Fragility, Conflict and Migration (FCM) & National Policies and Strategies (NPS) Joint Initiative Seminar May 12, 2023 Abuja Nigeria

1. Fragility, Conflict and Migration (FCM) &
National Policies and Strategies (NPS)
Joint Initiative Seminar
May 12, 2023 • 8:00 am • Abuja, Nigeria

2. Anticipatory cash for
climate resilience
Research Team:
IFPRI: Bedru Balana, Dolapo Adeyanju, Alan de Brauw, &
Kwaw Andam
IRC: Clare Clingain, Olukunbi Olarewaju, Ishaku Yohanna,
& Molly Schneider
Abuja, Nigeria| 12 May 2023

3. 2
IRC Climate Resiliency – Anticipatory Action Pilot
• Program: To reduce the use of negative coping strategies and support
households to build resilience against climate shocks by providing climate risk
reduction payments and early warning messaging to smallholder farmers.
• Research: To assess the effectiveness of use of early warning systems and
anticipatory cash transfers versus post-shock cash transfers to mitigate the
level of shock and stress experienced by small holder farmers in the event of a
hazardous climatic event
• Outcome: Households reduce the use of negative coping strategies, improve
food security and income and build resilience to climatic shocks.
Project Goals

4. Hypothesis, experiment and study area
Hypothesis
When climate vulnerable communities have timely access to information and the financial
and social resources to act upon that information, they will avoid negative coping strategies,
build more diversified and climate resilient livelihoods.
Experiment
• Provision of information – early warning messages (flood alert, disaster risk/emergency
preparedness, disaster management and CSA)
• Transfer of a lump sum cash (₦195,000 (~400USD) to 725 flood-prone HHs when triggered
by the climate data risk thresholds, and same No. HHs (‘control group’) received equal
amount of cash post shock.
Study area
• Fufore LGA, Adamawa

5. Key outcomes
Outcome1:
Increase in climate
adaptive actions

6. Key results and implications
• Pre-shock cash payment had significant impacts on:
• Household’s rCSI and LCSI. HH less likely to employ negative coping strategies in
response to the flood shocks
• Labor re-allocation decisions including migration of household members. Generate
additional income to meet household needs.
• Number of pre-emptive actions households took in anticipation of flood shocks.
• Long-term investment decisions on productive agric. assets and productive livestock.
This could enhance HH’s future income generating capacity and reduce their
vulnerability to future shocks. Hence, support long-term resilience.
• No significant difference between anticipatory & post-shock cash recipient households on
FCS, crop diversification, mixed crop-livestock production, and post-shock actions taken.

7. Recommendations
• Given the generally positive findings on climate resilience capacity and investment, we
suggest humanitarian agencies and governments to consider anticipatory interventions
(such as pre-shock cash transfers) as a mechanism for both meeting basic needs (i.e.,
food consumption) and improving climate resilience of households.
• As climate shocks continue to worsen and humanitarian funding needs remain unmet,
anticipatory interventions may be critical to meeting the needs of climate- and conflict-
affected households.

8. Thank you for your attention

9. Violent Conflicts, Land Allocation, and Related
Agricultural Investments: Empirical Evidence from
Nigeria.
Mulubharn Amare,
(with Kibrom Abay, Dolapo Adeyanju, Guush Berhane, Kwaw
Andam )
Abuja, Nigeria. May 2023

10. www.cgiar.org
Objectives
2
• Conflict remains a major driver of poverty in Africa and conflicts and political
instabilities have been increasing.
• Explore the relationship between violent conflicts; and farmers’ crop land; the share of
area planted and harvested.
• Implications of conflict on household’s crop choices and land allocation decisions.
• Explore whether conflict shocks influence a shift from high-investment activities to
subsistence activities.
• The relationship between violent conflicts and access to community services

11. www.cgiar.org
The Data
• Geocoded longitudinal dataset based on an agricultural survey administered in
Nigeria across the three-wave LSMS-ISA panel survey.
• Measured conflicts exposure using the number of fatalities associated with incidents.
• Farmer’s land allocation was measured using the share of area planted in major
crops to total land area cultivated
• Based on this measure, we estimate the effect of violent conflicts on several crop
choice and sales decisions.

12. www.cgiar.org
Key Descriptive Findings
• Most of the households (70%) were into cereals production, 38% produced legumes, 38%
produced roots, while very few (7%) produced trees.
• High conflict states: lower percentage of hired labor and lower percentage of purchase of
agricultural inputs
• Land area planted with cereals was higher in high than in the low conflict states.
• Area covered by roots and trees is higher in low than in high conflict states.
• HHs in low conflict states are more likely to engage in wage employment & higher market
flexibility.

13. www.cgiar.org
Key Empirical Findings
• Conflicts reduced land area dedicated to longer-term crops but increase the share of land
area dedicated to short-term crops such as cereals.
• Conflicts reduced the shares of land area covered with crops. Prolonged conflict may
push HHs to exploit a lower % of their land for productive activities
• Significantly reduce the shares of agricultural land harvested.
• Conflicts has a negative significant effect on farmers access to market and cooperatives.
• Negative direct effect on investment (area planted, area harvested) and indirect
(destruction and disruption of community services)

14. www.cgiar.org
Conclusions
Violent conflicts affect land
allocation patterns and cropping
patterns, reducing land area
allocated to longer-term crops
such as trees and legumes that
are amenable to longer-term soil
management practices.
Violent conflicts reduce market
participation and hence induces
production-oriented to satisfy
own consumption.
6

15. Dealing with pests:
Evaluating the impacts
of using the Pod Borer
Resistant (PBR)
cowpea variety
Kwaw Andam
(with Mulu Amare, Temi Bamiwuye, Judy
Chambers, Hyacinth Edeh, Jose Falck-Zepeda,
John Komen, Tunji Fasoranti, Chibuzo Nwagboso,
Patricia Zambrano)
Photo credits: AATF

16. Evaluation Questions
1. Whatis the productivity change gainfor PBR cowpea compared to a conventional
variety?
2. Whatis the effectof PBR cowpea on insecticide applications?
3. Doesreductionin pesticide applicationtranslateto better healthindicatorsfor farmers
and their families?
4. Doesthecultivationof PBR cowpea change household consumptionof cowpea and/or
increase cowpea surpluses?
5. Whatare theheterogeneous impacts of PBR cowpea adoptionby gender, age, and
other householdcharacteristics?

17. LGAs
selected
8
from 41 LGAs
States
selected
2
Farmers per
Community
5
Adamawa State,
25 LGAs
Kwara State,
16 LGAs
Control
80
All
240
Treatment 160
Communities
selected
from 8 LGAs
All
1400
Treatment 1
400
Firststage Secondstage
Farmers
selected
From 240
communities
Treatment 2
400
Control
400
Multistage sampling procedure
Purposive Sampling
Random Sampling
* Added 200 farmers in treatment communities to
account for potential attrition and spill-over effects
Addition*
200

18. Farmers randomly assigned to three groups
Treatment 1
400 farmers
PBR cowpea plus inputs
Treatment 2
400 farmers
PBR cowpea (no inputs)
Control
400+200=600 farmers
Conventional cowpea

19. Findings & Implications – Baseline Survey
• Head of households predominantly male, 47 percent of plot managers female
➢ Low share of female-headed households
• Average plot size is 3.1 hectares; maize commonly intercropped with cowpea
• High pesticide/herbicide costs and applications
➢ PBR cowpea can improve incomes and health of farm households by
reducing pesticide costs and applications
• PBR cowpea can reduce harvest losses: 20 percent of cowpea loss is attributed to
Maruca Vitrata.

20. • Average cowpea yield 728.7kg/ha, 64 percent sold, 12 percent home
consumption
➢ Investment in cowpea can improve food system transformation
• Majority of seeds planted are recycled seeds, while most of the
newly acquired seeds are gotten from the open markets
• The number of working days for household and hired labour is high
for harvest, land preparation and pesticides control/applications.
Findings & Implications – Baseline Survey

21. Findings & Implications – Ongoing Qualitative Research
• Cowpea losses due to infestation encouraging PBR uptake &
enabling policy environment for PBR cowpea adoption
➢ Expect high PBR cowpea uptake during c-RCT
implementation
• Costs of pesticides and herbicides
➢ PBR cowpea can improve incomes and health of farm
householdsby reducing pesticide costs and applications

22. Women’s
Empowerment in
Agrifood Governance
(WEAGov)
Fragility, Conflict and Migration & National Policies and Strategies Joint
Initiative Seminar
Jordan Kyle, IFPRI
May 12, 2023

23. What is WEAGov?
- WEAGov – the Women’s Empowerment in Agrifood Governance
tool – is an assessment framework to measure women’s voice in
the agrifood policy process
- Developed by International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) researchers and piloted in Nigeria by APRNet
- How can WEAGov be used?
1. Measure women’s voice across different parts of the policy
process
2. Identify entry points for raising women’s voice in different
parts of the policy process
3. Track progress in women’s empowerment in agrifood policy
process over time

24. Why did we create WEAGov?
- The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
calls for gender equality and highlights gaps in political
participation for women

25. 3
Women make up only 22% of
members of parliament
worldwide…
… and only 16% of
cabinet secretaries

26. Why did we create WEAGov?
- The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
calls for gender equality and highlights gaps in political
participation for women
- Gender equality within agrifood systems is essential to meeting
SDGs, yet it is difficult to measure and track
- There is a need to identify specific windows and opportunities to
raise women’s voice in the agrifood policy process in order to
achieve meaningful progress

27. WEAGov covers 3 stages of the policy
process
Agenda setting,
Policy design, and
Policy adoption
Policy
implementation
Policy evaluation &
reform
Agenda setting, Policy design,
and Policy adoption:
• Why certain social and
economic problems emerge
as topicsfor policydebate
• How policy solutionsare
designed
• Which policy solutionsare
ultimately adopted
Policyimplementation
• How policies are implemented
in practice, including
budgetaryoutlays,
organizational strategies, and
delivery of services
Policyevaluation & reform
• How policies are assessed
against their objectives to
know if changes are needed

28. www.cgiar.org
At each stage of the policy process, WEAGov
focused on 3 key questions

29. Are women
considered?
Are women
included?
Are women
influencing?
Agenda
Setting,
Design &
Adoption
Implement-
ation
Evaluation &
Reform
ACHIEVEMENT
An agrifood governance system in which women can realize
their own choicesand goals
RESOURCES
◎ Gender norms◎ Access & control over assets
◎ Education ◎ Well-being & safety ◎ Legal rights
Positive
feedbackfrom
greater
empowerment
in governance
processesto
more
resourcesfor
women

30. How is WEAGov data collected?
5 key measurement steps
▪ Agrifood policy & stakeholder mapping → policy content analysis on gender
integration and analysis of organizationsinvolved in agrifood policy process
▪ Desk review of objective, quantitative indicators of women’s empowerment in
agrifood governance
- e.g., # women ministers of agrifood agencies
▪ Organizationsurvey
- Quantitative, objective data on staffing, gender strategies, gender activities of agrifood
organizations
- Survey given to organizations involved in agrifood policy process – public sector (federal
and state), private sector, and civil society organizations
▪ Expert survey
- Perceptions and beliefs of key in-country stakeholders in the sector
- e.g., are opportunities for women’s participation well-known and utilized by key civil
society actors
- Survey given to leaders and experts in organizations in the agrifood policy process
▪ Technical panels or focus group discussions
- Deliberate on measurement and validity with country experts

31. ✓ Agrifood policy & stakeholder mapping → policy content analysis on gender
integration and analysis of organizations involved in agrifood policy process
✓ Desk review of objective, quantitative indicators of women’s empowerment
in agrifood governance
- Reviewed 19 agrifood national policies & strategies in Nigeria
✓ Organization survey
- Interviewed 141 federal- and state-level agencies, independent
agencies, civil society organizations, & private sector entities
✓ Expert survey
- Interviewed 248 local experts in Nigerian agrifood policies from
federal- and state-level agencies, civil society organizations, private
sector, and academia
▪ Technical panels or focus group discussions
- Deliberate on measurement and validity with country experts
WEAGov in Nigeria
Joint work with APRNet

32. Thank you!
Please contact Jordan Kyle (j.kyle@cgiar.org) or Catherine
Ragasa (c.ragasa@cgiar.org) with any questions

33. Overcoming barriers to
women’s political
participation and
community engagement
Claire L. Adida, Leonardo Arriola, Katrina Kosec,* Jordan Kyle,
Aila M. Matanock, Cecilia Hyunjung Mo, Surili Sheth, Dolapo
Adeyanju, Lucia Carrillo, and Opeyemi Olanrewaju
*International Food Policy Research Institute
May 12, 2023

34. www.cgiar.org
Introduction
• Government policies affect everyone, yet
women are underrepresented in policymaking
(Duflo 2012; Lawless 2015)
• Women’s participation in politics and civic life
remains comparatively low (Iversen and
Rosenbluth 2006)
• Reasons may include a lack of relevant skills and
training, or norms that proscribe such behavior
• Worrisome as:
• Women’s unique policy needs may not be met if
they lack voice and agency
• Women’s voice and agency in their community
also help support women’s livelihoods

35. www.cgiar.org
Partner
• ActionAid Nigeria, Gender Team
(https://nigeria.actionaid.org/women)
• Project operating in 3 states in Southwest Nigeria (Osun, Ogun, and Oyo)

36. www.cgiar.org
Intervention
• Initial meeting to sign-up married women (age 21-50)
and provide civic education course
• 3 study arms:
• Control (C): Do not meet again after initial meeting
• Treatment 1 (T1): Women invited to attend 5 more
trainings over 5 months
• Treatment 2 (T2): T1 + husbands invited to attend 5
(separate) trainings over 5 months
• Women’s trainings are in leadership, organizing, and
advocacy, intended to build women's collective agency
and improve their articulation of demands to
policymakers
• Men’s trainings promotes men’s allyship in supporting
women’s empowerment
450 wards
5,850 women
Control
150 wards
T1
150 wards
T2
150 wards

37. www.cgiar.org
Planned Analysis – Women’s
Voice and Agency
• Baseline survey (May—June 2023) and endline survey (November—
December 2023)
• Compare endline outcomes of women randomly assigned to Control, T1, and
T2
• Women’s Voice and Agency Outcomes:
• Women’s participation in community meetings and contacting of leaders
• Leaders’ perceptions of how well women communicate their needs
• Group efficacy: Women’s belief that they can rely on other women for
help
• Individual efficacy: Women’s confidence in themselves

38. www.cgiar.org
Planned Analysis – Women’s
Livelihoods and Wellbeing
• Women’s Livelihoods and Wellbeing Outcomes:
• Likelihood of working, hours worked
• Income
• Having a bank account, value of savings
• Aspirations (for income, for savings, for social status)
• Likelihood of taking out a loan
• Participation in groups
• Food security and comfort

39. www.cgiar.org
Next Steps
• ActionAid Nigeria begins trainings facilitators next week
• A week after this training, the initial training meetings being (beginning the
5-6 months training period)
• All data should be collected by December 2023
• Plan to analyze data in early 2024 and disseminate findings to ActionAid and
other partners
Thank you!

40. Digital Finance
Innovations in
Agriculture
Presented by: Kate Ambler
Research team: Bedru Balana,
Jeffrey Bloem, Eduardo
Maruyama, Opeyemi
Olanrewaju

41. www.cgiar.org
Rethinking Food Markets Initiative
Overall goal: Study interventions to improve efficiency of food markets
1. Global value chains
2. Domestic value chains
3. Cross-value chain services
Specific goal: Study innovations in (digital) finance and logistics
• Scoping analysis
• Identification of innovations
• Evaluation of innovations
Other initiative work in Nigeria: Logistics innovations in fruit and vegetable
value chains

42. www.cgiar.org
Financial access in agriculture
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Total Commercial Bank Loan (N'billion)
Commercial Banks loan to Agricultural sector (N'billion)
Percentage Loans to agriculture sector
Commercial bank lending to agricultural sector (2014-
2020)
Smallholder finance
• 16.8 million smallholders have no access to
formal finance
• 100% receive payments in cash
• 96% pay for inputs in cash
• 79% do not own a bank account
• 85% are self funded
But…
• They are 70% of the labor force
• They produce 99% of agricultural produce in
Nigeria

43. www.cgiar.org
Results from scoping studies
Challenges
• Barriers to entry
• Weak infrastructure
• Lack of trust
• Literacy gap
• Fraud
• Low awareness/adoption
• Disconnect between banks
and DFS
Opportunities
• Adoption of cell phones and
broadband
• Growing network of agents
• Growing demand for digital
services
• Enabling environment
• Youth population
• Improved data

44. www.cgiar.org
Identification of Financing Innovations
• Digital credit
• E-saving to purchase inputs
• E-saving from harvest payments (crop revenues)
• Digital warehouse deposit receipt system
• Bundling with other services

45. www.cgiar.org
Next steps
• Finalize innovation design and partnership
• Implement pilot study
• Dissemination of results

46. The Role of Spatial Inequalities on Youth Migration
Decisions: Empirical Evidence from Nigeria
Mulubrhan Amare
(with Kibrom A. Abay and Jordan Chamberlin)

47. www.cgiar.org
Motivation
• The spatial flow of labor within countries responds and contributes to the geographical
distribution of economic activity and opportunity.
• Understanding migration decisions, destination and duration helps inform our
understanding of the potential outcomes of alternative regional development strategies.
• How different types of migrants respond to differences in amenities, resources, and
economic activity, to design effective policies for migration,
• Destination perspective to understanding potential pull factors for various forms of
migration
• Examine how the attributes of potential destinations, both in absolute terms as well as
relative to origins of migration.

48. www.cgiar.org
Objectives
▪ We study youth migrants’ responses to observable characteristics of potential destinations
and how these responses vary across various forms of migration.
▪ Examine the role of observable attributes of potential destinations, both in absolute terms as
well as relative to origin of migration.
▪ Explore potential heterogeneity in the impacts of observable characteristics of potential
destinations across various types of migrants.
▪ Understand pull factors of youth migration, a country characterized by relatively high rates
of internal youth migration
▪ Dyadic comparison of destinations and origins underscores the analytical importance of
relative distributions of endowments.

49. www.cgiar.org
Description and Descriptive Statistics
Actual
destination
Alternative
destination
Dif. (actual
vs altern.)
Consumption per AEU ($ppp) 1188.23 1085.81 102.42
Agricultural prod. ($ppp crop income per ha) 4838.40 4703.86 134.54
Land per AEU (ha) 0.17 0.19 -0.02
Nighttime light (DN) 12.10 8.93 3.17
Long-term mean rainfall (mm) 1618.20 1404.33 213.87
Distance to destination (km) 467.01 493.56 26.55
• There are 3,140 youth migrants to each state.
• Each of the migrants has chosen to move to one potential destination; and has therefore
chosen not to move to the 36 remaining destinations.
• Interested in explaining why each individual migrated to each actual destination and not to
the remaining 36 states.

50. www.cgiar.org
Results and Discussions
Destination choice of migrants by destination characteristics

51. www.cgiar.org
Conclusions and Implications
• Migrants respond differently to observable characteristics depending on migration pattern,
duration, and socioeconomic status.
• Migrants prefer destinations with higher relative welfare and lower cost of living.
• Rural-rural migrants are responsive to agricultural productivity and land availability.
• Rural-urban and urban-urban youth migrants focus on welfare and urban intensity.
• Permanent migrants prioritize cost of living but non-poor migrants prioritize welfare
• Policy makers can encourage rural-rural migration by improving agricultural production
potential to reduce youth unemployment and social tensions in urban areas.

52. Experiments to accelerate
adoption of improved
varieties and quality seeds
Catherine Ragasa (IFPRI)
Oyinbo Oyakhilomen (ABU)
Lucky Omoigui (IITA)
Chibuzo Nwagboso (IFPRI)
Market Intelligence Initiative
WP3 on BehavioralIntelligence team

53. What drives farmers, consumers and private sector decisions to
adopt new varieties and related products?
The problem: New varieties (even if the best ones) are
often not adopted because of behavioral barriers and
processes. Examples:
• Benefits from drought-tolerantvarieties only
experienced when there is a drought
• Improved nutritional value: Difficult to observe
With these barriers, how to acceleratevarietal
turnover?
Limited or unpredictable demand will limit private sector
interest in promoting new varieties and related products.
• How to get privatesector to promote new products?

54. ResearchQuestion1 – How canwe accelerate varietal turnover?
Main Investment: A behavioral multi-country multi-crop randomizedtrial
• Six experiments (5 countries)
• Coordinatedexperimentaldesigns – common interventions
• Quantitativeand qualitativedatacollectiontools, and the same outcome variables.
• Nigeria: Baseline survey completed and seed trial minipack distribution started
Sitesand crops:
• Nigeria:cowpea, maize
• Ethiopia: teff and wheat
• India: green gram, groundnut,rice
• Kenya: maize, beans, cowpea, green
gram, sorghum
• Uganda: maize, sweet potato (2 sites)

55. Study site: Bauchi and Kaduna states, Nigeria
Sample size: 2,016 households in 252 villages surveyed at baseline
Constraints to adoption of newer
varieties:
• Lack of information about new
varieties
• Farmers are cautious to try out new
varieties
• Lack of access to improved seeds
• Poor management practices
• Gender-based constraints
❖ Women have low access to information,
improved seeds, inputs, mobility
❖ Women lack decision-making in varietal
selection and farming
Interventions being
tested:
• Seed trial minipack
• Trainingon good
agriculturalpractices
• Consumption-
orientedintervention
given to female and
male within
treatment
households
23
13
7
13
0
5
10
15
20
25
% land area with
improved
varieties
Varietal age
Adoption rate of improved
varieties
Maize Cowpea
Mostare using older varieties
and just recycle own seeds for
severalyears:
Most popular cowpea variety:
SAMPEA9 (2005 release)
Most popular maize variety: SAMMAZ15
(2008 release)

56. Top varietal traitpreferences
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
%
of
sample
households
a. Production-oriented traits
Maize
Cowpea
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
b. Consumption-oriented traits
Maize
Cowpea
Source of raw data: IFPRI/Binomial household survey (2023). Varietal evaluation and traits preferences module were
asked jointly to male and female members of household. Traits preferences were largely consistent with FGDs; and
male-only and female-only FGDs responses were largely similar.
Varieties promoted in
the experimental
study:
✓ relatively new
varieties, with
commercial seeds
available but not yet
widely known among
farmers; and
✓ have good potential
for widespread
adoption based on
published traits
recommendations
from seed actor:
➢ SAMPEA19
➢ FUAMPEA 3
➢ Sammaz 51
➢ Sammaz 52

57. Interventions to test in an experiment (cluster RCT)
5 treatment assignment at village level:
1. Seed pack only
2. Consumption-oriented treatment only
3. Seed pack + consumption-oriented treatment
4. Seed pack + Training
5. Control group (no intervention)
Data collected from within-cluster control to measure spillover effect!

58. Thank you.
Stay tuned on the
study results
in 2024!
For questions, kindly send to Catherine Ragasa
(c.ragasa@cgiar.org)

59. Seed certification and maize, rice
and cowpea productivity in
Nigeria:
An insight based on nationally
representative farm household data and
seed company location data
(WP5 Nigeria Study 2022)
Adetunji Fasoranti (presenter)
Hiroyuki Takeshima, Tahirou Abdoulaye, Kwaw S. Andam,
Hyacinth O. Edeh, Beliyou Haile, P. Lava Kumar, Chibuzo
Nwagboso, Catherine Ragasa, David Spielman, Tesfamichael
Wossen.

60. www.cgiar.org
Background
1
• This study explores the value of quality assurance systems
with an analysis of certified seed production and
distribution in Nigeria.
• Assess the associations between the quantity of certified
seeds produced and the spatial variations from where they
are produced and,
• Spatial variations in the use of certified seeds and/or
improved varieties, yields, and output, and their relationship
with agroclimatic and socioeconomic conditions

61. www.cgiar.org
Methodology and Data Sources
2
Cowpea
Rice
Maize
Our analysis integrates information on seed quantities produced and locations of seed
companies with LSMS – ISA data: nationally representative panel data from a survey of
farm householdsand spatially explicit rainfall and temperature data.

62. www.cgiar.org
Certified seed production and use in Nigeria over time
– Varied Scale
Source: Calculations based on NASC annual reports in left-hand side panels, and FAOSTAT in right-hand side panels.
3
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
tons
Maize (Hybrid) Maize (OPV) Rice (Lowland) Rice (Upland) Others
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
tons
Cowpea

63. www.cgiar.org
Key Findings
4
• Yield responsesfrom certified seeds vary depending on the nature of the farmland
• When certified seeds are available, both yield and use increase. When it hits its peak,
the effect of the increase begins to diminish.
• There are variations in the yields from certified seed which could be a result of
climatic conditions and farmers’ socioeconomic characteristics.
• Farmers tend to use certified seeds when they are sure that their land supports the
production of such crops.

64. www.cgiar.org
Key Findings
5
• Farmers tend to use certified seeds when they are sure that their land supports the
production of such crops.
• Farmers in close proximity to certified seed use it and improve their yields and
outputs. This effect diminishes at the margin due to two factors
1. Yields from certified seeds vary considerably within each state, suggesting either
quality issues in the supply chain or farmers not using complementary inputs or
management practices when using quality seed.
2. As certified seed becomesmore available to farmers, its use may spread from
higher-return farms to lower-returnfarms, thereby diminishing the gains on the
extensive margin.

65. www.cgiar.org
Policy recommendations
6
• Revisit seed certification target in Nigeria
• Prioritize spatially the seed certification expansion effort if it
is still of policy importance
• Promote more decentralized systems, like QDS / community
seed schemesfor rice, cowpeas, and OPV maize (as in various
Eastern and Southern African countries)

66. Capacity Strengthening:
Updating Social
Accounting Matrix (SAM)
for Setting Policy Priorities
Temilolu Bamiwuye
(with Josee Randriamamonjy, Karl Pauw, Xinshen
Diao, Chibuzo Nwagboso)

67. Introduction to SAM
➢ SAM is a systematic tool for economy-wide analysis and policy prioritization, used to
prioritize the most appropriate investments and suitable policies that can transform the
Nigerian agricultural food market and system.
➢ SAM is a national accounting framework that captures the circular flow of receipts and
payments between agents and markets.
➢ SAM provides a complete and consistent dataset of all economic transactions that takes
place within the socio-economic system.
➢ Some of the data source include: National accounts (NBS), government financial statistics
(Ministry of Finance, CBN), Balance of Payment (IMF) Household expenditures, and Labour
Force Surveys etc.

68. Basic Structure of SAM ➢ It sheds light on the activities of the different
economic agents by describing the
interrelationship between firms, farms,
households, investorsand the external sector.
➢ The flow of economic activities in monetary terms
from expenditure/outflow (col) to income/inflow
(row)
➢ Activities are domestic firms that produce goods
and services (commodities). Factors (labour,
capital and land) are important to produce
activities. The activities pay owners/suppliers of
factors (households – wages and rents),
government (profits, direct tax), and the rest of
the world (import, debt repayments)

69. Findings from the previous Nigeria SAM
2018 Nigeria SAM
2006 Nigeria SAM
Consumptionshare of Nigeria households
• Manufactured goods take about 67 percent of imports and
4.8 percent of exports.
• Mining takes about 87 percent of exports and 0.3 percent of
imports
• Manufactured goods take about 66 percent of
imports and 1 percent of export
• Mining takes about 94 percent of exports and 2
percent of imports

70. ➢ Ensure integrating policy tools,
including SAMs, are available for
federal and state-level analysis
➢ Develop in-country SAM building
capacity by working with local
institutions (NISER, NBS)
Aim of the Research
➢ Updated SAM at national level with new
SUT and the Nigerian Living Standards
Survey (NLSS)
➢ Regionalized SAM, separating Delta,
Kano, and Lagos States
Anticipated Outcomes

71. Past Activities: Training Sessions
Training 2
Building a
Nigerian social
accounting
matrix (SAM)
Training 3
SAM multiplier
modeling

72. Next Steps
➢ Trainees to facilitate in-country SAM trainings especially at the state levels
➢ IFPRI team to provide backstop support to trainees including preparing training
documentsand virtual refresher trainings
➢ NISER with the support of NBS to lead the preliminary new SAM and its
documentationincluding report writing and simulation.
➢ NISER to engage relevant state statistical agencies like the state bureaus of
statisticsfor gathering of relevant data for the SAM building
➢ Data collection in preparation for a regional SAM (Delta, Kano, and Lagos states)

73. Potential Policy/Programming Implications
Updated Nigeria SAMs at national and state-level will serve as a database for
research on country Agrifood system transformation, including:
• Federal and statelevel public expenditure analysis: costs and benefits of
different investments (RIAPA-AIDAanalysis), trends and composition of public
spending
• Agrifood system diagnostic analysis

75. National
Aquaculture
and Fisheries
Policy
Directions
Catherine Ragasa (IFPRI)
Sunil Siriwardena (WorldFish)
Anthony Onoja (APRNet)
Eyiwunmi Falaye (U of Ibadan)
Ebi Ansa (FISON)
Istifanus Pwaso
Chibuzo Nwagboso (IFPRI)
With others in IFPRI, WorldFish, and Agricultural
Policy Research Network (APRNet), under the
guidance of the Federal Department of Fisheries
and Aquaculture, FMARD

76. Policy Research & Policy Development Support
in response to the demand from the Federal Department
of Fisheries and Aquaculture
Demand for
Policy Reform
Evidence-based Policy
Formulation,
Consultation,Validation,
and Adoption
Budgetary
Negotiations
and Allocation
Implementation
of Strategies
and
Programmes
Monitoring,
Evaluation,
Review,
Adjustments
Ongoing research:
• Literature search and synthesis of the lessons
• Policy coherence review
• Key informants’ interviews and discussions
Upcoming research (May-August 2023)

77. Poverty
(change in %-point)
Average across outcomes
(averaged normalized scores, reordered)
-0.69
-0.62
-0.49
-0.10
-0.10
-0.10
-0.09
-0.08
-0.01
0.00
0.16
Cattle & dairy
Poultry & eggs
Fish
Soybeans
Cassava
Cowpea
Cocoa
Maize
Fruits & nuts
Vegetables
Rice
0.72
0.52
0.43
0.42
0.40
0.38
0.35
0.35
0.29
0.26
0.11
Cattle & dairy
Rice
Maize
Fish
Poultry & eggs
Soybeans
Cowpea
Fruits & nuts
Vegetables
Cocoa
Cassava
Total
Cattle & dairy
Rice
Maize
Fish
Poultry & eggs
Soybeans
Cowpea
Fruits & nuts
Vegetables
Cocoa
Cassava
Poverty Growth Jobs Diets
CRITICAL CONTRIBUTION AND POTENTIAL OF AQUA FOOD SECTOR
Source: IFPRI, 2022

78. NIGERIA IS THE LEADING AQUA PRODUCER IN SSA
FAST GROWTH IN NIGERIA’S AQUACULTURE UNTIL 2014, THEN PLATEAU
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Production
(000
metric
tonnes)
AquacultureProduction, Sub-SaharanAfrica
Nigeria Tanzania Uganda Ghana Zambia Kenya Other
6
9
11
9
15
23
21
12
22
4
0
10
20
30
40
Annual
growth
rate
(%)
AnnualGrowth Rate in Aquaculture
Production, 2000-2019
Source of raw data: FAOSTAT
Source: Ragasa, C., H. Charo-Karisa, E. Rurangwa, N. Tran, K. M.
Shikuku. 2022. Sustainable Aquaculture Developmentin Sub-
Sahara Africa. Nature Food 3, 92-94.

79. POLICY GAPS AND INCONSISTENCIES
✓ Inadequate environmental policies and regulations for sustainable aqua food system.
✓ Land suitable for sustainable pond aquaculture is not zoned.
✓ Several programs that provide capital and market linkages rarely reach aqua producers.
✓ Large data gaps have caused incomplete information for policy formulation
✓ Insufficient resources make policies unimplementable.
✓ Current policies lack strategies, details, and depth to improve aquaculture value chain
growth.

80. NEXT STEPS
✓ Ongoing drafting of the new National Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy (2023-2028) – with
IFPRI, Worldfish, and APRNet providing technical support (since January 2023).
✓ Stakeholder consultations on the elements and design of this new national policy – June
2023
✓ Market and value chain analysis; analysis of source of growth, economywide modelling –
May-August 2023
✓ Stakeholder validation workshop for the new National Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy –
September 2023

81. Conflict-Induced
Shocks and Household
Food Security in
Nigeria
Opeyemi Olanrewaju (Presenter)
Bedru Balana
Abuja, Nigeria. May 12, 2023

82. Background
Conflicts and general security threats are major insecurity concerns in Nigeria and are most
severe for the poor and vulnerable ones
Conflict can lead to the destruction of farmland, crop theft, destabilize food markets limit
household dietary diversity and impair food security
Conflict is one of the major drivers of displacement and forced migration ultimately leading
to severe food insecurity
Unlike previous studies (George 2020; WFP 2017), we examine how the direct effects of
conflicts (shocks) affect household food (in)security within the context of Violent conflicts
settings in Nigeria

83. Food Security Measurement (two indices)
(1) Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS)
• “Yes/no" responses to the 12 food groups that
were consumed by a household
• The HDDS has a minimum value of zero and a
maximum value of twelve.
(2) Household food insecurity experience scale (FIES)
• Eight-Standard-experience-based food insecurity
experience indicators
Data Source and Methods
Data Source
• 2018 Fadama III Additional
Financing Data
• 1658 sampled households
across the six states of the
North-east region.
Empirical Strategy
• Negative binomial model
(HDDS)
• Probit Model (FIES)

84. Summary of Review findings
• Underlying causes for many violent conflicts were competition or access
to productive resources, economic inequality, and ethnoreligious
tensions.
• Herders-farmers conflicts, Boko Haram insurgency, armed banditry
attacks, and communal conflicts are the most widely reported types of
conflicts in Nigeria
• A spatial variability in the nature and severity of violent conflicts in
Nigeria

85. Summary of Empirical Findings (1)
Variables
Marginal
effects
Std. error (marginal
effects)
Migrated due to
conflicts
-1.22*** 0.153
Abducted
-0.796*** 0.258
Loss of property
-0.722*** 0.184
Market infrastructure
loss due to conflicts 1.726*** 0.169
Own agricultural
processing
equipment
-0.740* 0.386
Age of household
head 0.0133** 0.006
Access to Market
Information 0.299 * 0.156
Empirical results
• conflicts-induced migration decrease
household food security
• Abduction of household members negatively
and significantly affects household food
security
• Property loss has a significant negative
relationship with household food security

86. Summary of Empirical Findings (2)
Run out of food Without eating
whole day
Hungry but did
not eat
Variables Margins Margins Margins
Migrated
due to
conflicts
0.1264***
(0.0255)
0.1069***
(0.0210)
0.118***
(0.025)
Displaced -0.0179
(0.0306)
-0.0788***
(0.0250)
0.022
(0.029)
Abducted -0.0068
(0.0487)
-0.0157
(0.03830)
0.008
(0.046)
Trauma 0.0919***
(0.0339)
0.0344
(0.0279)
0.0924***
(0.033)
Fatality 0.2243***
(0.0376)
0.1024***
(0.0293)
0.199***
(0.036)
Loss of
property
-0.0413
(0.0303)
0.0590**
(0.0250)
0.033
(0.029)
Injured 0.0708**
(0.0327)
0.0770***
(0.0263)
0.037
(0.031)
• Conflict-induced migration increased the
severity of household food insecurity (All
FIES indicators)
• Household members’ loss of property and
injury is associated with the three FIES
indicator
• Trauma due to conflicts increases the
likelihood of a household being
experiencing ‘ran out of food’ and ‘hungry
but did not’
• Fatality to a household member is
associated with experiencing all three food
insecurity indicators.

87. Policy Recommendations
State-level or region-specific approaches and policy interventions is recommended
in addressing triggers of conflicts and its attendant impacts.
Property rights and promotion of alternative livestock production/management
system such as the practice of cattle ranching (To address the resource use
competition as a major driver, and the huge collateral impacts that comes with it)
Generally, policies and programs need be developed to mitigate the direct impact
of conflict- induced shocks on households, as it creates long term imbalances that
often affects household welfare, including food security.

88. Fragility, Conflict and Migration (FCM)
&
National Policies and Strategies (NPS)
Joint Initiative Seminar
May 12, 2023
Abuja, Nigeria
Developing Nigeria’s Community
of Policy Practice:
Current Status and Next Steps
Hyacinth Edeh

89. www.cgiar.org

90. www.cgiar.org
NPS Goals/Implementation Areas
• Building policy coherence
• Synergy among CGIAR Initiatives
• Linking Initiatives research portfolios to national and sub-national policies
• Supporting coherence between national and sub-national agricultural and
development policies
• Integrating Policy Tools
• Developing easy-to-use tools for policy-related analysis
• National capacity strengthening activities, e.g., trainings
• Mentoring national trainees to lead national policy analysis and monitoring
• Responding to Crises
• Creating/strengthening of Communities of Policy Practice (CoPP)
• Informing CoPP through evidence-based research outputs to bridge the gap
between research and policy making
• Diverse relevant stakeholders

91. www.cgiar.org
Community of Policy Practice:
The Nigeria Model/Actors
Community
of Policy
Practice
Development Partners
(CGIAR)
Government
(FMARD, State,
Committee of Practice
on Agricultureand
Rural Development)
Private Sector
Actors/Policy Influencers
(NABG, NGF, APRNet, etc.)
Researchers
(ADAN, NARIs, NISER,
NBS, etc.)

92. www.cgiar.org 4
NATIONAL POLICY AND CAPACITY SUPPORT
Strengthening CoPP Partners in Nigeria
Introduction to Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) – July
2022
Launch of the National Agricultural Technology and
Innovation Policy – NATIP (August 2022)

93. www.cgiar.org 5
CAPACITY STRENGTHENING WORKSHOP/TRAINING
Strengthening CoPP Partners in Nigeria
Buildinga Nigeria Social Accounting Matrix (SAM) – Jan/Feb. 2023
STATA tool – March. 2023

94. www.cgiar.org 6
PODBORER-RESISTANT COWPEA – APRIL 2023
Research Seminar

95. www.cgiar.org 7
Next Steps
• NATIP Implementation Plan validation workshop – May 2023
• State policy engagements through Committee of Practice of State
Commissioners of Agriculture – June/July 2023
• Research dissemination events at national and state levels – June 2023
onwards

96. www.cgiar.org 8
Next Steps
Thank you for listening