Impact case study database

In total over 320,000 smallholders benefited from the research in the three focal countries. The pathways to impact proceeded from research actions/inputs (based on farmers’ needs, national context and priorities set by national FOs; and enabling actions e.g. policy/regulatory reforms), to outputs/outcomes (indicating level of uptake and direct benefits), to **impact (**including benefits to wider population and indications of sustainability). The outputs and impacts from FARMAF across the three pilot countries are contained in the project completion report ( 5.1) and summarised in this section.

Inputs in Burkina Faso reflected the priorities identified by CPF and focused on improving the existing WRS model, which is commonly known in Francophone West Africa as warrantage and encourages grain storage in small (50 – 100t) capacity warehouses in order to assure food availability during the “hunger season” (when food supplies are low and prices are high). One of the pioneers of this model in Burkina is the Comunità Impegno Servizio Volontariato (CISV), an international NGO with affiliates in over 66 countries. “Green belt” communities in the South West of Burkina (with no previous WRS pilots) were purposively selected to pilot the improved model. This required building similar size warehouses (each 60t-capacity) in six communities in 2012/13.

The improvements included adopting a grain Quality Assurance System (QAS) to enable farmers to sell directly to major formal buyers. The QAS consisted of: a set of minimum grain quality parameters acceptable to formal buyers; a laboratory with equipment and trained staff to assess compliance prior to acceptance of grains for storage; certification of quality prior to delivery to buyers; and guarantees to maintain quality whilst stocks are in the warehouse. Participating smallholders were enabled to access reliable market information via mobile phones and linked to three local microfinance institutions (MFIs) offering farming loans (bundled with weather indexed insurance (WII)) as well as inventory credit (secured against the stored grains). Planet Guarantee, a local microinsurance provider, received technical assistance in order to offer tailored WII to participating smallholders. Capacity building e.g. training CPF personnel to provide “regulatory” oversight of the WRS; of staff of the laboratories to enforce QAS; and of farmers, to facilitate compliance with the set quality standards for depositing grains.

Between 2014 and 2016, over 33,200 smallholders have benefited from these actions. During the period, average occupancy rates at the warehouses exceeded 85%. The strict enforcement of the QAS and the capacity-building provided enabled the smallholders to sell directly to formal buyers, including WFP and the state-owned grain trading company (SONAGESS). The premium prices they obtained exceeded prevailing farmgate prices by 45-60%. They were also able to obtain crop production loans (estimated at about USD150 per farmer), making it possible to increase the average area cultivated by about 2ha per farmer (more than doubling the average farm size of 1.2ha). In addition, the volume of inorganic fertilizer they used doubled to an average of about 260kg per hectare, resulting in a rise in average yield per ha from 1.5t to over 3.5t for maize.

An impact assessment undertaken by Le Cotty et al. in December 2016 (i.e. independent of NRI), showed an increase in food availability in the participating household by more than 30% (i.e. an extra 300kg of grains). Some of the farmers interviewed during the assessment stated “We have more food during the “hunger season” because we produce and can keep about 40% of what we store in the warehouses for the home – the stores are well-run so we don’t lose any grains to rodents”. Others added “because we get better prices from selling to big buyers we can now afford other nutritious foods” (T. Le Cotty personal communications 25^th October 2018). The quantitative data assessed during that study confirmed that the food diversity score of the participating households rose by more than 50%. The rise in average household income by over 45% was not only from the sale of grains but also from investing part of the inventory credit they obtained in expanding cash crop production (e.g. cotton) and/or in livestock fattening (especially by younger smallholders). The impact assessment results are in Le Cotty et al. (2019) “Inventory Credit as a commitment device to save grain until hunger season”, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, DOI: 10.1093/ajae/aaz009 .

Issoufou Porgo (CPF Programme Manager) in his testimonial (appended as 5.4) mentions some benefits to smallholders who used the WRS, including the ability “…to delay crop sales, waiting for about 2-3 months (after harvest) before selling the bulk of their produce (and) … to sell directly to formal buyers, earning premium prices which were higher than prevailing farmgate prices by 45-60%”. He adds that “the benefits from the system boosted rural demand for storage services” and encouraged private operators in 2016/17 “ to invest in the construction of three larger warehouses, each with a capacity of 500 tonnes. The facilities were cited close to laboratory facilities in the project catchment area near the city of Bobo Dioulasso. This was to make it possible for depositors to take advantage of the QAS … so they can sell directly to formal buyers. Issoufou notes also that “the outcome of the research actions caused a change in the WRS model that the Comunità Impegno Servizio Volontariato (CISV) had been promoting in Burkina Faso in 2017. His testimonial also confirms that, as a result of their experience from FARMAF, CPF became an important player in national policymaking regarding WRS and crop insurance. They also shared their experience with other FOs in West and Central Africa”.

In Tanzania, MVIWATA prioritised strengthening output marketing tools, including the commercial WRS, which NRI had been involved in promoting in the country since August 2004. This WRS model involves the delivery of commercial storage services by private operators. The average capacity of the warehouses is 5,000t and the minimum volume delivered per depositor is 5t. Most smallholders, therefore, deposit as groups. The actions implemented in 2012-16 included tightening up the WRS regulatory system to protect depositors and lenders and to guarantee delivery to buyers (essential if it is to back exchange trading – an ambition of the government). The directors of the regulatory agency, including two farmers’ representatives nominated by MVIWATA, were trained to ensure effective oversight of the licensed warehouses. In addition, a MIS managed by MVIWATA was improved through investment in equipment and training for the staff. Access to the MIS was promoted through sensitisation events, and the supply of inventory finance for smallholders was catalysed through training for cooperatives and farmers’ groups. The capacity of MVIWATA and its grassroots membership was strengthened to enable them to pursue sustained policy advocacy, especially, for the government to avoid distorting markets through setting of flour prices.

By the end of 2016, over 82,000 smallholders benefited from directly accessing the MIS, some of them being enabled to take advantage of information on price differences in various markets to earn additional income of about 55%. Stephen Ruvuga (ED of MVIWATA) quotes a farmer as saying: ** “Through market information, I was sure of prices in the markets I wanted to sell in. I took maize from Kibaigwa where the price was Tanzania Shillings 600 to Igunga where it was Tanzania Shillings 950. I sold more than 400 tonnes for our group and from my personal profits I managed to buy a 30-ton truck. I now own my truck and I frequently trade between Igunga and Kibaigwa after checking prices on the system.” (Anania Madono, Pandambili-Kibaigwa).* Stephen adds in Testimonial 5.2 that more than 135,000 smallholders collectively marketed coffee, cashew and sesame through the WRS, earning incremental net income of about 30-35%.

For MVIWATA, it is apparent that one of the greatest achievements is in sustaining advocacy which helped to dismantle the policy bottlenecks hampering the development of the Tanzania Mercantile Exchange (TMX) in late 2019. This paved the way for TMX to be officially launched in May 2020. “Within six months of its operation, over 30,000 smallholders (in groups) have traded sesame and cashew through the exchange, getting net prices which are about 55% higher than what is available in the alternative informal marketing system”. ( 5.2, 5.3).

One of the main actions prioritised in Zambia was advocacy for the government to reinstate the Zambia Agricultural Commodity Exchange (ZAMACE) and the WRS it runs. Paraphrasing a report by its CEO (Mr Mwale), after being reinstated in 2014, ZAMACE was able to launch an innovative inputs finance scheme under which smallholder groups bought inputs on credit secured against stocks in ZAMACE-certified warehouses. In 2016 inputs valued at over US$2,400,000 was financed through this scheme at very low cost of borrowing (about 1-2% compared to 14-18% under the most attractive bank lending terms in the country). (See Testimonial 5.5).

Mr Mwale also confirmed that high on the agenda was integrating the Exchange into a highly successful farming loan scheme involving bundling of insurance with credit. The scheme was initiated 2008 and involved provision of crop insurance by Zambia State Insurance Corporation (ZSIC) and in 2013/14 by Mayfair Insurance Company. Credit was provided by Zambia National Commercial Bank (ZANACO). In the absence of the Exchange, forward sales contracts had to be secured with credible formal buyers. Evidence confirms that despite the fact that insurance premiums and interest rates on farming loans were not subsidised, the number of participating smallholders increased more than 8-fold from the end of 2011 to end of 2015 (from 2,220 to 18,690 farmers) ( 5.5). For the participating farmers, gross farm income almost doubled during that period as a result of over 30% expansion in area cultivated. Average size of credit accessed per farmer increased by 50%, making it possible to intensify use of inputs with consequent increase in farm productivity. For example, average yield for maize (the most important staple) increased by about 75% from 2t to 3.5t per hectare. In addition to the smallholders who benefitted from the insurance/credit bundle, over 45,000 others gained from receiving better market information and from accessing electronic extension delivery services in Zambia ( 5.5).

The above success story encouraged the Government of Zambia to partner with a private insurance company supported by the International Finance Corporation to begin implementing a programme to roll out crop insurance in 2017. The long-term goal is to reach 1,000,000 smallholders ( https://ifcndd.ifc.org/ifcext/pressroom/ifcpressroom.nsf/1f70cd9a07d692d685256ee1001cdd37/42920c04ee5171f48525821900496b6b?OpenDocument ).

Evidence from UoG’s research is feeding into policy processes at very high levels such as the Africa Union ( 5.6); the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) ( 3.5); the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation ( 3.3); and PARM, which is hosted by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) – (see details in Section 2 above).

Research by UoG academics highlighted the need to recognise and protect all legitimate land rights and influenced global development policy thinking, and donor funded development programmes around the world. The high-quality research [3.1, 3.2, 3.3] produced by Quan on tenure rights and assessment of progress and outcomes of tenure security programmes in Africa, and on specific land projects in Mozambique, was disseminated in policy fora such as the World Bank annual Land Conferences (2013-14, 2016 and 2018), and the Land Policy Forum hosted by the Overseas Development Institute (2015-19), influencing land professionals and practitioners directly: “ Prof. Quan has played a significant role in linking up research, policy and practice on land tenure, influencing professional practice and policy thinking….and contributing to programme design and technical support”* [5.2].

Between 2015 and 2020 Quan further disseminated research via policy studies, presentations and UK/international policy-practice engagement at Food Security Week at FAO, and webinars with DFID, the OECD Centre for Responsible Business and agribusiness companies. These focused on recognition of land rights by private investors and development finance institutions [5.1], also facilitating dissemination in 2019 of eight key lessons from responsible private investment pilots and tools and approaches that companies can use ( https://landportal.org/land-and-investments/responsible-investments). For instance, specific innovations in using accessible digital technologies to document informal land rights and multi-stakeholder platforms for conflict resolution in the context of private sector agricultural investment were discussed and promoted at workshops in Sierra Leone and Mozambique in 2019.

Within the current impact period, this ongoing high-level and long-term engagement with NRI research by key international agencies and organisations concerned with land has been reflected in: the consensus-based international soft-law instruments the Voluntary Guidelines on the Governance of Tenure (Committee on World Food Security & FAO, 2015); the cross-cutting inclusion of secure rights to land in the UN SDG framework; the 2019 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Climate Change and Land which foregrounds the importance of securing tenure rights for all at low cost, not necessarily through formal titling processes [5.10]; and in engagement with the private sector on guidelines for responsible agricultural investment and lessons from pilot work with agribusiness investors. In recent years “ Professor Quan’s role….provided a unique space for linking research to action….and interface with a range of global donor agencies, UN system, think tanks, non-governmental organisations, and private sector bodies and initiatives….NRI’s work in this area outlines a highly original approach to supporting research-to-policy transitions, which relies on (and can be measured in terms of) hands-on involvement with land policy and programming, and direct relations over the years with an extensive constituency of policy actors, land professionals, development practitioners and civil society in several countries, and internationally”* [5.1].

NRI research has “ shaped how land is now monitored globally” [5.3] and contributed directly to the formulation and incorporation of a specific composite indicator for land tenure security into the framework of the UN SDGs. In 2014-15, Quan shared findings on underpinning concepts, available data sources and methodologies at a series of multi-stakeholder meetings with UN agencies (UN-Habitat, FAO & IFAD), bilateral donors, the World Bank, international NGOs (Oxfam, Landesa), civil society networks, and UN and national statisticians, and facilitated consensus on a prioritised short list of potential land indicators to be taken up by UN agencies and commissions, CSOs, donors, the African Land Policy Centre, and private sector and other stakeholders to measure tenure security and quality of land governance [5.3, 5,6, 5.7].

The NRI researchers also provided technical support to UN-Habitat in its engagement with the UN Statistical Commission (UNSC, comprising national and UN statistical experts, responsible for global technical decisions and support to National Statistical Offices). This together with stakeholder advocacy, led to consideration of proposed formulations for land indicator 1.4.2 under Goal 1 (Ending Poverty) by the Inter-Agency Expert Group on SDG indicators (IAEG-SDG), and subsequent adoption by its 3^rd meeting 30 March – 1 April 2016, of the UNSC formulation: the proportion of total adult population with secure tenure rights to land, (a) with legally recognised documentation, and (b) who perceive their rights to land as secure, by sex and by type of tenure. This combines the top two indicators prioritised by stakeholders **[**as articulated by NRI in 3.4.ii] [5.3, 5.5, 5.6]. Its status in the SDG framework was later ratified by the UN General Assembly.

NRI research influenced the uprating of SDG Indicator 1.4.2’s SDG framework status from Tier 3 ( indicator defined but data collection methodology not yet developed) to Tier 2 (indicator and methodology defined) . This occurred in November 2017 [5.3, 5.8] and was made possible via demonstration of available data sources and feasible methodologies to generate suitably disaggregated data for this indicator under SDG 1 (Ending Poverty), whilst simultaneously providing data relevant to tracking SDG 5 (Women’s Equality) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities).

NRI research in 2016 to assess existing practice and available tools and methodologies, helped UN-Habitat develop and demonstrate feasible methodologies for data collection and analysis, including the combination of administrative and survey data, the use of specialised “land modules” for integration into planned household surveys. A sourcebook compiled by Kumar and Quan for UN-Habitat [3.4.iii] provided practical guidance resources for use at country level, and for UN-Habitat training initiatives with national statistical agencies [5.3]. The research assisted in design and field-testing (in Cameroon) of a survey methodology to meet the data needs of SDG Indicators 1.4.2 and 5.a.i (under Goal 5, Women’s Equality), and drafted UN-Habitat’s contribution to a harmonised land rights questionnaire module with interviewer guidelines for incorporation into existing national household surveys, agreed between the indicator “custodian” agencies, World Bank, UN-Habitat and FAO in 2019 [5.7, 5.9].

In 2017, Quan and Kumar supported UN-Habitat in its capacity as a “custodian agency” for land indicators, to draft and reach agreement with World Bank on a meta-data statement for the SDG Land Indicator 1.4.2 [5.3, 5.7]. This detailed the various available data sources and demonstrated an agreed combination of methodologies for the indicator reporting, this being critical in uprating the indicator’s priority status [5.3, 5.7]. Findings were taken up in advocacy for governments to prioritise reporting on Indicator 1.4.2 by the Global Donor Working Group on Land and by civil society and multilateral agencies active in the UN-Habitat Coordinated Global Land Indicators Initiative [5.3, 5.5]. The meta-data statement [5.7] was accepted by UN Statistical Commission leading directly to the uprating of the indicator’s tier status by the UN SDG-IAEG in November 2017 [5.8]. The uprating of the indicator led, indirectly, to renewed action by donors and governments to strengthen and monitor tenure security globally, although countries ability to report on SDG indicators as a whole and UN-Habitat’s ability to provide technical support and build capacity strength had been severely hampered by the COVID 19 pandemic.

Following identification of perceived tenure security as a critical dimension for monitoring, UoG research assisted in early-stage development and launch of PRIndex , a global index of perceived security of land and property rights [5.3, 5.4]. By end 2019 this had enabled estimation of perceived tenure insecurity in 107 countries around the world (on average one in four people feel their land or property rights are insecure) helping to track progress against indicator 1.4.2, and facilitate lessons learned, and promote remediation, in the absence of systematic country surveys and reporting on SDG indicators. The index is supported by standardised polling methodologies to capture globally comparable data on individual perceptions of tenure security based on random sampling of national populations and within respondent households. NRI’s collaborative research and engagement contributed key innovations – to go beyond formal documentation and use individual citizens’ perceptions as the focus of data collection, to ensure both men and women were covered with equal probability of inclusion, and to ensure coverage of all forms of tenure, including customary and indigenous collective rights [5.4]. PRIndex now enables systematic monitoring and cross-country comparisons by national governments, international organisations, municipal leaders, and land professionals. It continues to evolve and is poised to help drive a new set of decentralised monitoring alternatives [5.4].

An overarching recommendation of NRI’s research, to go beyond centralised official systems and engage land rights holders and communities directly in the documentation, monitoring, and management of land tenure rights, underpins all of the impacts described above. The work has highlighted the need to capture all individual rights derived from customary, family-based and communal systems, as well as group-based rights, in formal land records and monitoring systems if they are to be useful to public policy. This full range of tenure types is now covered by the agreed SDG land indicators, the indicator methodologies that NRI researchers helped to develop, and by PRIndex. As such, they have promoted recognition and strengthening of informal rights and opportunities for women and other marginalised groups, frequently excluded from formal systems. “ This collaborative effort continues to have global influence directly helping to ensure that no one is left behind” [5.3]. *“The **[*current ] dynamism about a new era of evidence-driven land governance reforms owes a great deal to the seed-planting research and policy discussion of the UoG work…its already significant impact is only continuing to gain momentum” [5.4].

NRI research and sustained engagement has informed SSIs and donors, causing strategic policy changes and actions, leading to improved impacts on producers, workers, communities, and environments in or affected by global value chains in low and middle income countries (LMICs). Millions of workers, smallholders, and communities in agricultural, forestry and apparel global value chains face poverty, human rights abuses, livelihood insecurity and environmental degradation. NRI’s research has directly informed the SSIs who target these groups. Examples: Ethical Trading Initiative – 15 million workers, Better Cotton Initiative (BCI), 2.1 million licensed farmers; Fairtrade International, 178,051 plantation workers and 1.7 million farmers in producer organisations. The types of impact achieved are a) Increased smallholder producer and worker income, livelihood security, and environmental improvements; b) Greater gender equality and participation of women smallholders temporary / casual workers in different SSIs and share of livelihood benefits; c) More effective programming and partnerships for transformative impact across sectors.

Impact claim 1: Organisational strategy changes of Better Cotton Initiative catalysed, enhancing their impacts on the livelihoods of cotton producers and workers in LMICs, especially India and enhanced environmental impacts (3.1): Better Cotton Initiative (BCI), a non-profit organisation, is the largest cotton sustainability programme worldwide, reaching more than 2.3 million cotton farmers in 23 countries, accounting for 22% of global production in 2018-19. It has 1,840 members (companies, farmer organisations), who source more than 1.5 million tonnes of “Better Cotton” in 2019. Its goal is to improve cotton production for producers, the environment and for the sector’s future. BCI is currently refining its 2030 Global Strategy, informed by NRI’s 2015-18 user-oriented study (5.1a) and dissemination of its recommendations to BCI Governing Council) (5.1b and 5.1c) , with a stronger outcomes-focus, and adoption of a ‘farmer-centric’ engagement model to increase farmer impact (5.1c). BCI has already: a) strengthened due diligence and monitoring of its implementing partners; b) developed a gender baseline, implementing a Global Gender Strategy and recruiting decent work specialists; and c) adopted an area-based approach as a direct result of NRI’s research in India, recognizing the need for collaborative governance and investment in complex, challenging contexts, with funding secured and pilots underway in Pakistan and Turkey (5.1c) . 3,500 farmers in Andhra Pradesh have benefited in terms of livelihood security from a more effective implementation by BCI’s project implementer, the NGO PRDIS, and BCI’s improved decision-making, due to NRI’s research (2015-19) ( 5.1d).

Impact claim 2: Organisational strategy changes of Fairtrade organisations catalysed, enhancing their impacts on the incomes, livelihoods of disadvantaged producers and workers, especially women, in LMICs (3.4; 3.5): Fairtrade International is a non-profit, multi-stakeholder association of 22 member organisations (three producer networks and 19 national Fairtrade organisations). Its label, the Fairtrade mark, appears on 35,000 products, such as coffee and cotton, sold in 145 countries. It works to make trade fairer through standards, certification, producer support, and advocacy. There are 1,822 Fairtrade producer organisations, representing 1.7 million producers. Benefits for producers include organisational capacity strengthening, reduced price volatility and Fairtrade Premium Payments on sales, with €871 million earned by producers over the past 5 years. NRI’s Fairtrade studies have led to organizational policy and strategy changes, improving impact on disadvantaged producers and workers; ‘ NRI’s work has made a significant contribution to Fairtrade becoming more of a learning organisation, helping it to learn what works and feeding this in to strategy improvements, creating more positive benefits for disadvantaged smallholders and workers around the world. For example, it has particularly encouraged greater attention to issues of gender, with NRI research work acting as an important catalyst in the development of Fairtrade’s gender strategy’ (5.2c). Our Fairtrade coffee study is regarded as an important source of evidence on the impacts and challenges of Fairtrade which is utilised in the coffee sector (5.2a). The management response to this study states that it forms the basis for the F.I. Fairtrade Coffee Plan (2016-2020), leading to five priority action areas (5.2d). Our Fairtrade Cotton study similarly informed F.I.’s organisational and global strategy (5.2b; 5.2e), enhancing their impact and focus on evaluation and learning. NRI significantly contributed to Fairtrade launching their new impact monitoring system in 2016, which generated positive case studies for Brazil, Ethiopia, and Palestine (5.2f).

Impact claim 3: Improved ISEAL and Sustainability Standard Members’ Learning and Action increasing their impact on producers, workers, communities, and environments in LMICs (3.6): ISEAL is the global membership organisation for ambitious, collaborative, and transparent sustainability initiatives, with a strategic global role in driving governmental and company efforts to increase sustainability of commodity trade, tackling issues such as climate change, deforestation, poverty, and inequality. Currently, it has 26 members, e.g. Rainforest Alliance, Fairtrade International, Better Cotton Initiative, Forest Stewardship Council, Bonsucro, Marine Stewardship Council, Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. The members, who collectively reach millions of workers and producers in LMICs, have increased their investment in learning and action to scale up their social and environmental impact (5.3a; 5.3b) . NRI improved their understanding and communication of how they intend to effect change, by pioneering theory of change approaches to evaluation (5.3a) . NRI’s sustained engagement with ISEAL and members since 2009 helped to strengthen their monitoring, evaluation, and learning capacity, creating a stronger outcome-focus (5.3d). It led to ISEAL’s project, Demonstrating and Improving Poverty Impacts’ (2013-15), involving rigorous impact evaluations (including our BCI study), distilling key lessons for members, and encouraging other researchers to address this evidence and learning gap. Our engagement with ISEAL, contributed, in 2016, to ISEAL publishing a collaborative research agenda (which cited our study on the effectiveness and impact of sustainability standards) and demonstrates the growing global research effort to find ways to measure and increase SSI impacts on the ground (5.3c) . Our pioneering work raised ISEAL’s awareness of the need for good evidence and learning leading them to launch Evidensia in 2019, an online ‘credible evidence’ platform catalysing sustainability action through sharing of evidence and lessons for researchers, policy makers and practitioners. NRI has also contributed to this new platform (two blogs, sharing reports). ISEAL’s Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Manager states: *“NRI’s research has helped the systems they have studied learn about how to improve their interventions, in order to deepen and broaden impact.” **(5.3a).

I

mpact claim 4. Improved learning and action by Responsible Business Initiatives increasing their impact on producers, workers, communities, and environments in LMICs (3.2): In 2014, the Department for International Development (DFID) funded the £30 million Responsible, Accountable and Transparent Enterprise (RATE) programme. RATE funded 12 global organisations (e.g. UN Global Compact, World Benchmarking Alliance, B Lab, ShareAction, Ethical Trading Initiative, Global Reporting Initiative) to scale up their work to improve business social and environmental impacts. Each RATE partner has large scale global reach to companies, e.g. 12,600 companies from 160 countries currently sign up to and are engaged by the UN Global Compact, and more than 10,000 companies report using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standard. Each of these companies affects millions of supply chain workers, producers, communities, and environments, e.g. Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) through corporate members reached over 15 million workers in 2019. In 2020, ShareAction’s Workforce Disclosure Initiative engaged with 52 investment institutions, with $6.5 trillion in assets under management, and with141 global companies (5.4a). A strategic objective of RATE was to build the evidence base on social and environmental impacts of business activity. NRI was responsible for the monitoring, evaluation, and learning of RATE. NRI significantly strengthened the capacity of all these organisations to learn how to improve their impact. DFID’s Annual Review of the programme (5.4b) states that: ‘Thousands of companies around the world have been positively impacted by the RATE partners, and those partners have built stronger delivery models with better means to assess performance.’ By the end of NRI’s support for RATE programme learning, the capacity of the 12 partners to develop theories of change and produce impact evidence (through Action Plans) had been significantly strengthened (5.4c; 5.4d; 5.4e). Several partner organisations have since published case studies which have informed their strategies and more effectively communicate the benefits of their work (5.4a; 5.4e).

Impact claim 5: Informed UK government policy and programme strategies on responsible business, stimulating government support for more systems-oriented, sector wide and mandatory approaches (3.3): NRI has worked with UK Department for International Development, generating evidence on the effectiveness of different approaches for advancing business social and environmental responsibility. NRI’s impact of sustainability standards study (3.6) highlighted the benefits, but also limits of this approach. The study recommended innovations by sustainability standards and encouraged DFID to look at additional mechanisms for transforming whole commodity production sectors and landscapes, for example, through collaborative stakeholder approaches. DFID then funded the membership body, ISEAL, specifically to focus on innovation for enhanced impact. DFID subsequently invested in sector and landscape initiatives through the £57.39 million Partnerships for Forests Programme. Another example of how evidence directly informed donor policy on global trade relates to DFID’s decision to fund a policy review (5.5a) which drew heavily on NRI’s findings on the limits of voluntary responsible business initiatives in the Mid-term Evaluation of DFID’s RATE programme (3.2). Voluntary approaches rely on coaxing companies to disclose more information – but information alone has proven insufficient to drive real change, especially for workers, smallholders, communities, and environments at the production end of global value chains. NRI highlighted the need for a more systems-oriented approach, focusing on combinations of more effective measures involving governments, regulations (mandatory due diligence), corporate governance innovation (e.g. ‘for-benefit’ enterprise), impact evidence, mobilizing investors, and collaborative multi-stakeholder approaches. DFID commissioned a policy review (2020) after our mid-term evaluation. It drew heavily on our findings, consequently informing DFID’s policy on global trade, which includes a growing focus on combinations of more effective measures involving governments and regulations (e.g. human rights or deforestation due diligence), and attention to power issues, corporate governance, impact evidence, and mobilizing investors etc. NRI’s work on the RATE programme – both research findings shared with DFID and facilitation of intensive learning by the RATE organisational partners over three years - pointed to the need for more far-reaching combinations of measures. NRI’s work improved the success of the RATE programme and this is confirmed by DFID in their 2020 RATE Project Completion Report (5.4a). It states that the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) support which NRI provided to the RATE partners ‘ was a key success of the overall programme’ and ‘Learning from RATE – over the 6 years - has been instrumental in generating interest in and building capacity to deliver responsible business initiatives.’ DFID accepted the strategic need for ‘a more systemic programmatic approach to achieve focused and lasting impact’ including attention to power across supply chains, mandatory regulations and use of impact evidence (5.4a). Aligned with NRI’s RATE programme mid-term review findings and recommendations (3.2), DFID funded a final project, a major initiative promoting ‘for benefit’ companies through policy, procurement, and data interventions in West African cocoa, taking a more systems-oriented approach (5.5c). Additionally, NRI’s 2019 evaluation of DFID’s Trade and Global Value Chain Initiative informed DFID’s strategy on how to effectively engage with the private sector for positive development outcomes for workers, smallholders, communities, and environments affected by business. NRI provided ‘ valuable information to inform DFID’s work’ and NRI’s findings ‘have already been used to inform programme decisions in these areas, and this final evaluation report will be disseminated within DFID to inform future programming decisions.’ (5.5b).