Civil conflict began in Ethiopia in November 2020 and has reportedly caused major disrup tions in access to health services, food, and related critical services, in addition to the direct impacts of the conflict on health and well-being. However, the population-level impacts of the conflict have not yet been systematically quantified. We analyze high frequency phone surveys conducted by the World Bank, which included measures of access to basic ser vices, to estimate the impact of the first phase of the war (November 2020 to May 2021) on households in Tigray. After controlling for sample selection, a difference-in-differences approach is used to estimate causal effects of the conflict on population access to health services, food, and water and sanitation. Inverse probability weighting is used to adjust for sample attrition. The conflict has increased the share of respondents who report that they were unable to access needed health services by 35 percentage points (95% CI: 14–55 pp) and medicine by 8 pp (95% CI:2–15 pp). It has also increased the share of households unable to purchase staple foods by 26 pp (95% CI:7–45 pp). The share of households unable to access water did not increase, although the percentage able to purchase soap declined by 17 pp (95% CI: 1–32 pp). We document significant heterogeneity across popula tion groups, with disproportionate effects on the poor, on rural populations, on households with undernourished children, and those living in communities without health facilities. These significant disruptions in access to basic services likely underestimate the true bur den of conflict in the affected population, given that the conflict has continued beyond the survey period, and that worse-affected households may have higher rates of non-response. Documented spatial and household-level heterogeneity in the impact of the conflict may help guide rapid post-conflict responses.

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).

Agri-food systems face multiple challenges. They must deal with prevailing structural weaknesses, partly deepened by the disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic, civil conflicts, and climate change. Addressing structural weaknesses – such as inequitable access to healthy and nutritious food for all, loss of livelihoods and incomes, and increasing environmental shocks – requires not only technological, but also institutional innovations, as well as economic and policy responses. While development interventions often focus on technological innovations, they lack attention to the enabling policy environment and the political economy drivers necessary to achieve policy, economic, and social impact at the national level. In addition, solutions often fail to analyze the broader enabling environment in which policies are designed and implemented at the national level. A comprehensive understanding of the policy environment coupled with appropriate technological and institutional solutions can influence the success or failure of development interventions. However, political economy and policy analysis considerations are inadequately explored in the quest to transform food systems. Identifying the right policies and overcoming barriers to the implementation of development interventions fundamentally requires an understanding of the political economy and policy processes that shape policymaking. Despite numerous emerging approaches and frameworks for conducting political economy and policy analysis, practitioners and researchers working across food, land, and water systems lack a consolidated knowledge base. This Political Economy and Policy Analysis (PEPA) sourcebook aims to fill that knowledge gap. | PR | IFPRI2; 1 Fostering Climate-Resilient and Sustainable Food Supply | Development Strategies and Governance (DSG); Transformation Strategies