Improving food security: what pathways should we follow? Ferko Bodnár, Rob Kuijpers Policy and Operations Evaluation Dpt.

Transcription

1 Improving food security: what pathways should we follow? Ferko Bodnár, Rob Kuijpers Policy and Operations Evaluation Dpt. Conference Berlin 5-6 November

2 Presentation outline 1. Introduction: Evaluation based on broader food security theory, and food security hypotheses 2. Methods using data from Rwanda, concepts and analyses 3. Results: testing five hypotheses 4. Conclusion and policy recommendations Main message: evaluation based on a broader theory of change leads to more relevant policy recommendations. 2

3 National - Local Household Individual The concept of food security Individual food utilisation (nutritional status) Food access Food access stability National food availability: Import / export National food prod. Internat. food aid National food stocks 3

4 National - Local Household Individual The concept and theory of change of food security Individual food utilisation (nutritional status) non-farm income Food access Purchasing power Food price farm income food consumption HH food prod. Resilience: Food stocks Food access stability Resilience: assets, land, $ Health, Wat- San, Care Non-farm employm. Trade, markets Local food prod. Safety net NRM Land tenure Finance National food availability: Import / export National food prod. Internat. food aid National food stocks 4

5 Policy theory of change vs project intervention logic Individual food utilisation (nutritional status) non-farm income Food access Purchasing power Food price farm income Individual food consumption HH prod. Resilience: Food stocks Food access stability Resilience: assets, land, $ Health, Watsan, Care Non-farm employm. Trade, markets Local food prod. Safety net NRM Land tenure Finance Project intervention 5

6 % population Food insecurity: producers vs consumers 25% $2,50 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% >100 Food insecure Income category ($/day) Producers small farmers - medium farmers - large farmers Project direct beneficiaries 6

7 % population Food insecurity: producers vs consumers 25% $2,50 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% >100 Food insecure Income category ($/day) Consumers unemployed - wage labourers - employees - entrepreneurs? Producers small farmers - medium farmers - large farmers Project direct beneficiaries 7

8 7 food security hypotheses: 1. Improved food consumption reduces child malnutrition 2. Increased income improves food consumption 3. Farm commercialisation improves food consumption 4. Increased farm diversity improves food consumption 5. Women influence on household food preferences and care improves food consumption 6. Supporting producers indirectly benefits consumers 7. Reducing food price fluctuations improves food access stability Hypotheses 1-5 will be tested using Rwanda baseline survey data

9 Testing hypotheses 1-5 using Rwanda data Data: IOB commissioned AIID-PWC to do an impact study Cassava production and marketing project Baseline data. 751 households. 301 households with child < 5y Household survey: agricultural production, income, food consumption and expenditure, child nutritional status. Analysis: From concept to indicators Linear regression in 2 steps: food consumption, malnutrition Three models: for each model we use relevant controls Interaction terms (diversity-education, education-income, incomediversity) 9

10 Building the concept, Income Food Utilization Agricultural Intervention Household Food Production 10

11 Building the concept, Income Food access (to a healthy diet) Nutrient intake Food Utilization Agricultural Intervention Household Food Production 11

12 Building the concept, Availability Health, WASH Income Food access (to a healthy diet) Nutrient intake Food Utilization Agricultural Intervention Household Food Production Household Preferences Care 12

13 Building the concept, and choosing indicators, Price of a healthy diet WASH indicators Income Food access (to a healthy diet) Nutritional Adequacy Stunting Agricultural Intervention Value of harvest sold Production Diversity Household Preferences Care 13

14 Building the concept, and choosing indicators Price of a healthy diet WASH indicators Income Food access (to a healthy diet) Nutritional Adequacy Stunting Agricultural Intervention Value of harvest sold Production Diversity Household Preferences Care Female household head Women education W share HH income 14

15 Results 1: food utilisation (child stunting) Price of a healthy diet Income Food access (to a healthy diet) Nutritional Adequacy - WASH indicators - Stunting ns Agricultural Intervention Value of harvest sold Production Diversity Household Preferences Care Female household head Women education W share HH income 15

16 Results 2: nutrient intake (% adequacy) Price of a healthy diet WASH indicators Income + Food access (to a healthy diet) Nutritional Adequacy Stunting Agricultural Intervention + Value of harvest sold Production Diversity + Household Preferences Care Effect income stronger with low income Commercialisation and diversity go together Female Women W share household Interaction diversity * women education (-) Education HH income head No interaction income * diversity 16

17 Results 3: effect size per variable variable range* FS Cause variable min max effect 1a effect food consumption (% adequacy) on stunting 27% 91% -24% 1b effect slab latrine on stunting % 2a effect income ($/p/y) on food consumption** % 3 effect diversity on f. consumption 3,1 7,7 17% 4 effect commercialisation on f. consumption 0% 81% 6% 5a effect women education on f. consumption 1,0 4,5 12% 5b effect female household head (decision) on f. cons % 5c effect W income ratio (1-care) on f. consumption 0% 100% -7% * 95% interval for continuous variables **Effect income: +1% TNA for 35% income increase 17

18 Conclusions 1: results policy recommendations 1. Improved nutrition intake and hygienic latrine slab reduce child malnutrition. Nutrition is a valid pathway, Consider also wat/san. 2. Increased income improves nutrition intake, especially for poor households, but large income increase is needed. targeting income of poor and food insecure households 3. Working on cash crops and markets improves nutrition intake Commercial farming valid pathway. Target group? 4. Farm diversity improves diet diversity and nutrition intake Balance pros and cons cash crop specialisation vs farm diversification. Interaction with women education: low education, diversity more needed 5. Women education has positive effect on nutrition intake Consider nutritional awareness and training for women 18

19 Conclusions 1: results policy recommendations Women: preferences non-farm income 6. Consumers? 5 Food access Purchasing power Food price + Individual food utilisation (nutritional status) farm income Individual food consumption HH prod Resilience: Food stocks Food access stability 7. Stability? Resilience: assets, land, $ Health, Watsan, Care Non-farm employm. Trade, markets Local food prod. Safety net NRM Land tenure Finance Project intervention 19

20 Conclusions 2: main food policy recommendations 1. Paradigm shift: take nutrition as a starting point for food security interventions (as opposed to production and value chain approaches) 2. Better context analysis: binding constraints food security. Analysis food insecurity: who, what nutrients, underlying causes, relative importance of utilisation, access, stability, availability? How can food insecure people be reached, directly or indirectly? Compare relative importance different impact pathways Specific nutrients? Nutrition versus wat-san? Income vs availability vs awareness? Reduce food price fluctuations? Avoid wanting to do everything. Choose most effective and most efficient interventions 20

21 Thank you! Questions? Discussion! (spare slides: results statistical analyses) 21

22 22

23 23

24 24

25 25

26 26

27 27

28 28