Improving food security

Transcription

1 Improving food security A systematic review of the impact of food security interventions Ruerd Ruben Policy and Operations Evaluation Department PEGNET Conference Dakar, 6 & 7 September 2012

2 Presentation outline 1. Context of this study 2. Systematic review method 3. Key findings on food security interventions 4. Key findings on evaluation quality 5. Lessons learnt : FS evaluation 6. Lessons learnt: systematic review September 2012 PEGNET Dakar 2

3 1. Context of the study Number of malnourished people peaked in 2008 Regained attention for agriculture and food security OECD-DAC EvalNet: IOB systematic review Food Security Growing interest from NL operational direction for Food Security Prepared with Royal Tropical Institute (KIT) 3

4 2. Systematic review methodology 1. Delimit subject; 2. Inclusion criteria; 3. Transparent search strategy; 4. Selected cases coded, analysed. Reduces bias & Guarantee better comparison between studies 4

5 Individual Household National - Local Food security: definitions and impact pathways Individual food utilisation (nutritional status) Individual food access Individual food access stability Food quality Health, WASH. Household food access Household food access stability HH food purchasing power non-farm income farm income food production Resilience Buffer: Food Resilience Buffer: Assets, $ Food price Local market Local food prod. Food aid / safety net Local food stocks National food availability: Import / export National food prod. Internat. food aid National food stocks 5

6 Impact indicators: food utilisation, access and stability nr Aspect Ideal indicators* Accepted for review Rejected for review (examples) 1 Hunger index Combination of indicators Food utilisation % population malnourished (2) 3 % children <5y malnourished (2) 4 % child mortality under 5y. 5 Food access 6 Food access stability % population meeting energy requirements (1) % households being food secure all year Avg energy intake (5). % eating 3 meals/day (1) Months per year FS (self declared) (6) % FS extrapolated income % FS extrap. nat. prod. ** Food quality was not part of the systematic review 6

7 Proxy impact: hh production, hh income, food price, buffer nr Aspect* Ideal indicators Accepted for review Rejected for review (examples) 7 Household income, purchasing power (20) % living above / below poverty threshold (6) Average annual total income ($/p/y; $/hh/y) (9) Average annual farm income (8) Income from one commodity, neglecting other income Crop value, neglecting production costs 8 Household food production (9) % hh producing sufficient food (threshold) (1) Staple food prod. (kg/p/y) (5) Production value ($/hh/y) (6) Production of main staple (kg/p/y) (3) Production of one crop, not the staple crop 9 Food price (4) 10 Household buffer (4) Trends in food price (% increase/decrease /yr) (3) Food price relative to wages (kg/day) (1) Buffer food stock, above a minimum stock (kg/p) Buffer capital or assets, above a min. capital ($/p) Food price ($/kg) Food buffer (kg/p) Capital ($/p) (4) Assets that do not serve to bridge a period of food shortage (housing, farm equipment, land) 7

8 Selection criteria Evaluation subject: Docus on 4 impact pathways Production Value chains Market reform Land tenure security Evaluation quality Indicators up to (proxy) impact level Counterfactual: with-without comparison 88

9 Observations on evaluation quality: Indicators Objective: Quantify impact on FS, aggregate and compare Requirement: Small set of agreed-on indicators : Link to FS impact Head count indicators Thresholds Good examples: Child malnutrition Population meeting energy requirements Poverty rate Minimum wage / food price Poor examples: Average calorie intake Income from one crop Food security extrapolated from national production 9

10 (2) Hybrid methodology Selected case studies: intervention impact Other review: Reviews based on other studies Original studies: small part of pathway Background (not for evidence of effects) Different quality: separate results and conclusions 10

11 Systematic review screening 11

12 Key findings on evaluation quality: Counterfactual what would have happened without intervention? 300 pre-selected studies only 38 qualified for systematic review. Unsuitable indicators Absence or unconvincing counterfactual (wrong assumption nothing would happen without intervention) 12

13 Key findings food security interventions: A. Increasing agricultural production Convincing results: Crop genetic improvement (esp. Asia) Reducing production losses (also in Africa) Production increase in Asia: Increased yield and reduced production costs Reduced food prices (relative to wages) Stagnating intensification in Africa: More diverse agro-ecological zones Less and later efforts in research; Less and underuse irrigation potential Limited preconditions: market, extension, credit; high input costs 13

14 Key findings food security interventions: B. Value chains (private sector) Effective in increasing income Domestic and regional markets: potentially many farmers Flexibility needed (project; producer organisation) Poorest or most vulnerable don t seem to benefit 14

15 Key findings food security interventions: C. Reforming markets (goverment policy) Poor results where simple reduction of trade barriers was combined with abandoned govt support to agriculture (structural adjustment Africa): Good for competitive export crops Not good for domestic food production Better results with gradual, negotiated reform Cotton sector Burkina Faso: from govt to new institutions Rice trade in Vietnam Good to reduce price volatility Private trade Bangladesh: recovery from flood in

16 Key findings food security interventions: D. Land tenure security Land use rights, as part of economic reform China and Vietnam: spectacular results Formalising land use rights, or land ownership: encouraged farmer investments No effect on access to credit Poorest farmers need additional support 16

17 Key findings food security interventions: Costs and benefits per household Cost ($/hh) Benefit ($/hh/y) B/C Disease resistant cassava (Mozambique) $9 $ Organic certified coffee (Uganda) $90 $95 ++ Irrigation (India) $1,840 $225 + Dairy sector (Zambia) $3,660 $340 - Rust resistance in wheat $2/y $ Seed and fertiliser pack (Zimbabwe) $37 /y $20 - Reference: Available ODA for agriculture (2010): $8.4 billion Malnourished people (2010): 0.9 billion $45 / household 17

18 conclusions 1818

19 Lessons: Food Security Harmonisation impact indicators Head-count indicators Judgement criteria Efficiency: simplify costs + benefits Counterfactual: Localised interventions: control group National trends: modelling Institutional embedding: FS policy National policy FS monitoring National institutions Collaboration IOB other donors 19

20 Lessons: systematic review methodology Reconstructing impact pathways first was useful Food security too large a subject for systematic review. Better if cases are more homogeneous in complexity, scale, and indicators used. Counterfactual is needed, but often neglected Hybrid methodology: selected case studies + other review, mitigates potential narrow focus. Time: about 6 months full time plus research assistance Identifying knock out criteria in first screening saves time 20

21 Acknowledgements Authors: Ferko Bodnar (KIT-IOB) Jisse Kranen (IOB) Bart de Steenhuijsen Piters (KIT) Advisory group: Eric Smaling (KIT) Henri Jorritsma (IOB) Bart de Steenhuijsen Piters (KIT) External reviewers: Prem Bindraban (WUR), Andrew Dorward (Imperial College) 21

22 Thanks for your attention.. 22