Clemens Breisinger POLICY SEMINAR Advancing Food Systems Transformation: Dialogue between German Development Cooperation and CGIAR Co-organized by German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), CGIAR, IFPRI and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) FEB 23, 2022 - 9:30 TO 11:00AM EST

1. Using research to improve policy responses
Examples from Yemen, Sudan and Ethiopia
Clemens Breisinger
Program Leader and Senior Research Fellow
International Food Policy Research Institute
with Olivier Ecker, Sikandra Kurdi and Alemayehu Seyoum Taffesse
BMZ – CGIAR –IFPRI Webinar | 23/2/2022

2. Using research to improve practice & policy responses
▪ Do cash transfers work in Yemen (and more broadly in conflict
settings)? What are effective interventions to mitigate the impact
of civil conflict on child nutrition?
▪ Who benefits from food subsidies and food aid in Sudan?
Should the country move from food to direct cash transfers?
▪ How can research and capacity building strengthen agricultural
institutions and policies in Ethiopia?

3. Do cash transfer programs for nutrition work in Yemen?
Cash for Nutrition (evaluation funded by World
Bank and CGIAR PIM)
o Program implemented by the Yemen
Social Fund for Development and UNDP
o Mothers receive cash transfers and are
taught about child nutrition in group
seminars
o Researchers used rigorous RCT design
Positive impact on dietary diversity and
nutrition
• Increased share of household food budget
devoted to vegetables, eggs, and dairy
• Under-2 children consumed more food
groups per day
• Improved breastfeeding and water
treatment practices
• Improvement in height-for-age z-scores for
children in poorest households
National cash transfer program (evaluation
funded by GIZ)
o Implemented by the Social Welfare
Fund
o Unconditional cash transfer program
o Researchers used econometric
analysis of nationally representative,
panel survey data
Cash transfer reduces negative impact of
conflict on children’s nutrition
o 1SD increase in armed conflict
intensity reduces mean child WHZ
by 9.6%.
o Studied cash transfer program
reduced this nutritional impact by
more than one-third.
IFPRI with partners conducted two evaluations to find out

4. Evaluation results have strong influence
▪ The World Bank expanded IDA support to the Cash for
Nutrition program and designed new related programs
worth more than $200 million, citing IFPRI’s Cash for
Nutrition evaluation results.
▪ The KfW showed strong interest in the evaluation
results in the context of German financial support to the
SFD and invited IFPRI to several info sessions.
▪ Research findings informed the discussions of the
Humanitarian, Development, and Peace (HDP) Nexus
Coalition of the United Nations Food Systems Summit
2021 Community.
▪ Cash for Nutrition study was included in several
learning and guidance notes, e.g. Global Nutrition
Cluster Evidence and Guidance Note and Cash
Learning Partnership study.

5. Who benefits from food subsidies and food aid in Sudan?
▪ Affordable wheat products are critical
for Sudan to achieve political and
economic stability
▪ Results show that bread subsidies
(and wheat donations by donors) do
increase consumption and lower prices
(good for households)
▪ But over half of the value of wheat
subsidies is estimated to be captured
by non poor households
▪ Bread subsidies should be better
targeted and targeted cash transfers
considered.
IFPRI with partners conducted surveys and built models to find out
Source: Resnick, 2021
Source: Dorosh, 2021

6. Evaluation results are informing development
partners and policy makers
▪ Donors consulted with IFPRI to inform their
decision making on continuing wheat
donations.
▪ The Government of Sudan (before the recent
military takeover) with support from the World
Bank introduced a cash transfer program.
▪ Going forward, policy recommendations
include:
o Gradual shift away from bread subsidies to
broader food security and cash transfers
(example of Egypt)
o Increase investments in agriculture with focus
on resilient local crops and alternative higher-
value crops, such as vegetables and fruits.

7. Institution and capacity building in Ethiopia
▪ Long term in-country presence (2005-
present) with key pillars of work:
o Co-creation
o Collaborative research
o Capacity building
o Outreach/engagement
▪ Funded by multiple donors and projects
▪ Strong, long-term partnerships
o National Advisory Council (NAC)
o Policy Studies Institute
o Ethiopian Economics Association (EEA)
o Addis Ababa University (AAU)
o Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural
Research (EIAR)
o The Central Statistical Agency of
Ethiopia (CSA)
o Planning and Development Commission
(PDC)
o Ministry of Agriculture (MoA)
o Agricultural Transformation Agency

8. Examples for influence on policy decisions
▪ Agricultural Transformation Agency
o Training delivery to regional and national experts on soil mapping,
atlas interpretation and fertilizer applications in the field
o Involvement in identifying future fertilizer blending plants in
strategic locations
▪ Evaluation of PSNP during 2006-2021
o Identified achievements and weaknesses and led to corrective
measures to improve the program
o Findings were used as part of the justification for renewing the
PSNP by the WB, GoE, other donors – PSNP is now in its fifth
phase
▪ Teff policy
o Assessing the impacts of ATA intervention in Teff cultivation
(special fertilizer package plus row planting)
o A systematic analysis of Teff value chain might have contributed
to the decision to delay the inclusion of Teff in the Ethiopian
commodity exchange

9. Research for Policy Solutions at the Country Level
IFPRI’s Country Strategy Support Programs (CSSPs) & New ONE CGIAR Initiative on
National Policies and Strategies (NPS)
• Country-owned, demand-driven
research, capacity strengthening,
and policy analysis
• Long-term engagement and a
base to support policy decisions
• Multi-sectorial and adaptive
research agenda guided by
national and international partners
IFPRI’s Country Programs
National Policies and Strategies
• Inspired by CSSPs
• Planned start in March 2022 in 6
countries

10. Take away messages
▪ Research-based evidence can improve the design and implementation
of policies and programs at country levels – both of governments and
international partners.
▪ Policy influence and sustained capacity building requires longer term in-
country presence of researchers, for example through country strategy
support programs and the ONE CGIAR National Policies and Strategies
Initiative.
▪ Research-based policy influence is often significantly enhanced by a
strong collaboration between research (e.g. IFPRI, ONE CGIAR) and
multiple donors (Germany, World Bank and others).