Role of socio-economic research in developing, delivering and scaling new crop varieties: the case of staple crop biofortification

Abstract

The CGIAR biofortification program, HarvestPlus, was founded with the aim of improving the quality of diets through micronutrient-dense varieties of staple food crops. Implemented in four phases - discovery, development, delivery and scaling - the program was designed to be interdisciplinary, with plant breeding R&D supported by nutrition and socio-economic research. This paper explains the need, use and usefulness of socio-economic research in each phase of the program. Ex ante and ex post benefit-cost analyses facilitated fundraising for initial biofortification R&D and implementation in each subsequent phase, as well as encouraged other public, private, and civil society and non-governmental organizations to take on and mainstream biofortification in their crop R&D, policies, and programs. Socio-economics research helped guide plant breeding by identifying priority micronutrient- crop- geography combinations for maximum impact. Health impacts of biofortification could be projected both by using empirical results obtained through randomized controlled bioefficacy trials conducted by nutritionists, and through farmer-adoption models estimating impact at scale. Farmer and consumer surveys and monitoring systems provided the underlying information for estimating farmer adoption models and helped understand input/output markets, farmer and consumer preferences, and additional opportunities and challenges -all of which informed crop breeding and delivery activities, while building the knowledge base for catalyzing the scaling of biofortification.

Keywords: biofortification; consumer acceptance; cost-effectiveness; farmer adoption; impact evaluation; monitoring; program evaluation and learning; socio-economic research.

Figure 1

Evolution of HarvestPlus.

Figure 2

Biofortified crops around the world, blue color indicates the countries where at least one biofortified crop variety was released.

Figure 3

Cost-effectiveness of micronutrient deficiency reduction interventions.

Figure 4

BPI for vitamin A maize, unweighted, land area weighted and population weighted.

Figure 5

Varietal adoption map for ICTP 8203, Maharashtra, 2011.

Figure 6

Biofortification Theory of Change. Assumptions:[1] Evidence on appropriate breeding targets developed for all crops from nutrition studies; and quality control standards (for detection of nutrient levels) and/or branding guidelines developed. [2] Necessary partnerships built with national governments and NARS and MoUs signed with CG centers. [3] Agronomic and other varietal trait requirements are met or exceeded. [4] Licensing of released varieties to private seed companies/multipliers. [5] Quality control standards are implemented. [6] Appropriate (country-specific) dissemination strategies in place. [7] Necessary partnerships built with private companies and multipliers. [8] Necessary partnerships built with key international bodies (e.g. World Bank). [9] Develop criteria for working with private sector companies and evaluate prioritized targets. [10] Guidelines on biofortification developed as a result of high level stakeholder meetings with FAO and WHO. [11] Knowledge management tools, processes and outputs developed for public and private stakeholders. [12] Availability and sufficiency of biofortified planting material. [13] Farmers know where to obtain biofortified planting material. [14] Messaging is clear, accurate and targeted. [15] Farmers sell some of their harvest in the local markets. [16] Consumers are convinced of the nutritional benefits of the biofortified crop. In addition, biofortified foods have the same or better taste and cooking quality. [17] Farmers are willing to increase land cultivated to biofortified varieties (by replacing biofortified seed with regular crop seed area or opening new farm land). [18] Farmers spread information about biofortified seeds and crops and share planting material and output/harvest. [19] Full government support through programs and policies in favor of biofortified crop varieties. [20] Caretakers in target households have accepted the nutritional benefits and have access to biofortified foods and are willing to feed their household. Children are willing to eat biofortified foods. [21] Micronutrients are preserved during cooking and storage/Households use recommended storage and preparation methods that do not result in high nutrient loss for biofortified crops. [22] Consumption of biofortified crops working together with other nutrition interventions (e.g. fortification, dietary diversity)/Biofortified crops. [23] Biofortified foods are eaten in sufficient quantities on a regular basis. [24] There are no other underlying health conditions. [25] Fundraising efforts yield additional financial resources. [26] Human capital and the right skills are in place to do the various types of work. [27] CG centers produce parental breeding lines. [28] Evidence on biofortification effectiveness/efficacy and sufficient nutrient target levels for biofortified crops is available.

Figure 7

Number of households growing biofortified crops (left) vs the cost/household (right), 2012-20.

Figure 8

Impact of OSP delivery interventions on mean vitamin A intakes.

Figure 9

Roles and responsibilities of the socio-economics team at HarvestPlus.