1.5 billion people live in fragility and conflict-affected settings (FCAS) and they face an increased risk of food insecurity and poverty trap. A systems approach in collaboration with innovators in FCAS is needed to produce practical and inclusive solutions that can improve the resilience of food, land, and water systems (FLWS). CGIAR is in the unique position to produce transformative policies, programming, and market strategies to bring science-driven innovation to improve resilience among FCA communities and create a bridge between the humanitarian, development, and peace (HDP) nexus. This market report conducts a market assessment across 14 countries in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia to inform a science-driven acceleration programme to scale CGIAR innovations in FCAS. The analysis in the report is from a newly developed database on FLWS-HDP innovation ecosystem actors, which includes 600+ innovator data covering 90+ solution types and 200+ funding supporters, including investors, governments, NGOs, hubs, and other collaborative ecosystem enablers. Additionally, the report draws insights from consultations with experts in the ecosystem ranging from CGIAR practitioners to innovation hubs and innovators (Chapter 1). The ecosystem mapping shows that the FLWS-HDP innovation ecosystem is still nascent in many FCA countries, and is largely concentrated on food production. Water resources, migration, and anticipatory action innovations only take up 20% of all innovations. Financial support to enable private innovators has been rising and 25% of the innovators mapped in the selected countries have raised funding amounting to over $330M as of November 2023, with investors from the private sector paving the way and with public-private partnerships (PPPs) increasingly playing an important role. Funding support from private investors and PPPs support early-stage innovation development by creating hubs, de-risking funding by co-investing with the private sector, and directly providing financial support to the innovators. International donors, governments and investors from the Global North are also prevalent in the ecosystem as 90% of actors supporting innovators are from outside the FCA countries. Local actors often work with international actors to implement programmes, co-invest, and help source high-impact innovators. There is little evidence of international research organisations’ activities in the FCAS so far (Chapter 2). Developing a sustainable FLWS-HDP innovation ecosystem in FCAS is met with challenges related to limited infrastructural resources, value chain disruptions, and heightened security risks. However, opportunities also exist, especially when innovators flexibly adapt innovations to address local challenges, and in settings where the solutions become tools to better facilitate and coordinate humanitarian, government, and private sector initiatives. Hence, supporting private sector innovation should prioritise localising solutions for the specific context to increase longerterm sustainability. Research organisations should support by developing systems to bring science to sector value chains and becoming expert support for innovators. Lastly, partnerships with governments, local actors, and international NGOs should be leveraged to bring innovations to tackle local challenges (Chapter 3). Finally, he report provides an overview of the macroeconomic and FCA context and an analysis of the FLW-HDP innovation ecosystem for each of the 14 countries The country overviews highlight that each country has a unique set of challenges and opportunities for developing a resilient innovation ecosystem, yet there are strong signals that innovators, support initiatives, and actors are making an impact in improving the conditions for FLW and HDP systems in FCA contexts (Chapter 4).

Despite evidence of women’s roles and expertise in the management of water, energy, food, and the environment (WEFE), the WEFE literature is almost silent on gender issues. In the context of climate change, achieving more inclusive management of natural resources is vital; yet women continue to be underrepresented as professionals in WEFE sectors, and largely absent in leadership positions. Using Nepal as a case study, this paper explores the enduring barriers to their exclusion, and entry points for greater equity among professionals in these sectors. To do so, we draw on key informant interviews with 34 male and 31 women professionals from government, civil society, non-governmental organizations and consultants, as well as a roundtable discussion with 20 women professionals specifically focused on gender barriers in these sectors in Nepal. Drawing on Gaventa (2006)’s power cube, this paper examines how power dynamics within and between the public and the private spheres create a web of barriers that conflate to sideline women professionals. While women have reached the “closed space” as defined by Gaventa (i.e., are recruited to professional positions in WEFE sectors), different sources of “hidden” and “invisible” power at play in the public and private spheres continue to limit their participation, influence and decision-making. We argue that the continued marginalization of women professionals calls for a focus on understanding the power and intersectionality dynamics that sustain exclusion. This focus is critical for the development of strategies to increase the voice and leadership of women professionals in WEFE decision-making.

Despite evidence of women’s roles and expertise in the management of water, energy, food, and the environment (WEFE), the WEFE literature is almost silent on gender issues. In the context of climate change, achieving more inclusive management of natural resources is vital; yet women continue to be underrepresented as professionals in WEFE sectors, and largely absent in leadership positions. Using Nepal as a case study, this paper explores the enduring barriers to their exclusion, and entry points for greater equity among professionals in these sectors. To do so, we draw on key informant interviews with 34 male and 31 women professionals from government, civil society, non-governmental organizations and consultants, as well as a roundtable discussion with 20 women professionals specifically focused on gender barriers in these sectors in Nepal. Drawing on Gaventa (2006)’s power cube, this paper examines how power dynamics within and between the public and the private spheres create a web of barriers that conflate to sideline women professionals. While women have reached the “closed space” as defined by Gaventa (i.e., are recruited to professional positions in WEFE sectors), different sources of “hidden” and “invisible” power at play in the public and private spheres continue to limit their participation, influence and decision-making. We argue that the continued marginalization of women professionals calls for a focus on understanding the power and intersectionality dynamics that sustain exclusion. This focus is critical for the development of strategies to increase the voice and leadership of women professionals in WEFE decision-making.