Agriculture for Improved Nutrition & Health

1. Agriculture for Improved Nutrition & Health CGIAR Research Program 4 Proposal submitted by: International Food Policy Research Institute IFPRI ILRI Bioversity CIAT CIMMYT CIP ICARDA ICRAF ICRISAT IITA IWMI World FIsh

2. CRP4 Development – from concept to proposal approval Initial concept note submitted and approved (may/june 2010) On-line consultation, partner meeting, 1st proposal (July – Sept 2010) Revised proposal (may 2011) Accepted proposal with revisions (july 2011) 2nd Revision with must-haves (October 2011) Accepted on a no-objection basis (december 2011) – some adjustments to be made in 2012 Program commences (january 2012)

3. CRP4 Conceptual Framework Health CRP4’s strategic goal: Accelerate progress in improving the nutrition and health of poor people by leveraging agriculture and enhancing the synergies in joint efforts between agriculture, health and nutrition 1. Enhancing Nutrition along the Value Chain 3. Prevention & Control of Ag- Associated Diseases • 4. Integrated Programs and Policies Nutrition 2. Bio-fortification Agriculture Social Behavior Change and Communications All components Improved availability, access, intake of nutritious, safe foods Increased knowledge of nutrition, food safety Increased labor productivity Increased income and gender equity Decreased risk of AAD RESULT: Improved nutrition and health, especially among women and young children

4. Program Objectives • Generate knowledge and technologies • To Improve nutritional quality & safety of foods along the value chain (Comp. 1,2,3) • Control zoonotic, food- or water-borne and occupational diseases (Comp. 3) • Develop, test, release • A variety of biofortified foods (Comp. 1, 2) • Other nutrient-rich foods (e.g. fortified, processed) that are accessible by the poor (Comp. 1) • Develop methods and tools to • Evaluate complex multi-sectoral programs and policies (Comp. 1-4) • Integrate nutrition and health into agriculture programs and policies (Comp. 1-4) • Improve effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of surveillance and monitoring systems (Comp. 3) • Provide urgently needed evidence • Agriculture is a powerful tool to improve nutrition and health

5. Program Impact Pathways Outputs Research Outcomes Development Outcomes • Biofortified and diverse nutrient-rich foods available and accessible to the poor • Knowledge and technologies to improve quality and safety of foods along value chains developed • Better, more cost-effective integrated ANH program models and capacity strengthened • Strong evidence of role of integrated ANH programs in improving health and nutrition • Good practices in integrated ANH policymaking applied • Cross sectoral work incentivized • Capacity for joint policymaking strengthened • 1. VALUE CHAINS: • Producers • Chain agents • Media and consumer group • Regulators Value chains that provide more nutritious and safer food Impacts Improved nutrition and health, especially among women and young children Implementers • 2. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS: • Development program implementers (gov’t , NGOs ) • Public health program implementers Better integrated agriculture, nutrition and health programs • 3. POLICY: • Policymakers and investors • Inter-gov’t agencies Better cross-sectoral policy, regulation and investment Enablers

6. From Proposal to Implementation • Research focus and coherence • Impact pathways as a basis for important and testable research hypotheses, activities and outputs • Looking at long-term impacts through short and medium term achievements • Add nutrition and health outcomes and impacts to agricultural research • Partnerships and capacity strengthening • Serve country-led and owned processes • Complex institutional landscape (SUN, REACH, One Health) • Complex cross-sectoral landscape – clarity of roles and responsibilities

7. From Proposal to Implementation • Evidence, evaluation, impact assessment • Greatest demand from Delhi 2020–priorities, what works • Complex field–need for indicators across agriculture, nutrition and health • Invest in a senior research position to support evaluation and impact assessment across the CRPs • Monitoring & reporting (managing expectations and enhancing performance) • Pipeline of deliverables in short and medium term (some in short-term like Harvest Plus…) • Independent Advisory Committee (science and development) • Fit with CGIAR M&E (pending) • Build on 2020 Conference outputs & momentum

8. Relationships With Other CRPs / Centers VALUE CHAIN IMPACT PATHWAY CRP2: Value chain analysis, tools and approaches CRP3: Improving nutritional quality and safety of key CGIAR commodities • staple crops (mycotoxins–3.2. 3.5–CIMMYT, IITA, ICRISAT), • bio-fortified staple crops (Harvest Plus and partners), • nutrient-rich foods (legumes (3.5–ICRISAT) and animal source foods (3.7–ILRI /WFish) Development program impact pathway CRP1: CRP4 will draw on findings from agricultural intervention, technologies, innovation and provide health/nutrition inputs - Initial focus with CRP 1.3 (coastal/aquatic in Bangladesh) CRP 3.5, 3.7, 5, 6, 7: Health/nutrition inputs and interactions Policy impact pathway CRP2: On research methods and M&E (e.g., in social protection, risk management, gender policies) and building on interactions listed above with other CRPs

9. Management Structure Consortium Board IFPRI Board CRP4 Lead Center (IFPRI) Planning & Management Committee Independent AdvisoryCommittee (6) • Chair (ILRI Representative; first 2 y) • CRP Director (IFPRI) • Select partners and stakeholders (~3) • Leaders of research components Program Research Team • 1. Value Chain for Nutrition • CG partners • Other partners • 2. Biofortification • CG partners • Other partners • 3. AAD • CG partners • Other partners • 4. Programs/Policies • CG partners • Other partners RESEARCH LEADERS

10. Progress on implementing governance and management • Independent advisory Group • TORs provided, nominations made • Slate prepared for reviewed by the IFPRI Board • CRP Management unit • Director, Senior Program Manager, Contracts and Grants Administrator / SAC appointed • Senior Research Fellow and Research Analyst under recruitment (JDs circulated) • Planning and management committee • TORs provided, 4 component leaders, partner members, Center members • Harvest plus • Former Challenge Program, Harvest Plus, a joint venture CIAT-IFPRI was incorporated into CRP4 • Harvest Plus PAC continues (smaller, less meetings) through 2013. • More details in PMC meeting from Howdy Bouis • Agreements - CPA / PIA / PPA • Fund Council approved CRP4 on a no-objection basis in December; CPA signed; PIA sent to IFPRI • Expect PPA relatively soon – need to firm up restricted budgets and final W1/W2 funding • Role of Center focal points (TORs included)

11. Partnerships PARTNERSHIP STRATEGY Developed during inception phase (stakeholder mapping, landscape analysis, roadmap, plan of action, monitoring and tracking system; partnership engagement and development process) PRINCIPLES Value addition, shared goals, mutual accountability, respect, guidelines for communication ENABLERS Policy/decision makers, e.g. inter-gov’t, gov’t, international, regional, subregional, civil society, etc. VALUE CHAIN ACTORS & REPRESENTATIVES Private sector, public/private initiatives, associations and groups DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTERS Gov’t, UN, NGOs, civil society, farmers groups RESEARCH PARTNERS International and national academic, research institutions

12. Budget By component By center

13. Risks and Their Management RISKS Partnership • Center competition • Engagement of countries • Engagement of nutrition and health partners Leadership • CRP/IFPR-level vision/credibility/confidence • Consortium, Centers and Fund Council buy-in Operational • Ineffective coordination and management • Lack of focus or support for longer-term agenda Administrative • Too much bureaucracy and complexity • Lack of efficiency and effectiveness Funding • Inadequate to meet deliverables • Unbalanced funding/gaps across components MITIGATION Partnership • Program management and communication • Clear and substantive roles, capacity development • Establish CRP4 value addition and communicate Leadership • Effective Director, coordination unit, PMC, IAG • Evidence of performance and communication Operational • Transparent monitoring and management decisions • Effective evaluation, independent review and resources Administrative • Clear and simple agreements, effective internal communication • Ongoing IFPRI admin efficiency, strong monitoring Funding • Donor engagement, performance management, communication • Strengthen developing areas and build program coherence

14. RESPONDING TO ISPC COMMENTS Requested revisions • Develop a “detailed” strategy for the generation of international public goods (IPGs) • Largely satisfied with the IPG potential of proposed research. • Paper on enhancing IPGs or a strategy section in a revised proposal and a mechanism to review maximizing IPGs within the operational plan. • Provide a thoughtful analysis of the comparative advantage of the CGIAR in CRP4 • Possibility of a section in the partnership strategy on comparative advantage in different components

15. RESPONDING TO ISPC COMMENTS Requested revisions • Strengthen and speed up the process (data, indicators, and hypotheses) for prioritizing actions and investments. • Planning meetings, particularly for components 1 and 3, including some external partners. Link to work on new metrics. • Greater clarity on research hypotheses related to food security, under-nutrition and success in different target groups • Some editing of proposal • Task for research team planning with challenging by Advisory group plus others as needed.

16. RESPONDING TO ISPC COMMENTS Requested revisions • Take a more strategic rather than opportunistic approach to program evolution. • Will be an on-going challenge, with ISPC wanting adherence to a long-term agenda and CRP team wanting flexibility to adjust to unanticipated challenges and opportunities.

17. Initial Research Priorities Nutritional value chains • overall framework and assessment of opportunities for different food systems • co-develop specific value chain opportunities with key actors Bio-fortification • continue bio-fortified crop development and evaluation • enhance spillovers - new countries and commercial value chains Agriculture-associated diseases • aflatoxin risks and their mitigation • prioritization of food safety and zoonotic risks and their mitigation and trade-offs in intensifying production systems and evolving value chains Integrated programs and policies • continue to strengthen program evaluation with new cross-sectoral metrics and approaches • cross-sectoral priorities and policies with key partners in SSA and South Asia

18. Please insert video clip here

19. Program Development & Implementation • Establish agreements and working relations with Centers and Divisions • Establish CRP4 coordination office • Develop strategies and plans for: • Gender • Partnership • Capacity Development • Communication • M&E and IA

20. Program Development & Implementation • Develop operational plan for 3 years, detailed for 2012. Attention to research focus and coherence, evidence and prioritization, links with other CRPs. • Develop TORs and establish Planning and Management Committee • Develop TORs and establish Independent Advisory Group • Region-specific approaches (SSA, South Asia, LAC) • As needed, establish special research groups • External communications–website, networks, donor engagement, events

21. Prioritization – initial priorities and revising them • Many opinions on priorities and evidence for agriculture-nutrition-health • How do we start – priorities of key actors (countries, partners, Centers) • Recognizing – evidence of importance of issues. Weaker evidence of what to do about it, especially for impacts at scale. Lots of counter-intuitive findings. Important task in the first 3 years.

22. Region-specific prioritization, planning and implementation sub-Saharan Africa • CAADP important at continental and regional level • Important country differences and need for country engagement in selected countries • Would engage in all research components South Asia • Weaker regional engagement with large countries • Initial focus in Bangladesh and some states in India • Would engage in all research components LAC • Focus on bio-fortification; strong partners; different engagements

23. Impact pathways – input from Center Focal Point meeting Feb 16 Next Steps Value Chains • Developed a long-list of potential value chains for investigation • Need to develop background information for value chains on food flows, nutrient flow, hazard flows and risk analysis, welfare benefits and potential for future innovation and changing demand. For each look at scale, location, time frame and changing standards. • Assess the different value chains and develop a shorter priority list. Criteria would include what can be learned and possibility to leverage other activities (including other CRPs).

24. Impact pathways – input from Center Focal Point meeting Feb 16 Next Steps Programs • Assess potential programs from the clients’ perspectives and needs. What are their questions? • What are the possibilities or options for change? • What does research have to offer? (evaluation, new approaches, tools) • Looking at appropriate research in different components relevant to impact from discovery through development to delivery and the relative roles and responsibilities of different providers.

25. Impact pathways – input from Center Focal Point meeting Feb 16 Next Steps Policies and Investments • What are the major opportunities in which policies, regulations and investments can make a difference on nutrition and health impacts. • Look at current policies as well as policy constraints. Reassess old policies and what are main policy options to make a big difference. • Start in specific policy areas related to the other CRP components, policies for nutrition-sensitive value chains and for programs. • Consider how policies enable and how this can be improved through better policy implementation.

26. Pathways for outcomes and impacts – actors, actions, processes • Which actors are essential and what capacities do they need? • What actions are required to make impacts? • How can and do actors partners in the pathway? • What can research contribute along the pathway? • What are the critical gender and equity concerns to ensure impacts? • Goal – by october 2012 – have more detailed impact pathways developed that allow the CRP (centers and partners) to measure, monitor, evaluate, communicate and adapt and learn for research to contribute to large-scale impacts

27. Centers – their contributions to impacts • Proposed Center Outputs and outcomes • How can they contribute to the different impact pathways? • What strengths does the Center bring? • In what impact pathways would the Center like to work with others? • How would the Center like to evolve its future contributions? • Center – partners – crp: a more integrated program • What can we count on individual Centers for? • What areas do two or more Centers need to work together?

28. Impact Pathway Discussions – main actions • VALUE Chains • How can they contribute to the different impact pathways? • What strengths does the Center bring? • In what impact pathways would the Center like to work with others? • How would the Center like to evolve its future contributions? • Programs • What can we count on individual Centers for? • What areas do two or more Centers need to work together? • Policy / investment

29. Partnership Strategy Expected impacts of partnerships • Improve nutrition and health of poor populations • Influence policy by creating access to decision-making processes and evidence to influence them; • Expand ANH capacity for integrated research, implementation, and policy decisions; • Mobilize resources for furthering ANH

30. Partnership Principles Defining Partnerships a long-term sustainable collaborative relationship with shared responsibility, mutual respect, and clear accountability in which different parties join together to achieve a common goal while contributing to each institution’s mandate that would not be possible for either partner to achieve alone or in a cost-effective or time-efficient way.

31. Partnership Types Figure 1: Partnership types ENABLERS Policy/decision makers, e.g. inter-gov’t, gov’t, international, regional, subregional, civil society, etc. VALUE CHAIN ACTORS & REPRESENTATIVES Private sector, public/private initiatives, associations and groups DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTERS Gov’t, UN, NGOs, civil society, farmers groups RESEARCH PARTNERS International and national academic, research institutions

32. Mode of Partnerships Impact Pathways • who are the actors, their role/capacity, how can we work to improve nutrition via agriculture Geographical Grouping – ownership & capacity • Global • public goods & influence at inter-gov’t & investors • New research areas (approaches, cross-sectoral metric) • Regional (ownership & capacity) • SSA – continent, sub-regional (CAADP), county-level • SA – Country level • LAC – EMBRAPA regional partner coordinator Research • Cross-sector complexity and breadth (i.e. aflatoxin)

33. Process of Partnerships Stakeholder Analysis and Mapping • Who are the partners? Interest? Capacity? Influence? Roadmap/ Plan of Action • Who, engagement process, partner focal points M&E • What is working; what is not • Qualitative - sensitive to partner respect/ responsiveness • Integrated in the CRP4 overall M&E