2021 Pim Partnership Evaluation

The evaluative study focuses primarily on PIM’s external partners; this includes partnerships where PIM is engaged by another organization as a service provider and trusted advisor. The objective is to undertake an in-depth analysis of PIM partnerships and to elicit lessons on the key factors contributing to their success in achieving outcomes. The aim is to generate: (1) an inventory of partnerships; (2) an understanding of the motivations for partnership formation, and of the partnership dynamics in promoting innovations and policy change; and (3) an assessment of strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities to foster stronger future partnerships. This evaluative study serves the dual purposes of accountability to CGIAR partners and funders and of learning. The primary intended users are CGIAR researchers and partners. The findings and lessons learned will also provide input into the implementation of new initiatives under One CGIAR.

PIM had a productive final year centered on synthesizing findings while continuing to respond to demand on the impacts of COVID-19 and preparing the transition to the new CGIAR portfolio. PIM findings and engagement contributed to Myanmar’s response to COVID-19, South Africa’s policies on resilience to climate change, Tunisia's policies for pastoral development, a reform of Nigeria’s national agricultural research system, Ghana’s fish seed and farm certification system, gender strategies for three agricultural value chains in Honduras, and genome editing guidelines for the agricultural sector in four African countries. PIM research informed policy documents of FAO, IFAD, One CGIAR, the UK Government, the World Bank and the World Food Programme. PIM tools enabled more equitable co-management of 76 protected areas in Peru and informed World Bank social protection projects. Books on food security in Bangladesh and Malawi, trade in Latin America, African agricultural value chains and gender were published. 42 PIM synthesis briefs and notes were issued, summarizing research results in key thematic areas. PIM contributed 181 journal articles, 8 journal issues (on demand driven seed systems, China’s response to COVID-19, agriculture and food security in China under COVID-19, food loss and waste, landscape restoration, multistakeholder fora in forestry and two issues on gender), 15 book chapters and about 500 non-peer-reviewed outputs. 16 PIM webinars were organized. PIM’s contributions to the United Nations Food Systems Summit covered agricultural extension, food system innovations and digital technologies, the future of small farms, the science-policy interface, the cost of ending hunger by 2030, food waste and loss, management of the commons and gender. Building on past PIM investments in economywide modeling tools and social accounting matrices, PIM teams continued to assess the impacts of COVID-19 and policy responses at country level. Lessons learned from PIM country-level analyses on COVID-19’s impacts on food systems, poverty and diets are summarized in a chapter of the IFPRI 2022 book “COVID19 and global food security: Two years later”. A paper in partnership with the CGIAR COVID19 Hub reviewed the literature on agri-food value chains for evidence of fractures and resilience in response to the pandemic. The results of coordinated studies on the impacts of COVID-19 on value chains in different countries were published. Several cross-CGIAR outputs initiated by PIM speak to the fulfillment of PIM’s convening role as an integrating program: the CGIAR Foresight Report and CGIAR foresight website; several outputs produced through the CGIAR Community of Excellence on Seed Systems Development, and the CGIAR book “Advancing gender equality through agricultural and environmental research: Past, present, and future” are examples. Other examples of PIM global public goods produced in 2021 are 27 innovations at various stages of uptake, a cross-cutting effort to distill PIM lessons on migration; new or updated social accounting matrices for 25 countries; and lessons and tools on stakeholder platforms for natural resource governance. Independent reviews assessed the effectiveness of PIM’s partnerships and the use by partners of PIM’s work on economywide modelling, agricultural insurance, tenure and governance, and the Ag-Incentives database.

In 2020, PIM findings contributed to seed policies in Nepal and Uganda, Malawi’s extension strategy and approval of insect-resistant cotton, a nationwide program aimed at improving the effectiveness of public service delivery in Uganda, social protection programs in Egypt, and school gardens for better nutrition in Papua New Guinea. At the global level, PIM research was used to shape strategic decisions of organizations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, GIZ, the Inter-American Development Bank, the UK Government's Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, the World Bank and the World Health Organization. PIM tools were incorporated in universities’ curricula in India and South Africa. Examples of PIM innovations scaled up by partners in 2020 are private sector seed marketing in Ethiopia, picture-based insurance in Ethiopia, India and Kenya, and tools for inclusive governance of natural resources in India and Peru.

The purpose of this review is to assess the extent to which the research outputs of Flagship 5 of the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM5) have been used to inform decisions and behaviors of representatives of government organizations, development agencies, researchers, donors, private firms, nongovernment organizations, and other users. The review addresses seven questions: 1. Who uses the outputs of PIM5, including general publications, journal articles, briefs, and other products? 2. Who uses the tools and games created and disseminated by the Flagship researchers? 3. Who attends the outreach events and capacity-building workshops organized by researchers involved in the Flagship? 4. How are the research outputs being used? What policies, programs, and strategies have been informed, and how? 5. For selected cases, what is the research-to-uptake process and how we can learn from it? 6. What are the key cases and impact pathways identified, and what can we learn from them? What are the promising pathways that we should explore further in the final 18 months of the program? 7. What are the gaps and missed opportunities for impact that we should explore in the final months of the program, or that should be considered in the One CGIAR? To address these questions, the review relied on bibliographic references; document download data; personal interviews; focus group discussions; and three different online surveys targeting researchers and their partners, as well as different types of end users. We used both quantitative and qualitative techniques to analyze these data. In this summary, we selectively discuss the review’s most important findings and recommendations.

The CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA), led by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), focuses on the sustainable management of forests, trees and agroforestry systems. Strengthening the capacity of forestry, trees and agroforestry research, policy and implementing institutions and their staff is critical to FTA’s mission and is embedded in its work. Capacity development is a long-term process whereby individuals, organizations and their networks improve their systems, resources, skills and knowledge. This becomes reflected in their capacity to perform functions and solve problems to better address national and sub-national development objectives. Capacity development enables research and development organizations, individuals, and their networks to achieve impact.This capacity needs assessment was conducted in 2018 to identify the capacity needs of World Agroforestry (ICRAF) and CIFOR to achieve the research objectives and targets specified in the FTA II proposal 2017–2021, including the amended FP2 proposal. The capacity needs assessment focused on four key areas for analysis: partnerships, networking, resource mobilization and human resource capacities. The analysis and recommendations contained within this document result from data collated from more than 70 interviews conducted with flagship and cluster leaders and key actors within the FTA II management teams and partner organizations.

Fertilizer use in Sub-Saharan Africa remains below recommended rates, contributing to low yields, and increasing poverty. Poor quality fertilizer – whether perceived or real – is often cited as a reason for low adoption rates. In Ghana, for example, there are widespread but often unsubstantiated claims of substandard fertilizers. This is a concern for farmers with limited purchasing power and without the means to independently substantiate the quality of agricultural inputs. This paper describes the agricultural input sector in Ghana, compares farmers’ perception of fertilizer quality with those of input dealers, and analyses chemical tests of fertilizers performed in a laboratory. The fertilizers were sampled from selected districts participating in the Planting for Food and Jobs initiative, a large-scale farm input subsidy program. We find that input dealers and farmers are somewhat suspicious of the quality of commercially supplied and government subsidized fertilizers. However, the true quality measures based on laboratory testing of fertilizers sold in agricultural input shops were found to largely meet the labeled chemical composition.

This report presents results of a study to assess the use of foresight modeling tools and outputs produced since 2012 and funded through Flagship 1, Cluster 1.1 of the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM). The goal of this study is to examine how the tools and outputs of foresight modeling supported by PIM through Flagship 1 (hereafter “PIM-supported foresight modeling”) have been used by stakeholders. The study aims to identify as many uses of and outcomes from the PIM-supported foresight modeling as possible. It is by no means comprehensive, but it does cover usage by a wide range of stakeholders from across the CGIAR system, other international organizations, academia, and national governments.