1. HarvestPlus Impact and Policy Research in LAC and Brazil 2013-2018 HarvestPlus: Ekin Birol, Manfred Zeller, Monica Jain, Dorene Asare-Marfo and Keith Lividini CIAT: Carolina Gonzalez and Salomon Perez Embrapa: Flavio Avila, Alcido Wander and Maria Geovania Lima Manos IFPRI: Dan Gilligan and Alan de Brauw

2. H+ Impact and Policy Portfolio IMPACT MAXIMISE MEASURE Adoption Consumption Nutrition Varietal adoption Consumer acceptance Value chain/seed systems Farmer field day evaluation Ex ante impact assessment Effectiveness Farmer feedback Impact assessment POLICY Linking quality and health Portfolio analysis

3. Overall portfolio in LAC/Brazil Where to invest? 1.Prioritisation exercise 2.Micronutrient portfolio 3.Opportunities map Informing delivery and breeding 1.Varietal adoption studies 2.Consumer acceptance studies 3.Farmer field day evaluation Measuring impact 1.Farmer feedback studies 2.Impact assessment 3.Impact evaluation/effectiveness Policy studies

4. 1. Where to invest? 1) Systematic research on prioritization of countries for investment Collect and analyze country level data on – DALYs lost to VAD and IDA – Percentage agricultural land area allocated to [crop] – Consumption per capita (kg) – food supply of [crop] – Ratio of import to production for [crop] – Production (per capita) of [crop] – Percentage allocated to feed (livestock) for [crop] – Fortification and supplementation programs existing in the country Responsible: Manfred -Salomon Support:, Dorene, Ekin, Flavio, Carolina Year: 2012-2013

5. 2. Informing delivery and breeding 1) Varietal adoption studies to investigate (a) Total land area dedicated to the crop in that geographical location Land area dedicated (average across household in the geographical location) Output and its allocation across uses (consumed, sold, saved as seed, used as feed, postharvest loss) Source of planting material (seed or grain recycled as seed) and original source, frequency of replacement (same variety or different variety) Traits – consumption, production and marketing/processing traits farmers look for

6. Informing delivery and breeding 1) Varietal adoption studies to investigate (continued) (b) Processing, food product and storage practices Output sold, where, at what price and to whom Input availability, use and costs Agro-ecological, market and household level factors affecting farmers’ choice of varieties Household age and gender composition Education level of the household Household dynamics on decision making and labor input for the crop– gender aspect Income and assets Access to input subsidies and credit Membership in formal and informal farmers’ groups, other social groups, churches Sources of information about 1) health/nutrition 2) agricultural technologies

7. Informing delivery and breeding 1) Varietal adoption studies to investigate (continued) (c) Dietary diversity (including fortified food) and how frequently/how much they eat food made with crop Current knowledge about micronutrients Crop cultivation patterns and seasonality: harvesting, consumption, processing, buying, selling etc. Supplementation at the household level General country/region fortification and supplementation programmes

8. Informing delivery and breeding How to get all this information? 1. Desk review to identify gaps – Secondary data sources – Literature review – Other projects 2.Data collection in some of the countries CountryCropYearResponsible/ Accountable Support/Consulted PanamaRice2013Carolina/SalomonDorene and Ekin/ Manfred PanamaBeans2013?Carolina/SalomonDorene and Ekin/ Manfred NicaraguaRice2013Carolina/SalomonDorene and Ekin/ Manfred NicaraguaBeans2013Carolina/SalomonDorene and Ekin/ Manfred BrazilRice2013Alcido/FlavioDorene and Ekin/ Manfred BrazilBeans2013Alcido/FlavioDorene and Ekin/ Manfred BrazilCassava2014Aurea/AlcidoDorene and Ekin/ Manfred Others? Peru? Others:Maize? Sp? 2015+

9. Informing delivery and breeding 2) Consumer acceptance studies Using organoleptic tests/sensory evaluation (Expert panel and Consumers Eliciting WTP (discount/premium) with revealed preference elicitation methods Treatments for labeling/information CountryCropYearResponsible/ Accountable Support/Consulted GuatemalaBeans2013Carolina/SalomonAdewale and Ekin/ Manfred PanamaBeans2013Carolina/SalomonAdewale and Ekin/ Manfred NicaraguaBeans2013Carolina/SalomonAdewale and Ekin/ Manfred BrazilBeans2013Alcido/FlavioAdewale and Ekin/ Manfred BoliviaRice2014Carolina/SalomonAdewale and Ekin/ Manfred PanamaRice2014Carolina/SalomonAdewale and Ekin/ Manfred BrazilCassava2014Aurea/AlcidoAdewale and Ekin/ Manfred BrazilSweet Potato2014Geovania/AlcidoAdewale and Ekin/ Manfred Others? Peru? Mexico Others?: Maize, SP 2015+

10. Informing delivery and breeding 3) Farmer field day evaluation studies Farmer interviews during farmer field days Interview farmers with a structured survey instrument to understand – their evaluation of various production and consumption traits of biofortified varieties vs conventional varieties – Their intention to adopt given different price levels for planting material For identification of farmers field days where we can conduct these studies – Carolina/Salomon will check with CIAT breeders – Alcido/Flavio will check with Embrapa breeders These studies cost around $10,000 each

11. 3. Measuring impact 1)Farmer feedback studies Interview a random sample of households who received/bought biofortified planting material to understand adoption, area cultivated, consumption and farmers feedback on the varieties and delivery method used CountryCropYearBudgetResponsible/AccountableSupport/Consulted NicaraguaBeans201310,000Carolina/SalomonDorene and Ekin/ Manfred BoliviaRice??? Salomon to investigate ColombiaBeans??? Carolina to investigate Brazil5 crops2012-5FundedAlcido/FlavioDorene and Ekin/ Manfred Brazil?? ?Brazil sem Miseria project – Flavio to check with Marilia and Marcos

12. Measuring Impact 2) Impact assessment studies Random sample of households in areas where a high density of delivery have occurred – Study participation (having received the variety) and diffusion and program effectiveness/delivery strategy – Study adopters’ feedback on production and consumption characteristics for all varieties CountryCropYearBudgetResponsible/AccountableSupport/Consulted PanamaRice201330,000Carolina/SalomonDorene and Ekin/ Manfred GuatemalaBeans201430,000Carolina/SalomonDorene and Ekin/ Manfred

13. Measuring Impact 3) Impact evaluation/nutrition & delivery effectiveness Randomised control trials around the delivery of varieties with full target levels of micronutrients – Given the crop/country level micronutrient targets are not yet specified, we will wait to hear from nutritionists about these – Alcido to keep an eye on high zinc rice varieties which will be released in Brazil (and delivered in MA) in 2015, though currently target level is unknown

14. 4. Policy studies Policy studies investigating the – Relationship between diet quality and nutritional status of children – Relationship between household diet quality and child diet quality – Relationship between income and different child diet quality measures – Linkages between individual micronutrients (Vitamin A, Iron and Zinc) and diet quality – Diet diversity gap index (similar to poverty gap index) Year: 2013-2014

15. Planned studies 2012-2018 StudyCountryCropYear Targeting studies: In which country/crop to invest Prioritization exerciseAll LACAll major crops2012-13 Micronutrient portfolio3-5All major crops2013-18 Opportunities map3-5All major crops2013-18 Diagnostic studies: Informing crop development, delivery and marketing Varietal adoption/ value chain Panama, BrazilRice, beans2013 NicaraguaRice, beans2014 Brazilcassava2014 Consumer acceptanceGuatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, Brazil Beans2013 Bolivia, PanamaRice2014 BrazilCassava, sweet potato 2014 Farmer field day evaluations TBD 2013-18

16. Planned studies 2012-2018 cont’d StudyCountryCropYear Impact assessment studies: Measuring impact Farmer feedbackNicaraguaBeans2013 BrazilBeans, cowpea, cassava, sweet potatoes and maize 2012-2015 BoliviaRice? ColombiaBeans? OthersAs delivery occurs Impact assessmentPanamaRice2013 GuatemalaBeans2014 OthersAs delivery occurs Impact evaluation/ effectiveness Panama /GuatemalaBeans?? BrazilRice?? Policy studies: Linking income, diet quality and nutrition outcomes Desk studiesBased on data availability