Although irrigation offers the potential to increase productivity and provide resilience to climate shocks, the high cost of irrigation and the fiscal constraints faced by many African governments constrain the development of irrigation. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) offer a potential institutional arrangement to mobilize additional resources-including financial, technical, and managerial-from the private sector for critical investments in irrigation (Chimhowu 2013; G-20 Toronto Declaration; Fan 2010). But there are few cases of PPP for irrigation, and previous experiences in other sectors with PPPs highlight the difficulty in managing and distributing the costs and benefits among stakeholders, with women and those with insecure tenure often losing out. Many African ministers and irrigation officials are now raising the need for evidence and guidance on how to engage in the PPP process for irrigation development as they explore ways to overcome the financing gap for necessary irrigation investments in order to meet domestic and international agriculture and food security related growth targets. This research responds to requests from African irrigation authorities for help in identifying suitable PPP strategies that voiced during a SSA-wide stakeholder workshop on irrigation development in Ethiopia, February 4-6, 2013. This research aims to provide guidance to these SSA countries and irrigation officials on developing and implementing PPPs that are beneficial to the countries, private investors, and, ultimately, the end-users of these irrigation projects. This objective will be addressed through research to understand the factors that influence the outcomes of PPP processes and outreach to raise awareness and build capacity for policy makers on how to engage in PPP processes. We will assess different types of irrigation arrangements across SSA and implement in-depth case study work in Tanzania and Ghana, based on key informant interviews and focus groups, that highlight, among other factors, the different ways that men and women participate in and benefit from different irrigation arrangements, including PPPs. In addition, workshops with country stakeholders will employ participatory Netmapping techniques to identify relationships and networks critical for engaging in effective and equitable PPP arrangements. Both local universities and government stakeholders from irrigation ministries will be key partners in the process, along with an international policy research organization with considerable expertise on institutional arrangements for irrigation development. The research will contribute to the successful implementation of Tanzania's and Ghana's policies of encouraging private sector investment in the irrigation sector. However, our lessons will be more broadly applicable to other SSA countries facing similar challenges and difficulties and will be useful in encouraging private sector investment that can bring benefits for investors, irrigation users, and national governments in terms of meeting food security and nutrition goals. The framework, methods, and results of this research will be assembled in a toolkit and shared broadly through IFPRI's networks, reaching a wide and diverse audience of civil society, governments, donors, private sector, and actors. Ultimately, we anticipate that this project will raise awareness about the potential and the limitations for PPP to contribute to irrigation development and will help SSA governments in drafting PPP arrangements that help balance the competing needs of investors, nations, and communities while providing socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable results. An indicator of success will be that within three years governments (irrigation development authorities) in two countries apply the toolkit to ensure more sustainable PPPs that meet food security needs.

Abstracts are not currently available in GtR for all funded research. This is normally because the abstract was not required at the time of proposal submission, but may be because it included sensitive information such as personal details.

Rational. Three existing knowledge gaps motivate this study. First, there has been little research on linking energy, transformation, and poverty reduction in the developing countries. Second, there has been little research analyzing energy costs in the various segments of the food supply chains, differentiating over products, tracing both patterns in energy intensity by segment as well as the impacts of these costs on net incomes of actors. Third, there has been little empirical research empirically linking energy policy and public energy system investments with energy costs and performance in food supply chains in developing countries. Objectives. 1) to develop an integrated conceptual framework for modeling the relations among three interrelated factors, transformed versus traditional food supply chains; energy costs from electricity and fuel; and net incomes of supply chain participants and food prices; 2) to apply the framework to analyze horticulture and dairy supply chains in China, India, and Brazil, to assess how energy costs are generated and affect behavior in the segments of the supply chain and what the implications of these are for food costs to consumers and incomes to producers; and 3) to formulate policy pathways for moving towards more optimal energy use practices that contribute to supply chain development and reduction of poverty. Key Research Questions. What determines the patterns and formation of energy costs along the supply chains? How do these energy costs affect the transformation of the value chains? How do energy costs and access constraints condition small-scale actors' participation in transformed food value chains? How do energy costs in those chains impinge on the welfare of the poor? What are the patterns of energy use indicators of the value chains? Via what innovations do supply chain actors cope with energy costs and seek energy efficiency? How do technology changes used to improve access to transformed value chains translate into energy intensity and energy efficiency changes in the supply chain? What is the impact of energy policies and public investments on energy intensity and efficiency in those chains? What are the distributional and food price consequences of the above, and what are various scenarios? Is there a match or mismatch between energy policies and investments and "hot spots" in the supply chains' energy use? Do the policies lead to energy savings hence cost savings and competitiveness for the farms and firms? Data and Method. 1) Inventory per country the energy policies and public and private-sector investments related to energy costs and access for all segments of the value chains studied. 2) Inventory and "map" the different value chains for the two products, in two study provinces/states. 3) Collect detailed data in "stacked surveys", with a representative sample survey in each segment of the value chains, as well as supplemental case studies, as discussed above. 3) Analyze the data from all the segments of the value chain surveys. 5) Use the findings from step four, arrayed as parameters in simulations at different levels to model the impacts of energy policies and investments on energy costs, intensity, efficiency, and energy cost burdens of the poor. Output and Impact. Eight papers and four policy briefings will be prepared. The study will provide evidence base and analytical tools that facilitate policy makers and other decision makers to make more informed decisions and evaluate their alternative options with respect to energy use and management in agri-food system for the enhancement of its performance that are critical to the poor. Lessons learnt from the three emerging economies would have implications for the low income countries in the world. The ultimate beneficiary is the rural poor in the developing countries who engage in the agricultural sector and whose livelihoods depend on the performance of the agri-food system.

Agriculture refers to a category of ecosystems that humans purposefully manage to obtain provisioning ecosystem services (ES), such as food, fiber, and biofuel. In the process, they depend upon a wide variety of supporting and regulating services that determine the underlying biophysical capacity of agricultural ecosystems. This research focuses on a critical set of such supporting and regulating ES, including pest and disease regulation and pollination that are important for maintaining the productivity and sustainability of agricultural ecosystems. These ES are often provided by insects that move between different habitats in the landscape. The flows of these ES rely on how agricultural ecosystems are managed at the site scale and on the structure, composition, and functioning of the surrounding landscape. These ES are particularly important for the rural poor whose livelihoods typically rely more on agriculture. Agricultural land use interacts in important ways with landscape structure. Managing land use in agricultural landscapes to provide sufficient ES offers a vital approach to sustainable agricultural growth and has the potential to point to new pathways out of rural poverty. While ES have always been critical to the success of agriculture, there has recently been a surge in studies on the relationship between ES and diversity at landscape level, prompted by the ecological impoverishment of modern high intensity agricultural landscapes. Results of these studies highlight the need to shift the scale of ES investigations and management strategies from the field to the agricultural landscape. As new evidence begins to emerge, it needs to be put into socio-economic and development perspectives in terms of links of ES to the livelihoods of the poor. Despite a population exceeding 1.3 billion, China has been able to produce nearly all its food demand from a very limited land endowment. This accomplishment has been achieved primarily by increasing the level of modern inputs and the intensity of the farming systems. However, after a period of explosion in yield levels from the 1960s to early 1990s, stagnant yield potential has been the recent trend characterizing Chinese agriculture since the late 1990s. Yields have been stagnant for the past 10 years in the rice producing regions of China, where farmers were early adopters of green-revolution technologies. Evidence shows that environmental stress and ecosystem degradation is among the main drivers of the slowdown in yield growth in China. With rising population and income, agricultural productivity will have to continue growing. But continued growth based on intensification and unsustainable land use practices would be difficult. Tremendous research effort is needed to understand how practices can be modified to manage the critical ES provided to agriculture and to minimize the negative externalities of agriculture. Investments also may be required in key areas of the rural sector to protect the resource base, such as the natural ecosystems that provide vital habitats and alternative food sources for beneficial insects within the agricultural landscapes. The overall goal of this proposed study is to improve our understanding of the complex effects of landscape diversity as driven by land use choices, on the provision of key ES that support agriculture, and how those effects are channeled to human welfare and poverty reduction outcomes, and to provide the analytical tools to assist making strategic, evidence-based decisions on managing land use in agricultural landscapes that explicitly account for the effects of ES provision on poverty reduction. The landscape-scale land use perspective to ES management is of particular importance to China, where most of the poverty is concentrated in its rural population and the agricultural ecosystems face the challenge of improving productivity and sustainability while decreasing their environmental impact and ecosystem degradation.

Many countries in Africa have experienced remarkable growth in the last several decades. However, we lack a solid understanding of the drivers of this growth and concerns have been raised about its sustainability. Diao, McMillan, and Rodrik (2017) show that much of the growth in African countries can be attributed to growth-promoting structural change-an expansion of the nonagricultural sector's share of output and employment. Such an expansion has historically been an engine of growth-for example, the expansion of modern manufacturing was responsible for rapidly transformed economies in East Asia. However, in East Asian countries, the expansion of modern manufacturing was accompanied by within manufacturing sector productivity growth, which sustained the economywide productivity growth. This pattern has not been duplicated in Africa. In fact, Diao et al. (2017) find that the growth-promoting structural change observed in African countries has been accompanied by little or negative within sector labor productivity in nonagricultural sectors, including manufacturing. This means that as nonagricultural sectors expand, the productivity gap between the nonagricultural and agricultural sectors shrinks prematurely; if this pattern of declining productivity growth within nonagricultural sectors continues in Africa, countries will likely end up with low to negative economywide productivity growth. This will limit the potential for growth from structural change and raises serious concerns about the sustainability of growth in Africa. This project will explore the drivers of these patterns in Africa. We will use updated data to assess whether the patterns of growth observed in Diao et al. (2017) hold in more recent years and in more African countries. We will then apply the theoretical model from Diao et al. (2017) to explore the drivers of these patterns. The model theorizes that the East Asian growth is consistent with supply shocks caused by productivity growth within nonagricultural sectors. On the other hand, it suggests that patterns observed in Africa may be driven by demand side factors. As demand increases (possibly from foreign transfers or increasing agricultural incomes), the nonagricultural sector expands, and growth-promoting structural change takes place. At the same time, labor productivity in the nonagricultural sector is driven down, producing the observed trends. Part of this decline in nonagricultural sector productivity may be due to an expansion of informal sector activity and an influx of unproductive firms; however, it may also be caused by poor performance of the formal sector. These alternate possibilities have very different policy implications. We will test the extent to which structural change in Africa has been driven by demand side factors using trade, national accounts, and firm-level data. This research will focus on manufacturing, which is relatively easy to measure and has been one of the most important sectors in driving structural change and growth in developing countries. This research will lead to an understanding of why the African experience has been so different from that observed in East Asia and will reveal important implications for the sustainability of growth on the continent. Once we have determined the role of demand in driving structural change in Africa, we will then seek to further understand the causes of the disappointing within sector productivity growth. We will use newly created firm-level panel data from Ethiopia and Tanzania to compare the performance of formal manufacturing to that of economywide manufacturing, in an effort to understand whether formal manufacturing has the potential for expansion and to drive within sector productivity growth. Understanding the differences between formal and economywide manufacturing will provide important guidance for policymakers working to coordinate macroeconomic and industrial policies and for research on productivity.