2011-2013
Subtheme 8.2: Food and Water Safety Policies (GRP 40)
Centers/ProgramsIFPRI
Target RegionsAsia, CWANA, LAC, SSA
Countries of Planned Research Potential Beneficiary Countries
 
Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Indonesia, India, Kenya, Mexico, Mali, Nigeria, Rwanda, Zambia
 
Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Indonesia, India, Kenya, Mexico, Mali, Nigeria, Rwanda, Zambia
CGIAR Priorities
2C - Enhancing nutritional quality and safety
3A - Increasing income from fruit and vegetables
3B - Income increases from livestock
3C - Enhancing income through increased productivity of fisheries and aquaculture
4A - Integrated land, water and forest management and landscape level
4C - Improving water productivity
5A - Science and technology policies and institutions
5B - Making international and domestic markets work for the poor
5C - Rural institutions and their governance
5D - Improving research and development options to reduce rural poverty and vulnerability
Development Activities - Development Activities
New Research Areas - New Research Areas
Financing Sources
Members: IDRC, United Kingdom, United States, World Bank

Non Members: AED, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Concern Worldwide, Deustche Weth, Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition, HarvestPlus/CP, Helen Keller International, Others, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, UNICEF, University of Kwazulu-Natal, Unres+Other Sources, World Food Program (WFP)
Project Overview and Rationale

Food safety is a fundamental component of food security. Moreover, food safety and security are intrinsically linked with the safety and availability of water, a crucial input into production of food, both pre and post harvest. In addition water is an important source of nutrition for the poor. Food and water safety affect the livelihoods of poor producers and consumers through two major channels: health and market access.

Consumption of unsafe food and water continue to be one of the major causes of preventable malnutrition, disease, and death. The International Water Management Institute estimates that 3 to 3.5 million hectares of agricultural land in developing countries are being irrigated with raw or diluted wastewater. The Center for Disease Control estimates that over 4.5 billion people may be chronically exposed to aflatoxins, a toxic fungus which may occur in staple crops and result in cancers, liver diseases, and retarded growth in children. Reduced human health generally results in reduced labor productivity and lower returns to human capital accumulation (e.g. schooling and training), and therefore reduced livelihood outcomes both in the short and long runs.

Food and water safety also have implications on livelihood assets other than human capital, most notably on livestock. Consumption of unsafe food (e.g. mycotoxin contaminated maize) and water by livestock and various livestock diseases (e.g., avian flu, BSE) have been found to have negative effects on the productivity of livestock, upon which the livelihoods of the poor depend. Though rigorous research on the total economic impact (at both macro and micro levels) of avian flu is still being undertaken, it can be postulated that the potential economic impact of the disease is likely to be of the first order. For example, it has already been noted that infections of HPAI H5N1 has resulted in the destruction of more than 140 million birds in South East Asia alone, with costs estimated to be in excess of US$ 10 billion. In case of a pandemic it could lead to global economic losses in the region of US $800 billion.

Looking forward, the food and water safety risks are likely to magnify in the future. In case of water safety for example, developing countries will face increasing water shortages due to various reasons (e.g., competition for scarce water resources from within and across sectors, global climate change, increasing population growth, etc.) in the face of their current the lack of appropriate technologies (e.g., treatment of both domestic sewage and industrial effluents) and institutions (e.g., water quality regulations, their implementation and monitoring). Within the agricultural sector, increasing intensification of crop, livestock, and fish production are contributing to adverse water quality outcomes and increased food safety risks. In addition to its impact on the quantity of water available, climate change is also expected to exacerbate many forms of water pollution. While food and water safety are still nascent research and development issues for many developing countries, they are increasingly capturing the attention of policymakers in both developed and developing countries alike, because of their impact on trade, productivity, health, and livelihoods.

Poor producers and consumers are more vulnerable when food safety concerns translate into food safety standards, adhering to which require the implementation of costly procedures that are generally not matched with commensurate price premium. Poor producers may not have the skills or the financial resources to adopt prescriptive procedures. Furthermore, even if they are trained in the skills and offered credit, there are economies of scale for many food safety measures, which may work against small scale producers and small scale agents along the food supply chain. The costs associated with compliance of increased food safety standards can potentially exclude small scale producers who face four distinct problems: (1) how to produce safe food; (2) how to be recognized as producing safe food; (3) how to identify cost-effective technologies for reducing food safety risks; and (4) how to be competitive vis-a-vis larger producers. In many cases poor consumers cannot afford the higher prices associated with higher production costs to provide higher levels of food safety. Thus, higher standards may lead to reduced consumption of certain foods, implying that the net nutritional effect may be negative. Proposed standards requiring pasteurization of milk in Kenya is one example. This is not to propose that standards always harm the poor, just that there is a risk-risk trade-off between food safety and low-cost food supply for the poor that needs to be fully understood when policy decisions regarding food safety standards are being implemented. Food safety standards may also have potentially strong distributional implications. Ensuring that the poor benefit from research directed at adding them in producing safe food will require understanding how various institutions (public and private) can be harnessed to ensure that the poor’s efforts to produce safe food is accepted.

The Food and Water Safety research team at IFPRI suggests that poverty cannot be reduced and health and nutrition outcomes cannot be improved without investing research efforts that improve decision and policymakers’ understanding of:
(i) The impacts of production and consumption of unsafe food and water on the livelihoods of the poor;
(ii) The role of food and water safety in food security, and the potential trade-offs between food safety and security;
(iii) The impacts of food safety standards on the poor’s access to markets, and hence on their livelihoods;
(iv) The efficient and effective institutional mechanisms that can facilitate poor producers to appropriate the benefits of producing safe food (e.g., certification) as well as those that can facilitate poor producers’ access to markets (e.g., cooperatives, contracts);
(v) The cost-effective control strategies that can be undertaken by poor producers and consumers to minimize food and water safety risks;
(vi) The effective and efficient methods of communication and information sharing regarding food and water safety risks and strategies to minimize these.

This research subtheme addresses areas where IFPRI could take an active role in filling food and water safety research gaps with a specific focus on the needs of poor producers and consumers.

Goals and Objectives

The principal goal of this research sub-theme is to provide evidence-based information on the cost-effectiveness of risk control technologies to reduce food and water safety hazards, including plant and animal health concerns, in developing countries; to understand the constraints to the adoption of these technologies and to recommend solutions for amelioration of these constraints. By doing so it is expected that cost-effective risk reducing strategies can be implemented to minimize the health risks and to improve the market access of the poor, thereby improving their livelihoods outcomes (e.g., income, nutrition and health).

IFPRI will initially focus their research efforts on the following four areas so as to enhance food and water safety, food security, reduce poverty, and to improve livelihoods:

(1) To understand the dynamic relationship between food and water safety, and food security and how these relationships can be influenced through appropriate institutional mechanisms and technologies;

(2) To evaluate the cost of compliance of increased food safety requirements on smallholders in light of increased sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures;

(3) To identify cost-effective control strategies available to the poor to reduce the risk of a specific food hazard so as to maintain market access (domestic and international);

(4) To assess the uptake of food and water safety interventions and to develop tools for monitoring and evaluation of the impact of interventions on livelihoods outcomes (e.g., income food security, health, and nutrition).

Conceptual Framework for analyses within the subtheme

The conceptual framework proposed within the subtheme draws upon a modified risk analysis framework. Risk analysis is the tool used internationally for assessing the risks associated with the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) concerns. It invokes decision sciences and involves a multidisciplinary approach to looking at the problem. Risk analysis aims to aid decisionmakers in evaluating policy alternatives, taking into account science, science based risk assessments, and economic analysis (cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit). Such analysis is required if a country wants to dispute SPS trade restrictions by another country.

In developing countries there is a need to disaggregate the analysis to also look at the effectiveness of control strategies that the poor are currently using as it is often assumed that they are not meeting the safety requirements recommended by the authorities (e.g., WHO) or required by the developed world (in cases when international trade occurs). The latter is especially important as private standards are increasingly being enforced along the supply chain with limited knowledge of whether these standards are effective or more effective than the control measure currently in place.

A cost-effectiveness analysis can be conducted to understand the risk-risk tradeoffs of the various prevention methods available by using information on the economic costs of chronic exposure of the risk derived from economic health impact models; the investments and costs associated with the different prevention and control options; the probability of effectiveness of the various control measures, and the probabilities of chronic exposure under different prevention and control measures as defined from the risk spread model. Outputs of such modeling efforts which combine the results of the risk assessments and cost-benefit analysis are useful in enabling decision makers to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various control measures and their combinations in reducing risk. Decisionmakers are often faced with the problem of evaluating a “portfolio” of mitigation techniques to obtain some desired level of safety (or maximizing safety for a given cost). The strategy a risk manager chooses depends on the risk preferences of the affected stakeholders and on their comparative advantage in implementing particular risk-reduction options. Often, however, it is difficult for them to discern which is better because in one analysis they are looking at a strategy in terms of risk reductions and in another analysis they are viewing it in terms of costs and benefits. If they are not able to discern, what can happen is that decisions that are well intended can lead to losses in social welfare as unexpected outcomes develop, or as outcomes have unexpected consequences. Thus decision makers have a great need for a framework which structures information in a way which makes the complexity more tractable, but still takes into account the implications of the complexity.

This subtheme proposes to use a modified risk analysis framework to enhance food and water safety to improve economic outcomes such as poverty alleviation, food security and improved livelihoods (Figure 1, below). This modified risk analysis framework involves understanding the demand for food safety, particularly in developing countries, and hazard identification; risk assessment which includes the release assessment, exposure assessment, consequence assessment and risk estimation; risk management, and risk communication. The modification from the traditional approach under consequence analysis is that IFPRI includes an analysis of the impact on livelihoods and an analysis of the cost of compliance. IFPRI’s further modification to the traditional approach includes the application of the behavioral experiments, where appropriate, to assess the uptake of interventions, i.e. institutions or identified cost-effective risk minimization technologies. The uptake of interventions on livelihoods (e.g., income, health and nutrition outcomes) will be monitored through a monitoring and evaluation plan. Through the course of the work we will work with national collaborators so as to build their capacity in risk analysis, livelihood analysis and behavioral experiments.

By using this approach and addressing the identified research areas, IFPRI can focus on filling research gaps that will provide important international public goods. We further the interdisciplinary nature of the GRP by collaborating with scientists from other disciplines ( e.g., biological sciences, legal and other social sciences) based in the various sister CGIAR Centers, NARS in the study countries and universities and research centers in both developed and developing countries.

Project Outputs
Output Title
1: Improved understanding of cost-effective control strategies for minimzing food- and water-related health concerns and designing decision tools to aid policymakers in understanding the impact of their decisions on the poor.
Output Description

The objective of this research is to understand the dynamic relationship between water quality (whether wastewater used for irrigation; irrigation water polluted with industrial pollutants, or potable water contaminated with arsenic) and food safety. In this research, four research questions will be asked:

  1. What are the links between water quality and food safety and its linkages with health and nutrition outcomes?
  2. Do developing country consumers have significant demand for safe food and water? What are their current awareness levels regarding food and water safety risks? Would consumers be willing to pay a price premium for ensuring good quality and safe food and water? What are the best mechanisms for communication of these risks and strategies for their minimization?
  3. What is the baseline risk associated with using poor quality or contaminated water or other types of inputs (pesticides, fertilizers and soil) which are known to have a potential risks for food production?
  4. What are the pro-poor cost-effective control measures for reducing risks associated with using poor quality water for irrigation, drinking and cooking? What is preventing producers and consumers from adopting such control measures?

A literature review has been conducted on the quality of water used for irrigation, food processing, drinking and cooking and its relation to food safety and human and environmental health. We have also developed an analytical framework for identifying and evaluating cost-effective methods for reducing the risk of fruits and vegetables grown in wastewater in developing countries. A small grant was recently obtained to conduct farm and/or household level surveys in Kenya to identify factors that cause inefficient use of quality and quantity of water resources or other types of inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides and soil. The project will help us to inform policies to improve farmers’ and other value chain actors’ livelihoods (e.g., their health and income). We have also applied for a larger grant that will expand the work with urban and peri-urban farmers so that a risk analysis can be conducted to identify cost-effective control measures which can be undertaken to minimize the human and environmental health risks posed by poor quality water used for irrigation (or other inputs, such as fertilizers), food processing, cooking and drinking. The risk analysis will involve the following activities: identifying the hazard that may cause harm through pathways for poor quality water that may cause a food safety risk; conducting quantitative risk assessments; collecting data on the cost of control measures and analyzing the costs and benefits of the identified control measures; analyzing the cost-effectiveness of control measures for the poor. If funded we will also be using economic valuation methods (i.e., non market valuation methods) to inform efficient and effective water management policies and plans. Economic valuation methods can be employed to capture farmers’, consumers’, or public’s willingness to pay (WTP) for higher quality water. The estimated WTP value, when aggregated over the relevant population, represents total economic benefits of improved inputs, which could then be weighed against the costs of investments in infrastructure or control measures which can provide higher water quality.

Comparative and complementary advantage of the research: The GRP team is taking a multidisciplinary approach to understand the dynamic relationship between food safety and water quality.

CGIAR Priorities
4A, 4C, 5A, 5C, 5D
Countries of Planned Research
Kenya
Intended Users
Research community and public and private decisionmakers as well as international organizations
Outcome
Researchers, decision- and policymakers understand the variability in risk of a specific disease or pest; can access the epidemiological modeling platform if needed to aide them in decisions involving different types of spread mechanisms; understand the nutritional impact of specific diseases on people at risk and the risk-risk trade-offs of controlling for that disease and the distributional impact of the disease on different socioeconomic groups; Informed decisionmaking surrounding actions associated with controlling food-borne disease or the spread of animal or plant disease; Researchers use results of the human epidemiological modeling platform to guide future research; Decision- and policymakers understand the market failures and other barriers preventing small-scale producers and processors, women producers, and the poor from effectively controlling for the disease or pest; Decision- and policymakers understand the costs and benefits of alternative strategies to control for that specific disease or pest and are able to rank cost-effective control strategies for different size producers to improve risk-reduction.
Impact
Foster markets access, incomes, safe and healthy nutrition, and thus foster human well-being."

Output Target
Year Target Type Target Description
2010
Capacity
Risk ranking exercises with decisionmakers to determine the most important pathogens to control for in the study countries.
2010
Policy strategies
Evaluation of the dynamic link between food and water safety and evaluations of the type of policies, technologies, and investments are being made to enhance food and water safety so as to reduce poverty.
2011
Policy strategies
Analysis conducted to estimate the market failures associated with various institutions' (in)ability to ensure effective disease monitoring and delivery of control mechanisms to the small-scale producers and processors, and the poor.
2011
Policy strategies
Cost-effective disease control measures, which are appropriate to the scale and location of different types of producers are identified.

Output Title
2: Evaluation of the cost of compliance of increased food safety requirements on small-scale producers.
Output Description
The goal of this research is to better understand the social and economic difficulties small scale producers may face in complying with increased food safety requirements and identify what was specific about the cases in which they were able to overcome such difficulties or failed to overcome them.

Research activities: Research initiated with in-depth analysis of the supply/value chains currently linking small scale producers to different markets for selected high value products small scale producers are producing. For several studies, focus group interviews were conducted to understand market failures preventing small scale producers from timely delivery of safe foods to domestic and export markets. For several studies, an institutional analysis was conducted to identify how various institutional arrangements have facilitated implementing risk reduction strategies, as well as the reduction of transaction costs through supply chain management so that small scale producers can successfully be linked to various markets. Several concept notes have been circulated to conduct farmer surveys so as to understand how various public and private standards and associated requirements affect the profitability of different size producers. In the future we plan to implement a series of experiments to identify what type of institutional mechanisms is necessary in specific countries to link small scale producers to the supply chains.

The comparative and complementary advantage of the research: The GRP team is taking a multidisciplinary approach to understand the cost of compliance of increased food safety standards on the poor. 
CGIAR Priorities
3A, 3B, 5A, 5B, 5D
Countries of Planned Research
Ethiopia, Guatemala, Kenya, Mexico, Zambia
Intended Users
Research community and public and private decisionmakers.
Outcome
Policymakers harness institutional mechanisms that have been successful at involving small-scale producers, and the spillover effects of such regulations on the production of the safe food for the domestic market.
Impact
Improved markets access, incomes, nutrition and food security."

Output Target
Year Target Type Target Description
2010
Practices
A number of economic analyses developed to estimate the costs of compliance of increased food safety regulations on different size producers, and understanding of how these regulations affect profitability for different size producers, and identification of the optimal areas for public-sector intervention to improve small-scale producers' and processors' market access.

Output Title
3: Improved understanding of cost-effective control strategies for minimizing food and water related health concerns and designing decision tools to aid policymakers in understanding the impact of their decisions on the poor.
Output Description
The goal of this research area is to provide evidence-based information on the cost-effectiveness of existing control technologies currently used (or may be developed through nanotechnology) to reduce the food safety of plant and animal health concerns in developing countries, and to understand what is preventing these mechanisms from being adopted. By doing so, it is expected that cost-effective risk reducing strategies will be implemented so as to improve access of the poor to assets and markets; reduce production risks and create incentives for investment, and promote trade (both domestic and international). A risk analysis framework that involves a risk assessment, a consequence analysis, evaluation of risk management options and the development of a risk communication strategy which includes the development of decision tools will be used. In addition, where appropriate, behavioral experiments (including choice experiments) will be used to understand what kind of incentives are needed to improve the adoption of optimal control strategies. Through the course of the research, we will work with national collaborators so as to build their capacity in risk analysis.

Research activities: two projects are associated with this objective. Both projects use a risk analysis approach to identify cost-effective control methods to reduce the risk of either avian influenza in poultry or aflatoxins along maize or groundnut value chains. The work involves the collection of prevalence data along the value chains and risk assessment and simulation models based on the risk assessment to identify the critical control points where food or disease hazard control methods are needed. Economic impacts of food safety hazards on income and human and livestock health will be estimated using econometric (multiple regression) models, input/output models, and multi-market simulation models. In addition a household and value chain approach is used to collect data on the costs and benefits of control measures at the household and along the value chain, followed by cost benefit analysis of the portfolio of risk management strategies being used to prevent the specific hazard or spread of a disease. In addition, knowledge, attitude, perceptions and practices surveys will be done to understand the status of information and awareness among the actors in the value chains regarding the hazard or disease problem and ways to mitigate it to understand reasons for uptake or rejection of certain interventions. Participatory methods (e.g., focus group discussions, preference ranking, matrix ranking) will be used to understand what farmers and other actors along the value chain think of currently available testing and control methods and what are the main factors (e.g., cost, accessibility, ease of use) that contribute to adoption or not of these technologies. The GRP team is taking a multidisciplinary approach to identifying cost-effective control measures that the poor can use to reduce a specific food or water safety risk.
CGIAR Priorities
3A, 3B, 5A, 5B, 5D
Countries of Planned Research
Ethiopia, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Mali, Nigeria
Intended Users
Research community and public and private decisionmakers.
Outcome
Decisionmakers and policymakers are better informed of the impact of decisions to minimize food and water risks.
Impact
Regulations take into consideration the impact on the poor prior to being made."

Output Target
Year Target Type Target Description
2010
Policy strategies
Analysis conducted to estimate the market failures associated with various institutions' (in)ability to ensure effective disease monitoring and delivery of control mechanisms to the small-scale producers and processors, and the poor.
2010
Policy strategies
Completed assessment of the distributional consequences the food-borne disease or plant or animal disease and the benefits of controlling it on different socioeconomic groups, with a specific focus on the poor, especially women and children under alternative scenarios.
2010
Policy strategies
Cost-effective disease control measures, which are appropriate to the scale and location of different types of producers are identified.
2010
Practices
Applied simulation models developed to evaluate the risks of identified food-borne diseases or the risk transmission from various different vectors to humans, animal, or plants depending on the specific case being studied.
2010
Practices
Various pathway analyses developed for the various sources of food-borne diseases and for the spread of various plant and animal diseases.

Output Title
4: To assess the uptake of food and water safety interventions and to develop tools for monitoring and evaluation of the impact of interventions on livelihoods outcomes (e.g., income food security, health, and nutrition).
Output Description
One of the innovative aspects of this theme is the implementation of research projects to assess the adoption of the cost-effective food and safety interventions which are identified through the first three outputs. The goal is that once cost-effective control strategies are identified, the willingness to accept or adopt, as well as willingness to pay of the producers or other actors along the value chain should be understood in order to implement such measures effectively and efficiently. When these projects are introduced on a large scale, robust monitoring and impact evaluation (M&E) approaches will be implemented. This M&E approach will integrate the use of qualitative and quantitative methods, use of operational research methods (for process evaluation and monitoring) and of experimental approaches for impact evaluation. A set of indicators will be developed to monitor and evaluate the impact of the proposed mitigation interventions. The monitoring indicators will be process indicators, i.e. indicators that measure the inputs and outputs of the project itself. The impact indicators will refer to the range of effects of the project on the intended beneficiaries. In addition there will be intermediate outcome indicators. Examples of such indicators could be the share of farmers/consumers or other actors along the value chain using the proposed mitigations methods and the number of farmers able to access the high end markets. Final impact indicators will include improvements in livelihoods, health and nutritional status, and hence reductions in the incidence of poverty.

Research activities: two projects are being implemented: the first is testing for the demand for food safety in developing countries through certification. The research aims to quantify the possible price premium that producers can appropriate for providing food with higher quality and safety standards in developing countries. The second is for assessing uptake of bio-fortified crops. The research aims to investigate producers’ acceptance of bio-fortified seeds/crops which have nutritional benefits and also reduce reliance on pesticides.

The comparative and complementary advantage of the research: Once the research has been done to identify the most successful intervention for the poor to improve food and water safety the team then goes on to implement the intervention and monitor and evaluate the uptake of the intervention.
CGIAR Priorities
3A, 3B, 5A, 5B, 5D
Countries of Planned Research
India, Rwanda
Intended Users
Researchers, decisionmakers, and policymakers.
Outcome
Researchers use results to guide future work. Decisionmakers and policymakers pay greater attention to what is needed to improve the uptake rate of food/water safety interventions
Impact
Improvement of market access, incomes, health, food security, and nutrition."

Output Target
Year Target Type Target Description
2010
Policy strategies
Analysis of the uptake of interventions in study countries.

Note: Financial Tables, Target Regions, CGIAR Priorities and Financing Sources show aggregated data for more than one MTP project and in particular for: - Subtheme 8.1: Diet Quality and Health of the Poor (GRP 24) - Subtheme 8.2: Food and Water Safety Policies (GRP 40)


Allocation of Member, Non-Member Grants and other sources to projects, 2009-2011
in $millions

Project Member Actual
2009
Estimated
2010
Proposal
2011
Project Total
7.858
11.170
14.848
Theme 8: Diet, Health and Food SafetyMemberIDRC
0.434
0.462
0.229
United Kingdom
1.165
0.670
0.419
United States
0.000
0.048
0.000
World Bank
0.017
0.025
0.201
Non MemberAED
0.631
2.576
5.989
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
0.651
1.038
1.623
Concern Worldwide
0.000
0.176
0.000
Deustche Weth
0.008
0.000
0.000
Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition
0.067
0.264
0.202
HarvestPlus/CP
3.959
4.418
4.418
Helen Keller International
0.003
0.094
0.117
Others
0.029
0.097
0.000
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
0.001
0.020
0.039
UNICEF
0.011
0.038
0.058
University of Kwazulu-Natal
0.004
0.000
0.000
World Food Program (WFP)
0.000
0.000
0.363
Unres+Other SourcesUnres+Other Sources
0.878
1.244
1.190


Allocation of Project Costs to CGIAR Priorities, 2009-2013
in $millions

Project Actual
2009
Estimated
2010
Proposal
2011
Plan 1
2012
Plan 2
2013
Priorities
Theme 8: Diet, Health and Food Safety
Project Total
7.858
11.170
14.848
15.443
16.060
2C
1.886
2.681
3.564
3.707
3.855
3A
0.596
0.848
1.127
1.172
1.219
3B
0.596
0.848
1.127
1.172
1.219
3C
0.614
0.874
1.161
1.208
1.256
4A
0.118
0.168
0.223
0.232
0.241
4C
0.118
0.168
0.223
0.232
0.241
5A
0.151
0.214
0.285
0.296
0.308
5B
0.151
0.214
0.285
0.296
0.308
5C
0.151
0.214
0.285
0.296
0.308
5D
2.062
2.931
3.895
4.053
4.214
Development Activities
0.786
1.116
1.485
1.544
1.606
New Research Areas
0.629
0.894
1.188
1.235
1.285


Project investment by developing Region, 2009-2013
in $millions

Project Target Regions Actual
2009
Estimated
2010
Proposal
2011
Plan 1
2012
Plan 2
2013
Project Total
7.858
11.170
14.848
15.443
16.060
Theme 8: Diet, Health and Food SafetyAsia
2.237
3.020
4.270
4.529
4.644
CWANA
0.095
1.779
0.078
0.082
0.089
LAC
0.698
0.782
3.440
3.495
3.654
SSA
4.828
5.589
7.060
7.337
7.673