leader of EU funded projects in Africa (FONIO) and Asia (SMILING). Role in A4NH: In Phase II: PI for several activities under FP1; co-leader of CoA1; Center Focal Point for diet quality assessment. The majority of time will be related to supervision of nutrition related PhD and post-doc projects in FP1, plus management and coordination functions for FP1.

212

Imke J.M. DE BOER

Current position and affiliation: Professor of Animal Production Systems, Wageningen University and Research Centre, The Netherlands. Profile: Imke and her team conduct research directed at providing an integrative analysis to scientifically underpin sustainable innovation in animal production to explore the multi-dimensional, and sometimes conflicting, consequences of innovations (trade-offs and synergies) in livestock systems across the world, with special focus on their impact on the environment, animal welfare and livelihood of people. Employment 2011-present Full professor, Head of Animal Production Systems, Wageningen UR, The Netherlands 2010-2011 Associate professor at Animal Production Systems, Wageningen UR, The Netherlands 1994-2010 Assistant professor at Animal Production Systems, Wageningen UR, The Netherlands Education 1994 PhD, Animal breeding and genetics, Wageningen UR, The Netherlands 1989 MSc, Animal Sciences, Wageningen UR (cum laude), The Netherlands Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Van Zanten, H.H.E., P. Bikker, B.G. Meerburg, M. Herrero and I.J.M. de Boer. 2015. Opinion paper: The role of

livestock production in a sustainable diet: a land-use perspective. Animal • Van Zanten, H.H.E., H. Mollenhorst, C.W. Klootwijk, C.E. van Middelaar and I.J.M. de Boer. 2015. Global food

security: land use efficiency of livestock systems. International journal of life cycle assessment • Van Kernebeek, H.R.J., S.J. Oosting, M.K. van Ittersum and I.J.M. de Boer. 2015. Saving land for a growing

population: consequences for consumption of crop and livestock products. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

• De Vries, M., C.E. van Middelaar and I.J.M. de Boer. 2015. Comparing environmental impacts of beef production systems: a review of life cycle assessments. Livestock Science 178: 279-288.

• Herrero, M., S. Wirsenius, B. Henderson, C. Rigolot, P. Thornton, P. Havlik, I.J.M. de Boer and P. Gerber. 2015. Livestock and the Environment: what have we learnt in the last decade? Annual Review of Environment and Resources 40: 177-202.

Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Member of scientific committee on International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment (since 2008) and European Scientific advisor of The Sustainability Consortium (since 2011) Role in A4NH: PI for activities related to animal source food value chains in FP1.

213

Alan DE BRAUW

Current position and affiliation: Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI, USA Profile: Dr. de Brauw is a Senior Research Fellow in the Markets, Trade, and Institutions Division. His research has focused on understanding the evolution of rural labor markets in a developing economy and the effects of migration on source households. He has experience designing, implementing and evaluating impact evaluations of agricultural projects from the perspective of poverty and nutrition outcomes and has conducted randomized and non-randomized evaluations of conditional cash transfer programs and agricultural interventions. He has 33 peer reviewed publications. Employment 2006-present Senior Research Fellow, Research Fellow, IFPRI, USA 2010-present Adjunct Professor, McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University, USA 2002-2007 Assistant Professor of Economics, Williams College, USA Education 2002 PhD, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis, USA 1994 BA, Physics, Carleton College, USA Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Mu, Ren, and Alan de Brauw, 2015, “Unattended but not Undernourished: Left-Behind Children in Rural China,”

Journal of Population Economics 28(3): 631-657. • Jones, Kelly, and Alan de Brauw, 2015, “Using agriculture to improve child health: Results from a randomized

controlled trial on Vitamin A intake,” World Development 74 (October): 15-24. • de Brauw, Alan, Patrick Eozenou, and Mourad Moursi, 2015, “Programme Participation Intensity and Children's

Nutritional Status: Evidence from a Randomised Control Trial in Mozambique,” Journal of Development Studies 50(8): 996-1015.

• de Brauw, Alan, and Patrick Eozenou, 2014, “Measuring Risk Attitudes among Mozambican Farmers,” Journal of Development Economics 111, November: 61-74.

• Hotz, Christine, Cornelia Loechl, Abdelrahman Lubowa, James Tumwine, Grace Ndeezi, Agnes Nandutu Masawi, Rhona Baingana, Alicia Carriquiry, Alan de Brauw, J.V. Meenakshi, and Daniel Gilligan “A Large Scale Intervention to Introduce Beta Carotene Rich Orange Sweet Potato Was Effective in Increasing Vitamin A Intakes among Children and Women in Rural Uganda,” 2012, Journal of Nutrition 142: 1871-1880.

• Hotz, C., Loechl, C., de Brauw, A., Eozenou, P., Gilligan, D., Moursi, M., ... & Meenakshi, J. V. (2012). A large-scale intervention to introduce orange sweet potato in rural Mozambique increases vitamin A intakes among children and women. British Journal of Nutrition, 108(01), 163-176.

Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Associate Editor, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 2016-2019; Co-PI, USAID, Impact Evaluations on Feed the Future Interventions, 2014-present, US$3 million plus (leading impact evaluations in Mozambique and Bangladesh); Co-PI, DFID, South-South Learning: Lessons from Brazil for Africa, 2012-present (US$3 million); conducting impact evaluations in Senegal and Malawi. Co-PI, IFAD, Ex Post Impact Evaluations, 2014-present (US$500,000). Role in A4NH: In Phase I: Flagship Leader of Value Chains for Nutrition; In Phase II: PI of value chains analysis; focal point for research in CoA2; collaborator in designing, implementing, and evaluating impact evaluations of agricultural projects from perspective of poverty and nutritional outcomes.

214

Guy HENRY

Current position and affiliation: Leader, Sustainable Food Systems, CIAT (seconded since 2011), Colombia; Senior Scientist and Bioeconomist, UMR MOISA, CIRAD, France Profile: Dr. Henry is a multi-language and multi-culture senior agricultural/policy/trade economist with research foci on: healthy and sustainable food systems, (international) value chain competitiveness and actor organization, certification, international trade policy, bioeconomy policy and research agendas. He is an innovative developer, initiator and leader of new research programs, networks and strategies. He is a proven successful formulator, negotiator, general coordinator and manager of large (21 partners, €4 M) bi-regional and global food systems/trade research projects under EC FP6, FP7 and H2010 programs. Employment 2011-present Leader, Sustainable Food Systems, CIAT (seconded since 2011), Colombia

Senior scientist and Bioeconomist, UMR MOISA, CIRAD, France 2004-2010 Senior scientist CIRAD and Regional EC project coordinator, CIRAD office, Argentina 1998-2004 Senior scientist CIRAD, Regional Expert of French Technical Cooperation, coordinator of Southern Cone

research network ProsPER, Brazil 1997-1998 Senior scientist CIRAD, Coordinator of global roots R&D network PROAMYL, France 1988-1996 Associate Senior scientist and Leader of Cassava Economics Program, CIAT, Colombia Education 1988 PhD, International Agricultural Trade and Policy, Texas A&M University, USA 1983 MS, Agricultural Management & Resources Development, University of Florida, USA Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Henry, G., Bene, C. and E. Talsma. 2015. Changing Diets. In: Feeding Tomorrow’s Cities. Henk C. van Latesteijn and A.

Oostra (eds.). Stichting Metropolitane Landbouw. The Netherlands. • Henry, G., Pahun, J. y E. J. Trigo. La Bioeconomia en América Latina: Oportunidades de desarrollo e implicaciones de

política e investigación. FACES, 2014, Año 20, No 42-4, 125-141 • Trigo, E., Henry, G., Sanders, J., Schurr, U., Ingelbrecht, I., Revel, C., Santana, C. and P. Rocha. 2014. Towards

Bioeconomy Development in Latin America and Caribbean. In: “Towards a KBBE in Latin America and the Caribbean”. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, Colombia

• International Center of Tropical Agriculture – CIAT. 2014. CIAT Strategy 2014-20: Building an Eco-efficient Future. (Guy Henry, taskforce leader). CIAT press, Cali, Colombia. 65 p.

• Orden, D., Beghin, J. and G. Henry. 2012. Special issue: Non-tariff Measures, Agriculture and Food Trade, and Competitiveness, The World Economy, Volume 35, Issue 8, p. 967-972.

Other evidence of Leadership Leader of the new CIAT Strategic Initiative Sustainable Food Systems – FoodLens (since 2014); Taskforce leader for the organization, formulation and publication of CIAT Strategy 2014-2020; Coordinator of bi-regional LAC-EU science & technology cooperation projects on the Bioeconomy. Co-financing mainly from European Commission programs FP6 and FP7. Research projects include: ABEST3, ABEST2, ALCUE-NET, ALCUE-KBBE, ALCUE-FOOD. Total grants portfolio: 8+ M€; Coordinator of food systems research projects at global, regional and national levels. Ex: EC FP7 NTM-IMPACT (2009-12) Assessment of the impacts on non-tariff measures NTM, on the competitiveness of the EU and selected global trade partners. 18 global partners, 3.9 M€ budget. Role in A4NH: In Phase II, co-leader of CoA3 and researcher in CoA1 of FP1.

215

Gina KENNEDY

Current position and affiliation: Component Leader, Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems, Bioversity International, Italy Profile: Dr. Kennedy has twenty five years of work experience in the field of public health and nutrition. Her research interests include measurement of dietary diversity and diet quality and assessment of nutritional problems in developing countries. For the past ten years she has worked on nutrition assessment in developing countries, including assessing the contribution of agricultural biodiversity and food-based approaches on dietary and nutritional improvement. Employment 2013-present Component Leader, Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems, Bioversity, Italy 2000-20131 International Nutrition Consultant, FAO, Italy (with travel to LMIC) 1998 Public Health Technical Advisor, GTZ, Republic of Guinea 1994-1996 Clinic Manager, British Aid Management Office (ODA), Tarawa, Republic of Kiribati Education 2009 PhD, Public Health Nutrition, Wageningen University, Netherlands 1993 MPH, Maternal and Child Health, University of Alabama, Birmingham, USA Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Remans, R., DeClerck, F. A., Kennedy, G., & Fanzo, J. 2015. Expanding the view on the production and dietary

diversity link: Scale, function, and change over time. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 201518531. • Martin-Prevel Y, Allemand P, Wiesmann D, Arimond M, Ballard T, Deitchler M, Dop MC, Kennedy G, Lee WT, Mourisi

M. 2015. Moving forward on choosing a standard operational indicator of women’s dietary diversity. Rome: FAO. • McDermott, J., Johnson, N., Kadiyala, S., Kennedy, G., and Wyatt, A.J. 2015. Agricultural research for nutrition

outcomes – rethinking the agenda. Food Security 7: 593–607. • Kuchenbecker, J., Jordan, I., Reinbott, A., Herrmann, J., Jeremias, T., Kennedy, G., ... & Krawinkel, M. B. 2015.

Exclusive breastfeeding and its effect on growth of Malawian infants: results from a cross-sectional study. Paediatrics and international child health, 35(1), 14-23.

• Kennedy G, Razes M, Ballard T and Dop MC. Measurement of dietary diversity for monitoring the impact of food-based approaches. In: Proceedings of the International Scientific Symposium on Combating micronutrient deficiencies: food-based approaches. Thompson B and Amoroso L, editors. Elsevier, 2014.

Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Leader, Bioversity Initiative on Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems, a portfolio of nine projects; Member of International Women’s Dietary Diversity project I (2005-10) and project II (2012-16); Member of EAT initiative competence forums on Multifunctional Landscapes and Seascapes and Metrics for Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems. Role in A4NH: Phase I: Center Focal Point for Bioversity International and member of Program Management Committee; Leader of Cluster on Nutrition Sensitive Landscapes. Phase II: Managing Partner with FP1; PI for activities related to Nutrition Sensitive Landscapes. (75% FTE)

1 Indicates non-continuous employment 216

Roseline REMANS

Current position and affiliation: Research scientist in the Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems initiative at Bioversity International, Ethiopia and at the Earth Institute of Columbia University, Ethiopia Profile: Dr. Remans is a biosystems engineer with a research focus on diversity in food systems, and synergies and tradeoffs between nutrition, environment and agricultural productivity in development processes. She has co-developed innovative methodologies, e.g. nutritional functional diversity, nutritional yield, and integrated monitoring systems for agricultural landscapes, applied multi-sectoral research approaches, and published widely, e.g. in Science, Nature, PNAS, PLoS, and the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Employment 2014-present Research scientist, Healthy Diets from Sustainable Food Systems, Bioversity, Ethiopia 2014-present Research scientist, Agriculture and food security center, the Earth Institute at Columbia University, Ethiopia 2011-2013 Associate research scientist, Agriculture and food security center, Earth Institute at Columbia University, USA 2008-2011 Marie Curie FP7 international outgoing Research Fellow, return phase with Leuven Sustainable Earth at

K.U.Leuven, Belgium (2010-11) and outgoing phase (2008-10) with The Earth Institute at Columbia University, USA

Education 2007 PhD, Bioscience engineering, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium with extensive research stays in Cuba, Mexico and Colombia 2001 MSc and Bachelors, Bioscience engineering, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Remans, R., DeClerck, F. A., Kennedy, G., & Fanzo, J. (2015). Expanding the view on the production and dietary

diversity link: Scale, function, and change over time. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 201518531. • DeFries R, Fanzo J, Remans R, Palm C, Wood S, Anderman TL (2015) Beyond calories: Metrics For Land-Constrained

Agriculture. Science 349: 238-240. • Hunter D, Burlingame B, Remans R (lead authors) (2015) Biodiversity and nutrition. In Connecting global priorities:

biodiversity and human health: a state of knowledge review. Romanelli, C. et al. World Health Organization (WHO) and Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 2015, 344pp.

• Anderman TL, Remans R, Wood S, DeRosa K, DeFries R (2014) Synergies and tradeoffs between cash crop production and food security: a case study in rural Ghana. Food Security 6: 541-554

• Remans R, Wood S, Saha N, Anderman TL, DeFries R (2014) Measuring nutritional diversity of national food supplies. Global Food Security 3: 174-182

Role in A4NH: Phase II: Research co-leader in Ethiopia. Research on metrics and indicators for food systems. (50% FTE)

217

Ruerd RUBEN

Current position and affiliation: Program manager Global Food and Nutrition Security (LEI Wageningen University and Research Center) and Professor Impact Analysis for Food Security (Wageningen UR), The Netherlands Profile: Dr. Ruben provides academic leadership in policy research programs on food security, sustainable land use, rural poverty alleviation and agricultural value chains. He has wide experience in interdisciplinary research programs, based on field expertise in 25 countries (in Latin America, sub-Sahara Africa, Southeast Asia) where he was involved in staff training and policy advice. Key expertise areas: land reform, farm household models cooperative development, mixed farming systems, fair ad responsible trade, rural finance and insurance, labour markets and migration, aid architecture and aid effectiveness, value chain simulation. Employment 2014-present Research manager LEI Wageningen UR and Professor Wageningen UR 2010-2014 Director, Policy & Operations Evaluation, Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2006-2014 Professor Development effectiveness & Director Centre for International Development Issues (CIDIN),

Radboud University Nijmegen 1993-2006 Associate professor Development Economics, Wageningen UR 1988-1992 Director, Foundation of Rural Development Studies (CDR), Costa Rica Education 1997 PhD, Development Economics, Free University Amsterdam, The Netherlands 1980 MSc, Development Economics, Free University – cum laude Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • B Rijsbergen, W Elbers, R Ruben, SN Njuguna (2016). The Ambivalent Impact of Coffee Certification on Farmers’

Welfare: A Matched Panel Approach for Cooperatives in Central Kenya, World Development 77, 277-292 • AD Bekele, J Beuving, R Ruben (2016). Food choices in Ethiopia: Does nutritional information matter? International

Journal of Consumer Studies • E Ramírez, R Ruben (2015). Gender Systems and Women’s Labor Force Participation in the Salmon Industry in

Chiloé, Chile. World Development 73, 96-104. • BM Lenjiso, J Smits, R Ruben (2015). Smallholder Milk Market Participation and Intra-household Time Allocation in

Ethiopia. European Journal of Development Research. 10.1057/ejdr.2015.54 • Francesconi, G. N., & Ruben, R. (2014). FairTrade’s theory of change: an evaluation based on the cooperative life

cycle framework and mixed methods. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 6(3), 268-283. Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Commissioner and Supervisor of impact analysis studies (€750k/year) (2010-2014); Lead researcher Fair Trade Impact Studies, East Africa (€250k, funded by Solidaridad) (2011-2014); Coordinator research program reproductive health care in Tanzania (Hewlett Foundation) (2007-2012); Coordinator NWO-WOTRO research program on Cooperatives and Chains on farmers’ (2008-2012); Program leader, Participatory Impact assessment (2 PhDs) (2006-2012); Coordinator NWO research program Sustainable International Commodity Chains (€600k) (2003-2006)

Role in A4NH: In Phase II: PI for several activities under FP1; Center Focal Point for program management.

218

Martine RUTTEN

Current position and affiliation: Senior Researcher, International Policy Department, LEI Wageningen UR, The Netherlands Profile: Dr. Rutten is an economist with strong skills in research, education, policy and practice, with over fifteen years of relevant work experience. As a Senior Researcher at the International Policy Department of LEI Wageningen UR, she specializes in the areas of food losses and waste and the relationships between agriculture, food and nutrition security, diets and health in the context of global trade relations. She has widely published and frequently acts as guest speaker and lecturer in these areas. Martine previously held positions as a health economist (Royal Tropical Institute – KIT), and as a policy advisor on international financial economics and institutions, particularly the World Bank (Ministry of Finance). In her different capacities she worked in various countries and regions in the world, including the UK, Vietnam, Ethiopia (Nile Basin), Bangladesh, Rwanda and Eastern Europe. Her specialty as a quantitative economist predominantly lies in the area of Computable General Equilibrium modelling, most recently using the MAGNET model developed at LEI Wageningen UR. Employment 2010–present Senior Researcher, International Policy Department, LEI Wageningen UR 2008 – 2010 Health economist, Development Policy and Practice Department, Royal Tropical Institute (KIT), The

Netherlands 2005 – 2008 Policy Advisor, Foreign Financial Relations Department, Ministry of Finance, The Netherlands 1999 – 2000 Researcher, Horticulture Department, LEI Wageningen UR, The Netherlands Education 2004 PhD Economics (No corrections), University of Nottingham, UK 1999 M.Sc. Economics (Cum Laude), Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Rutten, M. and Kavallari, A. 2016. Reducing Food Losses to Protect Domestic Food Security in the Middle East and

North Africa. Forthcoming in African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 11(2). • Rutten, M., van Dijk, M., van Rooij, W. and Hilderink, H. 2014. Land Use Dynamics, Climate Change and Food

Security in Vietnam: a Global-to-Local Modeling Approach. World Development 59: 29-46. • Powell, J. and Rutten, M. 2013. Convergence of European Wheat Yields. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,

28: 53-70. • Rutten, M. 2013. What Economic Theory Tells Us about the Impacts of Reducing Food Losses and/or Waste:

Implications for Research, Policy and Practice. Agriculture & Food Security 2013, 2:13. • Rutten, M., Shutes, L., and Meijerink, G. 2013. Sit Down at the Ballgame: How Trade Barriers Make the World Less

Food Secure. Food Policy 38: 1-10. Role in A4NH: Principal investigator in CoA1 activities related to foresight and scenario analysis

219

Marrit VAN DEN BERG

Current position and affiliation: Associate professor, Wageningen University, The Netherlands Profile: Dr. Van Den Berg is a development Economist with a background in tropical agriculture. Her research focuses on rural livelihoods in areas with imperfect markets, food and nutrition security, diversification, gender, microfinance, impact, risk and uses quantitative and mixed methods. She is currently supervising 6 PhD students and has previously supervised 6 graduates. Employment 2008 - 2015 Assistant professor, Wageningen University, The Netherlands 2002 - 2008 Postdoc researcher, Wageningen University, The Netherlands 2000 - 2002 Researcher, Development Research Institute-Tilburg University, The Netherlands 1996 - 2001 Trainee assistant, Wageningen University, The Netherlands Education 2001 PhD, Economics, Wageningen University, The Netherlands 1995 MSc, Development Studies, Wageningen University, The Netherlands Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • D’Exelle, B. and Van den Berg, M. (2014). Aid distribution and Cooperation in Unequal Communities. Review of Income

and Wealth 60(1): 114-132. • Atamanov, A. and Van den Berg, M. (2012). Heterogeneous Effects of International Migration and Remittances on Crop

Income: Evidence from the Kyrgyz Republic. World Development 40: 620-630 . • Groenewald, S. and Van den Berg, M. (2012). Smallholder livelihoods in the Context of a Changing Maize Market:

Livelihood Patterns and Trends in Rural Mexico. Journal of Development Studies 48(3): 429-444. • Radeny, M., Van den Berg, M. and Schipper, R. (2012). Rural Poverty Dynamics in Kenya: Stochastic increases versus

structural declines. World Development 40(8): 1577-1593. • Van den Berg, M. (2010). Household Income Strategies and Natural Disasters: Dynamic Livelihoods in Rural Nicaragua.

Ecological Economics 69: 592-602. Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Leader of the 3ie funded project “Integrated development programs in Sub Sahara Africa: Does a multi-faceted market-based approach to food crops stimulate food security and agricultural development in the breadbasket of Tanzania” with Sokoine University and LEI (2014-2018, US$449,956); Coordinator of the WOTRO funded project “Joint MFS II Evaluations at Country Level. Democratic Republic of the Congo. 2012-2015” with University of Antwerp, Université Catholoque de Bukavu and Université de Graben a Butembo (2012-1015, €860,000).

Role in A4NH: Principal investigator for issues related to the economics of food systems, with specific focus on micro level (household/intra-household) and meso level (local institutions).

220

Flagship 2: Biofortification

221

Howarth BOUIS

Current position and affiliation: Program Director, HarvestPlus: CIAT and IFPRI, USA Profile: As director of HarvestPlus, Dr. Howarth Bouis coordinates an interdisciplinary, global effort to breed and disseminate micronutrient-rich staple food crops to reduce hidden hunger among malnourished populations. Since 1993, he has sought to promote biofortification both within the CGIAR, among national agricultural research centers, and in the international agriculture and nutrition communities. Employment 1998-2003 Senior Research Fellow, Food Consumption and Nutrition Division (FCND) – IFPRI, USA 1989-1994 Professorial Lecturer, School of Advanced International Studies, The Johns Hopkins University, USA 1984-1998 Research Fellow, FCND – IFPRI, USA 1982-1984 Post-Doctoral Fellow, FCND – IFPRI, USA Education 1982 PhD, Food Research Institute, Stanford University, USA 1976 MA, Food Research Institute, Stanford University, USA Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Saltzman, A., Birol, E., Bouis, H. E., Boy, E. De Moura, F. F., Islam, Y., and Pfeiffer, W.H. 2013. Biofortification:

Progress toward a more nourishing future. Global Food Security 2(1): 9-17. • Zhang, X., W. Pfeiffer, N. Palacios-Rojas, R. Babu, H. Bouis, and J. Wang. 2012. Probability of success of breeding

strategies for improving pro-vitamin A content in maize. Theoretical and Applied Genetics: International Journal of Plant Breeding Research 125(2): 235-246.

• Bouis, H.E., C. Hotz, B. McClafferty, J.V. Meenakshi, and W.H. Pfeiffer. 2011. Biofortification: A new tool to reduce micronutrient malnutrition. Food and Nutrition Bulletin Vol. 32 (1): S31-S40.

• Bouis, H.E., P. Eozenou, and A. Rahman. 2011. Food prices, household income, and resource allocation: Socioeconomic perspectives on their effects on dietary quality and nutritional status. Food and Nutrition Bulletin, Vol. 32(1): S14-S23.

• Bouis, H.E. and R.M. Welch. 2010. Biofortification—A Sustainable Agricultural Strategy for Reducing Micronutrient Malnutrition in the Global South. Crop Science 50: no. 2.

Other evidence of leadership, large program-management and delivery Dr. Bouis has been leading the coordination of interdisciplinary research on biofortification since the CGIAR Micronutrients Project began in 1994. Under Dr. Bouis’ leadership, biofortification research has grown from a small research project with a budget of $200,000 a year to a prominent flagship program of the CGIAR. Role in A4NH: Leader of Flagship 2: Biofortification, in Phase I and Phase II. 100% time committed to Biofortification flagship.

222

Ekin BIROL

Current position and affiliation: Head of Impact Research, HarvestPlus: IFPRI, USA Profile: Dr. Birol joined HarvestPlus in 2010 after having first joined IFPRI in 2007 as a Research Fellow. From 2004-2007 she was a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Cambridge where she conducted research on the development and application of economic methods to inform sustainable policies for environmental conservation and natural resources management. Employment 2007- 2010 Research Fellow, Markets, Trade, and Institutions Division - IFPRI, USA 2004-2007 Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Department of Land Economy - University of Cambridge, UK 2004-2006 Affiliated Lecturer, University of Reading, UK 2004-2005 Consultant, IFPRI, USA Education 2004 PhD in Economics, Department of Economics, University College London (UCL), UK 2001 MPhil in Economics, Department of Economics, University College London, UK Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Smale, M., M. Moursi and Birol, E. Forthcoming. How does hybrid maize use affect diet diversity on family farms?

Micro-evidence from Zambia. Food Policy. • Birol, E., Meenakshi, J.V., Oparinde, A., Perez, S., and Tomlins, K. Forthcoming. Developing country consumers’

acceptance of biofortified foods: a synthesis. Food Security. • Birol, E., Asare-Marfo, D., Karandikar, B., Roy, D. and Tedla Diressie, M. Forthcoming. A latent class approach to

investigating farmer demand for biofortified foods in developing countries. Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies.

• Oparinde, A., Banerji, A., Birol, E. and Ilona, P. Forthcoming. Information and consumer willingness to pay for biofortified yellow cassava: evidence from experimental auctions in Nigeria. Agricultural Economics.

• De Moura, F. F., Palmer, A.C., Finkelstein, J.L., Haas, J.D., Murray-Kolb, L.E., Wenger, M.J., Birol, E., Boy, E. and Peña-Rosas, J.P. 2014. Are biofortified staple food crops improving vitamin A and iron status in women and children? new evidence from efficacy trials. Advances in Nutrition 5: 1–3.

Other evidence of leadership, large program-management and delivery Dr. Birol is an Associate Editor of Agricultural Economics and International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics. She is also a member of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs Nutrition Task Force and Council on Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics (C-FARE) Blue Ribbon Expert Panels on Development. She leads a team of five impact researchers based at IFPRI’s HarvestPlus office. Role in A4NH: Principal investigator for activities related to farmer adoption and consumer acceptance in Phase I; CoA2 activities related to impact assessment and effectiveness studies in Phase II. 100% time committed to Biofortification flagship.

223

Erick BOY-GALLEGO

Current position and affiliation: Head of Nutrition, HarvestPlus: IFPRI, USA Profile: Prior to joining HarvestPlus, Dr. Boy worked at the Institute of Nutrition of Central America and Panama where he became regional coordinator for micronutrient nutrition technical cooperation. He has over 15 years of experience with international nutrition, anemia control and prevention, iodine deficiency disorders, micronutrient fortification, coordination of vitamin and mineral deficiency control programs, and nutrition project management. Employment 2005-2008 Chief Scientific Adviser, Micronutrient Initiative, Canada 2002-2005 Coordinator, Global Programs Unit, Micronutrient Initiative, Canada 1999-2002 Senior Program Specialist, Programs Unit, Micronutrient Initiative, Canada 1989-1990 Medical Officer, Institute of Nutrition of Central America and Panama, Guatemala Education 2005 PhD in Nutrition, Emphasis in International Nutrition & focus area in

Epidemiology, University of California-Davis, USA 1987 MD in General Medicine & Surgery, University of San Carlos, Guatemala Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Petry N, Egli, I., Gahutu, J.B., Tugirimana, P.L., Boy, E., and Hurrell, R. 2014. Phytic acid concentration influences iron

bioavailability from biofortified beans in Rwandese women with low iron status. Journal of Nutrition 144(11): 1681-7.

• de Moura, F.F., Palmer, A.C., Finkelstein, J.L., Haas, J.D., Murray-Kolb, L.E., Wenger, M.J., Birol, E., Boy, E., and Peña-Rosas, J.P. 2014. Are biofortified staple food crops improving vitamin A and iron status in women and children? New evidence from efficacy trials. Advances in Nutrition 5(5): 568-70.

• La Frano, M.R., de Moura, F.F., Boy, E., Lönnerdal, B., and Burri, B.J. 2014. Bioavailability of iron, zinc, and provitamin A carotenoids in biofortified staple crops. Nutrition Reviews May 72(5): 289-307.

• de Moura, F.F, Boy, E., and Miloff, A. 2013. Retention of provitamin A carotenoids in staple crops targeted for biofortification in Africa: cassava, maize, and sweet potato. Critical Reviews in Food, Science, and Nutrition, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2012.724477.

• Gera, T., Sachdev, H.S., and Boy, E. 2012. Effect of iron-fortified foods on hematologic and biological outcomes: systematic review of randomized controlled trials. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 96: 309-324.

Other evidence of leadership, large program-management and delivery Leads a team of five nutrition researchers based at IFPRI’s HarvestPlus office, and was chair of the IFPRI Institutional Review Board from 2009-2013.

Role in A4NH: Phase I: Principal investigator for activities related to nutritional bioavailability and nutritional efficacy; Phase II: CoA2 activities related to nutritional efficacy and effectiveness studies. 100% time committed to Biofortification flagship.

224

Wolfgang PFEIFFER

Current position and affiliation: Deputy Director of Operations, HarvestPlus: CIAT, Colombia Profile: Before joining HarvestPlus, Dr. Pfeiffer was Head Plant Breeder for the Intensive Agro-ecosystems Program at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) in Mexico. He has over 30 years of experience in crop improvement, commercialization and international agriculture. As Deputy Director of Operations at HarvestPlus, he drives the development of micronutrient-dense, high-yielding varieties of key staple foods and the delivery/commercialization of biofortified products. He has principal authorship of more than 70 research publications, and co-authorship of more than 100. Employment 2005-2011 Plant Breeding Coordinator, HarvestPlus - International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Colombia 2004-2005 Program Head/Head Plant Breeder, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT),

Mexico 1997-2003 Principal Scientist, Durum Wheat Program – International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

(CIMMYT), Mexico 1994-1997 Head, Durum Wheat and Triticale Programs, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center

(CIMMYT), Mexico Education 1983 PhD in Agricultural Sciences, University of Hohenheim, Germany 1980 MSc in Agricultural Sciences, Emphasis in Plant Production, University Hohenheim, Germany Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Zhang, X., Pfeiffer, W., Palacios-Rojas, N., Babu, R., Bouis, H., and Wang, J. 2012. Probability of success of breeding

strategies for improving pro-vitamin A content in maize. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 125(2): 235-246. • Velu, G., Singh, R.P., Huerta-Espino, J., Peña, R.J., Arun, B., Mahendru-Singh, A., Mujahid, M.Y., Sohu, V.S., Mavi, G.S.,

Crossa, J., Alvarado, G., Joshi, A.K., and Pfeiffer, W.H. 2012. Performance of biofortified spring wheat genotypes in target environments for grain zinc and iron concentrations. Field Crops Research 137: 261-267.

• Bouis, H.E., Hotz, C., McClafferty, B., Meenakshi, J.V., and Pfeiffer, W.H. 2011. Biofortification: A new tool to reduce micronutrient malnutrition. Food & Nutrition Bulletin 32(Supplement 1): 31S-40S.

• Cakmak, I., Pfeiffer, W.H., and McClafferty, B. 2010. Biofortification of durum wheat with zinc and iron. Cereal Chemistry 87(1): 10-20.

Other evidence of leadership, large program-management and delivery Leads HarvestPlus Operations to achieve the technological and commercial project goals.

Role in A4NH: Leader for activities in crop development and delivery in Phase I; leader of CoA1, Crop Development Mainstreaming and Capacity Building, and co-leader of CoA2 operational activities in Phase II. 100% time committed to Biofortification flagship.

225

Ina SCHONBERG

Current Position and affiliation: Deputy Director of Programs, HarvestPlus: IFPRI, USA Profile: Ms. Schonberg has 20 years’ experience in programming, policy and management for nutrition, food security, and agriculture for development. She has worked for several non-profit and international organizations, providing institutional support to USAID in its management of food-assisted programming, as well as for FHI360 and University Research Co. She also has a background in microfinance with Catholic Relief Services, and worked for several years with Citibank-NY managing relationships with African institutional banking clients. Employment 2013-2014 Technical Advisor-Coordination, Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance Project – FHI 360, USA 2011-2013 Sr. Food Security & Nutrition Advisor, University Research Co., LLC, USA 2010-2011 Sr. Officer, Livelihoods and Nutrition, Preparedness & Risk Reduction Dept. – International Federation of

Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies, Switzerland 2008-2009 Sr. Associate, Partnership Programs – Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN),

Switzerland Education 1989 Masters, International Affairs, Economic and Political Development, Columbia University – SIPA, USA 1983 BS, Business Administration – International Management, Boston University, USA Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Schonberg, I. 2008. Tackling Childhood Malnutrition in Coastal Bangladesh. eJournal USA: Food Aid Reducing World

Hunger. http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/publication/2008/06/20080615235215xjyrrep0.5559351.html#axzz3iiGsjpce

• Schonberg, I. 2007. Remarks to the USDA Future of Food Aid Panel. http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/ifac_ina_schonberg_070417.pd

Other evidence of leadership, large program-management and delivery Manages all global program support functions for HarvestPlus, including budgets and contracts, communications, nutrition and impact research, contributing to accomplishments detailed in the HarvestPlus annual report. Previously coordinated FANTA’s Nutrition and Infectious Disease Cluster (NID) work, supervising 5 direct and 10 indirect staff and leading HQ donor liaison related to Cluster work in 13 countries and globally for technical assistance, capacity strengthening, policy/guidance/tool development, and research. Role in A4NH Leader for management of nutrition, impact, and policy research in Phase I; co-leader of CoA2, delivery science and lessons learned, in Phase II. 100% time committed to Biofortification flagship.

226

Thom SPRENGER

Current position and affiliation: Global Manager – Strategic Alliances, HarvestPlus – IFPRI, USA Profile: Mr. Sprenger has more than 20 years of professional experience, with a strong focus on facilitating, managing and monitoring innovative public private alliances with a concrete development impact. Since 2007, private sector involvement in food and nutrition security has been his focus area. He has experience in many countries in Africa, South America, Asia, the Indian Sub-continent and the Middle-East. He worked and lived for several years in both India and Yemen. Employment 2010-2014 Director, Institute for Development Strategy, Germany 2011-2013 Strategic Advisor to the Director, BoP Innovation Centre, The Netherlands 2011-Present Senior Associate, Partnership Resource Centre – Rotterdam School of Management, The Netherlands 2010-2011 Managing Director, Amsterdam Initiative against Malnutrition (AIM) – Global Alliance for Improved

Nutrition, Switzerland Education 1988 MSc, Environmental Management – Public Administration, Wageningen University, The Netherlands Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Sprenger, T. 2015. Biofortification – bringing better nutrition to farm families. CTA

http://www.cta.int/en/article/2015-04-14/biofortification-n-bringing-better-nutrition-to-farm-families-and-no-they-are-not-gmos.html

OTHER EVIDENCE OF LEADERSHIP, LARGE-PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND DELIVERY Mr. Sprenger was the first managing director of the Amsterdam Initiative against Malnutrition. He is also a former special advisor to the Netherlands Minister for Development Cooperation, where he designed and implemented a €50 million fund to stimulate involvement of non-traditional partners in reaching Millennium Development Goals. Role in A4NH: Leader for partnership activities in Phase I; leader of CoA3, Promoting an Enabling Environment, in Phase II. 100% time committed to Biofortification flagship.

227

Parminder VIRK

Current position and affiliation: Manager, Crop Development, HarvestPlus: CIAT, Colombia Profile: Dr. Virk has spent most of his career at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) as lead rice breeder for productive environments, biofortified rice, and transgenic breeding. He and his team developed 27 rice varieties for major rice-growing countries. Dr. Virk brings to HarvestPlus extensive experience in international collaboration with public and private sectors in germplasm development, distribution/testing, research, training, technical assistance, and consulting and technology transfer. Employment 2009-2012 Consultant – Molecular Breeding, MAHYCO, India 1999-2012 Lead rice breeder, International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), Philippines Education 1985 PhD, Plant Breeding, Punjab Agricultural University, India 1980 MSc, Plant Breeding, Punjab Agricultural University, India Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Spindel, J., Begum, H., Akedemir, D., and Virk, P. 2015. Genomic selection and association mapping in rice: effect of

trait genetic architecture, training population composition, marker number and statistical model on accuracy of rice genomic selection in elite, tropical rice breeding lines. PLOS Genetics 11(6): e1005350.

• Begum, H., Spindel, J., Lalusin, A., Borromeo, T., Gregorio, G., Hernandez, J., Virk, P., Collard, B., and McCouch, S., 2015. Genome-wide association mapping for yield and other agronomic traits in an elite breeding population of tropical rice. PLOS One 10(3): e0119873.

• Yuan, W., Peng, S., Cao, C., Virk, P., Xing., D., Zhang, Y., Visperas, R., and Laza, R. 2011. Agronomic performance of rice breeding lines selected based on plant traits or grain yield. Field Crops Research 121(1): 168-174.

Other evidence of leadership, large program-management and delivery Dr. Virk previously led biofortified zinc rice research. He was also Co-PI for transgenic breeding for the Golden Rice Project ($3.9 million) and Leader of Objective 3 for Cereal System Initiative for South Asia ($5.3 million). Role in A4NH: Phase I: Principal investigator for Flagship #2, Biofortification, activities related to crop development for rice and wheat; Phase II: CoA1 activities related to crop development in Asia in Phase II. 100% time committed to Biofortification flagship.

228

Manfred ZELLER

Current position and affiliation: Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI, Uganda Profile: From 1993-1999, Dr. Zeller led IFPRI’s multi-country program on rural finance and food security. His publications focus on rural financial institutions, operational measures of income poverty, adoption of agricultural technology, food policy, and participation of smallholders in food value chains. He conducted or guided empirical research in more than 30 countries in Latin America, Asia and Africa.

Employment 2005-2014 Professor for Rural Development Theory and Policy, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences – University of

Hohenheim, Germany 1999-2005 Professor for Socioeconomics of Rural Development, Institute of Rural Development – University of

Göttingen, Germany 1993-1999 Research Fellow, Food Consumption and Nutrition Division & Outreach Division – International Food

Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), USA 1991-1993 Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Food Consumption and Nutrition Division, International Food Policy

Research Institute (IFPRI), USA

Education 1990 PhD, Agricultural Economics, University of Bonn, Germany 1986 Diploma (equivalent to MSc), Agricultural Economics, University of Bonn, Germany Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Dibba, L., Zeller, M., Diagne, A., and Nielsen, T. 2015. How accessibility to seeds affects the potential adoption of an

improved rice variety: the case of the new rice for Africa in The Gambia. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 54(1): 33-58.

• Beuchelt, TD., and Zeller, M. 2011. Profits and poverty: certification’s troubled link for Nicaragua’s organic and fair trade coffee producers. Ecological Economics 70(7): 1316-1324.

• Nielsen, T., Keil, A., and Zeller, M. 2013. Assessing farmers’ risk preferences and their determinants in a marginal upland area of Vietnam: a comparison of multiple elicitation techniques. Agricultural Economics 44(3): 255-273.

• Loos, TK., and Zeller, M. 2014. Milk sales and dietary diversity among the Maasai. Agricultural Economics 45(S1): 77-90.

• Khor, L.Y., and M. Zeller. 2014. Inaccurate fertilizer content and its effect on the estimation of production functions. China Economic Review 30: 123-132.

Other evidence of leadership, large program-management and delivery Dr. Zeller has published more than fifty peer-reviewed papers in disciplinary and interdisciplinary journals focusing on development, food, agriculture and nutrition. He has worked in policy research, academic training and policy advisory functions with government, universities and non-government institutions in more than 30 countries. Role in A4NH: Phase I: Principal investigator for Flagship #2, Biofortification, activities related to impact modeling and policy analysis; Phase II: CoA2 activities related to monitoring and cost-effectiveness research. 100% time committed to Biofortification flagship.

229

Flagship 3: Food Safety

230

Delia GRACE

Current position and affiliation: Program Manager Food Safety Zoonoses, ILRI, Kenya Profile: Dr. Grace is a senior epidemiologist with expertise in research at the agriculture and health interface, especially Ecohealth/ One Health, food safety, gender and food, participatory methods, and, epidemiology in developing countries. Since 2012, she has led theme on agriculture associated disease within the CRP on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health and leads a program on food safety and zoonoses at the International Livestock Research Institute. She is the author of one book, numerous chapters, and more than 100 peer-reviewed papers. Employment 2011-present Program Leader, ILRI, Kenya 2008-2011 Senior Scientist, ILRI, Kenya 2006-2008 Joint appointed scientist at ILRI and Cornell University, USA 2002-2006 Scientist at Free University Berlin, Germany Education 2006 PhD, Veterinary Epidemiology, Free University Berlin, Germany 1990 MVB, National University of Ireland, Ireland Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Grace, D., 2015, Food safety in low and middle income countries, International Journal of Environmental Research

and Public Health, 12(9), 10490–10507 • Grace, D., Mahuku, G., Hoffmann, V., Atherstone, C., Upadhyaya, H.D. and Bandyopadhyay, R. 2015. International

agricultural research to reduce food risks: case studies on aflatoxins, Food Security, 7(3): 569-582. • Perry B and Grace D. 2015. How growing complexity of consumer choices and drivers of consumption behaviour

affect demand for animal source foods, Ecohealth Journal • Perry BD, Grace D and Sones K. 2013. Current drivers and future directions of global livestock disease dynamics.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110 (52) 20871-20877 • Grace D, Kang’ethe E. and Waltner-Toews, 2012, Participatory and integrative approaches to food safety in

developing country cities, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 44: S1-S2. Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Leader of studies on zoonoses, emerging disease, and antimicrobial resistance; PI or co-PI on projects with a combined budget of US$19 million in the last 5 years; Member (past and present) of several UN, FAO and WHO expert groups. Role in A4NH: In Phase I: Leader of Agriculture Associated Diseases and cluster on Food Safety and Center Focal Point for ILRI. In Phase II, Leader of FP3 and leader of CoA1 and CoA2; ILRI co-lead for FP5 (pro tem)

231

Ranajit BANDYOPADHYAY

Current position and affiliation: Senior Plant Pathologist, IITA, Nigeria Profile: Ranajit Bandyopadhyay has 36 years of plant pathology research and development experience working for CGIAR in Asia, Africa and the Americas. His research on mycotoxins focuses on surveillance, bio-ecology of toxigenic fungi, integrated management of mycotoxins and policy and institutional issues. He has authored nearly 175 publications and serves on Editorial Boards of two journals related to mycotoxins. Employment 2002-present Senior Plant Pathologist, IITA, Nigeria 1980-2001 Principal Scientist (Pathology), ICRISAT, India 1998-1999 Visiting Scientist, Texas A&M University, USA 1996-1997 Project Team Leader, Sorghum Medium Rainfall Project (SG2), ICRISAT, India 1991-1992 Frosty Hill Fellow, Cornell University, USA Education 1980 PhD, Plant pathology, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, India 1976 MSc., Plant pathology, G.B. Pant Univ. of Agriculture & Technology, India Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Atehnkeng, J., Donner, M., Ojiambo, P.S., Ikotun,B., Augusto, J., Cotty, P.J., and Bandyopadhyay, R. 2016.

Environmental distribution and genetic diversity of vegetative compatibility groups determine biocontrol strategies to mitigate aflatoxin contamination of maize by Aspergillus flavus. Microbial Biotechnology 9:75-88. DOI: 10.1111/1751-7915.12324

• Watson, S., Diedhiou, P.M., Atehnkeng, J., Bandyopadhyay, R., Srey, C., Routledge, M.N, and Gong, Y.Y. 2015. Exposure to aflatoxin from groundnut among adults from Senegal. World Mycotoxin Journal DOI: 10.3920/WMJ2014.1824.

• Atehnkeng, J., Ojiambo, P.S., Cotty, P.J., and Bandyopadhyay, R. 2014. Field efficacy of a mixture of atoxigenic Aspergillus flavus link: Fr vegetative compatibility groups in preventing aflatoxin contamination in maize (Zea mays L.). Biological Control 72:62-70.

• Ezekiel, C.N., Ogara, I.M., Abia, W.A., Ezekiel, V.C., Atehnkeng, J., Sulyok, M., Turner, P.C., Tayo, G.O., Krska, R., and Bandyopadhyay, R. 2014. Mycotoxin exposure in rural residents in northern Nigeria: a pilot study using multi-urinary biomarkers. Environment International 66: 138-145.

• Probst, C., Bandyopadhyay, R., and Cotty, P.J. 2014. Diversity of aflatoxin-producing fungi and their impact on food safety in sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Food Microbiology 174: 113-122.

Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Guides research and development activities related to crop diseases and mycotoxins at IITA and leads Africa-wide efforts on development and scaling-up of the aflatoxin biocontrol technology Aflasafe; Raised funds –$41.6 million – for 17 bilateral projects on mycotoxins during the last 6 years .Member of the Steering Committee and Chair of the Technical Sub-Committee of the Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa (PACA).

Role in A4NH: Leader of Cluster of Activities on aflatoxins and principal investigator for activities related to aflatoxin biocontrol (aflasafe)

232

Jagger J W HARVEY

Current position and affiliation: Senior Scientist, BecA-ILRI Hub, ILRI Profile: Jagger Harvey is a molecular plant biologist working within the BecA initiative at ILRI. He established a research platform for mycotoxin and nutritional analysis, which has hosted over 100 researchers to date. He leads an Australian Government-funded research for development project focused on reducing aflatoxin in maize in Kenya and Tanzania, through identification and deployment of integrated interventions on farm and with other key actors along the value chain. Additionally, Jagger is involved in a number of projects focused on improvement of other crops, including rice, common bean, cassava and a range of others. Employment 2009-present Senior Scientist, ILRI, Kenya 2005-2008 US National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Professor Sir David Baulcombe

laboratory, Cambridge University and The Sainsbury Laboratory, UK

Education 2005 PhD, Genetics, University of California, Davis, USA 1998 BSc, Biology and Natural Sciences & Mathematics, Washington and Lee University, USA Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Yashvir Chauhan, Jeff Tatnell, Stephen Krosch, James Karanja, Benoit Gnonlonfin, Immaculate Wanjuki, James

Wainaina and Jagger Harvey (2015) An improved simulation model to predict pre-harvest aflatoxin risk in maize. Field Crops Research 178: 91-99.

• Samuel K. Mutiga, Vivian Hoffmann, Jagger Harvey, Michael G. Milgroom and Rebecca J. Nelson (2015) Assessment of aflatoxin and fumonisin contamination of maize in western Kenya. Phytopathology 105(9): 1250-1261.

• Benigni A. Temba, Mary T. Fletcher, Glen P. Fox, Jagger Harvey and Yasmina Sultanbawa (2015) Inactivation of Aspergillus flavus spores by Curcumin-mediated photosensitization. Food Control 59:708-713.

• Samuel K. Mutiga, Vincent Were, Vivian Hoffmann, Jagger Harvey, Michael G. Milgroom and Rebecca J. Nelson (2014) Extent and drivers of mycotoxin contamination: Inferences from a survey of Kenyan maize mills. Phytopathology 104(11): 1221-1231.

• Ojwang D. Otieno, Calvin Onyango, Justus Mungare, Lexa G. Matasyoh, Bramwel W. Wanjala, Mark Wamalwa and Jagger Harvey (2014) Genetic diversity of Kenyan native oyster mushroom (Pleurotus). Mycologia 107(1):32-38.

Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Leader of number of projects focused on food and nutritional security-related issues. This has included a $4 million flagship project of the BecA-Australia partnership, Capacity and Action for Aflatoxin Reduction in Eastern Africa. Directly engaged in resource mobilization efforts totaling over $18 million while with the BecA-ILRI Hub, and has served on expert groups at FAO, the AU and elsewhere. Role in A4NH: In phase I: established and has led the research platform used by a number of ILRI and hosted scientists working on A4NH projects; In phase II: continued operation and research on the BecA-ILRI Hub research platform aligned with A4NH.

233

Barbara HÄSLER

Current position and affiliation: Lecturer in Agrihealth, Leverhulme Centre for Integrative Research on Agriculture and Health, UK Profile: Barbara Häsler is a veterinary researcher with expertise in animal health economics and food systems. Her main area of interest is the integration of economic, social and epidemiological aspects in animal disease mitigation to provide practical and feasible tools that support decision-makers in the efficient allocation of resources. She is particularly committed to the development of interdisciplinary frameworks that support appropriate surveillance and intervention programs for the control of foodborne and zoonotic diseases in food systems both in the developed and developing world. Employment 2012-2014 Post-doctoral Research Fellow, Royal Veterinary College, University of London, UK 2007-2008 Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Research Assistant in Veterinary Public Health Educational Background 2015 Postgraduate Certificate HE Veterinary Education, Royal Veterinary College, University of London, UK 2011 PhD, Animal Health Economics Royal Veterinary College, University of London, UK 2011 Postgraduate Certificate HE Economics, Birkbeck College London Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Characterisation of production, marketing and consumption patterns of farmed tilapia in the Nile Delta of Egypt.

Eltholth M, Fornace K, Grace D, Rushton J, Häsler B (2015). Food Policy • A One Health Framework for the Evaluation of Rabies Control Programmes: A Case Study from Colombo City, Sri

Lanka. Häsler B, Hiby E, Gilbert W, Obeyesekere N, Bennani H, Rushton J (2014). PLoS Negl Trop Dis 8(10): e3270 • Linking agriculture and health in low- and middle-income countries: an interdisciplinary research agenda. Dangour,

AD, Green, R, Häsler, B, Rushton, J, Shankar, B, and Waage, J, 2012. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, Mar 16:1-7.

• Economic principles for resource allocation decisions at national level to mitigate the effects of disease in farm animal populations. Howe, KS, Häsler, B, Stärk, KD, 2013. Epidemiol. Infect.

• A review of the metrics for One Health benefits. Häsler B, Cornelsen L, Bennani H, Rushton J (2014). Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz. Vol. 33 (2) pp. 453-464.

Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Chair of the international “Network for Evaluation of One Health” (NEOH), 2014-2018; Co-leader of the international network NEAT “Networking to enhance the use of economics in animal health education, research and policy making in Europe and beyond” (including co-organisation of annual meetings and blog contributions) (2012-2015); WP leader of the FP7 funded project "RISKSUR -providing a new generation of methodologies and tools for cost-effective risk-based animal health surveillance systems for the benefit of livestock producers, decision makers and consumers" (2012-2015); Member of the Management Committee of the Leverhulme Centre for Integrative Research on Agriculture and Health (LCIRAH)

Role in A4NH: PI of activities in FP3

234

Vivian HOFFMANN

Current position and affiliation: Research Fellow, IFPRI, USA Profile: Vivian Hoffmann is an applied micro-economist with 10 years of experience. She leads the theme on food and water safety within the Markets, Trade and Institutions Division of IFPRI, where her work focuses on market-based intervention trials to improve food safety throughout the value chain in sub-Saharan Africa. Hoffmann also leads a cluster-randomized controlled trial assessing the impact of aflatoxin exposure on child growth. Employment 2013-present Affiliate, Agricultural Technology Adoption Initiative, USA 2009-present Expert, International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, India / UK / USA 2009-present Member, Innovations for Poverty Action Research Network, USA 2008-2014 Assistant Professor, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland, USA Education 2008 PhD, Agricultural Economics, Cornell University, 2001 B.A., Geography, University of British Columbia, Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Hoffmann, V., Jones, K., & Leroy, J. 2015. Mitigating aflatoxin exposure to improve child growth in Eastern Kenya:

study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials, 16(1), 552. • Mutiga, S. K., Hoffmann, V., Harvey, J., Milgroom, M. G., and Nelson, R. 2015. Assessment of aflatoxin and fumonisin

contamination of maize in western Kenya. Phytopathology, 105(9) 1250-1261. • Unnevehr, L., & Hoffmann, V. 2015. Food safety management and regulation: International experiences and lessons

for China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(11), 2218-2230. • Grace, D., Mahuku, G., Hoffmann, V., Atherstone, C., Upadhyaya, H. D., & Bandyopadhyay, R. 2015. International

agricultural research to reduce food risks: case studies on aflatoxins. Food Security, 1-14. • Mutiga, S. K., Were, V., Hoffmann, V., Harvey, J., Milgroom, M. G., & Nelson, R. 2014. Extent and drivers of

mycotoxin contamination: Inferences from a survey of Kenyan maize mills”, Phytopathology. • Hoffmann, V. and K. Gatobu. 2014. “Growing their own: Unobservable quality and the value of self-provisioning”

Journal of Development Economics. 106: 167-178. • Hoffmann, V. 2009. “What you don’t know can hurt you: micronutrient content and fungal contamination of food in

developing countries”, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 38(2): 1-10. Role in A4NH Phase I: Center Focal Point for Food Safety, Principal investigator for activities related to aflatoxins, markets and food safety, 100% of time committed to Food Safety Flagship; Phase II: Center Focal Point for Food Safety, Principal investigator for activities related to aflatoxins, markets and food safety, 75% of time committed to Food Safety Flagship

235

Amos OCHIENG OMORE

Current position and affiliation: Dairy Value Chain Leader, CRP on Livestock and Fish, ILRI-Tanzania Profile: A veterinary epidemiologist with over 20 years’ experience of research for development to improve livestock-dependent livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa, with a focus on seeking pro-poor solutions to constraints in agricultural systems where dairying is important. He is currently based in Tanzania working on generating technical and institutional options for improving smallholder livestock value chains, besides acting as ILRI Country Representative in the country. Employment 2005-2013 Scientist and Senior Scientist, ILRI, Kenya, 1997-2004 Research Officer, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute and ILRI-Kenya (joint appointment) 1985-2003 Research Officer, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Kenya Education 1997 PhD, Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics, University of Nairobi, Kenya 1989 MSc. Animal Production, University of Reading, UK Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Gelan, A. and Omore, A. 2014, Beyond Tariffs: The Role of Non-Tariff Barriers in Dairy Trade in the East African

Community Free Trade Area. Development Policy Review, 32: 523–543. • Kaitibie, S., Omore, A., Rich, K. and Patti Kristjanson. 2010. Kenyan Dairy Policy Change: Influence Pathways and

Economic Impacts. World Development Vol. 38, No. 10, pp. 1494–1505. • Kurwijila, L. R., Omore, A., Staal, S., Mdoe, N. S. Y. 2006. Investigation of the Risk of Exposure to Antimicrobial

Residues Present in Marketed Milk in Tanzania, Journal of Food Protection, Vol. 69, No. 10, 2006, Pages 2487–2492 • Omore, A.; Kurwijila, L.; Grace, D. 2009. Improving livelihoods in East Africa through livestock research and

extension: reflections on changes from the 1950s to the early twenty first century. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 41(7): 1051-1059.

• Okoth, E., Gallardo, C., Macharia, J.M., Omore, A., Pelayo, V., Bulimo, D.W., Arias, M., Kitala, P., Baboon, K., Lekolol, I., Mijele, D., Bishop, R.P. 2013. Comparison of African swine fever virus prevalence and risk in two contrasting pig-farming systems in South-west and Central Kenya. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, volume 110, issue 2, 2013, pp. 198 - 205.

Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Rationalisation and harmonisation of dairy policies in eastern and central Africa, 2003-09; with ASARECA, USAID. ($372,000); Improvement and diversification of Somali livestock trade and marketing, 2007-07 ($350,000); More milk by and for the poor: adapting dairy market hubs for pro-poor smallholder value chains in Tanzania. 2012-2017; with Sokoine Unersity, Tanzania dairy Board, Faida Market Linkages, Heifer International-Tanzania and Irish Aid ($2.5 million) Role in A4NH Principal investigator for activities related to generating technical and institutional options for improving food safety in smallholder dairy value chains and food safety policy influencing for enabling environment for improving the informal sector markets and governance

236

Alexander E. SAAK

Current position and affiliation: Research Fellow, IFPRI, USA Profile: Alexander Saak joined IFPRI in 2010 as a Research Fellow with the Market, Trade and Institutions Division and is part of the Food and Water Safety program. His current research on food safety includes analysis of costs and benefits of external certification, organization and contracting in value chains, provision of product information, and management of infectious diseases in agricultural production in developing economies. Alexander participated in designing and conducting surveys of dairy producers and consumers in Central Asia and India, and analysis of aflatoxin and poultry disease control by small-holder farmers in Africa. Alexander also conducted research on agricultural marketing programs, groundwater use in the presence of externalities, and crop insurance. Employment 2010-present Research Fellow, Markets, Trade and Institutions Division, IFPRI, USA 2005-2010 Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University 2001-2005 Assistant Scientist, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University, USA 2003 Instructor, Department of Management, Taganrog State University, Russia 1997-2001 Teaching and Research Assistant, Iowa State University, Department of Economics, USA Education 2001 PhD in Economics, Major professor D. Hennessy, Iowa State University USA 1997 M.S./B.S. in Management, Taganrog State University, Russia Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Saak, A. (2015) “Teams with Moral Hazard and Non-Verifiable Quality Assessment.” Economics Letters 136: 88-91. • Saak, A.E. and J.M. Peterson. (2012) “Groundwater Pumping by Heterogeneous Users.” Hydrogeology Journal 20:

835-849. • Saak, A.E. (2012) “Collective Reputation, Social Norms, and Participation.” American Journal of Agricultural

Economics 94: 763-785. • Saak, A.E. (2011) “A Model of Labeling with Horizontal Differentiation and Cost Variability.” American Journal of

Agricultural Economics 93: 1131-1150. • Saak, A.E. and J.M. Peterson. (2007) “Groundwater Use under Incomplete Information.” Journal of Environmental

Economics and Management 54: 214- 228. Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Associate Editor at American Journal of Agricultural Economics (2014-2017). Guided modeling and analysis of survey data for projects on Aflatoxin control in maize and groundnut value chains and on pro-poor HPAI risk reduction in Africa at IFPRI, and contributed to project on reducing adulteration in milk in India. Role in A4NH Principal investigator for the “Analysis of Value Chains in Central Asia from Food Safety and Nutrition Perspective” project

237

Hari Kishan SUDINI

Current position and affiliation: Senior Scientist-Groundnut Pathology, ICRISAT, India Profile: Hari has 10 years of experience in groundnut aflatoxin research and development. His major focus areas of research are “Aflatoxin diagnostics”, “Understanding the link between soil health parameters, Aspergillus flavus population dynamics and aflatoxin contamination in groundnut” and “Devising and promoting integrated aflatoxin management strategies at pre- and post-harvest levels”. He also conducts capacity building programs for farmers and NARS staff on creating awareness on aflatoxin contamination problem and how to better manage it. He has authored and co-authored over 25 publications on this subject. Employment 2013-present Senior Scientist-Groundnut Pathology, ICRISAT, India 2009-2013 Scientist-Groundnut Pathology, ICRISAT, India 2006-2009 Graduate Research Assistant, Auburn University, USA 2004-2005 Quality Assurance Executive, Monsanto India Limited, India Education 2009 PhD in Plant Pathology, Auburn University, USA 2003 MS in Genetics & Plant Breeding, ANGR Agricultural University, India Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Waliyar, F., Vijay Krishna Kumar, K., Diallo, M., Traore, A., Mangala, U.N., Upadhyaya, H.D., and Sudini, H. 2016.

Resistance to Pre-harvest Aflatoxin Contamination in ICRISAT’s Groundnut Mini core Collection. European Journal of Plant Pathology.

• Sudini, H., Ranga Rao, G.V., Gowda, C.L.L., Chandrika, R., Margam, V., Rathore, A., and Murdock, L.L. 2015. Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS) bags for safe storage of groundnuts. Journal of Stored Products Research. 64

• Sudini, H., Srilakshmi, P., Vijay Krishna Kumar, K., Njoroge, S.M.C., Osiru, M., Anitha, S., and Waliyar, F. 2015. Detection of aflatoxigenic Aspergillus strains by cultural and molecular methods: A critical review. African Journal of Microbiology Research. Vol. 9 (8): 484-491. DOI: 10.5897/AJMR2014.7309

• Waliyar, F., Osiru, M., Ntare, B.R., Vijay Krishna Kumar, K., Sudini, H., Traore, A., and Diarra, B. 2015. Post-harvest management of aflatoxin contamination in groundnut. World Mycotoxin Journal. Vol. 8 (2): 245-252.

• Waliyar, F., Umeh, V.C., Traore, A., Osiru, M., Ntare, B.R., Diarra, B., Kodio, O., Vijay Krishna Kumar, K., and Sudini, H. 2015. Prevalence and distribution of aflatoxin contamination in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in Mali, West Africa. Crop Protection. Vol. 70, pp. 1-7.

• Anitha, S., Raghunadharao, D., Waliyar, F., Sudini, H., Parveen, M., Ratna Rao, and Lava Kumar, P. 2014. The association between exposure to aflatoxin, mutation in TP53, infection with hepatitis B virus, and occurrence of liver disease in a selected population in Hyderabad, India. Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis. 766, pp. 23-28.

Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery: Mentoring graduate students (2 MS and 1 PhD completed; 2 MS and 3 PhD on-roll); Instrumental in setting up of CAAS-ICRISAT Joint Lab for Groundnut Aflatoxin Management Role in A4NH: Principal Investigator for activities related to pre- and post-harvest management of aflatoxin contamination and studies on the relationships of soil health parameters and occurrence of aflatoxin contamination in India during Phase I. Phase II time commitment: 60% FTE

238

Fred UNGER

Current position and affiliation: Senior scientist, ILRI SouthEast Asia, Vietnam Profile: Dr. Unger is a veterinary epidemiologist with over two decades of work experience on the control of emerging infectious diseases including zoonoses (e.g. HPAI, cysticercoses and brucellosis), food safety and public health targeting low income/middle countries of South East Asia and West/East Africa but also Germany. More recent work in South East Asia includes epidemiological surveys, risk assessments along pig value chains and capacity building on OneHealth/EcoHealth. Employment 2014-present Consultant for CIRAD, food safety expert to support the Long term case study on parasitic food borne

diseases in Laos, Laos 2006 Outbreak investigations (FLI): To support veterinary authorities of Germany in the control of HPAI,

Classical Swine Fever (CSF) and Blue Tongue (BT) 2005-2007 Senior scientist, Control of animal diseases in Germany and new member states, Federal Institute of

Animal Health (FLI), Germany 2000-2005 Senior scientist, control of Zoonoses and Foodborne Disease in Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Senegal and The

Gambia; International Trypanotolerance Centre (ITC), Banjul, The Gambia. Education 2000 PhD, Epidemiology, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany 1989 Veterinary degree, Humboldt Universität, Berlin, Germany Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Widyastuti, M.D.W., Bardosh, K.L., Sunandar, Basri, C., Basuno, E., Jatikusumah, A., Arief, R.A., Putra, A.A.G.,

Rukmantara, A., Estoepangestie, A.T.S., Willyanto, I., Natakesuma, I.K.G., Sumantra, I.P., Grace, D., Unger, F. and Gilbert. J. 2015. On dogs, people, and a rabies epidemic: results from a sociocultural study in Bali, Indonesia. Infectious Diseases of Poverty 4: 30.

• Bett, B., McLaws, M., Jost, C., Schoonman, L., Unger, F., Poole, J., ... & Dunkle, S. E. (2015). The effectiveness of preventative mass vaccination regimes against the incidence of highly pathogenic avian influenza on Java Island, Indonesia. Transboundary and emerging diseases, 62(2), 163-173.

• Chotinun S, Rojanasthien S, Unger F, Suwan M, Tadee P and Patchanee P. 2014. An integrative approach to enhancing small-scale poultry slaughterhouses by addressing regulations and food safety in northern -Thailand. Infectious Diseases of Poverty 2014, 3:46.

• Lapar, M.L., Nuryartono, N., Toan, N.N., Rafani, I., Bett, B., McLaws, M., Unger, F., Schoonman, L., Jost, C. and Mariner, J. 2012. Are smallholders willing to pay for animal disease control? Empirical evidence from a study of mass vaccination for avian influenza in Indonesia. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development 9(3): 74.

• Grace, D., Gilbert, J., Lapar, M.L., Unger, F., Fèvre, S., Hung Nguyen-Viet and Schelling, E. 2011. Zoonotic emerging infectious disease in selected countries in Southeast Asia: Insights from ecohealth. EcoHealth 8(1): 55-62.

Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Project coordinator (regional and national) and PI for animal health and food safety related projects, ILRI, FLI, ITC; Head of food safety and public health unit, ITC Role in A4NH: In Phase I: PI and project coordinator for bilateral funded projects; support of animal health assessments and One Health/EcoHealth. In Phase II: Support to FP3.

239

Barbara WIELAND

Current position and affiliation: Team Leader Herd Health, ILRI, Ethiopia Profile: Broad experience in veterinary epidemiology research and in teaching at undergraduate and postgraduate level. Has worked on a variety of infectious diseases in different settings in Europe, African and Asia: African swine fever, Campylobacter, Brucellosis, Foot-and-Mouth disease, avian influenza, post-weaning multi-systemic wasting syndrome in pigs, porcine respiratory and reproductive syndrome, and other pig production diseases, and contagious pleuropneumonia in cattle. Other research interests include motivation of farmers to control disease in their herds, improve productivity in herds, and application of risk assessment and disease modelling techniques to identify the best possible control options for farmers and to inform policy. Employment 2015-present Team Leader Herd Health, ILRI, Ethiopia 2012-2014 Programme Manager Animal Health, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), Mongolia 2007-2012 Lecturer in Veterinary Epidemiology, Royal Veterinary College, UK 2006- 2007 Post-Doc in Molecular Epidemiology, Royal Veterinary College, UK 2001-2005 Swiss Federal Veterinary Office, Monitoring Department, Switzerland Education 2016 MSc in Managing Rural Development, School of Oriental and African Studies, UK 2005 PhD in Veterinary Epidemiology, Vetsuisse Faculty, Swiss Federal Veterinary Office, Switzerland Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Von Dobschuetz, S., DE Nardi M., Harris K.A., Munoz O., Breed, A.C, Wieland, B., Dauphin, G., Lubroth, J. and Stärk.

K.D. the FLURISK Consortium. (2015) Influenza surveillance in animals: what is our capacity to detect emerging influenza viruses with zoonotic potential? Epidemiology and Infection

• Vergne ,T., Guinat, C., Petkova, P., Gogin, A., Kolbasov, D., Blome, S., Molia, S., Pinto Ferreira , J., Wieland B., Nathues, H. and Pfeiffer D.U. (2014) Attitudes and beliefs of pig farmers and wild boar hunters towards reporting of African swine fever in Bulgaria, Germany and the western part of the Russian Federation. Transboundary and Emerging Disease

• Alarcon, P., Dewberry, C. and Wieland B. (2013) Pig farmers' perceptions, attitudes, influences and management of information in the decision-making process for disease control. Preventive Veterinary Medicine

• Onono, J., Wieland, B. and Rushton, J. (2013). Constraints to cattle production in a semi-arid pastoral system in Kenya. Tropical Animal Health and Production, Aug;45(6):1415-22

• Sabina B., Barbara W., Katharina DC Stärk, Gertraud R. (2010) Risk attribution of Campylobacter infection by age group using exposure modelling. Epidemiology and Infection, Jul 2, page 1-14

Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Leader of the pig epidemiology research group at the Royal Veterinary College; Manager of the animal health programme for SDC in Mongolia; Leader Herd Health team of the Animal Science for Productivity Program in ILRI Role in A4NH Center Focal Point for Ethiopia, Principal investigator for activities related to animal welfare and delivery of animal health services by optimizing linkages with the health sector

240

Flagship 4: Supporting Policies, Programs and Enabling Action through Research (SPEAR)

241

Stuart GILLESPIE

Current Position and Affiliation: Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI, UK Profile: Stuart Gillespie has over 31 years of experience in nutrition and development. His work has addressed policy and practice for tackling malnutrition including the intersection of agriculture, nutrition and health, the double burden of malnutrition and the development of a network on HIV and nutrition security in Africa. Prior to joining IFPRI in 1999, he worked with several international agencies on nutrition policy analysis and program support. He has over 130 publications. Employment 1999-present Senior Research Fellow, Poverty, Health and Nutrition Division, IFPRI, USA (8/99-7/05), Switzerland

(8/05-7/12), UK (8/12 – present) 1996-1999 Independent Consultant. Projects: 1999 - UNICEF New York/World Bank joint evaluation study of

progress in nutrition policy and programming; 1998/99 - Asian Development Bank (ADB): Preparation of synthesis of findings from the multi-country nutrition investment exercise for publication ahead of 1999 donor roundtable; 1998 - UNICEF New York: Preparation of nutrition learning package for field staff

1994-1996 Senior Programme Officer (Nutrition), UNICEF India, 1989-1994 Programme Officer, UN Standing Committee on Nutrition, Switzerland Education 1988 PhD in Human Nutrition, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK 1983 MSc in Human Nutrition, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK Selected Recent Peer-Reviewed Publications • Gillespie, S, Menon, P., Kennedy, A (2015) Scaling up impact on nutrition: what will it take? Advances in Nutrition,

vol. 6: 440-451, July 2015, doi: 10.3945/an.115.008276, • Gillespie, S, van den Bold, M., Hodge, J. and Herforth, A (2015) Leveraging agriculture for nutrition in South Asia and

East Africa. Food Security • Gillespie, S. (2014). Nutrition policy and practice: Unpacking the politics. In 2013 Global food policy report. Eds.

Marble, Andrew and Fritschel, Heidi. Ch 7 Pp. 75-86. Washington, D.C.: (IFPRI) • Gillespie, S., Haddad, L., Mannar, V., Menon, P., and Nisbett, N., 2013. The politics of reducing malnutrition: Building

commitment and accelerating progress. The Lancet 382(9891): 552-569. • Gillespie, S. and Margetts, B. 2013. Strengthening capacities for enhancing the nutrition sensitivity of agricultural

policy and practice. SCN News 40, 55-60. • Gillespie, S. and Kadiyala, S. (2012) Exploring the Agriculture-Nutrition Disconnect in India. In: Fan, S. and Pandya-

Lorch, R (eds) Reshaping Agriculture for Nutrition and Health, Ch 20, IFPRI, Washington, D.C. Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery CEO of the Transform Nutrition Research Consortium; Research Director of the Leveraging Agriculture for Nutrition in South Asia (LANSA) consortium; Creator and Director of Regional Network on AIDS, Livelihoods and Food Security (RENEWAL), the Agriculture and Health Research Platform (AHRP) of the CGIAR, the TANDI project and Stories of Change in Nutrition project. Role in A4NH: In Phase I: Leader of Cluster on Enabling Environment within flagship on Integrated Programs and Policies. In Phase II: Leader of FP4: SPEAR, PI for several activities under that flagship, co-leader of CoA2 (SCORE), and PI for activities related to Stories of Change.

242

Namukolo COVIC

Current position and affiliation: Research Coordinator, IFPRI, Ethiopia Profile: Namukolo Covic combines academic training in both agriculture and nutrition. Before joining IFPRI she was a Senior Lecturer at North-West University (South Africa). She has been a key member of the African Nutrition Leadership Programme (ANLP) since 2008 involved in providing nutrition leadership capacity development training to participants from across the African continent. She has also led nutrition capacity strengthening activities in Zambia and Rwanda. She has been extensively involved with the mainstreaming of nutrition into CAADP and has been instrumental in bringing about the incorporation of nutrition into the CAADP Results Framework. Employment 2015-present Research Coordinator in the Poverty, Health and Nutrition Division, IFPRI, USA 2007-2015 Director, Senior Lecturer, Nutrition, Potchefstroom Campus of the North-West University (NWU), South

AFrica Education 2008 PhD, Human Nutrition, North-West University, South Africa 1988 MSc, Nutrition, University of Saskatchewan, Canada Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Claasen, N., Covic, N. M., Idsardi, E. F., Sandham, L. A., Gildenhuys, A. & Lemke Stephanie (2015) Applying a

Transdisciplinary Mixed Methods Research Design to Explore Sustainable Diets in Rural South Africa, International Journal of Qualitative Methodology, 14 (2): 69-91.

• Dube, W. G., Makoni, T., Nyadzayo, T .K. & Covic, N. M. (2014) A strategy for scaling-up Vitamin A supplementation for young children in a remote rural setting in Zimbabwe. South African journal of child health 05/2014; 8(2):64-67

• Menon, Covic, N.M., Harrigan, P.B., Horton, S.E., Kazi, N.M., Lamstein, S., Neufeld, L.P., Oakley, E. & Pelletier, D. (2014) Strengthening implementation and utilization of nutrition interventions through research: a framework and research agenda. Accepted for publication in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1332:39-59.

• Taljaard C., Covic, N. M., Van Graan, A., S Kruger, H. S. & C Jerling, J. C. (2013) Studies of South African primary school aged children since 2005 suggest lower anaemia prevalence in some regions. South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition 26 (4): 168-175

• Taljaard C., Covic, N., Van Graan, A., Kruger, H., Smuts, C., Baumgartner, J., Kvalsvig, J., Wright, H., Van Stuijvenberg, M & Jerling, J. (2013) Effects of a multi-micronutrient-fortified beverage, with and without sugar, on growth and cognition in South African schoolchildren: a randomised, double-blind, controlled intervention. British Journal of Nutrition, 110: 2271-2284

Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery Led the Food and Nutrition Security Research Programme at North-West University, South Africa within the Centre of Excellence for Nutrition Role in A4NH: In Phase II: Co-Leader of CoA3 (3C) in FP4, and PI for activities related to strengthening capacity.

243

JAMES GARRETT

Current position and affiliation: Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI / Lead Technical Specialist, IFAD, Partnership Coordinator, A4NH-IFAD Partnership, Italy

Profile: James Garrett has over 24 years of program and policy experience in agriculture, food and nutrition in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Using quantitative and qualitative methods, including house-hold surveys and case studies, he has led research programs on food and nutrition policy processes and on policy and programming for urban food and nutrition security. He has investigated and produced guidance on how to promote organizational change, how to work multisectorally, and how to evaluate and enhance the impact of research on policy. As part of staff exchanges and partnerships with IFPRI, he has served as global technical adviser for nutrition at the World Bank and IFAD. He has lived and worked in Latin America and Africa, where he managed a country program office in Mozambique.

Employment 2013-present Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI, Italy 2011-2012 Special Adviser for Nutrition, FAO, Office of the Deputy Director-General (Knowledge), Italy 1994-2011 Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI, USA 1991-1992 Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Fellow, Institute of Socio-Economic Research, Catholic University of Bolivia

(IISEC), Bolivia 1985-1987 Public Sector Adviser and Lecturer, Instituto Superior de Agricultura, Center for the Administration of

Rural Development (CADER), Dominican Republic Education 1995 PhD in Agricultural Economics, Cornell University, USA 1985 MPP, Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government, USA

Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Cohen, M. J. and J. L. Garrett. 2016. Food price volatility and urban food security in The Routledge handbook of

urbanization and global environmental change. London: Routledge. • FAO [T. Raney, A. Croppenstedt, B. Carisma, S. Lowder, J. Garrett et al.]. 2013. The State of Food and Agriculture

2013. Food systems for better nutrition. Rome: FAO. • Garrett, J. (Special Issue Guest Editor). 2013. SCN News. Changing Food Systems for Better Nutrition. Volume 40. • Garrett, J. and M. Natalicchio, eds. 2011. Working Multisectorally in Nutrition: Principles, Practices and Case

Studies. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery: Led development of nutrition strategies and action plans for FAO and IFAD; Lead Technical Specialist for nutrition-agriculture at IFAD, which will have an estimated $1-billion portfolio of nutrition-sensitive projects in 2016-2018 (Mainstreaming nutrition-sensitive agriculture at IFAD. Action Plan 2016-2018 and Strategy and vision for FAO's work in nutrition; as researcher at IFPRI-Washington, raised over $800,000 in project funding and managed total funding of over $1 million. Role in A4NH In Phase II: Collaborator/Researcher (Bioversity International) in CoA2: SCORE.

244

Lawrence HADDAD

Current position and affiliation: Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI, UK Profile: Lawrence Haddad is an economist with research interests at the intersection of poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition. He is the co-chair of the Global Nutrition Report Independent Expert Group. Employment 2014-present Senior Research Fellow, Poverty, Health and Nutrition Division, IFPRI, USA 2004-2014 Director, Institute of Development Studies and Professor of Development Studies. 1994-2004 Director, Food Consumption and Nutrition Division, IFPRI, USA 1990-1994: Research Fellow, same

division. 1991-1994 Adjunct Professor, Graduate Program in Rural Households and Development Strategies, School for the

Advances International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University, USA 1990-1994 Research Fellow, Food Consumption and Nutrition Division, IFPRI, USA Education 1988 PhD in Food Research, Stanford University, USA 1983 MS in Resource Economics (Minor in Nutrition), University of Massachusetts, Department of Agricultural

and Resource Economics, USA Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • IFPRI. 2015. Global Nutrition Report 2015: Actions and accountability to advance nutrition and sustainable

development. Washington, DC • Smith, L. C., & Haddad, L. (2015). Reducing Child Undernutrition: Past Drivers and Priorities for the Post-MDG Era.

World Development, 68, 180-204. • Haddad, L. J., Achadi, E., Ag Bendech, M., Ahuja, A., Bhatia, K., Bhutta, Z., ... & Reddy, K. S. (2014). Global Nutrition

Report 2014: Actions and accountability to accelerate the world’s progress on nutrition. Intl Food Policy Res Inst. • te Lintelo, D. J., Haddad, L., Lakshman, R., & Gatellier, K. (2014). 3 The Hunger and Nutrition Commitment Index

(HANCI 2013): IDS. Sussex. • Haddad, L, N. Nisbett, I. Barnett, and E. Valli. 2014. Maharashtra’s Child Stunting Declines: What is Driving Them?

Findings of a Multidisciplinary Analysis. IDS Research Report. • Gillespie, S.; Haddad, L.; Mannar, V.; Menon, P.; and Nisbett, N. 2013. The politics of reducing malnutrition: Building

commitment and accelerating progress. The Lancet 382(9891): 552-569. • Haddad, L. 2013. From Nutrition Plus to Nutrition Driven: How to Realise the Elusive Potential of Agriculture for

Nutrition? Food and Nutrition Bulletin. Vol 34. (1): 39-44 Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Member of the External Advisory Group for Measurement of Food and Nutrition Security Technical Working Group for FAO-WFP-IFAD Food Security Information Network (FSIN); Chair of Lead Expert Group, Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition, for the Food Systems and Nutrition Report; previously the UK’s representative to the High Level Panel of Experts to the UN’s Committee for World Food Security (2010-date); Lead Expert on the UK Government Foresight Report on the Future of Food and Farming (2009-2011); adviser on nutrition to DFID, the EC, UNSCN, Irish Aid, World Bank, Children’s Investment Fund Foundation and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Role in A4NH: In Phase II: Senior researcher and advisor for FP4.

245

Jef LEROY

Current position and affiliation: Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI, USA Profile: Jef Leroy has substantial experience with the design and implementation of comprehensive evaluations of integrated nutrition-sensitive programs that seek to generate evidence on what works to improve nutrition, how it works and at what cost. He has also conducted research on child mortality and the correct measurement of linear growth retardation and catch-up growth in children. Employment 2014-present Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI, USA 2009-present Investigador Invitado en Ciencias Médicas “D”, Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública (INSP), Mexico 2009-2013 Research Fellow, IFPRI, USA 2008-present Visiting Fellow, Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, USA 2005-2009 Research Associate, Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública (INSP), Mexico Education 2005 PhD in Nutrition, Cornell University, USA 1998 MS in Agricultural and Applied Biological Engineering (Supra cum Laude), Ghent University, Belgium Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Leroy JL, Ruel M, Frongillo EA, Harris J, Ballard TJ. 2015. Measuring the Food Access Dimension of Food Security: A

Critical Review and Mapping of Indicators. Food Nutr Bull. 36(2): 167-195. • Leroy JL, Ruel M, Habicht J-P, Frongillo EA. 2015. Using Height-For-Age Difference instead of Height-For-Age Z-Scores

for the Meaningful Measurement of Catch-up Growth in Children Less Than 5 years of Age. In: Sahn D, editor. The Fight Against Hunger and Malnutrition - The Role of Food, Agriculture, and Targeted Policies. Oxford University Press.

• Leroy JL, Habicht J-P, González de Cossío T, Ruel MT .2014. Maternal education mitigates the negative effects of higher income on the double burden of child stunting and maternal overweight in rural Mexico. Journal of Nutrition.144:765–70.

• Leroy JL, Gadsden P, González de Cossío T, Gertler P. 2013. “Cash and in-kind transfers lead to excess weight gain in a population of women with a high prevalence of overweight in rural Mexico”. Journal of Nutrition. 143: 378-383.

• Leroy JL, M Ruel, E Verhofstadt. 2009. “The Impact of Conditional Cash Transfer Programmes on Nutrition: A review of evidence using a programme theory framework”. Journal of Development Effectiveness. 1(2): 103-129.

Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery He currently studies the impact of two large-scale integrated food and nutrition programs in Burundi and Guatemala on maternal and child nutrition and health and is involved in research on the impact of aflatoxin on child linear growth in Kenya and Mexico. He worked on the impact evaluation of Mexico’s urban and rural Oportunidades programs on child nutrition and health, and the Programa de Apoyo Alimentario (a cash and in-kind transfer program) on household food consumption and women's weight. Role in A4NH: In Phase II: Co-Leader of CoA1 (NSAP) in FP4.

246

Nicholas NISBETT

Current position and affiliation: Research Fellow, Co-Lead Health and Nutrition Cluster, Institute of Development Studies, UK Profile: Nicholas Nisbett explores the political economy of nutrition policy and programming in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa with a focus on issues of leadership capacity; national policy processes and community accountability; as well as leading wider evaluations of nutrition, livelihoods and community accountability interventions. Previously he advised UK government ministers on agricultural trade policy and policy reform, land and marine based natural resource management. Employment 2011-present Research Fellow, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK 2009-2011 Project Leader, Foresight Project on Global Food and Farming Futures, UK Government Office for

Science, UK 2008-2009 Team Leader, Defra, International Trade Policy; Policy Manager, CAP Reform, UK 2008-2011 Visiting Research Fellow, School of Global Studies, University of Sussex, UK 2007-2008 International Trade Policy Advisor, Defra, CAP Reform and EU Strategy, UK EDUCATION 2005 Diploma in French, The Open University, UK 2004 DPhil Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Nisbett, N., Wach, E., Haddad, L., El-Arifeen, S., ‘What drives and constrains effective leadership in tackling child

undernutrition? Findings from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India and Kenya’ Food Policy Volume 53, May 2015. • Haddad, L. Nisbett, N., Barnett, I. (2014) Maharashtra’s Extraordinary Stunting Declines: What is Driving Them?

Findings of a Multidisciplinary Analysis. Brighton: IDS with UNICEF • Nisbett, N., Gillespie, S., Haddad, L., Harris, J. (2014). Why Worry about the Politics of Child Nutrition? World

Development Vol. 64, pp. 420–433, 2014 • Gillespie, S.; Haddad, L.; Mannar, V.; Menon, P.; and Nisbett, N. 2013. The politics of reducing malnutrition: Building

commitment and accelerating progress. The Lancet 382(9891): 552-569. • DFID (2012) An update of ‘The Neglected Crisis of Undernutrition: Evidence for Action’ (Lead editor and lead co-

author) • Government Office of Science (2011) The Future of Food and Farming. Challenges and Choices for Global

Sustainability. London: Government Office for Science. (Project leader, co-editor & contributor to final report and set of 13 synthesis reports)

• Godfray, H.C.J., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F., Nisbett, N., Robinson, S., Toulmin, C. and Whiteley, R. (2010) 'The Future of the Global Food System', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 365.1554:2769-77, London: Royal Society Pub.

Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery Co-leads the Health and Nutrition Cluster at IDS and teaches on development and nutrition; Currently leads a research theme within the DFID supported Transform Nutrition Research Programme Consortium; Previously led a major international policy research programme: the Foresight Project on Global Food and Farming Futures. Role in A4NH: In Phase II: Co-Leader of CoA2 (SCORE) in FP4.

247

Deanna OLNEY

Current position and affiliation: Senior Research Fellow, IFPRI, USA Profile: Deanna Olney’s work is in undertaking comprehensive evaluations to examine what impacts nutrition-sensitive programs from the health and agriculture sectors have on maternal health, nutrition and empowerment outcomes and on child health, nutrition and development outcomes. In addition, these evaluations have examined how these impacts are achieved, how program delivery and utilization can be improved and at what cost these impacts come. Finally, she has an expertise in early child development as her dissertation work examined the predictors of early child development outcomes in Tanzania and how child development in the first few years of life was affected by micronutrient supplements and malaria. She has worked in Guatemala, El Salvador, Cambodia, Burkina Faso, Tanzania and Burundi. Employment 2009-present Research Fellow, Poverty, Health and Nutrition Division, IFPRI, USA 2008-2009 Consultant, IFPRI, USA 2006-2008 Research Nutritionist, USDA-ARS-WHNRC, USA 2005-2006 Consultant UNICEF, UK 2003-2005 Collaborating Researcher, Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, USA EDUCATION 2006 PhD, Nutritional Biology with a designated emphasis in International Nutrition and minors in Statistics

and Epidemiology, University of California-Davis, USA 1999 BA in Political Science with an emphasis in International Relations and minors in

Nutrition and Spanish, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, USA Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Olney DK, Leroy JL, Ruel M. Evaluation of Nutrition Sensitive Interventions. In: Taren D, de Pee S, Bloem MW,

editors. Nutr Heal Dev Ctries. Springer; 2015 (under review). • Olney DK, Pedehombga A, Ruel MT, Dillon A. 2015. A 2-Year Integrated Agriculture and Nutrition and Health

Behavior Change Communication Program Targeted to Women in Burkina Faso Reduces Anemia, Wasting, and Diarrhea in Children 3-12.9 Months of Age at Baseline: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial. J Nutr. June 1, 2015 vol. 145 no. 6 1317-1324

• Olney DK, Vicheka S, Kro M, Chakriya C, Kroeun H, Sok Hoing L, Talukder A, Quinn V, Iannotti L, Becker E, Roopnaraine T. 2013. Using program impact pathways to understand and improve the program delivery, utilization and potential for impact of Helen Keller International’s Homestead Food Production Program in Cambodia. Food and Nutrition Bulletin. 34(2): 169-184.

• Olney DK, Kariger PK, Stoltzfus RJ Khlafan SS, Ali NS, Tielsch JM, Sazawal S, Black R, Allen LH, Pollitt E. 2013. Developmental effects of micronutrient supplementation and malaria in Zanzibari children. Early Human Development, 89(9): 667-674.

• Olney D.K., Rawat R., Ruel M.T. 2012. Selecting programs and delivery systems for multiple micronutrient interventions. Journal of Nutrition, 142:178S-85S.

Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery At IFPRI, she has co-led a number of comprehensive evaluations of nutrition-sensitive programs from the health and agriculture sectors. She is currently co-leading an early child development interest group based in the PHN division. Role in A4NH: In Phase II: Co-Leader of CoA1 (NSAP) in FP4.

248

Marie RUEL

Current position and affiliation: Division Director, Poverty, Health and Nutrition Division, IFPRI, USA Profile: Marie has worked for more than 25 years on policies and programs to alleviate poverty, food insecurity and undernutrition in developing countries. She has published extensively in nutrition and epidemiology journals on topics such as maternal and child nutrition, food based and agricultural strategies to improve diet quality and micronutrient nutrition, urban livelihoods, food security and nutrition, and the development and validation of simple indicators to measure child feeding, care giving practices and food security. She is the author or co-author of more than 150 refereed papers, including a 2013 paper in the Lancet summarizing what is known about the links between gender, agriculture and nutrition. Her current research focuses on the evaluation and strengthening of integrated, multisectoral development programs in agriculture, social protection and health, and at building the evidence on their role in reducing maternal and child undernutrition globally. Employment 2004-present Director, Poverty, Health, and Nutrition Division, IFPRI, USA 2001-2004 Senior Research Fellow, IFPR, USA 1996-2001 Research Fellow, International Food Policy Research Institute, USA 1993-1996 Director, Health and Nutrition Division, Institute of Nutrition of Central America and Panama/Pan

American Health Organization (INCAP/PAHO) 1990-1993 Epidemiologist/nutritionist, Institute of Nutrition of Central America and Panama/Pan American Health

Organization (INCAP/PAHO) Education 1990 PhD in International Nutrition, Cornell University, USA 1982 MS in Health Sciences, Nutrition, Laval University, Canada Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Ruel MT, Alderman H. 2013. Nutrition-sensitive interventions and programmes: how can they help to accelerate

progress in improving maternal and child nutrition? The Lancet 6736(13): 1-16 • Ruel MT, Harris J, Cunningham K. 2013. Diet quality in developing countries. Volume 2. Chapter 18. In: Diet Quality:

An Evidence-Based Approach. Preedy, Victor R.; Hunter, Lan-Anh; Patel, Vinood B. (eds.). Springer. New York, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London, pp 239-261.

• Ruel MT, Deitchler M, Arimond M. 2010. Developing simple measures of women’s diet quality in developing countries: overview. Journal of Nutrition 140: 2048S-2050S.

• Ruel MT, Menon P, Habicht JP, Loechl C, Bergeron G, Pelto G, Arimond M, Maluccio J, Michaud L, Hankebo B. 2008. Age-based preventive targeting of food assistance and behaviour change communication for reduction of childhood undernutrition in Haiti: A cluster randomized trial. The Lancet 371: 588–595.

• Ruel MT, Quisumbing A, Hallman K, de la Brière B. 2006. The Guatemala Community Day Care Program: An example of effective urban programming. Research Report 144. IFPRI.

Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery Division Director of IFPRI’s Poverty, Health and Nutrition Division, extensive experience managing and supervising research staff working on large multi-year projects. Served on various international expert committees, such as the National Academy of Sciences, the International Zinc in Nutrition Consultative Group, and the Micronutrient Forum. Role in A4NH: In Phase I: Leader of flagship program on Integrated Programs and Policies. In Phase II: Co-Leader of CoA 1 (NSAP) in FP4.

249

John THOMPSON

Current position and affiliation: Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Development Studies, UK Profile: John Thompson is a resource geographer by training, with a 30-year record of academic and policy-relevant research on the social, technological and environmental dynamics of agri-food systems in Sub-Saharan Africa and South and Southeast Asia. Employment 2006-present Research Fellow, Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, UK 2004-2006 Director of Research and Development, Just Food, USA 2003-2004 Director, Programmes and Partnerships Development Unit, International Institute for Environment and

Development (IIED), UK 1997-2003 Director, Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods Programme, IIED, UK 1995-1997 Associate Director, Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods Programme, IIED, UK Education 1997 PhD, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, USA 1988 M.A., Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, USA Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Thompson, J. & E. Loureiro (forthcoming) The Political Economy of Agricultural Extension Reform in Africa. Food

Policy. • Thompson, J., et al. (forthcoming) Seed Sector Development to Support CAADP Implementation within the

Framework of the African Seed and Biotechnology Programme. Integrated Seed Sector Development Scoping Paper 4. Centre for Development Innovation: Wageningen.

• Sumberg, J. & J. Thompson (2013) Revolution Reconsidered: Evolving Perspectives on Livestock Production and Consumption. STEPS Working Paper 52. Brighton, STEPS Centre.

• Sumberg, J. & J. Thompson (eds.) (2012) Contested Agronomy: The Politics of Agricultural Research in a Changing World. Pathways to Sustainability Series. London: Earthscan/Routledge.

• Scoones, I. & J. Thompson (eds) (2011) Politics of Seed in Africa’s Green Revolution. Special issue on The Politics of Seed in Africa’s Green Revolution. IDS Bulletin 42(4).

• Scoones, I. & J. Thompson (eds.) (2009) Farmer First Revisited: Innovation in Agricultural Research and Development. London: Practical Action Publications

• Thompson, J. & I. Scoones (2009) Addressing the Dynamics of Agri-Food Systems: An Emerging Agenda for Social Science Research. Environmental Science & Policy 12: 386-397

Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery Coordinator of the Future Agricultural Consortium (FAC), a partnership of African and European research institutes working on the political economy of agricultural policy research in Sub-Saharan Africa; Co-lead of a multi-country, comparative research project on ‘Integrated Seed Sector Development in Africa’ (ISSD), with colleagues in 10 African countries and The Netherlands, with support from the Gates Foundation and the Dutch Government (2014-16); Convenor of the Food and Agriculture Domain of the ESRC-funded STEPS Centre, a major interdisciplinary global research and engagement hub bringing together development and science and technology studies. Co-PI on a new, four-year, NERC-ESRC-DFID funded project on ‘Groundwater Futures in Sub-Saharan Africa’ (2015-18). Role in A4NH: In Phase II: Senior researcher and advisor for FP4

250

Roos VERSTRAETEN

Current position and affiliation: Post-Doctoral Researcher, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Belgium Profile: Roos Verstraeten’s research focuses on the development and evaluation of interventions that contribute to the evidence-base of measures and strategies to prevent obesity in low- and middle-income countries. Employment 2013-present Research Associate at the Nutrition and Child Health Unit, the Institute of Tropical Medicine (ITM),

Belgium. Programme coordinator for EVIDENT 2012-present Coordinator for the development of the Global Nutrition Leadership Platform Conference director for

the European Nutrition Leadership Platform 2007 Coordinator for the “European Nutrition and Health Report 2009” Belgium/Luxemburg 2007 Junior expert in nutrition for the International Fund for Agricultural Development/Belgian Survival Fund

(IFAD/BSF) – Burundi. (January – April) 2006 Junior expert in nutrition for the Institute of Tropical Medicine (ITM) – Vietnam Education 2014 PhD in Applied Biological Sciences, Ghent University, Belgium 2005 Master in Food Science and Nutrition, Ghent University, Belgium Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Andrade S, Lachat C, Ochoa-Aviles A, Verstraeten R, et al. (2014) A school-based intervention improves physical

fitness in Ecuadorian adolescents: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 11:153 • Ochoa-Aviles A, Verstraeten R, Lachat C et al. (2014) Dietary intake practices associated with cardiovascular risk in urban

and rural Ecuadorian adolescents: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 2014; 14:939. • Verstraeten R, Van Royen K, Ochoa-Aviles A et al.(2014) A Conceptual Framework for Healthy Eating Behavior in

Ecuadorian Adolescents: A Qualitative Study. Plos One 2014;9. • Verstraeten R, et al. on behalf of the European Nutrition Leadership Platform (ENLP) Conference

group.(2014) Creative thinking as an innovative approach to tackle nutrition in times of economic crises: ‘Let’s cook something up’ (an interactive session at the 20th International Congress of Nutrition). Nutrition Bull.2014; 39:132-137.

• Verstraeten R, Roberfroid D, Lachat C et al. (2012) Effectiveness of preventive school-based obesity interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. AmJClinNutr2012;96:415-38.

• Lachat C, Nago E, Verstraeten R, Roberfroid D, Van CJ, Kolsteren P. (2012) Eating out of home and its association with dietary intake: a systematic review of the evidence. Obes Rev 2012;13:329-46

Other Evidence of Leadership, large-program management and delivery Coordinator of EVIDENT, an international collaboration to enhance evidence-informed decision-making and policy-driven research in nutrition and health, through which she collaborates with the SUN initiative. Active member of the European Nutrition Leadership Platform (ENLP). Project leader of the global nutrition leadership platform and leader of implementation and evaluation of projects and interventions in various low- and middle-income contexts (Ecuador, Vietnam, Burundi). Role in A4NH: In Phase II: Co-Leader of CoA3 (3C) in FP4 and coordinator for EVIDENT network.

251

Flagship 5: Improving Human Health

252

Eric FÈVRE

Current position and affiliation: Professor of Veterinary Infectious Diseases, Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool and ILRI, Kenya Profile: Dr. Fèvre has 18 years of experience working in the field of zoonotic disease epidemiology in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere. Employed at the University of Liverpool but based full time at ILRI where he is implementing large donor funded projects on a range of aspects of zoonotic disease epidemiology, surveillance, disease control and prevention. He works closely with other academics, with government partners and other organizations. Employment: 2013-present Professor of Veterinary Infectious Diseases, University of Liverpool and ILRI, Kenya 2012-2013 Senior Scientist, University of Edinburgh, UK 2009-2013 Wellcome Trust Research Fellow, University of Edinburgh, UK 2007-2009 DEFRA Veterinary Epidemiology Fellow, Centre for Infectious Diseases, University of Edinburgh, UK Education: 2003 PhD Epidemiology, University of Edinburgh, UK 1997 MSc in Applied Parasitology and Medical Entomology, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, UK Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Obonyo, M.O., Akoko, J.M., Orinde, A.B., Osoro, E., Boru, W.G., Njeru, I., Fèvre, E.M. (2016). Suspected rabies in

humans and animals, Laikipia County, Kenya [letter]. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 22(3) • Thomas, L.F., Harrison, L.J.S., Toye, P., de Glanville, W.A., Cook, E.A.J., Wamae, C.N., Fèvre, E.M. (2016). Prevalence

of Taenia solium cysticercosis in pigs entering the food chain in western Kenya. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 48, pp. 233-238

• Wardrop, N.A., Thomas, L.F., Atkinson, P.M., de Glanville, W.A., Cook, E.A.J., Wamae, C.N., Gabriël, S., Dorny, P., Harrison, L.J.S., Fèvre, E.M. (2015). The Influence of socio-economic, behavioural and environmental factors on Taenia spp. transmission in western Kenya: evidence from a cross-sectional survey in humans and pigs. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases 9(12): e0004223

• Torgerson, P.R., Devleesschauwer B., Praet, N., Speybroeck, N., Willingham, A.L., Kasuga, F., Rokni, M.B., Zhou, X-N., Fèvre, E.M., et al. (2015). WHO estimates of the global and regional disease burden of 11 foodborne parasitic diseases, 2010: a data synthesis. PLoS Medicine 12(12): e1001920.

• Deem, S.L., Fèvre, E.M., Kinnaird, M., Springer Browne, A., Muloi, D., Godeke, G-J., Koopmans, M., Reusken, C.B. (2015). Serological evidence of MERS-CoV antibodies in dromedary camels (Camelus dromedarius) in Laikipia, County, Kenya. PLoS ONE, 10(10): e0140125.

Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery: Leader, Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases theme at Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool; Chair, World Health Organization Working Group on zoonotic Neglected Tropical Diseases; Member, WHO Food Borne Disease Epidemiology Reference Group and Government of Kenya Zoonotic Disease Technical Group; Leads research grants worth approx. US$9.5M. Role in A4NH: In Phase I: PI on projects mapped to A4NH and Theme Lead for Neglected Zoonoses in Agriculture-Associated Diseases; In Phase II: Flagship leader of FP5.

253

Bernard BETT

Current position and affiliation: Senior Scientist, ILRI, Kenya Profile: Dr. Bett is a veterinary epidemiologist with expertise on transmission patterns of infectious diseases in multi-host systems. He is leading multidisciplinary research work investigating the impacts of irrigation on the transmission patterns of emerging and endemic zoonotic diseases, including malaria that utilizes an Eco-Health framework. He has published over 20 peer reviewed papers demonstrating the application of qualitative and quantitative techniques such as mathematical and statistical modeling in field-based research studies. Employment 2014 - Present Senior Scientist, ILRI, Kenya 2012 - 2014 Scientist, ILRI, Kenya 2009 - 2012 Field Epidemiologist, ILRI, Indonesia 1997- 2007 Research Officer, Kenya Trypanosomiasis Research Institute, Kenya Education 2008 PhD, Veterinary Epidemiology, University of Nairobi, Kenya 2001 MSc, Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics, University of Nairobi, Kenya Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Ng’ang’a, C.M., Bukachi, S.A., Bett, B.K., 2015. Lay perceptions of risk factors for Rift Valley fever in a pastoral

community in northeastern Kenya. BMC Public Health 16, 32 • Grant, C., Lo Iacono, Giovanni Dzingirai, V., Bett, B., Winnebah, Thomas R. A. Atkinson, P.M., 2016. Moving

interdisciplinary science forward: integrating participatory modelling with mathematical modelling of zoonotic disease in Africa. Infect. Dis. Poverty XX, XX.

• Munyua, P.M., Murithi, R.M., Ithondeka, P., Hightower, A., Thumbi, S.M., Anyangu, S.A., Kiplimo, J., Bett, B., Vrieling, A., Breiman, R.F., Njenga, M.K., 2016. Predictive Factors and Risk Mapping for Rift Valley Fever Epidemics in Kenya. PLoS One 11, e0144570.

• Nanyingi, M.O., Munyua, P., Kiama, S.G., Muchemi, G.M., Thumbi, S.M., Bitek, A.O., Bett, B., Muriithi, R.M., Njenga, M.K., 2015. A systematic review of Rift Valley Fever epidemiology 1931–2014. Infect. Ecol. Epidemiol. 5, 1–12. doi:10.3402/iee.v5.28024

• Sindato, C., Karimuribo, E.D., Pfeiffer, D.U., Mboera, L.E.G., Kivaria, F., Dautu, G., Bett, B., Paweska, J.T., 2014. Spatial and temporal pattern of Rift Valley fever outbreaks in Tanzania; 1930 to 2007. PLoS ONE 9(2): e88897

• Gachohi, J. M., Bett, B., Njogu, G., Mariner, J. C., Jost, C. C., 2012. The 2006-2007 Rift Valley fever outbreak in Kenya: sources of early warning messages received and response measures implemented by the department of veterinary services. Review of Science and Technology Office of International Epizootics, 31(3).

• Jost, C.C., Nzietchueng, S., Kihu, S., Bett, B., Njogu, G., Swai, E.S., Mariner, J.C., 2010. Epidemiological assessment of the Rift Valley fever outbreak in Kenya and Tanzania in 2006 and 2007. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 83, 65–72.

Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Coordinator of the implementation of projects on emerging infectious diseases in Integrated Sciences, ILRI which as contributed to refinement of Kenya’s RVF Contingency Plan and generated a risk map that is being used for RVF surveillance. Role in A4NH: In Phase II, coordinate the implementation of FP5 activities in eastern Africa.

254

Rousseau DJOUAKA

Current position and affiliation: Senior Scientist and Coordinator, AgroEcoHealth Platform for the West and central African Region, IITA, Benin Profile: Dr. Djouaka is a senior medical molecular entomologist with expertise on the transmission and the control of tropical diseases: malaria vector control, control of neglected tropical diseases, analysis of molecular basis of insecticide resistance in malaria vectors, management of insecticide resistance in malaria vectors, research at the agriculture and health interface. He has published more than 15 recent articles on insecticide resistance in malaria mosquitoes and agricultural pests and contributed to a book chapter on agriculture and health linkages, and has supervised several MSc and PhD students. Employment 2013-present Senior Scientist and Coordinator of the IITA- AgroEcohealth Platform, Benin 2008-2013 Scientist at the IITA- Biological Control Unit, Benin 2002-2008 Research Assistant at Center of Research in Entomology of Cotonou (CREC), Ministry of Health, Benin. Education 2010 PhD, Malaria Molecular Entomology, University of Ibadan and the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine,

UK 2006 MSc, Cell Biology (Applied to medical entomology), University of Ibadan, Nigeria Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Bennett, K. L., Linton, Y. M., Shija, F., Kaddumukasa, M., Djouaka, R., Misinzo, G ... & Tossou, E. (2015). Molecular

Differentiation of the African Yellow Fever Vector Aedes bromeliae (Diptera: Culicidae) from Its Sympatric Non-vector Sister Species, Aedes lilii. PLoS Negl Trop Dis, 9(12), e0004250.

• Tonnang, H. E., Tchouassi, D. P., Juarez, H. S., Igweta, L. K., & Djouaka, R. F. (2014). Zoom in at African country level: potential climate induced changes in areas of suitability for survival of malaria vectors. International journal of health geographics, 13(1), 1.

• Riveron, J. M., Yunta, C., Ibrahim, S. S., Djouaka, R., Irving, H., Menze, B. D ... & Wondji, C. S. (2014). A single mutation in the GSTe2 gene allows tracking of metabolically based insecticide resistance in a major malaria vector. Genome Biol, 15(2), R27.

• Witzig, C., Wondji, C. S., Strode, C., Djouaka, R., & Ranson, H. (2013). Identifying permethrin resistance loci in malaria vectors by genetic mapping. Parasitology, 140(12), 1468-1477.

• Djouaka, R., Irving, H., Tukur, Z., & Wondji, C. S. (2011). Exploring mechanisms of multiple insecticide resistance in a population of the malaria vector Anopheles funestus in Benin. PLos one, 6(11), e27760.

• Wondji, C. S., Dabire, R. K., Tukur, Z., Irving, H., Djouaka, R., & Morgan, J. C. (2011). Identification and distribution of a GABA receptor mutation conferring dieldrin resistance in the malaria vector Anopheles funestus in Africa. Insect biochemistry and molecular biology, 41(7), 484-491.

Other evidence of leadership and management Manager for projects on tropical diseases (malaria and neglected tropical diseases); Coordinator of the AgroEcoHealth Platform, research activities of up to US$1 million in the last 3 years, funded by Wellcome Trust, WHO (WHO-TDR and WHO-NTDs), IDRC, IITA and CGIAR; Member of WHO-Consultative Committee on Buruli Ulcer Control; Member of African Network on Vector Resistance to Insecticides. Role in A4NH: In Phase II: Coordinate the implementation of FP5 activities in West and Central Africa

255

Delia GRACE

Current position and affiliation: Program Leader, Food Safety and Zoonoses, ILRI, Kenya Profile: Dr. Grace is a senior epidemiologist with expertise in research at the agriculture and health interface, especially Ecohealth/ One Health, food safety, gender and food, participatory methods, and, epidemiology in developing countries. Since 2012, she has led theme on agriculture associated disease within the CRP on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health and leads a program on food safety and zoonoses at the International Livestock Research Institute. She is the author of one book, numerous chapters, and more than 100 peer-reviewed papers. Employment 2011-present Program Leader, ILRI, Kenya 2008-2011 Senior Scientist, ILRI, Kenya 2006-2008 Joint appointed scientist at ILRI and Cornell University, USA 2002-2006 Scientist at Free University Berlin, Germany Education 2006 PhD, Veterinary Epidemiology, Free University Berlin, Germany 1990 MVB, National University of Ireland, Ireland Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Kungu JM, Dione MM, Ejobi F, Harrison LJ, Poole EJ, Pezo D, Grace D. 2016, Sero-prevalence of Taenia Solium

cysticercosis in rural and urban smallholder pig production settings in Uganda. Acta Trop. S0001-706X (16) 30016-X. • Atherstone, C., Smith, E., Ochungo, P., Roesel, K. and Grace, D. 2015. Assessing the potential role of pigs in the

epidemiology of Ebola virus in Uganda. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. • Watts N. Grace, D., et al., 2015, Health and Climate change: policy responses to protect public health, The Lancet,

S0140-6736 (15 ) 60854-6 • Nguyen-Viet H, Doria S, Tung DX, Mallee H, Wilcox BA, Grace D. 2015 Ecohealth research in Southeast Asia: past,

present and the way forward. Inf. Dis. Poverty. 4:5. • Grace, D. 2014, The business case for One Health Onderstepoort J Vet Res; 81, (2), 6 pages. • Jones, B., Grace, D. et al. 2013. How do agricultural intensification and environmental change affect zoonoses with a

wildlife-livestock interface? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.; 110(21): 8399–8404 • Grace, D. 2012, The deadly gifts of livestock, Ag. Dev., 17:14-16 Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Leader of studies on zoonoses, emerging disease, and antimicrobial resistance; PI or co-PI on projects with a combined budget of US$19 million in the last 5 years; Member (past and present) of several UN, FAO and WHO expert groups. Role in A4NH: In Phase I: Leader of Agriculture Associated Diseases and cluster on Food Safety and Center Focal Point for ILRI. In Phase II, Leader of FP3 and leader of CoA1 and CoA2; ILRI co-lead for FP5 (pro tem)

256

Jo LINES

Current position and affiliation: Reader in Vector Biology and Malaria Control, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), UK Profile: Jo Lines is a public health entomologist, who has worked on the practical problems of mosquito control since 1983. He has made major contributions, over 25 years, to the development, evaluation and large-scale implementation of insecticide-treated mosquito nets. Jo has experience of designing and leading applied research programs involving multidisciplinary teams and international collaboration with researchers and health professionals in malaria-endemic countries. As the coordinator of the Vector Control Unit of the Global Malaria Programme (GMP) in the World Health Organisation (WHO), he led the development of the Global Plan for Insecticide Resistance Management in Malaria Vectors. His current research focuses on the landscape epidemiology of malaria and other vector-borne diseases. Employment 2011- present Reader in Vector Biology & Malaria Control, LSHTM, UK. 2008-2011 Coordinator of the Vector Control Unit, GMP, WHO, Geneva. 1983-2008 Research assistant, and later Reader at LSHTM, UK. Education 2006 PhD, Veterinary Epidemiology, Free University Berlin, Germany 1990 MVB, National University of Ireland, Ireland Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Tusting L, Rek J, Arinaitwe E, Staedke S, Kamya M; Bottomley C; Johnston D, Lines J, Dorsey G, Lindsay S (2016)

Measuring socioeconomic inequalities in relation to malaria risk in rural Uganda. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 94(3):650-8. • Kristan M, Lines J, Nuwa A, Ntege C, Meek SR, Abeku TA (2016). Exposure to deltamethrin affects development of

Plasmodium falciparum inside wild pyrethroid resistant Anopheles gambiae ss mosquitoes in Uganda. Parasites & vectors. Feb 24;9(1):1.

• Lines J and Kleinschmidt I (2013) Combining malaria vector control interventions: some trial design issues. Pathogens and Global Health 107(1) 1-3.

• Okell LC, Paintain LS, Webster J, Hanson K, Lines J (2012). From intervention to impact: modelling the potential mortality impact achievable by different long-lasting, insecticide-treated net delivery strategies. Malar J. 11:327.

• Ranson, H, N'guessan, R, Lines, J, Moiroux, N, Nkuni, Z, Corbel, V (2011) Pyrethroid resistance in African anopheline mosquitoes: what are the implications for malaria control? Trends Parasitol 27(2):91-8.

• Carlson M, Paintain LS, Bruce J, Webster J, Lines J (2011). Who attends antenatal care and expanded programme on immunization services in Chad, Mali and Niger? the implications for insecticide-treated net delivery. Malaria journal. 13;10(1):1.

Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery PI of various research project grants; Director of “Malaria Knowledge Programme” at LSHTM from 2000-05 (£7m); Coordinator of the Vector Control Unit, Global Malaria Programme, WHO (2009-12) Role in A4NH In Phase II: Lead on CoA1 and co-convenor of Platform for Public Health and Agriculture Research Collaboration in FP5, to bring together agriculture and health sectors and their development donors to identify and fund intersectoral initiatives.

257

Stephen MSHANA

Current position and affiliation: Associate Professor, Department of Microbiology, Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences, Tanzania Profile: Dr Mshana is a clinical microbiologist who has published extensively on the molecular epidemiology of ESBL producing bacteria in African contexts. He developed a program on anti-microbial resistance (AMR) across animal and human health systems and has coordinated work between local universities, research institutes and government in a one health context. He actively collaborates with leading AMR research groups in Europe and has supervised many postgraduate research projects on AMR and has published 70 articles in peer reviewed journals.

Employment Associate Professor, Department of Microbiology, Catholic University of Health and Allied Sciences, Tanzania

Education 2011 PhD, Department of Microbiology/Immunology, St. Augustine University of Tanzania Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Seni, J., Falgenhauer, L., Simeo, N., Mirambo, M. M., Imirzalioglu, C., Matee, M ... & Mshana, S. E. (2016). Multiple

ESBL-producing Escherichia coli sequence types carrying quinolone and aminoglycoside resistance genes circulating in companion and domestic farm animals in Mwanza, Tanzania, harbor commonly occurring plasmids. Frontiers in microbiology, 7.

• Mirambo, M. M., Majigo, M., Aboud, S., Groß, U., & Mshana, S. E. (2015). Serological makers of rubella infection in Africa in the pre vaccination era: a systematic review. BMC research notes, 8(1), 716.

• Manyahi, J., Matee, M. I., Majigo, M., Moyo, S., Mshana, S. E., & Lyamuya, E. F. (2014). Predominance of multi-drug resistant bacterial pathogens causing surgical site infections in Muhimbili national hospital, Tanzania. BMC research notes, 7(1), 500.

• Kidenya, B. R., Webster, L. E., Behan, S., Kabangila, R., Peck, R. N., Mshana, S. E., ... & Fitzgerald, D. W. (2014). Epidemiology and genetic diversity of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in East Africa. Tuberculosis, 94(1), 1-7.

• Mshana, S. E., Matee, M., & Rweyemamu, M. (2013). Antimicrobial resistance in human and animal pathogens in Zambia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique and Tanzania: an urgent need of a sustainable surveillance system. Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials, 12(1), 1.

Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Member, Tanzanian National AMR task force; participated in performing situation analysis on antibiotic use and resistance in Tanzania coordinated by Centre of Disease Dynamics, Economic & Policy (CDDEP); Active member, Southern African Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance (SACIDS) Role in A4NH: In Phase II: work with FP5 team on the biology and epidemiology of AMR in livestock and humans, building on his landmark work on this problem in an African context, and will participate in broader AMR planning and research in Africa and Asia, and linking it to studies on antibiotic use and policy.

258

Hung NGUYEN-VIET

Current position and affiliation: Senior scientist, Country representative for Vietnam, ILRI, Vietnam Profile: A biologist and environmental scientist by training, Dr. Nguyen is a senior scientist with research focuses on the link between health and agriculture, food safety, infectious and zoonotic diseases using integrative approaches such as One Health and Ecohealth. His research emphasis is on the use of risk assessment for food safety management, water and wastewater reuse in agriculture in Southeast Asia. Employment 2014-present Senior Scientist, Country representative for Vietnam, ILRI, Vietnam 2009-2014 Researcher, CENPHER, Hanoi School of Public Health, Vietnam 2007-2014 Postdoc, then project leader, Swiss Tropical and Public health Institute, Switzerland 2004-2005 Lecturer, University of Franche-Comté, France Education 2005 PhD, Life and Environmental Sciences, with Distinction, University of Franche-Comté, France 2001 MSc, Environment, Health, Society, University of Franche-Comté, France Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Nguyen-Viet, H., Doria, S., Tung, D. X., Mallee, H., Wilcox, B. A., & Grace, D. (2015). Ecohealth research in Southeast

Asia: past, present and the way forward. Infectious diseases of poverty, 4(5). • Lam, S., Nguyen-Viet, H., Tuyet-Hanh, T.T., Nguyen-Mai, H., Harper, S. 2015. Evidence for public health risks of

wastewater and excreta management practices in Southeast Asia: A scoping review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 12(10): 12863–12885.

• Nguyen-Viet H, Vi Nguyen, et all. 2015. Institutional research capacity development for integrated approaches in developing countries: an example from Vietnam. In J. Zinsstag, E. Schelling, D. Waltner-Toews, M. Whittaker & M. Tanner (Eds.), One Health: The Theory and Practice of Integrated Health Approaches. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.

• Yapo RI, Kone B, Bonfoh B, Cisse G, Zinsstag J, Nguyen-Viet H. 2014. Quantitative microbial risk assessment related to urban wastewater and lagoon water reuse in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire. J Water Health. 12:301-309.

• Pham-Duc P, Nguyen-Viet H, Hattendorf J, Cam PD, Zurbrugg C, Zinsstag J, Odermatt P. 2014. Diarrhoeal diseases among adult population in an agricultural community Hanam province, Vietnam, with high wastewater and excreta re-use. BMC Public Health. 14:978.

• Nguyen V, Nguyen-Viet H, Pham-Duc P, Wiese M. 2014. Scenario planning for community development in Vietnam: a new tool for integrated health approaches? Glob Health Action. 7:24482.

Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Country representative for ILRI in Vietnam; Co-founded and led a research center (CENPHER) at the Hanoi School of Public Health for 6 years; Leader of the Ecohealth regional program Field Building Leadership Initiative (2012-2016) and the Swiss NCCR North-South project on Environmental Sanitation and Health in Southeast Asia and West Africa (2009-2013). As PI or Co-PI, has mobilized more than $3 million project grants. Role in A4NH: In Phase I: researcher on activities related to Agriculture Associated Diseases. In Phase II: researcher on activities related to FP3 and FP5, contact point for both flagships in Vietnam

259

Timothy ROBINSON

Current position and affiliation: Principal Scientist, Livestock Systems and Environment, ILRI, Kenya Profile: Dr. Robinson has more than 20 years of experience working in the field of spatial analysis in relation to agriculture, food security and poverty alleviation, during which he has worked within the United Nations, the CGIAR system, UK universities and government departments. His research includes the application of spatial analytical techniques to understanding current and future livestock species and production systems distributions – particularly in the context of social, environmental and epidemiological risks and opportunities associated with a changing livestock sector. Employment: 2013-present Principal Scientist, Livestock Systems and Environment, ILRI, Kenya 2002-2013 Livestock Information Officer, Livestock Policy Branch, FAO, Italy 1999-2002 Scientist, Targeting and Impact Assessment, ILRI, Kenya 1996-1999 Zoology Research Fellow, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, UK 1992-1996 Tsetse Ecologist, Natural Resources Institute, Zambia Education: 1991 PhD in Spatial modelling of ecological processes, University of Reading, UK 1988 MA in Pure and Applied Biology, University of Oxford, UK Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Robinson, T.P., Wertheim, H.F.L., Kakkar, M., Kariuki, S., Bu, D. and Price, L.B. (2016) Animal production and

antimicrobial resistance in the clinic. The Lancet 387, (10014) e1-e3. • Shaw, A.P.M., Wint, G.R.W., Cecchi, G., Torr, S.J., Mattioli, R.C. and Robinson, T.P. (2015) Mapping the benefit-cost

ratios of interventions against bovine trypanosomosis in Eastern Africa. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 122, 406–416. • Gilbert, M., Conchedda, G., Van Boeckel, T.P., Cinardi, G., Linard, C., Nicolas, G., Thanapongtharm, W., D'Aietti, L.,

Wint, W., Newman, S. and Robinson, T.P. (2015) Income Disparities and the Global Distribution of Intensively Farmed Chicken and Pigs. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0133381.

• Van Boeckel, T.P. Brower, C., Gilbert, M., Grenfell, B.T., Levin, S.A., Robinson, T.P., Teillant, A. and Laxminarayan, R. (2015) Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals. PNAS 18, 5649-5654.

• Gilbert, M., Golding, N., Zhou, H., Wint, G.R.W., Robinson, T.P., Tatem, A.J., Lai, S., Zhou, S., Jiang, H., Guo, D., Huang, Z., Messina, J.P. Xiao, X., Linard, C., Van Boeckel, T.P., Martin, V., Bhatt, S., Gething, P.W., Farrar, J.J., Hay, S.I. and Yu, H. (2014) Predicting the risk of avian influenza A H7N9 infection in live-poultry markets across Asia. Nature Communications 5:4116.

• Robinson, T.P., Wint, G.R.W., Conchedda, G., Van Boeckel, T.P., Ercoli, V., Palamara, E., Cinardi, G., D’Aietti, L., Hay, S.I and Gilbert, M. (2014) Mapping the global distribution of livestock. PLoS ONE 9(5): e96084.

Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery ILRI focal point for CRP on HumidTropics; PI/co-PI on projects with a combined budget of US$22.8 million Role in A4NH: In Phase I: Co-PI on projects mapped to A4NH; In Phase II: ILRI representative leading the work on antimicrobial resistance.

260

Richard STABLER

Current position and affiliation: Senior Lecturer in Molecular Bacteriology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), UK Profile: Dr. Stabler is a world renowned expert in using high throughput methodologies to study bacterial pathogenesis and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and has been trained in high throughput sequencing technologies. His research focuses on clinically important infections including Staphylococcus aureus and Campylobacter. He has experience analysing global molecular epidemiology datasets of these pathogens and mining for salient information such as antimicrobial resistance genetics and transmission pathways. Employment

Senior Lecturer in Molecular Bacteriology, LSHTM, UK Post-doc, Bacterial Microarray Group at St. Georges Hospital Research Assistant, St Bartholomews Hospital, UK

Education 2002 PhD in Molecular Bacteriology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Auguet, O. T., Betley, J. R., Stabler, R. A., Patel, A., Ioannou, A., Marbach, H., ... & Desai, N. (2016). Evidence for

Community Transmission of Community-Associated but Not Health-Care-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Strains Linked to Social and Material Deprivation: Spatial Analysis of Cross-sectional Data. PLoS Med, 13(1), e1001944.

• McCarthy, A. J., Martin, P., Cloup, E., Stabler, R. A., Oswald, E., & Taylor, P. W. (2015). The genotoxin colibactin is a determinant of virulence in Escherichia coli K1 experimental neonatal systemic infection. Infection and immunity, 83(9), 3704-3711.

• Palacios, L., Rosado, H., Micol, V., Rosato, A. E., Bernal, P., Arroyo, R., Grounds, H., Anderson J. C., Stabler, R.A. & Taylor, P. W. (2014). Staphylococcal phenotypes induced by naturally occurring and synthetic membrane-interactive polyphenolic β-lactam resistance modifiers. PloS one, 9(4), e93830.

• Stabler, R. A., Negus, D., Pain, A., & Taylor, P. W. (2013). Draft genome sequences of Pseudomonas fluorescens BS2 and Pusillimonas noertemannii BS8, soil bacteria that cooperate to degrade the poly-γ-d-glutamic acid anthrax capsule. Genome announcements, 1(1), e00057-12.

• Kudirkienė, E., Cohn, M. T., Stabler, R. A., Strong, P. C., Šernienė, L., Wren, B. W ... & Brøndsted, L. (2012). Phenotypic and genotypic characterizations of Campylobacter jejuni isolated from the broiler meat production process. Current microbiology, 65(4), 398-406.

Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Leads, European Space Agency project using metagenomics to study effect of space countermeasure suit on skin flora; Runs cross-faculty Antimicrobial Resistance Interest Group at LSHTM Role in A4NH: In Phase II, Coordinate public health input into the AMR component of FP5 (CoA3), including his own expertise in molecular epidemiology, as well as inputs from LSHTM anthropologists working on antibiotic usage, economists working on drug value chains and markets, and policy specialists working on AMR policy.

261

Philip TOYE

Current position and affiliation: Principal Scientist, ILRI, Kenya Profile: Dr. Toye is a Principal Scientist in Animal Health at ILRI, with major interests in the improvement of animal health through the development and deployment of vaccines and diagnostic assays. He has worked primarily on East Coast fever, with other activities on peste des petits ruminants and porcine cysticercosis, and the commercial development of assays for human genetic disorders. Employment 2006-present Principal Scientist, ILRI, Kenya 2000–2006 Manager of Research/Project Manager, AGEN Biomedical Limited, Australia 199 –2000 Managing Director, Africa Biotect Limited, Kenya 1986–1994 Scientist/Post Doctoral Scientist, International Laboratory for Research on Animal Diseases, (ILRAD),

Kenya 1984–1986 Postdoctoral Fellow, Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health (joint appointment),

Harvard University, USA Education 1982 PhD in Molecular Immunoparasitology, University of Adelaide, Australia 1977 Bachelor of Veterinary Science (Hons.), University of Queensland, Australia Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Thomas, L. F., Harrison, L. J. S., Toye, P., De Glanville, W. A., Cook, E. A. J., Wamae, C. N., & Fèvre, E. M. (2016).

Prevalence of Taenia solium cysticercosis in pigs entering the food chain in western Kenya. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 48(1), 233-238.

• Njiiri, N. E., Collins, N. E., Steyn, H. C., Troskie, M., Vorster, I., Thumbi, S. M., ... & Kiara, H. (2015). The epidemiology of tick-borne haemoparasites as determined by the reverse line blot hybridization assay in an intensively studied cohort of calves in western Kenya. Veterinary parasitology, 210(1), 69-76.

• Woolhouse, M. E., Thumbi, S. M., Jennings, A., Chase-Topping, M., Callaby, R., Kiara, H., ... & Poole, E. J. (2015). Co-infections determine patterns of mortality in a population exposed to parasite infection. Science advances, 1(2), e1400026.

• J. Baron, E. Fishbourne, E. Couacy-Hyman, M. Abubakar, B. A. Jones, L. Frost, R. Herbert, T. R. Chibssa, G. van’t Klooster, M. Afzal, C. Ayebazibwe, P. Toye, J. Bashiruddin and M. D. Baron. 2014. Development and Testing of a Field Diagnostic Assay for Peste des Petits Ruminants Virus. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 61:390-396.

• P. G. Toye, C.A Batten, H. Kiara, M.R. Henstock, L. Edwards, S. Thumbi, E.J. Poole, I.G. Handel, B.M. de C. Bronsvoort, O. Hanotte, J.A.W. Coetzer, M.E.J. Woolhouse, C.A.L. Oura. 2013. Bluetongue and Epizootic Haemorrhagic Disease virus in local breeds of cattle in Kenya. Res. Vet. Sci. 94:769-773

Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Animal Health Flagship leader, CRP on Livestock and Fish until August 2015; Wellcome Trust Programme grant, Infectious Diseases of East African Livestock (1 of 5 PIs) (2006-12); BBSRC - Understanding the basis of strain restricted immunity to Theileria parva (1 of 3 PIs), (2010-2013)

Role in A4NH: In Phase II: PI for activities related to diagnostic assay development for zoonoses.

262

Jeff WAAGE

Current position and affiliation: Director, London International Development Centre (LIDC), and Chair, Leverhulme Centre for Integrative Research on Agriculture and Health (LCIRAH), UK Profile: Dr. Waage is a specialist in the development and management of interdisciplinary research for international development. Following a career in tropical pest management, he led CABI Bioscience, building close research collaborations with several CGIAR Centers. He was the founding Director of LIDC in 2007, where he has established inter-institutional, intersectoral and interdisciplinary programs in one health and “agri-health”, including LCIRAH, and led research on evaluating the MDGs and SDGs. In LCIRAH, he has helped to build a broad portfolio of agri-health research programs, including the Agriculture, Nutrition and Health Academy, jointly with A4NH. Employment 2007-present Director, London International Development Center and Professor, School of Oriental and African

Studies (SOAS), and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), University of London UK 2000-2006 Head of Department of Agriculture, then Head of Environmental Sciences and Director, Centre for

Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, UK 1986-2000 Director, International Institute of Biological Control, then CEO CABI Bioscience, UK 1978-1986 Lecturer, Department of Biology, Imperial College London, UK Education 1977 PhD, Ecology, Imperial College, University of London, UK 1975 AB, Biology, Princeton University, USA Selected recent peer-reviewed publications • Waage, J et al. (2015) Governing the UN Sustainable Development Goals: interactions, infrastructures, institutions.

Lancet Global Health 3(5): e251–e252. • Hawkes, C., Turner, R., Waage, J., Ferguson, E., Johnston, D. and B. Shankar (2013) Agriculture for improved

nutrition: the current research landscape. Food and Nutrition Bulletin 34, 369-376 • Dangour, A., Hawkesworth, S., Shankar, B., Watson, L., Srinivasan, C.S., Morgan, E., Haddad, L., Waage, J. (2013) 'Can

nutrition be promoted through agriculture-led food price policies? A systematic review.' British Medical JournalOpen.

• Wilkinson, K., Grant, W.P., Green, L.E., Hunter, S., Jeger, M., Lowe, P., Medley, G.F., Mills, P., Phillipson, J., Poppy, G.M. and J. Waage (2011). Infectious diseases of animals and plants: an interdisciplinary approach. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B.

Other evidence of leadership, large-program management and delivery Serves on advisory or management groups including A4NH, IMMANA, LANSA and ATONU; Established academic departments of agriculture and unique cross-institutional LIDC between LSHTM, SOAS, the Royal Veterinary College, London School of Pharmacy and the Institute of Education; Technical Advisory to Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition; Member of DFID Research Advisory Group; Served on 2008 CGIAR Independent Review and the team that developed its Strategic Research Framework. Role in A4NH: In Phase I, member of PMC. In Phase II: support collaboration between LCIRAH and A4NH; lead establishment and operation of Platform for Public Health and Agriculture Research Collaboration in FP5, to bring together agriculture and health sectors and their development donors to identify and fund intersectoral initiatives.

263

SECTION 3.8

264

Annex 3.8 OPEN ACCESS I. Planning for and implementing OA/OD in accordance with the CGIAR OADM policy and fair

principles, including critical issues and anticipated challenges In Phase II, Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) will continue to work with our Lead Center, the International Food Policy Research Institute’s (IFPRI) Knowledge Management (KM) team and our managing partners to comply with the CGIAR Open Access and Data Management (OADM) Policy and its Implementation Guidelines, and ensure discoverability of the A4NH outputs order to enhance their use towards outcomes. Follow these links for more information on IFPRI’s Open Access Policy and Open Data Policy. Currently, all known A4NH publications (books, book chapters, journal articles, research monographs, factsheets, policy notes, technical guides, working papers, conference papers, tools, software, and knowledge products) are catalogued in IFPRI’s digital repository (IFPRI e-brary). When possible, an electronic copy of the IFPRI publication is housed in the IFPRI repository. Datasets are catalogued in IFPRI’s data repository IFPRI Datasets including all the data files, questionnaires and other relevant documents. In addition, a record for each dataset with minimum metadata is created in the IFPRI e-brary pointing to the data files in IFPRI Datasets. IFPRI’s KM team is responsible for quality control/assurance and ensuring the A4NH products are consistently well described, and compliant to CGIAR-Core metadata schema. A4NH works with IFPRI’s KM team and researchers to ensure that products are consistently described. For example, we follow FAO geopolitical and AGROVOC ontology to describe country names and regions. All of these practices will continue in Phase II. With some exceptions, research products are shared with Creative Commons, under the Attribution CC BY license. A4NH will encourage researchers to publish in journals with Gold/Hybrid Open access. When this is not possible, the pre-print or post-print manuscript of the article is deposited in the repository to enhance accessibility. A4NH encourages all managing partners to publish data as open access as long as the privacy and confidentiality rights of human subjects is maintained. The A4NH metadata from IFPRI repositories are harvested by various web portals, outlets and repositories. The LandPortal.net, FAO's AGRIS database, IFPRI.org, CAB Abstracts, Thomson-Reuters Data Citation Index, RePEc, CIARD Ring, and ReSKASS Asia websites harvest content using OAI-PMH or APIs. IFPRI also contributes content to SSRN, the Agriculture, Nutrition and Health group on Mendeley, Google Books and Play, Apple iTunes, and Amazon Kindle. To facilitate discovery through interlinking, A4NH information products are linked to each other on the A4NH web site as much as possible and in other repositories (as “Related Publications,” “Related Materials,” and “Associated Data”). For information products generated by other A4NH participating Centers, records in the IFPRI repository are usually metadata-only with a link to the original location, and automatically harvested, if possible. In Phase I, automation of the metadata harvesting was a challenge. Centers have different repository infrastructures, so interoperability issues can arise. In these cases, the IFPRI KM team enters metadata manually in IFPRI’s repositories. Secondly, harvesting A4NH outputs from Centers other than IFPRI and cataloguing them in the IFPRI repository in a timely manner was a challenge. In some cases, the A4NH tag was initially omitted from the metadata for some publications (owing to lack of information on the A4NH affiliation on the part of the KM Team and sometimes A4NH-affiliated researchers themselves). A list of the most common repositories housing A4NH information products is in Table 1.

265

II. Technical considerations and operations (e.g. technical infrastructure and interoperability, data quality assurance, training activities)

The IFPRI repository where A4NH publications are stored is a CONTENTdm platform.1 CONTENTdm uses the Dublin Core (DC) standards2, and supports the following data exchange protocols: XML, JSON, and OAI-PMH (Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting), and has a REST API and RSS feeds. Linked Open Data (LOD) capacity is in the process of being added. Both of the IFPRI repositories where A4NH information products are stored are compliant with CGIAR-Core metadata schema and fully support API, OAI-PMH protocol and interoperability. Standard controlled vocabulary (AGROVOC, CAB Thesaurus, Standard Thesaurus of Economics, and Library of Congress (LOC)), taxonomy and ontology concepts are used, where possible, to synchronize and harmonize distribution across multiple outlets. In Phase I, exporting data from the IFPRI repository to the CGSpace repository has been hampered by CGSpace’s failure to comply with the API standards. As a consequence, only a fraction of the A4NH Phase I information products are currently visible in the CGSpace A4NH collection. We hope that in Phase II this interoperability issue will be resolved at the CGIAR level. At the CRP level, A4NH wants to address the challenge faced by IFPRI’s KM team in harvesting the metadata of information products generated by participating Centers. A4NH, with the other integrating CRPs – Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM), and Water, Land, and Ecosystems (WLE), is developing an integrated online platform to improve planning, monitoring, and reporting in Phase II in 2016-2017. Researchers will be required to upload outputs – or the links or metadata – to the platform as part of CRP monitoring, which will facilitate the systematic inclusion in the IFPRI Repository of all participating Centers’ outputs. We will ensure that the platform is designed in consultation with IFPRI’s KM team so that we can overcome this challenge in Phase II and strengthen the repository of A4NH outputs. There will be training, from the A4NH Program Management Unit (PMU), with researchers and perhaps KM teams from our participating Centers, on how to use the integrated online platform and ensure that A4NH generated products are more discoverable through the various online repositories. Both the IFPRI publication and dataset repositories have automatic file transformation systems in order to ensure long term preservation. Both repositories are Trusted Digital Repositories (TDR). Data file types uploaded in the “IFPRI Datasets” are also converted into text file for long term storage and preservation.

III. Coordination and decisionmaking (e.g. workflows/procedures, capacity, governance) The coordination and decisionmaking structures described earlier in this Annex will remain the same in Phase II, but the A4NH PMU and IFPRI’s KM team will improve efforts to improve procedures for effective discoverability of A4NH information products, particularly those produced by participating Centers. One major improvement will come from the integrated online platform to be implemented jointly with CCAFS, PIM, and WLE in 2016-2017. One solution the A4NH PMU will explore with our participating Centers is incorporating an Information Product workflow in our program planning and reporting cycle, which would mean that it would be clearer to authors from participating Centers how and when to acknowledge A4NH funding support so that publications can be tracked by the KM alert systems and added to the appropriate repositories. A4NH is also keen to work with those at the CGIAR level to address the process automation challenges and ensure that all participating Centers are OADM

1 IFPRI Repository: http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm 2 The Dublin Core is an internationally agreed upon basic metadata scheme that defines 15 general descriptive elements, for example, Creator, Title, Date, Subject, Publisher.

266

compliant following CGIAR core metadata schema so that A4NH generated products are equally represented and discoverable in the existing repositories. For all A4NH products, IFPRI’s KM team will perform a quality assurance function for the metadata. IFPRI’s KM team and A4NH will jointly identify partners and collaborators whose dissemination channels are useful to tap into to disseminate the A4NH outputs. The PMU will ensure that all A4NH projects are aware of the CGIAR OADM Policy, including (i) approaches for making articles/chapters/books published in closed access journals open, (ii) contact person to share the information about the publications with IFPRI KM and the PMU, (iii) challenges for open access/data, and (iv) adequate budget for publishing in commercial publishers, maintaining tools and online portals, etc. IFPRI’s and other Centers’ KM teams will serve as a resource for researchers to help determine if a publisher complies with CGIAR open access policy, and if not provide alternatives for consideration. Information will be requested about application of OA principles at project level as part of the A4NH annual reporting process. A4NH will continue to include the OADM Policy as part of its Program Participant Agreement (PPA), (or comparable formal agreement) with the participating Centers in Phase II. We will do more to raise awareness of the OADM Policy among flagship and cluster leaders to allow them to play an active role in ensuring that information products are compliant by sharing links to IFPRI’s resources on the subject. A4NH will explore how we can coordinate with the newly created PIM Open Access and Research Publication Support team (OARPS) to support our researchers in meeting open access requirements. IV. Narrative for required resources (e.g. human and financial) A4NH has designated 3% of its management budget for open access and data management in Phase II. This budget is primarily for facilitating overall quality control and web accessibility of knowledge products and databases across A4NH and for strengthening data collection and quality assurance procedures for open data, making available data products from secondary data analysis and improving knowledge products from flagship research. Part of this budget supports the IFPRI Communications and Knowledge Management Division (CKM), which uses the money for journal subscriptions, statistical/bibliographic databases; annual maintenance fees; and website development related to repositories. The budget also covers the membership fees for Altmetrics; Web of Science/InCites/Journal Citation Reports (JCR); Social Science Research Network (SSRN); OCLC; World Share Management; ORCID (unique researcher IDs); open access fees for articles; institutional memberships; and other expenses like making data visualizations, data web and mobile apps for promoting in support of open access and open data; and professional development/ training to support open access and data management.

267

Table 1. Most common repositories housing information products from A4NH A4NH Information

Products Repository URL Metadata

Only

Books, book chapters, journal articles, research monographs, factsheets, policy notes, technical guides, working papers, conference papers, infographics, and other outputs

IFPRI e-brary (includes different collections) http://ebrary.ifpri.org

Bioversity e-brary http://www.bioversityinternational.org/e-library/

HarvestPlus Alliance Publications http://literature.ciat.cgiar.org/

IITA Bibliography http://biblio.iita.org/

CIAT Research Online https://ciat.cgiar.org/data-information-knowledge/ciat-research-online

CGSpace (includes different collections) https://cgspace.cgiar.org/

Websites, tools, models IFPRI e-brary http://ebrary.ifpri.org yes

Datasets IFPRI e-brary http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/landingpage/collection

/p15738coll3 yes

ILRI Data Resources http://data.ilri.org/

Datasets IFPRI Datasets https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/IFPRI

Images IFPRI Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/ifpri

Videos, audio presentations A4NH Vimeo Channel https://vimeo.com/a4nh

Program information and documents, blogposts, presentations, toolkits, guides

A4NH website http://www.a4nh.cgiar.org/

Presentations A4NH SlideShare http://www.slideshare.net/Ag4HealthNutrition/

Journal publications, but also books, factsheets, policy notes, reports, and technical guides

Agriculture, Nutrition and Health group in Mendeley

https://www.mendeley.com/groups/844241/agriculture-nutrition-and-health/

268

SECTION 3.9

269

Annex 3.9 INTELLECTUAL ASSETS

OVERVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL ASSETS MANAGEMENT IN A4NH The intellectual assets of research results and products developed under Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) are largely international public goods (IPGs). A4NH is committed to disseminating research results and products in order to maximize impacts in a manner that improves nutrition and health and ensuring that intellectual assets produced benefit and are accessible to beneficiary countries and poor populations. The Lead Center and all A4NH managing partners1 – will assume accountability for the appropriate implementation of the CGIAR Principles for the Management of Intellectual Assets and the Implementation Guidelines for the CGIAR Intellectual Asset Principles and this accountability will be documented in Partner Participant and Collaborative Research Agreements This document describes how A4NH will support adherence to the CGIAR principles and guidelines. The majority of intellectual assets A4NH expects to produce are information products, such as publications and datasets. The other types of intellectual assets listed in the CGIAR Intellectual Asset Principles (e.g., germplasm, technologies, and varieties), will be generated predominantly by FP2: Biofortification, which is led by HarvestPlus and coordinated by CIAT and IFPRI, and by FP3: Food Safety and FP5: Improving Human Health which is led or co-led by ILRI with technology-generating research carried out in coordination with IITA, LSHTM and other partners. Initially in Phase II, most “technology-related” intellectual assets will come from these three flagships; however, we do anticipate that others may arise from research by partner institutions or joint research with private-sector partners in FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets, led by Wageningen University and Research Center. Across these FPs, we will draw on the experience of ILRI in the management of intellectual assets from technology given its important role as a flagship leader and its experience. For intellectual asset management related to crop development, this will remain the responsibility of the partners in FP2: Biofortification and is currently handled through the contractual arrangements for projects. The A4NH PMU will provide the overall oversight in planning and managing intellectual assets in A4NH through its results-based management system, working with the management entities in A4NH, who manage the different types of intellectual assets in the program. Some important features of intellectual asset management for these different categories include:

1. Information products – publications, databases, models This will be coordinated by IFPRI’s Knowledge Management Division based on IFPRI’s Open Access Policy and Open Data Policy. Currently all A4NH publications and almost all information products are catalogued in IFPRI’s digital repository (IFPRI e-brary) or in in IFPRI’s data repository IFPRI Datasets. The IFPRI KM team, links up with the teams in the other partners of A4NH. Most materials are stored in partner organization sites but with metadata links to the IFPRI repository (see Annex 3.8 Open Access and Open Data management for further details). With some exceptions, research products are shared with Creative Commons, under the Attribution CC BY license and publications should be in journals with Gold/Hybrid Open Access.

2. Biofortified Crop Varieties Within FP2: Biofortification, the HarvestPlus team coordinates crop varietal development across a number of CGIAR Centers for high-levels of micronutrients. For all the products from this research, there

1 A4NH managing partners are: Bioversity International, CIAT, ILRI, IITA, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM), and Wageningen University and Research Centre (Wageningen UR). The Lead Center is IFPRI.

270

are established clauses with clear requirements in all research contracts (template available on request). The intellectual assets are managed by the individual CGIAR breeding Centers, with the collaborator generating the intellectual assets required to conform to CGIAR principles and practices – including concerning farmers’ rights. These Centers have both in-house capacity and CGIAR networks to support intellectual asset management for crop varieties as well as experience in dissemination pathways with public and private provider of seed and planting material to smallholder farmers.

3. Technologies (technical processes, diagnostics, vaccines) For other technologies we will follow the ILRI policy and guidelines, in particular the ILRI Intellectual Assets Policy. The main challenges are ensuring the trade-offs between public and private capacities and interests in technology development and dissemination. These include different perspectives on confidentiality obligations (including the need to maintain trade secrets and delay disclosure of information so as to allow time to patent inventions), lack of intellectual assets knowledge and policies by national partners, and the need to meet relevant national legal requirements. The program will address these issues through legal instruments, transfer agreements, licenses and capacity development, as appropriate. In any cases in which accessibility is in any way limited, such cases will be documented, justified and reported. This is especially the case where technologies, such as diagnostics or vaccines, require private-sector involvement to take outputs to scale. Across these mean types of intellectual assets, there are a variety of dissemination pathways to enhance the availability, accessibility and utility of the products of A4NH research. These include making products available through widely-available open access repositories and knowledge platforms through to engagement with different institutional arrangements such as public-private partnerships for technology research, development and scaling-out.

PLANNING AND TRACKING CONCERNING INTELLECTUAL ASSETS AND THEIR ASSOCIATED RIGHTS The key issues and challenges relating to intellectual assets management within A4NH for Phase II are:

• Monitoring, reporting, documenting and disseminating intellectual assets in the project management cycle

• Appropriate legal and ethical procedures for managing confidentiality, intellectual property rights, licensing and other aspects that maximize international public goods and accessibility while ensuring that necessary public and private capabilities are brought together to maximize benefits for the poor

• Improving procedures for effective discoverability and access of A4NH information products and how to acknowledge funding support

• Building capacity to ensure the highest-quality of intellectual assets as well as the capacity for A4NH researchers and partners to plan and manage intellectual assets as part of their research

• Partnerships for scaling-out and optimizing benefits including public-private partnerships and better communication of products and their relevance

A4NH intends to improve the planning and tracking of intellectual assets. A list of the major A4NH intellectual assets, management and uptake pathways for greater use and associated activities are included in Table 1 (adapted from the CRP Livestock table given the similarity in the range of intellectual assets that the two CRPs have in common and the role of ILRI, a managing partner in A4NH, in the intellectual assets management in A4NH).

271

During Phase I, A4NH asked Center Focal Points to report what measures their Centers took in the prior year to comply with the CGIAR Open Access and Intellectual Asset Policies and Guidelines. One way this will be improved will be through the integrated online platform A4NH, with CCAFS, PIM, and WLE, is developing to improve planning, monitoring, and reporting in Phase II. This is budgeted for under the MEL unit in the PMU. Intellectual assets, including the outputs and dissemination pathways, could be listed by researchers in the project descriptions that flagship and/or cluster leaders will review in the integrated online platform, consistent with Table 1. Progress will then be monitored annually in the reporting cycle. As we implement in Phase II, projects will be requested to include the cost of making publications and datasets open access in their budgets, so A4NH could have information on the cost of implementing some aspects of intellectual asset principles. In regards to the other dissemination pathways described above, the integrated online platform will enable A4NH to have a more robust monitoring system in Phase II, which will include monitoring and evaluating activities conducted as part of networking and mutual learning. For example, A4NH plans to host several communities of practice around particular themes in order to promote extension of research outputs and products related to agriculture, nutrition, health, and gender. The CoP activities will be co-developed with other CRPs and their usefulness to and influence on other CRPs will be tracked and assessed. CAPACITY AND DECISIONMAKING RELATING TO INTELLECTUAL ASSETS MANAGEMENT For the management of intellectual assets like information products, the A4NH capacity and decisionmaking is described in Annex 3.8. For other types of intellectual assets described in the CGIAR Intellectual Assets Principles, the capacity and decision-making is managed with the help of CRP managing partners and collaborator Centers at the Center level. There will be CRP-level intellectual asset oversight by the PMU, including describing in the PPA or other contractual arrangement the expectations for partners to follow the CGIAR Principles, monitoring and tracking through the A4NH RBM MEL system and advice to research teams on improving intellectual asset management from available resources. A4NH will work with the IFPRI Intellectual Property Focal Point and IFPRI legal capacity2 as well the ILRI Legal Officer on all matters related to the implementation of the CGIAR Principles (and especially to implement the best practices shared through the CGIAR Legal/IP Network). The current A4NH Director has experience in establishing and serving on the board of a public-private partnership for technology research, development and technology dissemination and in considering intellectual asset management in research planning and management. A4NH BUDGET FOR INTELLECTUAL ASSETS MANAGEMENT For intellectual assets management, A4NH has designated 0.5% of the total CRP budget from all funding sources for the six-year Phase II period. The budget for A4NH intellectual assets management includes:

• A budget to the IFPRI CKM Division for managing open access / open data repositories, cataloguing and other documentation. More detail is described in Annex 3.8.

• Inclusion of intellectual asset monitoring as part of the co-investment with other ICRPs in an online integrated platform for monitoring & evaluation within the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) unit of the A4NH PMU.

• Review by HarvestPlus of intellectual asset management of its contracts. • Approximately 0.1 FTE for the ILRI legal officer for FP3 and FP5 intellectual asset management

2 IFPRI relies on the advice of its corporate lawyers, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, on an as needed basis. Morgan Lewis & Bockius have been IFPRI’s corporate legal advisor since IFPRI’s inception and is a large practice with offices worldwide.

272

Table 1. A4NH intellectual assets and impact pathways Intellectual asset Uptake and impact pathways Activities Information products (publications, multimedia, reports, manuals, learning materials)

Open access repositories Data repositories and databases Open educational resources Open licences Adapted IP rights Partnerships Capacity development Targeted dissemination, translation and adaptation to specific groups (policymakers, farmers) Science communication Development communication Participatory research and innovation platforms Scaling through partners

Repositories, standards, taxonomies for sharing and re-use Use of global open licenses Agreements with third party publishers Open access support for authors IPR management strategies and advice Legal advice Communication and engagement: publishing, media outreach, use of social media Use of ICTs (phones, video, radio) Workshops, engagement processes, conferences etc.

Data, datasets, databases, models Software and applications Know-how (protocols, how-to guides, toolkits, learning and training, best practices, Institutional arrangements)

Germplasm Utilization PPPs Participatory development IP rights and licenses International treaties National laws Capacity development

Licenses and agreements to access and give access to germplasm, including SMTA/MTAs; Legal advice Databases and data dissemination Open access repositories Svalbard storage

Biological materials, samples, pathogens

Public access biorepository Dissemination strategies

Financial products Public–private partnerships Scaling through partnerships

Legal advice Dissemination strategies Capacity development

Vaccines and diagnostics Private sector Public–private partnerships

Legal advice Freedom to operate opinions Dissemination strategies

Community and farmer knowledge

Participatory research Value chain development Livelihood systems development

Ethical standards Farmer rights Use of traditional and community knowledge Prior Informed Consent Legal advice Dissemination strategies Innovation platforms Participatory communication and social learning

Genomic tools, pathogen sequences and phenotyping platforms

Open access publications

273

SECTION 3.10 OTHER ANNEXES

274

SECTION 3.10.1

275

Annex 3.10.1 A4NH ACCOUNTABILITY MATRIX - CAVEATS TO ADDRESS DURING DEVELOPMENT OF PHASE II FULL PROPOSALS As set out in Annex 1 to the Final Guidance for the 2nd Call for Full Proposals, the collective portfolio submitted by the Centers/partners in response to this call for full proposals must be accompanied by a summary of how the 23 caveats raised in that annex by the respective stakeholders have been addressed. This annex sets out those caveats, grouped by the body putting forward the topic for added attention in the full proposals 1.1 Caveats expressed by the Joint Consortium Board/Centers/Fund Council Working Group, in its Memorandum to the Fund

Council to express support for a ‘green light’ to move to full proposal development, dated 30 November 2015

Recognizing the advances already made in the re-submitted portfolio in the highly constrained time available, the full proposals submitted by 31 March 2016 for ISPC review must address to the satisfaction of the ISPC, and contributors, the points set out below, to strengthen further the rationale and coherence of the planned research agenda. Thereby delivering increased confidence that with funding from 2017 onwards, it has the capacity to deliver on SDGs in general and the Results Framework and CGIAR targets as set out in the SRF:

No Item to address Relevant CRP(s)

Summary of how the matters has been adequately addressed (Full Proposal sections are referenced)

1 Greater attention to discerning the role of regionally focused yield-gap closing/ sustainable intensification research in the system, as distinct from and a complement to global public goods research in areas such as crop breeding, livestock health, food policy, and others.

AFS programs; genetic gain platform)

A4NH has a supporting role to AFS-CRPs in this regard, both through biofortification research which is completely aligned with yield-gap closing in target countries in Africa and South Asia and for our collaborations with AFS-CRPs on Food Systems for Healthier Diets and both productivity and intensification strategies for diversifying and improving the quality of diets.

2 More clearly articulating the strength of the arguments for maintaining genebanks and genetic gain as two separate platforms rather than an integrated effort1

Genebank; Genetic gain platforms

3 Crosschecking that consolidation at the cluster of All The only change to the pre-proposal was to recombine ANH program and policy research in one FP, as it currently is in A4NH I.

1 There were a number of different views expressed during working group deliberations on this topic. Whilst there was no fundamental opposition to separate platforms, there was a call for making a much stronger case as to why they should be separate.

276

No Item to address Relevant CRP(s)

Summary of how the matters has been adequately addressed (Full Proposal sections are referenced)

activities or flagship level has not delivered unintended adverse consequences such as removing clarity for key research priorities and/or increasing transaction costs

These groups are co-led and co-managed and have common partnerships and network so there will be no increase in transaction costs.

4 Providing a clearer understanding of National Partners’ requirements, and how the scientific and financial program elements support them

All Support to country ownership, leadership and capacity for ANH outcomes is a much greater emphasis in phase 2. This builds on systematic efforts to engage national partners in phase 1 through initiatives such as Together for Nutrition, support to the CAADP results framework for nutrition and the Global Nutrition Report. Further details are found in the annexes on Partnership, Capacity Development and Site Integration.

5 Setting out more clearly the interconnection and resources available for the proposed Communities of Practice in gender/youth and capacity development, with particular attention to ensuring engagement of partners in the respective Communities of Practice. Specifically, ensuring that the proposed communities of practice operate in a way that will result in meaningful progress towards sustainable engagement and impact

All Building on community-of-practice (COP) for gender-nutrition-agriculture in phase 1 through the cross-cutting GEE unit plus additional CoP / learning platforms and convening events in FPs with integrative roles in the CGIAR (FP1: Food Systems, FP4: SPEAR and FP5 Improving Human Health). In each case modest resources have been allocated. As per recommendations of our external evaluation, theories of change will be developed for the CoPs/learning platforms to clarify expected outcomes and facilitate monitoring of progress.

There are significant capacity development initiatives with global and national partners such as the ANH Academy (all FPs) and regional networks for agriculture and health (FP5). Capacity development efforts align with CGIAR CapDev COP (see Annex on Capacity Development). Modest resources have been allocated for the ANH Academy in collaboration with other partners.

6 Reducing as many transaction costs as possible, particularly regarding management burden

All In addition to reducing costs as much as possible, we also focused on how to be as effective as possible given the management budget. An important lesson from phase 1 was to make sure that CRPs and Centers were working effectively together. We have introduced the concept of Managing Partners, who will play an active role in managing A4NH with IFPRI (Lead Center) to delegate management tasks and make management more effective.

277

No Item to address Relevant CRP(s)

Summary of how the matters has been adequately addressed (Full Proposal sections are referenced)

7 Providing greater emphasis on soils, animal genetic conservation and the potential impact of big data across the portfolio, not limited to genetic gain

WLE, all AFS, Livestock, Big Data platform

1.2 Caveats expressed by the ISPC, dated 9 December 2015

ISPC comments on the portfolio (a paraphrase of a longer document)

No Item to address Relevant CRP(s)

Centers’ summary of how the matters has been adequately addressed

Portfolio level 8 Seek explicit prioritization within CRPs (and also between CRPs);

balancing research on ‘upstream’ science with research on how to scale out and up relevant new knowledge and technologies (while leaving the delivery of impact at scale to organizations with that remit)

All The research agenda for A4NH aligns with the nutrition and health IDOs of the CGIAR SRF.

The nature of research is largely determined by the stage of research and is different for more mature research areas than for new areas. Research on how to scale out is planned in several of the more mature research areas.

The transition from piloting with a scaling perspective and delivery at scale by other organizations will be important for biofortification and is in progress.

9 Important to capture synergies between CRPs so that the System delivers more than the sum of the CRPs (the One System One Portfolio mantra)

All (statement of portfolio synthesis required)

Much greater emphasis in phase 2 on integrating role in the CGIAR system through joint research, communities of practice and other networking functions, and by convening CGIAR to link agriculture with nutrition and health communities.

A4NH has realigned some country activities, within its Africa and South/South-east Asia regional focus to put greater emphasis on ++ site integration countries. We have participated in CGIAR consultations and will commit modest resources at CRP-level in 5 focus countries.

278

No Item to address Relevant CRP(s)

Centers’ summary of how the matters has been adequately addressed

10 Clearer explanations of what W1&2 funding will be used for All See budget narrative sections for FPs and CRP See Additional Annex on Funding the A4NH agenda

11 CRPs should not be expected to adhere to the ‘prioritization’ undertaken in a very short time-frame to produce the ‘Refreshed’ submission, but should hold serious discussion with their partners on which activities to prioritize according to the principles which were agreed at FC14

All There has been an important evolution of the A4NH agenda from phase 1 to phase 2, to address emerging concerns (as reflected by changes in SRF) and to take advantage of scientific and development opportunities. Refining of priorities is an ongoing process within FPs and the CRP.

Platforms 12 2 new platforms are proposed: Genebanks and Genetic gains. The ISPC is

comfortable with the platform on Genebanks Not applicable

13 Have concerns about the focus of the proposed Genetic Gains and what the creation of such a platform will mean for the AFS CRPs (and theories of change). The ISPC also found the title of ‘Genetic gains’ to be inappropriate as what is proposed is only part of the research required to deliver ‘genetic gains’. The budget needs to be reviewed

Genetics Gain platform

14 Supports the concept of an initiative in Big Data and does not want to see this de-emphasized

Big Data platform

15 Identify where budget is placed for other arrangements to meet cross cutting system work originally considered through Expressions of Interest at the pre-proposal stage

All c.f. Guidance doc

AFS CRPs 16 DCLAS: The rationale for DCLAS receiving a ‘C’ rating overall (from the ISPC)

related to the breadth of species being considered; the funders are requested to indicate their priorities for this CRP

This addressed to funders not to CRPs

17 FTA has moved tenure and rights to PIM – although PIM don’t mention that. FTA also wants to move the restoration work to WLE. Given the decreased budgets overall, these 2 CRPs may not accept these moves and the topics may hence disappear. Clarity on the potential loss of these areas is required

FTA, PIM, WLE

18 Livestock and FISH both wish to move some genetics research across to the new platform as may other CRPs, yet the budget sources for those moves are not

Livestock, Fish, Genetic Gain platform

279

No Item to address Relevant CRP(s)

Centers’ summary of how the matters has been adequately addressed

clear 19 Maize propose to move some bilateral projects out of the CRP due to budget

cuts. What is an appropriate balance of W1/2 bilateral at the base funding scenario?

MAIZE

20 RAFS (and presumably other CRPs) proposes to reduce the number of targeted IDOs and sub-IDOs – and both RAFS and Wheat make reference to cutting back on capacity development due to budget cuts. Realistic adjustments to current funding and base scenario funding will need to be considered by CRPs and funders

RAFS, WHEAT.

Global Integrating Programs 21 The ISPC is glad that PIM has agreed to take on the role of co-ordination of a

System-wide platform or Community of Practice for gender work, although we hope that it will be possible to reinstate the original budget. It is hoped that down-rating gender from a Flagship to ‘Cross-cutting work’ does not reflect diminishing importance of gender

PIM re role of the FP on gender

22 A4NH and WLE seem to be following the ISPC recommendations (through additional steps for integration with CRPs through defined flagships, while the CCAFS Summary in Annex 2 suggests the budget cuts: ‘need a totally new business model’, the ISPC understands that only minor changes are now being proposed

A4NH, WLE, CCAFS, PIM

Agree with comment and the proposal highlights how A4NH is following ISPC recommendations for integration with other CRPS through defined FPs, with details in the Annex on CRP Linkages and Site Integration.

1.3 Additional caveats expressed by the Fund Council during its ad hoc meeting on 11 December 2015. The Fund Council noted that its granting of a ‘green light’ to move to full proposal development was subject to the caveats noted by the Working Group and ISPC (in their written submission) and the Fund Council’s request for enhanced focus on gender and capacity building. The Fund Council also specifically acknowledged that CGIAR is engaged in an incremental process and some concerns raised by Fund Council members will require additional time and attention before the new portfolio of CRPs is approved.

No Item to address Relevant CRP(s)

Summary of how the matters has been adequately addressed

23 Enhanced focus on gender and capacity building All A4NH continues its strong gender research which is described in detail under gender in section 1.4 and annex 3.4

Capacity development is approx. 10% of budget and

280

highlighted in FPs and at CRP-level (ANH Academy with partners)

281

SECTION 3.10.2

282

Annex 3.10.2 ACTIONS TAKEN IN THE FULL PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS ISPC COMMENTARY ON THE PRE-PROPOSAL FOR A4NH OVERALL COMMENTS FROM THE ISPC

1. The pre-proposal makes little mention of the impact of major nutrition trends/interventions on the environment. Not only is this a major gap relative to the SRF, but also little work has been done elsewhere. As such, this would be an ideal opportunity for the CGIAR to make a mark in the area...The ISPC recommends that consideration of these potential unintended consequences be given more consideration during development of the full proposal. Tradeoffs and synergies between nutrition and health and environmental sustainability are now more

explicitly acknowledged and, in some cases, addressed in the research agenda. All FPs address the issue to some extent and it is a key part of the research agenda in FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets, which works with CCAFS and WLE on food system sustainability. It is also part of the agenda of FP5: Improving human health, which looks specifically at agricultural intensification processes. FP4 (SPEAR) looks at cross-sectoral policy issues and processes, recognizing the fact that development is inherently multi-objective and involves synergies and tradeoffs across sectors.

The tradeoffs and synergies between nutrition/health and environmental objectives (especially non-climate objectives) are context specific and may not be as important for some of our target areas as they are in developed countries, where these issues (e.g., around livestock production and the consumption of animal-source foods) receive considerable attention. An important objectives of A4NH is to raise awareness of the context specificity of these challenges to avoid overly simplistic solutions that could have unintended negative consequences.

2. There remains a strong sense that the work of this CRP is dictated by external interests. A large fraction of the

anticipated budget is expected to come from bilateral and Window 3 sources. To the extent that bilateral funding necessarily come attached to specific donor priorities, the ISPC is concerned that this dominance of W3 and bilateral funding may limit the ability of the program to act as a I-CRP that would add value to the whole CGIAR system…The full proposal should be prepared to defend the proposition that there is clear alignment between donors’ research interests (especially with respect to biofortification) and the ToCs of the CGIAR.

Strategy has been and will be to develop a strong and coherent portfolio and seek W3/bilateral research

grants to implement it. This will be even more necessary given the limitations of W1/W2 funding in Phase II. At present the largest portfolios of research grants are in FP2: Biofortification and FP4: Supporting Policies, Programs and Enabling Action through Research (SPEAR), the two most mature areas. These two FPs make major contributions to A4NH IPGs and to the SRF outcomes. Given the importance of this issue to A4NH II, we have developed an annex that summarizes funding for the A4NH research agenda overall and for the different flagships. See “Funding the A4NH Agenda” in Other Annexes. There are relatively few large donors for A4NH W3/bilateral grants. These include quite sophisticated donors (BMGF, Canada, DFID-UK, EC, IFAD, and USAID). We have considerable discussion with these donors on ANH strategic issues and feel we and they are aligned and we are co-developing agendas.

The proposal describes the activities A4H will undertake in its role as an ICRP, including not only substantial joint research but also convening 2 learning platforms (food systems; agriculture and health), a CoP (gender-agriculture nutrition) and playing a bridging role between the CGIAR and nutrition and health research and policy communities in key countries. FP2: Biofortification has a large focus on mainstreaming nutrition into policy and breeding (as described in more detail below). We agree that greater W1/W2 funding would help integrating actions by A4NH. Many of the planned activities will depend on uplift for their realization.

3. The ISPC looks forward to seeing more details of how A4NH plans to undertake its agreed role as an ICRP in the

full proposal. The ISPC recommends that the CRP’s full proposal should explicitly address integration as an issue for future M&E.

283

As described above, we are have planned activities to address all three of the roles that have been

defined for I CRPs: namely (1) joint research; (2) networking and mutual learning, and (3) as a bridge between CGIAR and the nutrition and health communities. As shown in Annex 3.6, substantial discussion has taken places with other CRPs to define areas of common interest and collaboration. Integrating functions will have workplans linked to outcomes. We began doing this in Phase I in response to a recommendation from our external evaluation. Progress towards achieving the outcomes will be monitored, evaluated and reported in a new RBM system being developed collectively by all ICRPs.

4. There is some overlap in the objectives of A4NH and PIM, as much of the nutrition and health agenda operates through policies, institutions and markets. It would be helpful to be more explicit about the allocation of responsibilities and scientific specialization between these CRPs, in terms of which kinds of data, methods and research outputs each aims to produce. Another issue that has affected A4NH’s linkages with other CRPs has been the dual role of HarvestPlus/Biofortification as a donor and a collaborator. It is important that biofortification should not crowd out other potential areas of collaboration with other CRPs.

A4NH focuses on SLO2 while PIM focuses on SLO1 and SLO3. PIM has expertise in developing and

maintaining basic tools, approaches, and data for agricultural and development policy analysis: global and national level foresight models; value chain models and tool kits; and mapping and spatial data analysis. A4NH works with PIM to integrate nutrition and health into tools and analysis, as needed. Given the cross-sectoral natural of A4NH’s mandate and of nutrition and health outcomes, A4NH focuses its research on political economy and policy processes, and on policy implementation. PIM/IFPRI policy support units and networks such as ReSAKSS and CSSPs often rely on A4NH to address cross-sectoral issues related to nutrition and health raised by countries and regions. In Phase II, PIM will have a CoA on policy process with which A4NH FP4 will work closely. Both CRPs do impact evaluation and gender analysis and frequently work together, especially when analyzing the impacts of complex interventions on multiple outcomes (e.g., integrating nutrition and health into agricultural programs, social protection programs, etc.). See Annex 3.6 on CRP linkages for specific examples of how each FP in A4NH works with PIM on joint research, networking and mutual learning, and on bridging. We also work with PIM on the common M&E platform.

It is true that main linkage with AFS-CRPs for staple crops is biofortification however this is likely to change during Phase II as biofortification is increasingly mainstreamed into CGIAR breeding programs rather than support as a project through HarvestPlus. At the same time, A4NH will increase linkages with other AFS-CRPs. In FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets, there are important research issues on income and prices of staples with cereal CRPs but major technical innovations are with AFS-CRPs on nutrient-dense foods (animal source foods, pulses, fruits). These partnerships will be expanded and enhanced with Wageningen as leader of FP1. FP3: Food Safety also works closely with CRPs Livestock, Fish, DCL, and MAIZE. FP5 will work with RICE and WLE on health issues in intensifying agricultural systems, especially related to water management.

5. The pre-proposal calls for an increased W1/W2 funding to a total of USD 53 million for 2017 activities. With the large amounts of funds flowing in from bilateral and W3 sources, the allocation from W1/2 that is requested seems a bit excessive. The ISPC believes that W1/W2 spending needs to be prioritized. For example, given the level of external support and the delivery phase of this work, the ISPC suggests consideration be given to a downward revision of the W1/W2 budget for FP1 (Biofortification). Distribution of the budget among the FPs does not seem appropriate to their relative cost, positioning along the R4D continuum and expected impacts. Further, the ISPC is concerned that the W1/W2 funding is not being used to target the global public goods with the greatest potential impact. There may be missed opportunities to propose new initiatives to fill specific research gaps.

In the full proposal, W1/W2 base budget funding is $20M which is far from the $53M requested for

2017 in the pre-proposal. The W1/W2 allocations in the base budgets of FPs are now more evenly

284

spread across flagships (21-25%), except for FP5: Improving Human Health which is approximately 12% (as considered appropriate by ISPC). For FP2: Biofortification, their very limited W1/W2 (10% of total FP base budget) is focused purely on research on efficacy, evaluation and scaling out, and on new varietal development. Delivery activities with country partners are funded through W3/bilateral exclusively.

Some key IPGs have been initiated in phase 2. Two examples are: food system transformation analysis across countries and cross-country analysis and role of agriculture in development of AMR.

6. Differences between A4NH’s scientific structure and IFPRI’s management structure could impose very significant

costs to researchers’ time and attention. To address that concern, it would be helpful for the full proposal to specify more precisely how the CRP will align with the operational structure of the lead center. In Phase II, one FP, SPEAR, will be led by IFPRI. Most of the work in the FP aligns well with the IFPRI

division PHND. The CoA on evaluation is mostly IFPRI work since this is a specialized area. The CoA on policy and capacity have external partners (Bioversity, IDS, EVIDENT) who have close working relationships with IFPRI and who will play important roles in linking with broader constituencies with in CGIAR and the broader agricultural sector. In the case of FP2, the HarvestPlus management system, a joint venture between IFPRI and CIAT, for managing relationships between CGIAR centers and partners serves the needs of the CRP. The partnership with WUR to manage FP1 on food systems will provide broader leadership in food systems research than anything CGIAR Center can offer. In FP1, IFPRI will be involved in specific research aspects (diet quality, cross-country analysis of food system transformation, and others) through key researchers across IFPRI Divisions but under the overall leadership of WUR. This is an FP in which many CGIAR centers are involved and which has an important role in linking with and leveraging work of other CRPs. Therefore, a leader like WUR with experience and comparative advantage in this type of role will allow IFPRI staff in this FP to focus on technical issues and on ensuring good links with the relevant policy and value chains work in PIM.

7. For the full proposal, the ISPC would like more detail about what each FP will do, including some discussion of intermediate outputs, in the sense of specific datasets, analytical methods or type of R&D to be conducted. Additional information is provided in FP sections and in the PIM Tables.

FP1. FOOD SYSTEMS

1. Though a welcome addition to the CRP, is not well defined in terms of its research activities. The FP needs to clearly specify the research questions as well as the approaches that will be adopted. More details are needed to make the case that the CRP has appropriate partners and a sufficient understanding of the enabling environment for effectively managing diets in the developing world. Much more detail has been provided in the FP section on both the research questions and methods, by

cluster. It is important to be clear that this is not an area where there are many examples of success - including from developed countries - that can be studied and modified for developing county contexts (Brazil is one potential example). However the FP addresses a growing concern for countries and we think that our approach, which involves key partners like Wageningen UR, good links to the private sector, and a focus on a small number of countries where we will work closely with governments, is the appropriate one. This FP will generate IPGs in the form of data, methods, metrics for studying the impacts of food system transitions on diets, as well as develop and test interventions to improve outcomes. We will also be working closely with AFS-CRPs and ICRPs to ensure that food systems are considered holistically, a demand expressed by countries in the Rome Declaration on Nutrition.

2. There is a lack of specific detail on the kinds of data, methods and research products which will be targeted. This

would, for example, be the place to house large-scale modelling and cross-country analyses on nutrition impacts. Much more detail on what approaches will be adopted is required in the full proposal. Regarding the Performance Indicator Matrix, measures for dietary quality need to move beyond simple diet diversity.

285

More detail is provided on data (both primary and secondary), methods and outputs, and also on how

diet quality will be defined and measured.

3. The FP’s attention to cross-cutting issues is, however, weak. Given the lack of comparative advantage within the CGIAR in this area, the FP has to involve capacity building, not just within the team but also of delivery partners. Issues of gender are, of course, essential. Environment and climate change should also emerge as important issues, since dietary patterns are bound to change. While each cross-cutting issue is recognized, there is not much detail on how they will be addressed.

This has been strengthened in the FP1 proposal. It is also emphasizes the importance of the role of

Wageningen, which has broad research capacity across all these areas and with experience and a mandate for capacity building. In some cases like gender and enabling environment, we are building on substantial capacity already existing within A4NH. In the case of climate change, we will work with CCAFS.

4. It is also not clear how A4NH’s recommendations for food systems would be put into practice. Sufficient

understanding of the enabling environment, especially the policy space, to be able to affect policy choices and other instruments of public policy in developing countries is critical. The ISPC recommends that these issues be mainstreamed and addressed in more depth in the full proposal.

Food system research varies by country and thus we agree that a good understanding of the context and

enabling environment is essential. This is why the FP is designed with a focus in just four countries where we have good information and links with local researchers and other stakeholders. In these countries, we hope to be able to understand and engage (in action research mode) in the policy process and to learn generalizable lessons through comparative analysis and synthesis. Specific research projects, for example on value chain or food system innovations might be conducted in other countries but we will focus on context and enabling environment in the four focus countries only.

5. More details on co-funding arrangements with the lead partner will also be essential in the full proposal. It is

difficult to comment on the budget given the lack of detail.

Wageningen UR will be a managing partner in A4NH, with membership in the A4NH PMC and leadership in FP1. For its roles and budgets we have treated Wageningen UR as any other CGIAR managing partner (likewise LSHTM for FP5). This includes an appropriate share of W1/W2 budget based on its role as well as active participation in building a coherent W3/bilateral grant portfolio linked to the proposal and annual workplans.

FP2. BIOFORTIFICATION

1. A strategy for greater consideration of trade-offs between biofortification and other breeding objectives should be elaborated, together with a strategy for comparing the cost effectiveness of biofortification in relation to other methods of meeting micro-nutrient requirements. Concern over trade-offs among breeding objectives has been part of HarvestPlus since the beginning. A

key assumption underlying biofortification is that increased micronutrient levels can be achieved without sacrificing other traits that are important to farmers and consumers. Crop development research to date suggests vitamin and mineral traits can be effectively combined with other desirable agronomic traits. All biofortified crop varieties that have been released to date are competitive with or better than the best varieties farmers currently grow. Mainstreaming nutrition into breeding programs is the best way to ensure that any potential future trade-offs between nutrition and other traits are identified and addressed. Avoiding trade-offs and enhancing synergies will be part of the mainstreaming strategy in Phase II

286

Cost-effectiveness and targets for biofortification are well researched and evidence generally finds that biofortification is cost effective as compared to alternatives (Meenakshi et al, 2010, Birol et al., 2014; Fielder and Lividini, 2015). FP2 is quite unique and to be commended in the CGIAR for work on cost-effectiveness (done because of need for these analysis for comparison of alternative micro-nutrient delivery methods for the public health community).

2. The description of the challenge is honest in saying that the long-term solution is to improve the quality and

diversity of diets, but the ISPC considers that there are risks that what is proposed is too dominated by the one technology. For example, neither the trade-offs between biofortification and other breeding objectives, nor the advantages and disadvantages of biofortification relative to old-fashioned fortification, diversification, and supplementation receive much attention. See above on trade-offs in breeding objectives and on cost-effectiveness of alternative approaches to

addressing micronutrient deficiency. Biofortification is also progressively adopting a food basket rather than individual varietal approach to

micronutrient sufficiency which fits better with food systems. The work on mainstreaming biofortification in policy looks at the overall enabling environment for

nutrition and the role of biofortification in that.

3. The ISPC would have expected to see strong links with PIM regarding the intention to mainstream biofortification into policy… The ISPC would encourage more discussion of interaction around value chains with PIM and other CRPs.

Mainstreaming biofortification into policy is being coordinated with the ReSAKSS network and ReSAKSS

FP4 SPEAR partnership. ReSAKSS is governed by AU and RECs and supports African continental, regional and national efforts to include nutrition objectives into CAADP.

Biofortification works closely with economists in IFPRI and other centers on value chains however it does not appear as collaboration with PIM since the centers are also part of A4NH, through HarvestPlus. Thus, there is an implicit link with value chain research in PIM.

4. The section on evidence gaps, research questions and issues is sound but not exciting. The ISPC is not convinced that facilitator and convenor roles should be priorities for precious W1/W2 funding. It is acceptable if these roles are fully supported by W3/bilateral funding. Similarly, the ISPC questions why HarvestPlus should develop regulatory standards and advocacy partnerships - both of which seem to veer into deep waters, especially given the complexity of the enabling environments in many target countries. Not sure we agree since impact evaluation, delivery science and mainstreaming are essential parts of

achieving outcomes at scale and are under-researched areas. Facilitating and convening roles are funded by W3/bilateral grants exclusively. Some of these are quite crucial, such as having biofortification defined in Codex Alimentarius.

5. More discussion of the priority setting within this FP, i.e. how decisions will be made on which biofortification

interventions should be scaled up in an equitable manner would be prudent. An enhanced focus on understanding the nutritional benefits to inform the longer-term strategy of diversifying and improving the quality of diets would be more convincing.

FP2 has been in operation for some time and the priority setting behind targeting and reaching

micronutrient deficient populations has been considerable. Priority setting is continuously improving based on research results (e.g. actual rather than estimated micronutrient levels in crops) and on evidence from delivery (e.g., actual rather than assumed adoption rates and consumption levels). In Phase II, delivery, which is funded with W3/bilateral, is being pursued in all 9 target countries, depending on release of biofortified varieties. Lessons from all countries will be shared and synthesized

287

and will be the basis for others—not FP2—to make decisions about where and how to further scale biofortification. These decisions will also be aided through tools such as the Biofortification Prioritization Index (BPI), developed in phase 1 to support decisions about where to invest in biofortification.

6. The ISPC notes that this FP has the largest budget of all FPs: USD 50 million for 2017, whereas the guidance gave

a maximum budget for a FP (over 6 years) of USD100 million.

Our understanding are that these limits no longer apply. In general, we think CRPs should have larger FPs with greater critical mass.

FP3. FOOD SAFETY

1. The ToC could have focused more on who the key stakeholders are and how have they been engaged…A lot of partners are mentioned, however, and in the full proposal it will be imperative to see a strategic partnership strategy. Who are the core partners? What is their role in the FP? What is the role of donor partners, of international agencies, and other actors, etc.? The ISPC suggests that the full proposal should provide additional information about links with other CRPs as well as how this FP will be embedded with other FPs in A4NH.

More detail has been provided on the types and role of partners in the FP3 impact pathways. Specific

partners with which the FP is already working are identified, as are areas where additional partnerships will be needed. It is important to note that this FP works closely with other CRPs, integrating food safety issues into their work. Examples are CRPs Livestock and Fish for the cluster on Safe Fresh Foods and MAIZE and DCL for the cluster on Aflatoxin Mitigation. The implication of this is that this FP will work in the partnership networks established by those CRPs.

2. Gender consideration seems to be implicit in the pre-proposal rather than explicit, and it will need to be more

obvious in the full proposal. There are also key issues related to value chains. The exposure to different food safety issues will depend critically on where the processing is done; and this in turn will have implications for gender, since in many systems women are responsible for guaranteeing household food safety through their selection of ingredients, methods of food preparation, and food service. FP3 recognizes the powerful role gender has in shaping the behavior of actors in value chains, exposing

actors to risks, and ultimately, health outcomes. The full proposal specifies the assumptions behind the gender and equity related outcomes that the research intends to achieve. The full proposal describes a number of specific gender research questions that this FP will undertake in Phase II. Our opinion is that the FP3 full proposal takes explicit consideration of gender.

We agree that women have an important role in household food security, but want to point out that this FP looks at gender issues along the value chain as well as in the household. For food safety issues related to perishables, FP3 will focus on market agents rather than households since many food safety ssues arise along the value chain and can be cost-effectively addressed at this stage. In the case of aflatoxin mitigation, improved management at the household level, especially on-farm, post-harvest and storage practices, will be important and gender will be a key issue in determining adoption and impact of changes in practice.

FP4. IMPROVING HUMAN HEALTH

1. Greater emphasis is needed on understanding where the system may not have comparative advantage and if the CGIAR should be active in certain areas of research.

The emphasis should be on joint health – agriculture issues for human health in which agriculture can

play a critical role. The comparative advantage of CGIAR Centers doing the work by themselves or in partnership with public health researchers is very different. It seems the question is one of priority

288

setting and how CGIAR W1/W2 funding should be used to address the SRF IDOs. Priorities were initially set through regional and global consultations. During Phase II, more explicit analysis for priority setting is planned.

2. For the full proposal, it would be helpful to draw more focused conclusions from the convened consultations and the researchers’ specialist knowledge about the most significant agriculture-related diseases to offer more granular detail about the datasets, epidemiological methods and interventions that are likely to have the greatest impact.

More detail is provided by CoA on what the priority health issues are and what the outputs will be.

3. The one at the landscapes level raises some concerns (as did the nutrition-sensitive landscapes in the extension

proposal) in terms of the impact pathway - how will the research outputs lead to outcomes? The focus on prioritization as an initial step is encouraging, but this will need much more development for the full proposal.

The outputs would lead to outcomes through their influence on the policies that influencing agricultural intensification and on programs (agricultural and health) with farming/rural communities that influence their knowledge, attitudes and practices. Research in this cluster is at an early stage, so they types of early outcomes we expect will be collaboration on research design, especially methods and metrics, and implementation among agriculture and public health researchers.

4. For the second area on zoonotic diseases, a lot of information already exists. The text mentions two priority

diseases but then has a research question on “Characterization and prioritization” (presumably on the two priority diseases to keep the focus tight, but that is not clear). There is evidence of building on lessons learnt, but not strong enough.

In the proposal, there is emphasis on piloting and eventually supporting scaling out of control for cysticercosis, a globally established zoonosis priority. This is also an appropriate priority given the necessity of combined public health and agriculture interventions and the links to CRP Livestock pork value chain research.

The other major element of zoonoses research is continued evidence on the role that livestock system change (with overall agricultural intensification) plays in zoonotic disease emergence and what agricultural solutions are possible to mitigate the risks of disease emergence.

5. This FP is strong on capacity development and claims good links with key players in the enabling environment.

There is also some reference to climate change impacts. Gender questions at least refer to women’s time but without more definition of the agenda, it is difficult to see where and how these cross-cutting issues will enter.

Contribution to cross-cutting sub-IDOs have been clarified, including gender research questions and outcomes. Gender-issues associated with health outcomes at household level in CoA1 and CoA2 are critical to both improving health benefits through agricultural contributions to income and diet quality and to reducing specific health risks.

6. While the budget is probably appropriate for what is promised, more detail on the co-funding arrangements

with the lead partner would be desirable (interactions with partners can become quite unequal if they are the ones bringing all of the resources; there is a danger that the partners would end up driving the intellectual agenda).

FP5 is co-led by LSHTM and ILRI. The FP leader, Prof Eric Fevre will be supported by one senior ILRI and

LSHTM manager to ensure close cooperation between the 2 leads in planning, fund raising and research implementation. LSHTM is treated the same as any other A4NH managing partner and has an allocated

289

share of resources and is committed to building the W3/bilateral grant portfolio. These will be reviewed by the PMC and assessed by the ISC for all A4NH managing partners on an annual basis.

FP5. SUPPORTING POLICIES, PROGRAMS, AND ENABLING ACTION THROUGH RESEARCH (SPEAR) Two FPs – Integrated Programs to Improve Nutrition and Supporting Country Outcomes through Research on Enabling Environments – were presented in the A4NH pre-proposal. In response to comments, elements of the two flagships were merged into a single FP in the full proposal. The actions taken to address the ISPC’s recommendations in the re-design of this flagship are summarized below.

1. Research agenda needs to be designed proactively and driven by specific questions that reflect the CGIAR’s comparative advantage. Research questions for each CoA are clearly stated, as is the fact that the research is about

understanding and enhancing the nutrition-sensitivity of food and agricultural programs and policies. This FP, especially CoA3, has a key role in bridging between CGIAR and nutrition and health communities

and responding to policy and political economy issues from other CRPs.

2. Evaluation work should be aligned more closely with other FPs.

The evaluations in the portfolio focus more on agriculture and look at more types of programs and platforms (e.g., women’s self-help groups) and implementers (e.g., Ministry of Agriculture in Bangladesh). These are the types of platforms and partners that CGIAR works with.

In Phase 1 this FP4 researchers worked with FP2 on evaluations. In Phase II, joint work is being planned (or funding sought) with FP1 (e.g., agricultural value chains project in Bangladesh in Bangladesh) and with FP3 (impacts of a food safety intervention in Kenya on nutrition and health). FP4 will also explore collaboration with FP5 on methods for evaluating agriculture-health programs. FP4 is closely aligned with the cross-cutting unit on Gender, equity and Empowerment that has and will continue to work with evaluation leaders in other CRPs

3. Clarity is needed on the constituency for the evaluations conducted.

Results of individual studies and especially of synthesis of multiple studies, are used by implementers

and also by enablers (donors and policymakers). Other researchers benefit from the findings (conceptual and empirical) and the tools, methods and data. More details is provided in the FP section.

4. Revisit focus on policies relevant to the CGIAR’s SLOs.

There is a clear emphasis on nutrition- and health-sensitive agricultural policies, and clear links with

CCAFS and PIM. Some examples of policies that have been identified for analysis by this FP include: the Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) in Ethiopia, National Rural Livelihood Mission in India, and the Country Investment Plan on Agriculture, Food Security, and Nutrition in Bangladesh. See FP section for more details.

5. Justify the proposition that A4NH is the right actor to influence the policy environment in developing countries.

A4NH is the right actor to understand the enabling environments and political economy issues, to

provide evidence and build capacity, and to represent the CGIAR in nutrition and health policy processes. IFPRI and partners already play this role (links to CSSPs, ReSAKSS). Strategic partners like IDS strengthen the links with agriculture in developing countries, and new joint staffing arrangements will enhance the ability of centers like Bioversity to support mainstreaming of nutrition into Rome-Based agencies.

290

In our experience, donors, policy makers and program implementers demand the evidence that research can provide as well as the contribution that research can make to planning, implementation and evaluation of interventions and to policy making using systematic learning (research) approaches. The skills of A4NH researchers in the combination of rigorous research on interventions, methods for monitoring and evaluation of outcomes, and policy research (analyses of policies and policy processes) had led to strong demand for these contributions not only to improve agricultural solutions to nutrition and health outcomes but also in supporting broader multi-sectoral processes to support countries and donors in their desire to urgently improve nutrition and health outcomes.

291

SECTION 3.10.3

292

ANNEX 3.10.3 FUNDING THE A4NH AGENDA: CONTRIBUTION OF GRANT FUNDING AND USE OF W1/W2

As noted in the A4NH pre-proposal for Phase II and in the ISPC commentary, A4NH has a large proportion of W3/bilateral funding relative to W1/W2 funding. The W3/bilateral grant portfolio is particularly large for two flagship programs (FPs) – FP2: Biofortification and FP4: SPEAR. This large portfolio relates not only to both the high demand for this research from donors and countries and the experience and skill of the research teams, but also to the nature and stage of the research itself. Given the relative size and importance of grants to the A4NH Phase II proposal and the important synergies with W1 and W2 funding, we provide further information and a strategic synthesis of the A4NH research grant portfolio. We feel this grant synthesis is important and timely, because of the large effort required to plan and fund such a grant portfolio as well as the lessons learned from our experience given the relative decline in W1/W2 funding and the importance of bringing together a portfolio of W3/bilateral research grants into a coherent research program for all A4NH FPs.

As part of its results-based management system, A4NH PMU works with A4NH Centers and partners in planning, funding and monitoring W3/bilateral grants. Below, we summarize the current information on grants for the first 3 years of Phase II of A4NH (2017-19 but most continuing from 2016), on the nature of the funding, and its contribution to the FP outputs and outcomes. Of the 5 FPs for Phase II, there are major differences in the grant portfolio and funding strategy. As described, two FPs, FP2 and FP4, have large grant portfolios, and relatively small percentages of W1/W2 funding (10% for FP2 and 15% for FP4). For each, W1/W2 funding is used strategically to leverage a much larger portfolio of program and project grants, described further below. Two newer FPs, FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets and FP5: Improving Human Health, have small initial W3/bilateral grant portfolios. We plan to build a grant portfolio in each based on new partnerships with highly-performing research institutions (Wageningen University and Research Centre for FP1 and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) convening a group of public health research institutions for FP5). The other FP, FP3: Food Safety, is somewhat intermediate. The research cluster on aflatoxin control has a portfolio of research and development grants in close partnership with the African Union Commission and countries for which W1/W2 funding provides critical research on risk analysis and economic incentives. The other research clusters have small starting grant portfolios that we hope to grow based on recent evidence of much higher priority for food safety in low and middle income countries, following on the recommendations of a recent external review and the opportunity to leverage value chain research funding for perishable foods in other CRPs.

In this document, we summarize the grant portfolio and contributions of W3/bilateral grants and W1/W2 funding to the research portfolios of different FPs and A4NH. We conclude by summarizing lessons on research funding from Phase I and how this influences our research and resource mobilization plans in Phase II.

293

FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets

W3/bilateral grants for Phase II build on projects developed in the value chains for enhanced nutrition (VCN) flagship in Phase I. Both the Food Systems and the VCN flagships define research agendas at the “discovery” stage. Researchable issues relevant to important development outcomes have been identified and work is ongoing to better understand the issues and identify potential solutions. Key research outputs at this stage include data, metrics and the development and validation of conceptual framework. In Phase I, A4NH W1/W2 funding supported research on value chain for nutrition frameworks as well as seed grants to various CGIAR Centers and AVRDC (The World Vegetable Center) for targeted value chain development linked to improved diet quality. This initial funding has led to successful grants using frameworks, methods and tools developed that will continue into Phase II. These include a CIAT-led value chain for nutrition project in East Africa (using the example of beans and amaranth value chains) funded by BMZ and several Bioversity International grants looking at enhancing nutrition from diverse foods funded by a variety of donors (Carasso Foundation, Australia, and IFAD). There is also a project with funding from Germany to IFAD on value chains for nutrition in Nigeria and Brazil in which A4NH researchers contribute as part of the A4NH-IFAD agriculture-nutrition partnership. Of particular interest, are improving the efficiency and effectiveness of value chain interventions for nutrient-dense foods, particularly in countries with low diet diversity / diet quality such as Bangladesh. In Phase II, IFPRI will lead two projects to improve value chains for fish in Bangladesh from 2017-19 with a variety of partners for approximately $1.5M p.a.

To extend the value chain framework developed in Phase I, IFPRI and partners have a grant from the IMMANA initiative coordinated by LSHTM on food system metrics, taking a multi-chain approach and including structured demand value chains. Wageningen UR has a number of smaller grants ($200-300K p.a.) on food innovation and diet quality diagnostics in the four focus countries. However, most grant funding remains to be secured and developing the grant portfolio pipeline will be a priority in 2016 and 2017.

In Phase II, evidence from these grants will be further systematized and synthesized and the framework adapted, using W1/2 funds. Promising interventions will be further validated and potential new ones identified and tested, largely through grants and in close collaboration with other CRPs.

FP2: Biofortification

Biofortification is a research program at the stage of scaling up and out. The science behind the technical aspects of biofortification has largely been demonstrated, and there is a growing evidence base on nutritional efficacy and cost-effectiveness. Key research issues for Phase II of A4NH are around the science of delivery and around how best to mainstream. These research questions, which were identified as an important gap in past CGIAR technology development (Dahlberg report) are crucial to scale and sustain impact. However they can only be addressed in the context of large scale delivery, which means that significant development investments need to be made and aligned with the research. The strength of the evidence base on potential impact justifies these investments, which donors make using W3/bilateral funds. In Phase II, Biofortification (HarvestPlus) has three main clusters of activities (CoAs):

1. Crop Development (35%) 2. Nutritional Efficacy, Impact Assessment, Monitoring and Learning, Policy and Regulation (10%)

294

3. Delivery (both learning about delivery and working with development partners on delivery) (55%)

The research clusters are supported by cross-cutting areas of gender, communications and strategic alliances.

Given its track record as a strong and focused research and development program, HarvestPlus has been able to attract large W3/bilateral grants that support the overall program across all research/development clusters. The two largest grants are from the UK DFID ($13.3M per annum, 2016-19) and BMGF ($8M per annum, 2014-18). As noted in the external evaluation of A4NH, this allows the team to strategically align work to impact pathways and theories of change and bring in strong monitoring evaluation and learning research as well as nutritional efficacy studies. There is also a continuing stream of research for development of competitive crop varieties with high levels of micronutrients.

As noted, there is also strong donor interest in promoting delivery at scale and piloting delivery for specific varieties in target countries. This leads to a second set of W3/bilateral grants supporting delivery of specific biofortified varieties in specific countries which are usually provided by donors through their missions in the target countries. These grants tend to be 2-3 years in duration. For 2016, grants are from USAID (approximately $4.5M p.a.; Rwanda/Uganda/Zambia), EC ($1.5M p.a. – Bangladesh) and FAO/DFID ($4.2 million total from 2016-18 for Zimbabwe). Beyond proof-of-concept in these target countries, we also work with delivery partners to set up a strong coalition for delivery at scale globally.

W1/W2 funding has been used strategically in Phase I for research to support longer-term varietal development, gender, and evaluation and learning about delivery and nutritional efficacy in target populations in target countries. In Phase II, W1/W2 funding is currently budgeted at 10% of overall FP2 funding, focusing on these research issues.

FP3: Food Safety

The largest group of grants aligned in a programmatic fashion is for the research cluster on aflatoxin control coordinated by IITA. Similar to the case of HarvestPlus, this work is about testing delivery at scale of a technology that was developed and shown to be efficacious in past research. These grants include a large new 5-year grant for scaling up biocontrol delivery (2016-20) of approximately $3.5M per annum as well as the final stages of an on-going World Bank AgResults project looking at private sector delivery models in Nigeria. There have and will be a number of grants by USAID in a number of countries for assessing the risk of aflatoxin contamination and testing the efficacy of biocontrol methods. These grants are coordinated within the overall framework of aflatoxin control in Africa coordinated by PACA (AU Commission). W1/W2 funding (approximately $1.5M per annum) provides complementary research looking at diagnostic testing, health risks and market incentives. Unlike HarvestPlus, the discovery and development stages of the biocontrol research did not include significant investments assessing the economic, nutrition and health outcomes, and these now need to be integrated into the current research agenda.

There are a few small continuing grants for the clusters on Safe Fresh Food and Evidence that Counts. This CoA on Safe Fresh foods is at a proof of concept stage where W3/bilateral grants for

295

implementation and evaluation at scale will be needed to move forward. Proposals on food safety have and will be developed and will be aligned to CRP Livestock value chain research on pigs in Uganda and Viet Nam and on dairy in Tanzania (and Kenya).

FP4: SPEAR

This flagship has three clusters of activities (CoAs).

1. Nutrition-sensitive agriculture programs – what works and how can we implement better 2. Supporting Countries through Research and Enabling Environments (SPEAR) – evidence and

processes; political economy analysis and identification of strategies to build and sustain enabling environment for agriculture to contribute to nutrition and health

3. 3C - Capacity, Collaboration, Convening to test alternative approaches to strengthening enabling environments, including through better engaging and leveraging CGIAR

This FP is focused mainly on generating evidence so the “pipeline” stages of research (discovery, proof of concept, delivery at scale) are less appropriate. However, the research is at a fairly advanced stage in the sense that it is based on a good understanding of the current situation; the availability of solid conceptual frameworks (for both program and policy work) and well defined metrics and methods for conducting the analysis (though refinements of these will result from the research); and stakeholder analysis and engagement with potential users of the research results (program implementers, governments, donors) so that the demand for research is understood and the pathways to uptake at scale identified.

CoA1: Nutrition-Sensitive Agricultural Programs (NSAP) – what works and how to implement

One of the big demands from the 2011 Leveraging Agriculture for Nutrition and Health conference in Delhi was for evidence of what works and how it works. Noting the large number of meta-analyses and systematic reviews that had already been done on the meager existing evidence base of secondary and evaluations, most of which were not designed to look at agriculture’s impacts on nutrition and health, it was decided that investments in new data and rigorous impact evaluations were needed. Impact evaluations, would need to be conducted in the context of development interventions, and close alignment between research and development investments would be required so that the development programs could be implemented in ways that would permit rigorous evaluation. This often meant that the same donor(s) funded both the program and the evaluation. Selection of the program was negotiated between donors, program implementer and evaluators, and the generalizability of the lessons that could be learned from the evaluation was one of the criteria considered.

Given the focus on maternal and child nutrition (1,000 days window of opportunity), the initial selection of studies focused on programs that were most likely, on the basis of their design (e.g., homestead food production combined with nutrition and health education) to be able to demonstrate an impact on nutritional outcomes for mothers and children, such as micronutrient status, anemia or stunting. Based on both preliminary findings (largely positive but difficulty affecting stunting in short time frames) and on increased interest in nutrition-related outcomes such as diet quality and women’s empowerment that are more closely linked to agriculture, the portfolio of programs and platforms to be evaluated expanded during Phase I to include more agricultural programming.

296

There are a number of grants working with program implementers that were started in phase 1 that will continue early in Phase II plus new grants just beginning in 2016 and planned for 2017. The largest geographic concentration of projects is in South Asia, which has the highest absolute burden of under-nutrition. New grants that are just beginning and will last for 2-5 years in Phase II include:

• Targeting and re-aligning agriculture to improve nutrition in Bangladesh and India (TRAIN) – (approximately $1M p.a. 2016-18)

• Women Improving Nutrition through Group-Based Strategies (WINGS) together with the agricultural NGO PRADAN. (approximately $800K p.a. for 5 years 2016-20)

• Agriculture, Nutrition, Gender Linkages (ANGeL) – initial pilot period 2016-18 (approximately $800K p.a. for 3 years)

• Research component of the Tata-Cornell led Technical Assistance and Research for Indian Nutrition and Agriculture (TARINA) – approximately $700K p.a. for 4 years from 2016

CoA2: Supporting Countries through Research and Enabling Environments (SCORE) – evidence and processes

Given the nature of this research, much of it is carried out in “action research” mode, which means that investments in research and in development are aligned around a common agenda. Two large consortia grants, one led by IFPRI (Transform Nutrition) and one in which IFPRI participates (LANSA – led by MS Swaminathan Research Foundation) will continue in 2017. The Institute of Development Studies (IDS) is also a major partner in these grants.

There are also a number of smaller grants ($200-$400K) per annum in 2017 and 2018, such as Advancing Research in Nutrition and Agriculture (ARENA) that conducts analyses of cross-country agriculture-nutrition trends and a number of proposals being developed.

CoA3: Capacity, Collaboration, Convening (3C)

This CoA also operates in an action research mode. Given the perceived agriculture-nutrition disconnect in India and the complex policy and partnership environment, a major research and capacity enabling initiative funded largely by a grant from the BMGF called Partnerships and Opportunities to Strengthen and Harmonize Actions for Nutrition in India (POSHAN - http://poshan.ifpri.info/) was initiated just before Phase I. It included strong elements of knowledge and evidence synthesis and translation and through that building coalitions and partnerships for nutrition actions. Given its success a second phase of POSHAN is commencing in 2016 (5 years, $1M p.a.). IFPRI also coordinates activities for the Global Nutrition report, which has proved a powerful tool for monitoring indicators of country performance in nutrition and providing research knowledge, evidence and options for improving country performance. In Phase II, we will also team up with other groups, in partnership with the University of Antwerp-led EVIDENT network.

For FP4 in 2017, W1/W2 is budgeted at $4M, which is 15% of expected funding. W1/W2 funding will used for research analyses across grants, coordination and strategic planning with national partners and research synthesis, communication, and convening of ANH partners from national to international levels.

FP5: Improving Human Health

297

This FP is at an early stage of the research process. W1/W2 funding will be used to provide evidence and establish immediate research priorities to support grant applications. We have created comparative advantage bringing agriculture and public health researchers together so should be more competitive, and are optimistic that this should help success in grant funding as this joint research capacity can fill the evidence and knowledge gaps demanded for the urgent agriculture-health challenges identified.

One area where research is a bit more advanced is CoA2 on zoonotic diseases. This builds on zoonosis / One Health research – evidence on evolving zoonotic disease risk for people given changes in livestock production and also testing of appropriate solutions, initially at pilot scale and as expanding as funding allows, for priority neglected zoonoses, such as cysticercosis. Three research projects of moderate size ($200-800K per annum) looking at zoonotic disease risks in urban and peri-urban livestock systems in Kenya and India and syntheses of just completed grants looking at spatial analysis of zoonotic disease risk with agricultural intensification.

Cross-cutting units – Gender, Equity and Empowerment (GEE) / Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) and Country Coordination and Engagement (CCE)

In Phase I, these cross-cutting research support functions had modest objectives and were funded as part of CRP management. However in Phase II, following a recommendation of our external evaluation, these functions are being recognized as having not only management but also research functions. Thus, it is appropriate that they be supported by a combination of W1/W2 and W3/bilateral grant funding.

At present, we have one large grant ($1M p.a., 2016-2020) supporting gender-nutrition and M&E - research in 16 CGIAR and partner projects (Gender and Agricultural Assets Program II) and another on Linking Research to Impact that has just been approved for full proposal development . We plan to propose additional grants for both GEE and MEL units and will also consider options for grants in the five A4NH focus countries (each has a small amount of W1/W2 funding to support initial collaborative research).

Lessons learned and next steps

1. Grant funding will remain the largest proportion of funding in the short to medium term (between 75 and 90% of overall funding).

2. For program areas in more advanced stages of research and with a track record of performance (see #4 below), it is possible to get grants for both individual projects and for program funding. With a large enough project portfolio and track record, it is possible (but difficult) to create a coherent portfolio of large grants supported strategically by W1/W2 funding to fill in research gaps and create partnerships for research results to enable development outcomes.

3. For newer or less mature research areas, we will initially start with a higher proportion of W1/W2 funding to provide results that make the case for building a coherent research portfolio from individual project grants.

4. For research program areas that have been successful – important elements have been: credible research results that are relevant for real-world planning, implementation and policy decisions; ability to engage stakeholders and donors in a dialogue on critical issues to get a common understanding and consensus; and agreeing objectives and meeting joint expectations through managing research quality and performance.

298

5. The CGIAR approach to developing impact pathways and theories of change for how its research contributes to achieving priority nutrition and health outcomes has been useful. This approach provides tools and a process for helping A4NH to align its research objectives to the interests of donors, clients (governments, civil society, target populations). Even in the early stages of research, theories of change can help researchers identify and engage with donors and other stakeholders so that research answers the right questions and results are effectively translated to development outcomes.

6. For the common nutrition and health outcomes of the SDGs, CGIAR SRF, CAADP results framework and national strategies and plans, agriculture is a critical sector in low and middle income countries. There is consensus among donors and stakeholders on the importance of agriculture for nutrition and health and that good quality research is critical to shaping and leveraging agriculture for nutrition and health outcomes. This has been a good starting position for co-developing the research agenda and portfolio with donors and clients. In our experience donors, policy makers and program implementers demand the evidence that research can provide as well as the contribution that research can make to planning, implementation and evaluation of interventions and to policy making using systematic learning (research) approaches. The skills of A4NH researchers in the combination of rigorous research on interventions, methods for monitoring and evaluation of outcomes, and policy research had led to strong demand for these contributions not only to improve agricultural solutions to nutrition and health outcomes but also in supporting broader multi-sectoral processes to support countries and donors in their desire to urgently improve nutrition and health outcomes.

299

SECTION 3.10.4

300

Annex 3.10.4 COUNTRY SPECIFIC MATERIALS

COUNTRY-SPECIFIC MATERIALS: A4NH PHASE II

The following materials were created for 2015-2016 Site Integration meetings, as part of the Phase II planning and development process of A4NH. Specific content within these materials may have changed since their initial use. For the latest country-specific information on A4NH plans for Phase II, please contact John McDermott (A4NH Director) at j.mcdermott@cgiar.org, or another member of the A4NH Program Management Unit. Thank you.

301

PROJECT NOTE 01 | JANUARY 1 2015

Plans for Phase II (2017-2022)

A4NH NOTE | MARCH 2016

he CGIAR Research Program (CRP) on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) responds to the global chal-

lenge of improving food security, nutrition, and health. CGIAR has a long legacy of building global food security, but ensuring con-sumers can access enough healthy, affordable, and safe food re-quires a perspective that encompasses far more than agricultural productivity. Growing global populations, rapid urbanization, and the threat of climate change, all require transformation of agri-food systems that are effective in making safe, diverse, and nutri-tionally-adequate diets available in all countries, especially for poor, under-nourished populations in South Asia and Africa. Food system innovations are required across commodities, link-ing policies, programs, technologies, and systems management. Private sector participants drive and dominate agri-food systems – from farmers, to commodity processors, to retailers—and theymust be more effectively engaged to identify opportunities, aswell as constraints, to healthier diets. Since it began in 2012,

A4NH has built on prior work to accelerate progress in enhancing synergies between agriculture, nutrition, and health.

In August 2015, A4NH submitted a successful pre-proposal to the CGIAR Consortium for a second, six-year phase of the program to begin in 2017. A full proposal will be submitted in March 2016 for approval. This brief describes the research portfolio A4NH is pro-posing for its second phase.

In Phase II, A4NH will provide knowledge and evidence for nutri-tion- and health-sensitive agriculture solutions and will assess how to deliver solutions for improved outcomes at scale through a portfolio of six flagships: Biofortification, Food Safety, Food Systems for Healthier Diets, Improving Human Health, Inte-grated Programs to Improve Nutrition, and Supporting Country Outcomes through Research on Enabling Environments. In addi-tion to supporting gender research across the flagships, the A4NH Gender, Equity and Empowerment unit will lead cross-cutting re-search on strategic issues relevant to the overall program, such as building on the use of the Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index in the context of impact evaluations.

FIGURE 1. A4NH Results Framework

T

302

The A4NH Results Framework describes the main development outcomes (IDOs) and impacts (SLOs) to which the flagship activi-ties and outputs are expected to contribute. The results frame-work shows three generic types of impact pathways, which are defined by the types of actors whose capacity and behavior is ex-pected to change as a result of the research. We focus on work-ing through three pathways: value chains, policies, and develop-ment programs.

Each of the flagships contributes to improving food and nutrition for health, but they do so in different ways. Some flagships focus on developing and delivering specific agricultural solutions with potential to go to scale. Others focus on improving the pathways through which agricultural research contributes to development outcomes.

DESCRIPTION OF FIVE RESEARCH AREAS

Food Systems for Healthier Diets (Flagship 1) contributes to the goal of healthier diets for poor and vulnerable populations by identifying and enabling interventions by private, public, and civic actors in national and sub-national food systems. Food sys-tems refer to the full set of processes, activities, infrastructure and environment that encompass the consumption, distribution, processing and production of food and the disposal of waste. Food systems are analyzed from a diet and nutrition outcome perspective, identifying practical options and policy strategies for improving diets by both filling gaps and reducing excesses in un-healthy diet components. The flagship builds on research on die-tary assessment and methods for improving nutrition through value chains, and puts these in a broader agricultural, environ-mental, social, economic, and political decisionmaking frame-work. Research is organized into three main clusters of activities: 1) assessing (sub)regional drivers of food system transformation,and options and constraints for dietary change, 2) testing con-crete agri-food chain innovations and interventions for improv-ing diet quality and diversity, and 3) supporting the scaling up ofsuccessful actions through effective engagement of multi-stake-holder platforms and multi-sectoral mechanisms. The flagship in-cludes a new partnership arrangement with Wageningen Univer-sity and Research Centre (Wageningen UR) to implement this re-search and links to food system actors through a variety of plat-forms. In the long term, progress will be evaluated through im-provements in urban and rural diets, particularly for youngwomen, children, and vulnerable populations. Near-term pro-gress is measured through greater attention to dietary and foodsystem transitions by researchers in other CRPs and partner re-search organizations, by strategic partners from the private sec-tor and civil society, and by policymakers in target countries.

Biofortification (Flagship 2) builds on the strong track record of the HarvestPlus program. During Phase I of A4NH, HarvestPlus transitioned from its development to delivery phase. During Phase II, the flagship will deliver outcomes at scale (reaching 20 million farm households by 2020) and conduct research to fill key

evidence gaps and to learn lessons from delivery for future re-search and scaling. As part of building an enabling environment for biofortification in the future, the flagship will engage in policy analysis and evidence sharing at national and international levels and build capacity of key research and development partners to mainstream biofortification in their research and programming. Specifically, the three main clusters of activities in Biofortifica-tion will: 1) build on previous research to mainstream crop devel-opment, 2) focus on learning about delivery in a contextually rich world of markets, farmer behaviors, and dietary practices, and 3) use evidence to promote an enabling environment for biofortifi-cation and develop tools to facilitate delivery by others.

Food safety is moving rapidly up the development agenda as ma-jor new studies reveal its severely under-estimated importance. Solutions that are effective in developed countries and export systems have not translated well to informal or formalizing mar-kets. There is an urgent need for technical and institutional solu-tions to food safety challenges, and broader policy and regula-tory approaches to manage food safety risks in dynamic, devel-oping markets. Food Safety (Flagship 3) addresses these chal-lenges through targeted research that generates evidence on ap-proaches likely to work, and by examining how to achieve and sustain an enabling environment for innovative approaches to food safety, especially in informal markets. These topics are con-solidated into three main clusters of activities: 1) ‘Evidence that

Cred

it: A.San

abria/ C

ou

rtesy of P

ho

tosh

are

303

Counts’ focuses on filling knowledge gaps 2) ‘Safe Fresh Foods’ focuses on food safety issues in perishable value chains, like ani-mal source foods and 3) ‘Aflatoxin Mitigation’ focuses research on aflatoxin mitigation and control. In close collaboration with value chain research in other CRPs and with partners, this flag-ship will reach tens of millions of consumers, millions of farmers, and thousands of market agents working in priority countries in Africa and Asia.

Given the multisectoral nature of nutrition, agriculture needs to work in harmony with other sectors to maximize its impacts on nutrition. For example, social protection can protect the nutri-tion and health of poor smallholder households as they grapple with seasonality and climate shocks and stresses. Improved wa-ter, sanitation, and hygiene can increase the nutrition benefits of improved diets by reducing disease. Linkages between local agri-cultural production and school feeding may generate win-win benefits: income for small producers, and nutrition and cognitive gains for school-age children. Supporting Policies, Programs, and Enabling Action through Research, SPEAR (Flagship 4) seeks to address major gaps which remain in our understanding of the ag-riculture-nutrition disconnect. SPEAR will build on current in-volvement of A4NH staff and partners with global and regional initiatives in Africa and South Asia to support countries in tack-ling these goals.

To do so, it is structured into three interacting clusters of activi-ties: 1) ‘Integrated Programs to Improve Nutrition’ (IPIN) focuses on understanding and documenting the contribution of inte-grated agriculture and nutrition programs to improvements in maternal and child nutrition, 2) ‘Supporting Countries through Research on Enabling Environments’ (SCORE) focuses on under-standing how enabling environments—such as policies, institu-tions, and governance—for nutrition can be created and sus-tained, and 3) ‘Capacity, Collaboration, Convening’ (3C) focuses on strengthening capacity to use and demand evidence, and on providing a bridge to other flagships, CRPs, and relevant national, regional, and global processes to maximize the impact of our work to improve nutrition and health.

Improving Human Health (Flagship 5) will undertake new and critical research to assess and manage health risks created by ag-riculture in order to improve human health through better agri-cultural practices. This flagship includes a joint partnership ar-rangement co-convened by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) and the International Livestock Re-search Institute (ILRI), thus bridging agriculture and public health research to deliver high-quality scientific outputs and to identify new key opportunities for integrated actions that improve hu-man health. Priorities for cross-sectoral research include: 1) un-derstanding health effects of agricultural intensification, includ-ing changes in water use; 2) studying shared human and animal disease risks and co-locating and aligning health and agricultural interventions for their effective management; and 3) coordinat-ing research on tackling emerging, common problems for health and agriculture, such as antimicrobial resistance and pesticide re-sistance.

A4NH AND PARTNERS

There will be different levels of partners in A4NH in our sec-ond phase. Managing Partners will be represented on the A4NH planning and management committee (PMC), participate across more than one flagship, commit to recruit and co-manage re-searchers, play a role in the regional and country coordination efforts of A4NH, and actively support CRP-level resource mobili-zation, communication, and advocacy. Managing partners will in-clude Bioversity International, CIAT, IITA, and ILRI, plus Wa-geningen UR and LSHTM. The new Phase II partnerships with Wageningen UR and LSHTM are critical if we are to achieve the CGIAR and A4NH goals and objectives. The new partners add comparative advantage for A4NH in newer research areas and both have excellent experience leading and participating in re-search consortia.

A4NH focuses on partnerships through the development impact pathways it supports. From this perspective, our major partner types are value chain actors, program implementers, and ena-blers such as policymakers and investors. A4NH also has strong partnerships with researchers. In Phase II, we will build on these partnerships, but with greater emphasis on the following:

Support to country planning, actions and champions,which are the foundation of improving nutrition andhealth outcomes;

Greater engagement with the private sector, particularlysmall and medium-size enterprises in Africa and Asia thatwill be key drivers of food system transformation; and

More strategic research partnerships with researchleaders linking evolving agriculture, nutrition, and healthissues in food science, consumer behavior, and publichealth.

Given the new portfolio arrangements in CGIAR for Phase II, A4NH is planning for different collaborations with other research programs. Our approach is built on three assumptions about our role in the CGIAR system. First, A4NH brings expertise in nutri-tion and health research not widely available in CGIAR through a consumption, rather than production focus. Second, there is a need in CGIAR for advice on how to integrate evidence-based nu-trition and health perspectives into its research questions, theo-ries of change, and development outcomes, which A4NH can provide. Lastly, CGIAR cannot achieve its ambitious nutrition and health agenda without the help of partners from the nutrition and health communities; A4NH can convene these communities.

In this regard, A4NH proposes to fulfill this role in CGIAR through three mechanisms:

1. Joint research with other CRPs

2. Networking and mutual learning, through communitiesof practice hosted by A4NH flagships

304

4

3. As a bridge to global and regional nutrition and healthcommunities.

A4NH will continue responding to increasing demands from countries and investors to support multi-sectoral, country-led nutrition and health impacts at scale. These changes will enable A4NH to contribute more effectively to global efforts that shape agri-food systems for better nutrition and health.

A4NH will continue to concentrate its work in its target regions in South Asia and Africa south of the Sahara with some research in

other parts of Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. Five coun-tries will be considered focus countries, where A4NH expects to work closely with CGIAR entities through country coordination teams made up of A4NH affiliated researchers in each focus country. These countries are: Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India, Nige-ria, and Vietnam.

The below table (Table 1) highlights A4NH’s current and planned efforts to lead, facilitate, and enhance collaboration within CGIAR in priority research areas and countries.

TABLE 1. Cross-CGIAR Collaboration in A4NH

Type of coordination mechanisms led by A4NH Potential CGIAR entities working with A4NH

Ba

ng

lad

esh

Priority country for joint research in Food Systems for Healthier Diets, Biofortification, and SPEAR.

Communities of practice for CRP researchers working on food systems and gender and nutrition issues in Bangladesh will facilitate networking and mutual learning

SPEAR will provide a bridge to other flagships, CRPs and national, regional, and global nutrition and health communities through its cluster of activities called Capacity, Collaboration, Convening (3C)

All the agri-food system CRPs work-ing in Bangladesh, plus CCAFS (Cli-mate Change, Agriculture and Food Security), PIM (Policies, Institutions and Markets), and WLE (Water, Land and Ecosystems)

Eth

iop

ia

Priority country for joint research in Food Systems for Healthier Diets, Biofortification, Food Safety, and SPEAR.

Communities of practice for CRP researchers working on food systems and gender and nutrition issues in Ethiopia will facilitate networking and mutual learning

SPEAR will provide a bridge to other flagships, CRPs and national, regional, and global nutrition and health communities through its cluster of activities called Capacity, Collaboration, Convening (3C)

All the agri-food system CRPs work-ing in Ethiopia, plus CCAFS (Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Secu-rity), PIM (Policies, Institutions and Markets), and WLE (Water, Land and Ecosystems)

Ind

ia

Priority country for joint research in Biofortification, Food Safety, SPEAR, and Improving Human Health.

Communities of practice for CRP researchers working on food systems and gender and nutrition issues in India will facilitate networking and mutual learning

SPEAR will provide a bridge to other flagships, CRPs and national, regional, and global nutrition and health communities through its cluster of activities called Capacity, Collaboration, Convening (3C)

All the agri-food system CRPs work-ing in India, plus CCAFS (Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Secu-rity), PIM (Policies, Institutions and Markets), and WLE (Water, Land and Ecosystems)

Nig

eria

Priority country for joint research in Food Systems for Healthier Diets, Biofortification, Food Safety, and Improving Human Health.

Communities of practice for CRP researchers working on food systems and gender and nutrition issues in Nigeria will facilitate networking and mutual learning

SPEAR will provide a bridge to other flagships, CRPs and national, regional, and global nutrition and health communities through its cluster of activities called Capacity, Collaboration, Convening (3C)

All the agri-food system CRPs work-ing in Nigeria, plus CCAFS (Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Secu-rity), PIM (Policies, Institutions and Markets), and WLE (Water, Land and Ecosystems)

Vie

tna

m

Priority country for joint research in Food Systems for Healthier Diets, Food Safety, and Improving Human Health.

Communities of practice for CRP researchers working on food systems and gender and nutrition issues in Vietnam will facilitate networking and mutual learning

SPEAR will provide a bridge to other flagships, CRPs and national, regional, and global nutrition and health communities through its cluster of activities called Capacity, Collaboration, Convening (3C)

All the agri-food system CRPs work-ing in Vietnam, plus CCAFS (Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Secu-rity), PIM (Policies, Institutions and Markets), and WLE (Water, Land and Ecosystems)

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE A world free of hunger and malnutrition

2033 K Street, NW | Washington, DC 20006-1002 USA | T: +1.202.862.5600 | F: +1.202.467.4439 | Email: ifpri@cgiar.org | www.ifpri.org

For more information, please contact:

John McDermott, A4NH director| j.mcdermott@cgiar.org

www.a4nh.cgiar.org 305

PROJECT NOTE 01 | JANUARY 1 2015

Bangladesh

A4NH COUNTRY CONSULTATION NOTE | DECEMBER 2015

The CGIAR Research Program (CRP) on Agriculture for Nutri-tion and Health (A4NH) responds to the global challenge of im-proving food security, nutrition, and health. CGIAR has a long leg-acy of building global food security, but ensuring consumers can access enough healthy, affordable, and safe food requires a per-spective that encompasses far more than agricultural productiv-ity.

In August 2015, A4NH submitted a pre-proposal for a second, six-year phase of the program to begin in 2017. A full proposal will be submitted in March 2016 for approval. This brief describes what A4NH is building on in Bangladesh for its second phase.

ACTIVE A4NH PROJECTS IN 2015 BY FLAGSHIP

FLAGSHIP 1: BIOFORTIFICATION Biofortification builds on the strong track record of the Har-

vestPlus program. During Phase I of A4NH, HarvestPlus transi-tioned from development to delivery phase. During Phase II, the flagship will deliver outcomes at scale (reaching 20 million farm households by 2020) and conduct research to fill key evidence gaps and to learn lessons from delivery for future research and scaling. As part of building an enabling environment for biofortifi-cation in the future, the flagship will engage in policy analysis and advocacy at national and international levels and build capacity of key research and development partners to mainstream biofor-tification in their research and programming.

In 2013, zinc rice was released in Bangladesh as a result of several years of development and testing by HarvestPlus and partners. Orange fleshed sweet potato has also been released in Bangla-desh and HarvestPlus and the International Potato Center (CIP) with partners work to make the crop more widely available to farmers and consumers (see more under Flagship 2, for example). Ongoing research is focused on developing, testing, and dissemi-nating more biofortified crops, such as iron lentils, zinc lentils, and zinc wheat.

Projects that informed Flagship 1 work in Bangladesh • Nutritional Quality Assurance and Enhancement Net-

work (NQAEN)

Led by CIP and funded by A4NH, HarvestPlus, and the Interna-tional Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), the NQAEN aims to build and strengthen capacities to enable researchers in different

target regions worldwide to conduct accurate and cost-effective assessment of micronutrient content of sweet potato and potato, to guarantee food safety of biofortified clones by keeping low lev-els of antinutrients in target environments, to contribute to build-ing evidence that minerals of biofortified sweet potato and po-tato clones and their products are bioavailable for the human body, and that phenolics in sweet potato and potato have a health promoting role.

FLAGSHIP 2: FOOD SAFETY The flagship on Food Safety conducts targeted research on

specific food safety issues by generating evidence on what ap-proaches are likely to work and how an enabling environment for innovative approaches to food safety can be achieved and sus-tained in informal markets. The high priority food safety issues in this flagship are biological contamination of perishable products and aflatoxins in staple crops. The flagship will scale-up success-fully piloted solutions alongside rigorous monitoring and impact evaluations to increase understanding of the incentives, capacity, and enabling policy environment required for successful delivery at scale. At the same time, it will continue to generate evidence on food safety risks, and their assessment, communication, and management. In close collaboration with the CRPs covering live-stock, fish, and grain legumes, this flagship will reach tens of mil-lions of consumers, millions of farmers, and thousands of market agents working in priority countries in Africa and Asia.

Although there have not yet been any major A4NH-led initiatives on food safety in Bangladesh to date, we expect Phase II research to focus on characterizing and reducing biological contamination of perishable products.

A family enjoys lunch together in Jessore, Bangladesh. Credit: M. Yousuf Tushar/WorldFish

306

FLAGSHIP 3: FOOD SYSTEMS FOR HEALTHIER DIETS Food Systems for Healthier Diets aims to contribute to the

goal of healthier diets for poor and vulnerable populations through identifying and enabling interventions and innovations by private, public, and civil society actors in national and sub-na-tional food systems. Food systems will be analyzed from a diet and nutrition outcome perspective, focused on both by filling gaps and by reducing excesses in unhealthy diet components. The flagship builds on research on dietary assessment and meth-ods for improving nutrition through value chains and places these in a broader agricultural, environmental, social, economic and political decisionmaking framework. In the long term, pro-gress will be evaluated through improvements in diets, particu-larly for women, children, and vulnerable populations. Near-term progress will be measured through greater knowledge, aware-ness and systematic attention to diets and dietary transitions by researchers, by strategic partners from the private sector and civil society, by policymakers, and consumers in target countries.

Projects that informed Flagship 3 work in Bangladesh • Tuning into women’s competitiveness to enhance nu-

trition: Cooking contests in Bangladesh

This study led by IFPRI and funded by A4NH tests whether behav-ioral change communication can enhance nutrition behaviors us-ing a field experiment with adolescent girls and young women in rural Bangladesh. The study tests two elements of behavioral change communication. First, the project implements and evalu-ates a nutrition training, which is commonly used as behavioral change communication. Second, trainees are invited to partici-pate in a cooking contest that evaluates participants’ recipes in terms of taste, nutrition and cooking hygiene, and offers a large prize to the highest-scoring team. By tuning into their competi-tiveness, the cooking contests aim at motivating participants to create and share healthier recipes, increase attention to nutri-tion, and improve winning teams’ control over their households’ food consumption decisions. Baseline interviews, nutrition train-ings, cooking contests and a follow-up household survey were completed in 2015. Analyses are currently underway.

• Building a Framework for Assessing the Impacts of Ef-forts to Enhance Access to Nutritious Foods ThroughIn-depth Analysis of the Grameen Danone Case

Funded by A4NH, this study implemented by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) with the Institute of Develop-ment Studies and the University of Guelph aims to develop an analytical approach for the analysis of value chain-based initia-tives aimed at enhancing access and consumption of nutritious foods by the poor. Using Grameen Danone as an illustrative case study, the research explores the effectiveness of Grameen Da-none to achieve consumption of a nutritious food, the likely nu-tritional impacts, the challenges faced, and the mechanism

through which the challenges have been addressed. The case study will draw general conclusions on the effectiveness of value chain-based initiatives at achieving sustained consumption of a nutritious food and develop skills among partners in understand-ing the effectiveness of value chain-based interventions.

• Improving fruit production, marketing and consump-tion for enhanced livelihoods

Led by the World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) and funded by A4NH, this project seeks to better understand constraints in fruit production, processing, marketing and consumption and to iden-tify entry points for maintaining nutrients along fruit value chains. In Bangladesh, the research focuses on assessing the fruit consumption levels of smallholder farming households and cor-relate this data with the number and diversity of fruit trees culti-vated at the same farms.

• Research on dried small fish value chains in Bangla-desh

WorldFish leads a number of activities along the dried small fish value chain in Bangladesh. The activities are funded by A4NH and the UK Department for International Development (DFID). The ultimate goal of the work is to elevate the importance of the dried fish value chain for consumption in Bangladesh, especially among the poor. Although dried fish is the most important fish category consumed among the poor, in terms of quantity and frequency, this area is totally neglected in research. Research ac-tivities are focused on describing the value of dried fish value chain for consumption in Bangladesh, analyzing nutrient content and contaminants in dried fish samples, and reporting on dried fish for consumption globally. One completed activity was fo-cused specifically on optimizing the potential of fish and fish products to improve nutrition and health of women and young children by testing the nutrient availability and acceptability of a prepared complementary food powder of small fish, rice, and or-ange-fleshed sweet potato (OFSP), particularly suited for the ini-tiation of complementary feeding, 6-9 months of age. Based on what was learned, the team developed initial plans and partner-ships for a business plan for product development and produc-tion at scale.

• The United States Agency for International Develop-ment (USAID) Horticulture Project

Funded by USAID and A4NH, CIP leads this horticulture project with the goal of improving income and nutritional security of 100,000 marginal farmer households in the southern region of Bangladesh. With a gender responsive strategy applied to orange fleshed sweet potato (OSFP) vine multiplication in homestead gardens and at nurseries, the project takes special care to ensure that women are making a contribution to household food and nutrition security, income generation as well as influencing their

307

relationship with men both inside and outside of their house-holds. The other technologies and innovations the project intro-duces include home gardens, OFSP vine multiplication at nurse-ries, OFSP roots production, quality OFSP multiplication, vegeta-ble production, and nutrition messaging for behavior change. There is a strong capacity building component to this project combining nutrition and agricultural training targeted at small-holder farmers and community volunteers.

Furthermore, the project is using schools as a new avenue for promoting OFSP to households.

FLAGSHIP 5: SUPPORTING COUNTRY OUTCOMES THROUGH INTEGRATED PROGRAMS AND POLICIES

This flagship responds to demand for evidence from policy-makers and program implementers. Both groups recognize the importance of agriculture within a multi-sectoral approach to im-prove nutrition and health, but need more evidence on the im-pacts of particular types of programs and policies, as well as on what constitutes an effective enabling environment and how this can be achieved and sustained. Key accomplishments from Phase I include strong partnerships with countries, global and regional organizations (e.g. SUN, CAADP) and NGOs and a solid portfolio of evaluations designed to look at the impacts of promising inte-grated agriculture-nutrition interventions across contexts, scales and types of implementers. The flagship will also contribute to the institutionalization of evidence-based, cross-sectoral policy-making and programming by developing methods and tools and building capacity of other researchers and evaluators, both in-side and outside the CGIAR, to do high-quality conceptual and empirical research on agriculture-nutrition-health linkages.

Projects that informed Flagship 5 work in Bangladesh • Alive & Thrive

Alive & Thrive aims to reduce stunting through improved infant and young child feeding (IYCF) practices at scale. Funded by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and A4NH, it is managed by FHI360 with IFPRI as a lead partner. With the goal of implement-ing large-scale interventions using multiple platforms to improve IYCF practices in Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Ethiopia, the initia-tive is also charged with developing a measurement, learning, and evaluation (MLE) approach to generate a strong evidence base for future actions to improve IYCF practices. Alive & Thrive’s MLE goals, as articulated in the overall proposal, are to docu-ment the impact, cost, and cost-effectiveness of IYCF interven-tions implemented at large scale through Alive & Thrive’s activi-ties and to generate learning on how to achieve and replicate Alive & Thrive’s impact.

• Strengthening partnerships, results, and innovations innutrition globally (SPRING)

SPRING is aimed at combating undernutrition on a global scale by working across sectors - including health, agriculture, social protection, and economic growth - to facilitate the development of country-led nutrition strategies and provide technical support to ensure that quality programs are taken to scale in a manner that strengthens country capacity for the long run. The project is funded by USAID and implemented by a number of expert groups, including IFPRI. It uses social and behavior change com-munication at all levels to promote nutrition-sensitive policies, enhance cross-sectoral programming, and achieve better gender equity. SPRING also delivers high impact nutrition interventions to improve infant and young child feeding, control of micronutri-ent deficiencies, and women’s nutrition practices focusing on the first 1,000 days. IFPRI’s role in the project is to generate evidence based learning, monitoring and evaluation for effective ap-proaches to scale-up nutrition services in 8-10 target countries, one of which is Bangladesh. IFPRI’s approach covers three broad areas: 1) building the evidence base through research; 2) gather-ing, synthesizing and translating evidence and making it available for potential users; and 3) strengthening capacity to understand, interpret and use this evidence in programs and policy.

• Leveraging Agriculture for Nutrition in South Asia(LANSA)

LANSA is a research program made up of IFPRI and five other or-ganizations, led by the M.S Swaminathan Research Foundation and funded by DFID and A4NH. The core question that LANSA ad-dresses is: How can South Asian agriculture and related food pol-icies and interventions be designed and implemented to increase their impacts on nutrition, especially the nutritional status of children and adolescent girls? LANSA’s three research pillars (see research objectives below) address these core issues and three cross-cutting themes – gender, fragility, and innovation systems – cut across these three research pillars. LANSA’s goal is to en-sure that policy-makers and practitioners use the high quality ev-idence generated on effective strategies and actions to acceler-ate nutrition security to make agriculture more ‘pro-nutrition’. LANSA’s work is focused on Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan.

• Transform Nutrition Research Program Consortium

Led by IFPRI and funded DFID and A4NH, Transform Nutrition aims to transform thinking and action on the neglected crisis of undernutrition. It seeks to contribute to accelerating the rate of reduction of undernutrition among young children by ensuring the effective scaling-up of evidence-based nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive actions for improving nutrition in three focal countries – Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and India – as well as regionally in East Africa and globally. To achieve this outcome it works to-wards three key output areas. The first, generating a world class, accessible and practicable evidence base on scaling up nutrition-specific interventions, on maximizing the nutrition-sensitivity of

308

agriculture, social protection and women’s empowerment inter-ventions, and on creating and sustaining “enabling environ-ments” for nutrition. Transform Nutrition research outputs are made accessible and are used to facilitate evidence-informed discussions. There is also a stream of capacity building activities to strengthen nutrition-relevant capacity nationally, regionally, and globally.

• Stories of Change

Led by IFPRI and funded by A4NH, this research addresses the need for and approaches to integration among the agriculture, nutrition, and health sectors, at both the program and policy lev-els. Stories of Change builds and expands on prior work to foster and support experiential learning on how to address the chal-lenge of undernutrition in different country contexts including Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India, Nepal, and Zambia. The project ap-plies tools, methods and approaches in selected countries to bet-ter understand, engage with, influence and evaluate multisec-toral action to reduce undernutrition.

• International Dietary Data Expansion Project (INDDEX)

The INDDEX project is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and led by Tufts University with IFPRI as a key part-ner. The goal of the project is to enable countries to increase their acquisition and use of high-quality, timely dietary data in order to make better evidence-based decisions about agricul-ture, food and nutrition policies and programs. The research team will accomplish this goal by developing technologies to streamline the collection and analysis of dietary data, improving the design of household consumption and expenditure surveys (HCES), harvesting "fit-for-purpose" indicators and analyses from HCES and food balance sheet (FBS) data, and building global sup-port and country-level capacity to apply the methods, tools and guidance on data collection that will be developed through the project to make appropriate use of the resulting data to inform policy decisions. The initial target countries for INDDEX are Bang-ladesh and Burkina Faso.

• Orienting Agriculture Toward Improved Nutrition andWomen’s Empowerment (ANGeL)

ANGeL, which refers to Agriculture, Nutrition, and Gender Link-ages, is a pilot project being implemented by the Ministry of Ag-riculture in Bangladesh. It is partially funded by USAID, with tech-nical assistance from IFPRI’s Bangladesh Policy Research and Strategy Support Program (PRSSP) and Helen Keller International (HKI). The project aims to identify actions and investments in ag-riculture that can leverage agricultural development for im-proved nutrition, and make recommendations on how to invigor-ate pathways to women’s empowerment—particularly within ag-riculture. Evidence from this project may be used to design, im-plement, and scale up the most effective interventions to im-prove nutrition and women’s empowerment at a national level.

OTHER A4NH SUPPORT AND ACTIVITIES Although we do not expect any projects in Bangladesh under

the flagship on Improved Human Health, we will investigate op-portunities for Bangladeshi researchers to network with other colleagues in South and Southeast Asia through regional net-works and national partners, including the Public Health Founda-tion of India and the Ecohealth resource centers at Hanoi School of Public Health (Vietnam), Chiang Mai University (Thailand), and Universitas Gadjah Mada (Indonesia). This flagship will be coordi-nated by ILRI together with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Research will focus on three main areas: agro-ecosystem change on health outcomes, zoonotic and emerging diseases and global agriculture-health challenges such as anti-mi-crobial resistance.

CURRENT NATIONAL PARTNERS • CGIAR entities: CIP, ICRAF, IFPRI, ILRI, IRRI, WorldFish,

• Development implementers: AVA Development Society(AVA), Agricultural Advisory Society (AAS), Amra Kaj Kori (AKK),Association for Integrated Human Development (AIHD), BRAC,CARE-Bangladesh, Christian Commission for Development inBangladesh (CCDB), Community Development Centre (CODEC),Concern on National Problems (CONP), Darkina Fish, Friends inVillage Development Bangladesh (FIVDB), Integrated Social Wel-fare Association (ISWA), Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition(GAIN), International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research,Bangladesh (ICDDR,B), Natun Zibon Rochi (NAZIR), Patuakhali De-velopment Organization (PDO), People’s Development Institute(PDI), PROSHIKA, RDRS Bangladesh, Society Development Com-mittee (SDC), Shariatpur Development Society (SDS), ShushilanShawdesh Unnayn Kendra (SUK), Thengamara Mohila SaabujSangha (TMSS), Unnayan Dhara (UD), Voluntary Rural Develop-ment Society (VRDS)

• NARS: Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI),Bangladesh Rice Research Institute, Department of AgriculturalExtension (DAE)

• Policymakers: Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Departmentof Fisheries

• Research/Academic: Bangladesh Agricultural University, theWorld Vegetable Centre (AVRDC)

• Value Chain: Bogra Seed Production and Marketing Associa-tion (BSPMA), Small & Medium Seed Producing Association(SMSPA), South West Seed Producers Association of Bangladesh(SWSPAB)

PLANS FOR PHASE II, AS DESCRIBED IN A4NH PRE-PROPOSAL

All flagships except for Improving Human Health have specific plans to conduct research activities in Bangladesh in Phase II, alt-hough specific activities have not yet been identified. On a high

309

level, the beneficiary outcomes A4NH research is expected to contribute to achieving in Bangladesh with partners are summa-rized in Table 1, below. We will not be able to achieve these out-comes alone. In Table 2, we describe how we anticipate working

with other CGIAR entities participating in the site integration ++ process in order to achieve these development goals.

TABLE 1. A4NH’s development goals for Bangladesh in Phase II

Beneficiary out-comes (impacts)

Target development outcomes (or IDOs) Key assumptions

Improved nutrition by consumption of biofortified crops

Improved diets for poor and vulnerable people Households reached with planting material will grow and consume the crop, and market excess production; main-streaming efforts will expand available varieties and fi-nancing to additional countries; HarvestPlus and its part-ners will be able to offer sufficient technical assistance to promote adoption and consumption

Equity and inclusion achieved

Enabling environment improved

National partners and beneficiaries enabled

Households adopt improved, bioforti-fied varieties

Increased productivity Households reached with planting material will grow and adopt biofortified varieties, and will continue to have ac-cess to biofortified planting materials as needed. See above for assumption re: mainstreaming.

Equity and inclusion achieved

National partners and beneficiaries enabled

Enabling environment improved

Reduced exposure to foodborne hazards

Enhanced smallholder market access Problems identified have significant impacts on human health; proposed interventions can significantly improve human health or are justified by other benefits (trade, livelihoods, animal welfare); solutions (innovations, poli-cies, and programs) proposed can be adopted at scale and in ways that ensure equitable access to the poor, small-holders, men and women, and the informal sector

Improved food safety

Equity and inclusion achieved Enabling environment improved

Countries improve food systems for healthier diets

Increased incomes and employment Incentives to improve food systems for healthier diets can be identified for different groups of actors (policy-makers, private sector, consumers); stakeholders (re-searchers and enablers) will be committed and able to im-prove the quality of national data on diets; innovations and interventions will be acceptable to intended benefi-ciaries; strategic partners can be identified and engaged for scale up

Improved diets for poor and vulnerable people

Mitigation and adaptation achieved (in collabo-ration with CCAFS) Equity and inclusion achieved

Enabling environment improved

National partners and beneficiaries enabled

Successful and cost-effective integrated nutrition-sensitive programs designed, implemented, scaled-up and evalu-ated

Increased incomes and employment Results generated from evaluation activities are useful and relevant and have clear operational implications for implements who have the capacity and resources to use them; programs that are found to be cost-effective are funded and scaled up, achieving high coverage and high quality to achieve expected results (joint with Supporting Country Outcomes through Research on Enabling Environ-ments)

Improved diets for poor and vulnerable people

Equity and inclusion achieved National partners and beneficiaries enabled

All IDOs under SLO2

310

Countries improve the enabling environ-ment for nutrition and health

Mitigation and adaptation achieved (in collabo-ration with CCAFS)

Champions identified among key decision-makers find ways to take forward key messages within their own sec-tor and beyond; decisionmakers are incentivized to im-prove the way they find, appraise and use evidence; poli-cymakers and practitioners are motivated to reduce un-dernutrition and poverty; stakeholders across and within sectoral domains (agriculture, nutrition, health, gender) engage with A4NH evidence.

Equity and inclusion achieved

Enabling environment improved

National partners and beneficiaries enabled

TABLE 2. A4NH’s-proposed CGIAR relationships in Phase II

Planned CGIAR enti-ties working with A4NH in Phase II

Type of coordination mechanisms with A4NH flagships in Phase II

What A4NH will do and what it expects to offer in Phase II

All CRPs in the coun-try through site inte-gration ++

CoP/Docking Stations (all CRPs) – Food Systems for Healthier Diets

Biofortification target country

Food Safety docking stations (fish)

Convening Platform (all CRPs) - Support-ing Country Outcomes

All flagships except Improving Human Health will be working in Ethiopia.

A4NH expects to work through staff on the ground, project in-vestments, and the IFPRI country office.

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE A world free of hunger and malnutrition

2033 K Street, NW | Washington, DC 20006-1002 USA | T: +1.202.862.5600 | F: +1.202.467.4439 | Email: ifpri@cgiar.org | www.ifpri.org

For more information, please contact: John McDermott, A4NH director| j.mcdermott@cgiar.org

www.a4nh.org

This publication has been prepared as an A4NH output. It has not been peer reviewed. Any opinions stated herein are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily representative of or endorsed by the International Food Policy Research Institute.

This publication has been prepared as an A4NH output. It has not been peer reviewed. Any opinions stated herein are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily representative of or endorsed by the International Food Policy Research Institute.

311

PROJECT NOTE 01 | JANUARY 1 2015

Ethiopia

A4NH COUNTRY CONSULTATION NOTE | OCTOBER 2015

The CGIAR Research Program (CRP) on Agriculture for Nutri-

tion and Health (A4NH) responds to the global challenge of im-

proving food security, nutrition, and health. CGIAR has a long leg-

acy of building global food security, but ensuring consumers can

access enough healthy, affordable, and safe food requires a per-

spective that encompasses far more than agricultural productiv-

ity.

In August 2015, A4NH submitted a pre-proposal for a second, six-

year phase of the program to begin in 2017. A full proposal will

be submitted in March 2016 for approval. This brief describes

what A4NH is building on in Ethiopia for its second phase.

FEATURED A4NH PROJECTS BY FLAGSHIP

FLAGSHIP 1: BIOFORTIFICATION

Biofortification builds on the strong track record of the Har-

vestPlus program. During Phase I of A4NH, HarvestPlus transi-

tioned from development to delivery phase. During Phase II, the

flagship will deliver outcomes at scale (reaching 20 million farm

households by 2020) and conduct research to fill key evidence

gaps and to learn lessons from delivery for future research and

scaling. As part of building an enabling environment for biofortifi-

cation in the future, the flagship will engage in policy analysis and

advocacy at national and international levels and build capacity

of key research and development partners to mainstream biofor-

tification in their research and programming.

In 2015, HarvestPlus expanded its activities to Ethiopia, including

it as one of the nine target countries.

Projects that informed Flagship 1 work in Ethiopia Nutritional Quality Assurance and Enhancement Net-

work (NQAEN)

Led by the International Potato Center (CIP) and funded by A4NH,

HarvestPlus, and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture

(CIAT), the NQAEN builds and strengthens capacities to enable re-

searchers in different target regions worldwide to conduct accu-

rate and cost-effective assessments of micronutrient content of

sweetpotato and potato, to guarantee food safety of biofortified

clones by keeping low levels of antinutrients, to contribute to

building evidence that minerals of biofortified sweetpotato and

potato clones and their products are bioavailable for the human

body, and that phenolics in sweetpotato and potato have a

health promoting role.

FLAGSHIP 2: FOOD SAFETY

The flagship on Food Safety conducts targeted research on

specific food safety issues as well as by generating evidence on

what approaches are likely to work and how an enabling environ-

ment for innovative approaches to food safety can be achieved

and sustained in informal markets. The high priority food safety

issues for Phase II are biological contamination of perishable

products and aflatoxins in staple crops. The flagship will scale-up

successfully piloted solutions alongside rigorous monitoring and

impact evaluations to increase understanding of the incentives,

capacity, and enabling policy environment required for successful

delivery at scale. At the same time, it will continue to generate

evidence on food safety risks, and their assessment, communica-

tion, and management. In close collaboration with the CRPs cov-

ering livestock, fish, and grain legumes, this flagship will reach

tens of millions of consumers, millions of farmers, and thousands

of market agents working in priority countries in Africa and Asia.

Projects that informed Flagship 2 work in Ethiopia Aflatoxin coordination across CGIAR and gap filling ded-

icated to Ethiopia

Led by the International Livestock Research Center (ILRI) and

funded by A4NH, this project aims to assess the level of aflatoxin

contamination in dairy value chains in Ethiopia, identify research

gaps in aflatoxin research, and provide evidence, risk assess-

ments and best-bet interventions for policy makers.

Farmers sort tomatoes in Ethiopia. Credit: S.Bachenheimer/World Bank

312

Safe Food Fair Food - Risk based approaches to improv-

ing food safety and market access in smallholder meat,

milk, fish value chains in four African countries 1

Led by ILRI and funded by the German Federal Ministry for Eco-

nomic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the German Society

for International Cooperation (GIZ), and A4NH, this project’s ulti-

mate goal is the improvement of livelihoods of poor producers

and consumers by reducing the health risks and increasing the

livelihood benefits associated with meat, milk and fish value

chains. Its purpose is furthering research into the practical appli-

cation of risk analysis and economic and social methods by food

safety stakeholders and value chain actors, and improving food

safety and market participation of the poor in informal markets

for livestock products in sub-Saharan Africa. It pioneers and tests

a practical, whole value chain application of risk-based ap-

proaches to food safety in selected countries. It develops, tests,

and communicates the technologies and methods to improve

food safety and enhance smallholder market access. At regional

scale, it works through food safety ‘champions’ to better incor-

porate risk analysis and economic evaluation methods into food

safety policy, commercial practice, and veterinary education.

FLAGSHIP 3: FOOD SYSTEMS FOR HEALTHIER DIETS

Food Systems for Healthier Diets aims to contribute to the

goal of healthier diets for poor and vulnerable populations

through identifying and enabling interventions and innovations

by private, public, and civil society actors in national and sub-na-

tional food systems. Food systems will be analyzed from a diet

and nutrition outcome perspective, focused on both by filling

gaps and by reducing excesses in unhealthy diet components.

The flagship builds on research on dietary assessment and meth-

ods for improving nutrition through value chains and places

these in a broader agricultural, environmental, social, economic

and political context. There was limited food systems research in

A4NH during Phase I, but this flagship will build on food systems

work in the country led by our partners. Some examples are

IFPRI’s policy support to the Agricultural Transformation Agency

(ATA) and the research on productive safety net programs. In the

Ethiopia Strategy Support Program (ESSP), we expect to find syn-

ergies with nutrition activities in Theme 9: Agriculture and Nutri-

tional Linkages and Theme 10: Urbanization and Food System

Transformation.

Projects that informed Flagship 3 work in Ethiopia Nutrition-sensitive landscapes pilot

Funded by the Daniel & Nina Carasso Foundation and led by Bio-

versity International, this pilot project investigates biodiversity in

1 http://safefoodfairfood.ilri.org/2 http://www.aliveandthrive.org/

subnational food systems to address dietary gaps and to simulta-

neously build resilience in production systems.

FLAGSHIP 5: SUPPORTING COUNTRY OUTCOMES

THROUGH INTEGRATED PROGRAMS AND POLICIES

Supporting Country Outcomes through Integrated Programs and Policies responds to demand from policymakers and program implementers. Both groups recognize the importance of agricul-ture within a multi-sectoral approach to improve nutrition and health, but need more evidence on the impacts of particular types of programs and policies, as well as on what constitutes an effec-tive enabling environment and how this can be achieved and sus-tained. The flagship builds on key accomplishments in Phase I, in-cluding strong partnerships with countries, global and regional or-ganizations (e.g. SUN, CAADP) and NGOs and a solid portfolio of evaluations designed to look at the impacts of promising inte-grated agriculture-nutrition interventions across contexts, scales and types of implementers. Through working together with policy makers and implementers, including in an action research modes, this flagship will contribute to better policies and investments and reach millions of people, including vulnerable groups such as women and young children by 2022 in target countries. The flag-ship will also contribute to the institutionalization of evidence-based, cross-sectoral policymaking and programming by develop-ing methods and tools and building capacity of other researchers and evaluators, both inside and out-side the CGIAR, to do high-quality conceptual and empirical re-search on agriculture-nutri-tion-health linkages.

Projects that informed Flagship 5 work in Ethiopia Alive & Thrive2

Led by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

and funded by The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and A4NH,

Alive & Thrive aims to reduce stunting through improved infant

and young child feeding (IYCF) practices at scale. With the goal of

implementing large-scale interventions using multiple platforms

to improve IYCF practices in Bangladesh, Vietnam, and Ethiopia,

the initiative is also charged with developing a measurement,

learning, and evaluation (MLE) approach to generate a strong ev-

idence base for future actions to improve IYCF practices. Alive &

Thrive’s MLE goals are to document the impact, cost, and cost-

effectiveness of IYCF interventions implemented at large scale

through Alive & Thrive’s activities and to generate learning on

how to achieve and replicate Alive & Thrive’s impact.

Expanding policy research3

Led by IFPRI and funded by A4NH, this research addresses the

need for and approaches to integration among the agriculture,

nutrition, and health sectors, at both the program and policy lev-

els. Leveraging Agriculture for Nutrition in East Africa (LANEA),

3 http://www.a4nh.cgiar.org/2015/06/04/nutrition-in-east-africa-3-country-re-ports-released/

313

(2013-2014 in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda) sought to identify

agriculture-nutrition linkages in three case study countries and

explore the effect of the political context and institutional struc-

tures (government, districts and civil society organizations) on

leveraging agriculture for nutrition, and in particular, in relation

to scaling up and expanding coverage in nutrition through agri-

culture and the broader agri-food system. Stories of Change

(2015-2016 in Ethiopia, Zambia, Bangladesh, Nepal, and India)

builds and expands on this work to foster and support experien-

tial learning on how to address the challenge of undernutrition in

different contexts. The project applies tools, methods and ap-

proaches in selected countries to better understand, engage

with, influence and evaluate multisectoral actions to reduce un-

dernutrition.

Transform Nutrition Research Program Consortium4

Led by IFPRI and funded by the UK Department for International

Development (DFID) and A4NH, Transform Nutrition aims to

transform thinking and action on the neglected crisis of undernu-

trition. It seeks to contribute to the goal of accelerating the rate

of reduction of undernutrition among young children by ensuring

the effective scaling-up of evidence-based nutrition-specific and

nutrition-sensitive actions for improving nutrition in three focal

countries (Ethiopia, Bangladesh, India), as well as regionally and

globally. To achieve this outcome they work towards three key

output areas. The first, generating a world class, accessible and

practical evidence base on scaling up nutrition-specific interven-

tions; the second, maximizing the nutrition-sensitivity of agricul-

ture, social protection and women’s empowerment interven-

tions, and third, creating and sustaining “enabling environments”

for nutrition. Transform Nutrition research outputs are made ac-

cessible and are used to facilitate evidence-informed discussions.

There is also a stream of capacity building activities to strengthen

nutrition-relevant capacity nationally, regionally, and globally.

OTHER A4NH SUPPORT AND ACTIVITIES A4NH will be involved in the second phase of mainstreaming

nutrition in national agriculture investment plans as part of the

African Union Commission’s Comprehensive Africa Agriculture

Development Programme (AUC CAADP) process. In addition,

some work will involve providing support to the AUC Regional

Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) pro-

cess on structuring the monitoring process of nutrition indicators

in CAADP in response to the AUC Malabo Declaration of 2014.

Action research activities on providing an enabling environment

for A4NH at AUC continental, regional, and national level are

planned. Next year’s AUC Africa Trends and Outlook report will

be led by A4NH. For the first time, the annual ReSAKSS confer-

ence will focus on nutrition and A4NH will be actively involved.

4 http://www.transformnutrition.org/

In 2015, a new capacity building initiative called the Agriculture

Nutrition and Health (ANH) Academy was launched. The ANH

Academy is jointly founded and initial coordination is provided

by the Leverhulme Centre on Integrative Research in Agriculture

and Health (LCIRAH), the Innovative Methods and Metrics for Ag-

riculture and Nutrition Actions (IMMANA) project, and A4NH.

The ANH Academy is a global research network in agriculture and

food systems for improved nutrition and health to serve as a

plat-form for learning and sharing. In June 2016, the ANH Acad-

emy will host its first conference in Addis Ababa.

In addition to the specific projects mentioned in this note, A4NH

plans to work through country and CGIAR coordination processes

to align our research to Ethiopia’s priority actions. There will be

many opportunities for integration with work like CIFOR’s on nu-

tritional and ecological benefits of forest and tree cover on vege-

table production and consumption. The site integration work in

Ethiopia will take into account the agriculture to nutrition work

done by other CRPs and CGIAR centers in order to identify areas

of synergy where integration could bring about greater impact. A

consultation process is planned for Dec 2015 where Ethiopian

government stakeholders will present government priority areas

to which integration efforts can be aligned. In the same way, in-

tegration with other development partners will be sought.

CURRENT NATIONAL PARTNERS CGIAR entities: Bioversity International, the Interna-

tional Maize and Wheat Improvement Cen-

ter (CIMMYT), CIP, the International Center for Agricul-

tural Research in the Dry Area (ICARDA), the Interna-

tional Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics

(ICRISAT), IFPRI, International Institute of Tropical Agri-

culture (IITA), ILRI, CRP on Livestock & Fish

Development implementers: Save the Children, United

States Agency for International Development (USAID),

Vétérinaires Sans Frontières – Suisse (VSF-Suisse),

World Vision

NARS: Ethiopian Institute of Agriculture Research

(EIAR)

Policymakers: African Union Inter-African Bureau for

Animal Resources (AU-IBAR), East African Community

(EAC), Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Food and Agri-

culture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), IGAD

Center for Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development

(ICPALD), Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Health,

Woreda Livestock Crop and Rural Development Office,

Woreda Health Offices in multiple woredas (Gode,

Hargelle, Moyale, Mubarek)

314

4

Research/Academic: Addis Ababa University, Addis Conti-

nental Institute of Public Health, Awassa University (Nutri-

tion Center of Excellence), Consultancy for Social Develop-

ment, Jigjiga University, Mela Research PLC (MelaRes)

Value Chain: livestock marketing councils; abattoirs; butch-

ers; consumers; processors; retailers; traders, transporters,

market officials

Other: JaRco Consulting

PLANS FOR PHASE II, AS DESCRIBED IN A4NH PRE-PROPOSAL

All flagships except for Improving Human Health plan to con-

duct research activities in Ethiopia in Phase II, although specific

activities have not yet been identified. On a high level, the bene-

ficiary outcomes A4NH research is expected to contribute to

achieving in Ethiopia with partners are summarized in Table 1,

below. We will not be able to achieve these outcomes alone. In

Table 2, we describe how we anticipate working with other

CGIAR entities participating in the site integration ++ process in

order to achieve these development goals.

TABLE 1. A4NH’s development goals for Ethiopia in Phase II

Beneficiary out-comes (impacts)

Target development outcomes (or IDOs) Key assumptions

Improved nutrition by consumption of biofortified crops

Improved diets for poor and vulnerable people Households reached with planting material will grow and consume the crop, and market excess production; main-streaming efforts will expand available varieties and fi-nancing to additional countries; HarvestPlus and its part-ners will be able to offer sufficient technical assistance to promote adoption and consumption

Equity and inclusion achieved

Enabling environment improved

National partners and beneficiaries enabled

Households adopt improved, bioforti-fied varieties

Increased productivity Households reached with planting material will grow and adopt biofortified varieties, and will continue to have ac-cess to biofortified planting materials as needed. See above for assumption re: mainstreaming.

Equity and inclusion achieved

National partners and beneficiaries enabled

Enabling environment improved

Reduced exposure to foodborne hazards

Enhanced smallholder market access Problems identified have significant impacts on human health; proposed interventions can significantly improve human health or are justified by other benefits (trade, livelihoods, animal welfare); solutions (innovations, poli-cies, and programs) proposed can be adopted at scale and in ways that ensure equitable access to the poor, small-holders, men and women, and the informal sector

Improved food safety

Equity and inclusion achieved

Enabling environment improved

Countries improve food systems for healthier diets

Increased incomes and employment Incentives to improve food systems for healthier diets can be identified for different groups of actors (policy-makers, private sector, consumers); stakeholders (re-searchers and enablers) will be committed and able to im-prove the quality of national data on diets; innovations and interventions will be acceptable to intended benefi-ciaries; strategic partners can be identified and engaged for scale up

Improved diets for poor and vulnerable people

Mitigation and adaptation achieved (in collabo-ration with CCAFS)

Equity and inclusion achieved

Enabling environment improved

National partners and beneficiaries enabled

Successful and cost-effective integrated

Increased incomes and employment Results generated from evaluation activities are useful and relevant and have clear operational implications for Improved diets for poor and vulnerable people

315

nutrition-sensitive programs designed, implemented, scaled-up and evalu-ated

Equity and inclusion achieved implements who have the capacity and resources to use them; programs that are found to be cost-effective are funded and scaled up, achieving high coverage and high quality to achieve expected results

National partners and beneficiaries enabled

Countries improve the enabling environ-ment for nutrition and health

All IDOs under SLO2 Champions identified among key decision-makers find ways to take forward key messages within their own sec-tor and beyond; decisionmakers are incentivized to im-prove the way they find, appraise and use evidence; poli-cymakers and practitioners are motivated to reduce un-dernutrition and poverty; stakeholders across and within sectoral domains (agriculture, nutrition, health, gender) engage with A4NH evidence.

Mitigation and adaptation achieved (in collabo-ration with CCAFS)

Equity and inclusion achieved

Enabling environment improved

National partners and beneficiaries enabled

TABLE 2. A4NH’s-proposed CGIAR relationships in Phase II

Planned CGIAR entities working with A4NH in

Phase II

Type of coordination mechanisms with A4NH flagships in Phase II

What A4NH will do and what it expects to offer in Phase II

All CRPs in the country through site integration ++

Community of Practice/Docking Station (for all CRPs), hosted by Food Systems for Healthier Diets

Target country for Biofortification

Docking Station for livestock value chain activities, led by Food Safety

Convening Platform (for all CRPs), led by Supporting Country Outcomes through Integrated Programs and Policies

All flagships except Improving Human Health will be working in Ethiopia

A4NH expects to work through staff on the ground, project investments, the IFPRI country office, and ILRI’s principal campus.

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE A world free of hunger and malnutrition

2033 K Street, NW | Washington, DC 20006-1002 USA | T: +1.202.862.5600 | F: +1.202.467.4439 | Email: ifpri@cgiar.org | www.ifpri.org

For more information, please contact:

John McDermott, A4NH director| j.mcdermott@cgiar.org

www.a4nh.org

This publication has been prepared as an A4NH output. It has not been peer reviewed. Any opinions stated herein are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily representative of or endorsed by the International Food Policy Research Institute.

Copyright © 2015 International Food Policy Research Institute. All rights reserved. To obtain permission to republish, contact ifpri-copyright@cgiar.org.

316

PROJECT NOTE 01 | JANUARY 1 2015

Nigeria

A4NH COUNTRY CONSULTATION NOTE | OCTOBER 2015

The CGIAR Research Program (CRP) on Agriculture for Nutri-tion and Health (A4NH) responds to the global challenge of im-proving food security, nutrition, and health. CGIAR has a long leg-acy of building global food security, but ensuring consumers can access enough healthy, affordable, and safe food requires a per-spective that encompasses far more than agricultural productiv-ity.

In August 2015, A4NH submitted a pre-proposal for a second, six-year phase of the program to begin in 2017. A full proposal will be submitted in March 2016 for approval. This brief describes what A4NH is building on in Nigeria for its second phase.

FEATURED A4NH PROJECTS BY FLAGSHIP

FLAGSHIP 1: BIOFORTIFICATION Biofortification builds on the strong track record of the Har-

vestPlus program. During Phase I of A4NH, HarvestPlus transi-tioned from development to delivery phase. During Phase II, the flagship will deliver outcomes at scale (reaching 20 million farm households by 2020) and conduct research to fill key evidence gaps and to learn lessons from delivery for future research and scaling. As part of building an enabling environment for biofortifi-cation in the future, the flagship will engage in policy analysis and advocacy at national and international levels and build capacity of key research and development partners to mainstream biofor-tification in their research and programming.

Projects that informed Flagship 1 work in Nigeria • HarvestPlus—development and delivery of vitamin A

cassava

Nigeria is one of the HarvestPlus target countries. HarvestPlus has a large and dynamic country team working with partners to develop and deliver vitamin A cassava in innovative ways.

• Development and testing of innovations for improvingnutrition

Led by the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and funded by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) and A4NH, this research focuses on enhancing the nutrient content of staple food crops such as maize, cassava, plantain, and

cowpea. The strategy is to develop varieties with enhanced nutri-ent content and reduced anti-nutritional factors to enhance utili-zation of nutrients. For plantains and cooking bananas, breeding research is focused on increasing the content of provitamin A, vit-amin C, and potassium. For maize, researchers are developing in-bred lines that combine high levels of provitamin A with high lev-els of methionine and cysteine in order to develop hybrids and synthetics with multiple nutrient content.

FLAGSHIP 2: FOOD SAFETY The flagship on Food Safety conducts targeted research on

specific food safety issues as well as by generating evidence on what approaches are likely to work and how an enabling environ-ment for innovative approaches to food safety can be achieved and sustained in informal markets. The high priority food safety issues for Phase II are biological contamination of perishable products and aflatoxins in staple crops. The flagship will scale-up successfully piloted solutions alongside rigorous monitoring and impact evaluations to increase understanding of the incentives, capacity, and enabling policy environment required for successful delivery at scale. At the same time, it will continue to generate evidence on food safety risks, and their assessment, communica-tion, and management. In close collaboration with the CRPs cov-ering livestock, fish, and grain legumes, this flagship will reach tens of millions of consumers, millions of farmers, and thousands of market agents working in priority countries in Africa and Asia.

A researcher inspects cassava in Abuja. Photo: M.Mitchell/ IFPRI

317

Projects that informed Flagship 2 work in Nigeria • AgResults Aflasafe™ Pilot Project1

Led by IITA, this pilot project will create a niche market for afla-toxin-free maize that will deliver three critical preconditions for enabling further development of the market. Firstly, the efficacy of biocontrol is being proven “beyond the lab” as a commercially viable product. Secondly, in order to build momentum around af-latoxins, teams promote broad-based awareness of the health impacts of aflatoxin among smallholder farmers. Thirdly, the pi-lot introduces a critical mass of certified maize into the market. The combination of these three preconditions are intended to create the space and momentum for other critical actors, such as the private sector, to act, in order to ensure the market contin-ues over time. The research agenda will help investors, imple-menters, and governments better understand the factors that can create market preconditions that would enable the estab-lishment of a long-term market for aflatoxin-free maize as well as the pull mechanisms that can successfully introduce a new prod-uct like aflasafe. The research also seeks to identify factors that can enhance mitigation of the negative health impacts of afla-toxin-infested maize and increase farmer incomes through yield enhancement. This pilot project is funded by a consortium of do-nors including the United States Agency for International Devel-opment (USAID); Department for International Development (DFID); Australian Agency for International Development (AUSAID); Canada Finance; the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF); and the World Bank.

• Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa (PACA) pro-jects - Expansion of biological control in Africa andtesting of a large-scale manufacturing model foraflasafe

Led by IITA and funded by the Meridian Institute and A4NH, these projects serve several purposes. By building upon the rela-tively new demonstration-scale plant for aflasafe production in Nigeria, the project intends to adapt the manufacturing process and transfer the production technology to public and private sec-tor investors in Nigeria and other countries in Africa, demon-strating that mass production of aflasafe is commercially viable.

FLAGSHIP 3: FOOD SYSTEMS FOR HEALTHIER DIETS The flagship on Food Systems for Healthier Diets aims to con-

tribute to the goal of healthier diets for poor and vulnerable pop-ulations through identifying and enabling interventions and inno-vations by private, public, and civil society actors in national and sub-national food systems. Nigeria is one of the four focus coun-tries for this flagship, meaning there will be an in-depth analysis

1 Aflasafe is a registered trademark of IITA. http://agresults.org/en/283/NigeriaAflasafePilot

of food systems at national and sub-national levels. Food sys-tems will be analyzed from a diet and nutrition outcome per-spective, addressed by filling nutrition gaps while also reducing excesses in unhealthy diet components. This flagship builds on research on dietary assessment and methods for improving nu-trition through value chains, placing both in a broader agricul-tural, environmental, social, economic, and political context.

Projects that informed Flagship 3 work in Nigeria • Improve food quality and diets of nutritionally disad-

vantaged populations, especially women and children

Led by IITA, this project involves food consumption and nutrition studies to characterize the diets and nutritional status of women, children, and other vulnerable groups. Information is generated for researchers to use in the development of technologies that leverage the nutritional qualities and minimize the anti-nutri-tional qualities of processed foods. The team conducts consumer acceptability studies of new processed products, including re-search on ways to improve traditional processing and storage methods. The activities are funded by several donors, including A4NH, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), USAID, and the Swedish International Development Co-operation Agency (Sida).

FLAGSHIP 6: SUPPORTING COUNTRY OUTCOMES THROUGH RESEARCH ON ENABLING ENVIRONMENTS

The aim of the flagship on Supporting Country Outcomes through Research on Enabling Environments is to identify, ex-ploit, and enhance synergies between agriculture, nutrition, and health policy processes and to promote enabling cross-sectoral policy and investment environments. This will be achieved through a combination of strategic, action-oriented research – guided by a conceptual framework and carried out in target countries, with global and regional organizations – and through coordinated support to other flagships and CRPs in areas where a multisectoral lens could add value to their sectoral policy work. By contributing to improved national enabling environments, this flagship enhances the impacts and sustainability of many invest-ments of A4NH and other research and development organiza-tions in target countries, resulting in a measurable shift in cur-rent trends for key nutrition, heath, and equity indicators.

• Using HCES data to measure and track intermediatedevelopment outcome (IDO) indicators

This project, led by the International Food Policy Research Insti-tute (IFPRI), builds upon ongoing work to develop standardized approaches and guidelines to strengthen the use of Household Consumption and Expenditure Surveys (HCES), as a proxy for 24-

318

hour dietary recall survey data. There is a dearth of dietary in-take data in low- and middle-income countries with which to di-agnose nutrition problems and design, monitor, and evaluate nu-trition programs. HCES are already being routinely conducted and funded in more than 120 countries. They are now being re-purposed to provide a less precise alternative, but one that is much more readily available, affordable, and sustainable relative to nutritionists' traditional mainstay, 24-hour recall surveys. This particular project analyzes HCES data to support the design, im-plementation, and/or evaluation of A4NH research. This activity is funded by A4NH.

OTHER A4NH SUPPORT AND ACTIVITIES Although we do not expect any projects in Nigeria under the

flagship on Improving Human Health, coordinated by the Inter-national Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, we will investigate op-portunities for Nigerian researchers to network with other col-leagues in West and Central Africa through the regional net-works supported by IITA and others.

CURRENT NATIONAL PARTNERS • CGIAR entities: Bioversity International, International

Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), IITA,ILRI, IFPRI, HarvestPlus, and WorldFish

• Development implementers: Africa Agriculture Tech-nology Foundation, AgResults, Development Dynamics,Dominican Centre for Human Resources Development,Forward Africa, Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition(GAIN), Helen Keller International, Human Empower-ment and Development Project (HEMADEP), JSI Re-search & Training Institute, Inc., Oxfam, Redeemed AIDSProgramme Action Committee (RCCG/RAPAC), Save theChildren, Senator Adeyemo Women Empowerment Co-operative

• NARS: Agriculture Development Programs (ADP) – inmultiple states, Institute for Agricultural Research (IAR)

– Zaria, Institute of Agricultural Research & Training(IAR&T), National Agricultural Extension and ResearchLiaison Services (NAERLS), National Horticultural Re-search Institute (NIHORT), and National Root Crops Re-search Institute (NRCRI)

• Policymakers: Federal Ministry of Agriculture and RuralDevelopment, Federal Ministry of Education, FederalMinistry of Health, National Agency for Food And DrugAdministration and Control, National Bureau of Statis-tics, National Malaria Control Program, and NationalOrientation Agency

• Research/Academic: Ahmadu Bello University, AkwaIbom State University, Federal College of Agriculture –Abeokuta and Akure, Obafemi Awolowo University, Uni-versity of Ibadan, University of Maiduguri, and Univer-sity of Uyo

• Value Chain: Cassava Growers Association of Nigeria,Commercial Agriculture Development Projects, ENVOYAgricultural Services, Manufacturer Association of Nige-ria, Nigerian Export Promotion Council, Niji Farms Ltd.,Poultry Association of Nigeria, and at least 24 differentnational agriculture enterprises and companies partici-pating in AgResults (not listed here)

• Other: Damisa Gurus, Justice Development and PeaceCommission (JDPC), National Television Authority (NTA),Radio Nigeria, and Smile Africa Network

PLANS FOR PHASE II, AS DESCRIBED IN A4NH PRE-PROPOSAL

All flagships except for Improving Human Health and Inte-grated Programs to Improve Nutrition plan to conduct research activities in Nigeria in Phase II, although specific activities have not yet been identified. On a high level, the beneficiary out-comes A4NH research is expected to contribute to achieving in Nigeria with partners are summarized in Table 2, below.

TABLE 1. A4NH’s development goals for Nigeria in Phase II

Beneficiary out-comes (impacts)

Target development outcomes (or IDOs) Key assumptions

Improved nutrition by consumption of biofortified crops

Improved diets for poor and vulnerable people Households reached with planting material will grow and con-sume the crop, and market excess production; mainstreaming efforts will expand available varieties and financing to additional countries; HarvestPlus and its partners will be able to offer suffi-cient technical assistance to promote adoption and consump-tion

Equity and inclusion achieved

Enabling environment improved

National partners and beneficiaries enabled

319

Households adopt improved, bioforti-fied varieties

Increased productivity Households reached with planting material will grow and adopt biofortified varieties, and will continue to have access to biofor-tified planting materials as needed. See above for assumption re: mainstreaming.

Equity and inclusion achieved

National partners and beneficiaries enabled

Enabling environment improved Reduced exposure to foodborne hazards

Enhanced smallholder market access Problems identified have significant impacts on human health; proposed interventions can significantly improve human health or are justified by other benefits (trade, livelihoods, animal wel-fare); solutions (innovations, policies, and programs) proposed can be adopted at scale and in ways that ensure equitable ac-cess to the poor, smallholders, men and women, and the infor-mal sector

Improved food safety

Equity and inclusion achieved Enabling environment improved

Countries improve food systems for healthier diets

Increased incomes and employment Incentives to improve food systems for healthier diets can be identified for different groups of actors (policymakers, private sector, consumers); stakeholders (researchers and enablers) will be committed and able to improve the quality of national data on diets; innovations and interventions will be acceptable to in-tended beneficiaries; strategic partners can be identified and engaged for scale up

Improved diets for poor and vulnerable people

Mitigation and adaptation achieved (in collaboration with CCAFS)

Equity and inclusion achieved

Enabling environment improved

National partners and beneficiaries enabled

Countries improve the enabling environ-ment for nutrition and health

All IDOs under SLO2 Champions identified among key decision-makers find ways to take forward key messages within their own sector and beyond; decisionmakers are incentivized to improve the way they find, appraise and use evidence; policymakers and practitioners are motivated to reduce undernutrition and poverty; stakeholders across and within sectoral domains (agriculture, nutrition, health, gender) engage with A4NH evidence.

Mitigation and adaptation achieved (in collabo-ration with CCAFS) Equity and inclusion achieved

Enabling environment improved

National partners and beneficiaries enabled

TABLE 2. A4NH’s proposed CGIAR relationships in Phase II

Planned CGIAR entities working with A4NH in

Phase II

Type of coordination mechanisms facilitated by A4NH flag-ships in Phase II

What A4NH will do and what it expects to offer in Phase II

All CRPs in the country through site integration++

Community of Practice/Docking Stations (for all CRPs), hosted by Food Systems for Healthier Diets

Docking Stations for aflatoxins activities, led by Food Safety

Convening Platform (for all CRPs), led by Supporting Country Out-comes through Research on Enabling Environments

All flagships except Improving Human Health and Integrated Programs to Improve Nutrition will be working in Nigeria

A4NH expects to work through staff on the ground, project investments, and the IFPRI country office

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE A world free of hunger and malnutrition

2033 K Street, NW | Washington, DC 20006-1002 USA | T: +1.202.862.5600 | F: +1.202.467.4439 | Email: ifpri@cgiar.org | www.ifpri.org

For more information, please contact: John McDermott, A4NH director| j.mcdermott@cgiar.org

www.a4nh.org

This publication has been prepared as an A4NH output. It has not been peer reviewed. Any opinions stated herein are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily representative of or endorsed by the International Food Policy Research Institute.

320

PROJECT NOTE 01 | JANUARY 1 2015

Tanzania

A4NH COUNTRY CONSULTATION NOTE | OCTOBER 2015

The CGIAR Research Program (CRP) on Agriculture for Nutri-

tion and Health (A4NH) responds to the global challenge of im-

proving food security, nutrition, and health. CGIAR has a long leg-

acy of building global food security, but ensuring consumers can

access enough healthy, affordable, and safe food requires a per-

spective that encompasses far more than agricultural productiv-

ity.

In August 2015, A4NH submitted a pre-proposal for a second, six-

year phase of the program to begin in 2017. A full proposal will

be submitted in March 2016 for approval. This brief describes

what A4NH is building on in Tanzania for its second phase.

FEATURED A4NH PROJECTS BY FLAGSHIP

FLAGSHIP 2: FOOD SAFETY

The flagship on Food Safety conducts targeted research on

specific food safety issues as well as by generating evidence on

what approaches are likely to work and how an enabling environ-

ment for innovative approaches to food safety can be achieved

and sustained in informal markets. The high priority food safety

issues for Phase II are biological contamination of perishable

products and aflatoxins in staple crops. The flagship will scale-up

successfully piloted solutions alongside rigorous monitoring and

impact evaluations to increase understanding of the incentives,

capacity, and enabling policy environment required for successful

delivery at scale. At the same time, it will continue to generate

evidence on food safety risks, and their assessment, communica-

tion, and management. In close collaboration with the CRPs cov-

ering livestock, fish, and grain legumes, this flagship will reach

tens of millions of consumers, millions of farmers, and thousands

of market agents working in priority countries in Africa and Asia.

Projects that informed Flagship 2 work in Tanzania Development of policies for aflatoxin mitigation in the

East African Community countries

Led by IITA and funded by USAID and A4NH this work involved co-

ordinating the development of a set of technical papers on situa-

tional analysis, scientific basis for aflatoxin control, and policy rec-

ommendations for the East African Community (EAC). Through

the USAID-funded project, Aflatoxin Policy and Programs for the

East Africa Region (APPEAR), IITA and partners developed 13

technical papers that fell into six clusters: (i) communication, (ii)

health, (iii) agriculture, (iv) alternative uses and disposal systems,

(v) animal health, and (vi) impacts on trade. The technical papers

address areas of standards for food and feed, impacts on human

and animal health, biocontrol, post-harvest handling, alternative

uses and disposal systems, economic impact on trade, and com-

munication strategies. These technical papers were migrated into

policy briefs for EAC Ministerial Councils, to address policy and

capacity development across the health, agriculture, trade, envi-

ronment, and communications sectors for East Africa. The

APPEAR project also includes a local capacity development com-

ponent focused on fostering increased technical expertise and

leader-ship skills among East African nationals responsible for af-

latoxin abatement activities across the health, agriculture, trade,

environment and communications sectors.

Capacity and action for aflatoxin reduction in East Af-

rica (CAAREA)

This project led by the Biosciences eastern and central Africa In-

ternational Livestock Research Institute (BecA - ILRI) Hub helps

build laboratory-based capacity for aflatoxins and provide im-

portant evidence characterizing the program in East Africa. Not

only does this establish aflatoxin research capacity and a platform

at BeCA (based in Nairobi), it characterizes maize fungi from

Kenya and Tanzania, identifies maize germplasm resistant to afla-

toxin, and tests modelling as a potential predictive tool. The pro-

ject is expected that with increased knowledge and capacity,

breeders in East Africa will affect subsequent changes to maize

breeding programs in the region. This work receives funding from

A4NH, AusAid, CSIRO and ABCF Fellowship which is also funded

by the Swedish, British, Australian governments, BMGF, and the

Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture.

Fisherwoman with her family in Bagamoyo, Tanzania. (Credit: S.Stacey/WorldFish)

321

Evaluation of aflatoxin and fumonisin contamination

along maize and bean value chains in Tanzania

Led by IITA and funded by USAID and A4NH, this project is under

the umbrella of Africa RISING Feed the Future, “Research in Sus-

tainable Intensification in the sub humid maize-based cropping

systems of Babati, Tanzania.” It identifies and deploys control in-

terventions to mitigate mycotoxin contamination in six target vil-

lages of Babati.

Enhancing child nutrition and livelihoods of rural

households through post-harvest value chain technol-

ogy improvements in groundnuts

Led by ICRISAT and funded by the McKnight Foundation and

A4NH, this work has several aims to address postharvest losses

of groundnuts due to aflatoxins and promote groundnut-based

weaning foods. Recognizing that gender issues are important

considerations in the groundnut value chains in Tanzania, the

project strives to improve productivity and reduce daily labor

borne by women, through utilization of more efficient and rapid

post-harvest and food-processing technologies for groundnuts. A

related objective is to empower farm families, especially women

and youth, and their associations or producer organizations in

ways that enable them to strengthen their links to markets, man-

age their farms as enterprises, learn how to find needed infor-

mation and external support, identify more beneficial ways to as-

sociate, and better defend their interests in the future. The pro-

ject also has a capacity building component focused on transfer-

ring technical and manufacturing expertise to local organizations.

Multiple activities to manage and reduce aflatoxin con-

tamination in groundnuts

ICRISAT has several activities in Tanzania to manage and reduce

aflatoxin and raise awareness among farmers, which are funded

by A4NH. Some of their work includes research on pre- and post-

harvest integrated management approaches and training

groundnut farmers in how to implement the different ap-

proaches. Another stream of work includes testing the robust-

ness of a lateral flow device and field sample extraction proto-

cols for aflatoxin detection at points-of-sale for groundnuts in

east and southern Africa. Researchers are identifying reliable la-

boratory assays for characterization of toxigenic and atoxigenic

A. flavus strains and developing aflatoxin mitigation and deci-

sionmaking tools for policymakers. ICRISAT works with NARS to

develop the diagnostic capacity of national researchers in order

to determine the effects of factors on aflatoxin contamination

and to characterize A. flavus and other fungi from Aspergillus

spp. for toxin production and to raise community awareness

about aflatoxins.

Risk based approaches to improving food safety and

market access in smallholder meat, milk, fish value

chains in four African countries (Safe Food Fair Food)

Led by ILRI and funded by BMZ, GIZ, and A4NH, this project’s ulti-

mate goal is to improve the livelihoods of poor producers and

consumers by reducing health risks and increasing the livelihood

benefits associated with meat, milk and fish value chains. Its pur-

pose is furthering research into the practical application of risk

analysis and economic and social methods by food safety stake-

holders and value chain actors, improving food safety and mar-

ket participation of the poor in informal markets for live-stock

products in sub-Saharan Africa. It pioneers and tests a practical,

whole-value-chain application of risk-based approaches to food

safety in selected countries and livestock value chains which are

the focus of the CRP on Livestock & Fish. It develops, tests, and

communicates technologies and methods to improve food safety

and enhance smallholder market access. At regional scale, it

works through food safety ‘champions’ to better incorporate

risk analysis and economic valuation methods into food safety

policy, commercial practice and veterinary education. In Tanza-

nia, the project focuses on dairy value chains.

Rapid assessment of potential benefits to human

health and nutrition from research on livestock and

fish market chains in Asia and Africa (RIA)

Led by ILRI and funded by the Australian Centre for International

Agricultural Research (ACIAR) and A4NH, this project develops

tools to conduct a rapid assessment of the potential benefits to

human health and nutrition from changes to livestock and fish

market chains. The project teams develop and test methods and

approaches for assessing value chains in relation to nutrition and

health and conduct assessments of food quality and safety re-

search priorities in value chains with high potential for pro-poor

transformation and of interest to CGIAR and ACIAR. In Tanzania,

the project focuses on dairy value chains.

FLAGSHIP 3: FOOD SYSTEMS FOR HEALTHIER DIETS

Food Systems for Healthier Diets aims to contribute to the

goal of healthier diets for poor and vulnerable populations

through identifying and enabling interventions and innovations

by private, public, and civil society actors in national and sub-na-

tional food systems. Food systems will be analyzed from a diet

and nutrition outcome perspective, focused on both by filling

gaps and by reducing excesses in unhealthy diet components.

Projects that informed Flagship 3 work in Tanzania Developing Agrobiodiversity-based Strategies: Allevia-

tion of Micronutrient and Protein Deficiencies among

Smallholder Households in Banana Growing Regions of

East Africa

Led by Bioversity International and funded by the Austrian Devel-

opment Agency, HarvestPlus, and A4NH, the goal of this project

is to help children aged 6-59 months from rural banana-depend-

ent smallholder households of East Africa to consume diversified

322

diets with sufficient micronutrients and protein through incorpo-

ration of greater agrobiodiversity in their family farms. The work

includes several activities including a preliminary and detailed

analysis of dietary sufficiency for young children (6-59 months)

and for the overall household, followed by participatory house-

hold experimentation groups designed to develop and promote

agrobiodiversity-based strategies to increase access to nutritious

and diversified plant and animal food sources. The project pilots

novel food preparation and combination methods for foods con-

sumed by young children in order to promote more diverse food

sources with enhanced content of protein, vitamin A and iron

and optimized retention and bioaccessibility. In partnership with

a community learning alliance, they also develop strategies for

outreach knowledge networks and partnerships.

Enhanced adoption of harmonized standards in East-

ern and Central Africa

Led by IITA and funded by A4NH and the Association for

Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa

(ASARECA), this project aims to enhance the access and availabil-

ity of information on harmonized East African standards for cas-

sava and potato and to enhance the capacity of different value

chain actors in the application of the harmonized standards to

improve the quality and safety of marketed products. The pro-

ject also includes activities to increase the effectiveness of moni-

toring and regulation of compliance to standards.

FLAGSHIP 5: SUPPORTING COUNTRY OUTCOMES

THROUGH INTEGRATED PROGRAMS AND POLICIES

This flagship responds to demand for evidence from policy-

makers and program implementers. Both groups recognize the

importance of agriculture within a multi-sectoral approach to im-

prove nutrition and health, but need more evidence on the im-

pacts of particular types of programs and policies, as well as on

what constitutes an effective enabling environment and how this

can be achieved and sustained. Key accomplishments from Phase

I include strong partnerships with countries, global and regional

organizations (e.g. SUN, CAADP) and NGOs and a solid portfolio

of evaluations designed to look at the impacts of promising inte-

grated agriculture-nutrition interventions across contexts, scales

and types of implementers. The flagship will also contribute to

the institutionalization of evidence-based, cross-sectoral policy-

making and programming by developing methods and tools and

building capacity of other researchers and evaluators, both in-

side and outside the CGIAR, to do high-quality conceptual and

empirical research on agriculture-nutrition-health linkages.

Projects that informed Flagship 5 work in Tanzania Creating Homestead Agriculture for Nutrition and Gen-

der Equity (CHANGE)

Led by IFPRI and funded by DFATD and A4NH, the overall goal of

this project is to design, implement, monitor and evaluate a

broad-scale Enhanced Homestead Food Production (EHFP) model

in two countries in Sub-Saharan Africa – Burkina Faso and Tanza-

nia - that improves the nutritional status of infants and young

children and their mothers through homestead food production

and nutrition behavior change using the Essential Nutrition Ac-

tions (ENA) framework. The EHFP model is expected to improve

child and maternal nutrition and health by increasing access to

nutrient-rich fruit, vegetable and animal-source foods; diversify-

ing diets; increasing household incomes; improving intra-house-

hold allocation of re-sources to favor women; empowering

women with sound knowledge, attitudes, practices and greater

control over re-sources; improving nutrient intakes and infant

and young child feeding and care practices; and increasing the

use of preventive health services. IFPRI leads the program evalu-

ation, which helps to explain the impact of the EHFP model in

Tanzania on anemia levels iron status among pre-school aged

children, child growth, and infant and young child feeding (IYCF)

practices and maternal health, hygiene and nutrition-related

knowledge.

OTHER A4NH SUPPORT AND ACTIVITIES We do not expect any projects in Tanzania under the flagship

on Improving Human Health, but we will investigate opportuni-

ties for Tanzanian researchers to network with other colleagues

in East and Southern Africa through regional networks and na-

tional partners, including the Southern African Centre for Infec-

tious Disease Surveillance (SACIDS) and the Sokoine University of

Agriculture. Improving Human Health will be coordinated by ILRI

together with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medi-

cine and its research will focus on three main areas: agro-ecosys-

tem change on health outcomes, zoonotic and emerging diseases

and global agriculture-health challenges such as anti-microbial

resistance.

CURRENT NATIONAL PARTNERS CGIAR entities: Bioversity International, CIMMYT,

ICRISAT, IFPRI, IITA, ILRI, WorldFish, CRP on Livestock &

Fish

Development implementers: Farm Concern Interna-

tional, Helen Keller International, MoreMilkIT project,

NAFAKA Staples Value Chain activity (USAID and ACDI-

VOCA)

NARS: Agricultural Research Institute (ARI) – multiple

substations, Sahelian Research Institute - Arusha

Policymakers: African Union Inter-African Bureau for

Animal Resources (AU-IBAR), East African Community

323

(EAC), IGAD Center for Pastoral Areas and Livestock De-

velopment (ICPALD), Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in

Africa (PACA), Ministry of Health and Social Welfare,

Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development, Kiteto

and Kongwa District councils

Research/Academic: Sokoine University of Agriculture

Value Chain: milk hawkers, consumers, processors,

traders, transporters, market officials, retailers, millers,

livestock marketing councils.

PLANS FOR PHASE II, AS DESCRIBED IN A4NH PRE-PROPOSAL

All flagships except for Biofortification and Improving Human

Health have specific plans to conduct research activities in Tanza-

nia in Phase II, although specific activities have not yet been

identified. On a high level, the beneficiary outcomes A4NH re-

search is expected to contribute to achieving in Tanzania with

partners are summarized in Table 1, below. We will not be able

to achieve these outcomes alone. In Table 2, we describe how

we anticipate working with other CGIAR entities participating in

the site integration ++ process in order to achieve these develop-

ment goals.

TABLE 1. A4NH’s development goals for Tanzania in Phase II

Beneficiary outcomes (impacts) Target development outcomes (or IDOs) Key assumptions

Reduced exposure to foodborne hazards

Enhanced smallholder market access Problems identified have significant impacts on human health; proposed interventions can significantly improve human health or are justified by other benefits (trade, livelihoods, animal welfare); solutions (innovations, poli-cies, and programs) proposed can be adopted at scale and in ways that ensure equitable access to the poor, small-holders, men and women, and the informal sector

Improved food safety

Equity and inclusion achieved

Enabling environment improved

Countries improve food systems for healthier diets

Increased incomes and employment Incentives to improve food systems for healthier diets can be identified for different groups of actors (policy-makers, private sector, consumers); stakeholders (re-searchers and enablers) will be committed and able to im-prove the quality of national data on diets; innovations and interventions will be acceptable to intended benefi-ciaries; strategic partners can be identified and engaged for scale up

Improved diets for poor and vulnerable people

Mitigation and adaptation achieved

Equity and inclusion achieved

Enabling environment improved

National partners and beneficiaries enabled

Successful and cost-effective integrated nutrition-sensitive programs designed, implemented, scaled-up and evalu-ated

Increased incomes and employment Results generated from evaluation activities are useful and relevant and have clear operational implications for implements who have the capacity and resources to use them; programs that are found to be cost-effective are funded and scaled up, achieving high coverage and high quality to achieve expected results

Improved diets for poor and vulnerable people

Equity and inclusion achieved

National partners and beneficiaries enabled

Countries improve the enabling environ-ment for nutrition and health

All IDOs under SLO2 Champions identified among key decision-makers find ways to take forward key messages within their own sec-tor and beyond; decisionmakers are incentivized to im-prove the way they find, appraise and use evidence; poli-cymakers and practitioners are motivated to reduce un-dernutrition and poverty; stakeholders across and within sectoral domains (agriculture, nutrition, health, gender) engage with A4NH evidence.

Mitigation and adaptation achieved

Equity and inclusion achieved

Enabling environment improved

National partners and beneficiaries enabled

324

TABLE 2. A4NH’s proposed CGIAR relationships in Phase II

Planned CGIAR entities working with A4NH in

Phase II

Type of coordination mechanisms facilitated by A4NH flag-ships in Phase II

What A4NH will do and what it expects to offer in Phase II

To be determined based on CGIAR coordi-nation arrangements

Community of Practice/Docking Stations (for all CRPs), hosted by Food Systems for Healthier Diets

Docking Stations for aflatoxin and ASF value chain activities, led by Food Safety

Convening Platform (for all CRPs), led by Supporting Country Outcomes through Integrated Programs and Policies

All flagships except Biofortification and Improving Human Health will be working in Tanzania

A4NH expects to work through staff on the ground, project investments, and the IITA country office

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE A world free of hunger and malnutrition

2033 K Street, NW | Washington, DC 20006-1002 USA | T: +1.202.862.5600 | F: +1.202.467.4439 | Email: ifpri@cgiar.org | www.ifpri.org

For more information, please contact:

John McDermott, A4NH director| j.mcdermott@cgiar.org

www.a4nh.org

This publication has been prepared as an A4NH output. It has not been peer reviewed. Any opinions stated herein are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily representative of or endorsed by the International Food Policy Research Institute.

Copyright © 2015 International Food Policy Research Institute. All rights reserved. To obtain permission to republish, contact ifpri-copyright@cgiar.org.

325

PROJECT NOTE 01 | JANUARY 1 2015

Vietnam

A4NH COUNTRY CONSULTATION NOTE | DECEMBER 2015

The CGIAR Research Program (CRP) on Agriculture for Nutri-

tion and Health (A4NH) responds to the global challenge of im-

proving food security, nutrition, and health. CGIAR has a long leg-

acy of building global food security, but ensuring consumers can

access enough healthy, affordable, and safe food requires a per-

spective that encompasses far more than agricultural productiv-

ity.

In August 2015, A4NH submitted a pre-proposal for a second, six-

year phase of the program to begin in 2017. A full proposal will

be submitted in March 2016 for approval. This brief describes

what A4NH is building on in Vietnam for its second phase.

ACTIVE A4NH PROJECTS IN 2015 BY FLAGSHIP

FLAGSHIP 1: BIOFORTIFICATION

Biofortification builds on the strong track record of the Har-

vestPlus program. During Phase I of A4NH, HarvestPlus transi-

tioned from development to delivery phase. During Phase II, the

flagship will deliver outcomes at scale (reaching 20 million farm

households by 2020) and conduct research to fill key evidence

gaps and to learn lessons from delivery for future research and

scaling. As part of building an enabling environment for biofortifi-

cation in the future, the flagship will engage in policy analysis and

advocacy at national and international levels and build capacity

of key research and development partners to mainstream biofor-

tification in their research and programming. HarvestPlus has not

conducted any major activities in Vietnam to date, but it is plan-

ning to test and release zinc rice during Phase II.

FLAGSHIP 2: FOOD SAFETY

The flagship on Food Safety conducts targeted research on

specific food safety issues as well as by generating evidence on

what approaches are likely to work and how an enabling environ-

ment for innovative approaches to food safety can be achieved

and sustained in informal markets. The high priority food safety

issues for Phase II are biological contamination of perishable

products and aflatoxins in staple crops. The flagship will scale-up

successfully piloted solutions alongside rigorous monitoring and

impact evaluations to increase understanding of the incentives,

capacity, and enabling policy environment required for successful

delivery at scale. At the same time, it will continue to generate

evidence on food safety risks, and their assessment, communica-

tion, and management. In close collaboration with the CRPs cov-

ering livestock, fish, and grain legumes, this flagship will reach

tens of millions of consumers, millions of farmers, and thousands

of market agents working in priority countries in Africa and Asia.

Vietnam will be a priority country for food safety research in

Phase II, particularly around risks associated with perishable

foods such as vegetables and animal source foods. The flagship

team will engage a number of national partners as well as those

working with the Global Food Safety Partnership (GFSP) of the

World Bank.

Projects that informed Flagship 2 work in Vietnam Rapid assessment of potential benefits to human

health and nutrition from research on livestock and fish

market chains in Asia and Africa (RIA)

Led by ILRI and funded by the Australian Centre for International

Agricultural Research (ACIAR) and A4NH, this project developed

and tested methods and approaches for assessing value chains in

relation to nutrition and health and conducted assessments of

food quality and safety research priorities in value chains with

high potential for pro-poor transformation and of interest to

CGIAR and ACIAR. The project officially ended in 2013, but re-

search teams continue to analyze data that was collected. In Vi-

etnam, the research teams focused the rapid assessment on pork

value chains.

Farmers in Hoa Binh Province. NW Vietnam. Credit: N.Palmer/CIAT

326

Reducing disease risks and improving food safety in

small pig value chains in Vietnam (PigRisk)

Funded by ACIAR and A4NH, PigRisk aims to improve the liveli-

hoods of the rural and urban poor in Vietnam by reducing the

disease risks associated with pig value chains. The research

team, led by ILRI, assesses the impacts of pork-borne diseases on

human health and the livestock sector, and identifies critical

points for risk management. The project develops and tests in-

centive-based innovations to improve the management of ani-

mal and human health risks in smallholder pig value chains.

Scoping study to evaluate the potential of integrated

indigenous pig systems to improve livelihoods and safe

pork consumption for poor ethnic minority smallhold-

ers in the Central Highlands of Vietnam

This cross-CGIAR project with the CRPs on A4NH, Livestock and

Fish, and Humidtropics, plus ILRI and CIAT, is designed to assess

food safety hazards and zoonoses in indigenous pig populations,

including the awareness of butchers and pig farmers of risks

from zoonoses, particularly Taeniasis and Trichinellosis. The re-

search team provides baseline information on the presence of

these diseases in native slaughter pigs. Results from the project

can inform future in-depth research topics on food safety.

National task force of risk assessment for food safety

management in Vietnam

With funds from A4NH and support from ILRI and other partners,

a task force was established in 2013 to build capacity of deci-

sionmakers and national researchers in Vietnam to use risk-

based approaches for food safety management. Bringing to-

gether risk assessment experts from universities and research in-

stitutes as well as representatives from the Ministry of Health

and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD),

the task force develops training courses on advanced risk assess-

ment for task force members as well as for veterinary staff from

the Department of Animal Health in MARD. To date, the task

force has conducted a series of case studies to characterize the

health risks associated with vegetables and fish grown and

caught in wastewater, ready-to-eat vegetable and noodle soup,

and antibiotic residues in pork.

FLAGSHIP 3: FOOD SYSTEMS FOR HEALTHIER DIETS

Food Systems for Healthier Diets aims to contribute to the

goal of healthier diets for poor and vulnerable populations

through identifying and enabling interventions and innovations

by private, public, and civil society actors in national and sub-na-

tional food systems. Food systems will be analyzed from a diet

and nutrition outcome perspective, focused on both by filling

gaps and by reducing excesses in unhealthy diet components. Vi-

etnam will be one of the four focus countries for research on na-

tional and subnational food systems.

Projects that informed Flagship 3 work in Vietnam Nutrition-sensitive landscapes pilots

This cross-CRP initiative applies a Nutrition-Sensitive Landscapes

(NSL) approach in three pilot sites in Kenya, Vietnam, and Zam-

bia. The research team represents A4NH and the CRP on Humid

Tropics and Aquatic Agricultural Systems (AAS). The NSL ap-

proach considers the diverse interactions and interconnectivity

within a given landscape to optimize the multiple goals of food

and nutrition security, sustainable use of natural resources and

conservation of biodiversity, both for human health and environ-

mental health. Some of the questions the pilots seek to answer

are: What is the relationship between ecosystems, agricultural

management and human nutrition in various settings? How does

this relationship change over time when landscapes are going

through a transition, e.g., agricultural intensification, from sub-

sistence to commercial agriculture, or rural to urban migration?

Lastly, the pilots can provide more information on how land-

scapes, their ecosystems, biodiversity and the services it pro-

vides, can be managed for human nutrition, and other compo-

nents of human well-being and environmental sustainability, and

identify potential game changers that can break the vicious cycle

of poor agricultural management, environmental degradation

and human nutrition.

FLAGSHIP 4: IMPROVING HUMAN HEALTH

Improving Human Health will assess and manage health risks

created by agriculture in order to improve human health and ag-

ricultural productivity. Research will contribute to innovation in

three main areas: diseases in agricultural landscapes, emerging

and neglected zoonotic diseases, and global challenges linking

agriculture and health. In Phase II, we propose a new joint part-

nership arrangement co-convened by the London School of Hy-

giene and Tropical Medicine and the International Livestock Re-

search Institute, thus bridging agriculture and public health re-

search to identify key opportunities for integrated actions that

improve human health. Priorities for cross-sectoral research in-

clude health effects of ecosystem changes (such as large scale

agricultural water use), shared disease risks and their control be-

tween people and animals, and opportunities to increase health

benefits by co-locating and aligning health and agriculture inter-

ventions. We also note some key emerging challenges, such as

antimicrobial resistance and chemical resistance, in which coor-

dinated health and agriculture actions are critical.

Projects that informed Flagship 4 work in Vietnam Ecosystem approaches to the better management of

zoonotic emerging infectious diseases in Southeast

Asia (EcoZD)

The EcoZD project was a four year project in six Southeast Asian

countries, including Vietnam. Led by the International Livestock

327

Research Institute (ILRI) and funded by the International Devel-

opment Research Centre, EcoZD was designed to increase the

knowledge and skills of Southeast Asian researchers and imple-

menters to prevent and control zoonotic diseases by using a

novel Ecohealth approach. Since the project ended in 2013,

A4NH has provided funds to help continue the capacity building

efforts in the region, through generation of case studies and

training at various levels, including universities, field teams, and

extension services.

Surveillance and early warning systems for climate

sensitive diseases in Vietnam and Laos (Pestforecast)

Funded by CCAFS and A4NH, Pestforecast develops tools to fore-

cast climate-sensitive animal and plant diseases in Vietnam and

Laos that will help livestock keepers, rubber and maize planters

to prepare and avoid diseases. More specifically, this project, led

by ILRI, develops and disseminates maps of hotspots for climate-

sensitive animal and zoonotic diseases, develops and pilots a

real-time seasonal prediction system for Japanese encephalitis

and leptospirosis in people and animals, and explores the poten-

tial for weather-based forecasting for aflatoxin mitigation in Vi-

etnam.

CURRENT NATIONAL PARTNERS CGIAR entities: Bioversity International, CIAT, ICRISAT,

IFPRI, IITA, ILRI, IRRI, WorldFish

Policymakers: Department of Animal Health; Ministry

of Agriculture and Rural Health; Ministry of Health; Vi-

etnam Food Administration

Research/Academic: Hanoi School of Public Health; In-

stitute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment; In-

stitute for Social and Medical Studies; Institute For So-

cial Development Studies; Institute of Environmental

Health and Sustainable Development of the Vietnam

Union of Science and Technology Associations; National

Institute of Animal Science; National Institute of Nutri-

tion; Nong Lam University; Pasteur Institute, Ho Chi

Minh City; Research Institute for Oil and Oil Plants; Tay

Nguyen University; Vietnam National University of Agri-

culture

Other: HealthBridge Foundation of Canada

PLANS FOR PHASE II, AS DESCRIBED IN A4NH PRE-PROPOSAL

All flagships except for Supporting Country Outcomes

through Integrated Programs and Policies have specific plans to

conduct research activities in Vietnam in Phase II, although spe-

cific activities have not yet been identified. On a high level, the

beneficiary outcomes A4NH research is expected to contribute

to achieving in Vietnam with partners are summarized in Table 1,

below. We will not be able to achieve these outcomes alone. In

Table 2, we describe how we anticipate working with other

CGIAR entities participating in the site integration ++ process in

order to achieve these development goals.

TABLE 1. A4NH’s development goals for Vietnam in Phase II

Beneficiary outcomes (impacts) Target development outcomes (or IDOs) Key assumptions

Improved nutrition by consumption of biofortified crops

Improved diets for poor and vulnerable people Households reached with planting material will grow and consume the crop, and market excess production; main-streaming efforts will expand available varieties and fi-nancing to additional countries; HarvestPlus and its part-ners will be able to offer sufficient technical assistance to promote adoption and consumption

Equity and inclusion achieved

Enabling environment improved

National partners and beneficiaries enabled

Households adopt improved, bioforti-fied varieties

Increased productivity Households reached with planting material will grow and adopt biofortified varieties, and will continue to have ac-cess to biofortified planting materials as needed. See above for assumption re: mainstreaming.

Equity and inclusion achieved

National partners and beneficiaries enabled

Enabling environment improved

Reduced exposure to foodborne hazards

Enhanced smallholder market access Problems identified have significant impacts on human health; proposed interventions can significantly improve human health or are justified by other benefits (trade,

Improved food safety

Equity and inclusion achieved

328

Enabling environment improved livelihoods, animal welfare); solutions (innovations, poli-cies, and programs) proposed can be adopted at scale and in ways that ensure equitable access to the poor, small-holders, men and women, and the informal sector

Countries improve food systems for healthier diets

Increased incomes and employment Incentives to improve food systems for healthier diets can be identified for different groups of actors (policy-makers, private sector, consumers); stakeholders (re-searchers and enablers) will be committed and able to im-prove the quality of national data on diets; innovations and interventions will be acceptable to intended benefi-ciaries; strategic partners can be identified and engaged for scale up

Improved diets for poor and vulnerable people

Mitigation and adaptation achieved

Equity and inclusion achieved

Enabling environment improved

National partners and beneficiaries enabled

Reduced risks of emerging pandemics from animals, of agri-culture-associated diseases of poor pop-ulations, of health implications of eco-system change

Global agri-health challenges addressed

Improved human and animal health through better agricultural practices

Innovations and interventions will be acceptable and ac-cessible for intended beneficiaries; program implement-ers (government, civil society and communities can design and implement interventions for key target groups that are scalable and sustainable.

More sustainably managed agro-ecosystems

Mitigation and adaptation achieved (in collabo-ration with CCAFS)

Equity and inclusion achieved

Enabling environment improved

National partners and beneficiaries enabled

TABLE 2. A4NH’s proposed CGIAR relationships in Phase II

Planned CGIAR entities working with A4NH in

Phase II

Type of coordination mechanisms facilitated by A4NH flag-ships in Phase II

What A4NH will do and what it expects to offer in Phase II

To be determined based on CGIAR coordi-nation arrangements

Community of Practice/Docking Stations (for all CRPs), hosted by Food Systems for Healthier Diets

Docking Station for livestock value chain activities, led by Food Safety

All flagships except Supporting Country Outcomes through Integrated Programs and Policies will be working in Vietnam

A4NH expects to work through staff on the ground, project investments, and the CIAT country office

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE A world free of hunger and malnutrition

2033 K Street, NW | Washington, DC 20006-1002 USA | T: +1.202.862.5600 | F: +1.202.467.4439 | Email: ifpri@cgiar.org | www.ifpri.org

For more information, please contact:

John McDermott, A4NH director| j.mcdermott@cgiar.org

www.a4nh.org

This publication has been prepared as an A4NH output. It has not been peer reviewed. Any opinions stated herein are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily representative of or endorsed by the International Food Policy Research Institute.

Copyright © 2015 International Food Policy Research Institute. All rights reserved. To obtain permission to republish, contact ifpri-copyright@cgiar.org.

This publication has been prepared as an A4NH output. It has not been peer reviewed. Any opinions stated herein are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily representative of or endorsed by the International Food Policy Research Institute.

Copyright © 2015 International Food Policy Research Institute. All rights reserved. To obtain permission to republish, contact ifpri-copyright@cgiar.org.

329

PROJECT NOTE 01 | JANUARY 1 2015

Zambia

A4NH COUNTRY CONSULTATION NOTE | DECEMBER 2015

The CGIAR Research Program (CRP) on Agriculture for Nutri-tion and Health (A4NH) responds to the global challenge of im-proving food security, nutrition, and health. CGIAR has a long leg-acy of building global food security, but ensuring consumers can access enough healthy, affordable, and safe food requires a per-spective that encompasses far more than agricultural productiv-ity.

In August 2015, A4NH submitted a pre-proposal for a second, six-year phase of the program to begin in 2017. A full proposal will be submitted in March 2016 for approval. This brief describes what A4NH is building on in Zambia for its second phase.

FEATURED A4NH PROJECTS BY FLAGSHIP

FLAGSHIP 1: BIOFORTIFICATION Biofortification builds on the strong track record of the Har-

vestPlus program. During Phase I of A4NH, HarvestPlus transi-tioned from development to delivery phase. During Phase II, the flagship will deliver outcomes at scale (reaching 20 million farm households by 2020) and conduct research to fill key evidence gaps and to learn lessons from delivery for future research and scaling. As part of building an enabling environment for biofortifi-cation in the future, the flagship will engage in policy analysis and advocacy at national and international levels and build capacity of key research and development partners to mainstream biofor-tification in their research and programming.

Zambia is one of the HarvestPlus target countries. HarvestPlus has a large and dynamic country team working with partners to develop and deliver biofortified crops in innovative ways.

Projects that informed Flagship 1 work in Zambia • Development and testing of innovations for improving

nutrition

Led by IITA and funded by CIAT and A4NH, this research focuses on enhancing the nutrient content of staple food crops such as maize, cassava, plantain, and cowpea. The strategy is to develop varieties with enhanced nutrient content and reduced anti-nutri-tional factors to enhance utilization of nutrients. For plantains and cooking bananas, breeding research focuses on increasing the content of provitamin A, vitamin C, and potassium. For maize,

researchers develop inbred lines that combine high levels of pro-vitamin A with high levels of methionine and cysteine in order to develop hybrids and synthetics with multiple nutrient content

FLAGSHIP 2: FOOD SAFETY The flagship on Food Safety conducts targeted research on

specific food safety issues by generating evidence on what ap-proaches are likely to work and how an enabling environment for innovative approaches to food safety can be achieved and sus-tained in informal markets. The high priority food safety issues in this flagship are biological contamination of perishable products and aflatoxins in staple crops. The flagship will scale-up success-fully piloted solutions alongside rigorous monitoring and impact evaluations to increase understanding of the incentives, capacity, and enabling policy environment required for successful delivery at scale. At the same time, it will continue to generate evidence on food safety risks, and their assessment, communication, and management. In close collaboration with the CRPs covering live-stock, fish, and grain legumes, this flagship will reach tens of mil-lions of consumers, millions of farmers, and thousands of market agents working in priority countries in Africa and Asia.

Woman cooking in the Barotse floodplain of Zambia. Photo credit: E.Herman-owicz/ Bioversity International

330

Projects that informed Flagship 2 work in Zambia • AAS Barotse: Nutrition and Food Safety

This cross-CRP project with the CRP on Aquatic Agricultural Sys-tems (AAS) is funded by A4NH and implemented by a team of scientists from Bioversity International, ILRI, and WorldFish. For prioritized foods and food safety hazards, the team measures levels of contamination with disease causing agents at different points along the value chain, followed by assessing the effect of interventions on contamination levels using this data to estimate disease reduction and impact if interventions were applied at scale. The priority groups in this study are mothers and infants. One stream of work examines food safety of dried fish as part of a strategy for improving diets.

• Effects of aflatoxin exposure on nutritional status forchildren aged 9-24months in Chipata and Monze dis-tricts of Zambia, the critical role of homemade comple-mentary foods

Funded by CARE and A4NH and implemented by IITA, the goal of this project is to determine aflatoxin content of maize- and groundnut-based complementary foods for young children (9-24 months), assess the aflatoxin levels in the young children, and es-tablish an association between consumption of contaminated maize- and groundnut-based complementary foods and the nu-tritional status of young children in Chipata and Monze districts.

• Evaluation of aflatoxin in maize value chain in Zambia

Led by IITA and funded by USAID and A4NH, this project is a component of the Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa (PACA). It incorporates experiences and lessons learned from similar projects implemented by IITA and ICRISAT in East, West, and Southern Africa. Its objectives are to quantify the incidence of aflatoxin in maize and groundnut, and to estimate population densities and characterize Aspergillus flavus in Eastern Zambia and identify, with farmers, the best atoxigenic strains for biocon-trol in maize and groundnut. The project aims to commercialize the best atoxigenic strains into a commercial product and engage in product stewardship and market development, nurture na-tional capacity in aflatoxin research and monitoring, and create awareness on aflatoxin contamination. Lastly, the team investi-gates and promotes integrated management approaches against pre- and postharvest aflatoxin contamination and trains farmers in integrated management options, and evaluates the effective-ness of aflatoxin management in maize and groundnut, with a fo-cus on biocontrol.

• Evaluation of country-specific aflasafe™ biocontrolproducts for aflatoxin mitigation in farmer's fields

IITA leads this activity funded by the Meridian Institute and A4NH to determine the value of the Zambian aflasafe™ product and promote its utilization amongst the private sector. A second

objective is to develop a business plan for commercializing aflasafe™ ZM01 and ZM02 in Zambia.

• Multiple activities to manage and reduce aflatoxin con-tamination in groundnuts

ICRISAT has several activities in Zambia to manage and reduce af-latoxin and raise awareness among farmers, which are funded by A4NH. Some of their work includes research on pre- and post-harvest integrated management approaches and training groundnut farmers in how to implement the different ap-proaches. Another stream of work includes testing the robust-ness of a lateral flow device and field sample extraction proto-cols for aflatoxin detection at points-of-sale for groundnuts in east and southern Africa. Researchers identify reliable laboratory assays for characterization of toxigenic and atoxigenic A. flavus strains and develop aflatoxin mitigation and decisionmaking tools for policymakers. ICRISAT works with NARS to develop the diagnostic capacity of national researchers in order to determine the effects of factors on aflatoxin contamination and to charac-terize A. flavus and other fungi from Aspergillus spp. for toxin production and to raise community awareness about aflatoxin.

• Partnership for Aflatoxin Control in Africa (PACA) pro-jects - Expansion of biological control in Africa andtesting of a large-scale manufacturing model foraflasafe™

Led by IITA and funded by the Meridian Institute and A4NH, these projects serve several purposes. By building upon the rela-tively new demonstration-scale plant for aflasafe™ production in Nigeria, the project intends to adapt the manufacturing process and transfer the production technology to public and private sec-tor investors in other countries in Africa, including Zambia, demonstrating that mass production of aflasafe™ is commer-cially viable.

FLAGSHIP 3: FOOD SYSTEMS FOR HEALTHIER DIETS The flagship on Food Systems for Healthier Diets aims to con-

tribute to the goal of healthier diets for poor and vulnerable pop-ulations through identifying and enabling interventions and inno-vations by private, public, and civil society actors in national and sub-national food systems. Food systems will be analyzed from a diet and nutrition outcome perspective, focused on both by fill-ing gaps and by reducing excesses in unhealthy diet components. The flagship builds on research on dietary assessment and meth-ods for improving nutrition through value chains and places these in a broader agricultural, environmental, social, economic and political decisionmaking framework. In the long term, pro-gress will be evaluated through improvements in diets, particu-larly for women, children, and vulnerable populations. Near-term progress will be measured through greater knowledge, aware-ness and systematic attention to diets and dietary transitions by

331

researchers, by strategic partners from the private sector and civil society, by policymakers, and consumers in target countries.

Projects that informed Flagship 3 work in Zambia • Improve food quality and diets of nutritionally disad-

vantaged populations especially women and children

Led by IITA, this project involves food consumption and nutrition studies to characterize the diets and nutritional status of women, children, and other vulnerable groups. Information is generated for researchers to use in the development of technologies that leverage the nutritional qualities and minimize the anti-nutri-tional qualities of processed foods. The team conducts consumer acceptability studies of new processed products, including re-search on ways to improve traditional processing and storage methods. The activities are funded by several donors, including A4NH, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), USAID, and the Swedish International Development Co-operation Agency (Sida).

• Nutrition-sensitive landscapes pilots

This cross-CRP initiative applies a Nutrition-Sensitive Landscapes (NSL) approach in three pilot sites in Kenya, Vietnam, and Zam-bia. The research team represents A4NH and the CRP on Humid Tropics and Aquatic Agricultural Systems (AAS). The NSL ap-proach considers the diverse interactions and interconnectivity within a given landscape to optimize the multiple goals of food and nutrition security, sustainable use of natural resources and conservation of biodiversity, both for human health, as well as environmental health. Some of the questions the pilots seek to answer are: What is the relationship between ecosystems, agri-cultural management and human nutrition in various settings? How does this relationship change over time when landscapes are going through a transition, e.g., agricultural intensification, from subsistence to commercial agriculture, or rural to urban mi-gration? Lastly, the pilots provide more information on how landscapes, their ecosystems, biodiversity and the services they provide, can be managed for human nutrition, and other compo-nents of human well-being and environmental sustainability and identify potential game changers that can break the vicious cycle of poor agricultural management, environmental degradation and human nutrition.

FLAGSHIP 5: SUPPORTING COUNTRY OUTCOMES THROUGH INTEGRATED PROGRAMS AND POLICIES

This flagship responds to demand for evidence from policy-makers and program implementers. Both groups recognize the importance of agriculture within a multi-sectoral approach to im-prove nutrition and health, but need more evidence on the im-pacts of particular types of programs and policies, as well as on what constitutes an effective enabling environment and how this can be achieved and sustained. Key accomplishments from Phase

I include strong partnerships with countries, global and regional organizations (e.g. SUN, CAADP) and NGOs and a solid portfolio of evaluations designed to look at the impacts of promising inte-grated agriculture-nutrition interventions across contexts, scales and types of implementers. The flagship will also contribute to the institutionalization of evidence-based, cross-sectoral policy-making and programming by developing methods and tools and building capacity of other researchers and evaluators, both in-side and outside the CGIAR, to do high-quality conceptual and empirical research on agriculture-nutrition-health linkages.

Projects that informed Flagship 5 work in Zambia • Expanding policy research

Led by IFPRI and funded by A4NH, this research addresses the need for and approaches to integration among the agriculture, nutrition, and health sectors, at both the program and policy lev-els. Leveraging Agriculture for Nutrition in East Africa (LANEA), (2013-2014 in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda) sought to identify agriculture-nutrition linkages in three case study countries and explore the effect of the political context and institutional struc-tures (government, districts and civil society organization) on lev-eraging agriculture for nutrition and in particular in relation to scaling up and expanding coverage in nutrition through agricul-ture and the broader agri-food system. Stories of Change (2015-2016 in Ethiopia, Zambia, Bangladesh, Nepal, and India) builds and expands on this work to foster and support experiential learning on how to address the challenge of undernutrition in different contexts. The project applies tools, methods and ap-proaches in selected countries to better understand, engage with, influence and evaluate multisectoral action to reduce un-dernutrition.

• Making agricultural innovations work for smallholderfarmers affected by HIV/AIDS in southern Africa(MIRACLE)

Funded by the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) and implemented by IITA, the MIRACLE project was a multi-year project operating in Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland and Zambia. Its overall purpose was to improve the health and nutritional status, food security, and income of people with living and affected by HIV and AIDS (PLWHA). This integrated agricul-ture-nutrition project included promoting the production, con-sumption and marketing of nutritionally-enhanced crop and live-stock products while strengthening capacity of stakeholders en-gaged in agricultural activities. It also had activities aimed at changing the enabling environment for agricultural and health policies.

332

• RAIN: Realigning agriculture to improve nutrition

The RAIN project aims to reduce the prevalence of stunting in children through integrated agriculture, health and nutrition in-terventions during the critical period from conception until 24 months of age by supporting effective agriculture interventions to increase year-round availability of and access to good-quality foods at household level through improved production, and to optimize health and care through delivery of social behavior change communication around optimal nutrition and health practices. The project is funded by Irish Aid and implemented by Concern Worldwide. IFPRI’s role is to evaluate the impact of the RAIN model, including monitoring process indicators to under-stand the intended impact pathways, and document and dissem-inate learning from the project at local, national and interna-tional levels. The evaluation assesses the impact of two different RAIN interventions on stunting among young children (24 months and older), on the availability of and access to a year-round supply of diverse and micronutrient-rich plan and animal source foods at household level, and on preventive and curative health and nutrition knowledge among caregivers.

CURRENT NATIONAL PARTNERS • CGIAR entities: Bioversity International, CIFOR,

CIMMYT, CIP, ICRISAT, IFPRI, IITA, ILRI, WorldFish, CRPson Aquatic Agricultural Systems, HumidTropics, andLivestock & Fish

• Development implementers: CARE-Zambia, Civil Soci-ety Organisation on Scaling Up Nutrition (CSO-SUN),Concern Worldwide, Development Aid From People toPeople, Mumbwa Child Development Agency, PeaceCorps-Zambia, Programme Against Malnutrition, USAID-Zambia, World Vision-Zambia

• NARS: Golden Valley Agricultural Research Trust (GART),Zambia Agriculture Research Institute (ZARI)

• Policymakers: Common Market For Eastern And South-ern Africa (COMESA), Micronutrient Malnutrition Task-force, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (includ-ing Department of Agriculture, Department of Fisheries,Department of Livestock, Department of Veterinary Ser-vices), Ministry of Health, National Food and NutritionCommission of Zambia, Zambia Bureau of Standards

• Research/Academic: National Institute For ScientificAnd Industrial Research, Tropical Diseases ResearchCentre, Indaba Agricultural Policy Research Institute, USDepartment of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Ser-vice, University of Zambia

• Value Chain: Eastern Province Farmers’ Cooperative,EMVEST Farms, Kamano Seed, Land ‘O Lakes, ProfitPlus,SeedCo, Star Milling, Waka Waka Estates, Ltd., ZambiaSeed Traders Association, ZamSeed, ZAGRA

PLANS FOR PHASE II, AS DESCRIBED IN A4NH PRE-PROPOSAL

All flagships except for Improving Human Health have specific plans to conduct research activities in Zambia in Phase II, alt-hough specific activities have not yet been identified. On a high level, the beneficiary outcomes A4NH research is expected to contribute to achieving in Zambia with partners are summarized in Table 1, below. We will not be able to achieve these outcomes alone. In Table 2, we describe how we anticipate working with other CGIAR entities participating in the site integration process in order to achieve these development goals.

TABLE 1. A4NH’s development goals for Zambia in Phase II

Beneficiary outcomes (impacts) Target development outcomes (or IDOs) Key assumptions

Improved nutrition by consumption of biofortified crops

Improved diets for poor and vulnerable people Households reached with planting material will grow and consume the crop, and market excess production; main-streaming efforts will expand available varieties and fi-nancing to additional countries; HarvestPlus and its part-ners will be able to offer sufficient technical assistance to promote adoption and consumption

Equity and inclusion achieved Enabling environment improved National partners and beneficiaries enabled

Households adopt improved, bioforti-fied varieties

Increased productivity Households reached with planting material will grow and adopt biofortified varieties, and will continue to have ac-cess to biofortified planting materials as needed. See above for assumption re: mainstreaming.

Equity and inclusion achieved National partners and beneficiaries enabled Enabling environment improved

Reduced exposure to foodborne hazards

Enhanced smallholder market access Problems identified have significant impacts on human health; proposed interventions can significantly improve human health or are justified by other benefits (trade,

Improved food safety

333

Equity and inclusion achieved livelihoods, animal welfare); solutions (innovations, poli-cies, and programs) proposed can be adopted at scale and in ways that ensure equitable access to the poor, small-holders, men and women, and the informal sector

Enabling environment improved

Countries improve food systems for healthier diets

Increased incomes and employment Incentives to improve food systems for healthier diets can be identified for different groups of actors (policy-makers, private sector, consumers); stakeholders (re-searchers and enablers) will be committed and able to im-prove the quality of national data on diets; innovations and interventions will be acceptable to intended benefi-ciaries; strategic partners can be identified and engaged for scale up

Improved diets for poor and vulnerable people Mitigation and adaptation achieved Equity and inclusion achieved Enabling environment improved National partners and beneficiaries enabled

Successful and cost-effective integrated nutrition-sensitive programs designed, implemented, scaled-up, evaluated

Increased incomes and employment Results generated from evaluation activities are useful and relevant and have clear operational implications for implements who have the capacity and resources to use them; programs that are found to be cost-effective are funded and scaled up, achieving high coverage and high quality to achieve expected results

Improved diets for poor and vulnerable people Equity and inclusion achieved National partners and beneficiaries enabled

Countries improve the enabling environ-ment for nutrition and health

All IDOs under SLO2 Champions identified among key decision-makers find ways to take forward key messages within their own sec-tor and beyond; decisionmakers are incentivized to im-prove the way they find, appraise and use evidence; poli-cymakers and practitioners are motivated to reduce un-dernutrition and poverty; stakeholders across and within sectoral domains (agriculture, nutrition, health, gender) engage with A4NH evidence.

Mitigation and adaptation achieved

Equity and inclusion achieved

Enabling environment improved

National partners and beneficiaries enabled

TABLE 2. A4NH’s proposed CGIAR relationships in Phase II

Planned CGIAR entities working with A4NH in

Phase II

Type of coordination mechanisms facilitated by A4NH flagships in Phase II

What A4NH will do and what it expects to offer in Phase II

TBD based on CGIAR co-ordination arrangements developed

Community of Practice/Docking Stations (for all CRPs), hosted by Food Systems for Healthier Diets

Docking Stations for aflatoxin and fish value chain activities, led by Food Safety

Convening Platform (for all CRPs), led by Supporting Country Outcomes through Research on Enabling Environments

All flagships except Improving Hu-man Health will be working in Zambia

A4NH expects to work through staff on the ground, project invest-ments, and the IITA and WorldFish country offices

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE A world free of hunger and malnutrition

2033 K Street, NW | Washington, DC 20006-1002 USA | T: +1.202.862.5600 | F: +1.202.467.4439 | Email: ifpri@cgiar.org | www.ifpri.org

For more information, please contact: John McDermott, A4NH director| j.mcdermott@cgiar.org

www.a4nh.org

This publication has been prepared as an A4NH output. It has not been peer reviewed. Any opinions stated herein are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily representative of or endorsed by the International Food Policy Research Institute.

334

SECTION 3.10.5

335

ANNEX 3.10.5 A4NH Communication Strategy Strategic communication is central to the impact of the CGIAR Research Program (CRP) on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) and to CGIAR as a whole. Rigorous, high-quality research and evidence must first be accessible, and then shared, discussed, adapted, and used in order to achieve the CRP’s outcomes and those outlined in the CGIAR’s Strategy and Results Framework (SRF). A4NH helps realize the potential of agricultural development to deliver gender-equitable health and nutritional benefits to the poor, by maximizing the benefits and minimizing the risks of agricultural actions. A4NH will generate and disseminate a broad range of research products, contributing to changes in policies, programs, and investments that can improve nutrition and health outcomes of those who need it most.

The A4NH communication strategy plays a key role in achieving this. Not only can communications raise visibility and demonstrate accountability of the program and CGIAR, but it can also contribute to achieving CRP outcomes by making evidence, tools, and resources available and accessible to those who can use them to bring about much-needed change. By generating and communicating outputs, A4NH can enable agricultural researchers, value chain actors, program implementers, and policymakers to better contribute to nutrition and health outcomes and impacts through their decisions, policies, and actions.

This strategy outlines A4NH’s communication objectives, use of various communication elements, target audiences and their main needs, as well as an overview of how A4NH organizes and manages its communication work.

1) A4NH communication objectives The following objectives were developed during Phase I by the A4NH Program Management Unit (PMU), with input from both the Planning and Management Committee (PMC) and the Independent Advisory Committee (IAC). These objectives are intended to guide the program’s communications activities.

1.1 Influence food and agriculture development agenda; 1.2 Support decisionmakers with the information, evidence, and tools they need to make

change; 1.3 Generate and promote high quality evidence on nutrition-sensitive agriculture; and 1.4 Increase visibility and demonstrate accountability of A4NH and CGIAR.

2) Elements of communication strategy A4NH employs a combination of the following six communication elements in its strategic communication strategy:

I. Engaging in policy dialogue to scale up results, II. Engaging with actors on the ground to scale out technologies and practices,

III. Communicating the program, the science, results, and progress towards achievements of the SRF 2022 targets throughout the CRP lifecycle,

IV. Communicating and engaging with partners for effective development impact, V. Promoting learning and sharing of information to improve communication and

collaboration within and across CRPs, and VI. Making CRP information and resources open and accessible.

Within these elements and others, A4NH implements the following types of activities: facilitating and/or participating in high-level policy engagement platforms (i.e. policy briefings, discussions, webinars, and

336

research dissemination events); translating A4NH knowledge and findings into useful formats (i.e. briefs, slides, posters, blogs, and videos) tailored for specific target groups; making A4NH evidence, tools, and resources openly and prominently accessible through online platforms and portals (i.e. the A4NH website and International Food Policy Research Institute [IFPRI] publications repository); ensuring consistent and accurate CRP visibility and helping partners to do the same, via A4NH branding guidelines and communications toolkit (planned for Phase II); and liaising with IFPRI’s knowledge management unit and with partners to ensure all A4NH publications and knowledge products are available and accessible, in line with CGIAR frameworks on Open Access (see Annex 3.8) and Intellectual Assets (see Annex 3.9).

3) A4NH target audiences and needs This table presents A4NH’s main target audiences, their communication needs, and how A4NH can help meet those needs. Through regular monitoring and evaluation of communication across the program, A4NH will adapt these target groups, needs, and approaches throughout the CRP lifecycle.

Target audiences

Main communication needs Communication approach

Within CGIAR Participating CGIAR Partners

Frameworks/tools/evidence/outcomes that can be shared or used by other partners or donors; guidance on program branding and communication; access to program documents (reports, evaluations, etc.), news, plans, events, and opportunities.

• Portfolio of A4NH-branded materials, by topic/region/outcome (ongoing);

• A4NH branding guidelines (posted online) and communications toolkit (planned);

• A4NH website (newsfeed, Gender-Nutrition Idea Exchange [GNIE] blog) video channel, and e-newsletter [planned]);

• Relevant information-sharing and capacity support via Gender, Equity, and Empowerment (GEE) Unit and Community of Practice (CoP) (planned);

• Program website (resources tab) for frameworks, tools, guidelines, program documents, publications, etc.;

• Open access (where possible) to searchable repository of A4NH outputs (in IFPRI repository and linked to partner repositories with A4NH- generated outputs);

• Participation in relevant webinars and community-of-practice platforms;

• Face-to-face and virtual meetings; and • Annual scientific event (i.e. Agriculture,

Nutrition, and Health Academy [ANH Academy] Week).

Other CGIAR Research Programs (CRPs)

Access to news; general information on program and program documents; information on where we work and on who to contact for more information about a topic; opportunities to share research on agriculture, nutrition, and health.

Beyond CGIAR Policymakers – national and international

Strategic advice on national and regional nutrition-sensitive policies;

• Face-to-face consultations; • A4NH policy and evidence briefs, notes,

discussion papers, case studies;

337

level (members of national and subnational governments)

country and/or region-specific news, activities, or results.

• A4NH annual report; and • Multimedia products, including

presentations and videos.

Regional networks and international organizations (i.e. African Union, CAADP, NEPAD, SUN, etc.)

Strategic support for joint agriculture-nutrition-health initiatives and global processes; information on who is doing what where.

• Face-to-face consultations; • Policy and evidence briefs, notes,

discussion papers, case studies; • A4NH annual report; • Multimedia products, including

presentations and videos; and • Capacity building opportunities (i.e. ANH

Academy). Donors (bilateral, CGIAR Fund, etc.)

Evidence of outcomes and impacts (progress towards targets); outcome stories and cases; donor recognition; findings of external evaluations

• Direct donor engagement (roundtables, meetings);

• Web features (blogs), social media content, and outcome stories, case studies by donor/topic/region/outcome;

• Multimedia products, including presentations and videos;

• A4NH annual report and other brochures (featuring work supported by a specific donor and/or measurable performance indicators); and

• Acknowledgement of support (websites, publications, blogs, events, social media).

Development practitioners and implementers (non-governmental organizations [NGOs] and other development organizations contributing to evidence-generation or research activities, such as Helen Keller International [HKI], Food and Agriculture Organization

Research highlights, frameworks, tools, and evidence generated from partnerships; program materials featuring collaborations; information about program news, opportunities, and events.

• Face-to-face meetings and site visits; • A4NH website (calendar, opportunities,

events tabs), e-newsletter (planned); • Web features/blogs (including GNIE),

social media content, and outcome stories, case studies by partner/topic/region/outcome;

• A4NH annual report; • Multimedia products, including

presentations and videos; • Capacity building opportunities (i.e. ANH

Academy); and • Capacity building materials developed

with partners.

338

of the United Nations [FAO], International Fund for Agricultural Development [IFAD]) Research community (non-CGIAR researchers, universities, academia)

Datasets and publications; resources, such as frameworks, tools, and evidence; program materials featuring collaborations; information about program news, opportunities, and events.

• Open access (where possible) to searchable repository of A4NH outputs;

• Face-to-face meetings and site visits; • A4NH website (calendar, opportunities,

events tabs), e-newsletter (planned); • Web features/blogs (including GNIE

blog), social media content, and outcome stories, case studies by partner/topic/region/outcome;

• Multimedia products, including presentations and videos; and

• Capacity building opportunities (i.e. ANH Academy).

Private sector and/or value chain partners

Business case for potential investment in A4NH research and activities; contact information for individuals with whom they can follow up for more information.

• A4NH annual report, brochures, case studies, or presentations on research evidence and context-specific application of tools or approaches; and

• Face-to-face engagement (presentations, meetings, site visits).

4) How A4NH communication work is organized In Phase I, A4NH employed one communications specialist at 50 percent time in the Program Management Unit at A4NH’s lead Center (IFPRI). In Phase II, A4NH plans to continue employing one communication specialist, but will increase to 100 percent time. With the increase from 50 percent to 100 percent communications staff time, Phase II will see the addition of several new initiatives and strengthened collaboration with cross-CGIAR center and cross-CRP partners to better compile, promote, and share results, tools, and evidence.

A4NH communications and research dissemination is a shared responsibility among communication specialists, scientists, and research partners working in A4NH flagships and projects. The A4NH communication specialist collaborates with and relies on resources, networks, content, and capacity from the lead Center (IFPRI) communications team as well as A4NH flagship leaders, communicators, and scientists from participating CGIAR Centers, other CRPs, and non-CGIAR research partners in order to deliver comprehensive outreach products and activities that represent the full A4NH portfolio.

Collective ownership of A4NH communications by participating Centers, partners, and researchers is essential to deliver impactful reach in Phase II. A4NH flagship leaders and others—including those involved with the GEE Unit, Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) Unit, and Country Coordination and Engagement Unit—will be expected to identify outcomes, tools, and resources from their portfolios

339

which can be promoted and disseminated, and where possible, will designate staff with responsibility for communications, or earmark funds for communications products and initiatives as part of their overall budgeting. As part of CGIAR communications, A4NH will use and support system-wide platforms and opportunities including CGIAR websites, events, initiatives, etc.

Communication activities from Phase I that will continue include: - Manage and curate the A4NH website and GNIE blog; - Manage and curate the A4NH video channel; - Production of an annual report, in both print and web magazine formats; - Production of visual and multimedia materials highlighting research outcomes, findings,

frameworks, and tools, such as briefs, project notes, videos, slides, brochures, etc.; - Update and manage use of A4NH Branding and Acknowledgement Guidelines; - Liaise with the IFPRI Communications and Knowledge Management (CKM) division for shared

IFPRI/A4NH communication activities including outreach, events, and publications management and cataloguing; and

- Support in organizing, promoting, and reporting on A4NH-relevant events.

New A4NH communication activities planned for Phase II include: - Establish recurring A4NH e-newsletter; - Establish and grow A4NH social media accounts; - Establish an A4NH communication toolkit (including A4NH-branded promotional materials,

success stories and results, and branding and acknowledgement guidelines) to help A4NH partners, researchers, and implementers represent and advocate on behalf of the program, globally; and

- Continue and expand information-sharing and support activities from current GNIE blog platform into the planned GEE Unit, and respond to demand for knowledge-sharing support for all A4NH-relevant CoPs; and

- Support in planning and organizing an annual scientific event on agriculture, nutrition, and health.

340

SECTION 3.10.6

341

Annex 3.10.6 POTENTIAL INDICATORS FOR KEY IDOS TO WHICH A4NH CONTRIBUTES The Guidance for Annex 3.5 on Results-Based Management requests “a table of IDO indicators to be used and explanation of how they will be collected.” The table has since been made optional. Table 1 builds on work done in Phase I, including for the Extension Proposal, to identify the IDO indicators we will use to assess A4NH performance. This table complements information provided in the Performance Indicator Matrix Tables on CGIAR 2022 Targets (Table A) and flagship outcomes (Table B) and milestones (Table D). Data for the indicators will mainly be collected in the impact evaluations, adoption studies, and impact assessments described in Table 2 below. In a few specific cases (e.g., the target countries of FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets) we will track specific indicators at national level. However, in most cases, we will rely on country processes or CGIAR System-led processes to do that. We will continue to provide technical support to these processes on defining nutrition-related outcomes and indicators. Table 1. Potential indicators to be used for key IDOs to which A4NH is contributing

Key IDOs for A4NH Proposed Indicators and methods Key relevant SDG indicators http://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/47th-session/documents/2016-2-IAEG-SDGs-Rev1-E.pdf

1.4 Increased productivity (FP2)

Adoption of technology or practice (by sex) Yield (in some cases by ownership of plot); % increase compared to current variety or practice Yield quality

• Micronutrient content of biofortified variety; % meeting minimum target level

• Aflatoxin contamination level; % meeting standards Costs of production; profit (when expected to be different from current practice)

SDG indicators 10: Crop yield gap (actual yield as % of attainable yield) 14: [Access to drying, storage and processing facilities] - to be developed 74: Global Food Loss Indicator [or other indicator to be developed to track the share of food lost or wasted in the value chain after harvest] Complementary national indicators: 2.3: Cereal yield growth rate (% p.a.) 2.4: Livestock yield gap (actual yield as % of attainable yield) 2.7: [Indicator on genetic diversity in agriculture] - to be developed 2.8: [Indicator on irrigation access gap] - to be developed 2.10: Public and private R&D expenditure on agriculture and rural development (% of GNI) 15.4: [Indicator on access to genetic resources] - to be developed

2.1 Improved diets for poor and vulnerable people (FP1, FP2, FP4)

Measures of individual diet quality (for women and children):

• Full diet analysis (total food and nutrient intakes); adequacy as compared to dietary guidelines and recommended requirements

• Individual dietary diversity scores (WDDS and

children); % of population with inadequate diets

Complementary national indicators: 2.1: Percentage of population with shortfalls of: iron, zinc, iodine, vitamin A, folate, vitamin B12, [and vitamin D] 2.2: Proportion of infants 6–23 months of age who receive a minimum acceptable diet 2.6: Percentage of total daily energy intake from protein in adults 3.23: Fraction of calories from added saturated fats and sugars

342

• Intake of specific foods Proxy for diet quality at national level: Share of calories from staples

2.2 Improved food safety (FP3, FP4)

Improved food safety Reduction in exposure at point of consumption, as measured by prevalence of pathogen in food X quantity consumed per capita by target beneficiaries A proxy that is frequently used is prevalence of pathogen in food system (e.g., milk, milk or grain quality at different points in the value chain). Using this indicator could overestimate impact where consumers use risk mitigating practices.

Complementary national indicators: 12.3: [Indicator on chemical pollution] - to be developed

2.3 Improved human and animal health through better agricultural practices (FP4, FP5)

Direct exposure to pathogen/ hazard in agri-food system, as measured by

• Prevalence of target disease in animal population on farm, at slaughter, at market

• Reduction in disease transmission opportunities

TBD for new areas as in Clusters 1 and 3 of FP5

SDG indicators 49: Percentage of population with access to safely managed water services, by urban/rural (modified MDG Indicator) 60: Ratification and implementation of fundamental ILO labor standards and compliance in law and practice Complementary national indicators: 6.3: Proportion of the population connected to collective sewers or with on-site storage of all domestic wastewaters 6.6: Proportion of the flows of treated municipal wastewater that are directly and safely reused 6.8: [Indicator on Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM)] - to be developed 8.3: [Indicator of decent work] - to be developed

B.1 Equity and inclusion achieved (all FPs)

Women’s empowerment in agriculture index (WEAI) and component indicators (e.g., assets, decisionmaking, leadership, time use); WEAI score as compared to empowerment threshold WEAI proposes specific easy to measure the domains of empowerment but there are also other ways of measuring and sources of data, including nationally representative data sets with standardized questions, eg the DHS (for decision-making especially related to food, nutrition and health) and LSMS-ISA (women’s assets) Measures of gender norms and attitudes, usually subjective questions

SDG indicators 5: Percentage of population in rural areas with secure rights to land, measured by (i) percentage with documented or recognized evidence of tenure, and (ii) percentage who perceive their rights to land are recognized and protected 45: Average number of hours spent on paid and unpaid work combined (total work burden), by sex Complementary national indicators: 5.3: Percentage of women without incomes of their own

343

C.1 Enabling environment improved (all FPs)

# of countries, programs, investments (or donors) using evidence and methods developed by A4NH; type and degree of influence (qualitative assessment)

Complementary national indicators: 17.3: Gross domestic expenditure on R&D as share of GDP 17.4: [Indicator on technology sharing and diffusion] - to be developed 17.5: [Indicator on the creation of / subscription to the Technology Bank and STI (Science, Technology and Innovation) Capacity Building Mechanism for LDCs by 2017] - Number of national and investment policy reforms adopted that incorporate sustainable development objectives or safeguards by country 17.7: Value of LDC exports as a percentage of global exports 17.8: [Indicator on investment promotion regimes for LDCs] - to be developed 17.9: Percent of official development assistance (ODA), net private grants, and official climate finance channeled through priority pooled multilateral financing mechanisms

D1. National partners and beneficiaries enabled (all FPs)

# of people trained, improvement in knowledge (as measured by pre-post tests), change in practice reflecting improve capacity, subjective assessments by beneficiaries of enhanced capacity.

17.9.1 The dollar value of financial and technical assistance, including through North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation, committed to developing countries’ designing and implementing a holistic policy mix that aims at sustainable development in three dimensions (including elements such as reducing inequality within a country and governance) 17.16.1 Mutual accountability among development cooperation actors is strengthened through inclusive reviews 17.18.1 Proportion of sustainable development indicators produced at the national level with full disaggregation when relevant to the target, in accordance with the Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics 17.19.1 Dollar value of all resources made available to strengthen statistical capacity in developing countries

344

SECTION 3.10.7

345

Annex 3.10.7 EXPLANATORY NOTE ON THE PERFORMANCE INDICATOR MATRIX – TABLES

TABLE A.

CGIAR 2022 target: 100 million more farm households have adopted improved varieties, breeds or trees and/or improved management practices

A4NH’s contribution = 20.5 million more farm households

A4NH will contribute to this target through two channels:

1. 20 million farm households have adopted biofortified crops (via FP2: Biofortification)

The number of farm households reached with biofortified crops is based on the HarvestPlus monitoring system. The system has data collected by the country teams in collaboration with their delivery partners. For planting material delivered through partnerships with NGOs and public extension officers, these partners keep records on the names and locations of the beneficiaries. For planting material that is delivered through partnerships with seed companies, a record of quantity of planting material sold in each location and the average quantity purchased by farming households is kept, from which the number of households reached can be calculated. In all countries, country teams conduct spot checks in order to verify the reports by partners.

The breakdown by country for this target can be found in the table below:

Country Target (in millions)

Bangladesh 3.1 DRC 2.6 Ethiopia 0.5 India 2.5 Malawi 0.5 Nigeria 2.7 Pakistan 1 Rwanda 1.2 Tanzania 0.5 Uganda 1.8 Zambia 0.6 Rest of the World (Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, China Guatemala, Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama)

3

TOTAL 20

2. 461,000 farmers have adopted Good Agricultural Practices and/or biocontrol to mitigate aflatoxin contamination (via FP3: Food Safety)

The number of farmers directly reached by aflatoxin projects under FP3: Food Safety is estimated using a bottom-up approach based on a mix of expert opinion and project-level monitoring reports.

346

For this target, the breakdown by country and crop can be found in the table below:

Country Groundnut Maize Total Ghana 15,000 20,000 35,000 India 3,000 3,000 Kenya 161,000 161,000 Malawi 13,000 10,000 23,000 Mali 2,000 2000 Mozambique 15,000 10,000 25,000 Niger 2,000 2,000 Nigeria 17,000 70,000 87,000 Senegal 30,000 20,000 50,000 Tanzania 30,000 30,000 60,000 Zambia 11,000 10,000 21,000 TOTAL 138,000 331,000 469,000

Note: In Performance Indicator Matrix - Table A, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Senegal and Ghana have been grouped together as ‘Rest of the World’ because individual targets for these countries, after combining with HarvestPlus targets, are less than 50,000 households and since we must report in terms of millions of households, the contribution from the individual countries would appear as close to zero in the table.

CGIAR 2022 target: 150 million more people, of which 50% are women, without deficiencies of one or more of the following essential micronutrients: iron, zinc, iodine, vitamin A, folate, and vitamin B12

A4NHs contribution = 116.1 million more people

A4NH will contribute to this target through two main channels:

1. 43.1 million more people from smallholder households whose micronutrient deficiencies are alleviated from the consumption of biofortified crops (via FP2: Biofortification)

The number of individuals in smallholder households is calculated using the number of households growing biofortified crops, based on data from the HarvestPlus monitoring system and a projection model to account for diffusion and disadoption, and the average household size in each country. Roughly half of the household members are assumed to be female.

It is assumed that that the number of people who increase their micronutrient intake and reduce their deficiency (or deficiencies) varies by crop, depending on the micronutrient level currently available in biofortified varieties (iron beans, orange fleshed sweet potato, iron pearl millet and zinc wheat have full or near full targets), as well as vitamin and mineral retention in typical preparation and storage conditions.

For this target, the breakdown by country can be found in the table below:

347

Country Target (in millions)

Bangladesh 8.6 DRC 4.5 Ethiopia 0.6 India 7.7 Malawi 0.6 Nigeria 3.8 Pakistan 1.8 Rwanda 3 Tanzania 1 Uganda 4.7 Zambia 0.8 Rest of the World (Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, China Guatemala, Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama) 6 TOTAL 43.1

2. 73 million more women without anemia, as a result of nutrition-sensitive agricultural programs and policies

This figure was estimated by calculating the gap in 2022 between the current trends for women of reproductive age (15 – 49 years) with anemia in each country and the World Health Assembly (WHA) target (achieve a 50 per cent reduction of anemia in women of reproductive age globally) of achieving an average annual rate of reduction of 5.2%. The assumption is that FP4: Supporting Policies, Programs and Enabling Action through Research (SPEAR) will, by leveraging current policies and investments, help countries to reach a target that they would not otherwise reach. Data on anemia was obtained from the WHO Global targets tracking tool1.

The table below shows the calculations by country:

Target countries # in 2022 if current trend continues (in

millions)

# in 2022 if WHA Target 2025 applied

(in millions)

Difference (in

millions) Bangladesh 19.8 11.8 8.0 Burkina Faso 2.3 1.4 0.9 Ethiopia 3.8 3.2 0.6 India 157.4 97.8 59.5 Malawi 1.0 0.8 0.2

1 Updated September 2015, accessed 23 February 2016

348

Mali 2.4 1.5 0.9 Nepal 2.5 1.8 0.7 Tanzania 5.3 3.4 1.8 Vietnam 1.9 2.0 -0.1 Zambia 1.2 0.8 0.4 TOTAL 195.6 122.6 73

Source: Calculations based on the WHO global targets tracking tool; population data obtained from the online data tool of the UN Population Division’s World Population Prospects, 2015

Note: Vietnam has been excluded from Performance Indicator Matrix - Table A and the total because it is on track to achieve its WHA 2025 targets. A4NH research will help to ensure that the country stays on track.

CGIAR 2022 target: 10% reduction in women of reproductive age who are consuming less than the adequate number of food groups

A4NHs contribution: 10% reduction in women of reproductive age who are consuming less than the adequate number of food groups, in four priority countries

Data on women’s dietary diversity is not consistently collected at national level. This estimate is based on expert opinion, informed by trends based on available data and program evaluations that collected data on diets. However, a new indicator, the Minimum Diet Diversity-Women or MDD-W under the second Women’s Dietary Diversity Project (WDDP II), was endorsed in 2014, making it possible to assess changes in women’s dietary diversity from survey data. Baseline data for this indicator will be developed in Phase II. A4NH aims to contribute to a 10% reduction in women of reproductive age who are consuming less than the adequate number of food groups in the each of the four priority countries of FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets – Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India and Vietnam. The changes are expected to come about from research on the drivers of and constraints to diet changes among target populations and food system performance related to healthier diets, from tested interventions designed to improve the performance of multiple nutrient-rich agri-food value chains, and from identified options to upscale effective food system innovations to large segments of target populations.

TABLES B. AND C. Our FP outcomes map to clusters so we used cluster budgets to derive budgets per FP outcome, both the total amount needed and the amount needed from W1/2 (Table B). Since each FP outcome contributes to multiple sub-IDOs, we mapped each FP outcome to the relevant sub-IDOs and apportioned the outcome budget across them. This resulted in an FP-specific cost per sub-IDO and an FP-specific share of W1/2 for each sub-IDO. We then summed these amounts across FP to get CRP totals per sub-IDO (Table C). Unfortunately we could not enter the results in the online tool since the tool only accepts “W1/2 percentage” to 2 decimals places but does not allow for the (inevitable) rounding errors when it checks the consistency of FP budget and % of W1/2 across the two tables. Therefore, to accommodate the online tool, we used our outcome and sub-IDO specific estimates of the total cost (from all funding sources) for each outcome and sub-IDO but applied the FP average W1/2 percentage (rather than the outcome and sub-IDO specific percentages) to estimate the share of W1/2 needed per outcome and sub-IDO.

349

In one FP there was a small amount (2%) of W3 funding but this could not be included in the analysis since it was lost in the rounding error.

350

SECTION 3.10.8

351

Annex 3.10.8 REFERENCE LISTS FOR PHASE II PROPOSAL

CRP Section

Alderman, Harold, Pierre-André Chiappori, Lawrence Haddad, John Hoddinott, and Ravi Kanbur. 1995. “Unitary versus Collective Models of the Household: Is It Time to Shift the Burden of Proof?” The World Bank Research Observer 10 (1): 1–19.

Finkelstein, Julia L, Saurabh Mehta, Shobha A Udipi, Padmini S Ghugre, Sarah V Luna, Michael J Wenger, Laura E Murray-Kolb, Eric M Przybyszewski, and Jere D Haas. 2015. “A Randomized Trial of Iron-Biofortified Pearl Millet in School Children in India.” The Journal of Nutrition 145 (7): 1576–81.

Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, and World Health Organization. 2014. Second International Conference on Nutrition - Conference Outcome Document: Rome Declaration on Nutrition. Rome, Italy. doi:10.1044/leader.PPL.19102014.18.

Gannon, Bryan, Chisela Kaliwile, Sara A Arscott, Samantha Schmaelzle, Justin Chileshe, Ngándwe Kalungwana, Mofu Mosonda, Kevin Pixley, Cassim Masi, and Sherry A Tanumihardjo. 2014. “Biofortified Orange Maize Is as Efficacious as a Vitamin A Supplement in Zambian Children Even in the Presence of High Liver Reserves of Vitamin A: A Community-Based, Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 100 (6): 1541–50.

Gelli, Aulo, Corinna Hawkes, Jason Donovan, Jody Harris, Summer Allen, Alan De Brauw, Spencer Henson, Nancy Johnson, James Garrett, and David Ryckembusch. 2015. Value Chains and Nutrition - A Framework to Support the Identification, Design and Evaluation of Interventions. 01413. IFPRI Discussion Paper. Washington D.C.

Gill, Margaret, Diana Feliciano, Jennie Macdiarmid, and Pete Smith. 2015. “The Environmental Impact of Nutrition Transition in Three Case Study Countries.” Food Security 7 (3): 493–504.

Gillespie, Stuart, Lawrence Haddad, Venkatesh Mannar, Purnima Menon, and Nicholas Nisbett. 2013. “The Politics of Reducing Malnutrition: Building Commitment and Accelerating Progress.” Lancet 382 (9891): 552–69. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60842-9.

Gillespie, Stuart, Jody Harris, and Suneetha Kadiyala. 2012. The Agriculture-Nutrition Disconnect in India - What Do We Know? 01187. IFPRI Discussion Paper. Washington, D.C.

Gillespie, Stuart, Purnima Menon, and Andrew L. Kennedy. 2015. “Scaling Up Impact on Nutrition: What Will It Take?” Advances in Nutrition: An International Review Journal 6 (4): 440–51. doi:10.3945/an.115.008276.

Grace, Delia. 2015a. Food Safety in Informal Markets in Developing Countries : An Overview.

———. 2015b. Review of Evidence on Antimicrobial Resistance and Animal Agriculture in Developing Countries. Evidence on Demand. Nairobi, Kenya.

352

Grace, Delia, and John McDermott. 2015. “Food Safety: Reducing and Managing Food Scares.” In IFPRI Book Chapters, 41–50. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Grace, Delia, Florence Mutua, Pamela Ochungo, Russ Kruska, Kate Jones, Liam Brierley, Lucy Lupar, et al. 2012. Mapping of Poverty and Likely Zoonoses Hotspots, Zoonoses Project 4. Report to the UK Department for International Development. Nairobi, Kenya.

Haas, Jere D, John L Beard, Laura E Murray-Kolb, Angelita M del Mundo, Angelina Felix, and Glenn B Gregorio. 2005. “Iron-Biofortified Rice Improves the Iron Stores of Nonanemic Filipino Women.” The Journal of Nutrition 135 (12): 2823–30.

Haas, Jere, Sarah Luna, Mercy Lung’aho, Fidel Ngabo, Michael Wenger, Laura Murray-Kolb, Steve Beebe, Jean-Bosco Gahutu, and Ines Egli. n.d. “Consuming Iron Biofortified Beans Significantly Improved Iron Status in Rwandan Women after 18 Weeks.” Journal of Nutrition.

Havelaar, Arie H., Martyn D. Kirk, Paul R. Torgerson, Herman J. Gibb, Tine Hald, Robin J. Lake, Nicolas Praet, et al. 2015. “World Health Organization Global Estimates and Regional Comparisons of the Burden of Foodborne Disease in 2010.” Edited by Lorenz von Seidlein. PLOS Medicine 12 (12). Public Library of Science: e1001923.

Herforth, Anna, and Jody Harris. 2014. Understanding and Applying Primary Pathways and Principles. Arlington, VA.

Hotz, Christine, Cornelia Loechl, Alan de Brauw, Patrick Eozenou, Daniel Gilligan, Mourad Moursi, Bernardino Munhaua, Paul van Jaarsveld, Alicia Carriquiry, and J V Meenakshi. 2012. “A Large-Scale Intervention to Introduce Orange Sweet Potato in Rural Mozambique Increases Vitamin A Intakes among Children and Women.” The British Journal of Nutrition 108 (1). Cambridge University Press: 163–76.

Hotz, Christine, Cornelia Loechl, Abdelrahman Lubowa, James K Tumwine, Grace Ndeezi, Agnes Nandutu Masawi, Rhona Baingana, et al. 2012. “Introduction of β-Carotene-Rich Orange Sweet Potato in Rural Uganda Resulted in Increased Vitamin A Intakes among Children and Women and Improved Vitamin A Status among Children.” The Journal of Nutrition 142 (10): 1871–80.

International Food Policy Research Institute. 2015. Global Nutrition Report 2015: Actions and Accountability to Advance Nutrition and Sustainable Development. Intl Food Policy Res Inst.

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 2014. Global Nutrition Report 2014: Actions and Accountability to Accelerate the World’s Progress on Nutrition. Global Nutrition Report. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute ( IFPRI). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2499/9780896295643.

Johnson, Nancy, Christine Atherstone, and Delia Grace. 2015. The Potential of Farm-Level Technologies and Practices to Contribute to Reducing Consumer Exposure to Aflatoxins: A Theory of Change Analysis. 01452. IFPRI Discussion Paper. Washington, D.C.

353

Johnson, Nancy, Hannah Guedenet, and Amy Saltzman. 2015. What Will It Take for Biofortification to Have Impact on the Ground? Theories of Change for Three Crop-Country Combinations. 01427. IFPRI Discussion Paper. Washington D.C.

Johnson, Nancy L., Chiara Kovarik, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Jemimah Njuki, and Agnes Quisumbing. 2016. “Gender, Assets, and Agricultural Development: Lessons from Eight Projects.” World Development, February. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.01.009.

Johnson, Nancy, John Mayne, Delia Grace, and Amanda Wyatt. 2015. How Will Training Traders Contribute to Improved Food Safety in Informal Markets for Meat and Milk?: A Theory of Change Analysis. IFPRI Discussion Paper. Washington D.C.

Jones, Harry. 2009. Social Development: Why It Is Important and How To Impact It. 311. ODI Working Paper. London, UK.

Kabeer, Naila. 2001. “Reflections on the Measurement of Women’s Empowerment.” Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.

Kadiyala, Suneetha, Jody Harris, Derek Headey, Sivan Yosef, and Stuart Gillespie. 2014. “Agriculture and Nutrition in India: Mapping Evidence to Pathways.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1331 (December): 43–56. doi:10.1111/nyas.12477.

Krishna, Anirudh. 2004. “Escaping Poverty and Becoming Poor: Who Gains, Who Loses, and Why?” World Development 32 (1): 121–36. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.08.002.

Masters, William A, Patrick Webb, Jeffrey K Griffiths, and Richard J Deckelbaum. 2014. “Agriculture, Nutrition, and Health in Global Development: Typology and Metrics for Integrated Interventions and Research.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, February. doi:10.1111/nyas.12352.

Maurice, John. 2014. “Of Pigs and People - WHO Prepares to Battle Cysticercosis.” The Lancet 384 (9943): 571–72. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61353-2.

Meinzen-Dick, Ruth, Agnes Quisumbing, Julia Behrman, Patricia Biermayr-Jenzano, Vicki Wilde, Marco Noordeloos, Catherine Ragasa, and Nienke Beintema. 2011. Engendering Agricultural Research, Development, and Extension. Edited by Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Agnes Quisumbing, Julia Behrman, Patricia Biermayr-Jenzano, Vicki Wilde, Marco Noordeloos, Catherine Ragasa, and Nienke Beintema. Washington D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI);Washington D.C.

Ng, Marie, Tom Fleming, Margaret Robinson, Blake Thomson, Nicholas Graetz, Christopher Margono, Erin C Mullany, et al. 2014. “Global, Regional, and National Prevalence of Overweight and Obesity in Children and Adults during 1980-2013: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013.” Lancet 384 (9945). Elsevier: 766–81.

Olney, Deanna, Lilia Bliznashka, Abdoulaye Pedehombga, Andrew Dillon, Marie Ruel, and Jessica Heckert. 2015. “Women’s Nutrition and Empowerment Are Improved through Participation in an Integrated Agriculture and Nutrition Program in Burkina Faso.” FASEB J 29 (1_Supplement): 898.25

354

– .

Quisumbing, Agnes R. 2003. Household Decisions, Gender, and Development. Edited by Agnes R. Quisumbing. Washington D.C.: IFPRI.

Quisumbing, Agnes R., Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Terri L. Raney, André Croppenstedt, Julia A. Behrman, and Amber Peterman. 2014. Gender in Agriculture - Closing the Knowledge Gap. Edited by Agnes R. Quisumbing, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Terri L. Raney, André Croppenstedt, Julia A. Behrman, and Amber Peterman. Springer Netherlands.

Quisumbing, Agnes R., Deborah Rubin, Cristina Manfre, Elizabeth Waithanji, Mara van den Bold, Deanna Olney, Nancy Johnson, and Ruth Meinzen-Dick. 2015. “Gender, Assets, and Market-Oriented Agriculture: Learning from High-Value Crop and Livestock Projects in Africa and Asia.” Agriculture and Human Values, February. doi:10.1007/s10460-015-9587-x.

Rubin, Deborah, Cristina Manfre, and Kara Nichols Barrett. 2009. Promoting Gender Equitable Opportunities in Agricultural Value Chains.

Ruel, Marie T., and Harold Alderman. 2013. “Nutrition-Sensitive Interventions and Programmes: How Can They Help to Accelerate Progress in Improving Maternal and Child Nutrition?” The Lancet 382 (9891): 536–51. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60843-0.

Smith, Lisa, and Lawrence Haddad. 2014. “Reducing Child Undernutrition: Past Drivers and Priorities for the Post-MDG Era.” IDS Working Papers 2014 (441): 1–47.

Talsma, Elise F, Inge D Brouwer, Hans Verhoef, Gloria Nk Mbera, Alice M Mwangi, Ayşe Y Demir, Busie Maziya-Dixon, Erick Boy, Michael B Zimmermann, and Alida Melse-Boonstra. 2016. “Biofortified Yellow Cassava and Vitamin A Status of Kenyan Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 103 (1): 258–67.

van den Bold, Mara, Andrew Dillon, Deanna Olney, Marcellin Ouedraogo, Abdoulaye Pedehombga, and Agnes Quisumbing. 2015. “Can Integrated Agriculture-Nutrition Programmes Change Gender Norms on Land and Asset Ownership? Evidence from Burkina Faso.” The Journal of Development Studies 51 (9). Routledge: 1155–74. doi:10.1080/00220388.2015.1036036.

355

FP1: Food Systems for Healthier Diets

Access to Nutrition Foundation. 2016. “Access to Nutrition Index, 2016.” https://www.accesstonutrition.org/index/2016.

Alkerwi, Ala’a. 2014. “Diet Quality Concept.” Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif.) 30 (6): 613–18. doi:10.1016/j.nut.2013.10.001.

Allen, Summer L., Alan de Brauw, and Aulo Gelli. 2016. “Harnessing Value Chains to Improve Food Systems.” In 2016 Global Food Policy Report, 48–55. Washington D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Arimond, Mary, Doris Wiesmann, Elodie Becquey, Alicia Carriquiry, Melissa C Daniels, Megan Deitchler, Nadia Fanou-fogny, Maria L Joseph, Gina Kennedy, and Yves Martin-prevel. 2010. “Simple Food Group Diversity Indicators Predict Micronutrient Adequacy of Women ’ S Diets in,” 2059–69. doi:10.3945/jn.110.123414.2059S.

Black, Robert E, Cesar G Victora, Susan P Walker, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Parul Christian, Mercedes de Onis, Majid Ezzati, et al. 2013. “Maternal and Child Undernutrition and Overweight in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries.” Lancet 382 (9890). Elsevier: 427–51. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60937-X.

Elzen, Boelie, Barbara van Mierlo, and Cees Leeuwis. 2012. “Anchoring of Innovations: Assessing Dutch Efforts to Harvest Energy from Glasshouses.” Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 5 (December): 1–18.

Fiedler, John L., Keith Lividini, Odilia I. Bermudez, and Marc-Francois Smitz. 2012. “Household Consumption and Expenditures Surveys (HCES): A Primer for Food and Nutrition Analysts in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.” Food & Nutrition Bulletin 33 (3). Nevin Scrimshaw International Nutrition Foundation: 170–84.

Foran, Tira, James R. A. Butler, Liana J. Williams, Wolf J. Wanjura, Andy Hall, Lucy Carter, and Peter S. Carberry. 2014. “Taking Complexity in Food Systems Seriously: An Interdisciplinary Analysis.” World Development 61 (September): 85–101. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.023.

Gelli, Aulo, Corinna Hawkes, Jason Donovan, Jody Harris, Summer Allen, Alan De Brauw, Spencer Henson, Nancy Johnson, James Garrett, and David Ryckembusch. 2015. Value Chains and Nutrition - A Framework to Support the Identification, Design and Evaluation of Interventions. 01413. IFPRI Discussion Paper. Washington D.C.

Gillespie, Stuart, Jody Harris, and Suneetha Kadiyala. 2012. The Agriculture-Nutrition Disconnect in India - What Do We Know? 01187. IFPRI Discussion Paper. Washington, D.C.

Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition. 2014. How Can Agriculture and Food System Policies Improve Nutrition? Technical Brief. London, UK.

Groot, J, G Kennedy, R Remans, N Estrada-CArmona, F Raneri, J., Declerck, S Alvarez, N Mashingaidze, et

356

al. n.d. “Integrated-Systems Research in Nutrition-Sensitive Landscapes.” In Sustainable Intensification in Smallholder Agriculture: An Integrated Systems Research Approach. Earthscan.

Hammond, Ross A, and Laurette Dubé. 2012. “A Systems Science Perspective and Transdisciplinary Models for Food and Nutrition Security.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109 (31): 12356–63. doi:10.1073/pnas.0913003109.

Hartmann, Arntraud, Homi Kharas, Richard Kohl, Johannes Linn, Barbara Massler, and Cheikh Sourang. 2013. Scaling up Programs for the Rural Poor: IFAD’s Experience, Lessons, and Prospects (Phase 2). 54. Global Economy & Development Working Paper. Washington D.C.

Hartwich, Frank, Jaime Tola, Alejandra Engler, Carolina González, Graciela Ghezan, Jorge M P Vázquez-alvarado, José Antonio Silva, José De Jesús, and María Verónica. 2008. Building Public – Private Partnerships for Agricultural Innovation. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2499/9780896297715fsp4.

Hawkes, Corinna, Sharon Friel, Tim Lobstein, and Tim Lang. 2012. “Linking Agricultural Policies with Obesity and Noncommunicable Diseases: A New Perspective for a Globalising World.” Food Policy, March.

Headey, Derek, John Hoddinott, Disha Ali, Roman Tesfaye, and Mekdim Dereje. 2015. “The Other Asian Enigma: Explaining the Rapid Reduction of Undernutrition in Bangladesh.” World Development 66 (February): 749–61. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.09.022.

Herforth, Anna, Edward A. Frongillo, Franco Sassi, Mireille Seneclauze Mclean, Mandana Arabi, Cristina Tirado, Roseline Remans, Gilma Mantilla, Madeleine Thomson, and Prabhu Pingali. 2014. “Toward an Integrated Approach to Nutritional Quality, Environmental Sustainability, and Economic Viability: Research and Measurement Gaps.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1332 (1): 1–21. doi:10.1111/nyas.12552.

Herforth, Anna, Preetmoninder Lidder, and Margaret Gill. 2015. “Strengthening the Links between Nutrition and Health Outcomes and Agricultural Research.” Food Security 7 (3): 457–61. doi:10.1007/s12571-015-0451-z.

Imamura, Fumiaki, Renata Micha, Shahab Khatibzadeh, Saman Fahimi, Peilin Shi, John Powles, and Dariush Mozaffarian. 2015. “Dietary Quality among Men and Women in 187 Countries in 1990 and 2010: A Systematic Assessment.” The Lancet Global Health 3 (3). Elsevier: e132–42. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70381-X.

Ingram, John, Polly Erickson, and Diana Leverman, eds. 2010. Food Security and Global Environmental Change. Earthscan. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2009.04.007.

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). 2014. Global Nutrition Report 2014: Actions and Accountability to Accelerate the World’s Progress on Nutrition. Global Nutrition Report. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute ( IFPRI). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2499/9780896295643.

357

Kehlenbeck, Katja, Ebenezar Asaah, and Ramni Jamnadass. 2013. “Diversity of Indigenous Fruit Trees and Their Contribution to Nutrition and Livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa: Examples from Kenya and Cameroon.” In Diversifying Food and Diets: Using Agricultural Biodiversity to Improve Nutrition and Health, edited by Mattei F. Fanzo J., Hunter D., Borelli T., 257–69. London, UK: Earthscan/ Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203127261.

Kennedy, G, J Raneri, C Termote, Verena Nowak, R Remans, J Groot, and S. H. Thilsted. n.d. “Overview of Nutrition-Sensitive Landscapes: Approach and Methods to Assess Food Availability and Diversification of Diets.” In Sustainable Intensification in Smallholder Agriculture: An Integrated Systems Research Approach.

Kiesel, Kristin, Jill J. McCluskey, and Sofia B. Villas-Boas. 2011. “Nutritional Labeling and Consumer Choices.” Annual Review of Resource Economics 3 (1): 141–58. doi:10.1146/annurev.resource.012809.103957.

Leeuwis, Cees, Marc Schut, Ann Waters-Bayer, Remco Mur, Kwesi Atta-Krah, and Boru Douthwaite. n.d. Capacity to Innovate from a System CGIAR Research Program Perspective. AAS-2014-29. Program Brief. Penang, Malaysia.

Lim, Stephen S, Theo Vos, Abraham D Flaxman, Goodarz Danaei, Kenji Shibuya, Heather Adair-Rohani, Markus Amann, et al. 2012. “A Comparative Risk Assessment of Burden of Disease and Injury Attributable to 67 Risk Factors and Risk Factor Clusters in 21 Regions, 1990-2010: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010.” Lancet 380 (9859): 2224–60.

Linn, Johannes F, ed. 2012. Scaling Up in Agriculture, Rural Development, and Nutrition. Vol. 61. Washington D.C.

Malapit, Hazel Jean L., Suneetha Kadiyala, Agnes R. Quisumbing, Kenda Cunningham, and Parul Tyagi. 2015. “Women’s Empowerment Mitigates the Negative Effects of Low Production Diversity on Maternal and Child Nutrition in Nepal.” The Journal of Development Studies 51 (8): 1097–1123. doi:10.1080/00220388.2015.1018904.

Malapit, Hazel Jean L., and Agnes R. Quisumbing. 2015. “What Dimensions of Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Matter for Nutrition in Ghana?” Food Policy 52. Elsevier Ltd: 54–63. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.02.003.

Marshall, S, T Burrows, and C E Collins. 2014. “Systematic Review of Diet Quality Indices and Their Associations with Health-Related Outcomes in Children and Adolescents.” Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics : The Official Journal of the British Dietetic Association 27 (6): 577–98. doi:10.1111/jhn.12208.

Martin-Prével, Yves, Pauline Allemand, Doris Wiesmann, Mary Arimond, Terri Ballard, Megan Deitchler, Marie-Claude Dop, Gina Kennedy, Warren T K Lee, and Mourad Moursi. 2015. Moving Forward on Choosing a Standard Operational Indicator of Women’s Dietary Diversity. Rome.

McDermott, John, Nancy Johnson, Suneetha Kadiyala, Gina Kennedy, and Amanda J. Wyatt. 2015.

358

“Agricultural Research for Nutrition Outcomes – Rethinking the Agenda.” Food Security 7 (3): 593–607. doi:10.1007/s12571-015-0462-9.

Ocke, M C. 2013. “Evaluation of Methodologies for Assessing the Overall Diet: Dietary Quality Scores and Dietary Pattern Analysis.” Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 72 (2): 191–99. doi:10.1017/S0029665113000013.

Penny, Mary, Krysty Meza, Hilary Creed-Kanashiro, and Jason Donovan. 2015. “Fruit and Vegetable Consumption in Periurban Lima.” FASEB J 29 (1_Supplement): 902.20 – .

Popkin, Barry M, and Corinna Hawkes. 2015. “Sweetening of the Global Diet, Particularly Beverages: Patterns, Trends, and Policy Responses.” The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology 4 (2). Elsevier: 174–86. doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(15)00419-2.

Reardon, Thomas, Kevin Chen, Bart Minten, and L Adriano. 2012. The Quiet Revolution in Staple Food Value Chains: Enter the Dragon, the Elephant and the Tiger. Foodtank.Org. doi:ISBN 978-92-9092-911-6 (PDF).

Reid, Stuart, John Paul Hayes, and Darian Stibbe. 2014. Platforms for Partnership: Emerging Good Practice to Systematically Engage Business as a Partner in Development. Oxford, UK.

Ruben, Ruerd, Martinus Van Boeke, Aad Van Tilburg, and Jacques Trienekens, eds. 2007. Tropical Food Chains: Governance Regimes for Quality Management. Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.

Siegel, Karen R, Mohammed K Ali, Adithi Srinivasiah, Rachel A Nugent, and K M Venkat Narayan. 2014. “Do We Produce Enough Fruits and Vegetables to Meet Global Health Need?” PloS One 9 (8). Public Library of Science: e104059. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104059.

Strauss, John, and Duncan Thomas. 1998. “Health , Nutrition , and Economic Development.” Journal of Economic Literature 36 (2): 766–817.

Tara Garnett, Sophie Mathewson, Philip Angelides, and Fiona Borthwick. 2015. Policies and Actions to Shift Eating Patterns: What Works?

Tschirley, D. L., J. Snyder, M. Dolislager, T. Reardon, S. Haggblade, J. Goeb, L. Traub, F. Ejobi, and F. Meyer. 2015. “Africa’s Unfolding Diet Transformation: Implications for Agrifood System Employment.” Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies 5 (2): 0–48. doi:10.1108/JADEE-01-2015-0003.

Tschirley, David, Thomas Reardon, Michael Dolislager, and Jason Snyder. 2015. “The Rise of a Middle Class in East and Southern Africa: Implications for Food System Transformation.” Journal of International Development 27 (5): 628–46. doi:10.1002/jid.3107.

Victora, Cesar G, Linda Adair, Caroline Fall, Pedro C Hallal, Reynaldo Martorell, Linda Richter, and Harshpal Singh Sachdev. 2008. “Maternal and Child Undernutrition: Consequences for Adult Health and Human Capital.” Lancet (London, England) 371 (9609): 340–57. doi:10.1016/S0140-

359

6736(07)61692-4.

Waijers, Patricia M C M, Edith J M Feskens, and Marga C Ocké. 2007. “A Critical Review of Predefined Diet Quality Scores.” British Journal of Nutrition 97 (2): 219–31. doi:10.1017/S0007114507250421.

Weed, Keith. 2012. “Change Consumer Behavior with These Five Levers.” Harvard Business Review.

WHO/FAO. 2003. Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases - Report of a Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation. Geneva, Switzerland.

FP2: Biofortification

Abt Associates Inc. 2012. Evaluation of HarvestPlus Phase II. Seattle, WA.

Asare-Marfo, Dorene, Ekin Birol, Carolina Gonzalez, Mourad Moursi, Salomon Perez, Jana Schwarz, and Manfred Zeller. 2013. Prioritizing Countries for Biofortification Interventions Using Country-Level Data. Washington, D.C.

Birol, Ekin, Dorene Asare-Marfo, Jack Fiedler, Barbara Ha, Keith Lividini, Mourad Moursi, Manfred Zeller, J.V. Meenakshi, and Alexander J. Stein. 2014. “Cost-Effectiveness of Biofortification.” In Biofortification Progress Briefs, edited by HarvestPlus. Washington D.C.: HarvestPlus.

Bouis, Howarth E., Jan Low, Margaret McEwan, and Sherry A. Tanumihardjo. 2013. “Biofortification: Evidence and Lessons Learned Linking Agriculture and Nutrition.” Rome, Italy; Washington, D.C.: Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); World Health Organization (WHO).

Department for International Development. 2009. The Neglected Crisis of Undernutrition: Evidence for Action. London, UK.

Finkelstein, Julia L, Saurabh Mehta, Shobha A Udipi, Padmini S Ghugre, Sarah V Luna, Michael J Wenger, Laura E Murray-Kolb, Eric M Przybyszewski, and Jere D Haas. 2015. “A Randomized Trial of Iron-Biofortified Pearl Millet in School Children in India.” The Journal of Nutrition 145 (7): 1576–81.

Gannon, Bryan, Chisela Kaliwile, Sara A Arscott, Samantha Schmaelzle, Justin Chileshe, Ngándwe Kalungwana, Mofu Mosonda, Kevin Pixley, Cassim Masi, and Sherry A Tanumihardjo. 2014. “Biofortified Orange Maize Is as Efficacious as a Vitamin A Supplement in Zambian Children Even in the Presence of High Liver Reserves of Vitamin A: A Community-Based, Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 100 (6): 1541–50.

Haas, Jere D, John L Beard, Laura E Murray-Kolb, Angelita M del Mundo, Angelina Felix, and Glenn B Gregorio. 2005. “Iron-Biofortified Rice Improves the Iron Stores of Nonanemic Filipino Women.” The Journal of Nutrition 135 (12): 2823–30.

Haas, Jere, Sarah Luna, Mercy Lung’aho, Fidel Ngabo, Michael Wenger, Laura Murray-Kolb, Steve Beebe, Jean-Bosco Gahutu, and Ines Egli. n.d. “Consuming Iron Biofortified Beans Significantly Improved Iron Status in Rwandan Women after 18 Weeks.” Journal of Nutrition.

360

Hotz, Christine, Cornelia Loechl, Alan de Brauw, Patrick Eozenou, Daniel Gilligan, Mourad Moursi, Bernardino Munhaua, Paul van Jaarsveld, Alicia Carriquiry, and J V Meenakshi. 2012. “A Large-Scale Intervention to Introduce Orange Sweet Potato in Rural Mozambique Increases Vitamin A Intakes among Children and Women.” The British Journal of Nutrition 108 (1). Cambridge University Press: 163–76.

Hotz, Christine, Cornelia Loechl, Abdelrahman Lubowa, James K Tumwine, Grace Ndeezi, Agnes Nandutu Masawi, Rhona Baingana, et al. 2012. “Introduction of β-Carotene-Rich Orange Sweet Potato in Rural Uganda Resulted in Increased Vitamin A Intakes among Children and Women and Improved Vitamin A Status among Children.” The Journal of Nutrition 142 (10): 1871–80.

Johnson, Nancy, Hannah Guedenet, and Amy Saltzman. 2015. What Will It Take for Biofortification to Have Impact on the Ground? Theories of Change for Three Crop-Country Combinations. 01427. IFPRI Discussion Paper. Washington D.C.

Lividini, Keith, and John L. Fiedler. 2015. “Assessing the Promise of Biofortification: A Case Study of High Provitamin A Maize in Zambia.” Food Policy 54 (July): 65–77.

Saltzman, Amy, Ekin Birol, Howarth E. Bouis, Erick Boy, Fabiana F. De Moura, Yassir Islam, and Wolfgang H. Pfeiffer. 2013. “Biofortification: Progress toward a More Nourishing Future.” Global Food Security 2 (1): 9–17.

Talsma, Elise F, Inge D Brouwer, Hans Verhoef, Gloria Nk Mbera, Alice M Mwangi, Ayşe Y Demir, Busie Maziya-Dixon, Erick Boy, Michael B Zimmermann, and Alida Melse-Boonstra. 2016. “Biofortified Yellow Cassava and Vitamin A Status of Kenyan Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 103 (1): 258–67.

World Health Organization. 2009. Global Prevalence of Vitamin A Deficiency in Populations at Risk 1995-2005 : WHO Global Database on Vitamin A Deficiency. Geneva, Switzerland. doi:978 92 4 159801 9.

FP3: Food Safety

Bandyopadhyay, Ranajit, and Peter J Cotty. 2013. “Biological Controls for Aflatoxin Reduction.” Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Birol, Ekin, Bhushana Karandikar, Devesh Roy, and Maximo Torero. 2015. “Information, Certification and Demand for Food Safety: Evidence from an In-Store Experiment in Mumbai.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 (2): 470–91. doi:10.1111/1477-9552.12089.

CGIAR Standing Panel on Impact Assessment. 2008. Changing Dairy Marketing Policy in Kenya: The Impact of the Smallholder Dairy Project. 28. Science Council Brief.

“Demand for Livestock Products in Developing Countries with a Focus on Quality and Safety Attributes: Evidence from Asia and Africa.” 2015. Accessed August 13. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/3010/ResearchReport_No24.pdf?sequence=1.

361

Fessler, Daniel M. T. 2002. “Reproductive Immunosuppression and Diet: An Evolutionary Perspective on Pregnancy Sickness and Meat Consumption.” Current Anthropology 43 (1): 19–61.

Fèvre, Eric. 2015. “Comment: Zoonoses in Africa.” Microbiology Today.

Florkowski, Wojciech J., and Shashidhara Kolavalli. 2013. Aflatoxin Control Strategies in the Groundnut Value Chain in Ghana. Washington DC.

Grace, Delia. 2014. “The Business Case for One Health.” The Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research 81 (2): E1–6.

———. 2015a. Review of Evidence on Antimicrobial Resistance and Animal Agriculture in Developing Countries. Evidence on Demand. Nairobi, Kenya.

———. 2015b. “Food Safety in Low and Middle Income Countries.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 12 (9). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute: 10490–507. doi:10.3390/ijerph120910490.

Grace, Delia, Derek Baker, and Thomas F Randolph. 2010. “Innovative and Participatory Risk-Based Approaches to Assess Milk Safety in Developing Countries: A Case Study in Northeast India.” In Demand for Livestock Products in Developing Countries with a Focus on Quality and Safety Attributes: Evidence from Asia and Africa, edited by Moha Jabbar, Mohamadou L. Fadiga, and Derek Baker. ILRI (aka ILCA and ILRAD).

Grace, Delia, George Mahuku, Vivian Hoffmann, Christine Atherstone, Hari D. Upadhyaya, and Ranajit Bandyopadhyay. 2015. “International Agricultural Research to Reduce Food Risks: Case Studies on Aflatoxins.” Food Security 7 (3): 569–82.

Grace, Delia, and John McDermott. 2015. “Food Safety: Reducing and Managing Food Scares.” In IFPRI Book Chapters, 41–50. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Grace, Delia, Kristina Roesel, Erastus Kang’ethe, Bassirou Bonfoh, and Sophie Theis. 2015. Gender Roles and Food Safety in 20 Informal Livestock and Fish Value Chains. 01489. IFPRI Discussion Paper. Washington D.C.

Han, Su, Xiaoli Zhang, Rui Chen, Jingshan Wen, Yihong Li, Jing Shu, Hong Ling, and Fengmin Zhang. 2013. “Trends in Prevalence of Clonorchiasis among Patients in Heilongjiang Province, Northeast China (2009-2012): Implications for Monitoring and Control.” PLoS ONE 8 (11): 1–8. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080173.

Havelaar, Arie H., Martyn D. Kirk, Paul R. Torgerson, Herman J. Gibb, Tine Hald, Robin J. Lake, Nicolas Praet, et al. 2015. “World Health Organization Global Estimates and Regional Comparisons of the Burden of Foodborne Disease in 2010.” Edited by Lorenz von Seidlein. PLOS Medicine 12 (12). Public Library of Science: e1001923.

Hoffmann, Vivian, Kelly Jones, and Jef Leroy. 2015. “Mitigating Aflatoxin Exposure to Improve Child Growth in Eastern Kenya: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.” Trials 16 (1). Trials:

362

552. doi:10.1186/s13063-015-1064-8.

Hoffmann, Vivian, Christine M. Moser, and T Herrman. 2015. “Demand for Aflatoxin-Tested Maize in Kenya.” International Association of Agricultural Economists Triennial Conference, August 8-14 2015, Milan, Italy.

Johnson, Nancy, Christine Atherstone, and Delia Grace. 2015. The Potential of Farm-Level Technologies and Practices to Contribute to Reducing Consumer Exposure to Aflatoxins: A Theory of Change Analysis. 01452. IFPRI Discussion Paper. Washington, D.C.

Johnson, Nancy, John Mayne, Delia Grace, and Amanda Wyatt. 2015. How Will Training Traders Contribute to Improved Food Safety in Informal Markets for Meat and Milk?: A Theory of Change Analysis. IFPRI Discussion Paper. Washington D.C.

Kassam, Amir, and Saurav Barat. 2003. “Food Safety Considerations for CGIAR Research.” Journal of Agricultural & Food Information, October. Taylor & Francis Group.

Menkir, Abebe, Sameul Ajala, and Baffour Badu-Apraku. 2015. Management of Land Use Systems for Enhanced Food Security: Conflicts, Controversies and Resolutions. Tropentag. Management of Land Use Systems for Enhanced Food Security: Conflicts, Controversies and Resolutions. Berlin, Germany.

Moser, Christine M., and Vivian Hoffmann. 2015. “Firm Heterogeneity in Food Safety Provision: Evidence from Aflatoxin Tests in Kenya,” February.

Omore, A.O., and D. Baker. 2011. “Integrating Informal Actors into the Formal Dairy Industry in Kenya through Training and Certification.” Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa and International Livestock Research Institute.

Pew Research Center. 2015. Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society.

Roesel, Kristina, and Delia Grace, eds. 2014. Food Safety and Informal Markets: Animal Products in Sub-Saharan Africa. London, UK: Routledge.

Schreinemachers, Pepijn, Iven Schad, Prasnee Tipraqsa, Pakakrong M. Williams, Andreas Neef, Suthathip Riwthong, Walaya Sangchan, and Christian Grovermann. 2012. “Can Public GAP Standards Reduce Agricultural Pesticide Use? The Case of Fruit and Vegetable Farming in Northern Thailand.” Agriculture and Human Values 29 (4): 519–29. doi:10.1007/s10460-012-9378-6.

Slovic, Paul. 2010. The Feeling of Risk: New Perspectives on Risk Perception. Routledge.

Sridharan, Sanjeev, David Tschirley, and Katharina Stark. 2015. CRP-Commissioned External Evaluation of the Food Safety Research at the CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health.

The World Bank. 2015. World Development Indicators 2015. Washington D.C.

Tirado, M.C., R. Clarke, L.A. Jaykus, A. McQuatters-Gollop, and J.M. Frank. 2010. “Climate Change and Food Safety: A Review.” Food Research International 43 (7): 1745–65.

363

Tschirley, David, Thomas Reardon, Michael Dolislager, and Jason Snyder. 2015. “The Rise of a Middle Class in East and Southern Africa: Implications for Food System Transformation.” Journal of International Development 27 (5): 628–46. doi:10.1002/jid.3107.

Unnevehr, Laurian J, and Delia Grace. 2013. Tackling Aflatoxins: An Overview of Challenges and Solutions. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Unnevehr, Laurian J., and Loraine Ronchi. 2014. Food Safety and Developing Markets: Research Findings and Research Gaps. IFPRI Discussion Paper. Washington, D.C.

Viet Nam News. 2013. “Ministry Targets Lower Farm Produce Contamination.” Viet Nam News.

Vose, D J. 1998. “The Application of Quantitative Risk Assessment to Microbial Food Safety.” Journal of Food Protection 61 (5): 640–48.

Waddington, Hugh, and Howard White. 2014. Farmer Field Schools - From Agricultural Extension to Adult Education. London.

Waliyar, F, B R Ntare, A T Diallo, Kodio O, and B Diarra. 2007. On-Farm Management of Aflatoxin Contamination of Groundnut in East Africa; a Synthesis Report. Mali.

Waliyar, F, M Osiru, H Sudini, and S Njoroge. 2013. “Reducing Aflatoxins in Groundnuts through Integrated Management and Biocontrol.” Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Waliyar, F., P Craufurd, K. V. Padmaja, R. K Reddy, S. V Reddy, S. N Nigam, and P. L Kumar. 2006. Effect of Soil Application, Lime, Crop Residue and Biocontrol Agents on Pre-Harvest Aspergillus Flavus Infection and Aflatoxin Contamination in Groundnut. Groundnut Aflatoxin - Management and Genomics. China.

FP4: SPEAR

Addo, O Y, A D Stein, C H D Fall, D P Gigante, A M Guntupalli, B L Horta, C W Kuzawa, et al. “Parental Childhood Growth and Offspring Birthweight: Pooled Analyses from Four Birth Cohorts in Low and Middle Income Countries.” American Journal of Human Biology : The Official Journal of the Human Biology Council 27 (1): 99–105. doi:10.1002/ajhb.22614.

Bhutta, Zulfiqar A, Jai K Das, Arjumand Rizvi, Michelle F Gaffey, Neff Walker, Susan Horton, Patrick Webb, Anna Lartey, and Robert E Black. 2013. “Evidence-Based Interventions for Improvement of Maternal and Child Nutrition: What Can Be Done and at What Cost?” Lancet 382 (9890): 452–77. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60996-4.

Black, Robert E, Cesar G Victora, Susan P Walker, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Parul Christian, Mercedes de Onis, Majid Ezzati, et al. 2013. “Maternal and Child Undernutrition and Overweight in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries.” Lancet 382 (9890). Elsevier: 427–51. doi:10.1016/S0140-

364

6736(13)60937-X.

De Brauw, Alan, Daniel O. Gilligan, John Hoddinott, and Shalini Roy. 2014. “The Impact of Bolsa Familia on Women’s Decision-Making Power.” World Development 59: 487–504. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.02.003.

Ecker, Olivier, Clemens Breisinger, and Karl Pauw. 2011. Growth Is Good , but Is Not Enough to Improve Nutrition. 2020 Conference: Leveraging Agriculture for Improving Nutrition and Health. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

Gillespie, Stuart, Lawrence Haddad, Venkatesh Mannar, Purnima Menon, and Nicholas Nisbett. 2013. “The Politics of Reducing Malnutrition: Building Commitment and Accelerating Progress.” Lancet 382 (9891): 552–69. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60842-9.

Gillespie, Stuart, Jody Harris, and Suneetha Kadiyala. 2012. The Agriculture-Nutrition Disconnect in India - What Do We Know? 01187. IFPRI Discussion Paper. Washington, D.C.

Gillespie, Stuart, and B Margetts. 2013. “Strengthening Capacities for Enhancing the Nutrition Sensitivity of Agricultural Policy and Practice.” Standing Committee on Nutrition (SCN) News 40: 53–58.

Gillespie, Stuart, Purnima Menon, and Andrew L. Kennedy. 2015. “Scaling Up Impact on Nutrition: What Will It Take?” Advances in Nutrition: An International Review Journal 6 (4): 440–51. doi:10.3945/an.115.008276.

Gillespie, Stuart, and Mara van den Bold. 2015. Stories of Change in Nutrition - A Tool Pool. 01494. IFPRI Discussion Paper.

Gillespie, Stuart, Mara van den Bold, Judith Hodge, and Anna Herforth. 2015. “Leveraging Agriculture for Nutrition in South Asia and East Africa: Examining the Enabling Environment through Stakeholder Perceptions.” Food Security 7: 463–77.

Headey, Derek, Alice Chiu, and Suneetha Kadiyala. 2012. “Agriculture’s Role in the Indian Enigma: Help or Hindrance to the Crisis of Undernutrition?” Food Security 4 (1): 87–102. doi:10.1007/s12571-011-0161-0.

Heckert, Jessica, Deanna K. Olney, and Marie T. Ruel. 2015. “Is Women’s Empowerment a Pathway to Improving Child Health Outcomes?: Evidence from a Randomized Control Trial in Burkina Faso.” In Population Association of America, San Diego.

Herforth, Anna, and Jody Harris. 2014. Understanding and Applying Primary Pathways and Principles. Arlington, VA.

Hidrobo, Melissa, John Hoddinott, Amber Peterman, Amy Margolies, and Vanessa Moreira. 2014. “Cash, Food, or Vouchers? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in Northern Ecuador.” Journal of Development Economics 107 (March): 144–56. doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2013.11.009.

Hoddinott, John, Harold Alderman, Jere R. Behrman, Lawrence Haddad, and Susan Horton. 2013. “The

365

Economic Rationale for Investing in Stunting Reduction.” Maternal and Child Nutrition 9: 69–82. doi:10.1111/mcn.12080.

Kadiyala, Suneetha, Jody Harris, Derek Headey, Sivan Yosef, and Stuart Gillespie. 2014. “Agriculture and Nutrition in India: Mapping Evidence to Pathways.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1331 (December): 43–56. doi:10.1111/nyas.12477.

Leroy, Jef L., Marie T. Ruel, and Jean-Pierre Habicht. 2014. “Using Height-for-Age Difference instead of Height-for-Age Z-Scores for the Meaningful Measurement of Catch up Growth in Children Less than 5 Years of Age.” PloS One, Under review.

Malapit, Hazel Jean L., Suneetha Kadiyala, Agnes R. Quisumbing, Kenda Cunningham, and Parul Tyagi. 2015. “Women’s Empowerment Mitigates the Negative Effects of Low Production Diversity on Maternal and Child Nutrition in Nepal.” The Journal of Development Studies 51 (8). Routledge: 1097–1123.

Olney, Deanna, Lilia Bliznashka, Abdoulaye Pedehombga, Andrew Dillon, Marie Ruel, and Jessica Heckert. 2015. “Women’s Nutrition and Empowerment Are Improved through Participation in an Integrated Agriculture and Nutrition Program in Burkina Faso.” FASEB J 29 (1_Supplement): 898.25 – .

Olney, Deanna K, Abdoulaye Pedehombga, Marie T Ruel, and Andrew Dillon. 2015. “A 2-Year Integrated Agriculture and Nutrition and Health Behavior Change Communication Program Targeted to Women in Burkina Faso Reduces Anemia, Wasting, and Diarrhea in Children 3-12.9 Months of Age at Baseline: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.” The Journal of Nutrition 145 (6): 1317–24. doi:10.3945/jn.114.203539.

Olney, Deanna K, Sao Vicheka, Meng Kro, Chhom Chakriya, Hou Kroeun, Ly Sok, Aminzzaman Talukder, Victoria Quinn, Lora Iannotti, and Elisabeth Becker. 2013. “Using Program Impact Pathways to Understand and Improve Program Delivery , Utilization , and Potential for Impact of Helen Keller International’s Homestead Food Production Program in Cambodia” 34.

Pinstrup-Andersen, Per. 2012. “Can Agriculture Meet Future Nutrition Challenges?” European Journal of Development Research 25 (1). Nature Publishing Group: 5–12. doi:10.1057/ejdr.2012.44.

Potter, C., and Richard Brough. 2004. “Systemic Capacity Building: A Hierarchy of Needs.” Health Policy and Planning 19 (5): 336–45. doi:10.1093/heapol/czh038.

Prendergast, Andrew J, and Jean H Humphrey. 2014. “The Stunting Syndrome in Developing Countries.” Paediatrics and International Child Health 34 (4): 250–65. doi:10.1179/2046905514Y.0000000158.

Quisumbing, Agnes R., Deborah Rubin, Cristina Manfre, Elizabeth Waithanji, Mara van den Bold, Deanna Olney, Nancy Johnson, and Ruth Meinzen-Dick. 2015. “Gender, Assets, and Market-Oriented Agriculture: Learning from High-Value Crop and Livestock Projects in Africa and Asia.” Agriculture and Human Values, February. doi:10.1007/s10460-015-9587-x.

366

Resnick, Danielle, S. Baby, S Haggblade, S Hendricks, and D Mather. 2015. Conceptualizing Drivers of Policy Change in Agriculture, Nutrition, and Food Security: The Kaleidoscope Model. Washington, DC.

Ruel, Marie T., and Harold Alderman. 2013. “Nutrition-Sensitive Interventions and Programmes: How Can They Help to Accelerate Progress in Improving Maternal and Child Nutrition?” The Lancet 382 (9891): 536–51. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60843-0.

Ruel, Marie T., Purnima Menon, Jean Pierre Habicht, Cornelia Loechl, Gilles Bergeron, Gretel Pelto, Mary Arimond, John Maluccio, Lesly Michaud, and Bekele Hankebo. 2008. “Age-Based Preventive Targeting of Food Assistance and Behaviour Change and Communication for Reduction of Childhood Undernutrition in Haiti: A Cluster Randomised Trial.” The Lancet 371 (9612): 588–95.

Skoufias, Emmanuel. 2005. PROGRESA and Its Impacts on the Welfare of Rural Households in Mexico. Washington D.C.

Sumner, Andy, Jo Crichton, Sally Theobald, Eliya Zulu, and Justin Parkhurst. 2011. “What Shapes Research Impact on Policy? Understanding Research Uptake in Sexual and Reproductive Health Policy Processes in Resource Poor Contexts.” Health Research Policy and Systems 9 (Suppl 1): S3. doi:10.1186/1478-4505-9-S1-S3.

te Lintelo, Dolf J.H., and Rajith W.D. Lakshman. 2015. “Equate and Conflate: Political Commitment to Hunger and Undernutrition Reduction in Five High-Burden Countries.” World Development 76 (December): 280–92. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.07.013.

van den Bold, Mara, Agnes R. Quisumbing, and Stuart Gillespie. 2013. Women’s Empowerment and Nutrition: An Evidence Review. 01294. SSRN Electronic Journal. IFPRI Discussion Paper. Washington, D.C.

Webb, Patrick, and Steven Block. 2012. “Support for Agriculture during Economic Transformation: Impacts on Poverty and Undernutrition.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109 (31): 12309–14. doi:10.1073/pnas.0913334108.

World Bank. 2012. Agricultural Innovation Systems: An Investment Sourcebook. The World Bank. The World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-0-8213-8684-2.

FP5: Improving Human Health

Assana, Emmanuel, Craig T. Kyngdon, Charles G. Gauci, Stanny Geerts, Pierre Dorny, Redgi De Deken, Garry A. Anderson, Andr?? P. Zoli, and Marshall W. Lightowlers. 2010. “Elimination of Taenia Solium Transmission to Pigs in a Field Trial of the TSOL18 Vaccine in Cameroon.” International Journal for Parasitology 40 (5): 515–19. doi:10.1016/j.ijpara.2010.01.006.

Boelee, Eline, Flemming Konradsen, and Wim van der Hoek. 2002. Malaria in Irrigated Agriculture - Papers and Abstracts for the SIMA Special Seminar at the ICID 18th International Congress on

367

Irrigation and Drainage, Montreal, 23 July 2002. 47. IWMI Working Paper. doi:10.1002/ird.71.

Cleaveland, S, M K Laurenson, and L H Taylor. 2001. “Diseases of Humans and Their Domestic Mammals: Pathogen Characteristics, Host Range and the Risk of Emergence.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 356 (1411): 991–99.

Deem, Sharon L., Eric M. Fèvre, Margaret Kinnaird, a. Springer Browne, Dishon Muloi, Gert-Jan Godeke, Marion Koopmans, and Chantal B. Reusken. 2015. “Serological Evidence of MERS-CoV Antibodies in Dromedary Camels (Camelus Dromedaries) in Laikipia County, Kenya.” Plos One 10 (10): e0140125. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0140125.

FAO/WHO. 2014. Multicriteria-Based Ranking for Risk Management of Food-Borne Parasites: Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Meeting, 3–7 September 2012, FAO Headquarters, Rome, Italy. Rome, Italy.

Gilbert, Marius, Giulia Conchedda, Thomas P Van Boeckel, Giuseppina Cinardi, Catherine Linard, Gaëlle Nicolas, Weerapong Thanapongtharm, et al. 2015. “Income Disparities and the Global Distribution of Intensively Farmed Chicken and Pigs.” PloS One 10 (7). Public Library of Science: e0133381.

Gonzalez, A. E., C. Gavidia, N. Falcon, T. Bernal, M. Verastegui, H. H. Garcia, R. H. Gilman, et al. 2001. “Protection of Pigs with Cysticercosis from Further Infections after Treatment with Oxfendazole.” American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 65 (1): 15–18.

Grace, Delia. 2014. “The Business Case for One Health.” The Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research 81 (2): E1–6.

———. 2015. Review of Evidence on Antimicrobial Resistance and Animal Agriculture in Developing Countries. Evidence on Demand. Nairobi, Kenya.

Grace, Delia, Bernard Bett, Johanna Lindahl, and Tim Robinson. 2015. Climate and Livestock Disease: Assessing the Vulnerability of Agricultural Systems to Livestock Pests under Climate Change Scenarios. 116. CCAFS Working Paper. Copenhagen, Denmark.

Grace, Delia, Florence Mutua, Pamela Ochungo, Russ Kruska, Kate Jones, Liam Brierley, Lucy Lupar, et al. 2012. Mapping of Poverty and Likely Zoonoses Hotspots, Zoonoses Project 4. Report to the UK Department for International Development. Nairobi, Kenya.

Gray, G. C., B. D. Anderson, a. D. LaBeaud, J.-M. Heraud, E. M. Fevre, S. F. Andriamandimby, E. a. J. Cook, et al. 2015. “Seroepidemiological Study of Interepidemic Rift Valley Fever Virus Infection Among Persons with Intense Ruminant Exposure in Madagascar and Kenya.” American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. doi:10.4269/ajtmh.15-0383.

Havelaar, Arie H., Martyn D. Kirk, Paul R. Torgerson, Herman J. Gibb, Tine Hald, Robin J. Lake, Nicolas Praet, et al. 2015. “World Health Organization Global Estimates and Regional Comparisons of the Burden of Foodborne Disease in 2010.” Edited by Lorenz von Seidlein. PLOS Medicine 12 (12). Public Library of Science: e1001923.

Hemingway, Janet. 2014. “The Role of Vector Control in Stopping the Transmission of Malaria: Threats

368

and Opportunities.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 369 (1645): 20130431.

Jones, Bryony A, Delia Grace, Richard Kock, Silvia Alonso, Jonathan Rushton, Mohammed Y Said, Declan McKeever, et al. 2013. “Zoonosis Emergence Linked to Agricultural Intensification and Environmental Change.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110 (21): 8399–8404.

Jores, Joerg. 2015. Middle East Respiratory in Camels: An Overview for Sub-Saharan and North Africa.

Lines, J.D. 1988. “Do Agricultural Insecticides Select for Insecticide Resistance in Mosquitoes? A Look at the Evidence.” Parasitology Today 4 (7). Elsevier: S17–20.

Maurice, John. 2014. “Of Pigs and People - WHO Prepares to Battle Cysticercosis.” The Lancet 384 (9943): 571–72. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61353-2.

Mayne, John, and Nancy Johnson. 2015. Using Theories of Change in the CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (Draft).

Mbabu, Murithi, Ian Njeru, Sarah File, Eric Osoro4, Stella Kiambi, Austine Bitek, Peter Ithondeka, et al. 2014. “Establishing a One Health Office in Kenya.” The Pan African Medical Journal 19: 106. doi:10.11604/pamj.2014.19.106.4588.

McDermott, J, D Grace, and Jakob Zinsstag. 2013. “Economics of Brucellosis Impact and Control in Low-Income Countries.” Revue Scientifique et Technique ( … 32 (1): 249–61.

McDermott, J., and D. Grace. 2011. “Agriculture-Associated Diseases: Adapting Agriculture to Improve Human Health.” ILRI.

Munyua, Peninah M, R Mbabu Murithi, Peter Ithondeka, Allen Hightower, Samuel M Thumbi, Samuel A Anyangu, Jusper Kiplimo, et al. 2016. “Predictive Factors and Risk Mapping for Rift Valley Fever Epidemics in Kenya.” PloS One 11 (1). Public Library of Science: e0144570. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0144570.

Ng’ang'a, Caroline M, Salome A Bukachi, and Bernard K Bett. 2016. “Lay Perceptions of Risk Factors for Rift Valley Fever in a Pastoral Community in Northeastern Kenya.” BMC Public Health 16 (1): 1–10. doi:10.1186/s12889-016-2707-8.

Obonyo, Mark, James M. Akoko, Austine B Orinde, Eric Osoro, Waqo Gufu Boru, Ian Njeru, and Eric M Fèvre. 2016. “Suspected Rabies in Humans and Animals, Laikipia County, Kenya” 22 (3): 551–53.

Prasad, Kashi Nath, Amit Prasad, Avantika Verma, and Aloukick Kumar Singh. 2008. “Human Cysticercosis and Indian Scenario: A Review.” Journal of Biosciences 33 (4): 571–82. doi:10.1007/s12038-008-0075-y.

Rathgeber, E M, and C Vlassoff. 1993. “Gender and Tropical Diseases: A New Research Focus.” Social Science & Medicine (1982) 37 (4): 513–20.

369

Reid, Molly C., and F. Ellis McKenzie. 2016. “The Contribution of Agricultural Insecticide Use to Increasing Insecticide Resistance in African Malaria Vectors.” Malaria Journal 15 (1). BioMed Central: 107. doi:10.1186/s12936-016-1162-4.

Thomas, Lian Francesca. 2015. Landscape Analysis: Control of Taenia Solium. Geneva. doi:http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/164359/1/9789241508643_eng.pdf.

Thomas, Lian Francesca, Leslie Jayne Stevenson Harrison, Philip Toye, William Anson de Glanville, Elizabeth Anne Jesse Cook, Claire Njeri Wamae, and Eric Maurice Fèvre. 2015. “Prevalence of Taenia Solium Cysticercosis in Pigs Entering the Food Chain in Western Kenya.” Tropical Animal Health and Production, 233–38. doi:10.1007/s11250-015-0949-6.

Torgerson, Paul R, Brecht Devleesschauwer, Nicolas Praet, Niko Speybroeck, Arve Lee Willingham, Fumiko Kasuga, Mohammad B Rokni, et al. 2015. “World Health Organization Estimates of the Global and Regional Disease Burden of 11 Foodborne Parasitic Diseases, 2010: A Data Synthesis.” PLoS Medicine 12 (12). Public Library of Science: e1001920.

Van Boeckel, Thomas P, Charles Brower, Marius Gilbert, Bryan T Grenfell, Simon A Levin, Timothy P Robinson, Aude Teillant, and Ramanan Laxminarayan. 2015. “Global Trends in Antimicrobial Use in Food Animals.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112 (18): 5649–54.

Wang, Qian, Jiamin Qiu, Wen Yang, Peter M Schantz, Francis Raoul, Philip S Craig, Patrick Giraudoux, and Dominique A Vuitton. 2006. “Socioeconomic and Behavior Risk Factors of Human Alveolar Echinococcosis in Tibetan Communities in Sichuan, People’s Republic of China.” The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 74 (5): 856–62.

Wardrop, Nicola A, Lian F Thomas, Peter M Atkinson, William A de Glanville, Elizabeth A J Cook, C Njeri Wamae, Sarah Gabriël, Pierre Dorny, Leslie J S Harrison, and Eric M Fèvre. 2015. “The Influence of Socio-Economic, Behavioural and Environmental Factors on <italic>Taenia</italic> Spp. Transmission in Western Kenya: Evidence from a Cross-Sectional Survey in Humans and Pigs.” PLoS Negl Trop Dis 9 (12). Public Library of Science: e0004223. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0004223.

Watts, Nick, W. Neil Adger, Paolo Agnolucci, Jason Blackstock, Peter Byass, Wenjia Cai, Sarah Chaytor, et al. 2015. “Health and Climate Change: Policy Responses to Protect Public Health.” The Lancet 386 (10006): 1861–1914. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60854-6.

WHO/FAO/UNEP/UNCHS Panel of Experts on Environmental Management for Vector Control. 1996. Agricultural Development and Vector-Borne Diseases.

Wielgosz, Benjamin, Edward Kato, and Claudia Ringler. 2014. “Agro-Ecology, Household Economics and Malaria in Uganda: Empirical Correlations between Agricultural and Health Outcomes.” Malaria Journal 13 (1): 251. doi:10.1186/1475-2875-13-251.

Wielgosz, Benjamin, Margaret Mangheni, Daniel W. Tsegai, and Claudia Ringler. 2012. “Malaria and Agriculture: A Global Review of the Literature with a Focus on the Application of Integrated Pest

370

and Vector Management in East Africa and Uganda.” IFPRI Discussion Paper 01232, no. December: 64. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2197504.

World Bank. 2012. People, Pathogens and Our Planet. Washington, D.C.

World Health Organization. 2011. The Control of Neglected Zoonotic Diseases: Community-Based Interventions for Prevention and Control. Geneva.

———. 2012. Global Plan for Insecticide Resistance Management in Malaria Vectors. World Health Organization Press.

Annex 3.3 – Gender

Birol, Ekin, Dorene Asare-Marfo, Jack Fiedler, Barbara Ha, Keith Lividini, Mourad Moursi, Manfred Zeller, J.V. Meenakshi, and Alexander J. Stein. 2014. “Cost-Effectiveness of Biofortification.” In Biofortification Progress Briefs, edited by HarvestPlus. Washington D.C.: HarvestPlus.

Black, Robert E, Lindsay H Allen, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Laura E Caulfield, Mercedes de Onis, Majid Ezzati, Colin Mathers, and Juan Rivera. 2008. “Maternal and Child Undernutrition: Global and Regional Exposures and Health Consequences.” Lancet 371 (9608): 243–60. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61690-0.

Gelli, Aulo, Corinna Hawkes, Jason Donovan, Jody Harris, Summer Allen, Alan De Brauw, Spencer Henson, Nancy Johnson, James Garrett, and David Ryckembusch. 2015. Value Chains and Nutrition - A Framework to Support the Identification, Design and Evaluation of Interventions. 01413. IFPRI Discussion Paper. Washington D.C.

Grace, Delia, Kristina Roesel, Erastus Kang’ethe, Bassirou Bonfoh, and Sophie Theis. 2015. Gender Roles and Food Safety in 20 Informal Livestock and Fish Value Chains. 01489. IFPRI Discussion Paper. Washington D.C.

Hawkes, Corinna, and Marie Ruel. 2006. “Understanding the Links Between Agriculture and Health.” International Food Policy Research Institute 2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture, and the Environment.

Hawkes, Corinna, Rachel Turner, and Jeff Waage. 2012. Current and Planned Research on Agriculture for Improved Nutrition: A Mapping and a Gap Analysis. London, UK: Leverhulme Centre for Integrative Research on Agriculture and Health (LCIRAH).

Herforth, Anna, and Jody Harris. 2014. Understanding and Applying Primary Pathways and Principles. Arlington, VA.

Herforth, Anna, Andrew Jones, and Per Pinstrup-Andersen. 2012. “Prioritizing Nutrition in Agriculture and Rural Development projects:Guiding Principles for Operational Investments.” World Bank.

Jones, Harry. 2009. Social Development: Why It Is Important and How To Impact It. 311. ODI Working Paper. London, UK.

371

Kabeer, Naila. 2001. “Reflections on the Measurement of Women’s Empowerment.” Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.

Kadiyala, Suneetha, Jody Harris, Derek Headey, Sivan Yosef, and Stuart Gillespie. 2014. “Agriculture and Nutrition in India: Mapping Evidence to Pathways.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1331 (December): 43–56. doi:10.1111/nyas.12477.

Lividini, Keith, and John L. Fiedler. 2015. “Assessing the Promise of Biofortification: A Case Study of High Provitamin A Maize in Zambia.” Food Policy 54 (July): 65–77.

Masset, Edoardo, Lawrence Haddad, Alexander Cornelius, and Jairo Isaza-Castro. 2012. “Effectiveness of Agricultural Interventions That Aim to Improve Nutritional Status of Children: Systematic Review.” BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 344 (January): d8222.

Rubin, Deborah, Cristina Manfre, and Kara Nichols Barrett. 2009. Promoting Gender Equitable Opportunities in Agricultural Value Chains.

Ruel, Marie T., and Harold Alderman. 2013. “Nutrition-Sensitive Interventions and Programmes: How Can They Help to Accelerate Progress in Improving Maternal and Child Nutrition?” The Lancet 382 (9891): 536–51. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60843-0.

Sraboni, Esha, Hazel J. Malapit, Agnes R. Quisumbing, and Akhter U. Ahmed. 2014. “Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture: What Role for Food Security in Bangladesh?” World Development 61 (September): 11–52. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.025.

van den Bold, Mara, Agnes R. Quisumbing, and Stuart Gillespie. 2013. Women’s Empowerment and Nutrition: An Evidence Review. 01294. SSRN Electronic Journal. IFPRI Discussion Paper. Washington, D.C.

Victora, Cesar G, Linda Adair, Caroline Fall, Pedro C Hallal, Reynaldo Martorell, Linda Richter, and Harshpal Singh Sachdev. 2008. “Maternal and Child Undernutrition: Consequences for Adult Health and Human Capital.” Lancet (London, England) 371 (9609): 340–57. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61692-4.

Wang, Qian, Jiamin Qiu, Wen Yang, Peter M Schantz, Francis Raoul, Philip S Craig, Patrick Giraudoux, and Dominique A Vuitton. 2006. “Socioeconomic and Behavior Risk Factors of Human Alveolar Echinococcosis in Tibetan Communities in Sichuan, People’s Republic of China.” The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 74 (5): 856–62.

Annex 3.4 – Youth

Anyidoho, Nana Akua, Happy Kayuni, John Ndungu, Jennifer Leavy, Mohamadou Sall, Getnet Tadele, and James Sumberg. 2012. Young People and Policy Narratives in Sub -Saharan Africa. 32. Future Agricultures Working Paper.

372

Black, Robert E, Cesar G Victora, Susan P Walker, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Parul Christian, Mercedes de Onis, Majid Ezzati, et al. 2013. “Maternal and Child Undernutrition and Overweight in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries.” Lancet 382 (9890). Elsevier: 427–51. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60937-X.

Doss, Cheryl. 2011. Interhousehold Barganing and Resource Allocation in Developing Countries. World Development Report 2012 Background Paper.

Duflo, Esther, and Christopher Udry. 2004. “Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in Cote d’Ivoire: Social Norms, Separate Accounts and Consumption Choices,” May.

Hackett, Kristy M, Umme S Mukta, Chowdhury S B Jalal, and Daniel W Sellen. 2015. “Knowledge, Attitudes and Perceptions on Infant and Young Child Nutrition and Feeding among Adolescent Girls and Young Mothers in Rural Bangladesh.” Maternal & Child Nutrition 11 (2): 173–89. doi:10.1111/mcn.12007.

International Fund for Agricultural Development. 2014. Youth and Agriculture: Key Challenges and Concrete Solutions. Rome.

Leavy, Jennifer, and Naomi Hossain. 2014. Who Wants to Farm? Youth Aspirations, Opportunities and Rising Food Prices. IDS Working Papers. Vol. 2014. Brighton, UK. doi:10.1111/j.2040-0209.2014.00439.x.

Olney, Deanna K, Abdoulaye Pedehombga, Marie T Ruel, and Andrew Dillon. 2015. “A 2-Year Integrated Agriculture and Nutrition and Health Behavior Change Communication Program Targeted to Women in Burkina Faso Reduces Anemia, Wasting, and Diarrhea in Children 3-12.9 Months of Age at Baseline: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.” The Journal of Nutrition 145 (6): 1317–24. doi:10.3945/jn.114.203539.

Ricardo, Christine, and Fabio Verani. 2010. Engaging Men and Boys in Gender Equality and Health - A Global Toolkit for Action. New York, USA.

Sraboni, Esha, Hazel J. Malapit, Agnes R. Quisumbing, and Akhter U. Ahmed. 2014. “Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture: What Role for Food Security in Bangladesh?” World Development 61 (September): 11–52. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.025.

Sumberg, James, Nana Akua Anyidoho, Jennifer Leavy, Dolf J.H. te Lintelo, and Kate Wellard. 2012. “Introduction: The Young People and Agriculture ‘Problem’ in Africa.” IDS Bulletin 43 (6): 1–8.

Sumberg, James, Thomas Yeboah, Justin Flynn, and Nana Akua Anyidoho. 2015. Perspectives on Jobs and Farming : Findings from a Q Study with Young People , Parents and Development Workers in Rural Ghana. 109. Future Agricultures Working Paper.

The United Nations Population Fund. 2008. Generation of Change: Young People and Culture - State of the World Population Report 2008 Youth Supplement. New York, USA.

373

Annex 3.5 – Results-Based Management

Abt Associates Inc. 2012. Evaluation of HarvestPlus Phase II. Seattle, WA.

Birol, Ekin, Dorene Asare-Marfo, Jack Fiedler, Barbara Ha, Keith Lividini, Mourad Moursi, Manfred Zeller, J.V. Meenakshi, and Alexander J. Stein. 2014. “Cost-Effectiveness of Biofortification.” In Biofortification Progress Briefs, edited by HarvestPlus. Washington D.C.: HarvestPlus.

Johnson, Nancy, Christine Atherstone, and Delia Grace. 2015. The Potential of Farm-Level Technologies and Practices to Contribute to Reducing Consumer Exposure to Aflatoxins: A Theory of Change Analysis. 01452. IFPRI Discussion Paper. Washington, D.C.

Johnson, Nancy, Hannah Guedenet, and Amy Saltzman. 2015. What Will It Take for Biofortification to Have Impact on the Ground? Theories of Change for Three Crop-Country Combinations. 01427. IFPRI Discussion Paper. Washington D.C.

Johnson, Nancy, John Mayne, Delia Grace, and Amanda Wyatt. 2015. How Will Training Traders Contribute to Improved Food Safety in Informal Markets for Meat and Milk?: A Theory of Change Analysis. IFPRI Discussion Paper. Washington D.C.

Lividini, Keith, and John L. Fiedler. 2015. “Assessing the Promise of Biofortification: A Case Study of High Provitamin A Maize in Zambia.” Food Policy 54 (July): 65–77.

374