Critical review of indicators, metrics, methods, and tools for monitoring and evaluation of biofortification programs at scale

Santiago Rodas-Moya; Francesca M Giudici; Bho Mudyahoto; Ekin Birol; Stephen R Kodish; Carl Lachat; Taymara C Abreu; Alida Melse-Boonstra; Karin H van Het Hof; Inge D Brouwer; Saskia Osendarp; Edith J M Feskens

doi:10.3389/fnut.2022.963748

Critical review of indicators, metrics, methods, and tools for monitoring and evaluation of biofortification programs at scale

Front Nutr. 2022 Oct 13:9:963748. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.963748. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Division of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands.
² HarvestPlus, c/o International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, United States.
³ Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, Global Human Development Program, Washington, DC, United States.
⁴ Department of Nutritional Sciences and Biobehavioral Health, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, United States.
⁵ Department of Food Technology, Safety and Health, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
⁶ Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
⁷ The Micronutrient Forum, Washington, DC, United States.

Abstract

Sound monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems are needed to inform effective biofortification program management and implementation. Despite the existence of M&E frameworks for biofortification programs, the use of indicators, metrics, methods, and tools (IMMT) are currently not harmonized, rendering the tracking of biofortification programs difficult. We aimed to compile IMMT for M&E of existing biofortification programs and recommend a sub-set of high-level indicators (HLI) for a harmonized global M&E framework. We conducted (1) a mapping review to compile IMMT for M&E biofortification programs; (2) semi-structured interviews (SSIs) with biofortification programming experts (and other relevant stakeholders) to contextualize findings from step 1; and (3) compiled a generic biofortification program Theory of Change (ToC) to use it as an analytical framework for selecting the HLI. This study revealed diversity in seed systems and crop value chains across countries and crops, resulting in differences in M&E frameworks. Yet, sufficient commonalities between implementation pathways emerged. A set of 17 HLI for tracking critical results along the biofortification implementation pathway represented in the ToC is recommended for a harmonized global M&E framework. Further research is needed to test, revise, and develop mechanisms to harmonize the M&E framework across programs, institutions, and countries.

Keywords: biofortification programs; indicators; methods; metrics; monitoring and evaluation frameworks; tools.