1. Food and Nutrition Security: Whats the Role of Agricultural Policy in Asia? Siem Reap, Cambodia; September 25-27, 2013 International Conference on Agricultural Transformation in Asia: Policy Options for Food and Nutrition Security H.E. Srun Darith (moderator); Dr. Akhter Ahmed, Dr. Kamiljon Akramov, Dr. Olivier Ecker, Dr. Yanyan Liu

2. Introduction H.E. Srun Darith, Dr. Olivier Ecker

3. Motivation Malnutrition slows economic growth (2-3% GDP lost) and deepens poverty through productivity losses (10% of lifetimes earnings) from poor physical performance and cognitive capacity as well as increased health care costs. Poverty and malnutrition are closely associated and highly prevalent in rural areas. Although agricultural growth has been shown to have high poverty reduction effects (Christiaensen et al. 2011; Diao et al. 2010; World Bank 2007), empirical evidence on its nutrition impact is limited and inconclusive (Pinstrup-Anderson 2013; Berti et al. 2004; Masset et al. 2011). Nonetheless, development and agricultural policy is often based on the assumption that agricultural growthparticularly among smallholder farmersimproves household food security and thereby reduces malnutrition.

4. Pathways from Agricultural Transformation and Growth to Food and Nutrition Security Agricultural transformation and growth driven by Demand increase Productivity growth due to policy reform, investment, techno logical progress Purchasing power increase from Income growth among farmers Food price reduction Change in food self- sufficiency dependence among subsistence farmers Household food and nutrition security (in terms of food quantity and dietary quality) Nutrition outcomes Intra-household resource allocation, care, education, health environment

5. Dietary Quality-Growth Relationship Cambodia Global trend GDP per capita (constant 2005 US$) Share of calorie supply from staples (%) Bangladesh Nepal Tajikistan Source: O. Ecker based on data from FAOs FSI and World Banks WDI, complemented with IMFs WEO and UNSTAT data.

6. Undernutrition-Growth Relationship Source: O. Ecker based on data from World Banks WDI, complemented with IMFs WEO, UNSTAT, and recent country survey data. Cambodia Global trend GDP per capita (constant 2005 US$) Prevalence of underweight among children under 5 years (%) Bangladesh Nepal Tajikistan

7. Dietary Diversity as FNS Indicator Dietary quality contributes to an individuals nutrition and health status and thereby to peoples economic productivity. Households will only diversify their diets into higher-value micronutrient-rich foods when they have satisfied their basic calorie needs. For the poor, these foods are often unavailable or unaffordable. Dietary diversity is a strong predictor of dietary quality in terms of (micro)nutrient intake and adequacy (Ruel et al. 2013). Household dietary diversity is strongly correlated with per capita calorie consumption and dietary energy adequacy and is correlated with nutrition outcome indicators such as anthropometrics (Ruel 2003; Ruel et al. 2013). Dietary diversity is responsive to welfare trends and sensitive to shocks and seasonality, indicating high inter-temporal validity (Headey & Ecker 2013). Dietary diversity is measured as a count of different foods or food groups consumed over a specified reference period. All country cases studies use 12-scale or 16-scale household Dietary Diversity Scores (DDS) as indicator of household food and nutrition security (FNS).

8. Evidence from 4 Country Case Studies 1. Cambodia: Does agricultural transformation slow progress toward achieving food and nutrition security? Presented by Dr. Olivier Ecker 2. Tajikistan: Agricultural biodiversity, dietary diversity and nutritional outcomes Presented by Dr. Kamiljon Akramov 3. Nepal: Nutritional Intake, Agricultural Production, and Conflict Presented by Dr. Yanyan Liu 4. Bangladesh: Pathways of impact of agriculture on nutrition Presented by Dr. Akhter Ahmed

9. Does Agricultural Transformation Slow Progress toward Achieving Food and Nutrition Security in Cambodia? Coauthor: Jean-Francois Trinh Tan Financial support: United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Dr. Olivier Ecker

10. Motivation and Research Questions Cambodias Rectangular Strategy (2009-2013) aims at achieving food and nutrition security through agricultural transformation and growth (p. 13): The first Strategic Rectangle to promote broad-based economic growth is the enhancement of the agricultural sector, especially in the high-potential agricultural and agro-industrial sectors. The agricultural policy of the Royal Government is to improve agricultural productivity and diversification [] to bolster economic growth, create employment and generate income in the rural areas, thus ensuring nutritional improvement, food security and increased agricultural exports. This requires shifting the direction from expansionary or extensive agriculture to deepening or intensive agriculture, especially by increasing the yields using the existing land through intensification. Does agricultural transformation and growth translate into improved food and nutrition security (FNS)? What are the policy-relevant variables enabling this transmission?

11. Dietary Quality-Growth Relationship Cambodia Global trend GDP per capita (constant 2005 US$) Share of calorie supply from staples (%) 1992 2005 2009 SGDP=600 = -0.09 Annual change in share of calorie supply (%-points) Annual GDP per capita growth (%) Arc semi- elasticity 1992-2005 -0.54 5.30 -0.10 2005-2009 -0.50 5.33 -0.09 Source: Own estimation based on data from FAOs FSI and World Banks WDI, complemented with IMFs WEO and UNSTAT data.

12. Undernutrition-Growth Relationship Source: Own estimation based on data from World Banks WDI, complemented with IMFs WEO, UNSTAT, and recent country survey data. Cambodia Global trend GDP per capita (constant 2005 US$) Prevalence of underweight among children under 5 years (%) 1996 2005 2010 SGDP=600 = -0.17 Annual change in child underweight (%-points) Annual GDP per capita growth (%) Arc semi- elasticity 1996-2005 -1.58 6.43 -0.25 2005-2010 0.12 5.13 0.02

13. Agricultural Transformation and Malnutrition 20 25 30 35 40 45 200 300 400 500 600 700 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Constant 2005 US$ (PPP) Percent of children (|< 50% Share of food consumption from purchases >|< 50%

17. Regression Results: Dietary Diversity Dep. var.: Household Dietary Diversity Score All Farm Full-time farmers Subsistence farmers Commercial farmers Part-time farmers Non-farm Per capita expenditure (log) 0.425*** 0.391*** 0.401*** 0.353*** 0.434*** 0.395*** 0.433*** Market distance (log) -0.163*** -0.166*** -0.140*** -0.085* -0.183*** -0.180*** -0.041 Farm household (=1) 0.241*** Share of non-farm income 0.156*** 0.358*** 0.513** 0.207 0.198 Share of food consumption from purchases 0.333*** 0.616*** 1.944*** -0.054 0.111 Food crop diversity (log) 0.008 -0.058 -0.179 0.017 0.005 Livestock diversity (log) 0.113*** 0.160*** 0.138* 0.177*** 0.086* Household size (log) 0.897*** 0.789*** 0.730*** 0.674*** 0.747*** 0.835*** 1.098*** Female-headed household (=1) 0.125*** 0.131*** 0.091** -0.058 0.140** 0.164*** 0.102 Female education, primary (=1) 0.060** 0.052** -0.009 -0.046 0.012 0.097** -0.004 Female education, secondary (=1) 0.007 0.035 -0.007 -0.009 0.016 0.079 -0.079 Constant 1.931*** 2.101*** 1.694*** 1.957*** 2.006*** 2.064*** 1.900*** Observations 10,157 7,930 3,757 1,379 2,378 4,173 2,227 Adjusted R-squared 0.380 0.371 0.410 0.482 0.376 0.353 0.416 Note: ***,**,* Coefficient is statistically significant at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively. Source: Own estimation based on CSES 2009 data.

18. Regression Results: Child Nutrition Dep. var.: Child weight-for-age z-score All Farm Full-time farmers Subsistence farmers Commercial farmers Part-time farmers Non-farm Per capita expenditure (log) 0.147*** 0.109** 0.113 0.172 -0.042 0.102* 0.166** Market distance (log) -0.059* -0.041 -0.037 0.097 -0.121 -0.093* 0.024 Farm household (=1) 0.093 Share of non-farm income -0.160* 0.273 -0.315 0.765** -0.158 Share of food consumption from purchases 0.160 0.234 0.312 0.511 -0.497** Food crop diversity (log) 0.014 0.120 0.253 0.138 0.008 Livestock diversity (log) 0.085 0.116 0.213 0.077 0.047 Age (log) -0.412*** -0.400*** -0.346*** -0.345*** -0.342*** -0.444*** -0.467*** Female (=1) 0.138*** 0.160*** 0.259*** 0.221** 0.278*** 0.056 0.051 Household size (log) 0.129** 0.163** 0.014 -0.091 0.084 0.255*** -0.014 Female-headed household (=1) -0.001 -0.014 0.085 -0.134 0.270* -0.145 0.020 Mother's education, primary (=1) 0.096** 0.089* 0.040 0.163 0.017 0.112* 0.139 Mother's education, secondary (=1) 0.059 0.067 0.148 0.199 0.101 0.032 0.071 Constant -1.234** -0.782 -1.457 -2.771* -0.446 -0.190 -1.663 Observations 4,653 3,724 1,713 702 1,011 2 929 Adjusted R-squared 0.128 0.119 0.116 0.163 0.120 0.125 0.141 Note: ***,**,* Coefficient is statistically significant at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively. Source: Own estimation based on CSES 2009 data.

19. Conclusions and Policy Implications Economic growth is good but is not enough for reducing (child) malnutrition. Agricultural transformation may slow down progress toward achieving food and nutrition security, depending on the patterns of transformation and the adaptation capacity of the food and nutrition insecure farm households. Market expansion benefits FNS overall. Farm households tend to be more food and nutrition secure than non-farm households, while FNSamong subsistence farmersincreases with growing non-farm income. Subsistence farmers FNS increases with higher shares of food consumption from purchases, whereas there is no evidence for positive effects from food production diversificationbut, from livestock diversification. Unlike for FNS, there is no evidence for positive effects of agricultural transformation on child nutrition. To make agricultural transformation more nutrition-sensitive, complementary nutrition-specific interventions are needed.

20. Tajikistan: Agricultural Biodiversity, Dietary Diversity, and Nutritional Outcomes Dr. Kamiljon T. Akramov Coauthor: Mehrab Malek Financial support: United States Agency for International Development (USAID)

21. Motivation Despite recent improvements, malnutrition in Tajikistan remains very high: stunting among children under 5 is about 30% The current strategy of national government and development partners is to promote agricultural growth and diversification to ensure food security and nutritional outcomes Agrarian policy concept, Food Security Strategy and Agricultural Investment Plan adopted by government in 2011 USAIDs FFP and FTF programs and World Bank managed Global Agriculture and Food Security Program These interventions could be very beneficial given the fact that Tajikistan has less diversified agricultural production system About 75% of sown area is allocated to wheat and cotton However, there is little evidence regarding the linkages between agricultural diversity, dietary diversity and nutrition in Central Asian context

22. Household diets are dominated by cereals (wheat) 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Percent Composition of calorie intake in Tajikistan, 1992-2007 Other Animal products Sugar Vegetable oil Vegetables Fruits Cereals Page 22

23. Research questions This study aims to provide empirical evidence on agriculture-nutrition linkages in Tajikistan by investigating three interrelated questions How is agricultural diversity associated with household dietary diversity? Does allocation of more land to cotton and wheat affect dietary diversity? How is dietary diversity correlated with nutritional outcomes? Assumption: Agricultural biodiversity influences nutritional outcomes mainly by improving dietary diversity of households and individuals What are the policy implications of main findings of the study?

24. Measuring agricultural and dietary diversity Dietary diversity Count based household DD score was developed using FAOs (2011) guidelines (12 food groups) Calorie intake and food expenditure weighted Berry indexes capture richness and evenness Calorie intake and food expenditure based Log-abundance indexes captures richness and abundance Agricultural diversity Count based household level agricultural diversity score Land allocation based and population-weighted log abundance diversity scores were calculated at the district level

25. Data and Methodology Data sources Tajikistan Living Standards Survey (TLSS) 2007 and 2009 District level population and land allocation data (Regions of Tajikistan database, National Agency on Statistics, 2011) Methodology: Multilevel mixed effects and control function models to examine relationships between agricultural diversity and dietary diversity and nutritional outcomes Dependent variables: HH dietary diversity scores and child stunting, measuring chronic malnutrition Key independent variables: agricultural diversity at HH and district levels and share of cotton and wheat in total land area; HH dietary diversity score, with a maximum of 12 food groups Control variables: child, HH and community characteristics, and region fixed effects

26. Regression Results: Dietary diversity Count-based DD Calorie-weighted DD Expenditure- weighted DD Calorie-based log- abundance DD Expen.-based log- abundance DD Agricultural diversity (HH) 0.0500*** 0.0178 0.0235** 0.171*** 0.125*** (0.0127) (0.0119) (0.0118) (0.0623) (0.0411) Agricultural diversity (district) 0.0107* 0.0207*** 0.0238*** 0.0971*** 0.0902*** (0.0062) (0.0061) (0.0062) (0.0318) (0.0227) HH expenditure (log) 0.0901*** 0.0447*** 0.0544*** 0.732*** 0.499*** (0.00730) (0.00619) (0.00640) (0.0491) (0.0337) Poor -0.0178*** -0.00895* -0.0119** -0.140*** -0.122*** (0.00580) (0.00522) (0.00512) (0.0329) (0.0223) Location 0.0199** 0.00996* 0.0138** 0.0881** 0.0111 (0.00787) (0.00591) (0.00656) (0.0381) (0.0251) HH size 0.00756*** 0.00150 0.000866 0.000773 0.0989*** (0.00106) (0.000963) (0.000919) (0.00506) (0.00345) No of children under 14 0.00331** -0.000484 0.000925 0.0121 0.00303 (0.00159) (0.00139) (0.00137) (0.00756) (0.00501) HH head's gender 0.00336 -0.0107** -0.00617 0.00425 0.00916 (0.00600) (0.00494) (0.00510) (0.0286) (0.0177) Altitude (log) -0.00559 -0.00505 -0.00971** -0.0331 -0.0244* (0.00469) (0.00420) (0.00418) (0.0227) (0.0148) Distance to oblast center -0.00730*** -0.00263** -0.00591*** -0.0278*** -0.0113** (0.00168) (0.00134) (0.00138) (0.00814) (0.00520) Grain and Cotton share -0.0385** -0.004 0.0144 -0.340*** -0.263*** (0.0162) (0.0128) (0.0130) (0.0804) (0.0522) Constant 0.279*** 0.481*** 0.483*** -0.353 -1.326*** (0.0541) (0.0487) (0.0488) (0.321) (0.222) Observations 2,991 2,991 2,991 2,991 2,991 F-test 29.38 10.85 15.6 63.88 114.55 R-squared 0.248 0.127 0.138 0.421 0.587 Note: Robust standard errors in parentheses; All specifications control for HH and community characteristics, region fixed effects *** p