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.

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.

Marking IFPRI’s 40th year, this report draws on external sources of evidence to review the Institute’s policy influence and impact to date and provides recommendations to improve. The external evidence includes citations data, external program and management reviews commissioned by CGIAR, and a series of independently conducted impact assessment studies of many of IFPRI’s research programs and projects between 1995 and 2015. The report also reviews recommendations as to how IFPRI might improve its impact.

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.

The CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (FTA), led by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), focuses on the sustainable management of forests, trees and agroforestry systems. Strengthening the capacity of forestry, trees and agroforestry research, policy and implementing institutions and their staff is critical to FTA’s mission and is embedded in its work. Capacity development is a long-term process whereby individuals, organizations and their networks improve their systems, resources, skills and knowledge. This becomes reflected in their capacity to perform functions and solve problems to better address national and sub-national development objectives. Capacity development enables research and development organizations, individuals, and their networks to achieve impact.This capacity needs assessment was conducted in 2018 to identify the capacity needs of World Agroforestry (ICRAF) and CIFOR to achieve the research objectives and targets specified in the FTA II proposal 2017–2021, including the amended FP2 proposal. The capacity needs assessment focused on four key areas for analysis: partnerships, networking, resource mobilization and human resource capacities. The analysis and recommendations contained within this document result from data collated from more than 70 interviews conducted with flagship and cluster leaders and key actors within the FTA II management teams and partner organizations.

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.