IFPRI CGIAR
Subscribe

Back

Who we are

With research staff from more than 60 countries, and offices across the globe, IFPRI provides research-based policy solutions to sustainably reduce poverty and end hunger and malnutrition in developing countries.

researcher spotlight

Liangzhi You

Liangzhi You is a Senior Research Fellow and theme leader in the Foresight and Policy Modeling Unit, based in Washington, DC. His research focuses on climate resilience, spatial data and analytics, agroecosystems, and agricultural science policy. Gridded crop production data of the world (SPAM) and the agricultural technology evaluation model (DREAM) are among his research contributions. 

Where we work

Back

Where we work

IFPRI currently has more than 600 employees working in over 80 countries with a wide range of local, national, and international partners.

IFPRI Regional Programs

IFPRI Country Programs

Research by country and region

Subscribe

partnerships

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) is a federal agency dedicated to creating a sustainable world. GIZ works in areas such as economic development and employment promotion, and energy and the environment. GIZ seeks to foster successful interaction between development policy, as well as other policy fields and areas of activity.

Homepage Link
donor-giz

Projects

Ethiopian NIPN Technical Advisory Project (ENTAP)

Ethiopian NIPN Technical Advisory Project (ENTAP)

The Ethiopia NIPN Technical Advisory Project (ENTAP) is embedded in the Compact 2025 initiative for ending hunger and undernutrition by 2025. The objective of ENTAP……

Risk Contingent Credit for Resilience

Risk Contingent Credit for Resilience

…

Scaling up experiential learning tools for sustainable water governance in India

Scaling up experiential learning tools for sustainable water governance in India

…

View all Projects

Publications

Resource thumbnail

Brief

From input subsidies to compensating farmers for soil health services

2023Campbell, Bruce M.; Nyirongo, Jacob; Botha, Blessings; Duchoslav, Jan; Munthali, Moses W.; Nyondo, Christone; Sunga, Ishmael; Wollenberg, Eva Karoline
Details

From input subsidies to compensating farmers for soil health services

– In many countries in Southern and Eastern Africa, input subsidy programmes are common, often focussing on inorganic fertiliser. These programmes often do not achieve their food security objectives, partly because soil health is in decline as a result of years of application of inorganic fertilisers in the absence of other soil ameliorative measures. – Solutions to soil health decline are well known, and include various combinations of fallowing, crop diversification, intercropping and crop rotations (especially legume rotations), soil organic matter additions, liming and applications of the appropriate inorganic fertilisers. But many of these come with significant socio-economic and technical challenges to farmers. – A way forward is through compensating farmers for soil health services, which will generate a multitude of private and public benefits. This would be a form of Payment for Environmental Services (PES), as supported in the global initiative CompensACTION,1 led by the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). – Nine recommendations for implementing a soil health payment scheme are presented, some of which focus on the broader enabling environment. – Development partners can support the implementation of Payments for Soil Heath Services schemes by: assisting countries in establishing pilot schemes for lessons learning; supporting longer term monitoring of soil health changes; supporting government efforts to repurpose subsidy policies; and facilitating public-private partnerships to leverage in private sector investment in activities that will enhance soil health.

Year published

2023

Authors

Campbell, Bruce M.; Nyirongo, Jacob; Botha, Blessings; Duchoslav, Jan; Munthali, Moses W.; Nyondo, Christone; Sunga, Ishmael; Wollenberg, Eva Karoline

Citation

Campbell, B.; Nyirongo, J.; Botha, B.; Duchoslav, J.; Munthali, M.W.; Nyondo, C.; Sunga, I.; Wollenberg, E. (2023) From input subsidies to compensating farmers for soil health services. 12 p.

Country/Region

Malawi

Keywords

Africa; Eastern Africa; Sub-saharan Africa; Climate Change Mitigation; Smallholders-smallholder Farmers; Climate Change; Agriculture; Climate Change Adaptation; Fertilizers-fertilisers; Payments for Ecosystem Services; Soil Quality-soil Health; Farm Inputs-agricultural Inputs

Language

English

Access/Licence

Open AccessCC-BY-4.0

Source

Source record

Record type

Brief

Resource thumbnail

Brief

Transformation of Rwanda’s agrifood system structure and drivers

2023Diao, Xinshen; Ellis, Mia; Rosenbach, Gracie; Mugabo, Serge; Pauw, Karl; Spielman, David J.; Thurlow, James
Details

Transformation of Rwanda’s agrifood system structure and drivers

Rwanda has made remarkable economic progress during the past two decades, and its annual GDP growth rate reached more than 7 percent during the 2009 to 2019 period (NISR 2021). The rapid economic growth has been pro-poor, and the poverty rate fell from 58.9 percent in 2000/01 to 38.2 percent in 2016/17 (NISR 2018). The country has also emerged as a leader among sub-Saharan African countries in promoting innovation, gender equality, and an enabling business environment for development. The government remains strongly committed to a set of ambitious development goals, as set forth in the 2017–2024 National Strategy for Transformation (NST 1) and the corresponding sector-level strategic plans. While the global COVID-19 pandemic had a severe adverse effect on the economy, causing negative GDP growth in 2020, the country rebounded quickly and registered more than 10 percent growth in 2021 (NISR 2022). The country was only minimally affected by global commodity market disruptions resulting from the Russia-Ukraine war that started in 2022 and the global recession in 2023 (Arndt et al. 2023; Diao and Thurlow 2023). Looking forward, Rwanda’s GDP growth is projected to reach 6.7 percent in 2023 and 7.0 percent in 2024 (World Bank 2023), suggesting the economy is returning to its pre-pandemic high-growth trajectory.

Year published

2023

Authors

Diao, Xinshen; Ellis, Mia; Rosenbach, Gracie; Mugabo, Serge; Pauw, Karl; Spielman, David J.; Thurlow, James

Citation

Diao, Xinshen; Ellis, Mia; Rosenbach, Gracie; Mugabo, Serge; Pauw, Karl; Spielman, David J.; and Thurlow, James. 2023. Transformation of Rwanda’s agrifood system structure and drivers. Agrifood System Diagnostics Country Series 15. https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.136792

Country/Region

Rwanda

Keywords

Middle Africa; Sub-saharan Africa; Africa; Eastern Africa; Agrifood Systems; Value Chains; Markets; Agriculture; Labour Productivity; Off-farm Employment; Poverty; Diet Quality; Jobs; Development; Gross National Product; Soybeans; Groundnuts; Cereal Crops

Language

English

Access/Licence

Open AccessCC-BY-4.0

Links

https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.136792 Source record

Project

Foresight

Record type

Brief

Resource thumbnail

Working Paper

How do quantitative gender indicators compare to qualitative findings in the analysis of gender differences in agricultural productivity? Evidence from Uganda

2022Welk, Lukas; Bosch, Christine; Bryan, Elizabeth; Kato, Edward; Seymour, Greg; Birner, Regina
Details

How do quantitative gender indicators compare to qualitative findings in the analysis of gender differences in agricultural productivity? Evidence from Uganda

In sub-Saharan Africa, female-managed plots often show a significant gap in productivity compared to men’s plots. To examine these differences, a variable to determine who in the household controls agricultural plots is needed. There is variability in the ways in which gendered control over agricultural plots is defined and measured across studies. Many studies show that an in-depth analysis of intra-household relationships is necessary, as this is often a major unexplained factor in productivity differences. To contribute to filling this methodological gap, we estimate the productivity gap among male and female farmers in Uganda using three different identification approaches and conduct complementary qualitative research to investigate the underlying causes of these differences. The three approaches to define control over plots are: (1) gender of the plot manager, (2) gender of the main plot-level decision-maker and (3) on gender of decision-maker over income from the sale of crops. Results show significantly different gender productivity gaps of 16% (1), 43% (2) and 60% (3). Qualitative results confirm the variability in the way that households defined plot management, including multiple ways in which decisions are made or activities are distributed within households on jointly managed plots. Mixed-method research designs and improved gender variables for econometric models can contribute to a better understanding of gender productivity differences and better policy making aiming to reduce gender inequalities.

Year published

2022

Authors

Welk, Lukas; Bosch, Christine; Bryan, Elizabeth; Kato, Edward; Seymour, Greg; Birner, Regina

Citation

Welk, Lukas; Bosch, Christine; Bryan, Elizabeth; Kato, Edward; Seymour, Greg and Birner, Regina. 2022. How do quantitative gender indicators compare to qualitative findings in the analysis of gender differences in agricultural productivity? Evidence from Uganda. IFPRI Discussion Paper 2140. Washington, D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.136407

Country/Region

Uganda

Keywords

Eastern Africa; Sub-saharan Africa; Africa; Gender; Plot Management; Farmers; Female-managed Plots; Agriculture; Productivity; Gender Analysis; Female Labour; Women; Gender Inequality

Language

English

Access/Licence

Open Access

Links

https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.136407 Source record

Project

Policies, Institutions, and Markets

Record type

Working Paper

Blogs

Combining an array of approaches for systemic behavior change in groundwater governance in India
IFPRI Blog
 | 
December 02, 2024

Combining an array of approaches for systemic behavior change in groundwater governance in India

By Thomas Falk, Richu Sanil, and Ruth Meinzen-Dick

Enabling collaboration in and across communities.

The impact of innovative evidence-to-policy approaches on accelerating nutrition-related SDGs: Can the NiPN model lead the way?
IFPRI Blog
 | 
November 15, 2024

The impact of innovative evidence-to-policy approaches on accelerating nutrition-related SDGs: Can the NiPN model lead the way?

By Taddese Zerfu

Bridging the gap between research and policymaking.

Playing the right game: A decision tree for choosing approaches to strengthen water governance
IFPRI Blog
 | 
March 13, 2024

Playing the right game: A decision tree for choosing approaches to strengthen water governance

By Thomas Falk, Vishwambhar Duche, Richu Sanil, Pratiti Priyadarshini, Hagar ElDidi, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, and Bryan Bruns

Fostering cooperative natural resource management.

View all Blogs