Strengthening national capacities for undertaking, communicating, and using evidence-based food policy analysis has long been one of the International Food Policy Research Institute’s (IFPRI’s) major objectives. To that end, IFPRI has engaged in different kinds of capacity strengthening that include formal training, (policy) networks, country strategic policy support, research collaboration with individuals and organizations, institutional development, support to university degree programs, visiting fellows, and training of postdoctoral fellows.

This study uses country-level panel data on 57 countries in Africa and Asia from 1981 to 2014 to assess the relationships between IFPRI’s in-country presence (as measured by staff present) and various policy and outcome indicators in those countries. An econometric model with country fixed-effects, year fixed-effects, and country-specific time trends is used, controlling for several factors deemed to affect the different policy and outcome indicators such as the country’s research capacity, production environment and resources, political economy and institutions, and complementary investments.

IFPRI commissioned this study to assess how the country programs (CPs) are performing—which approaches and methods are producing the best outcomes across countries and over time—to identify factors that promote or impede their progress and lessons for making them more impactful in the future. The study has two major components. The first is a survey and analysis of the factors that CP leaders perceived to have most helped them influence host-country policies. We interviewed all current and most past CP leaders, which enabled us to compile evidence from recent CP experiences as well as from the 1980s and 1990s. We focused on the lessons they drew from their past successes that shed light on how to make their other activities successful. We did not undertake similar interviews on failed efforts because it is much harder to elicit such information from CP leaders. Additional insights about unsuccessful activities are, however, captured in the second component of the study, a commissioned external evaluation of the performance of a sample of ongoing country programs. Ideally, the external evaluation would have included CPs in both Africa and Asia, but this was not possible with the available budget. We therefore settled for an evaluation of CPs in Africa south of the Sahara. Doing so had two advantages: (1) the African CPs are more homogenous in terms of their objectives, structure, and internal IFPRI management, making comparisons among them more insightful; and (2) the budget was sufficient to both include all the African CPs in some of the analyses and allow the external evaluator to visit three of them.

IFPRI’s Poverty, Health, and Nutrition Division (PHND) and the CGIAR Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) have conducted research since 2003 on the critical links between nutrition, health, and agriculture. This evaluation considers the impact of the work carried out through 2016, looking at the research strategy, engagement, capacity building, and impact on programs and policies and global dialogue. Findings suggest that the Diet Quality and Health of the Poor program has been successful in developing and sharing valuable research, knowledge, and data, and has brought new issues and approaches to partners and stakeholders. Through a range of projects, the program has effectively engaged with stakeholders, partners, and governments to support capacity enhancement and to help shape national interventions to improve nutrition.

For four decades, the longstanding collaboration between the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) has been crucial to helping developing countries attain agriculture-led economic growth. The innovative programs and strong evidence base produced through this partnership have contributed to transforming policies and investments for improved food security, nutrition, incomes, and resilience around the world.

The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) has undertaken research programs on agricultural STI policy since 1995. This study assesses the impact of this body of research outputs and support services in terms of three complementary analyses: (1) an evaluation of the potential impact of the complete body of research using implicit or explicit impact pathways, (2) two case studies that assess the actual impact of particular research outputs, and (3) a more traditional bibliometric analysis. Movement along the impact pathway, in turn, requires different types of research products—evolving from problem framing to methodology development, then to case studies, and finally to context-specific policy recommendations—all within the logical stages of the impact pathway. How far IFPRI operates along this impact pathway produces a basic tension between the CGIAR’s mandate to produce international public goods (IPGs) and the increasing focus on accountability through impact in the use of international public funds.

This study was undertaken as part of a larger learning exercise to assess the outcomes and impacts of the International Food Policy Research Institute’s country programs. It reports on in-depth probing of selected successful research contributions to policy outcomes in order to determine if there are any common approaches and actions taken by country program leaders that helped to foster the successes. The selection of case studies was not comprehensive— there were many more identified by country program leaders—nor random, because we desired to have samples from all the countries with country programs. A semi-structured interview approach was followed by the authors and guided by a list of questions (found in Appendix B). The results showed that important factors making successful contributions to policy were building high credibility with local policy makers and donors, having direct access to senior policy makers, partnering with the right people, conducting research on issues over the longer term and not just responding to crises, organizing conferences and meetings around research evidence, and strengthening national capacity for policy research.

Armed conflict combined with prolonged drought has put about 20 million people at risk of starvation and death in Somalia, South Sudan, Yemen, and northern Nigeria. The international development and aid communities are caught between the enormity of the humanitarian crisis, which demands an estimated US$4.4 billion to address, and the lack of resources forthcoming from donors. Food crises, famine-like conditions, and famines recur with regularity in many developing countries (see Box 1 for definitions of terms). Although the current famines can be largely attributed to conflicts, chronic food insecurity also threatens several other African countries. For example, 6.7 million people were affected by Malawi’s largest food crisis in decades in 2016–2017, and the country remains vulnerable to weather extremes that could create food emergencies (World Bank 2017). In Kenya, food security has deteriorated since the end of 2016 and half of its 47 counties face food shortages (Chatterjee and Mengistu 2017). How do countries prepare to prevent shocks—natural and man-made—from generating food crises? What does it take to break the cycle of chronic food insecurity and build resilient food systems? How have some countries managed to prevent drought from leading to famine? In this brief, we document lessons for building resilient food systems to prevent future famines.