HarvestPlus Impact and Policy Research in LAC and Brazil 2013-2018

1. HarvestPlus Impact and Policy Research in LAC and Brazil2013-2018 HarvestPlus: Howdy Bouis, Ekin Birol, Manfred Zeller, Monica Jain, Dorene Asare-Marfo and Keith Lividini CIAT: Carolina Gonzalez and Salomon Perez Embrapa: Flavio Avila, Alcido Wander and Maria Geovania Lima Manos IFPRI: Dan Gilligan and Alan de Brauw

2. H+ Impact and Policy Portfolio IMPACT MAXIMISE MEASURE • Consumer acceptance • Varietal adoption • Value chain/seed systems • Farmer field day evaluation • Ex ante impact assessment • Effectiveness • Farmer feedback • Impact assessment • Adoption • Consumption • Nutrition POLICY • Linking quality and health • Portfolio analysis

3. Overall portfolio in LAC/Brazil • Where to invest? • Prioritisation exercise • Micronutrient portfolio • Opportunities map • Informing delivery and breeding • Varietal adoption studies • Consumer acceptance studies • Farmer field day evaluation • Measuring impact • Farmer feedback studies • Impact assessment • Impact evaluation/effectiveness • Policy studies

4. Where to invest? 1) Systematic research on prioritisation of countries for investment • Collect and analyse country level data on • DALYs lost to VAD and IDA • Percentage agricultural land area allocated to [crop] • Consumption per capita (kg) – food supply of [crop] • Ratio of import to production for [crop] • Production (per capita) of [crop] • Percentage allocated to feed (livestock) for [crop] • Fortification and supplementation programs existing in the country • Responsible: Salomon • Support: Carolina, Dorene, Ekin, Flavio • Year: 2012-2013

5. Where to invest? 2) Micronutrient portfolio analysis • Optimal mix of micronutrient interventions (biofortification, fortification and supplementation) through time 3) Opportunities map • Where to deliver existing varieties/crops at lowest cost and which new crops/varieties should be included in the breeding pipeline • For both studies we will investigate (LSMS/HCES) data availability for LAC countries and will do this analysis in at least three LAC countries • Responsible: Keith and Salomon • Support: Carolina and Ekin • Year: Phase 3 (2014-2018)

6. Informing delivery and breeding 1) Varietal adoption studies to investigate • Total land area dedicated to the crop in that geographical location • Land area dedicated (average across household in the geographical location) • Output and its allocation across uses (consumed, sold, saved as seed, used as feed, postharvest loss) • Source of planting material (seed or grain recycled as seed) and original source, frequency of replacement (same variety or different variety) • Traits – consumption, production and marketing/processing traits farmers look for

7. Informing delivery and breeding 1) Varietal adoption studies to investigate (continued) • Processing, food product and storage practices • Output sold, where, at what price and to whom • Input availability, use and costs • Agro-ecological, market and household level factors affecting farmers’ choice of varieties • Household age and gender composition • Education level of the household • Household dynamics on decision making and labor input for the crop– gender aspect • Income and assets • Access to input subsidies and credit • Membership in formal and informal farmers’ groups, other social groups, churches • Sources of information about 1) health/nutrition 2) agricultural technologies

8. Informing delivery and breeding 1) Varietal adoption studies to investigate (continued) • Dietary diversity (including fortified food) and how frequently/how much they eat food made with crop • Current knowledge about micronutrients • Crop cultivation patterns and seasonality: harvesting, consumption, processing, buying, selling etc. • Supplementation at the household level • General country/region fortification and supplementation programmes

9. Informing delivery and breeding • How to get all this information? 1. Desk review to identify gaps • Secondary data sources • Literature review • Other projects • Data collection in some of the countries

10. Informing delivery and breeding 2) Consumer acceptance studies • Using organoleptic tests/sensory evaluation (Expert panel and Consumers • Eliciting WTP (discount/premium) with revealed preference elicitation methods • Treatments for labelling/information

11. Informing delivery and breeding 3) Farmer field day evaluation studies • Farmer interviews during farmer field days • Interview farmers with a structured survey instrument to understand • their evaluation of various production and consumption traits of biofortified varieties vsconventional varieties • Their intention to adopt given different price levels for planting material • For identification of farmers field days where we can conduct these studies • Carolina/Salomon will check with CIAT breeders • Alcido/Flavio will check with Embrapa breeders • These studies cost around $10,000 each

12. Measuring impact • Farmer feedback studies • Interview a random sample of households who received/bought biofortified planting material to understand adoption, area cultivated, consumption and farmers feedback on the varieties and delivery method used

13. Measuring Impact 2) Impact assessment studies • Random sample of households in areas where a high density of delivery have occurred • Study participation (having received the variety) and diffusion and program effectiveness/delivery strategy • Study adopters’ feedback on production and consumption characteristics for all varieties

14. Measuring Impact 3) Impact evaluation/nutrition & delivery effectiveness • Randomised control trials around the delivery of varieties with full target levels of micronutrients • Given the crop/country level micronutrient targets are not yet specified, we will wait to hear from nutritionists about these • Ekin to check with Erick Boy about high iron bean varieties released in Panama/Guatemala • Alcido to keep an eye on high zincrice varieties which will be released in Brazil (and delivered in MA) in 2015, though currently target level is unknown

15. Policy studies • Policy studies investigating the • Relationship between hh level nutrition and child nutrition • Relationship between income and diet diversity and nutritional outcomes • Relationship between diet diversity, micronutrient density & child nutritional status • Responsible: Monica to send her proposal and data needs and Carolina to check data availability (if possible to conduct these studies, Monica to collaborate with someone at CIAT e.g., Ricardo Labarta) • Year: 2013-2014

16. Collaboration – roles • H+ LAC/Brazil • Demand driven/ initiative from H+ LAC/Brazil • Submissions of research papers to H+ WP series • Feedback on forthcoming studies which will be conducted in Africa and Asia • Univ of Hohenheim • Graduate student supervision or co-supervision from LAC/Brazil • Feedback on study designs and instruments • MOU between Hohenheim and CIAT and Embrapa • Proposal for biofortification study with BMZ funding (e.g., Guatemala beans)

17. Collaboration - roles • H+ Global impact and policy team • Share all our documents and know-how • In person capacity building/technology transfer • Protocol on data cleaning and keeping masterfile / Data management • Feedback on study designs • Discuss annual workplans • Organise annual face to face meetings and skype meeting every 3 months • Institutional contract with Embrapaand collaborator contract with Hohenheim • TORs Manfred and Alcido to send Ekin • Ekin to check with Howdy and Marilia about funding and staffing • Feedback/collaboration on proposal development