col-xs-12
col-sm-12
col-md-12
col-lg-12
col-xs-12
col-sm-12
col-md-12
col-lg-12
videoType
dynamic-media
videoDmUrl
https://delivery-p136806-e1377785.adobeaemcloud.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:fd42317c-fa97-4384-afd1-87af082a7acb/play?assetname=DIME-WFP+BBL+Evidence+Where+it+Matters+Most.mp4
imageMimeType
image/jpeg
keyFrameImage
videoDescription
DIME-WFP BBL: Evidence Where it Matters Most Recording
timestamp

01:19 I sent you an email because I don't have a charger.

01:21 Frank was,

01:22 um,

01:22 called me in the hallway,

01:23 so she's gonna try to grab one.

01:25 I ask my colleague if she can do.

01:28 Yeah,

01:28 yes.

01:30 Thanks so much.

01:34 So this is actually a sorry

01:36 oh you guys are already.

01:38 Yeah,

01:39 it's,

01:42 yeah,

01:42 cause it,

01:42 it's a tier one,

01:44 yeah,

01:44 it's a tier one,

01:45 so you always have somebody from the GCS team.

01:48 So if you go to your Webex meeting right there,

01:53 uh,

01:53 if you want to

01:55 mute your computer so that you don't hear,

01:58 uh,

01:59 let's see.

02:00 Just out there so,

02:02 so that if we're talking into the mic you can't hear that

02:06 but uh yeah it looks like the meeting is already recording which is good,

02:09 which is what you want,

02:10 right?

02:10 You want the meeting recorded yeah we want the meeting.

02:11 Yeah,

02:12 I think

02:15 you guys are all set.

02:16 I just need the Clo to come with the presentations.

02:20 She's doing the presentations on her computer.

02:23 OK,

02:23 so,

02:23 so good.

02:26 I bring in the charger now.

02:27 Um,

02:27 just make sure that when I get back IT center for her.

02:31 I'll bring it back as soon as we're done.

02:32 Thank you so much and

02:34 you're staying,

02:34 right?

02:35 Uh,

02:35 I won't be staying for the meeting,

02:36 but I'll,

02:37 I'll stay until you guys are all set up we only begin at 12.

02:42 Yes,

02:42 yeah,

02:43 I can,

02:43 I can say until you all are set up that,

02:45 um,

02:46 so let's see,

02:47 I just want Chloe to come with the microbeadlet for

02:50 the presentation so that we can connect for sure,

02:53 yeah,

02:53 we can make sure that

02:54 that's all set up.

03:06 Thanks so much for coming also.

03:10 Let's see if

03:12 everybody

03:12 was like that yesterday

03:15 with the

03:16 changing room

03:18 like

03:19 that she is

03:20 now

03:22 connecting

03:26 to meet with.

03:26 00,

03:27 so that's that's why we could not use.

03:31 Thank you for those ones.

03:32 Do they have anything

03:36 any from MC 4301 or I don't think so.

03:38 I think it's just getting.

03:44 I'll bring it down

03:46 in

03:46 here.

03:47 Yeah.

04:03 Oh,

04:03 and I was

04:04 installing,

04:05 uh,

04:06 SAP on my computer

04:08 and it takes forever.

04:09 It didn't.

04:10 SAP takes a long time,

04:12 but it's like since yesterday.

04:14 Now it shouldn't take that long.

04:16 And

04:17 when you

04:18 did,

04:18 did you do it if you were leaving the office or anything?

04:20 No,

04:21 I,

04:21 it,

04:21 it stayed for like an hour or two,

04:24 but it's still like this.

04:27 What happens when you type it?

04:27 I don't have it.

04:31 OK,

04:32 uh,

04:33 after the meeting,

04:35 if you come down with the chart,

04:37 I can,

04:37 we'll

04:38 get that one knocked out and we'll install it from

04:41 the post install instead of.

04:43 Sometimes,

04:44 um,

04:44 every randomly every now and we install it.

04:50 Good

04:51 morning.

04:51 Good

04:52 morning.

04:52 Good morning.

04:53 So that's the new room.

04:54 Yes,

04:55 that's the new room.

04:56 Yes,

04:57 and we,

04:57 and we have some lunch,

04:59 lunch.

05:00 Oh,

05:00 big lunch lunch.

05:07 Yeah,

05:08 we'll have you

05:10 sit at the head of the table.

05:12 Yes,

05:14 that's good,

05:14 yeah,

05:14 yeah,

05:15 yeah.

05:18 Yeah,

05:18 I see

05:20 your team,

05:22 but if

05:23 anything

05:25 can be a team.

05:26 OK,

05:26 thank you so much.

05:27 And then yeah,

05:28 sure,

05:28 thank you,

05:33 thank you.

05:33 It.

05:35 But.

05:41 Don't worry about that.

05:44 We're not very,

05:45 uh,

05:45 very

05:47 special.

05:49 You

05:51 sit there and video on camera all the time.

05:54 And you

06:00 OK.

06:00 Would you give me 10 minutes?

06:01 I have to run down to right above.

06:03 Oh,

06:03 you can

06:05 really.

06:11 water.

06:11 Would you like some water?

06:13 Yeah,

06:13 please.

06:16 So good morning.

06:18 Good morning.

06:19 Everything's fine.

06:20 Everything is good.

06:21 I'm just waiting for Chloe to come.

06:24 She has a presentation and uh.

06:27 Yeah,

06:28 yeah,

06:28 but I mean,

06:29 we still

06:30 have 20 minutes.

06:33 No,

06:33 no,

06:33 you're fine.

06:34 Yeah.

06:36 So I have to

06:37 tell you what is going on

06:39 because a lot is going on.

06:41 Um,

06:46 We're in the middle of a revolution.

06:51 Is it wrote my book,

06:51 huh,

06:51 it's a you wrote my goal,

06:54 yeah,

06:54 yeah,

06:56 you should go.

06:57 So this is creating a new a few

07:01 things in a slightly different way,

07:03 so.

07:05 Yeah,

07:06 from,

07:06 from our side we're interacting and

07:13 you know,

07:13 arguing for.

07:13 I'm not sure about the bands more efficient and more

07:22 probably will have.

07:23 It's quite to you guys.

07:26 I mean the conservative fan say

07:29 your parents are really fun.

07:30 Good.

07:31 Oh,

07:31 thank you.

07:32 It's a fun day.

07:36 People taking common and say no,

07:37 you don't understand the challenge.

07:39 It's true.

07:40 It doesn't go well,

07:40 so

07:43 to

07:43 become bigger.

07:44 So we've become much bigger,

07:45 right?

07:47 We've already become much bigger during COVID.

07:48 We doubled that,

07:49 right?

07:51 So we're now at 70 billion.

07:53 But

07:54 there's a huge push on doing more.

07:57 And so,

07:58 so the first bush was more.

08:01 Um,

08:01 but the sex back

08:04 and uh.

08:06 Basically,

08:06 the resource,

08:07 the resources are not growing in a way just do it,

08:10 but

08:12 increasing and so there's already a huge pressure

08:16 for the other

08:17 to together.

08:18 It's a work I'm proposing,

08:20 you have to

08:21 rationalize the

08:23 bad projects or even transform the project,

08:26 a project faster

08:28 as a lot

08:29 faster but also better.

08:32 Right,

08:32 so,

08:33 uh,

08:33 I'm going to Oslo next week

08:35 about meeting with all the them to discuss.

08:40 How we

08:41 bring in evidence that doubles coverage for the same funding.

08:46 Um,

08:48 it's good.

08:49 Mhm.

08:49 Mhm.

08:51 But um,

08:52 yeah,

08:53 slate display both rooms look at the family situations all across

08:57 the board.

09:00 And

09:02 so successful

09:05 for you

09:08 to

09:10 just

09:15 14 now make sure

09:17 you were 7 before that old

09:23 sorry congrats.

09:24 I don't have to congratulate you or feel sorry for you,

09:27 but

09:29 I heard it.

09:32 I,

09:35 I think it's I mean I hope it's.

09:40 Can you,

09:40 you should invites to the rest room also,

09:42 as long as people are still gonna go to,

09:44 you know,

09:47 and you're not changing that.

09:50 In the calendar,

09:53 the calendar I already gave it still says the other room.

09:54 We checked.

09:58 It's still if I did I send no,

09:58 but if I go onto the calendar,

10:00 say IRSP,

10:01 so that it still says the other room.

10:02 That's my

10:05 my

10:08 so.

10:09 This is why I talk about

10:12 uh

10:13 that change about I say that we got to change

10:19 all right,

10:21 so do you have a presentation I do.

10:24 It's

10:25 so bad

10:27 it

10:30 does go,

10:30 it goes to

10:31 and my calendar it says let me double check again,

10:35 but

10:37 yeah,

10:37 it says MC 4301 on my calendar.

10:40 Because you have to close the process of starts,

10:42 right?

10:43 You got the,

10:44 the one that I,

10:45 oh,

10:45 but we have to,

10:46 that would mean that people would have to we are.

10:47 You should take it.

10:52 Yeah,

10:53 the pizza,

10:53 well,

10:53 I don't think people are gonna

10:58 if if people aren't taking pizza,

10:59 people don't invite,

11:00 and then they still to the other room.

11:10 I'm just,

11:10 OK,

11:10 I'm gonna send even if you,

11:11 I think I eat when the people are right now,

11:11 yeah,

11:11 and I'm gonna ask,

11:11 uh-huh,

11:12 you're sharing.

11:15 Yes,

11:15 please.

11:16 I wanna check one thing because there's a no.

11:18 Thank you so much.

11:22 Try one thing vegans.

11:25 Then also put everything on my computer.

11:32 Women and men do not have equal access to economic opportunities.

11:37 They also don't have equal levels of autonomy.

11:40 These gaps are unjust and also economically inefficient.

11:45 The impacts evaluation.

11:46 We are seeking to produce

11:48 a pretty good volume.

11:49 Yeah,

11:50 OK.

11:50 If you want to adjust it to output volume for the TV.

11:55 Is is too great thank you.

12:01 And then did you want a

12:04 camera and then you'll take that position or do you want just that way yeah,

12:10 I just wanted,

12:11 do you wanna be able to see yourselves on the screen or no,

12:13 it's OK to see people,

12:15 so one of the discussions.

12:17 Yeah,

12:19 so we wanna make sure that she talks about,

12:22 but I guess if someone talks,

12:25 we'll see them

12:28 where we see something.

12:28 Yes,

12:28 I mean,

12:28 so long as you're carrying your screen,

12:30 it won't show them enlarged because I think you're there

12:36 but um,

12:37 but yeah,

12:37 you should be able you should get your.

12:41 Yeah,

12:42 yeah,

12:42 yeah,

12:42 yeah,

12:42 and then

12:43 they're

12:44 up,

12:44 you know,

12:45 they're cleaning up,

12:47 I'm gonna ask,

12:47 um,

12:51 you know what I

12:53 saw and they're realizing now,

12:54 and that's not what this looks like I possibly.

12:59 What we're thinking is also to explain what

13:01 we are doing is that all our humanitarian interventions

13:13 in that no CBD and social protection,

13:15 food assistance,

13:15 food for asset in

13:17 economic development.

13:18 Disaster reduction.

13:20 That's the transformation we have to do this,

13:22 but yeah,

13:22 it's doing that,

13:22 yeah,

13:35 it was all Sylvia tried.

13:35 I don't know where I just put down my phone.

13:35 I got my phone and it works on my phone too.

13:36 That's a good thing I think my phone that's what I only had a phone so.

13:39 and then I went into the things into the IT to like what's happen and then why

13:46 it works now

13:49 and it's nice and short and I think the message is nice,

13:51 right?

13:51 It's about the great set it up the reservations here and have

13:57 and it says good things.

14:01 Yeah,

14:01 I think it's good to,

14:02 uh,

14:03 pick it out of this

14:05 to,

14:06 yeah,

14:06 because I mean all the,

14:07 the people will talk about specific.

14:12 Yeah,

14:12 I mean in Boston.

14:15 OK,

14:16 keep it at

14:18 that level that was the initial,

14:19 yes 4 30 11,

14:23 obviously,

14:24 you know,

14:24 they

14:25 just asking people to go there and I mean this is a good opportunity,

14:28 I think,

14:29 to kind of

14:32 Interface

14:39 which is

14:41 yeah,

14:42 yeah,

14:42 not a uniform framework,

14:43 but at least it yeah

14:45 yeah

14:48 yeah yeah,

14:51 yeah,

14:51 I think it's I don't have a big strategic it's recording,

14:53 so,

14:54 oh,

14:54 perfect,

14:54 thank you,

14:55 um.

15:01 You know,

15:01 I,

15:01 I think one of things they're supposed to be,

15:02 there's supposed to be a lot of Nice to meet you.

15:20 OK,

15:20 cut down all the lazy people.

15:21 No,

15:22 no,

15:22 no,

15:22 you have a best friend,

15:29 OK.

15:31 Yes,

15:31 um,

15:32 we have the,

15:32 the three areas,

15:34 um,

15:35 which is,

15:38 sorry,

15:38 I didn't forgot too much,

15:39 the operational model and the model,

15:42 um.

15:43 So I've been part of the operation model,

15:45 but that's also involved in the I should stay.

15:49 Should we put like a sign on

16:02 it,

16:02 it,

16:02 it's still the other,

16:02 you know,

16:02 I'm not sure introduction and

16:05 redefining

16:11 you can't do anything about it really.

16:12 That's uh maybe

16:13 maybe it's the gas

16:16 just

16:18 how long how much it take

16:21 oh,

16:21 because she was and uh

16:23 OK

16:23 and then the question is just

16:28 on the 5 because he's planning to 65

16:31 and I guess we have

16:34 you know they basically there are 6

16:38 public.

16:44 put that on my goodness did you update the calendar I

16:46 did,

16:48 yeah,

16:48 to go there

16:49 to check and there's anyone

16:51 we can ask her.

16:51 Yeah,

16:52 we ask them to come back so it's natural habitat and forestry

16:57 the uh physician

17:01 it's

17:04 important things you forget,

17:05 um.

17:07 So

17:09 and kind of understanding and then

17:20 I just resend it announcement.

17:23 You and

17:25 I didn't copy you.

17:26 Sorry,

17:27 I find it.

17:27 I'm just saying if,

17:28 if,

17:29 if everybody who accepted the old invite,

17:31 would they see that,

17:32 yeah,

17:33 no,

17:33 that's more concession.

17:34 So the concessionary funds today are mainly for the purpose of.

17:41 Distribution

17:42 and the link will be the same,

17:43 right?

17:44 Yes,

17:45 but the

17:49 the.

17:52 It's a different,

17:52 it's a different rationale for industrial recession

17:57 and so the rules of that have to be

18:00 developed really

18:02 who pays for what.

18:03 So if,

18:05 if Brazil

18:06 takes a huge economic cost of protecting the Amazon,

18:11 but not in the end,

18:11 not in the end,

18:13 um,

18:14 and similarly for all the

18:15 In reduction

18:18 you don't have anything to gain,

18:20 yeah.

18:21 But they're not contributors to the it's nice they have everything.

18:29 So these,

18:30 these are,

18:31 and then the,

18:31 the big,

18:32 big item on the agenda is private family compensation

18:37 yeah

18:37 and I can hear the IFC

18:42 then we can bring in capital and

18:44 goods,

18:44 but we need to look at the a lot of people to

18:49 the non-public good agendas.

18:54 Responsible for much of what we need to fight against,

18:56 yeah,

18:59 the

18:59 private sector is not

19:03 definitely not

19:05 why should be

19:07 in a way that should

19:08 beyond this.

19:10 Oh wait.

19:10 Oh wait,

19:11 one more question just Patrick,

19:12 is that a guest?

19:13 Oh yeah,

19:14 OK,

19:14 great.

19:14 So it's so it's,

19:15 that's

19:25 perfect.

19:25 OK,

19:25 so you to sign it's like.

19:27 In terms of de-risking,

19:30 do you wanna know how the microphones work?

19:32 these little,

19:32 little bottles right here.

32:22 I

32:23 notice that we were on

32:29 Good afternoon everyone and uh wonderful to have you here.

32:32 Thank you everyone for joining online as well.

32:35 I am,

32:35 uh,

32:36 very happy to have,

32:37 uh,

32:37 my very good friend Ute Clammert

32:39 from the WFP.

32:40 She is the deputy executive director for Partnerships and

32:44 advocacy advocacy,

32:46 yes,

32:47 uh,

32:48 together with her team,

32:49 um,

32:50 with the WFP.

32:52 The World Bank has a long-standing partnership with the WFP

32:56 where we collaborate in very fragile context,

32:58 in contexts where the World Bank cannot even

33:00 put a foot in.

33:01 The WFP is the largest

33:03 UN agency

33:05 and,

33:06 uh,

33:06 I just learned that they doubled,

33:09 they doubled,

33:10 um,

33:11 their,

33:11 uh,

33:12 funding

33:13 and therefore their ability to

33:15 uh

33:16 reach out in,

33:17 uh,

33:18 these

33:18 days of great.

33:21 Uh,

33:21 very challenging days,

33:23 uh,

33:23 we're looking at.

33:26 A combination of crisis from pandemics to conflict,

33:29 um,

33:30 to environmental,

33:32 um,

33:33 Uh,

33:34 shocks,

33:35 and the WFP is really at the center of it all and a very,

33:39 very good partner to the World Bank,

33:40 um,

33:41 working with World Bank projects

33:43 and,

33:44 uh,

33:44 operating in areas where sometimes there is no government,

33:49 uh,

33:49 sometimes there are no structures to deliver programs,

33:52 and the WFP goes in with their own,

33:55 uh,

33:55 staff and,

33:56 uh,

33:57 um,

33:58 operations to deliver,

33:59 uh.

34:00 And save lives

34:02 and really provide that uh

34:05 safety net and social protection

34:07 that is needed in those crises.

34:09 I,

34:10 I wanna say that.

34:12 Kind of this old idea

34:14 that

34:15 all these

34:16 uh

34:17 transfers and support structures for vulnerable people in vulnerable situations

34:24 was considered a giveaway for a very long time

34:27 and I think

34:28 the partnership that we have from

34:30 the knowledge side,

34:32 knowledge for impact side with WFP.

34:34 And with many others with the social protection and jobs,

34:38 global practice in the World Bank,

34:39 but also with many other partners

34:42 is to understand what the social protection

34:45 interventions can do,

34:48 not

34:48 just to protect during vulnerable time but actually.

34:52 Uh,

34:53 putting down a stepping stone for communities to grow,

34:57 change their

34:58 productive capabilities,

35:00 and actually reduce poverty now

35:03 and in a persistent way,

35:05 um,

35:06 and so the,

35:07 the partnership that we have established with

35:09 WFP since 2019

35:13 has been really geared to understand

35:15 what can we learn from,

35:17 uh,

35:17 world,

35:17 um,

35:18 world.

35:19 Uh,

35:19 food program programming on the ground

35:22 and how we can incorporate the learning

35:24 as we transition into

35:26 government social protection systems,

35:28 what it is that we can do to kind of strengthen that transition

35:32 and support governments,

35:34 incorporate all the learning

35:37 and,

35:37 um,

35:38 and provide for much better systems for,

35:40 as I said,

35:41 poverty reduction

35:42 and economic growth.

35:45 I think this is

35:45 very good news,

35:47 uh,

35:47 very good news

35:48 that,

35:49 uh,

35:49 cash transfer program

35:51 and asset transfer

35:53 can actually provide

35:55 something for the future that is

35:58 important and persistent,

36:00 that it is,

36:01 as I said,

36:01 not just a giveaway,

36:03 and of course giveaways are important when

36:05 people are in very vulnerable situations and

36:08 are,

36:10 uh.

36:11 But kind of understanding that these are investments for the future and they have

36:16 uh

36:16 high cost effectiveness

36:18 can transform the way in which we think about um

36:21 these programs and also the amount of resources that we

36:25 raise and,

36:26 and,

36:27 and put out in this situation.

36:29 So

36:31 I'm very happy to say our program has

36:34 um

36:36 Has a very interesting um

36:40 spread across multiple countries in,

36:43 in fragile conditions.

36:44 I think we're covering now 13 countries in

36:47 this um impact evaluation program with the WFP,

36:51 but there are many,

36:51 many more that are in

36:53 part of our program with uh SPJ

36:57 and uh even with,

36:58 uh,

36:59 we have here Rui from uh Education.

37:02 Um,

37:02 we're going to talk today about

37:05 how

37:06 we're thinking

37:07 about impact evaluation,

37:09 not just providing the evidence needed

37:11 to show how effective

37:13 these interventions

37:14 can be,

37:15 but also working on how to maximize the impact of these interventions

37:20 through what we today call

37:22 a trial and adopt model,

37:25 and the trial and adopt model is designed

37:27 to test.

37:29 Alternatives,

37:31 delivery mechanisms,

37:32 packages,

37:33 uh,

37:33 to understand how to

37:36 Optimize parameters like prices and incentives,

37:39 uh,

37:40 how to improve targeting and so forth and so on

37:43 to maximize the impact of our interventions.

37:46 What we show in our experience in the last 15 years

37:49 is

37:50 that we can actually double coverage

37:53 by understanding how to

37:56 find the most cost effective interventions

37:59 and double coverage means.

38:01 Doubling

38:03 the amount of

38:04 essentially doubling the amount of money that we put out,

38:08 so this is very,

38:08 very exciting and then we wanna hear from you,

38:11 Ute,

38:11 how you view,

38:13 uh,

38:14 well.

38:15 This program,

38:16 the value of knowledge,

38:17 but also

38:19 kind of

38:20 looking forward

38:21 on how we can build even stronger structures between WFP and the World Bank

38:25 to move together in this agenda.

38:27 Yeah,

38:28 yeah,

38:28 thank you,

38:29 Ariana.

38:30 Uh,

38:30 so nice to be here.

38:32 I have to say it feels always a little bit

38:33 like coming home because we started here in this building,

38:36 you know,

38:37 uh,

38:37 meeting us,

38:38 but I've just learned that we have a historic

38:40 relationship,

38:41 you know,

38:42 uh,

38:42 you know,

38:44 long before we started,

38:45 and we started apparently on the,

38:47 on the school meal side.

38:48 So that's also good to know that's also knowledge,

38:50 no.

38:51 But I have to say what you said,

38:53 uh,

38:53 try and adopt model.

38:54 It feels at the moment,

38:56 uh,

38:56 working for WFP that the whole organization is like a try and adopt model,

39:01 right?

39:02 We are on a huge transformation journey as an

39:05 organization and some of you in the room,

39:08 maybe you're thinking of WFP or also online.

39:12 Uh,

39:12 you're thinking about,

39:13 you know,

39:14 you hear WFP and you think humanitarian intervention,

39:16 right?

39:17 The humanitarian agency.

39:18 Yes,

39:19 we are the largest humanitarian operator and also in charge

39:22 for the logistical side for the whole UN system,

39:25 but I,

39:25 you know,

39:26 and someone asking you,

39:27 how are you doing?

39:27 And,

39:28 and I said,

39:28 you know,

39:29 we are stressed as an organization,

39:31 really stressed and stretched.

39:32 You can imagine Turkey.

39:34 Turkey,

39:35 uh,

39:35 you know,

39:36 Syria,

39:36 you know,

39:37 you feel immediately,

39:38 oh my God,

39:39 no,

39:39 you know,

39:40 we have to respond and we have to in a way distribute immediately on the spot,

39:45 also in areas where other organizations

39:48 cannot

39:50 have no access,

39:50 so that's,

39:51 that's fine,

39:52 but

39:53 Uh,

39:53 that's our mandate,

39:54 but on the other hand,

39:55 you know,

39:56 the humanitarian needs are going up.

39:58 Um,

39:58 we are starting talking about poly crisis,

40:01 uh,

40:01 that was suggested by the,

40:03 uh,

40:04 by In Davos,

40:05 but,

40:05 you know,

40:06 really talking about this over,

40:08 you know,

40:08 these different layers of,

40:10 of,

40:10 of crisis and

40:12 what does that mean for us,

40:13 Ariana?

40:14 We,

40:14 we are very realistic that,

40:17 uh,

40:17 you know,

40:17 as much as we are successful with our fundraising,

40:20 we will never get enough

40:22 funds and financial support

40:24 to address the,

40:26 you know,

40:26 the increase of needs,

40:27 right?

40:28 So the question is this try and adopt model is a really

40:31 Suggesting,

40:32 and also our strategic plan is now suggesting saying,

40:35 you know,

40:35 what are

40:36 kind of good interventions where we can prove and tell the story

40:40 that there are different interventions,

40:43 you know,

40:43 making a difference in the life of people and we

40:46 are achieving with the same amount of support we get.

40:49 We are,

40:49 you know,

40:50 we are achieving more,

40:51 we are,

40:51 we are,

40:51 you know,

40:52 on,

40:52 on the qualities element,

40:54 you know,

40:55 the,

40:56 the feedback is

40:57 we are better,

40:58 you know,

40:58 we are more efficient,

40:59 we are more effective,

41:01 we are listening more,

41:02 we are getting that kind of

41:03 targeting better,

41:04 we are listening to different target groups and,

41:06 and,

41:07 and

41:08 so,

41:08 I would say,

41:09 you know,

41:10 this huge transformation journey

41:12 is

41:13 now reflecting everything what we do,

41:15 including the evaluation.

41:17 We,

41:17 we set up a new evaluation strategy.

41:19 We created an impact evaluation unit.

41:23 I have to say very frankly,

41:24 not everyone was immediately buying into that.

41:30 I fell in love with impact evaluation and you know,

41:33 and

41:34 so I guess I don't know exactly uh where we are with that kind of,

41:37 you know,

41:38 making friends and dating with the,

41:40 with the impact evaluation.

41:42 But I feel,

41:43 you know,

41:44 what is very conducive to for that we are for everyone falling

41:48 in love with impact evaluation is also the pressure from donors,

41:52 right?

41:53 And correctly so.

41:54 I mean,

41:54 also,

41:55 uh,

41:56 uh,

41:57 the US is a huge donor,

41:58 mainly

42:00 funding our humanitarian side,

42:02 but there is also that kind of strong wish to

42:05 understand what we can do better on the humanitarian.

42:08 Response,

42:09 but also what we can do better,

42:11 and there's a lot of,

42:12 you know,

42:12 other donors in particular Germany,

42:14 uh,

42:15 but some of the Nordics,

42:16 Australia,

42:17 you know,

42:18 really asking

42:19 for that kind of evidence and the knowledge.

42:22 And I have to say,

42:23 and I,

42:23 I want to share that also,

42:24 you know,

42:25 from my,

42:25 from my job perspective,

42:27 this year,

42:28 but in particular next year will be a tough year

42:30 because we will see a lot of donors focusing on the Ukraine response.

42:35 And then the question is,

42:37 there is a holy crisis.

42:38 out there.

42:39 There is a global food security and a malnutrition

42:42 crisis out there.

42:43 How are we alerting the

42:45 international

42:46 community,

42:47 us,

42:48 you know,

42:48 that,

42:48 that we,

42:49 that we have to think really about the Myanmar's,

42:52 about the Iraq's,

42:53 uh,

42:54 um,

42:55 Afghanistan,

42:56 you know,

42:56 and also Kenya,

42:57 who is talking about Kenya these days,

42:59 Ariana,

43:00 you know,

43:00 the refugee influx from.

43:02 Somalia

43:03 or the refugee influx from from Mali to Mauritania.

43:07 So and that that is,

43:08 that is our,

43:09 I would say that's our,

43:10 our challenge,

43:11 uh,

43:12 that we also enable our,

43:14 you know,

43:14 our donors,

43:15 our long standing donors,

43:17 but also our new donors going back to parliaments

43:20 also enabling think tanks that they are talking about us,

43:23 what we,

43:24 what we are achieving now.

43:26 So,

43:26 and I,

43:27 as you can imagine,

43:28 you know,

43:28 the,

43:28 the whole transformation journey is.

43:31 is very exciting,

43:33 but it's also a little bit of a bumpy road,

43:35 because once you are operating on the humanitarian side,

43:37 you measure,

43:38 you measure activity and you measure,

43:41 you measure

43:42 the output element.

43:43 But to move the needle to outcomes and impact,

43:46 you know,

43:47 not everyone was immediately falling in love with that kind of intervention.

43:52 So,

43:53 or that

43:54 that kind of corridor.

43:56 So what I've learned

43:57 reading,

43:57 uh,

43:58 you know,

43:58 from my,

43:59 you know,

44:00 from a really nice colleague from OECD Duck,

44:03 uh,

44:03 Susana Moorehead on her way out,

44:05 no,

44:05 she gave a very interesting interview and I've learned one word from her.

44:09 She said,

44:09 you know,

44:09 I guess when I'm looking back,

44:11 what is,

44:12 what is needed is strategic patience.

44:15 Yeah,

44:15 and I love that,

44:17 you know,

44:17 you need,

44:18 you need,

44:18 you need strategic patience

44:21 for,

44:21 you know,

44:21 that sta that your strategic investments in an organization,

44:25 I guess the same in the world at the World Bank

44:28 will pay off and that we,

44:30 that we have time,

44:31 that we give us time to see the,

44:33 the,

44:33 the long,

44:34 uh,

44:34 midterm,

44:35 long term,

44:35 um,

44:36 uh,

44:37 effects.

44:37 And I,

44:38 and you,

44:38 you,

44:39 you mentioned that we are,

44:40 you know,

44:41 on this,

44:41 on this transformation journey.

44:43 You know,

44:44 from the humanitarian side,

44:45 cash-based transfers,

44:46 school-based programs.

44:49 In a humanitarian context have to lead

44:52 in the long run to social protection,

44:54 you know,

44:55 systems

44:56 and social protection kind of visions and ideas,

45:00 you know,

45:00 in,

45:00 in so many different country setups,

45:02 uh,

45:03 food assistance and food for asset.

45:05 I don't like these headlines,

45:07 no,

45:07 but

45:07 food assistance

45:09 has to in a way move into rural,

45:11 uh,

45:12 rural and economic development,

45:13 right?

45:14 And then,

45:15 uh,

45:15 our disaster risk reduction and response has to

45:18 get into the whole domain of climate adaptation.

45:21 So these are all these kind of next,

45:24 you're walking over the nexus bridge,

45:25 walking from a humanitarian intervention

45:28 and having in mind immediately like in Turkey and,

45:31 and Syria at the moment,

45:32 yes,

45:33 we have to do immediately in the here and now,

45:35 but we have to think about

45:37 the long term,

45:38 uh,

45:39 perspective.

45:40 And in that context,

45:42 I have to say it's great as an organization that we feel that the

45:46 World Bank is seeing us more and more as as a strategic partner.

45:50 It's not about,

45:51 you know,

45:51 who is,

45:52 you know,

45:53 funding whom.

45:54 It's we are,

45:54 we're ending up hopefully doing kind of joint funding for our,

45:58 for our next 4 years if we sign the MOU.

46:02 So we went,

46:02 we are very clear,

46:04 we,

46:04 we want to walk a longer period.

46:06 Together we want to have

46:08 strategic patience together,

46:10 Ariana,

46:10 you know,

46:11 um,

46:12 but we also,

46:15 we also want to too much not too much pressure,

46:16 but we want to also listen and celebrate what

46:19 we know already and we agreed on 4 windows,

46:22 and I'm glad that we are moving the needle.

46:24 Thank you very much and congratulations that you managed to get a

46:27 stand-alone department.

46:29 That's great.

46:29 I think the group deserved it.

46:31 The topic deserved it.

46:32 And we are absolutely happy to be part of your journey as well.

46:37 Uh,

46:37 I also hope that we can,

46:39 uh,

46:39 get approved for the spring meeting event,

46:42 and that will be a very interesting event exactly on,

46:45 on this subject.

46:48 So I guess

46:49 we,

46:49 uh,

46:50 so thank you very much.

46:51 I,

46:52 I think this is,

46:53 uh,

46:53 a great ride,

46:54 and I really like the way you,

46:56 you,

46:57 uh,

46:57 drew out the connections between

47:00 the humanitarian and emergency response side together with the developmental

47:04 one and how do we create the knowledge to actually

47:07 make those linkages,

47:09 um,

47:10 um.

47:11 Uh,

47:12 and develop those linkages in a way that

47:14 makes sense.

47:15 I want to hear from,

47:17 uh,

47:18 uh-huh,

47:19 Jonas.

47:19 He's,

47:19 uh,

47:20 our

47:20 old partner from many years in many different roles,

47:24 um,

47:24 but of course he came to WFP to support the launch of this program,

47:29 uh,

47:29 which has been,

47:30 uh,

47:31 uh,

47:32 really wonderful.

47:33 Great.

47:33 Thank you.

47:33 Thank you,

47:34 thank you.

47:35 So it's really nice to be here with you all today.

47:38 I'm going to,

47:39 over the next few minutes,

47:40 just give a brief introduction to the Impacttuation partnership

47:43 that we have developed over the last 4 years,

47:46 and then I'm gonna hand it over to our colleagues in DIMU working on specific

47:50 windows to talk about some of the early findings

47:53 from the work that we've already been putting together.

47:56 So,

47:57 before actually this partnership and before 2019,

48:00 impact evaluation was not

48:02 part of WFP's evaluation policy.

48:05 Um,

48:07 and that,

48:07 and,

48:08 and it was really,

48:09 um,

48:10 actually in 2019 when we

48:12 actually developed a strategy for impact evaluation and started

48:14 working with DM and with our German colleagues and donors

48:18 to think about how do we make impact evaluation a core part of WFP business

48:22 and it was a slow and,

48:24 well,

48:24 not that slow,

48:24 but a steady and gradual progress and then last year in 2022.

48:29 The board approved the new evaluation policy that makes impact evaluation,

48:33 uh,

48:33 a part of the institutional evaluation policy as a stand-alone type of evaluation.

48:38 So,

48:38 the board's policy,

48:39 which they approved for the whole organization has centralized evaluations,

48:43 impact evaluations,

48:44 and decentralized evaluations.

48:46 Um,

48:46 this gave us the,

48:47 the chance to create a unit.

48:49 It also means that we have core staff dedicated to impact evaluation.

48:53 And across the organization people are talking about

48:56 when and how they should use impact evaluation to support their programming,

49:00 support their fundraising,

49:01 support their thinking,

49:02 um,

49:02 and so it's becoming slowly,

49:04 it is becoming kind of part of WFP's business as usual.

49:07 I mean,

49:08 it's slow,

49:08 but it is going that way,

49:10 um,

49:11 so

49:12 I'm excited about that.

49:13 That's already,

49:13 I think,

49:14 a big shift organizationally over a relatively short time.

49:18 Um,

49:18 we define impact evaluations a bit narrowly,

49:21 and that's to again.

49:23 show how they complement other types of evidence and evaluation.

49:26 So for us,

49:27 impact evaluations,

49:28 they measure changes in development outcomes that

49:30 can be attributed to a credible counterfactual.

49:33 So all the impact issues we do are really thinking about counterfactual analysis,

49:37 what is a credible counterfactual?

49:39 Um,

49:39 so far,

49:40 that means we've

49:41 developed mostly using experimental methods,

49:43 so all of them have an a randomization as a core part of the design at this point,

49:48 but we also acknowledge there are other ways to develop credible counterfactuals.

49:54 Um,

49:55 early on,

49:55 we looked for how would we do this in a,

49:57 in a setting that,

49:59 um,

49:59 we have a very large organization,

50:01 a lot of need,

50:01 a lot of demand,

50:02 and we,

50:03 we had a very,

50:03 I mean,

50:04 very small unit to start off with and,

50:06 and it's still small in WFP so

50:08 partnering with DIN was a like a very strategic decision from the beginning.

50:12 Um,

50:12 it's also good timing because the year before in 2018,

50:16 the organizations had already agreed that there was a need for

50:19 operationally to have this global partnership between World Bank and WFP.

50:23 And so we piggybacked on that and said,

50:25 well,

50:25 they have DIME,

50:26 which is a,

50:26 a very well established development um impact tuation unit,

50:30 and we would work with them

50:31 and,

50:32 and so the 1st

50:33 4 years have really been working with DINM to

50:35 learn from their experience in terms of methods and,

50:38 and design,

50:39 um,

50:40 and also generating evidence that really met WFP's strategic priority needs.

50:45 Um,

50:46 so that's,

50:46 I think,

50:47 been a nice way of working together,

50:49 and I think that,

50:50 I mean,

50:50 the new MOU allows us to continue,

50:51 which is,

50:52 which is great.

50:54 When we thought about the amount of evidence needs that were there,

50:57 it is actually,

50:58 it's very large.

50:59 I mean,

51:00 WFP operates in contexts that have

51:02 very few rigorous impact evaluations to reference

51:05 in sectors that are also

51:07 almost void of,

51:07 of rigorous impact evaluation evidence.

51:09 So it's,

51:09 it's,

51:09 it's,

51:09 it's almost an endless amount of stuff we could have done.

51:12 So we had to be strategic in how we organize our work.

51:15 We started off working closely with program divisions in

51:18 the WFP and thought about what are their strategies,

51:20 where do they see their increase in spending?

51:23 And then we paired that with literature reviews to say,

51:25 OK,

51:25 you're expecting to grow in terms of cash transfers and this is your,

51:29 your objectives to target women.

51:32 What can we learn about that?

51:33 How can we make that growth in cash transfers

51:36 better by learning while we're doing?

51:37 And so,

51:38 we've designed these windows to focus on areas that were high value

51:42 future spend

51:43 and uh not heavily supported with evidence that we could already readily use.

51:48 Then cross-cutting,

51:49 we have this workstream on humanitarian impactation,

51:51 which is supported heavily by the US and BHA

51:54 which is more about context.

51:55 So,

51:56 if we're working in very fragile areas or in emergency responses,

51:59 we also have to tweak the way we work.

52:01 So we have to think about

52:02 maybe it's actually more about experimenting with the modalities,

52:05 or AB testing type of designs.

52:07 And so we have a whole workstream on how do we operate in this context.

52:11 Mm

52:12 Um,

52:13 and we've been busy.

52:14 I mean,

52:14 we,

52:15 we have,

52:15 uh,

52:17 130,

52:18 but 18 overall right now.

52:19 And that's before we launched the nutrition window this year.

52:21 So we're very,

52:22 very busy in,

52:23 in many countries.

52:24 Um,

52:25 each of the windows

52:26 is supporting multi-country designs and,

52:29 and the,

52:29 I mean,

52:30 Clarence and,

52:30 and Paul will talk about those.

52:32 Um,

52:32 but

52:33 we're also coming to the end of the first few.

52:35 So we,

52:35 the,

52:35 the earliest ones were in El Salvador,

52:37 Kenya,

52:37 Rwanda,

52:38 uh,

52:39 Mali,

52:39 ***,

52:39 and,

52:40 and South Sudan.

52:41 And

52:41 we just finished our end lines for El

52:43 Salvador and do now doing the qualitative works,

52:46 but I'm gonna play a short video

52:48 from the country representative just

52:50 talking about his experience.

52:54 Yes.

52:56 Women and men do not have equal access to economic opportunities.

53:01 They also don't have equal levels of autonomy.

53:04 These gaps are unjust and also economically inefficient.

53:09 With the impacts evaluation,

53:11 we are seeking to produce evidence

53:13 on the question whether targeting women

53:16 and having them participate in.

53:19 Food assistance for assets programming

53:21 has an impact on their social and economic empowerment.

53:25 The process of uh

53:27 the impact evaluation was a great learning experience.

53:31 Particularly,

53:32 it offered great collaboration and frequent

53:34 exchanges between the Country Office,

53:36 the Office of devaluation,

53:38 and the World Bank.

53:40 It also showed a strong commitment to evidence-based decision making.

53:44 The team effort and the open communication helped

53:48 to ensure a thorough and comprehensive evaluation.

53:52 Also,

53:53 uh,

53:54 it helped

53:55 in a way that the future evaluations can be

53:58 even more effective and efficient.

54:01 We look forward to exploring new focus areas for impact evaluation

54:05 jointly with the Office of Evaluation

54:07 and its partners.

54:09 Some of them include

54:10 targeting.

54:11 For instance,

54:12 focus on exploring the use of new data sources

54:16 and innovative targeting methods.

54:19 For example,

54:19 comparing data driven to more community-based methods,

54:23 which will help

54:24 reach

54:25 the most vulnerable communities

54:28 in a more efficient way.

54:32 Great.

54:32 And so,

54:33 I mean,

54:33 I,

54:33 I think it's nice just to have that for a minute because

54:36 it's very easy for me and I and everybody to tell you how great evaluation is,

54:40 but it's also nice to hear it from people who

54:42 don't live and breathe evaluation every day.

54:46 Um,

54:46 and then just lastly before I hand it over,

54:48 I,

54:49 so I say that the work is,

54:50 is really only possible because of partnerships.

54:52 It,

54:52 it's,

54:53 it's our donor partners which is growing.

54:55 I mean,

54:55 we get supported by Germany,

54:57 COICA,

54:57 USA,

54:58 NORAD.

54:58 They're all supporting the work that we do.

55:00 It's also our implementing partners and we have joint impactations actually

55:04 on the ground with UNICEF in South Sudan and South Sudan.

55:07 Um,

55:07 and we've got a growing network of NGO and university

55:10 partners that feed in in terms of offering technical advice,

55:13 engaging in our work in different ways.

55:14 So I just want to make it clear that that's a very important part of how we

55:18 And so

55:19 without further ado,

55:20 I think I'm gonna hand it over now.

55:22 Oh,

55:23 and then looking forward,

55:24 looking forward,

55:25 um,

55:26 we,

55:26 we have big ambitions.

55:27 We'd like to actually make sure that the

55:29 evidence we've generated already is really used.

55:32 I mean,

55:32 it's nice that the country office sees it,

55:34 but we wanna make sure it's visible globally,

55:36 that it has an impact on the way WFP and the World Bank operates,

55:39 um,

55:40 in terms of understanding the context and targeting and issues that come out.

55:43 We also want to work together to raise the

55:45 awareness of the tool of impact evaluation that this is

55:49 part of core business.

55:50 If you can and you have an opportunity,

55:51 it,

55:51 it benefits the whole organization to do it more so to make it kind of

55:55 business as usual.

55:56 Um,

55:57 and then we also want to think about how to

55:59 identify mutual priorities for the World Bank and WFP,

56:02 particularly where we already operate together in,

56:05 in countries and,

56:06 and,

56:06 and

56:06 Sectors,

56:07 why,

56:08 what are you gonna focus on that we could both benefit from most going forward

56:12 and that

56:13 would allow us to have maybe a,

56:15 a,

56:15 a more mutual

56:16 agenda and then have the windows also

56:19 be fed by impactations of both the World Bank operations and

56:22 WFP operations as we go ahead so we're learning from each other

56:26 as we go forward in the next phase of the evidence generation.

56:30 OK,

56:30 now I will hand it over to.

56:38 Uh,

56:38 thank you,

56:39 Jonas,

56:39 Sannua,

56:40 and Norea for the excellent introduction and the exciting agenda.

56:43 I'm really happy to be here,

56:45 uh,

56:45 today in the role of getting

56:48 to share on behalf of the many collaborators,

56:50 researchers,

56:50 uh,

56:51 and partners what this impact evaluation process looks like in practice

56:55 and how countries are using this evidence and learning from this process,

56:59 and you are Paul Christian and I am pro Christian.

57:01 I'm sorry.

57:02 I'm Paul Christian,

57:03 a senior economist at I'm working on the climate and resilience window.

57:06 So happy to be here to,

57:08 to get to share,

57:09 uh,

57:09 what this looks like and,

57:11 uh,

57:11 some of the learning and results we're starting to find so far.

57:15 Um,

57:15 so,

57:15 in the climate resilience window,

57:17 we're going to be asking questions related to how the food for assets,

57:21 uh,

57:21 and related approaches,

57:23 integrated livelihood approaches

57:24 improve resilience.

57:25 So,

57:25 if you're here today,

57:26 it's probably because you have lots of experience and,

57:29 uh,

57:29 and like looking at data on poverty,

57:32 vulnerability,

57:33 and food security.

57:34 So all of us with that background

57:36 understand that these are inherently dynamic concepts.

57:38 People who are Food insecure today might not be the same

57:41 as those who are food insecure tomorrow and vice versa.

57:44 So as we expand these concepts

57:46 to talk about resilience,

57:47 we can think about people,

57:49 communities,

57:50 uh,

57:50 and populations being more resilient.

57:52 If,

57:53 for example,

57:53 their livelihood strategies are well adapted to their environments,

57:56 allowing them to achieve,

57:58 uh,

57:59 a good level of food security or,

58:01 or,

58:01 uh,

58:01 well-being over time.

58:03 Uh,

58:03 but also that they're able to avoid changes in their environment.

58:07 So avoid the impacts of shocks and stressors

58:09 and hopefully transform and improve their well-being or

58:12 food security or poverty status over time.

58:15 When we think about what we can do about these concepts,

58:18 uh,

58:18 we're going to be focusing within the,

58:20 the two windows we're presenting today

58:22 on the impact of food for assets and related integrated livelihoods programs

58:27 which,

58:27 uh,

58:29 the main components include providing cash or food

58:32 as transfers in a part of the year in exchange for

58:36 recipients working on community assets that

58:38 intended to improve livelihood opportunities.

58:41 And,

58:42 uh,

58:42 as was already highlighted,

58:43 these are huge programs,

58:45 uh,

58:45 affecting,

58:46 um,

58:47 tens of millions of people in the food for assets case in over 50 countries.

58:51 Uh,

58:51 and if you expand the,

58:52 the findings to include cash transfers,

58:54 now we're talking about more than 40 million people in 60 countries.

58:57 So huge,

58:58 uh,

58:58 chunk of what the WFP and humanitarian agencies are.

59:03 So,

59:04 following on previous work,

59:05 finding that programs like FFA or transfers uh more broadly

59:10 uh and related programming can overall improve food security,

59:14 in thinking about this from a climate or resilience lens,

59:17 we're gonna be,

59:18 uh,

59:19 expanding to ask questions like whether we see the biggest impacts in the seasons,

59:23 uh,

59:24 when FFA is implemented,

59:25 knowing that,

59:26 uh,

59:27 seasons drive a lot of changes in context for these livelihood opportunities.

59:31 Whether the impacts on food security are the biggest before,

59:33 during,

59:34 or after shocks

59:35 and specifically how

59:38 programs like FFA or related livelihoods programs can take advantage

59:41 in terms of timing or targeting in order to maximize the impact of these programs.

59:46 So because a big part of the contribution of this

59:50 window is on the data side bringing novel unique data,

59:52 I just wanted to highlight for one or two minutes,

59:55 uh,

59:55 what the unique approach to data is here and I have a question of

59:58 why high frequency data specifically is important

1:00:01 for understanding this core concept of resilience.

1:00:03 So if we think about what we would do in a normal

1:00:06 uh impact evaluation,

1:00:07 we think about

1:00:08 the first thing we might do is do our,

1:00:10 our baseline survey in the first couple of months

1:00:12 and following the baseline survey,

1:00:14 uh,

1:00:15 do our core programming,

1:00:16 providing transfers and asking households to work on,

1:00:19 uh,

1:00:20 contribute their labor to work on,

1:00:22 uh,

1:00:23 developing assets

1:00:24 and maybe do this for a couple of cycles allowing them to receive their

1:00:27 full dose and then we'd come in and we do our end line.

1:00:30 And by comparing changes from baseline to endline and if we're careful

1:00:34 comparing those changes with a control group who hasn't had access to the program,

1:00:37 we would say this is,

1:00:39 these changes are

1:00:40 quote-unquote,

1:00:41 the impact of the program of food for assets and food security.

1:00:45 But we all know from working in

1:00:46 these challenging contexts in these rural livelihood settings

1:00:49 that many other things are changing between the baseline

1:00:52 and the endline besides our transfers and our,

1:00:54 our asset work.

1:00:56 So there's gonna be agricultural calendars,

1:00:57 people are gonna be busy with planting,

1:00:59 cultivation and harvesting,

1:01:00 overlapping with the periods of when we're doing FFA

1:01:04 and there's gonna be shocks.

1:01:05 So if we're,

1:01:06 uh,

1:01:07 considering an impact evaluation that happens over multiple years,

1:01:09 we might observe one year where there's good weather,

1:01:12 uh,

1:01:12 and another year where there's bad weather,

1:01:13 and that might affect or mediate,

1:01:15 uh,

1:01:16 the impact of our program.

1:01:18 So,

1:01:18 the main contribution of this,

1:01:21 uh,

1:01:21 this

1:01:23 data collection effort that we're able to realize through these,

1:01:25 these partnerships,

1:01:26 uh,

1:01:26 described

1:01:27 so far in the presentation

1:01:28 is being able to bring high frequency data to this.

1:01:31 So,

1:01:31 each of the,

1:01:32 the countries were,

1:01:33 uh,

1:01:34 including the climate resilience window are going to be doing at least 10 rounds

1:01:37 of high frequency data collection,

1:01:39 allowing us to understand not just one impact from baseline to endline,

1:01:42 but the multiple impacts realized throughout the course of the evaluation.

1:01:46 And the last exciting piece of this is,

1:01:49 uh,

1:01:49 doing coordinated evaluations across the most important contexts.

1:01:52 So the climate resilience window

1:01:54 includes ***,

1:01:55 Mali,

1:01:55 South Sudan,

1:01:56 and Rwanda,

1:01:57 allowing us to compare communities with these types

1:01:59 of resilience livelihood support against communities that don't,

1:02:02 collecting data from over 300 communities and 10,000 households,

1:02:05 each with over 10

1:02:07 high frequency surveys.

1:02:09 So,

1:02:09 what does this look like?

1:02:10 We're gonna zoom in on the case of *** to provide a flavor for what

1:02:13 the impact evaluation learning looks like uh in the short time we have today.

1:02:18 So,

1:02:18 uh,

1:02:18 in our first high-frequency round we did just after

1:02:21 programming started in *** in May of 2021,

1:02:24 when we compare the food security of

1:02:26 the group receiving resilience livelihood programs through FFA

1:02:30 against the control group who didn't,

1:02:31 we can measure the impact,

1:02:33 the early impact

1:02:34 of this program on food security.

1:02:36 So the fact that this dot comes above the red zero line

1:02:39 means

1:02:40 good news.

1:02:41 Uh,

1:02:41 WFP's programming is improving food security over the

1:02:44 control group who's not receiving those programs.

1:02:46 But if we're interested in dynamic impacts and how this

1:02:49 changes over time as we go through seasons and shocks,

1:02:52 we're interested in whether this impact is gonna grow,

1:02:54 shrink,

1:02:54 or change over time.

1:02:56 So when we started to measure

1:02:57 multiple rounds and see these impacts evolve,

1:03:00 as people

1:03:01 continue to receive their transfers and we move into the main agricultural season,

1:03:05 we started to see a surprising finding at first,

1:03:07 but the impacts were getting smaller over time,

1:03:10 uh,

1:03:10 and shrinking as we moved into the main season.

1:03:13 But then as we finished our first cycle of FFFA programming,

1:03:16 so people have received their full transfers and we moved

1:03:19 out of the ad season into the post-harvest season,

1:03:22 we saw that impacts emerged uh and became positive on food security.

1:03:28 So this at first prompted the question,

1:03:30 um,

1:03:31 after the first few rounds,

1:03:32 is this improvement we're seeing

1:03:34 just spurious or are we gonna see this again?

1:03:36 So the high frequency data allows us to fast forward our movie

1:03:40 on impacts,

1:03:41 um,

1:03:42 following,

1:03:43 uh,

1:03:43 a 2nd round of transfers and following the 2nd agricultural season,

1:03:46 and we see the same pattern here in *** emerge

1:03:49 where the impacts were getting smaller as we moved into the 2nd cycle

1:03:53 and into the main agricultural season.

1:03:55 But then reappeared uh at the end of the,

1:03:58 the,

1:03:59 uh,

1:03:59 cycle and moving out of the post-harvest season.

1:04:02 So what did we,

1:04:03 we learned from this,

1:04:04 uh,

1:04:04 first cycle of high frequency surveys in ***?

1:04:08 There's this consistent pattern that's,

1:04:10 uh,

1:04:10 impacts were the same,

1:04:11 concentrated in the,

1:04:13 in particular parts of the year and repeated,

1:04:15 uh,

1:04:15 pattern over time.

1:04:17 Uh,

1:04:17 what does this tell us?

1:04:19 It tells us that there may be a role of seasonality or timing of the,

1:04:22 of the impacts relative to the FFA cycles.

1:04:25 And so thinking about what's happening in

1:04:27 these particular seasons and what we're doing

1:04:29 and how we're targeting these seasons may

1:04:31 be important for maximizing these impacts.

1:04:33 Being able to see the impacts over two years

1:04:36 also helps us start to separate the role of seasonality from the role of shocks.

1:04:39 So for example,

1:04:40 seeing that the impact is similar

1:04:42 in 2022,

1:04:43 which was a relatively normal agricultural year compared to 2021,

1:04:47 where there were rainfall failures,

1:04:49 tells us that the,

1:04:50 the role of seasonality on this particular measure

1:04:53 might be dominating the role of shocks,

1:04:55 at least as experienced in these two roles.

1:04:58 So,

1:04:58 I wanted to wrap up with what does this mean for programming?

1:05:00 What can programming do with novel unique data like this?

1:05:04 First of all,

1:05:05 uh,

1:05:06 on the contribution of the high frequency data,

1:05:07 it tells us that impacts do seem to be changing over time.

1:05:10 So,

1:05:10 if we were not collecting data in this way,

1:05:13 not taking This approach,

1:05:14 we might have made entirely different conclusions based on when we decided to

1:05:18 collect our data and that's gonna be really important for thinking about impact.

1:05:21 So understanding

1:05:22 not just the single impact,

1:05:24 but how impacts change over time is important for understanding

1:05:28 programming like this.

1:05:29 Specific findings that we can learn from

1:05:31 this suggest the influence of seasonality,

1:05:34 which may mean that there are gains to timing.

1:05:36 So really thinking about if we're seeing

1:05:38 impacts come from the post-harvest offseason.

1:05:41 Uh,

1:05:41 when food might be more available but labor opportunities are less,

1:05:45 might be more important for maximizing the impacts.

1:05:48 Also starting to suggest possible gains from targeting,

1:05:50 so seeing the specific profile of households

1:05:53 that drive these patterns,

1:05:55 give us insights into how we can maximize these impacts.

1:05:58 Finding

1:05:59 uh that non-agricultural households have the biggest

1:06:02 impacts in the offseason gives us,

1:06:03 uh,

1:06:04 insights on who we should target

1:06:06 to maximize or Or multiplier impacts.

1:06:08 And finally,

1:06:09 it's contributing to the emerging agenda that Jonas,

1:06:11 uh,

1:06:12 very briefly highlighted

1:06:13 coming out of this resilience window on forecast-based financing.

1:06:16 So thinking,

1:06:17 um,

1:06:18 not just about the chronic,

1:06:19 uh,

1:06:20 cases,

1:06:20 but about the strategic cases where we invest specifically

1:06:23 in the context where there are big shocks,

1:06:26 uh,

1:06:26 at the moment of the shock,

1:06:27 uh,

1:06:28 and understand whether the impacts,

1:06:29 uh,

1:06:30 as measured this way change

1:06:31 in those contexts.

1:06:33 That's a very brief,

1:06:34 uh,

1:06:35 highlight of a lot of work we're doing,

1:06:37 but I,

1:06:37 I wanna make sure we give,

1:06:38 uh,

1:06:39 time to Florence to discuss the gender equality and women's empowerment,

1:06:42 uh,

1:06:42 agenda.

1:06:45 Thank you.

1:06:46 Is it OK to keep going,

1:06:48 or you want to take a break?

1:06:49 or you have a question or any clarification before,

1:06:52 anything you

1:06:54 keep going.

1:06:55 I mean,

1:06:55 we have about discussing.

1:06:58 OK,

1:06:58 that's a beautiful picture of Rwanda.

1:07:02 So,

1:07:02 now I'm gonna switch to the gender window uh results,

1:07:06 uh,

1:07:06 and I titled this Cash that Empowers.

1:07:08 Uh,

1:07:08 there are lots of people in this room,

1:07:10 I mean lots of people,

1:07:10 a handful of people in this room who have contributed

1:07:12 to this work and as well as Paul's work,

1:07:14 we

1:07:15 didn't put their names because then the whole slideshow could be their names,

1:07:18 but,

1:07:18 uh,

1:07:19 thank you for everyone at the World Bank who has contributed to this.

1:07:22 Um,

1:07:23 so,

1:07:23 Cash and Powers,

1:07:24 why this title?

1:07:26 So we know that gender gaps in economic

1:07:28 opportunities and economy and autonomy are pretty large,

1:07:31 right?

1:07:31 So we,

1:07:32 you know,

1:07:32 there are lots of graphs that people

1:07:34 put in a lot of gender reports that show that

1:07:36 women and men do not have equal access to economic opportunities

1:07:39 that can take the form of education,

1:07:42 access to the labor market,

1:07:43 or simply access to,

1:07:45 you know,

1:07:45 making simple decisions,

1:07:47 everyday decisions,

1:07:48 consuming,

1:07:48 uh,

1:07:49 the same share of the,

1:07:51 the household income as,

1:07:52 uh,

1:07:52 their,

1:07:53 their husbands,

1:07:53 things like that.

1:07:54 And this is,

1:07:55 this poses a problem because we know that

1:07:57 men and women make different choices over consumption,

1:07:59 for example.

1:08:00 So

1:08:01 we know from a large amount of data

1:08:03 that women are more likely to spend money

1:08:04 on,

1:08:05 you know,

1:08:06 education,

1:08:07 health,

1:08:07 things like that.

1:08:07 So as we increase

1:08:09 women's autonomy,

1:08:10 we really affect human development uh on a large scale potentially.

1:08:14 Um,

1:08:14 and,

1:08:14 and so

1:08:15 we also think that,

1:08:16 you know,

1:08:17 because of the economic,

1:08:18 uh,

1:08:19 gaps that are created by this lack of investment,

1:08:21 this underinvestment in human development,

1:08:23 etc.

1:08:24 we think these are economically inefficient gaps,

1:08:27 but they're also just unjust,

1:08:28 right?

1:08:29 Women should have as much autonomy and as much,

1:08:31 uh,

1:08:31 economic decision power as men.

1:08:34 So when we started working uh with the WFPN and this is our first uh window idea,

1:08:39 um,

1:08:40 the question from,

1:08:41 from programming,

1:08:42 and I think this is,

1:08:42 we have the same question at the World Bank is,

1:08:44 you know,

1:08:44 can cash transfers which we're implementing on a very large scale

1:08:48 have long lasting impacts on women's empowerment,

1:08:50 right?

1:08:50 What can we do?

1:08:51 And so the gender team,

1:08:52 the cash team,

1:08:53 you know,

1:08:53 really consulted with us.

1:08:55 We did a long

1:08:56 Uh,

1:08:56 you know,

1:08:57 literature review,

1:08:58 uh,

1:08:58 Paul was,

1:08:59 uh,

1:08:59 key part of this with Jonas.

1:09:01 We really reviewed all the literature we had

1:09:03 on linking gender outcomes to cash transfers.

1:09:06 And what we found from this literature review is that,

1:09:08 you know,

1:09:08 just putting cash in a woman's hands that had been

1:09:11 done through the same type of experiments we're presenting today

1:09:15 had no impact really on women's agents.

1:09:18 What we saw though in this data

1:09:19 is that just comparing the impact of putting cash in

1:09:22 a woman's hand versus the impact of earned income.

1:09:25 So when a woman goes out,

1:09:26 works,

1:09:27 makes an income and spends it,

1:09:29 the impacts on autonomy of

1:09:31 working are much larger.

1:09:33 But this is not

1:09:34 a causal evidence,

1:09:35 right?

1:09:36 Maybe these women are working because they have more autonomy to start with.

1:09:38 So all we're picking up is just the fact that

1:09:41 some women are more empowered than others,

1:09:42 and

1:09:43 you know,

1:09:43 it doesn't mean that making them work is going to increase their autonomy.

1:09:48 But that gave us an idea,

1:09:49 right?

1:09:50 What if

1:09:51 making,

1:09:52 I mean,

1:09:52 allowing women

1:09:53 to engage into,

1:09:54 you know,

1:09:55 outside work,

1:09:56 outside home work,

1:09:58 could actually,

1:09:59 you know,

1:09:59 increase their autonomy,

1:10:00 their agency.

1:10:01 And so that is exactly the question that,

1:10:03 that we started to ask,

1:10:04 that started to be formulated and thinking about the programming,

1:10:07 an opportunity came up,

1:10:08 right?

1:10:09 That as Paul described

1:10:10 this uh food assistance,

1:10:12 uh,

1:10:13 food assistance for asset programs really provide this opportunity

1:10:17 of engaging,

1:10:17 engaging women in work that's outside the household.

1:10:21 Which is very atypical to the,

1:10:23 in the countries where we work,

1:10:24 where most women

1:10:25 are providing labor to their farm or through,

1:10:28 you know,

1:10:29 just providing household chores and not just

1:10:31 but providing household chores to the household,

1:10:33 and they have very little,

1:10:34 uh,

1:10:35 you know,

1:10:35 tied to the labor market outside their home.

1:10:37 Uh,

1:10:37 so this is in

1:10:39 similar context as those that Paul described.

1:10:41 We started this window in Haiti,

1:10:42 El Salvador,

1:10:43 Kenya,

1:10:43 Rwanda.

1:10:44 Today I'm going to present some.

1:10:45 Findings from

1:10:46 Rwanda and El Salvador,

1:10:47 which are a little ahead of the other countries,

1:10:49 but we're gonna find very similar findings across these two

1:10:53 very different places.

1:10:54 I mean at baseline we found very different levels of autonomy across this space.

1:10:58 And so that's gonna allow us to generalize these findings

1:11:01 and give you

1:11:02 kind of a programming recommendation that's gonna have,

1:11:04 you know,

1:11:04 implications for,

1:11:05 for the whole programming and not just the developing countries.

1:11:08 So then the research questions are very simple.

1:11:10 That we started to ask,

1:11:11 you know,

1:11:11 what is the impact of engaging in food for asset,

1:11:13 food assistance for assets on women's social and economic empowerment,

1:11:17 as well as,

1:11:18 of course,

1:11:18 the household income because eventually this FFA

1:11:21 as Paul described,

1:11:22 the goal is to increase income,

1:11:24 therefore food security and welfare,

1:11:25 right?

1:11:26 And then the long term question is more,

1:11:28 what is the impact of offering the work

1:11:31 component to women instead of men in the household

1:11:34 on

1:11:35 their social and economic empowerment,

1:11:36 on these women's social and economic empower.

1:11:39 So what do we find?

1:11:40 So during the program,

1:11:41 we find as expected

1:11:44 that FFA improves food security,

1:11:45 the,

1:11:45 you know,

1:11:46 the cash transfer element works,

1:11:47 does its job,

1:11:48 it does it as well as any other,

1:11:51 you know,

1:11:51 cash transfer we can study.

1:11:52 Uh,

1:11:53 we have a large meta-analysis of cash transfer,

1:11:54 we find basically the same,

1:11:56 uh,

1:11:56 effect

1:11:57 and in the,

1:11:57 you know,

1:11:58 in the magnitude of transfer we study

1:12:00 that equivalent,

1:12:01 that's the equivalent of increasing household.

1:12:02 Consumption by 12%.

1:12:04 That's a powerful result.

1:12:06 And when we ask,

1:12:07 uh,

1:12:07 in,

1:12:07 in focus group meetings,

1:12:09 we asked,

1:12:09 you know,

1:12:10 women who took part in the project,

1:12:11 how this increase in,

1:12:12 uh,

1:12:13 in,

1:12:14 in income affected their lives.

1:12:15 They reported that,

1:12:16 you know,

1:12:16 they were able to buy medicine for their children when they were shocked.

1:12:19 So these are really powerful stories from the field of how

1:12:22 this,

1:12:23 you know,

1:12:23 relief is helping them,

1:12:24 uh,

1:12:25 with their day to day shocks.

1:12:27 But then we

1:12:28 ask

1:12:28 what happens in those households in which we assign the work to women instead of men.

1:12:33 Uh,

1:12:33 and I want to say that at baseline when we started to look,

1:12:36 you know,

1:12:37 at

1:12:37 those decisions,

1:12:38 intra-household decisions.

1:12:39 So basically the WFP,

1:12:41 you know,

1:12:41 there's a group

1:12:42 meeting,

1:12:42 people decide

1:12:43 that they want to take part in the program

1:12:45 and then really,

1:12:46 I mean,

1:12:46 typically the decision is left to the household as

1:12:48 to who should participate in the work component.

1:12:51 And in 80% of cases.

1:12:52 It's the man

1:12:53 who shows up,

1:12:53 right?

1:12:54 So,

1:12:55 you know,

1:12:55 this was a huge

1:12:56 shift,

1:12:57 right,

1:12:57 uh,

1:12:58 in,

1:12:58 uh,

1:12:59 in participation among women,

1:13:01 and what this shows is that

1:13:03 this is possible.

1:13:03 First,

1:13:04 I want to say this is possible.

1:13:05 We see a large increase in participation from women,

1:13:07 so there's huge compliance to this reservation.

1:13:11 So it's,

1:13:11 it's not something that's impossible because when we

1:13:14 started with the programming,

1:13:15 the question was,

1:13:15 can you even

1:13:16 make this woman,

1:13:17 you know,

1:13:18 is this sufficient to make them,

1:13:19 uh,

1:13:20 able to participate?

1:13:21 It worked.

1:13:22 Uh,

1:13:22 it increased their income by 31%,

1:13:25 so this is a large increase,

1:13:26 you know,

1:13:26 they're not fantastically large cash transfers,

1:13:29 but as a share of what they were earning at this time,

1:13:31 it's huge.

1:13:31 Uh,

1:13:32 what we see is then

1:13:34 during the,

1:13:34 the time of the transfer,

1:13:37 making the women work.

1:13:39 Basically fully closes the gender gap in decision making over consumption.

1:13:42 So,

1:13:42 men and women have equal agency over the income,

1:13:46 OK.

1:13:46 They make equal decisions.

1:13:48 And

1:13:49 less positive,

1:13:49 but very temporary,

1:13:51 we find that men don't like it so much.

1:13:53 So as they sign,

1:13:56 so

1:13:56 as they sign,

1:13:57 you know,

1:13:57 as they sign,

1:13:58 men are not persuaded that women should be working.

1:14:00 They're not persuaded that women should be making these choices,

1:14:03 otherwise they would be,

1:14:04 right?

1:14:04 Presumably.

1:14:05 So we find a little bit of what we call

1:14:08 a temporary backup,

1:14:09 right?

1:14:09 But I'm going to tell you a positive story.

1:14:11 3 months after the program.

1:14:13 These women are not,

1:14:14 these men and women are not taking part in this work program anymore.

1:14:17 They're just doing back to their normal status of business.

1:14:20 So of course,

1:14:21 as the,

1:14:21 the transfer,

1:14:22 you know,

1:14:22 the transfers were not fantastically large.

1:14:24 These are very handful households,

1:14:26 so they,

1:14:27 they consume the transfer.

1:14:28 So we don't see any impact,

1:14:30 any long lasting impact on consumption or food security,

1:14:33 and you know,

1:14:34 this,

1:14:34 the women in the program are back to

1:14:36 uh the type of work they were doing before.

1:14:39 But what we find

1:14:41 is

1:14:42 persistence of this reversal of the gender gap and in fact,

1:14:45 in the longer term,

1:14:46 if anything,

1:14:47 women are making more,

1:14:48 have more say than men

1:14:50 in how to consume the,

1:14:51 the income.

1:14:52 So,

1:14:53 you know,

1:14:53 our interpretation is that

1:14:55 this shift

1:14:56 in,

1:14:56 in decision making power,

1:14:58 although temporary,

1:14:59 had long lasting effect

1:15:01 through sort of,

1:15:01 you know,

1:15:02 telling the,

1:15:03 the men

1:15:04 that this woman.

1:15:04 Understand its value,

1:15:05 it's valuable.

1:15:06 You can value it and they have autonomy.

1:15:08 So anyway,

1:15:09 we're working through,

1:15:10 you know,

1:15:10 different models.

1:15:11 This is more for the economists in the room that can sort of uh explain this,

1:15:15 but we're pretty,

1:15:16 you know,

1:15:16 it,

1:15:16 it makes sense with the way theory is written in economics book.

1:15:20 Uh,

1:15:20 so we're,

1:15:21 we're really happy to see this

1:15:22 and you know,

1:15:23 people say ultimately the project

1:15:25 came to strengthen the relationship as we have as a couple.

1:15:28 The changes were one of strength.

1:15:30 So this is from the men,

1:15:31 uh,

1:15:32 you know,

1:15:32 firstly,

1:15:33 the perception was

1:15:34 that sometime,

1:15:35 uh,

1:15:35 of sexism,

1:15:36 uh,

1:15:37 but when you participate in this type of project

1:15:39 that undoubtedly changes,

1:15:40 uh,

1:15:41 and you have a little more awareness.

1:15:43 So,

1:15:43 you know,

1:15:44 qualitative evidence,

1:15:45 but I think,

1:15:45 uh,

1:15:46 powerful speaking to that effect.

1:15:48 And again,

1:15:48 we really see these effects in El Salvador and Rwanda are vastly different,

1:15:52 uh,

1:15:53 situations at baseline,

1:15:54 so really positive.

1:15:55 Um,

1:15:56 and so I want to speak to the,

1:15:57 this change in attitude.

1:15:59 So we said,

1:15:59 you know,

1:15:59 the men who are not extremely positive about the shifts,

1:16:02 but actually that was very temporary and in the longer run,

1:16:05 it's exactly as the quote says,

1:16:07 sort of more acceptance,

1:16:08 uh,

1:16:08 replaces this,

1:16:09 uh,

1:16:10 this early

1:16:11 sort of

1:16:12 disagreements.

1:16:13 Uh,

1:16:13 and we see,

1:16:14 uh,

1:16:15 some improvement in well-being,

1:16:17 uh,

1:16:17 among women as well.

1:16:18 So like lowering of stress

1:16:21 among these women participants in the program.

1:16:23 So anyway,

1:16:24 I want to leave you with the key takeaways,

1:16:25 but I think,

1:16:26 you know,

1:16:26 in terms of programming,

1:16:27 this is,

1:16:27 and we have a very nice uh graph that we

1:16:30 made to kind of summarize the effects uh after the program

1:16:33 that

1:16:34 essentially

1:16:34 these temporary effects,

1:16:36 so these programs are very powerful as we said earlier,

1:16:38 you know,

1:16:39 not just.

1:16:40 Just

1:16:40 providing relief but potentially having other

1:16:42 spillovers on the participants' life,

1:16:44 on the beneficiaries' lives,

1:16:46 uh,

1:16:46 that are really worth documenting and,

1:16:48 and really strengthening the narrative of these are not just

1:16:51 assistance programs,

1:16:52 but they're really economic development program.

1:16:53 They're shifting things uh in the longer run even if.

1:16:56 Even if they're temporary,

1:16:58 4,

1:17:00 so for now we have full data sets on 2,

1:17:03 we're collecting data in Kenya and we're starting work in Haiti.

1:17:06 So we're,

1:17:07 you know,

1:17:07 our ambitions are to keep going,

1:17:09 collect more data,

1:17:10 uh,

1:17:10 potentially refine the design,

1:17:13 uh,

1:17:13 slightly,

1:17:14 but this is,

1:17:15 so we'd love to hear your thoughts because this is an opportunity to change

1:17:17 what we're doing.

1:17:20 That's it.

1:17:21 Thank you.

1:17:23 Thank you very much.

1:17:24 Um,

1:17:25 yeah,

1:17:26 we have,

1:17:26 uh,

1:17:27 we have Luis the minister and also Lonie on the line,

1:17:31 um,

1:17:32 uh,

1:17:33 to provide some initial comments,

1:17:34 and then we are happy to open up,

1:17:37 but you know,

1:17:37 if you have a two hands question,

1:17:39 we're happy to also provide the space for the two hand question.

1:17:44 Showing the presentation.

1:17:46 So maybe,

1:17:48 maybe we go first online with

1:17:51 give lowly an opportunity to react.

1:17:59 Maybe we,

1:18:00 we stop the presentation.

1:18:01 We cannot hear you.

1:18:03 I think you're still muted.

1:18:04 You know,

1:18:06 my eyes are not good enough to see,

1:18:07 so maybe she can't speak.

1:18:11 We have to mute slowly because there's,

1:18:15 yeah,

1:18:15 we have to.

1:18:23 All right,

1:18:23 I think you should be,

1:18:26 she's locked.

1:18:27 They have to make her a presenter on the IT side,

1:18:29 but maybe we start with Luis and we can try to see if we can sure,

1:18:31 we're gonna try to solve the technical problems,

1:18:35 knowledge,

1:18:35 and so we're gonna go to Luis.

1:18:39 Well,

1:18:39 thank you,

1:18:39 thank you for.

1:18:41 inviting me today and thank you for the opportunity just to,

1:18:45 uh,

1:18:46 you know,

1:18:46 share and learn from,

1:18:47 from this partnership.

1:18:50 I mean,

1:18:50 first I will state the obvious thing that you like

1:18:53 having

1:18:54 Impact evaluations are just so

1:18:57 incredibly valuable

1:18:59 because

1:19:00 again,

1:19:00 we,

1:19:01 we oftentimes

1:19:02 um

1:19:04 You know,

1:19:04 on,

1:19:04 on the operational side,

1:19:06 we engage in all kinds of activities thinking that

1:19:09 uh we're doing the right thing and that what we're doing is meaningful and that we

1:19:13 uh are going,

1:19:14 you know,

1:19:14 we expected certain types of results,

1:19:16 we're,

1:19:16 you know,

1:19:17 driven by

1:19:18 the timelines and the delivery of outputs and,

1:19:22 and ultimately,

1:19:23 you know,

1:19:23 it's,

1:19:24 it's,

1:19:24 uh,

1:19:24 um.

1:19:26 Impacted rates always brings us back to sort of really what

1:19:30 what makes a difference and what made things work,

1:19:32 uh,

1:19:32 you know,

1:19:33 how,

1:19:33 you know,

1:19:34 I think that your,

1:19:34 your presentation Paul was super valuable in terms

1:19:36 of how things change over time and,

1:19:39 you know,

1:19:39 so it depends on when you measure what you measure,

1:19:41 how you measure,

1:19:42 uh,

1:19:43 so having sort of this,

1:19:44 uh,

1:19:45 multidimensional sort of approaches is always

1:19:47 sort of instructive and ultimately.

1:19:49 You know,

1:19:50 so the goal is,

1:19:50 is then sort of,

1:19:51 you know,

1:19:51 uh,

1:19:52 uh,

1:19:52 uh,

1:19:52 how to feed all of this

1:19:54 knowledge and information back to

1:19:57 sort of implementation,

1:19:58 yeah,

1:19:58 so I think that I know,

1:19:59 I,

1:19:59 uh,

1:20:00 uh,

1:20:00 as,

1:20:00 as a,

1:20:01 again,

1:20:01 as a reminder,

1:20:02 you know,

1:20:02 as,

1:20:03 as we do all of these studies,

1:20:04 it's,

1:20:04 it's,

1:20:05 you know,

1:20:05 putting also the effort around sort of how to feed that back into

1:20:09 the policymakers that make decisions or the,

1:20:11 the people on the ground that sort of actually,

1:20:13 you know,

1:20:14 sort of,

1:20:14 uh,

1:20:14 are responsible for.

1:20:16 Delivering

1:20:17 services to people that make a difference and,

1:20:19 and ultimately change lives.

1:20:22 Um.

1:20:24 I,

1:20:24 I,

1:20:25 um,

1:20:26 so,

1:20:26 you know,

1:20:26 as,

1:20:27 uh,

1:20:27 as another sort of line of,

1:20:28 of,

1:20:29 uh,

1:20:29 reactions,

1:20:30 I mean,

1:20:31 I think that obviously the the partnership between

1:20:32 the bank and WFP is super valuable.

1:20:35 It has,

1:20:36 um,

1:20:37 oh,

1:20:37 you know,

1:20:37 it,

1:20:38 it ebbs and flows and,

1:20:39 and comes and goes over time,

1:20:40 but I think again to being able to sustain this sort of,

1:20:43 you know,

1:20:43 relationships it's,

1:20:44 it's really important.

1:20:45 Uh,

1:20:46 also,

1:20:46 because

1:20:47 our own constualizations of

1:20:50 both,

1:20:50 both how our agencies operate and work and what they prioritize as well as our

1:20:56 understanding and framing of the types of interventions that

1:20:59 we're engaged with shift over time again I remember,

1:21:02 um.

1:21:03 You know,

1:21:03 2025 years ago where,

1:21:06 you know,

1:21:06 school feeding was really sort of about,

1:21:09 you know,

1:21:09 incentivizing access,

1:21:10 you know,

1:21:10 bringing kids to school,

1:21:12 and again I think that our,

1:21:13 our,

1:21:14 uh,

1:21:16 understanding and our conceptualization of school feeding programs

1:21:19 have sort of really truly evolved in,

1:21:21 in,

1:21:21 in a wide variety of ways,

1:21:22 in ways that sort of,

1:21:23 you know.

1:21:24 Uh,

1:21:24 uh,

1:21:25 uh,

1:21:25 about economic empowerment,

1:21:27 about sort of,

1:21:27 you know,

1:21:28 having,

1:21:28 uh,

1:21:29 uh,

1:21:29 uh,

1:21:29 the impact that it has on,

1:21:30 on culture and communities,

1:21:32 the impact that it has on,

1:21:33 on,

1:21:33 on,

1:21:33 uh,

1:21:34 uh,

1:21:34 job generation and the ways in that,

1:21:36 that sort of,

1:21:37 you know,

1:21:38 school feeding might impact of,

1:21:39 uh,

1:21:40 cognitive performance of kids in schools and,

1:21:42 and so on and so forth,

1:21:43 things that,

1:21:43 that were not.

1:21:45 We we're not thinking about,

1:21:47 uh,

1:21:48 uh,

1:21:49 years back and,

1:21:50 and again I think that as,

1:21:51 as the more data that we have sort of the,

1:21:53 the greater the shifts

1:21:55 that we can do in terms of how to really sort of,

1:21:58 uh,

1:21:59 use these programs as entry points to

1:22:02 serve you know multi-dimensional sort of impacts,

1:22:05 um.

1:22:06 And,

1:22:07 uh,

1:22:08 you know,

1:22:08 as,

1:22:08 and as a final thought,

1:22:10 you know,

1:22:10 I,

1:22:11 I,

1:22:11 um,

1:22:12 Um,

1:22:13 it's great to focus on outcomes,

1:22:15 and again I think that the sort of the,

1:22:16 the,

1:22:17 the kinds of results that you've

1:22:19 been talking about are really sort of important in terms of,

1:22:21 you know,

1:22:21 sort of the

1:22:22 changes in values and attitudes and behavior and,

1:22:25 and so on and so forth.

1:22:26 I think that,

1:22:27 that,

1:22:27 that also,

1:22:28 uh,

1:22:29 not,

1:22:29 not to lose sight about the importance of doing.

1:22:32 Uh,

1:22:33 process evaluations,

1:22:34 I think that how we do things matter oftentimes,

1:22:36 sort of,

1:22:36 you know,

1:22:37 results

1:22:38 are affected,

1:22:38 as you all said,

1:22:39 are affected by all kinds of

1:22:41 stuff,

1:22:42 uh,

1:22:43 and so again having a,

1:22:44 a deep understanding of,

1:22:45 of how these programs roll out and what,

1:22:47 what drives,

1:22:48 uh,

1:22:49 the implementation is,

1:22:50 is,

1:22:51 is something that

1:22:52 us as an institution,

1:22:53 the World Bank,

1:22:54 I mean.

1:22:54 Um,

1:22:56 can lose sight and,

1:22:57 and,

1:22:57 and ultimately sort of shape,

1:22:59 um,

1:23:00 you sort of what,

1:23:01 what we see in the end line.

1:23:02 Uh,

1:23:03 and so

1:23:04 again,

1:23:04 survive as we go forth again to,

1:23:06 to really sort of think as,

1:23:08 as,

1:23:08 uh,

1:23:08 as the,

1:23:09 the,

1:23:09 the big tent of evaluations and how to really sort of can being able to,

1:23:13 to focus

1:23:14 on,

1:23:14 on the various parts that drive to the ultimately sort

1:23:17 of what we care about which are the ultimate results

1:23:20 and I'll pause there.

1:23:21 Thank you.

1:23:22 Yeah,

1:23:22 thank you,

1:23:22 Luis.

1:23:25 Very,

1:23:25 very well said,

1:23:27 Londy,

1:23:29 back to you.

1:23:29 I hope now it works.

1:23:32 Yeah,

1:23:32 I,

1:23:32 uh,

1:23:32 can you hear me

1:23:33 perfectly.

1:23:34 OK,

1:23:34 yeah.

1:23:34 OK,

1:23:35 great.

1:23:35 Thank you so much,

1:23:36 Arianna,

1:23:36 for the invitation,

1:23:37 uh,

1:23:37 to participate in this discussion.

1:23:40 Um,

1:23:41 for those that do not know me,

1:23:42 I'm Lolia Rivas,

1:23:43 and I'm the practice manager for the Global Unit in Social Protection and Jobs,

1:23:48 um,

1:23:48 and I just wanna share a few quick reflections on

1:23:51 how the work presented today connects to our work in SPJ,

1:23:56 um,

1:23:56 and then I will share also some reactions to the presentation.

1:24:00 First of all,

1:24:00 I,

1:24:01 I very much welcome the evidence generation on,

1:24:03 on food for assets or what we usually call

1:24:06 at the World Bank public works.

1:24:09 Um,

1:24:09 for us a public works is a critical element in,

1:24:12 in,

1:24:13 in our larger

1:24:14 adaptive social protection toolbox,

1:24:17 um,

1:24:18 and I think in addition to the social protection angle and,

1:24:21 and,

1:24:21 you know,

1:24:22 with the climate crisis now,

1:24:23 uh,

1:24:24 uh,

1:24:25 uh.

1:24:25 With us in the middle of this climate crisis,

1:24:27 I think green public works is one of the few

1:24:30 social protection tools that can actually contribute

1:24:32 to climate mitigate mitigation with all the others

1:24:35 mostly contributing to climate adaptation.

1:24:38 However,

1:24:38 public works

1:24:40 have been

1:24:41 Often criticized and so I think it's important uh to continue building the evidence

1:24:46 on where and how

1:24:48 they can be effective.

1:24:50 So

1:24:50 this is a,

1:24:51 a,

1:24:51 a really welcome effort

1:24:53 um thank you so much.

1:24:55 um.

1:24:56 The findings of,

1:24:57 of,

1:24:57 uh,

1:24:57 Florence and Paul's presentations are encouraging

1:25:00 and,

1:25:01 and they connect nicely to a report that we're working

1:25:04 on in SBJ called The Future of Public Works.

1:25:07 Um,

1:25:08 and this report covers innovations related to climate smart pub public works.

1:25:12 It covers digital public works

1:25:14 and also public works,

1:25:16 uh,

1:25:16 that produce uh care services.

1:25:19 And we find

1:25:20 that no matter what public good or service

1:25:23 the program is designed to produce,

1:25:25 uh,

1:25:26 public work programs

1:25:27 are

1:25:28 paying increased attention to closing gender gaps,

1:25:31 um,

1:25:32 and to prevent,

1:25:33 uh,

1:25:33 the backlash against women and empowering them.

1:25:36 So let me highlight four effective design features of our

1:25:40 report and how they match with with with your findings.

1:25:43 One is on ex ante consultations.

1:25:46 I think it's important to engage communities and their leaders

1:25:49 to build support for women's participation,

1:25:52 um,

1:25:53 and,

1:25:53 uh,

1:25:54 you know,

1:25:54 to,

1:25:55 to,

1:25:55 to mitigate the potential backlash,

1:25:57 uh,

1:25:58 uh,

1:25:58 from social norms regarding women's work.

1:26:01 Um,

1:26:01 the second one.

1:26:03 Is,

1:26:04 um,

1:26:04 equal pay for equal work,

1:26:06 paying women directly

1:26:08 and ideally into their own accounts can help

1:26:11 ensure that they are able to retain control.

1:26:14 Um,

1:26:14 third one is,

1:26:16 uh,

1:26:16 providing on-site childcare.

1:26:18 Um,

1:26:19 it's key to enable the full participation of women

1:26:21 with,

1:26:22 with young children.

1:26:23 Um,

1:26:24 and it also contributes to early childhood development.

1:26:27 Um,

1:26:27 and then the fourth one,

1:26:29 the selection of assets,

1:26:31 uh,

1:26:31 as we go through the design of the programs is critical.

1:26:34 So it's,

1:26:35 it's important to make sure that the assets or the services created,

1:26:39 created by the public works,

1:26:41 um,

1:26:42 serve women's needs as well.

1:26:44 So with this context in mind,

1:26:46 uh,

1:26:48 I have a few questions and reflections for,

1:26:49 for the presenters.

1:26:51 Luis covered already school feeding in detail,

1:26:53 so

1:26:53 I will just focus on on on other dimensions.

1:26:57 On,

1:26:57 on Paul's presentation,

1:26:58 um,

1:26:59 I'd be curious to hear if the set of impact evaluations on dynamic impacts,

1:27:04 uh,

1:27:04 dig into the gender differences.

1:27:06 Uh,

1:27:07 we know that men and women,

1:27:08 boys and girls have different abilities to cope with shocks,

1:27:11 um,

1:27:12 and may also have different levels of resilience ex ante,

1:27:15 ex ante.

1:27:16 So it seems like a lost opportunity not to look at potential gender differences,

1:27:21 um,

1:27:21 in these evaluations.

1:27:24 On Florence's presentation,

1:27:26 um,

1:27:27 I think it's important for impact evaluations

1:27:29 to measure different dimensions of empowerment systematically.

1:27:33 The,

1:27:33 the,

1:27:34 there was a strong claim at the beginning of the presentation

1:27:37 that cash transfers have no impact on women empowerment,

1:27:41 um,

1:27:41 and I,

1:27:42 I believe there is mixed evidence on these,

1:27:45 uh,

1:27:45 the evaluations,

1:27:46 for example,

1:27:47 that show that.

1:27:48 Cast transfers

1:27:49 decrease gender-based violence

1:27:51 on average

1:27:52 um and and and this is a critical dimension of empowerment or lack thereof

1:27:58 so so it'd be important to to

1:28:02 to systematize um how we measure um empowerment

1:28:05 um for both presentations um

1:28:09 I guess on the two.

1:28:09 Two objectives that arguably differentiate public

1:28:13 public works from cash transfers,

1:28:15 um,

1:28:16 from naked cash transfers or cash transfers alone.

1:28:20 One is the quality of the asset produced

1:28:23 the other one is uh uh the skills built in the process and this includes

1:28:28 soft skills and hard skills,

1:28:30 um.

1:28:31 So traditional public works schemes have been criticized for both.

1:28:36 And so if you have any findings to share on,

1:28:39 on,

1:28:39 on either one of them.

1:28:41 Um,

1:28:42 I think it,

1:28:43 it,

1:28:43 mm,

1:28:44 I think Luis,

1:28:45 um,

1:28:45 alluded to this,

1:28:46 um,

1:28:47 the context and the enabling environment and,

1:28:50 and I believe,

1:28:50 uh,

1:28:51 um,

1:28:51 the presenters alluded to it too.

1:28:53 So how these evaluations can influence

1:28:57 not just how programs are designed

1:29:00 but also what are the policy implications of these impact evaluations?

1:29:04 How should the policy mix

1:29:06 be adjusted to optimize the impact of these programs?

1:29:09 In other words,

1:29:11 um.

1:29:12 What are the key policy and context elements that make the same intervention

1:29:17 succeed in one place and,

1:29:18 and,

1:29:18 and not in another.

1:29:20 Uh and I think this is an area where coordination with

1:29:23 with other development actors might be important.

1:29:27 Um

1:29:28 In addition to the policy mix and context,

1:29:31 the public works are usually just one element of a larger social protection effort,

1:29:37 um,

1:29:37 and this is is in addition to the many things that changed that Paul alluded to,

1:29:42 uh,

1:29:42 in the context of the intervention.

1:29:43 So households.

1:29:44 Received

1:29:45 a layer set of interventions that address the needs of different people,

1:29:48 people in the households

1:29:50 and that complement each other.

1:29:51 So it'd be important to understand how the evaluated intervention interacts

1:29:56 with these or the package of services available to the beneficiaries.

1:30:00 Um,

1:30:00 I'm almost done.

1:30:01 Uh,

1:30:01 I have one more,

1:30:03 uh,

1:30:03 on program design and eligibility.

1:30:05 Uh,

1:30:05 I think on one of the biggest challenges as programs scale up is determining

1:30:10 the target groups to be included and how

1:30:12 to prioritize those who need the support most,

1:30:16 um,

1:30:16 so I,

1:30:17 I think this is,

1:30:18 this is the prioritization of,

1:30:20 of program participants

1:30:22 is driven not just by the need but also by

1:30:25 policy and politics and,

1:30:26 and budget constraints,

1:30:28 um.

1:30:30 And then the,

1:30:30 the,

1:30:30 the sustainability of outcomes and financial sustainability.

1:30:33 I think this together with the scale-up potential

1:30:36 is the biggest struggle on most economic inclusion programs.

1:30:40 Uh,

1:30:41 so let me end by noting that we also have a partnership with DME.

1:30:45 Um,

1:30:46 I think Arianna mentioned it at the beginning,

1:30:49 um,

1:30:49 uh,

1:30:49 uh,

1:30:50 with their opening remarks,

1:30:52 uh,

1:30:53 and the intention is also to build the evidence on what works and what doesn't work

1:30:57 and when and where,

1:30:59 um,

1:30:59 from our economic inclusion programs,

1:31:01 so I think it might be helpful if it doesn't exist already

1:31:05 to integrate and,

1:31:06 and I believe Luis alluded to this as well.

1:31:09 To integrate the findings of all these efforts into maybe a

1:31:13 guidance note for teams that are designing

1:31:16 or implementing these type of programs,

1:31:18 um,

1:31:19 so if these already exist maybe just we just need to update,

1:31:22 er,

1:31:23 I update it with this new evidence,

1:31:25 uh,

1:31:26 and,

1:31:26 and what we need to make sure is that we disseminate it

1:31:29 widely,

1:31:30 um,

1:31:30 and in different ways.

1:31:32 And

1:31:32 this could be helpful for for the teams

1:31:34 to evaluate the trade-offs of different design features,

1:31:37 but also in their discussion with government counterparts to

1:31:40 to provide policy advice which goes back to my my point on

1:31:45 not just programs but policy

1:31:48 um on the reform needed reforms needed to

1:31:51 make these these program uh more effective.

1:31:54 So let me stop here

1:31:56 um thank you for um the invitation and I'm looking forward to the Q&A.

1:32:04 Thank you,

1:32:05 Lolly.

1:32:05 Um,

1:32:06 you know,

1:32:06 very,

1:32:06 very interesting points,

1:32:08 uh,

1:32:08 from,

1:32:08 uh,

1:32:09 well,

1:32:10 actually from everyone that has contributed to the discussion.

1:32:12 I,

1:32:13 I just wanted to,

1:32:14 um,

1:32:15 you know,

1:32:15 pick on a couple of your points regarding

1:32:18 the impact on women's empowerment.

1:32:20 Um,

1:32:21 this,

1:32:22 I think the statement is correct,

1:32:24 subject to the way people have been measuring empowerment in the past

1:32:29 and in fact,

1:32:30 um,

1:32:30 this has been a

1:32:31 Quite a bit of the,

1:32:32 we put quite a bit of thinking into

1:32:35 why the evaluations that were done on targeting the

1:32:38 open work program by academics actually did not find

1:32:41 any impacts on women's empowerment

1:32:44 and started digging a little further as you say,

1:32:46 it depends what you measure and how

1:32:48 and uh part of,

1:32:50 part of what we do is really developing the tools and,

1:32:53 and the,

1:32:54 and thinking very careful,

1:32:56 carefully about measurement.

1:32:57 Um,

1:32:58 to pick up

1:32:59 what others might have missed,

1:33:00 and it's part of the process,

1:33:02 it's not that one person is better than the other,

1:33:04 but it's part of,

1:33:05 you know,

1:33:05 an iterative process of research

1:33:07 that then leads to better,

1:33:08 better understanding of

1:33:10 how we measure and what frequencies

1:33:13 and,

1:33:13 and of course what we measure.

1:33:16 So this,

1:33:16 this is very well taken and uh

1:33:19 uh for example,

1:33:20 in our targeting the Ultraport program in Afghanistan,

1:33:23 we did find um massive impacts on women's empowerment,

1:33:27 but the modules of how to measure that

1:33:29 were uh much larger and,

1:33:32 and that learning has kind of infiltrated uh the rest of our program as well.

1:33:37 Um.

1:33:41 Very,

1:33:41 um,

1:33:43 and in terms of summarizing the evidence and also what is important to do,

1:33:47 um,

1:33:48 you know,

1:33:48 we are,

1:33:49 uh,

1:33:50 that point is

1:33:51 very,

1:33:52 very well taken and we are in the process of summarizing evidence in,

1:33:56 in many different

1:33:57 parts.

1:33:57 We just had,

1:33:58 for example,

1:33:59 a discussion with the,

1:34:00 with the Cote d'I Cote d'Ivoire country unit.

1:34:04 Where,

1:34:04 you know,

1:34:05 there have been evaluations all across the social protection

1:34:08 spectrum of intervention from the cash for work program,

1:34:11 dual,

1:34:12 dual uh apprenticeships and the economic inclusion program and now the,

1:34:17 the country team has kind of a matrix

1:34:20 of results and what can be expected from what interventions

1:34:24 and also

1:34:26 not just targeting the ones most in need but actually moving the target.

1:34:31 discussion towards

1:34:32 the population that can benefit the most

1:34:34 and so for example in Cote d'Iguar we find women can benefit

1:34:37 almost twice as much as men from a cash for work program,

1:34:40 um,

1:34:41 and thus

1:34:42 kind of increasing the targeting for women makes sense

1:34:46 both

1:34:47 for,

1:34:47 for,

1:34:48 you know,

1:34:48 economic reasons of returns,

1:34:50 but you know also to kind of meet,

1:34:52 um,

1:34:53 the,

1:34:54 um,

1:34:55 other objectives of.

1:34:56 Empowerment and so forth and so on.

1:34:58 So

1:34:59 it is obviously complex to just have a very

1:35:03 quick summary of

1:35:05 um

1:35:05 implementable solutions and so what we want to do is not just

1:35:09 to the notes but actually create

1:35:11 the institutional structures for conversations with

1:35:15 country teams and project teams that are

1:35:17 developing uh their concept and really help them

1:35:22 operationalize all the evidence that is out there,

1:35:24 um,

1:35:24 we cannot expect everybody

1:35:26 to live and breathe evidence

1:35:29 as we do.

1:35:30 And so kind of having these opportunities to really work

1:35:33 with teams and support them in this process is,

1:35:37 I,

1:35:37 I think very important and we want to be in the kitchen,

1:35:40 you know,

1:35:40 we want

1:35:41 DC

1:35:41 to be able to really contribute to the delivery of uh World Bank

1:35:46 projects and programs in a more,

1:35:48 uh,

1:35:48 direct way.

1:35:50 So,

1:35:50 I'm gonna open it up

1:35:51 for answers,

1:35:53 comments,

1:35:53 and other questions.

1:35:58 OK

1:36:00 OK,

1:36:01 maybe I'll start now.

1:36:04 My name is Krishna,

1:36:05 and actually I'm working on Sudan,

1:36:07 and we are actually preparing a new,

1:36:09 um,

1:36:10 uh,

1:36:10 social protection project which is both cash transfers

1:36:13 as well as,

1:36:14 uh,

1:36:14 labor intensive public works.

1:36:16 So there are two aspects of this stuff which you won't discuss.

1:36:20 So on the labor intensive public works,

1:36:22 of course,

1:36:22 in terms of the targeting,

1:36:23 we are working on agenda-focused,

1:36:25 you know,

1:36:26 targeting,

1:36:26 etc.

1:36:27 uh,

1:36:27 but what,

1:36:28 unfortunately I think it's a 2-year project,

1:36:30 it's not a five-year project,

1:36:32 and,

1:36:33 uh,

1:36:34 the

1:36:35 in in the labor intensive public works,

1:36:38 we are looking at,

1:36:39 uh,

1:36:40 not just the community,

1:36:41 the consumption smoothing which we're talking about.

1:36:45 But in terms of the community asset.

1:36:50 That that's one thing.

1:36:52 And the second one is we're also looking at

1:36:54 community cohesion when they come together and work.

1:36:56 So

1:36:56 that's our third focal point there.

1:36:59 So that's one part of it.

1:37:00 The reason also I'm here is because

1:37:03 in Sudan

1:37:04 currently there is a military coup and there is no transitional government.

1:37:08 So WFP is the recipient as well as the implementing agency.

1:37:13 So

1:37:14 we are very happy that at the institutional level that WFP and World Bank di,

1:37:19 you're,

1:37:19 you're working together.

1:37:20 So we also wanted to figure out how,

1:37:22 how can we leverage that

1:37:24 for impact evaluation

1:37:26 so that's the reason,

1:37:27 you know,

1:37:28 and if you have any,

1:37:29 any,

1:37:30 uh.

1:37:31 Let's say

1:37:32 evidence,

1:37:32 etc.

1:37:33 on climate liabilities.

1:37:34 So the

1:37:35 main idea of labor intensive public work for climate liabilities.

1:37:40 So we're picking some locality.

1:37:46 How do we do that?

1:37:51 Hi,

1:37:52 can I,

1:37:53 can I?

1:37:53 Yes,

1:37:53 we have a question online.

1:37:55 Can you introduce yourself?

1:37:57 Great.

1:37:57 Yes,

1:37:57 please.

1:37:58 Thank you so much.

1:37:58 I'm Mira Shaker.

1:38:00 I lead the World Bank's work on nutrition across the World Bank Group.

1:38:04 I'm

1:38:05 delighted to hear this conversation around impact evaluation

1:38:09 and evidence.

1:38:09 So,

1:38:10 uh,

1:38:10 just a couple of thoughts from me.

1:38:12 First and foremost,

1:38:14 um,

1:38:15 Across the bank group,

1:38:17 we've really encouraged our agriculture team and the

1:38:21 social protection team and other teams as well

1:38:23 to talk about food

1:38:25 and nutrition security.

1:38:27 So

1:38:28 agriculture in particular is not talking food security alone,

1:38:31 but food and nutrition security,

1:38:33 and I mentioned that because.

1:38:35 From the context of evaluation,

1:38:38 we would really appreciate if

1:38:40 much of the evaluation that is ongoing

1:38:43 across the various platforms that you mentioned

1:38:46 can look at both nutrition outcomes as well as the

1:38:50 food security outcomes.

1:38:52 So that's a request,

1:38:53 and I don't know how feasible.

1:38:55 Um,

1:38:56 that may be,

1:38:56 but we are doing that for board updates.

1:38:59 Another one coming up in March.

1:39:01 We're doing that in our analytics.

1:39:03 We're doing that on,

1:39:04 on the,

1:39:04 in the crisis response window

1:39:07 from um

1:39:08 operations point of view.

1:39:10 And that was,

1:39:11 uh,

1:39:11 done for the IEG evaluation that was done,

1:39:14 uh,

1:39:15 recently across the board as well.

1:39:16 So that's,

1:39:17 that's a plea to all of you.

1:39:19 Um,

1:39:20 then,

1:39:20 a,

1:39:20 a couple of

1:39:22 very specific things.

1:39:23 Um,

1:39:23 Ariana,

1:39:24 you mentioned Cote d'Ivoire.

1:39:25 Cote d'Ivoire is one of the countries that has actually

1:39:28 done

1:39:28 extremely well,

1:39:29 unexpectedly so,

1:39:32 on the nutrition agenda,

1:39:33 and we would love to see,

1:39:35 as you're saying,

1:39:36 look at the entire,

1:39:38 uh,

1:39:38 range of things that are being done in Cote d'Ivoire that

1:39:41 might have contributed to that and what lessons that may offer

1:39:44 for other countries as well.

1:39:46 Similarly,

1:39:48 um,

1:39:48 um,

1:39:49 you mentioned evaluations in Rwanda.

1:39:52 Well,

1:39:53 we have an evaluation ongoing in Rwanda,

1:39:56 a long-term,

1:39:57 um,

1:39:58 prospective evaluation of a large scale

1:40:01 program that includes both,

1:40:03 um,

1:40:03 uh,

1:40:04 health program as well as a social protection program.

1:40:07 Um,

1:40:07 it would be good to

1:40:09 connect the dots on that too,

1:40:11 cause we have some unexpected findings.

1:40:13 Uh,

1:40:13 Jed Friedman from the DC Group has been,

1:40:16 uh,

1:40:16 our partner in crime on that.

1:40:18 It would be really wonderful to connect the dots on that too.

1:40:21 Um,

1:40:23 um,

1:40:23 and,

1:40:24 and

1:40:25 you mentioned at the beginning that you,

1:40:26 uh,

1:40:27 WFP is launching,

1:40:28 uh,

1:40:29 a nutrition,

1:40:30 um,

1:40:31 Window in this too,

1:40:32 I'm not sure I'm using the right term in terms of window,

1:40:34 but,

1:40:35 uh,

1:40:35 in,

1:40:36 in 2022,

1:40:37 but we didn't hear anything more,

1:40:38 which countries,

1:40:39 what's,

1:40:40 what's being done,

1:40:40 what's being planned.

1:40:42 We would really like to coordinate action on,

1:40:44 on that

1:40:45 as well.

1:40:46 And lastly,

1:40:47 to say,

1:40:48 uh,

1:40:48 we are considering um nutrition,

1:40:51 climate ASA in um the next financial year

1:40:55 and would really like to again join hands with

1:40:58 many of the people in the room here today.

1:41:00 Thank you.

1:41:01 Over.

1:41:02 Great,

1:41:03 thank you very much.

1:41:04 Yes,

1:41:04 we we will let others answer.

1:41:06 Yeah,

1:41:06 yeah.

1:41:07 Now I want to answer to Mira first because you can be rest assured

1:41:10 that we are always talking about global food and a global malnutrition crisis.

1:41:16 So that's all over the place,

1:41:17 you know,

1:41:17 and,

1:41:18 and,

1:41:18 uh,

1:41:19 you know,

1:41:19 if you forget that here and there,

1:41:20 then you please remind us,

1:41:22 but.

1:41:22 For the advocacy part,

1:41:24 it's very important that we're talking about

1:41:26 the qualitative and the quantitative element.

1:41:29 And in some countries,

1:41:30 you have a mix of both situations.

1:41:32 So,

1:41:33 I think we are definitely,

1:41:34 I mean,

1:41:34 you,

1:41:34 uh,

1:41:35 it's absolutely music in the ears

1:41:37 that you are,

1:41:37 um,

1:41:38 that you are asking us to do so because that's,

1:41:40 that's for,

1:41:41 for sure.

1:41:42 Then I have two questions,

1:41:44 and I think the,

1:41:45 the colleague from the,

1:41:46 from working with on the Sudan

1:41:49 program was just supporting my,

1:41:51 my question.

1:41:53 Um,

1:41:54 to the two of you,

1:41:56 how much evidence do we need in terms of countries,

1:41:59 2 countries,

1:42:00 4 countries,

1:42:01 6 countries

1:42:02 before we are going,

1:42:03 uh,

1:42:04 before we dare to draw

1:42:06 our conclusions and go back to the drawing board saying,

1:42:09 oh,

1:42:09 we have to

1:42:11 redesign our,

1:42:12 our programs,

1:42:13 no?

1:42:14 Uh,

1:42:15 number 12,

1:42:17 we are very clear that we are,

1:42:19 you know,

1:42:20 so far advanced that we can say,

1:42:22 oh,

1:42:22 let's rewrite policies or on,

1:42:24 you know,

1:42:24 or prompt that discussion,

1:42:26 uh,

1:42:26 Arianna.

1:42:27 That's for me,

1:42:28 for me,

1:42:28 a very relevant question because,

1:42:30 um,

1:42:31 what you presented

1:42:32 was,

1:42:33 you know,

1:42:33 we had a kind of a,

1:42:34 this is why it's so exciting,

1:42:36 you know,

1:42:36 we had,

1:42:37 of course,

1:42:37 we have an idea operating in the Sahel,

1:42:40 you know.

1:42:41 With all the kind of countries on the,

1:42:43 on our huge resilience program and of course,

1:42:46 the country teams are,

1:42:47 you know,

1:42:48 coming up with that requesting,

1:42:50 how do we manage lean season.

1:42:52 So,

1:42:53 but now we have the evidence that's great,

1:42:56 that's supporting,

1:42:56 that's supporting our,

1:42:59 or it's,

1:42:59 it's legitimate to go back to the,

1:43:01 to the design board and say,

1:43:03 you know,

1:43:03 we have to factor in.

1:43:04 The lean,

1:43:06 the lean season management and even better

1:43:09 emerging agenda on forecast based financing,

1:43:11 right?

1:43:12 So,

1:43:13 but the question is for how much

1:43:15 broad evidence do we need

1:43:17 that we are on solid ground to do that.

1:43:20 And that's my,

1:43:20 that's my,

1:43:21 that's my question,

1:43:22 you know,

1:43:23 are 4 countries enough?

1:43:25 Then you have all the kind of uh people saying,

1:43:27 oh,

1:43:28 that's not enough because my,

1:43:29 my country has a completely different context,

1:43:32 no.

1:43:33 Uh,

1:43:33 take Afghanistan and your findings for,

1:43:35 no,

1:43:35 or Yemen findings for women,

1:43:37 completely different context,

1:43:39 you know,

1:43:39 I,

1:43:40 I just want to get a little bit of guidance on,

1:43:42 you know,

1:43:43 when is a good time for us to go,

1:43:46 you know,

1:43:46 to go,

1:43:46 to go back to the kind of limelight with this kind of finance,

1:43:50 uh,

1:43:51 finding,

1:43:51 sorry,

1:43:51 finding,

1:43:51 sorry.

1:43:53 Well,

1:43:54 I'm gonna.

1:43:56 Our team answer,

1:43:57 but I just want to say that,

1:43:59 you know,

1:43:59 every time there is a result,

1:44:01 even though it's specific in one country,

1:44:03 then

1:44:04 at the minimum it should raise some

1:44:07 doubt

1:44:09 for our programs,

1:44:10 you know,

1:44:10 just inject the thought

1:44:12 of,

1:44:13 OK,

1:44:13 this timing is something that I should be paying attention

1:44:16 to.

1:44:17 So that's,

1:44:18 that's a general answer,

1:44:19 which means every result should at least elicit some

1:44:23 doubt about whether we're doing the right thing.

1:44:27 And we always have the option to go into that specific

1:44:31 context

1:44:32 and actually test

1:44:34 what we think

1:44:35 communally

1:44:36 would make an inordinate difference

1:44:39 to the bottom line.

1:44:40 And so for a long time because we did not have a lot of evidence,

1:44:44 that's the approach we took

1:44:46 which says,

1:44:47 OK,

1:44:47 we have these results,

1:44:48 it may work for you,

1:44:49 let's test it in your context.

1:44:52 Now

1:44:53 we do also have

1:44:55 cases in which the literature is very

1:44:57 deep and the results are very consistent across

1:45:01 multiple settings

1:45:02 that give us

1:45:04 a

1:45:04 pretty good sense of comfort that some things

1:45:08 are

1:45:08 very

1:45:09 regular in the way,

1:45:10 you know.

1:45:12 People's behaviors and reactions and take up and

1:45:16 you know how incentives work that there are

1:45:18 some things that are common to our humanity

1:45:21 and that can be

1:45:24 extracted as regular results.

1:45:27 Now that's a little

1:45:29 different from saying how many countries do we need to make,

1:45:33 you know,

1:45:34 and so I'm gonna

1:45:35 pass it on.

1:45:37 I

1:45:39 mean there are thoughts,

1:45:40 you know,

1:45:40 they're clear thoughts on that,

1:45:42 um,

1:45:43 but the answer is not an exact number.

1:45:46 Yeah,

1:45:47 exactly.

1:45:47 I think that's the bottom line.

1:45:48 We'll never know,

1:45:49 but

1:45:51 I think,

1:45:52 I think it's really useful to think about,

1:45:54 you know,

1:45:54 and really want to applaud,

1:45:56 you know,

1:45:56 the,

1:45:56 the effort

1:45:57 John has put into this at the Andrea

1:46:00 when they started these windows because

1:46:02 it's so rare even when we try to do this coordinated effort to have

1:46:06 so much coordination

1:46:07 that every data set is essentially the same

1:46:10 except for some small changes in,

1:46:12 you know,

1:46:12 local,

1:46:13 you know,

1:46:13 food,

1:46:14 local crops,

1:46:14 stuff like that,

1:46:15 but everything.

1:46:15 It's the same.

1:46:16 And so,

1:46:17 and you know,

1:46:17 we could speak about the measurement for a long time.

1:46:19 There were questions on how we measure empowerment,

1:46:21 how we measure nutrition.

1:46:23 I think we have very rich data sets today.

1:46:24 We may not have spoken to the richness of the data set in 8 minutes,

1:46:29 but we will

1:46:30 organize,

1:46:30 you know,

1:46:30 specific BBLs,

1:46:31 I think on each of these topics and,

1:46:33 and we'll read these papers that will have more richness to them.

1:46:36 But on how many countries?

1:46:37 I think what we'll be able to do thanks to this really well.

1:46:40 Coordinated efforts,

1:46:41 uh,

1:46:42 across,

1:46:42 you know,

1:46:43 researchers and programs and everyone

1:46:45 to say at least

1:46:46 to tell you how much of these effects are driven by

1:46:49 local conditions versus how much are driven by the program.

1:46:53 So at least we'll be able to start quantifying

1:46:55 with two countries it's a bit too little.

1:46:57 So I think what we were aiming for is 6,

1:46:59 and we did,

1:47:00 you know,

1:47:00 all our homework,

1:47:02 uh,

1:47:02 before

1:47:03 to

1:47:04 kind of do what we.

1:47:05 Call power calculations to kind of start saying,

1:47:07 OK,

1:47:07 with 6 countries

1:47:08 for this impact evasion,

1:47:09 we should have something reasonable

1:47:11 that at least we'll be able to tell you,

1:47:13 you know,

1:47:13 how much of,

1:47:14 yeah,

1:47:15 this treatment,

1:47:15 what we call the treatment effects are due to local,

1:47:18 you know,

1:47:19 change I mean local conditions versus the actual problem

1:47:21 and so at least we'll be able to

1:47:23 say something about how many,

1:47:24 you know,

1:47:25 just maybe it'll be qualitative,

1:47:26 right?

1:47:27 But it'll tell you,

1:47:28 OK,

1:47:28 because the variations are so.

1:47:29 Large that come from the local environment,

1:47:32 we should add many more before we can be really positive that this is,

1:47:35 you know,

1:47:36 uh,

1:47:36 generalizable or not and,

1:47:38 and then we really are going to try to kind of

1:47:40 use economic theory

1:47:42 to find the regularities

1:47:44 across context and so,

1:47:45 you know,

1:47:46 we'll have much more

1:47:47 in the coming year on that

1:47:49 piece,

1:47:49 but we're adding

1:47:50 more countries so maybe I just add what we.

1:47:54 What we already know from

1:47:56 hundreds of impact evaluations is that every time we do a handful,

1:47:59 we will have more questions.

1:48:01 So

1:48:02 the,

1:48:02 the,

1:48:02 that's the downside,

1:48:03 but the good side is we are learning that.

1:48:07 But I think what we're already seeing is that with the 1st 3 or 4,

1:48:10 we are having strong evidence,

1:48:11 actually stronger evidence sometimes than we thought we

1:48:13 would with only 3 or 4 countries,

1:48:15 and things that we can learn from 3 or 4,

1:48:18 we don't necessarily need to relearn.

1:48:19 So we can also build the future designs

1:48:22 to focus on areas where we are still exploring and To learn more,

1:48:26 but

1:48:26 these windows

1:48:27 will continue to be evolving as long as WFP

1:48:30 needs evidence to support cash transfers.

1:48:32 We will focus on cash transfers and gender.

1:48:34 I mean,

1:48:35 they will follow the organization

1:48:37 as we go.

1:48:38 Yeah,

1:48:38 yeah,

1:48:38 but you know what I want to achieve

1:48:40 because I was describing our transformation journey.

1:48:44 We have to move

1:48:45 away from,

1:48:46 let me say,

1:48:47 you know,

1:48:47 anecdotal evidence,

1:48:49 sorry that I'm saying that,

1:48:50 no,

1:48:50 to a systematic approach that this is a must,

1:48:53 and what you're saying,

1:48:54 Ariana,

1:48:54 is

1:48:55 that is a must that at least you have doubts,

1:48:58 you know,

1:48:58 so we have to to introduce that to all the countries.

1:49:02 Teams

1:49:03 saying,

1:49:03 you know,

1:49:03 if you're,

1:49:04 if you're dealing with the programming like Sudan,

1:49:07 no,

1:49:07 if you,

1:49:08 if you deal with a huge cash-based

1:49:11 program in Pakistan,

1:49:12 the minimum what can expect from you,

1:49:14 you have to do A,

1:49:15 B,

1:49:15 C,

1:49:15 and D,

1:49:16 and then you see,

1:49:17 you know,

1:49:17 how,

1:49:17 where,

1:49:18 where,

1:49:18 where,

1:49:18 where,

1:49:19 where you land.

1:49:20 But we,

1:49:20 we,

1:49:21 the two of us,

1:49:22 we want to dream and more,

1:49:23 no,

1:49:24 we want to really want to dream more.

1:49:26 So beyond the,

1:49:27 the,

1:49:27 I've been crazy,

1:49:28 yes,

1:49:29 exactly,

1:49:30 and this try and adopt model,

1:49:31 right,

1:49:32 and where,

1:49:32 where to land,

1:49:33 and this is why,

1:49:34 why it's so

1:49:36 important that we are immediately

1:49:38 transferring that into this really.

1:49:41 Design phase and I'm not talking policy.

1:49:44 I mean,

1:49:44 that's the strategic patience,

1:49:45 um,

1:49:46 element,

1:49:47 you know,

1:49:47 but,

1:49:48 uh,

1:49:48 and it would be maybe too fast in,

1:49:50 in,

1:49:51 in,

1:49:51 in,

1:49:51 in some instances,

1:49:52 but you know,

1:49:53 for the cash one,

1:49:54 it's so important for us that we are

1:49:56 moving in immediately into the kind of corporate redesign phase,

1:50:01 right.

1:50:01 And that's um and I hope then you know if

1:50:04 if we have evidence for 4 countries or 6 countries

1:50:08 then then we are on the safe side no and then we can be challenged,

1:50:12 no,

1:50:12 we have a robust case that

1:50:13 that is what you need if you want to

1:50:16 to,

1:50:16 you know,

1:50:17 uh,

1:50:18 really prompt that kind of um different redesign

1:50:22 change pathway,

1:50:23 right?

1:50:24 Yeah,

1:50:24 I hope that's.

1:50:25 No,

1:50:25 no,

1:50:25 for sure,

1:50:26 and that's why I think even,

1:50:27 even,

1:50:27 even now we can start to look into that because

1:50:29 we have evidence that we're quite confident even now.

1:50:32 So I think it's talking to you and others about how to do that,

1:50:35 yeah,

1:50:35 yeah,

1:50:36 I guess we think of it as a change in the technology of design and implementation

1:50:41 where these,

1:50:43 uh,

1:50:44 data capabilities

1:50:46 and trials and adopt capabilities.

1:50:49 Are

1:50:49 part and parcel of our programs

1:50:52 everywhere

1:50:53 and so that that we can use these

1:50:55 to continue optimizing

1:50:57 the effectiveness of what we do.

1:51:00 The questions

1:51:01 are infinite,

1:51:02 you know,

1:51:03 potentially

1:51:03 and so as,

1:51:04 as,

1:51:05 uh,

1:51:05 as,

1:51:06 uh,

1:51:06 Jonas said,

1:51:07 you know,

1:51:07 every time we find something,

1:51:10 so many other questions come up.

1:51:12 OK,

1:51:12 but what about this and that and the other?

1:51:14 And so

1:51:15 kind of having

1:51:16 Investing in,

1:51:18 well,

1:51:18 investing in the data systems first and then using

1:51:22 that as a stepping stone to increase the frequency of

1:51:26 the different trials

1:51:27 to give a lot of different answers to our programs.

1:51:30 So what we,

1:51:31 what we show in our experience for the last 15 years,

1:51:34 this is a tiny.

1:51:36 Tiny investments

1:51:37 for very,

1:51:38 very large returns at the programmatic side

1:51:41 and so it's really a different technology of doing things.

1:51:45 Not,

1:51:45 I,

1:51:46 I don't even think of it as an impact evaluation.

1:51:48 I think of it

1:51:49 as a way of doing development which is

1:51:52 different now

1:51:54 than ever before.

1:51:55 I mean,

1:51:56 the way I think about it is that every study is part of a larger conversation

1:52:00 and so the more.

1:52:02 Studies that you have,

1:52:03 the richer set of information that you have to make judgment calls,

1:52:08 uh,

1:52:08 but,

1:52:09 but also I think that it's important to highlight that

1:52:12 as we engage in,

1:52:13 you know,

1:52:13 with the literature,

1:52:14 you know,

1:52:15 there is a bias because,

1:52:16 you know,

1:52:17 pub

1:52:17 articles that get published are the ones that get significant results

1:52:21 and oftentimes,

1:52:22 you know,

1:52:22 the,

1:52:22 the those studies that do not have significant results fall

1:52:25 by the way and and we don't know about them.

1:52:26 So again,

1:52:27 I think there's,

1:52:28 there's also the importance to commit to being to,

1:52:30 to making.

1:52:32 Public to,

1:52:33 to,

1:52:33 to bring the awareness to to what worked but didn't

1:52:36 work what got results but didn't get results so that again

1:52:39 that conversation can can be richer.

1:52:42 Yeah,

1:52:42 very good.

1:52:42 In fact,

1:52:43 we,

1:52:43 we share

1:52:45 everything

1:52:46 right

1:52:47 and,

1:52:47 and learning from failure of course is the is

1:52:50 the first instance just kind of stop doing what seems

1:52:54 like a good idea in theory,

1:52:56 but then

1:52:57 it doesn't roll out and doesn't deliver on its promises.

1:53:01 And that's a little slightly difficult sometimes

1:53:04 because

1:53:05 some,

1:53:06 you know,

1:53:07 some programs have been going on for a very long time and people are very attached

1:53:11 to

1:53:12 some

1:53:13 ways of doing things

1:53:14 and kind of helping them,

1:53:16 you know,

1:53:16 just,

1:53:17 I'm,

1:53:17 I'm also assuming the responsibility,

1:53:19 but because we depend often in terms on the generosity of donors

1:53:22 and we want to show to the donors that their money was well spent,

1:53:26 it's hard to sell,

1:53:27 oh look.

1:53:30 $5 billion

1:53:31 in fact had negative results,

1:53:33 yeah,

1:53:34 so,

1:53:34 so,

1:53:34 but again I think that that uh on,

1:53:36 on all,

1:53:37 all parties involved need to again so,

1:53:39 uh,

1:53:40 assume the responsibility and the importance of being able

1:53:43 to share everything and again that that us.

1:53:46 As development workers,

1:53:48 um,

1:53:48 we can't expect 100% of success,

1:53:51 that,

1:53:51 you know,

1:53:51 there will be failures.

1:53:52 There were things that will go wrong.

1:53:53 There will be things that

1:53:55 turn out differently from,

1:53:56 from what we expect them to be,

1:53:58 and then sort of also to have the commitment that we can

1:54:01 actually learn from this,

1:54:02 those experiences and then sort of,

1:54:04 you know,

1:54:04 uh,

1:54:04 um,

1:54:04 make sure that we don't repeat those same mistakes again.

1:54:09 But I have to say in terms of our donor relations,

1:54:12 once you are very transparent.

1:54:16 Um,

1:54:16 and you are

1:54:18 already,

1:54:18 and you have,

1:54:19 and you establish that kind of relationship,

1:54:21 you know,

1:54:23 and moving all the donors from a payer to a player and a

1:54:26 strategic partner and create that environment that there is that kind of,

1:54:30 you know,

1:54:31 the preparedness to learn together.

1:54:33 Uh,

1:54:34 you know,

1:54:34 I,

1:54:34 I'm not naive.

1:54:35 No,

1:54:35 I mean,

1:54:36 we are not,

1:54:36 we can't open that up for,

1:54:38 you know,

1:54:38 for every situation,

1:54:39 but I think for the most important,

1:54:41 and I'm coming back with to,

1:54:42 to my question in terms of

1:54:44 strategic investment.

1:54:46 Once as an organization,

1:54:47 you invest so much in CBT or in school-based programs.

1:54:52 You have to be rested,

1:54:53 you have to,

1:54:54 on your,

1:54:55 on your own,

1:54:55 you have to make sure

1:54:57 that you're constantly questioning your routine

1:55:00 because the,

1:55:01 the,

1:55:01 the framing conditions are changing.

1:55:03 Look at Sudan,

1:55:04 no,

1:55:05 at the

1:55:06 Afghanistan,

1:55:07 the,

1:55:07 the frame conditions are constantly changing

1:55:11 and to adapt,

1:55:12 you know,

1:55:12 to these kind of frame,

1:55:13 frame conditions is,

1:55:15 is,

1:55:15 is key.

1:55:16 Uh,

1:55:18 and also creating that kind of,

1:55:19 let me say,

1:55:19 lab situation with donors,

1:55:21 you know,

1:55:22 in the context of our annual strategic consultations,

1:55:24 we try really to,

1:55:26 in a way,

1:55:26 create a situation where we're saying,

1:55:28 you know,

1:55:28 what,

1:55:29 what have we learned

1:55:30 and not

1:55:31 saying,

1:55:31 you know,

1:55:32 you're here.

1:55:32 Have invested on the wrong topic or you know,

1:55:34 but,

1:55:35 but also,

1:55:36 you know,

1:55:37 uh,

1:55:37 we want to be pushed also,

1:55:40 you know,

1:55:40 in that direction,

1:55:41 that innovation learning

1:55:43 are enablers and innovation is also something about

1:55:46 that you are failing here and there,

1:55:47 you know,

1:55:48 that,

1:55:48 that was the wrong way to go and

1:55:51 And so this is one,

1:55:52 and I hope,

1:55:53 you know,

1:55:54 you have no idea what kind of favor you did

1:55:58 with your presentation on,

1:55:59 on this kind of

1:56:00 emerging agenda on forecast-based financing because we want to prove.

1:56:06 That

1:56:07 in the moment we are talking about climate adaptation programs,

1:56:10 we want to prove that climate adaptation is an integral part of what we are doing,

1:56:15 right?

1:56:15 If we get that evidence,

1:56:17 right,

1:56:18 then it's a kind of,

1:56:19 you know,

1:56:20 dealing,

1:56:21 you know,

1:56:21 and,

1:56:21 and showcasing that the same intervention.

1:56:25 And I think Louis,

1:56:25 you said that or someone else said it.

1:56:27 Uh,

1:56:28 I think Luli said it,

1:56:29 you know,

1:56:29 this one intervention has so many direct and indirect side effects,

1:56:33 no,

1:56:34 and we have to be very conscious about

1:56:36 the indirect positive side effects on climate,

1:56:39 climate adaptation.

1:56:40 We are not yet there.

1:56:41 It's very clear.

1:56:43 We do a lot of hundreds of good things,

1:56:45 in particular on this,

1:56:46 uh,

1:56:46 public works,

1:56:47 work side,

1:56:48 Luli.

1:56:48 Um,

1:56:49 you know,

1:56:49 infrastructure and all of that,

1:56:51 but this,

1:56:51 the indirect side effects on,

1:56:53 on,

1:56:53 on the climate adaptation

1:56:55 effects are immense if you're doing it in the right way,

1:56:58 you know.

1:56:59 Uh,

1:56:59 look at Turkey and Syria,

1:57:00 you know,

1:57:00 at the moment,

1:57:01 the earthquake,

1:57:02 you know,

1:57:02 yeah,

1:57:02 in the moment,

1:57:03 you know,

1:57:04 you,

1:57:04 you have to start rebuilding.

1:57:07 Um,

1:57:08 we have to factor that in,

1:57:10 and in the moment we know what,

1:57:11 what we are doing and how we are questioning our routine.

1:57:15 Then it's,

1:57:16 it's the best,

1:57:17 and I would say,

1:57:18 I would,

1:57:18 uh,

1:57:19 conclude,

1:57:19 Louise,

1:57:20 that donors like these conversations more and more.

1:57:24 It's not giving us the money and saying you have to,

1:57:27 uh,

1:57:28 uh,

1:57:28 you have to breathe and,

1:57:29 uh,

1:57:30 you prove that's a 100% success,

1:57:32 but you have to prove that you're thinking

1:57:35 about your routine and how to improve and how to learn and how to,

1:57:38 you know,

1:57:38 how to do things differently,

1:57:39 you know.

1:57:40 So having said that,

1:57:42 thank you,

1:57:43 that's,

1:57:43 uh,

1:57:43 I think that's a beautiful conclusion

1:57:47 being kept accountable for introducing learning and acting on learning

1:57:52 as opposed to being accountable for the status quo.

1:57:55 I think that

1:57:56 I,

1:57:56 I,

1:57:57 I do agree with you that the conversations are much more productive

1:58:01 if you pushed in that direction.

1:58:02 I wrote down

1:58:04 from player to player.

1:58:05 Um,

1:58:06 I think it's important.

1:58:07 Everybody,

1:58:08 I think,

1:58:08 wants to be part of that positive conversation about how we needs to get better.

1:58:13 Yeah,

1:58:13 yeah,

1:58:15 so at least we have an internet side effect on this,

1:58:19 yeah.

1:58:21 I think we are at the end of our session,

1:58:23 but I think this was a great,

1:58:25 wonderful discussion

1:58:26 connecting the points.

1:58:27 I want to congratulate

1:58:28 the WFP and,

1:58:29 and if the alumni also our social protection

1:58:33 and,

1:58:34 and jobs partners in,

1:58:35 in this.

1:58:36 Uh,

1:58:36 enterprise

1:58:38 because both of them have been super,

1:58:41 you've been super open to exactly what we're discussing now,

1:58:45 which is

1:58:45 not being defensive about what we do

1:58:48 because development and emergency is difficult.

1:58:52 But actually being

1:58:53 open and putting things out and figuring out

1:58:56 where,

1:58:56 where is the path forward

1:58:58 and so we're here to support

1:59:00 and work

1:59:01 with you in the future as,

1:59:03 as we know we have a partnership until 2026,

1:59:05 but we think of it as

1:59:07 just a partnership and we'll continue working with you now and in the future

1:59:11 and uh and with our,

1:59:13 uh,

1:59:13 World Bank colleagues as well.

1:59:15 Very,

1:59:15 very good discussion.

1:59:16 Thank you very much for being here.

1:59:18 Thank you.

1:59:24 Thank you to everyone online.

showAllTimestamps
no
transcript
I sent you an email because I don't have a charger. Frank was, um, called me in the hallway, so she's gonna try to grab one. I ask my colleague if she can do. Yeah, yes. Thanks so much. So this is actually a sorry oh you guys are already. Yeah, it's, yeah, cause it, it's a tier one, yeah, it's a tier one, so you always have somebody from the GCS team. So if you go to your Webex meeting right there, uh, if you want to mute your computer so that you don't hear, uh, let's see. Just out there so, so that if we're talking into the mic you can't hear that but uh yeah it looks like the meeting is already recording which is good, which is what you want, right? You want the meeting recorded yeah we want the meeting. Yeah, I think you guys are all set. I just need the Clo to come with the presentations. She's doing the presentations on her computer. OK, so, so good. I bring in the charger now. Um, just make sure that when I get back IT center for her. I'll bring it back as soon as we're done. Thank you so much and you're staying, right? Uh, I won't be staying for the meeting, but I'll, I'll stay until you guys are all set up we only begin at 12. Yes, yeah, I can, I can say until you all are set up that, um, so let's see, I just want Chloe to come with the microbeadlet for the presentation so that we can connect for sure, yeah, we can make sure that that's all set up. Thanks so much for coming also. Let's see if everybody was like that yesterday with the changing room like that she is now connecting to meet with. 00, so that's that's why we could not use. Thank you for those ones. Do they have anything any from MC 4301 or I don't think so. I think it's just getting. I'll bring it down in here. Yeah. Oh, and I was installing, uh, SAP on my computer and it takes forever. It didn't. SAP takes a long time, but it's like since yesterday. Now it shouldn't take that long. And when you did, did you do it if you were leaving the office or anything? No, I, it, it stayed for like an hour or two, but it's still like this. What happens when you type it? I don't have it. OK, uh, after the meeting, if you come down with the chart, I can, we'll get that one knocked out and we'll install it from the post install instead of. Sometimes, um, every randomly every now and we install it. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. So that's the new room. Yes, that's the new room. Yes, and we, and we have some lunch, lunch. Oh, big lunch lunch. Yeah, we'll have you sit at the head of the table. Yes, that's good, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, I see your team, but if anything can be a team. OK, thank you so much. And then yeah, sure, thank you, thank you. It. But. Don't worry about that. We're not very, uh, very special. You sit there and video on camera all the time. And you OK. Would you give me 10 minutes? I have to run down to right above. Oh, you can really. water. Would you like some water? Yeah, please. So good morning. Good morning. Everything's fine. Everything is good. I'm just waiting for Chloe to come. She has a presentation and uh. Yeah, yeah, but I mean, we still have 20 minutes. No, no, you're fine. Yeah. So I have to tell you what is going on because a lot is going on. Um, We're in the middle of a revolution. Is it wrote my book, huh, it's a you wrote my goal, yeah, yeah, you should go. So this is creating a new a few things in a slightly different way, so. Yeah, from, from our side we're interacting and you know, arguing for. I'm not sure about the bands more efficient and more probably will have. It's quite to you guys. I mean the conservative fan say your parents are really fun. Good. Oh, thank you. It's a fun day. People taking common and say no, you don't understand the challenge. It's true. It doesn't go well, so to become bigger. So we've become much bigger, right? We've already become much bigger during COVID. We doubled that, right? So we're now at 70 billion. But there's a huge push on doing more. And so, so the first bush was more. Um, but the sex back and uh. Basically, the resource, the resources are not growing in a way just do it, but increasing and so there's already a huge pressure for the other to together. It's a work I'm proposing, you have to rationalize the bad projects or even transform the project, a project faster as a lot faster but also better. Right, so, uh, I'm going to Oslo next week about meeting with all the them to discuss. How we bring in evidence that doubles coverage for the same funding. Um, it's good. Mhm. Mhm. But um, yeah, slate display both rooms look at the family situations all across the board. And so successful for you to just 14 now make sure you were 7 before that old sorry congrats. I don't have to congratulate you or feel sorry for you, but I heard it. I, I think it's I mean I hope it's. Can you, you should invites to the rest room also, as long as people are still gonna go to, you know, and you're not changing that. In the calendar, the calendar I already gave it still says the other room. We checked. It's still if I did I send no, but if I go onto the calendar, say IRSP, so that it still says the other room. That's my my so. This is why I talk about uh that change about I say that we got to change all right, so do you have a presentation I do. It's so bad it does go, it goes to and my calendar it says let me double check again, but yeah, it says MC 4301 on my calendar. Because you have to close the process of starts, right? You got the, the one that I, oh, but we have to, that would mean that people would have to we are. You should take it. Yeah, the pizza, well, I don't think people are gonna if if people aren't taking pizza, people don't invite, and then they still to the other room. I'm just, OK, I'm gonna send even if you, I think I eat when the people are right now, yeah, and I'm gonna ask, uh-huh, you're sharing. Yes, please. I wanna check one thing because there's a no. Thank you so much. Try one thing vegans. Then also put everything on my computer. Women and men do not have equal access to economic opportunities. They also don't have equal levels of autonomy. These gaps are unjust and also economically inefficient. The impacts evaluation. We are seeking to produce a pretty good volume. Yeah, OK. If you want to adjust it to output volume for the TV. Is is too great thank you. And then did you want a camera and then you'll take that position or do you want just that way yeah, I just wanted, do you wanna be able to see yourselves on the screen or no, it's OK to see people, so one of the discussions. Yeah, so we wanna make sure that she talks about, but I guess if someone talks, we'll see them where we see something. Yes, I mean, so long as you're carrying your screen, it won't show them enlarged because I think you're there but um, but yeah, you should be able you should get your. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, and then they're up, you know, they're cleaning up, I'm gonna ask, um, you know what I saw and they're realizing now, and that's not what this looks like I possibly. What we're thinking is also to explain what we are doing is that all our humanitarian interventions in that no CBD and social protection, food assistance, food for asset in economic development. Disaster reduction. That's the transformation we have to do this, but yeah, it's doing that, yeah, it was all Sylvia tried. I don't know where I just put down my phone. I got my phone and it works on my phone too. That's a good thing I think my phone that's what I only had a phone so. and then I went into the things into the IT to like what's happen and then why it works now and it's nice and short and I think the message is nice, right? It's about the great set it up the reservations here and have and it says good things. Yeah, I think it's good to, uh, pick it out of this to, yeah, because I mean all the, the people will talk about specific. Yeah, I mean in Boston. OK, keep it at that level that was the initial, yes 4 30 11, obviously, you know, they just asking people to go there and I mean this is a good opportunity, I think, to kind of Interface which is yeah, yeah, not a uniform framework, but at least it yeah yeah yeah yeah, yeah, I think it's I don't have a big strategic it's recording, so, oh, perfect, thank you, um. You know, I, I think one of things they're supposed to be, there's supposed to be a lot of Nice to meet you. OK, cut down all the lazy people. No, no, no, you have a best friend, OK. Yes, um, we have the, the three areas, um, which is, sorry, I didn't forgot too much, the operational model and the model, um. So I've been part of the operation model, but that's also involved in the I should stay. Should we put like a sign on it, it, it's still the other, you know, I'm not sure introduction and redefining you can't do anything about it really. That's uh maybe maybe it's the gas just how long how much it take oh, because she was and uh OK and then the question is just on the 5 because he's planning to 65 and I guess we have you know they basically there are 6 public. put that on my goodness did you update the calendar I did, yeah, to go there to check and there's anyone we can ask her. Yeah, we ask them to come back so it's natural habitat and forestry the uh physician it's important things you forget, um. So and kind of understanding and then I just resend it announcement. You and I didn't copy you. Sorry, I find it. I'm just saying if, if, if everybody who accepted the old invite, would they see that, yeah, no, that's more concession. So the concessionary funds today are mainly for the purpose of. Distribution and the link will be the same, right? Yes, but the the. It's a different, it's a different rationale for industrial recession and so the rules of that have to be developed really who pays for what. So if, if Brazil takes a huge economic cost of protecting the Amazon, but not in the end, not in the end, um, and similarly for all the In reduction you don't have anything to gain, yeah. But they're not contributors to the it's nice they have everything. So these, these are, and then the, the big, big item on the agenda is private family compensation yeah and I can hear the IFC then we can bring in capital and goods, but we need to look at the a lot of people to the non-public good agendas. Responsible for much of what we need to fight against, yeah, the private sector is not definitely not why should be in a way that should beyond this. Oh wait. Oh wait, one more question just Patrick, is that a guest? Oh yeah, OK, great. So it's so it's, that's perfect. OK, so you to sign it's like. In terms of de-risking, do you wanna know how the microphones work? these little, little bottles right here. I notice that we were on Good afternoon everyone and uh wonderful to have you here. Thank you everyone for joining online as well. I am, uh, very happy to have, uh, my very good friend Ute Clammert from the WFP. She is the deputy executive director for Partnerships and advocacy advocacy, yes, uh, together with her team, um, with the WFP. The World Bank has a long-standing partnership with the WFP where we collaborate in very fragile context, in contexts where the World Bank cannot even put a foot in. The WFP is the largest UN agency and, uh, I just learned that they doubled, they doubled, um, their, uh, funding and therefore their ability to uh reach out in, uh, these days of great. Uh, very challenging days, uh, we're looking at. A combination of crisis from pandemics to conflict, um, to environmental, um, Uh, shocks, and the WFP is really at the center of it all and a very, very good partner to the World Bank, um, working with World Bank projects and, uh, operating in areas where sometimes there is no government, uh, sometimes there are no structures to deliver programs, and the WFP goes in with their own, uh, staff and, uh, um, operations to deliver, uh. And save lives and really provide that uh safety net and social protection that is needed in those crises. I, I wanna say that. Kind of this old idea that all these uh transfers and support structures for vulnerable people in vulnerable situations was considered a giveaway for a very long time and I think the partnership that we have from the knowledge side, knowledge for impact side with WFP. And with many others with the social protection and jobs, global practice in the World Bank, but also with many other partners is to understand what the social protection interventions can do, not just to protect during vulnerable time but actually. Uh, putting down a stepping stone for communities to grow, change their productive capabilities, and actually reduce poverty now and in a persistent way, um, and so the, the partnership that we have established with WFP since 2019 has been really geared to understand what can we learn from, uh, world, um, world. Uh, food program programming on the ground and how we can incorporate the learning as we transition into government social protection systems, what it is that we can do to kind of strengthen that transition and support governments, incorporate all the learning and, um, and provide for much better systems for, as I said, poverty reduction and economic growth. I think this is very good news, uh, very good news that, uh, cash transfer program and asset transfer can actually provide something for the future that is important and persistent, that it is, as I said, not just a giveaway, and of course giveaways are important when people are in very vulnerable situations and are, uh. But kind of understanding that these are investments for the future and they have uh high cost effectiveness can transform the way in which we think about um these programs and also the amount of resources that we raise and, and, and put out in this situation. So I'm very happy to say our program has um Has a very interesting um spread across multiple countries in, in fragile conditions. I think we're covering now 13 countries in this um impact evaluation program with the WFP, but there are many, many more that are in part of our program with uh SPJ and uh even with, uh, we have here Rui from uh Education. Um, we're going to talk today about how we're thinking about impact evaluation, not just providing the evidence needed to show how effective these interventions can be, but also working on how to maximize the impact of these interventions through what we today call a trial and adopt model, and the trial and adopt model is designed to test. Alternatives, delivery mechanisms, packages, uh, to understand how to Optimize parameters like prices and incentives, uh, how to improve targeting and so forth and so on to maximize the impact of our interventions. What we show in our experience in the last 15 years is that we can actually double coverage by understanding how to find the most cost effective interventions and double coverage means. Doubling the amount of essentially doubling the amount of money that we put out, so this is very, very exciting and then we wanna hear from you, Ute, how you view, uh, well. This program, the value of knowledge, but also kind of looking forward on how we can build even stronger structures between WFP and the World Bank to move together in this agenda. Yeah, yeah, thank you, Ariana. Uh, so nice to be here. I have to say it feels always a little bit like coming home because we started here in this building, you know, uh, meeting us, but I've just learned that we have a historic relationship, you know, uh, you know, long before we started, and we started apparently on the, on the school meal side. So that's also good to know that's also knowledge, no. But I have to say what you said, uh, try and adopt model. It feels at the moment, uh, working for WFP that the whole organization is like a try and adopt model, right? We are on a huge transformation journey as an organization and some of you in the room, maybe you're thinking of WFP or also online. Uh, you're thinking about, you know, you hear WFP and you think humanitarian intervention, right? The humanitarian agency. Yes, we are the largest humanitarian operator and also in charge for the logistical side for the whole UN system, but I, you know, and someone asking you, how are you doing? And, and I said, you know, we are stressed as an organization, really stressed and stretched. You can imagine Turkey. Turkey, uh, you know, Syria, you know, you feel immediately, oh my God, no, you know, we have to respond and we have to in a way distribute immediately on the spot, also in areas where other organizations cannot have no access, so that's, that's fine, but Uh, that's our mandate, but on the other hand, you know, the humanitarian needs are going up. Um, we are starting talking about poly crisis, uh, that was suggested by the, uh, by In Davos, but, you know, really talking about this over, you know, these different layers of, of, of crisis and what does that mean for us, Ariana? We, we are very realistic that, uh, you know, as much as we are successful with our fundraising, we will never get enough funds and financial support to address the, you know, the increase of needs, right? So the question is this try and adopt model is a really Suggesting, and also our strategic plan is now suggesting saying, you know, what are kind of good interventions where we can prove and tell the story that there are different interventions, you know, making a difference in the life of people and we are achieving with the same amount of support we get. We are, you know, we are achieving more, we are, we are, you know, on, on the qualities element, you know, the, the feedback is we are better, you know, we are more efficient, we are more effective, we are listening more, we are getting that kind of targeting better, we are listening to different target groups and, and, and so, I would say, you know, this huge transformation journey is now reflecting everything what we do, including the evaluation. We, we set up a new evaluation strategy. We created an impact evaluation unit. I have to say very frankly, not everyone was immediately buying into that. I fell in love with impact evaluation and you know, and so I guess I don't know exactly uh where we are with that kind of, you know, making friends and dating with the, with the impact evaluation. But I feel, you know, what is very conducive to for that we are for everyone falling in love with impact evaluation is also the pressure from donors, right? And correctly so. I mean, also, uh, uh, the US is a huge donor, mainly funding our humanitarian side, but there is also that kind of strong wish to understand what we can do better on the humanitarian. Response, but also what we can do better, and there's a lot of, you know, other donors in particular Germany, uh, but some of the Nordics, Australia, you know, really asking for that kind of evidence and the knowledge. And I have to say, and I, I want to share that also, you know, from my, from my job perspective, this year, but in particular next year will be a tough year because we will see a lot of donors focusing on the Ukraine response. And then the question is, there is a holy crisis. out there. There is a global food security and a malnutrition crisis out there. How are we alerting the international community, us, you know, that, that we, that we have to think really about the Myanmar's, about the Iraq's, uh, um, Afghanistan, you know, and also Kenya, who is talking about Kenya these days, Ariana, you know, the refugee influx from. Somalia or the refugee influx from from Mali to Mauritania. So and that that is, that is our, I would say that's our, our challenge, uh, that we also enable our, you know, our donors, our long standing donors, but also our new donors going back to parliaments also enabling think tanks that they are talking about us, what we, what we are achieving now. So, and I, as you can imagine, you know, the, the whole transformation journey is. is very exciting, but it's also a little bit of a bumpy road, because once you are operating on the humanitarian side, you measure, you measure activity and you measure, you measure the output element. But to move the needle to outcomes and impact, you know, not everyone was immediately falling in love with that kind of intervention. So, or that that kind of corridor. So what I've learned reading, uh, you know, from my, you know, from a really nice colleague from OECD Duck, uh, Susana Moorehead on her way out, no, she gave a very interesting interview and I've learned one word from her. She said, you know, I guess when I'm looking back, what is, what is needed is strategic patience. Yeah, and I love that, you know, you need, you need, you need strategic patience for, you know, that sta that your strategic investments in an organization, I guess the same in the world at the World Bank will pay off and that we, that we have time, that we give us time to see the, the, the long, uh, midterm, long term, um, uh, effects. And I, and you, you, you mentioned that we are, you know, on this, on this transformation journey. You know, from the humanitarian side, cash-based transfers, school-based programs. In a humanitarian context have to lead in the long run to social protection, you know, systems and social protection kind of visions and ideas, you know, in, in so many different country setups, uh, food assistance and food for asset. I don't like these headlines, no, but food assistance has to in a way move into rural, uh, rural and economic development, right? And then, uh, our disaster risk reduction and response has to get into the whole domain of climate adaptation. So these are all these kind of next, you're walking over the nexus bridge, walking from a humanitarian intervention and having in mind immediately like in Turkey and, and Syria at the moment, yes, we have to do immediately in the here and now, but we have to think about the long term, uh, perspective. And in that context, I have to say it's great as an organization that we feel that the World Bank is seeing us more and more as as a strategic partner. It's not about, you know, who is, you know, funding whom. It's we are, we're ending up hopefully doing kind of joint funding for our, for our next 4 years if we sign the MOU. So we went, we are very clear, we, we want to walk a longer period. Together we want to have strategic patience together, Ariana, you know, um, but we also, we also want to too much not too much pressure, but we want to also listen and celebrate what we know already and we agreed on 4 windows, and I'm glad that we are moving the needle. Thank you very much and congratulations that you managed to get a stand-alone department. That's great. I think the group deserved it. The topic deserved it. And we are absolutely happy to be part of your journey as well. Uh, I also hope that we can, uh, get approved for the spring meeting event, and that will be a very interesting event exactly on, on this subject. So I guess we, uh, so thank you very much. I, I think this is, uh, a great ride, and I really like the way you, you, uh, drew out the connections between the humanitarian and emergency response side together with the developmental one and how do we create the knowledge to actually make those linkages, um, um. Uh, and develop those linkages in a way that makes sense. I want to hear from, uh, uh-huh, Jonas. He's, uh, our old partner from many years in many different roles, um, but of course he came to WFP to support the launch of this program, uh, which has been, uh, uh, really wonderful. Great. Thank you. Thank you, thank you. So it's really nice to be here with you all today. I'm going to, over the next few minutes, just give a brief introduction to the Impacttuation partnership that we have developed over the last 4 years, and then I'm gonna hand it over to our colleagues in DIMU working on specific windows to talk about some of the early findings from the work that we've already been putting together. So, before actually this partnership and before 2019, impact evaluation was not part of WFP's evaluation policy. Um, and that, and, and it was really, um, actually in 2019 when we actually developed a strategy for impact evaluation and started working with DM and with our German colleagues and donors to think about how do we make impact evaluation a core part of WFP business and it was a slow and, well, not that slow, but a steady and gradual progress and then last year in 2022. The board approved the new evaluation policy that makes impact evaluation, uh, a part of the institutional evaluation policy as a stand-alone type of evaluation. So, the board's policy, which they approved for the whole organization has centralized evaluations, impact evaluations, and decentralized evaluations. Um, this gave us the, the chance to create a unit. It also means that we have core staff dedicated to impact evaluation. And across the organization people are talking about when and how they should use impact evaluation to support their programming, support their fundraising, support their thinking, um, and so it's becoming slowly, it is becoming kind of part of WFP's business as usual. I mean, it's slow, but it is going that way, um, so I'm excited about that. That's already, I think, a big shift organizationally over a relatively short time. Um, we define impact evaluations a bit narrowly, and that's to again. show how they complement other types of evidence and evaluation. So for us, impact evaluations, they measure changes in development outcomes that can be attributed to a credible counterfactual. So all the impact issues we do are really thinking about counterfactual analysis, what is a credible counterfactual? Um, so far, that means we've developed mostly using experimental methods, so all of them have an a randomization as a core part of the design at this point, but we also acknowledge there are other ways to develop credible counterfactuals. Um, early on, we looked for how would we do this in a, in a setting that, um, we have a very large organization, a lot of need, a lot of demand, and we, we had a very, I mean, very small unit to start off with and, and it's still small in WFP so partnering with DIN was a like a very strategic decision from the beginning. Um, it's also good timing because the year before in 2018, the organizations had already agreed that there was a need for operationally to have this global partnership between World Bank and WFP. And so we piggybacked on that and said, well, they have DIME, which is a, a very well established development um impact tuation unit, and we would work with them and, and so the 1st 4 years have really been working with DINM to learn from their experience in terms of methods and, and design, um, and also generating evidence that really met WFP's strategic priority needs. Um, so that's, I think, been a nice way of working together, and I think that, I mean, the new MOU allows us to continue, which is, which is great. When we thought about the amount of evidence needs that were there, it is actually, it's very large. I mean, WFP operates in contexts that have very few rigorous impact evaluations to reference in sectors that are also almost void of, of rigorous impact evaluation evidence. So it's, it's, it's, it's almost an endless amount of stuff we could have done. So we had to be strategic in how we organize our work. We started off working closely with program divisions in the WFP and thought about what are their strategies, where do they see their increase in spending? And then we paired that with literature reviews to say, OK, you're expecting to grow in terms of cash transfers and this is your, your objectives to target women. What can we learn about that? How can we make that growth in cash transfers better by learning while we're doing? And so, we've designed these windows to focus on areas that were high value future spend and uh not heavily supported with evidence that we could already readily use. Then cross-cutting, we have this workstream on humanitarian impactation, which is supported heavily by the US and BHA which is more about context. So, if we're working in very fragile areas or in emergency responses, we also have to tweak the way we work. So we have to think about maybe it's actually more about experimenting with the modalities, or AB testing type of designs. And so we have a whole workstream on how do we operate in this context. Mm Um, and we've been busy. I mean, we, we have, uh, 130, but 18 overall right now. And that's before we launched the nutrition window this year. So we're very, very busy in, in many countries. Um, each of the windows is supporting multi-country designs and, and the, I mean, Clarence and, and Paul will talk about those. Um, but we're also coming to the end of the first few. So we, the, the earliest ones were in El Salvador, Kenya, Rwanda, uh, Mali, ***, and, and South Sudan. And we just finished our end lines for El Salvador and do now doing the qualitative works, but I'm gonna play a short video from the country representative just talking about his experience. Yes. Women and men do not have equal access to economic opportunities. They also don't have equal levels of autonomy. These gaps are unjust and also economically inefficient. With the impacts evaluation, we are seeking to produce evidence on the question whether targeting women and having them participate in. Food assistance for assets programming has an impact on their social and economic empowerment. The process of uh the impact evaluation was a great learning experience. Particularly, it offered great collaboration and frequent exchanges between the Country Office, the Office of devaluation, and the World Bank. It also showed a strong commitment to evidence-based decision making. The team effort and the open communication helped to ensure a thorough and comprehensive evaluation. Also, uh, it helped in a way that the future evaluations can be even more effective and efficient. We look forward to exploring new focus areas for impact evaluation jointly with the Office of Evaluation and its partners. Some of them include targeting. For instance, focus on exploring the use of new data sources and innovative targeting methods. For example, comparing data driven to more community-based methods, which will help reach the most vulnerable communities in a more efficient way. Great. And so, I mean, I, I think it's nice just to have that for a minute because it's very easy for me and I and everybody to tell you how great evaluation is, but it's also nice to hear it from people who don't live and breathe evaluation every day. Um, and then just lastly before I hand it over, I, so I say that the work is, is really only possible because of partnerships. It, it's, it's our donor partners which is growing. I mean, we get supported by Germany, COICA, USA, NORAD. They're all supporting the work that we do. It's also our implementing partners and we have joint impactations actually on the ground with UNICEF in South Sudan and South Sudan. Um, and we've got a growing network of NGO and university partners that feed in in terms of offering technical advice, engaging in our work in different ways. So I just want to make it clear that that's a very important part of how we And so without further ado, I think I'm gonna hand it over now. Oh, and then looking forward, looking forward, um, we, we have big ambitions. We'd like to actually make sure that the evidence we've generated already is really used. I mean, it's nice that the country office sees it, but we wanna make sure it's visible globally, that it has an impact on the way WFP and the World Bank operates, um, in terms of understanding the context and targeting and issues that come out. We also want to work together to raise the awareness of the tool of impact evaluation that this is part of core business. If you can and you have an opportunity, it, it benefits the whole organization to do it more so to make it kind of business as usual. Um, and then we also want to think about how to identify mutual priorities for the World Bank and WFP, particularly where we already operate together in, in countries and, and, and Sectors, why, what are you gonna focus on that we could both benefit from most going forward and that would allow us to have maybe a, a, a more mutual agenda and then have the windows also be fed by impactations of both the World Bank operations and WFP operations as we go ahead so we're learning from each other as we go forward in the next phase of the evidence generation. OK, now I will hand it over to. Uh, thank you, Jonas, Sannua, and Norea for the excellent introduction and the exciting agenda. I'm really happy to be here, uh, today in the role of getting to share on behalf of the many collaborators, researchers, uh, and partners what this impact evaluation process looks like in practice and how countries are using this evidence and learning from this process, and you are Paul Christian and I am pro Christian. I'm sorry. I'm Paul Christian, a senior economist at I'm working on the climate and resilience window. So happy to be here to, to get to share, uh, what this looks like and, uh, some of the learning and results we're starting to find so far. Um, so, in the climate resilience window, we're going to be asking questions related to how the food for assets, uh, and related approaches, integrated livelihood approaches improve resilience. So, if you're here today, it's probably because you have lots of experience and, uh, and like looking at data on poverty, vulnerability, and food security. So all of us with that background understand that these are inherently dynamic concepts. People who are Food insecure today might not be the same as those who are food insecure tomorrow and vice versa. So as we expand these concepts to talk about resilience, we can think about people, communities, uh, and populations being more resilient. If, for example, their livelihood strategies are well adapted to their environments, allowing them to achieve, uh, a good level of food security or, or, uh, well-being over time. Uh, but also that they're able to avoid changes in their environment. So avoid the impacts of shocks and stressors and hopefully transform and improve their well-being or food security or poverty status over time. When we think about what we can do about these concepts, uh, we're going to be focusing within the, the two windows we're presenting today on the impact of food for assets and related integrated livelihoods programs which, uh, the main components include providing cash or food as transfers in a part of the year in exchange for recipients working on community assets that intended to improve livelihood opportunities. And, uh, as was already highlighted, these are huge programs, uh, affecting, um, tens of millions of people in the food for assets case in over 50 countries. Uh, and if you expand the, the findings to include cash transfers, now we're talking about more than 40 million people in 60 countries. So huge, uh, chunk of what the WFP and humanitarian agencies are. So, following on previous work, finding that programs like FFA or transfers uh more broadly uh and related programming can overall improve food security, in thinking about this from a climate or resilience lens, we're gonna be, uh, expanding to ask questions like whether we see the biggest impacts in the seasons, uh, when FFA is implemented, knowing that, uh, seasons drive a lot of changes in context for these livelihood opportunities. Whether the impacts on food security are the biggest before, during, or after shocks and specifically how programs like FFA or related livelihoods programs can take advantage in terms of timing or targeting in order to maximize the impact of these programs. So because a big part of the contribution of this window is on the data side bringing novel unique data, I just wanted to highlight for one or two minutes, uh, what the unique approach to data is here and I have a question of why high frequency data specifically is important for understanding this core concept of resilience. So if we think about what we would do in a normal uh impact evaluation, we think about the first thing we might do is do our, our baseline survey in the first couple of months and following the baseline survey, uh, do our core programming, providing transfers and asking households to work on, uh, contribute their labor to work on, uh, developing assets and maybe do this for a couple of cycles allowing them to receive their full dose and then we'd come in and we do our end line. And by comparing changes from baseline to endline and if we're careful comparing those changes with a control group who hasn't had access to the program, we would say this is, these changes are quote-unquote, the impact of the program of food for assets and food security. But we all know from working in these challenging contexts in these rural livelihood settings that many other things are changing between the baseline and the endline besides our transfers and our, our asset work. So there's gonna be agricultural calendars, people are gonna be busy with planting, cultivation and harvesting, overlapping with the periods of when we're doing FFA and there's gonna be shocks. So if we're, uh, considering an impact evaluation that happens over multiple years, we might observe one year where there's good weather, uh, and another year where there's bad weather, and that might affect or mediate, uh, the impact of our program. So, the main contribution of this, uh, this data collection effort that we're able to realize through these, these partnerships, uh, described so far in the presentation is being able to bring high frequency data to this. So, each of the, the countries were, uh, including the climate resilience window are going to be doing at least 10 rounds of high frequency data collection, allowing us to understand not just one impact from baseline to endline, but the multiple impacts realized throughout the course of the evaluation. And the last exciting piece of this is, uh, doing coordinated evaluations across the most important contexts. So the climate resilience window includes ***, Mali, South Sudan, and Rwanda, allowing us to compare communities with these types of resilience livelihood support against communities that don't, collecting data from over 300 communities and 10,000 households, each with over 10 high frequency surveys. So, what does this look like? We're gonna zoom in on the case of *** to provide a flavor for what the impact evaluation learning looks like uh in the short time we have today. So, uh, in our first high-frequency round we did just after programming started in *** in May of 2021, when we compare the food security of the group receiving resilience livelihood programs through FFA against the control group who didn't, we can measure the impact, the early impact of this program on food security. So the fact that this dot comes above the red zero line means good news. Uh, WFP's programming is improving food security over the control group who's not receiving those programs. But if we're interested in dynamic impacts and how this changes over time as we go through seasons and shocks, we're interested in whether this impact is gonna grow, shrink, or change over time. So when we started to measure multiple rounds and see these impacts evolve, as people continue to receive their transfers and we move into the main agricultural season, we started to see a surprising finding at first, but the impacts were getting smaller over time, uh, and shrinking as we moved into the main season. But then as we finished our first cycle of FFFA programming, so people have received their full transfers and we moved out of the ad season into the post-harvest season, we saw that impacts emerged uh and became positive on food security. So this at first prompted the question, um, after the first few rounds, is this improvement we're seeing just spurious or are we gonna see this again? So the high frequency data allows us to fast forward our movie on impacts, um, following, uh, a 2nd round of transfers and following the 2nd agricultural season, and we see the same pattern here in *** emerge where the impacts were getting smaller as we moved into the 2nd cycle and into the main agricultural season. But then reappeared uh at the end of the, the, uh, cycle and moving out of the post-harvest season. So what did we, we learned from this, uh, first cycle of high frequency surveys in ***? There's this consistent pattern that's, uh, impacts were the same, concentrated in the, in particular parts of the year and repeated, uh, pattern over time. Uh, what does this tell us? It tells us that there may be a role of seasonality or timing of the, of the impacts relative to the FFA cycles. And so thinking about what's happening in these particular seasons and what we're doing and how we're targeting these seasons may be important for maximizing these impacts. Being able to see the impacts over two years also helps us start to separate the role of seasonality from the role of shocks. So for example, seeing that the impact is similar in 2022, which was a relatively normal agricultural year compared to 2021, where there were rainfall failures, tells us that the, the role of seasonality on this particular measure might be dominating the role of shocks, at least as experienced in these two roles. So, I wanted to wrap up with what does this mean for programming? What can programming do with novel unique data like this? First of all, uh, on the contribution of the high frequency data, it tells us that impacts do seem to be changing over time. So, if we were not collecting data in this way, not taking This approach, we might have made entirely different conclusions based on when we decided to collect our data and that's gonna be really important for thinking about impact. So understanding not just the single impact, but how impacts change over time is important for understanding programming like this. Specific findings that we can learn from this suggest the influence of seasonality, which may mean that there are gains to timing. So really thinking about if we're seeing impacts come from the post-harvest offseason. Uh, when food might be more available but labor opportunities are less, might be more important for maximizing the impacts. Also starting to suggest possible gains from targeting, so seeing the specific profile of households that drive these patterns, give us insights into how we can maximize these impacts. Finding uh that non-agricultural households have the biggest impacts in the offseason gives us, uh, insights on who we should target to maximize or Or multiplier impacts. And finally, it's contributing to the emerging agenda that Jonas, uh, very briefly highlighted coming out of this resilience window on forecast-based financing. So thinking, um, not just about the chronic, uh, cases, but about the strategic cases where we invest specifically in the context where there are big shocks, uh, at the moment of the shock, uh, and understand whether the impacts, uh, as measured this way change in those contexts. That's a very brief, uh, highlight of a lot of work we're doing, but I, I wanna make sure we give, uh, time to Florence to discuss the gender equality and women's empowerment, uh, agenda. Thank you. Is it OK to keep going, or you want to take a break? or you have a question or any clarification before, anything you keep going. I mean, we have about discussing. OK, that's a beautiful picture of Rwanda. So, now I'm gonna switch to the gender window uh results, uh, and I titled this Cash that Empowers. Uh, there are lots of people in this room, I mean lots of people, a handful of people in this room who have contributed to this work and as well as Paul's work, we didn't put their names because then the whole slideshow could be their names, but, uh, thank you for everyone at the World Bank who has contributed to this. Um, so, Cash and Powers, why this title? So we know that gender gaps in economic opportunities and economy and autonomy are pretty large, right? So we, you know, there are lots of graphs that people put in a lot of gender reports that show that women and men do not have equal access to economic opportunities that can take the form of education, access to the labor market, or simply access to, you know, making simple decisions, everyday decisions, consuming, uh, the same share of the, the household income as, uh, their, their husbands, things like that. And this is, this poses a problem because we know that men and women make different choices over consumption, for example. So we know from a large amount of data that women are more likely to spend money on, you know, education, health, things like that. So as we increase women's autonomy, we really affect human development uh on a large scale potentially. Um, and, and so we also think that, you know, because of the economic, uh, gaps that are created by this lack of investment, this underinvestment in human development, etc. we think these are economically inefficient gaps, but they're also just unjust, right? Women should have as much autonomy and as much, uh, economic decision power as men. So when we started working uh with the WFPN and this is our first uh window idea, um, the question from, from programming, and I think this is, we have the same question at the World Bank is, you know, can cash transfers which we're implementing on a very large scale have long lasting impacts on women's empowerment, right? What can we do? And so the gender team, the cash team, you know, really consulted with us. We did a long Uh, you know, literature review, uh, Paul was, uh, key part of this with Jonas. We really reviewed all the literature we had on linking gender outcomes to cash transfers. And what we found from this literature review is that, you know, just putting cash in a woman's hands that had been done through the same type of experiments we're presenting today had no impact really on women's agents. What we saw though in this data is that just comparing the impact of putting cash in a woman's hand versus the impact of earned income. So when a woman goes out, works, makes an income and spends it, the impacts on autonomy of working are much larger. But this is not a causal evidence, right? Maybe these women are working because they have more autonomy to start with. So all we're picking up is just the fact that some women are more empowered than others, and you know, it doesn't mean that making them work is going to increase their autonomy. But that gave us an idea, right? What if making, I mean, allowing women to engage into, you know, outside work, outside home work, could actually, you know, increase their autonomy, their agency. And so that is exactly the question that, that we started to ask, that started to be formulated and thinking about the programming, an opportunity came up, right? That as Paul described this uh food assistance, uh, food assistance for asset programs really provide this opportunity of engaging, engaging women in work that's outside the household. Which is very atypical to the, in the countries where we work, where most women are providing labor to their farm or through, you know, just providing household chores and not just but providing household chores to the household, and they have very little, uh, you know, tied to the labor market outside their home. Uh, so this is in similar context as those that Paul described. We started this window in Haiti, El Salvador, Kenya, Rwanda. Today I'm going to present some. Findings from Rwanda and El Salvador, which are a little ahead of the other countries, but we're gonna find very similar findings across these two very different places. I mean at baseline we found very different levels of autonomy across this space. And so that's gonna allow us to generalize these findings and give you kind of a programming recommendation that's gonna have, you know, implications for, for the whole programming and not just the developing countries. So then the research questions are very simple. That we started to ask, you know, what is the impact of engaging in food for asset, food assistance for assets on women's social and economic empowerment, as well as, of course, the household income because eventually this FFA as Paul described, the goal is to increase income, therefore food security and welfare, right? And then the long term question is more, what is the impact of offering the work component to women instead of men in the household on their social and economic empowerment, on these women's social and economic empower. So what do we find? So during the program, we find as expected that FFA improves food security, the, you know, the cash transfer element works, does its job, it does it as well as any other, you know, cash transfer we can study. Uh, we have a large meta-analysis of cash transfer, we find basically the same, uh, effect and in the, you know, in the magnitude of transfer we study that equivalent, that's the equivalent of increasing household. Consumption by 12%. That's a powerful result. And when we ask, uh, in, in focus group meetings, we asked, you know, women who took part in the project, how this increase in, uh, in, in income affected their lives. They reported that, you know, they were able to buy medicine for their children when they were shocked. So these are really powerful stories from the field of how this, you know, relief is helping them, uh, with their day to day shocks. But then we ask what happens in those households in which we assign the work to women instead of men. Uh, and I want to say that at baseline when we started to look, you know, at those decisions, intra-household decisions. So basically the WFP, you know, there's a group meeting, people decide that they want to take part in the program and then really, I mean, typically the decision is left to the household as to who should participate in the work component. And in 80% of cases. It's the man who shows up, right? So, you know, this was a huge shift, right, uh, in, uh, in participation among women, and what this shows is that this is possible. First, I want to say this is possible. We see a large increase in participation from women, so there's huge compliance to this reservation. So it's, it's not something that's impossible because when we started with the programming, the question was, can you even make this woman, you know, is this sufficient to make them, uh, able to participate? It worked. Uh, it increased their income by 31%, so this is a large increase, you know, they're not fantastically large cash transfers, but as a share of what they were earning at this time, it's huge. Uh, what we see is then during the, the time of the transfer, making the women work. Basically fully closes the gender gap in decision making over consumption. So, men and women have equal agency over the income, OK. They make equal decisions. And less positive, but very temporary, we find that men don't like it so much. So as they sign, so as they sign, you know, as they sign, men are not persuaded that women should be working. They're not persuaded that women should be making these choices, otherwise they would be, right? Presumably. So we find a little bit of what we call a temporary backup, right? But I'm going to tell you a positive story. 3 months after the program. These women are not, these men and women are not taking part in this work program anymore. They're just doing back to their normal status of business. So of course, as the, the transfer, you know, the transfers were not fantastically large. These are very handful households, so they, they consume the transfer. So we don't see any impact, any long lasting impact on consumption or food security, and you know, this, the women in the program are back to uh the type of work they were doing before. But what we find is persistence of this reversal of the gender gap and in fact, in the longer term, if anything, women are making more, have more say than men in how to consume the, the income. So, you know, our interpretation is that this shift in, in decision making power, although temporary, had long lasting effect through sort of, you know, telling the, the men that this woman. Understand its value, it's valuable. You can value it and they have autonomy. So anyway, we're working through, you know, different models. This is more for the economists in the room that can sort of uh explain this, but we're pretty, you know, it, it makes sense with the way theory is written in economics book. Uh, so we're, we're really happy to see this and you know, people say ultimately the project came to strengthen the relationship as we have as a couple. The changes were one of strength. So this is from the men, uh, you know, firstly, the perception was that sometime, uh, of sexism, uh, but when you participate in this type of project that undoubtedly changes, uh, and you have a little more awareness. So, you know, qualitative evidence, but I think, uh, powerful speaking to that effect. And again, we really see these effects in El Salvador and Rwanda are vastly different, uh, situations at baseline, so really positive. Um, and so I want to speak to the, this change in attitude. So we said, you know, the men who are not extremely positive about the shifts, but actually that was very temporary and in the longer run, it's exactly as the quote says, sort of more acceptance, uh, replaces this, uh, this early sort of disagreements. Uh, and we see, uh, some improvement in well-being, uh, among women as well. So like lowering of stress among these women participants in the program. So anyway, I want to leave you with the key takeaways, but I think, you know, in terms of programming, this is, and we have a very nice uh graph that we made to kind of summarize the effects uh after the program that essentially these temporary effects, so these programs are very powerful as we said earlier, you know, not just. Just providing relief but potentially having other spillovers on the participants' life, on the beneficiaries' lives, uh, that are really worth documenting and, and really strengthening the narrative of these are not just assistance programs, but they're really economic development program. They're shifting things uh in the longer run even if. Even if they're temporary, 4, so for now we have full data sets on 2, we're collecting data in Kenya and we're starting work in Haiti. So we're, you know, our ambitions are to keep going, collect more data, uh, potentially refine the design, uh, slightly, but this is, so we'd love to hear your thoughts because this is an opportunity to change what we're doing. That's it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, yeah, we have, uh, we have Luis the minister and also Lonie on the line, um, uh, to provide some initial comments, and then we are happy to open up, but you know, if you have a two hands question, we're happy to also provide the space for the two hand question. Showing the presentation. So maybe, maybe we go first online with give lowly an opportunity to react. Maybe we, we stop the presentation. We cannot hear you. I think you're still muted. You know, my eyes are not good enough to see, so maybe she can't speak. We have to mute slowly because there's, yeah, we have to. All right, I think you should be, she's locked. They have to make her a presenter on the IT side, but maybe we start with Luis and we can try to see if we can sure, we're gonna try to solve the technical problems, knowledge, and so we're gonna go to Luis. Well, thank you, thank you for. inviting me today and thank you for the opportunity just to, uh, you know, share and learn from, from this partnership. I mean, first I will state the obvious thing that you like having Impact evaluations are just so incredibly valuable because again, we, we oftentimes um You know, on, on the operational side, we engage in all kinds of activities thinking that uh we're doing the right thing and that what we're doing is meaningful and that we uh are going, you know, we expected certain types of results, we're, you know, driven by the timelines and the delivery of outputs and, and ultimately, you know, it's, it's, uh, um. Impacted rates always brings us back to sort of really what what makes a difference and what made things work, uh, you know, how, you know, I think that your, your presentation Paul was super valuable in terms of how things change over time and, you know, so it depends on when you measure what you measure, how you measure, uh, so having sort of this, uh, multidimensional sort of approaches is always sort of instructive and ultimately. You know, so the goal is, is then sort of, you know, uh, uh, uh, how to feed all of this knowledge and information back to sort of implementation, yeah, so I think that I know, I, uh, uh, as, as a, again, as a reminder, you know, as, as we do all of these studies, it's, it's, you know, putting also the effort around sort of how to feed that back into the policymakers that make decisions or the, the people on the ground that sort of actually, you know, sort of, uh, are responsible for. Delivering services to people that make a difference and, and ultimately change lives. Um. I, I, um, so, you know, as, uh, as another sort of line of, of, uh, reactions, I mean, I think that obviously the the partnership between the bank and WFP is super valuable. It has, um, oh, you know, it, it ebbs and flows and, and comes and goes over time, but I think again to being able to sustain this sort of, you know, relationships it's, it's really important. Uh, also, because our own constualizations of both, both how our agencies operate and work and what they prioritize as well as our understanding and framing of the types of interventions that we're engaged with shift over time again I remember, um. You know, 2025 years ago where, you know, school feeding was really sort of about, you know, incentivizing access, you know, bringing kids to school, and again I think that our, our, uh, understanding and our conceptualization of school feeding programs have sort of really truly evolved in, in, in a wide variety of ways, in ways that sort of, you know. Uh, uh, uh, about economic empowerment, about sort of, you know, having, uh, uh, uh, the impact that it has on, on culture and communities, the impact that it has on, on, on, uh, uh, job generation and the ways in that, that sort of, you know, school feeding might impact of, uh, cognitive performance of kids in schools and, and so on and so forth, things that, that were not. We we're not thinking about, uh, uh, years back and, and again I think that as, as the more data that we have sort of the, the greater the shifts that we can do in terms of how to really sort of, uh, use these programs as entry points to serve you know multi-dimensional sort of impacts, um. And, uh, you know, as, and as a final thought, you know, I, I, um, Um, it's great to focus on outcomes, and again I think that the sort of the, the, the kinds of results that you've been talking about are really sort of important in terms of, you know, sort of the changes in values and attitudes and behavior and, and so on and so forth. I think that, that, that also, uh, not, not to lose sight about the importance of doing. Uh, process evaluations, I think that how we do things matter oftentimes, sort of, you know, results are affected, as you all said, are affected by all kinds of stuff, uh, and so again having a, a deep understanding of, of how these programs roll out and what, what drives, uh, the implementation is, is, is something that us as an institution, the World Bank, I mean. Um, can lose sight and, and, and ultimately sort of shape, um, you sort of what, what we see in the end line. Uh, and so again, survive as we go forth again to, to really sort of think as, as, uh, as the, the, the big tent of evaluations and how to really sort of can being able to, to focus on, on the various parts that drive to the ultimately sort of what we care about which are the ultimate results and I'll pause there. Thank you. Yeah, thank you, Luis. Very, very well said, Londy, back to you. I hope now it works. Yeah, I, uh, can you hear me perfectly. OK, yeah. OK, great. Thank you so much, Arianna, for the invitation, uh, to participate in this discussion. Um, for those that do not know me, I'm Lolia Rivas, and I'm the practice manager for the Global Unit in Social Protection and Jobs, um, and I just wanna share a few quick reflections on how the work presented today connects to our work in SPJ, um, and then I will share also some reactions to the presentation. First of all, I, I very much welcome the evidence generation on, on food for assets or what we usually call at the World Bank public works. Um, for us a public works is a critical element in, in, in our larger adaptive social protection toolbox, um, and I think in addition to the social protection angle and, and, you know, with the climate crisis now, uh, uh, uh. With us in the middle of this climate crisis, I think green public works is one of the few social protection tools that can actually contribute to climate mitigate mitigation with all the others mostly contributing to climate adaptation. However, public works have been Often criticized and so I think it's important uh to continue building the evidence on where and how they can be effective. So this is a, a, a really welcome effort um thank you so much. um. The findings of, of, uh, Florence and Paul's presentations are encouraging and, and they connect nicely to a report that we're working on in SBJ called The Future of Public Works. Um, and this report covers innovations related to climate smart pub public works. It covers digital public works and also public works, uh, that produce uh care services. And we find that no matter what public good or service the program is designed to produce, uh, public work programs are paying increased attention to closing gender gaps, um, and to prevent, uh, the backlash against women and empowering them. So let me highlight four effective design features of our report and how they match with with with your findings. One is on ex ante consultations. I think it's important to engage communities and their leaders to build support for women's participation, um, and, uh, you know, to, to, to mitigate the potential backlash, uh, uh, from social norms regarding women's work. Um, the second one. Is, um, equal pay for equal work, paying women directly and ideally into their own accounts can help ensure that they are able to retain control. Um, third one is, uh, providing on-site childcare. Um, it's key to enable the full participation of women with, with young children. Um, and it also contributes to early childhood development. Um, and then the fourth one, the selection of assets, uh, as we go through the design of the programs is critical. So it's, it's important to make sure that the assets or the services created, created by the public works, um, serve women's needs as well. So with this context in mind, uh, I have a few questions and reflections for, for the presenters. Luis covered already school feeding in detail, so I will just focus on on on other dimensions. On, on Paul's presentation, um, I'd be curious to hear if the set of impact evaluations on dynamic impacts, uh, dig into the gender differences. Uh, we know that men and women, boys and girls have different abilities to cope with shocks, um, and may also have different levels of resilience ex ante, ex ante. So it seems like a lost opportunity not to look at potential gender differences, um, in these evaluations. On Florence's presentation, um, I think it's important for impact evaluations to measure different dimensions of empowerment systematically. The, the, there was a strong claim at the beginning of the presentation that cash transfers have no impact on women empowerment, um, and I, I believe there is mixed evidence on these, uh, the evaluations, for example, that show that. Cast transfers decrease gender-based violence on average um and and and this is a critical dimension of empowerment or lack thereof so so it'd be important to to to systematize um how we measure um empowerment um for both presentations um I guess on the two. Two objectives that arguably differentiate public public works from cash transfers, um, from naked cash transfers or cash transfers alone. One is the quality of the asset produced the other one is uh uh the skills built in the process and this includes soft skills and hard skills, um. So traditional public works schemes have been criticized for both. And so if you have any findings to share on, on, on either one of them. Um, I think it, it, mm, I think Luis, um, alluded to this, um, the context and the enabling environment and, and I believe, uh, um, the presenters alluded to it too. So how these evaluations can influence not just how programs are designed but also what are the policy implications of these impact evaluations? How should the policy mix be adjusted to optimize the impact of these programs? In other words, um. What are the key policy and context elements that make the same intervention succeed in one place and, and, and not in another. Uh and I think this is an area where coordination with with other development actors might be important. Um In addition to the policy mix and context, the public works are usually just one element of a larger social protection effort, um, and this is is in addition to the many things that changed that Paul alluded to, uh, in the context of the intervention. So households. Received a layer set of interventions that address the needs of different people, people in the households and that complement each other. So it'd be important to understand how the evaluated intervention interacts with these or the package of services available to the beneficiaries. Um, I'm almost done. Uh, I have one more, uh, on program design and eligibility. Uh, I think on one of the biggest challenges as programs scale up is determining the target groups to be included and how to prioritize those who need the support most, um, so I, I think this is, this is the prioritization of, of program participants is driven not just by the need but also by policy and politics and, and budget constraints, um. And then the, the, the sustainability of outcomes and financial sustainability. I think this together with the scale-up potential is the biggest struggle on most economic inclusion programs. Uh, so let me end by noting that we also have a partnership with DME. Um, I think Arianna mentioned it at the beginning, um, uh, uh, with their opening remarks, uh, and the intention is also to build the evidence on what works and what doesn't work and when and where, um, from our economic inclusion programs, so I think it might be helpful if it doesn't exist already to integrate and, and I believe Luis alluded to this as well. To integrate the findings of all these efforts into maybe a guidance note for teams that are designing or implementing these type of programs, um, so if these already exist maybe just we just need to update, er, I update it with this new evidence, uh, and, and what we need to make sure is that we disseminate it widely, um, and in different ways. And this could be helpful for for the teams to evaluate the trade-offs of different design features, but also in their discussion with government counterparts to to provide policy advice which goes back to my my point on not just programs but policy um on the reform needed reforms needed to make these these program uh more effective. So let me stop here um thank you for um the invitation and I'm looking forward to the Q&A. Thank you, Lolly. Um, you know, very, very interesting points, uh, from, uh, well, actually from everyone that has contributed to the discussion. I, I just wanted to, um, you know, pick on a couple of your points regarding the impact on women's empowerment. Um, this, I think the statement is correct, subject to the way people have been measuring empowerment in the past and in fact, um, this has been a Quite a bit of the, we put quite a bit of thinking into why the evaluations that were done on targeting the open work program by academics actually did not find any impacts on women's empowerment and started digging a little further as you say, it depends what you measure and how and uh part of, part of what we do is really developing the tools and, and the, and thinking very careful, carefully about measurement. Um, to pick up what others might have missed, and it's part of the process, it's not that one person is better than the other, but it's part of, you know, an iterative process of research that then leads to better, better understanding of how we measure and what frequencies and, and of course what we measure. So this, this is very well taken and uh uh for example, in our targeting the Ultraport program in Afghanistan, we did find um massive impacts on women's empowerment, but the modules of how to measure that were uh much larger and, and that learning has kind of infiltrated uh the rest of our program as well. Um. Very, um, and in terms of summarizing the evidence and also what is important to do, um, you know, we are, uh, that point is very, very well taken and we are in the process of summarizing evidence in, in many different parts. We just had, for example, a discussion with the, with the Cote d'I Cote d'Ivoire country unit. Where, you know, there have been evaluations all across the social protection spectrum of intervention from the cash for work program, dual, dual uh apprenticeships and the economic inclusion program and now the, the country team has kind of a matrix of results and what can be expected from what interventions and also not just targeting the ones most in need but actually moving the target. discussion towards the population that can benefit the most and so for example in Cote d'Iguar we find women can benefit almost twice as much as men from a cash for work program, um, and thus kind of increasing the targeting for women makes sense both for, for, you know, economic reasons of returns, but you know also to kind of meet, um, the, um, other objectives of. Empowerment and so forth and so on. So it is obviously complex to just have a very quick summary of um implementable solutions and so what we want to do is not just to the notes but actually create the institutional structures for conversations with country teams and project teams that are developing uh their concept and really help them operationalize all the evidence that is out there, um, we cannot expect everybody to live and breathe evidence as we do. And so kind of having these opportunities to really work with teams and support them in this process is, I, I think very important and we want to be in the kitchen, you know, we want DC to be able to really contribute to the delivery of uh World Bank projects and programs in a more, uh, direct way. So, I'm gonna open it up for answers, comments, and other questions. OK OK, maybe I'll start now. My name is Krishna, and actually I'm working on Sudan, and we are actually preparing a new, um, uh, social protection project which is both cash transfers as well as, uh, labor intensive public works. So there are two aspects of this stuff which you won't discuss. So on the labor intensive public works, of course, in terms of the targeting, we are working on agenda-focused, you know, targeting, etc. uh, but what, unfortunately I think it's a 2-year project, it's not a five-year project, and, uh, the in in the labor intensive public works, we are looking at, uh, not just the community, the consumption smoothing which we're talking about. But in terms of the community asset. That that's one thing. And the second one is we're also looking at community cohesion when they come together and work. So that's our third focal point there. So that's one part of it. The reason also I'm here is because in Sudan currently there is a military coup and there is no transitional government. So WFP is the recipient as well as the implementing agency. So we are very happy that at the institutional level that WFP and World Bank di, you're, you're working together. So we also wanted to figure out how, how can we leverage that for impact evaluation so that's the reason, you know, and if you have any, any, uh. Let's say evidence, etc. on climate liabilities. So the main idea of labor intensive public work for climate liabilities. So we're picking some locality. How do we do that? Hi, can I, can I? Yes, we have a question online. Can you introduce yourself? Great. Yes, please. Thank you so much. I'm Mira Shaker. I lead the World Bank's work on nutrition across the World Bank Group. I'm delighted to hear this conversation around impact evaluation and evidence. So, uh, just a couple of thoughts from me. First and foremost, um, Across the bank group, we've really encouraged our agriculture team and the social protection team and other teams as well to talk about food and nutrition security. So agriculture in particular is not talking food security alone, but food and nutrition security, and I mentioned that because. From the context of evaluation, we would really appreciate if much of the evaluation that is ongoing across the various platforms that you mentioned can look at both nutrition outcomes as well as the food security outcomes. So that's a request, and I don't know how feasible. Um, that may be, but we are doing that for board updates. Another one coming up in March. We're doing that in our analytics. We're doing that on, on the, in the crisis response window from um operations point of view. And that was, uh, done for the IEG evaluation that was done, uh, recently across the board as well. So that's, that's a plea to all of you. Um, then, a, a couple of very specific things. Um, Ariana, you mentioned Cote d'Ivoire. Cote d'Ivoire is one of the countries that has actually done extremely well, unexpectedly so, on the nutrition agenda, and we would love to see, as you're saying, look at the entire, uh, range of things that are being done in Cote d'Ivoire that might have contributed to that and what lessons that may offer for other countries as well. Similarly, um, um, you mentioned evaluations in Rwanda. Well, we have an evaluation ongoing in Rwanda, a long-term, um, prospective evaluation of a large scale program that includes both, um, uh, health program as well as a social protection program. Um, it would be good to connect the dots on that too, cause we have some unexpected findings. Uh, Jed Friedman from the DC Group has been, uh, our partner in crime on that. It would be really wonderful to connect the dots on that too. Um, um, and, and you mentioned at the beginning that you, uh, WFP is launching, uh, a nutrition, um, Window in this too, I'm not sure I'm using the right term in terms of window, but, uh, in, in 2022, but we didn't hear anything more, which countries, what's, what's being done, what's being planned. We would really like to coordinate action on, on that as well. And lastly, to say, uh, we are considering um nutrition, climate ASA in um the next financial year and would really like to again join hands with many of the people in the room here today. Thank you. Over. Great, thank you very much. Yes, we we will let others answer. Yeah, yeah. Now I want to answer to Mira first because you can be rest assured that we are always talking about global food and a global malnutrition crisis. So that's all over the place, you know, and, and, uh, you know, if you forget that here and there, then you please remind us, but. For the advocacy part, it's very important that we're talking about the qualitative and the quantitative element. And in some countries, you have a mix of both situations. So, I think we are definitely, I mean, you, uh, it's absolutely music in the ears that you are, um, that you are asking us to do so because that's, that's for, for sure. Then I have two questions, and I think the, the colleague from the, from working with on the Sudan program was just supporting my, my question. Um, to the two of you, how much evidence do we need in terms of countries, 2 countries, 4 countries, 6 countries before we are going, uh, before we dare to draw our conclusions and go back to the drawing board saying, oh, we have to redesign our, our programs, no? Uh, number 12, we are very clear that we are, you know, so far advanced that we can say, oh, let's rewrite policies or on, you know, or prompt that discussion, uh, Arianna. That's for me, for me, a very relevant question because, um, what you presented was, you know, we had a kind of a, this is why it's so exciting, you know, we had, of course, we have an idea operating in the Sahel, you know. With all the kind of countries on the, on our huge resilience program and of course, the country teams are, you know, coming up with that requesting, how do we manage lean season. So, but now we have the evidence that's great, that's supporting, that's supporting our, or it's, it's legitimate to go back to the, to the design board and say, you know, we have to factor in. The lean, the lean season management and even better emerging agenda on forecast based financing, right? So, but the question is for how much broad evidence do we need that we are on solid ground to do that. And that's my, that's my, that's my question, you know, are 4 countries enough? Then you have all the kind of uh people saying, oh, that's not enough because my, my country has a completely different context, no. Uh, take Afghanistan and your findings for, no, or Yemen findings for women, completely different context, you know, I, I just want to get a little bit of guidance on, you know, when is a good time for us to go, you know, to go, to go back to the kind of limelight with this kind of finance, uh, finding, sorry, finding, sorry. Well, I'm gonna. Our team answer, but I just want to say that, you know, every time there is a result, even though it's specific in one country, then at the minimum it should raise some doubt for our programs, you know, just inject the thought of, OK, this timing is something that I should be paying attention to. So that's, that's a general answer, which means every result should at least elicit some doubt about whether we're doing the right thing. And we always have the option to go into that specific context and actually test what we think communally would make an inordinate difference to the bottom line. And so for a long time because we did not have a lot of evidence, that's the approach we took which says, OK, we have these results, it may work for you, let's test it in your context. Now we do also have cases in which the literature is very deep and the results are very consistent across multiple settings that give us a pretty good sense of comfort that some things are very regular in the way, you know. People's behaviors and reactions and take up and you know how incentives work that there are some things that are common to our humanity and that can be extracted as regular results. Now that's a little different from saying how many countries do we need to make, you know, and so I'm gonna pass it on. I mean there are thoughts, you know, they're clear thoughts on that, um, but the answer is not an exact number. Yeah, exactly. I think that's the bottom line. We'll never know, but I think, I think it's really useful to think about, you know, and really want to applaud, you know, the, the effort John has put into this at the Andrea when they started these windows because it's so rare even when we try to do this coordinated effort to have so much coordination that every data set is essentially the same except for some small changes in, you know, local, you know, food, local crops, stuff like that, but everything. It's the same. And so, and you know, we could speak about the measurement for a long time. There were questions on how we measure empowerment, how we measure nutrition. I think we have very rich data sets today. We may not have spoken to the richness of the data set in 8 minutes, but we will organize, you know, specific BBLs, I think on each of these topics and, and we'll read these papers that will have more richness to them. But on how many countries? I think what we'll be able to do thanks to this really well. Coordinated efforts, uh, across, you know, researchers and programs and everyone to say at least to tell you how much of these effects are driven by local conditions versus how much are driven by the program. So at least we'll be able to start quantifying with two countries it's a bit too little. So I think what we were aiming for is 6, and we did, you know, all our homework, uh, before to kind of do what we. Call power calculations to kind of start saying, OK, with 6 countries for this impact evasion, we should have something reasonable that at least we'll be able to tell you, you know, how much of, yeah, this treatment, what we call the treatment effects are due to local, you know, change I mean local conditions versus the actual problem and so at least we'll be able to say something about how many, you know, just maybe it'll be qualitative, right? But it'll tell you, OK, because the variations are so. Large that come from the local environment, we should add many more before we can be really positive that this is, you know, uh, generalizable or not and, and then we really are going to try to kind of use economic theory to find the regularities across context and so, you know, we'll have much more in the coming year on that piece, but we're adding more countries so maybe I just add what we. What we already know from hundreds of impact evaluations is that every time we do a handful, we will have more questions. So the, the, that's the downside, but the good side is we are learning that. But I think what we're already seeing is that with the 1st 3 or 4, we are having strong evidence, actually stronger evidence sometimes than we thought we would with only 3 or 4 countries, and things that we can learn from 3 or 4, we don't necessarily need to relearn. So we can also build the future designs to focus on areas where we are still exploring and To learn more, but these windows will continue to be evolving as long as WFP needs evidence to support cash transfers. We will focus on cash transfers and gender. I mean, they will follow the organization as we go. Yeah, yeah, but you know what I want to achieve because I was describing our transformation journey. We have to move away from, let me say, you know, anecdotal evidence, sorry that I'm saying that, no, to a systematic approach that this is a must, and what you're saying, Ariana, is that is a must that at least you have doubts, you know, so we have to to introduce that to all the countries. Teams saying, you know, if you're, if you're dealing with the programming like Sudan, no, if you, if you deal with a huge cash-based program in Pakistan, the minimum what can expect from you, you have to do A, B, C, and D, and then you see, you know, how, where, where, where, where, where you land. But we, we, the two of us, we want to dream and more, no, we want to really want to dream more. So beyond the, the, I've been crazy, yes, exactly, and this try and adopt model, right, and where, where to land, and this is why, why it's so important that we are immediately transferring that into this really. Design phase and I'm not talking policy. I mean, that's the strategic patience, um, element, you know, but, uh, and it would be maybe too fast in, in, in, in, in some instances, but you know, for the cash one, it's so important for us that we are moving in immediately into the kind of corporate redesign phase, right. And that's um and I hope then you know if if we have evidence for 4 countries or 6 countries then then we are on the safe side no and then we can be challenged, no, we have a robust case that that is what you need if you want to to, you know, uh, really prompt that kind of um different redesign change pathway, right? Yeah, I hope that's. No, no, for sure, and that's why I think even, even, even now we can start to look into that because we have evidence that we're quite confident even now. So I think it's talking to you and others about how to do that, yeah, yeah, I guess we think of it as a change in the technology of design and implementation where these, uh, data capabilities and trials and adopt capabilities. Are part and parcel of our programs everywhere and so that that we can use these to continue optimizing the effectiveness of what we do. The questions are infinite, you know, potentially and so as, as, uh, as, uh, Jonas said, you know, every time we find something, so many other questions come up. OK, but what about this and that and the other? And so kind of having Investing in, well, investing in the data systems first and then using that as a stepping stone to increase the frequency of the different trials to give a lot of different answers to our programs. So what we, what we show in our experience for the last 15 years, this is a tiny. Tiny investments for very, very large returns at the programmatic side and so it's really a different technology of doing things. Not, I, I don't even think of it as an impact evaluation. I think of it as a way of doing development which is different now than ever before. I mean, the way I think about it is that every study is part of a larger conversation and so the more. Studies that you have, the richer set of information that you have to make judgment calls, uh, but, but also I think that it's important to highlight that as we engage in, you know, with the literature, you know, there is a bias because, you know, pub articles that get published are the ones that get significant results and oftentimes, you know, the, the those studies that do not have significant results fall by the way and and we don't know about them. So again, I think there's, there's also the importance to commit to being to, to making. Public to, to, to bring the awareness to to what worked but didn't work what got results but didn't get results so that again that conversation can can be richer. Yeah, very good. In fact, we, we share everything right and, and learning from failure of course is the is the first instance just kind of stop doing what seems like a good idea in theory, but then it doesn't roll out and doesn't deliver on its promises. And that's a little slightly difficult sometimes because some, you know, some programs have been going on for a very long time and people are very attached to some ways of doing things and kind of helping them, you know, just, I'm, I'm also assuming the responsibility, but because we depend often in terms on the generosity of donors and we want to show to the donors that their money was well spent, it's hard to sell, oh look. $5 billion in fact had negative results, yeah, so, so, but again I think that that uh on, on all, all parties involved need to again so, uh, assume the responsibility and the importance of being able to share everything and again that that us. As development workers, um, we can't expect 100% of success, that, you know, there will be failures. There were things that will go wrong. There will be things that turn out differently from, from what we expect them to be, and then sort of also to have the commitment that we can actually learn from this, those experiences and then sort of, you know, uh, um, make sure that we don't repeat those same mistakes again. But I have to say in terms of our donor relations, once you are very transparent. Um, and you are already, and you have, and you establish that kind of relationship, you know, and moving all the donors from a payer to a player and a strategic partner and create that environment that there is that kind of, you know, the preparedness to learn together. Uh, you know, I, I'm not naive. No, I mean, we are not, we can't open that up for, you know, for every situation, but I think for the most important, and I'm coming back with to, to my question in terms of strategic investment. Once as an organization, you invest so much in CBT or in school-based programs. You have to be rested, you have to, on your, on your own, you have to make sure that you're constantly questioning your routine because the, the, the framing conditions are changing. Look at Sudan, no, at the Afghanistan, the, the frame conditions are constantly changing and to adapt, you know, to these kind of frame, frame conditions is, is, is key. Uh, and also creating that kind of, let me say, lab situation with donors, you know, in the context of our annual strategic consultations, we try really to, in a way, create a situation where we're saying, you know, what, what have we learned and not saying, you know, you're here. Have invested on the wrong topic or you know, but, but also, you know, uh, we want to be pushed also, you know, in that direction, that innovation learning are enablers and innovation is also something about that you are failing here and there, you know, that, that was the wrong way to go and And so this is one, and I hope, you know, you have no idea what kind of favor you did with your presentation on, on this kind of emerging agenda on forecast-based financing because we want to prove. That in the moment we are talking about climate adaptation programs, we want to prove that climate adaptation is an integral part of what we are doing, right? If we get that evidence, right, then it's a kind of, you know, dealing, you know, and, and showcasing that the same intervention. And I think Louis, you said that or someone else said it. Uh, I think Luli said it, you know, this one intervention has so many direct and indirect side effects, no, and we have to be very conscious about the indirect positive side effects on climate, climate adaptation. We are not yet there. It's very clear. We do a lot of hundreds of good things, in particular on this, uh, public works, work side, Luli. Um, you know, infrastructure and all of that, but this, the indirect side effects on, on, on the climate adaptation effects are immense if you're doing it in the right way, you know. Uh, look at Turkey and Syria, you know, at the moment, the earthquake, you know, yeah, in the moment, you know, you, you have to start rebuilding. Um, we have to factor that in, and in the moment we know what, what we are doing and how we are questioning our routine. Then it's, it's the best, and I would say, I would, uh, conclude, Louise, that donors like these conversations more and more. It's not giving us the money and saying you have to, uh, uh, you have to breathe and, uh, you prove that's a 100% success, but you have to prove that you're thinking about your routine and how to improve and how to learn and how to, you know, how to do things differently, you know. So having said that, thank you, that's, uh, I think that's a beautiful conclusion being kept accountable for introducing learning and acting on learning as opposed to being accountable for the status quo. I think that I, I, I do agree with you that the conversations are much more productive if you pushed in that direction. I wrote down from player to player. Um, I think it's important. Everybody, I think, wants to be part of that positive conversation about how we needs to get better. Yeah, yeah, so at least we have an internet side effect on this, yeah. I think we are at the end of our session, but I think this was a great, wonderful discussion connecting the points. I want to congratulate the WFP and, and if the alumni also our social protection and, and jobs partners in, in this. Uh, enterprise because both of them have been super, you've been super open to exactly what we're discussing now, which is not being defensive about what we do because development and emergency is difficult. But actually being open and putting things out and figuring out where, where is the path forward and so we're here to support and work with you in the future as, as we know we have a partnership until 2026, but we think of it as just a partnership and we'll continue working with you now and in the future and uh and with our, uh, World Bank colleagues as well. Very, very good discussion. Thank you very much for being here. Thank you. Thank you to everyone online.
showAllTranscripts
no
duration
PT3H21S
scene7File
worldbank/DIME-WFP BBL Evidence Where it Matters Most
scene7Domain
https://worldbank.scene7.com/
scene7FileAvs
worldbank/DIME-WFP BBL Evidence Where it Matters Most-AVS
title
DIME-WFP BBL Evidence Where it Matters Most
description
DIME-WFP BBL Evidence Where it Matters Most
showTimestampAndTranscript
yes
col-xs-12
col-sm-12
col-md-3
col-lg-3
col-xs-12
col-sm-12
col-md-7
col-lg-7
  • add-style
  • lp-body-content
lp-heading-top-medium
lp-heading-bottom-medium
col-xs-12
col-sm-12
col-md-2
col-lg-2