Impact case study database

Together, the two UEA research insights described in Section 2 suggested a specific role for agricultural insurance. Informal insurance (mutual support) discourages investment, which points to a role for formal insurance [R4]. Formal agricultural insurance could encourage investment, provided all major risks are included [R1, R2 and R3]. Yet crop insurance is usually unfeasible for smallholder farmers due to the high costs of claim verification. Weather index insurance (whereby compensation is based on a weather index correlated with crop growing conditions) is more feasible, but still leaves major risks such as pests and counterfeit seed uninsured. UEA research thus pointed to weather insurance combined (‘bundled’) with protection against these other risks [S1 and S2 in Section 5].

Building on these insights, UEA researchers co-produced risk management solutions, working with government officials, farmers and insurance companies, in three stages of research dissemination described below. These risk management solutions make use of satellite images to offer farmers insurance against droughts and erratic rainfall. Inspired by the UEA research, weather insurance is now offered together with certified seed and other agricultural inputs, so that the major risk factors are taken care of. This gives farmers confidence to invest and provides them with a safe way out of poverty.

Impact 1: The government of Uganda decides to promote agricultural investment through bundled weather index insurance.

In the first research dissemination stage, UEA research insights were discussed with farmers, field specialists and representatives of government, NGOs and the private sector: about 50 individual meetings between March 2012 and June 2015 and four workshops attended by c.100 people [S1]. The discussions focused on the agricultural inputs that weather insurance should be ‘bundled’ with, so that the major risks to crop growing are protected against, and loans for high-productivity agriculture can be taken out with confidence [S1, S2]. A best-practice analysis of UEA research in Uganda was commissioned by the DFID-ESRC Growth Research Programme (DEGRP) to help other researchers see how they might enhance the impact of their own work. It found that the collaborative, iterative approach taken by UEA researchers helped ‘boost the standing of smallholder farmers in Ugandan policy discussions’ [S5, p. 8] and provided evidence to bolster the mission of the country’s leading agricultural consultancy, AT Uganda who set out to promote agricultural innovation in Uganda [S5, pp. 10-11]. This paved the way for the policy impact that resulted for the period 2015-2020.

In the second research dissemination stage, UEA researchers worked with the Ugandan policy advocacy network PASIC (Policy Action for Sustainable Intensification of Cropping Systems), who have a desk in the Ministry of Agriculture, to identify and approach the relevant government officials for influencing policy. This led to the two main government agricultural policy documents for 2015-2020, the main one of which is the Agricultural Sector Strategic Plan, to draw on UEA research to advocate ‘bundled’ weather index insurance for promoting agricultural investment. The former Senior Policy Analyst for the Ministry of Agriculture, wrote to Verschoor, ‘“In the original draft of the Agricultural Sector Strategic Plan 2015/6-20, promoting weather index insurance had not been mentioned as one of the five core activities that will be implemented within the Uganda Climate Smart Agriculture. As a result of your research recommendations, weather index insurance has been incorporated in the final draft. This would not have been possible if you had not shared with us your research recommendations as this provided the necessary evidence to lobby for these changes. [T]he role that weather index insurance can play in facilitating the transition […] to progressive farming strategies is […] appearing on Uganda’s policy frameworks on agriculture for the first time as a result of your research recommendations’ [S3].

This policy impact required intensive engagement with farmers, field specialists, government officials, insurance experts and other stakeholders. Experts on evidence-based policy making have noted that the collaborative nature of this approach facilitated impact. The head of the Research and Policy in Development (RAPID) programme at the UK’s Overseas Development Institute, writes in a 2019 blog ‘ A project on farmers’ attitudes towards risk in Uganda […] developed a highly collaborative, iterative approach to engagement, working with farmers, as well as local and national policy makers to co-create policy proposals that would work at all levels’ [S4].

The agriculture theme lead at the DFID-ESRC Growth Research Programme (DEGRP), comments on the unusual care UEA researchers took to tease out policy relevance of their findings: ‘In this case, however, we have a rarity. The study used experimental economics to elicit farmer perceptions of risks in agricultural investment. The researchers next discussed their findings with farmers and field specialists in the locality where they carried out their studies to identify possible practical implications. Then they took those insights to a national dialogue with government, non-government, donor, academia and private sector stakeholders to consider what might be feasible and promising nationally. So unusual is this process that we asked the team to document in detail what they did’ [Foreword to S1, p.3].

Impact 2: Ugandan insurance companies provide improved weather insurance, with about 200,000 farmers insured in 2020.

After including the recommendations suggested by UEA research in its 2015-20 strategy documents, in 2016 the Ugandan government partnered with the Uganda Insurers Association to launch a new agricultural insurance scheme. Ten insurance companies formed the Agriculture Insurance Consortium (AIC) to provide the bundled weather insurance that UEA research recommended. The insurance premium is subsidised by the government: smallholder farmers pay 50% of the commercial rate in most of the country, and 20% in particularly drought-prone areas. By June 2020, 196,991 policies had been sold [S6], which is a remarkably rapid market penetration. AIC estimates demand to be 220,000 by the end of 2020 and predicts demand to rise to over 575,000 insured farmers by 2025 [S6].

A Consortium Officer to the AIC explains in a letter to Verschoor what this means for farmers: “ *To give you a sense of what that means, a typical smallholder farmer insures a harvest value of 250,000 Uganda shillings. The premium on that is 5.5% for weather index insurance and after the subsidy is 2.75%, which comes to 6,875 Uganda shillings. If the satellite shows that a drought causes complete harvest failure, then the farmer will receive 90% of 250,000 Uganda shillings, which is 225,000 Uganda shillings.*” [S6] The premium that the farmer pays for protection against drought and ruinous harvest failure of UGX6,875 is 3% of the insurance pay-out of UGX225,000 received. That pay-out restores the farmer’s income from crops to 90% of its normal value of UGX250,000. It follows that farmers considering an agricultural investment no longer need to worry about drought.

Impact 3: Insured farmers increase investment by 60-100%, a safe way out of poverty.

In the third stage of research dissemination, UEA researchers advised Ugandan insurance companies on the design of new insurance products, focusing on features that, in accordance with UEA research, will encourage smallholder farmers to invest. Insurance company MUA is one of the biggest providers of the new insurance products in Uganda, having insured more than 60,000 farmers to date [S7]. MUA’s Head of Agriculture Insurance has assessed the effects on farmers’ investment of the bundled weather insurance products UEA research recommended. She estimates that insured farmers increase investment by between 60 and 100 percent and links this to UEA research: “ Your research on agricultural investment helped show which kinds of insurance products would be appealing to farmers” [S7].

**An illustration of this is provided by a farmer in Bunamwamba village in Bwikhonge sub county in the Ugandan Bulambuli district, who purchased the new insurance that UEA research recommended. As he puts it, “ **From my perspective, [the new] agriculture insurance is beneficial to us farmers because it enables us to borrow money from financial institutions and invest in farming without worrying. When you borrow money to invest in farming and there is a drought, you lose twice; you lose the crops, and you have to sell one of your assets to pay the money you borrowed. But if you have agriculture insurance, it will pay the money you borrowed.” [S8, p.12]

The future looks bright for the new insurance products that UEA research recommended and helped make possible. m-Omulimisa, a Ugandan agriculture technology company, has started providing the new insurance products in innovative ways, with equally promising effects on investment. Its Managing Director writes to Verschoor: “ *We have developed an app that makes purchase of index insurance extremely easy. We give farmers the opportunity to buy the insurance together with certified, high-quality agricultural inputs such as seed and fertilizer, as well as to take out an affordable loan (1.08% interest per month) for buying these inputs. To make sure that small-scale farmers are reached, we use a village-agent model. The village agents have a smart phone that they use to buy bundled insurance (insurance plus the other things mentioned) on behalf of the farmers. The model works well. We estimate that farmers double their investment in agricultural inputs as a result of the insurance, which means that the productivity of their farms increases in a safe and sustainable manner.*” [S9]

Recognition of outstanding impact

For the UEA research impacts described in this case study, D’Exelle and Verschoor won the prestigious 2020 ESRC Celebrating Impact Prize for Outstanding Business and Enterprise Impact [S10].

The research findings have produced impacts on two main fronts. Firstly, the conceptual framework for advancing just and equitable conservation has been adopted within the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the pre-eminent international policy framework for biodiversity conservation. Secondly, the framework has been used in partnership with the government of Bolivia and indigenous peoples to co-produce the case for indigenous territorial autonomy, leading to autonomy for the Monkoxi people. Connected to both these fronts, the framework has been developed into SAGE (Site-based Assessment of Governance and Equity), a toolkit for multi-stakeholder use.

New Policy Guidelines adopted by United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)

The 2010 Aichi targets of the CBD represent the highest level of conservation guidance for governments worldwide. Target 11 is for protected areas to be managed ‘effectively and equitably’ by 2020. However, it was clear that whilst there were indicators and tools for assessing effectiveness, there was no clear understanding of how to define equity and this made it difficult for conservation managers to assess and advance equity at national and site level. UEA researchers joined forces with the International Institute for Environment and Development and key partners such as WWF, IUCN and GIZ to feed UEA research findings [F1, 2, 3, 4] into technical policy advice to enable ‘equitable’ management of conservation. This process is evidenced by a flagship impact story featured by the Ecosystem Services [S1] and Poverty Alleviation (ESPA) programme, the ~GBP50,000,000 RCUK programme and by an animated film also produced with ESPA [S2].

In 2018 UEA researchers worked with this academic-practitioner partnership to introduce the emerging justice/equity framework (building on findings F2, F3, F4) to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This included providing training on equity to CBD regional representatives, working with the CBD Secretariat to issue a CBD flyer on ‘Aichi target 11 – equitable management’ (directly reproducing the framework in R3), and submitting a document detailing the framework (CBD/SBSTTA/22/6) to the July 2018 meeting of the CBD’s Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) as well as reproducing a diagram from R3 [S3]. This document became a formal ‘decision’ at the December 2018 Conference of Parties (COP14) in Egypt [S4] and thus became a policy guideline for all UN states (except the USA). Despite Covid-19 delays, the framework has so far been used by protected area managers in 13 countries [According to the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) S5]

Development of the SAGE toolkit for assessing and enhancing equity

The existence of CBD policy advice in favour of using the justice/equity framework was important but UEA researchers realised that they also needed to provide tried and tested tools that enabled practitioners to act on this. UEA researchers developed a toolkit for the ‘Site Level Assessment of Governance and Equity’ (SAGE toolkit) through a series of multi-stakeholder workshops and through field testing with partners in East Africa [R3]. The SAGE indicator system is based on 10 equity principles that reflect findings F2 and F4 above; the multi-stakeholder process reflects finding F3 above.

The new CBD policy guideline created an opportunity for UEA researchers to design an assessment tool for use by conservation authorities and other stakeholders to facilitate policy implementation. UEA researchers therefore continued to work with their core partners, to develop the SAGE toolkit. The first edition of the SAGE User’s Manual was produced in September 2019 and was piloted in 8 protected areas by December 2019, across Africa, Latin America, Asia and Europe. These 8 cases were evaluated at a workshop held at UEA (14-16 January 2020). Users reported that the tool had filled a significant gap in their assessment needs, not only helping to understand performance in relation to equity indicators, but also for identifying actions to improve performance [S6]. The planned second phase of rollout was delayed by Covid-19, but a manual for online use of SAGE has now been developed, with 5 new countries already using this and 6 others in process. According to IUCN’s Director of Global Protected Areas, “The current equity framework is an important step forward in helping to ensure that protected areas are governed equitably, especially as we are all engaged in the process towards a new post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework” [S5]. The Framework, originally planned for agreement at CBD COP15 in October 2020, has been delayed by the pandemic.

Legislative and governance changes in Bolivia

UEA research in Bolivia [R4, R5, R6] has led to legislative changes at national level. UEA researchers used the SAGE multi-stakeholder approach and the equity principles to explore current tensions in Bolivian policy towards autonomous indigenous territories and jointly define possible solutions [F4]. The work UEA researchers have done in Bolivia has involved close partnerships with the Ministry of Autonomy, Vice Ministry of Justice, the national representatives of the United Nations Environment Programme, seven different indigenous nations and various conservation and indigenous rights Non-Government Organisations [R4, R6]. Use of the UEA researchers’ justice framework facilitated understanding of the multiple dimensions of justice, including recognition [R4] of indigenous peoples’ own environmental knowledge and governance systems. This more holistic and systematic analysis of justice issues made it much clearer to all stakeholders that the Monkox people’s claim for territorial autonomy was strongly aligned with prospects for achieving social justice. This provided crucial knowledge that supported the Monkox as the first indigenous nation in Bolivia to seek political autonomy and to ensure a just and sustainable management of its homelands. Furthermore, the results from UEA researchers’ work here helped to refine their justice framework, especially by improving and validating the understanding of the role of recognitional justice in conservation [R1].

The communal indigenous territory (TCO) of Lomerío covers 256,000 hectares and is home to around 7,000 indigenous Monkoxɨ living in 29 communities ranging in size from 100 to 1,500 inhabitants. By helping to build bridges between the Indigenous Union of Lomerío and the Vice-Ministry of Autonomy, UEA research boosted the profile of their claim both nationally and internationally and helped accelerate some of the procedures involved. Following a round-table (October 2015) with key stakeholders organised by UEA, NUR University and the Indigenous Union of Lomerío-CICOL (two UEA research co-partners) about the project results, the Vice Ministry of Autonomy invited UEA researchers to partner them in producing a book [S7]. This book used the UEA environmental justice framing to explore current tensions in Bolivian policy towards autonomous indigenous territories. This research was jointly presented by the Indigenous Union of Lomerío (CICOL), The Ministry of Autonomy, NUR University and UEA at the 2016 United Nations Permanent Indigenous People Forum in New York.

As acknowledged by the Vice Ministry of Autonomy in 2017 and all stakeholders [S8, 9], UEA research and associated impact activities are recognised to have made a significant impact in advancing the claim: “The round tables and joint efforts have helped to build bridges between the Vice-Ministry and CICOL. We continue to participate in the Lomeriano assemblies with the aim of strengthening their demand for territorial-based autonomy, which will be prioritized in our work agenda”. (S8, Vice-Minister of Autonomies, Ministry of the Presidency, September 27, 2017). One year later, in May 2018, the Constitutional Court approved the Monkoxi Autonomy Statutes.

By applying the UEA justice framework, UEA researchers were able to show in their joint publications with the ministry of Autonomy and CICOL, the central importance that the indigenous environmental governance rules and regulations play in ensuring a just and sustainable management of natural resources in Lomerío [S7]. Some of the key dimensions of this approach, which are centred in indigenous equity and justice values, involve: a) the defense of communal democracy as the main form of collective decision making, b) the emphasis given to principles, values and norms of communal and territorial life, such as freedom, sharing (minga or bobikix), equity, reciprocity, redistribution, and solidarity, c) the importance given to customary rules and norms and indigenous justice in regulating day-to-day communal life, and d) the definition of communal economy as the desired form of development, aimed at achieving the Uxia Nosiboriki (Vivir Bien) of the Monkoxɨ nation, respecting mother earth, the spirits of the forest ( Jichis) and life in harmony with nature. Currently, many of these principles of equity and justice are being hampered by a municipal regime of territorial organization, national resource management laws and market dynamics that do not fully respect indigenous institutions and procedures. The granting of autonomy rights would help strengthen the governance structures already in place in Lomerío that seek a just and equitable use of natural resources.

Furthermore, UEA associated impact activities have inspired a wider process of linking the framework to new claims by at least a further seven indigenous nations in Bolivia, which has the support of the Minister of Autonomy and other key stakeholders [S8, S9]. A second roundtable (Dec 2018) that involved different indigenous nations of Bolivia, UNEP, the Ministry of Autonomy and the Ministry of Justice, helped to examine further the achievements and persistent challenges for a sustainable and autonomous model of indigenous territorial management in Bolivia and to continue pushing the different indigenous autonomy claims [R6].

Linked to the granting of autonomy, UEA research informed the co-production of training materials (a history book and film and two participatory videos about injustices in forest management that are credited with a significant impact on revitalising indigenous environmental governance practices. As said by the Chief General of CICOL, this and other videos that UEA researchers and research user organisations jointly produced “have allowed us to have more visibility and impact as an organization inside and outside our territory. They are our presentation cards” [S9]. The impact of these co-produced materials is also evidenced by wide use by CICOL with other of its partners and projects (e.g. CEJIS, TIERRA and Acknowl-Ej) in a variety on training activities for young Monkoxi leaders. A key example of governance change is the use of the UEA equity framework to guide the new 2020 Territorial and Natural Resources Unit of CICOL. As explained by its aforementioned Chief General, “The objective of this work is that all 29 communities and 7000 inhabitants enjoy equally the use and exploitation of our territory. That we all take equal advantage of the resources that the Lomerío territory provides us ... the unit will follow up on the control and good governance of the territory” [S10, min. 2’07’ to 2’47’].

Prompting WHO and other UN agencies to engage with LTC as a priority issue.

UEA research was instrumental in WHO’s pioneering prioritisation of Long-Term Care (LTC) as a global development issue. It also influenced other agencies to engage with LTC for the first time. In 2020, it had specific impact on global agencies’ responses to COVID-19.

According to the former Director of the WHO Department of Ageing and Life Couse (2010-2018): “Peter’s [Lloyd-Sherlock] research demonstrated to me that these were no longer just issues of importance to relatively affluent countries, but had become a global concern and that WHO should play a leading role in shaping this new agenda” [S1]. This led WHO to devote a substantial chapter on LTC in its flagship 2015 World Report on Ageing and Health for which Lloyd-Sherlock was the core author [S2]. This was the first report by any global agency to present LTC as a global challenge and states: “In the 21st century, no country can afford not to have a comprehensive system of long-term care… In low- and middle-income countries, the challenge may be to build a system where one does not already exist.” [S2]. The report emphasises (i) a rapid increase in LTC demand in LMICs [R1, R2], (ii) important implications for gender justice [R3], and (iii) an urgent need for policies to support unpaid family carers and to strengthen regulation of private services [R2, R3, R5, S2].

The 2015 Report shaped subsequent WHO activities relating to older people. According to the former Director of the WHO Department of Ageing and Life Couse:

“The World Report on Ageing and Health has been highly influential and has stimulated government action globally and has gone on to shape WHO's ongoing activities in this area, including our Global Strategy and Action Plan on Ageing and Health” [S1] **.

One of the 5 Strategic Objectives for WHO’s Global Strategy for Older People is: “Developing sustainable and equitable systems for providing long-term care” (including home, communities and institutions), and including “freeing women to pursue what they value” [R3; S3]. This was followed by the recognition of LTC as a global priority for the WHO’s Decade of Action on Healthy Ageing (DAHA), ratified by the World Health Assembly in 2020. The 2020 Launch Document reiterates every country should have a LTC system, adding: “Current approaches to providing LTC rely heavily on informal care –predominantly families and notably women, who may not have the necessary training or support…” [R1, R2, R3; S4]. The DAHA was ratified by the United Nations General Assembly in 2020, which commits all UN agencies to support global LTC policies under WHO leadership.

UEA research on LTC has influenced other UN agencies. For example, it led to UN Women highlighting the global importance of LTC for the first time in its flagship report, “Progress of the world's women 2019–2020: Families in a changing world” [S5a]. According to Chief of Research and Data at UN Women (2013-2020):

“Peter’s work brought to my attention for the first time the wide range of social development challenges being posed by population ageing in low and middle-income countries (LMICs)... [and] enabled UN Women to develop a more nuanced appreciation about gender justice and care… the need to avoid an all or nothing choice between unsupported family care and poor quality nursing homes through the development of new interventions to support unpaid carers… All of these issues featured prominently in UN Women’s 2019 flagship report and have continued to influence the organisation’s own thinking… I believe this has prompted an overdue process of reframing global policy discourse about these issues.” [S5b]

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, UEA research influenced WHO’s Technical Guidance for Managing COVID-19 in care homes which is expected to be followed by all UN member states [S6]. Lloyd-Sherlock was on the scientific expert committee for the first version of the Guidance published in March 2020. The Guidance drew on UEA research to consider specific LMIC issues, such as a lack of space for case isolation and a need for enhanced regulatory coordination. Lloyd-Sherlock was an external peer reviewer for the revised Technical Guidance which was launched in January 2021. This draws on UEA research, referring to a need for “a mechanism to support unregulated providers” and to other elements of the CIAT Framework.

Influencing and supporting care home regulation by government and civil society.

Specific local and national impacts have been achieved in Argentina, drawing on UEA’s in-depth research in that country. These impacts have started to inform actions in other countries, including Mexico [S8], a process accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

UEA research led to the inclusion of several novel elements in a revised Argentina Ministry of Health regulatory protocol. For example, it is the first such protocol in any LMIC to address coercive care home admission as a potential deprivation of liberty [S10a]

UEA insights about the limited capacity of governments to regulate care homes prompted the development of a pioneering new civil society intervention. A public meeting disseminating UEA research in the city of La Plata led to the establishment of a coalition of government agencies, NGOs, academics and care home operators. This coalition developed an interactive online platform providing information and feedback about the city’s regulated and unregulated care homes (Red Mayor La Plata). This site, the first of its kind in an LMIC, was receiving over 12,000 hits and over 50 messages each month by the end of its first year of operation. Messages include examples of abuse (to quote directly from one message): “I found my mother lying naked on the floor, with nobody trying to help her…. They over-medicate the residents” [S7]. These were followed up and led to official investigation of the providers in question [S10a]. In 2020, this intervention won a UKRI Healthy Longevity Global Grand Challenge Award, which is providing funds and expert support to extend and scale up the intervention in other cities [Grant D].

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, policy-makers in LMICs have looked to improve regulation and engagement with care homes. A core element of the CIAT Framework [R6] is rapid mapping of all care homes (including previously unregistered ones) and realistic forms of engagement. This contributed to a decision by Buenos Aires Province to offer an informal amnesty to care homes not complying with less essential pre-COVID-19 standards in exchange for their cooperation during the pandemic [S10b].

The ongoing development of the CIAT Framework is both drawing on and feeding back into the practice of government agencies beyond Argentina. For example, the Director of Mexico City government’s lead agency for care homes stated:

“…we consider the CIAT Framework… highly relevant to the challenging context of Mexico City... Many long-term care facilities are not registered with official agencies and so we took specific measures to update our registers and to include new service providers. This has enhanced our capacity to engage with different care homes, including those which operate more informally and which may be more vulnerable to the pandemic. The CIAT framework has also informed our strategy of monitoring the situation in these facilities, developing a more robust information base and in identifying different types of targeted interventions [such as more intensive surveillance and additional access to testing] based on the experiences of other cities in developing countries.” [S8]

Influencing government policy and interventions to support family carers.

UEA research on family caring and gendered aspects of LTC has directly influenced government policy at the national and local levels. For example, since 2014 over 3,000 families in poor neighbourhoods of Belo Horizonte, Brazil have benefitted from an innovative care-support intervention, Programa Maior Cuidado (PMC – Older Person’s Care Programme). PMC was established in 2011, in response to Brazil’s first national report on LTC. This report, published by the leading federal government policy think-tank (IPEA) in 2010, extensively cites UEA research [R2] highlighting the gendered impacts of caring for older people and the need to support family care.

PMC families receive support from PMC trained carers (mainly women recruited from similar communities and paid a basic wage). These carers offer families respite from daily caring and help to develop their competencies in caring. UEA researchers conducted impact and process assessments of PMC, the publication of which was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Preliminary results shared with government stakeholders influenced a decision in 2019 to convert this temporary project into a permanent one and to extend it across the city [S9]. Based on the UEA research, other local governments, including the cities of Fortaleza and Contagem, have been persuaded to initiate similar interventions, and the Federal Ministry of Health presents it as a model of good practice in national policy forums [S9].