An evidence and gap map (E&GM) that undergoes eight updates over four years just shows how consistently the evidence base it covers has grown. Our ‘living’ E&GM on Food Systems and Nutrition has been a critical milestone that has led to more evidence generation and evidence synthesis around diverse themes within the sector. Through the original E&GM, we highlighted the evolving evidence needs of the field, and our regular stocktaking of the distribution of the evidence underscored significant gaps and opportunities. 

In partnership with GIZ, Norad, and DEval, we have continued to dive into the evidence clusters and produced rapid evidence assessment reports and briefs to fill knowledge gaps around key topics, including the effects of food system interventions on women’s empowerment, their long-term outcomes, and the effect of taxes and subsidies to support healthy diets.  
We recently compiled our learning and insights from the updated map for policymakers, researchers and funders, highlighting the need for actionable outputs on the effects of food systems interventions on food security and nutrition outcomes in low- and middle-income countries. Read the learning brief.

Read more about the living E&GM and the related synthesis evidence here.

Have you used our living E&GM on Food Systems and Nutrition? We are interested in learning more about who uses this E&GM and how. Please share any feedback here. 

Featured
Clean Energy Day | What we know about access, renewables and efficient technologies

When designing programs to promote SDG 7 and a ‘Just and Equitable Energy Transition,’ policymakers and development practitioners need a better understanding of which sustainable energy interventions work and what evidence on their effects is available. Our sustainable energy evidence gap map—produced in partnership with SEforALL—is the first such mapping to provide easy access to the available rigorous evidence on the effects of sustainable energy interventions.

Policymakers and researchers are gathering insights into what works by exploring 668 impact evaluations and 35 systematic reviews of sustainable energy interventions included in this EGM. Here’s why you should use this map: 

• Nearly half of this evidence has been published in the last three years, which means the evidence base is rapidly growing and changing. 
• The evidence base is also spread across intervention and outcome categories. Outcome categories include intermediate behavior change, energy and environmental outcomes, and socio-economic and community welfare. We identified three intervention categories without studies—insurance and other risk guarantee instruments, push and pull finance and advocacy and diplomacy. 
• The three targets of SDG 7, access, efficiency and renewables, are also equally represented within this evidence base.  
• Over one-third of studies included in the map evaluate an intervention conducted in China. 

Read the main policy implications related to energy management reforms, on-grid systems and sustainable upgrades in our report.

Learn more about the EGM framework and key findings in this blog.

Read about 3ie’s work with SEforALL and our forthcoming evidence products here.

In this Devex article, Norad’s Bård Vegar Solhjell and Håvard Mokleiv Nygård discuss how to move toward development assistance that is based on decisions informed by evidence. They emphasize the importance of cost-effectiveness and weighing one policy option against another, as well as the practice of holding development organizations accountable for the results. The article underscores the significance of the 3ie-initiated Global Evidence Commitment and the role of partnerships in upholding the pledge.
Read article

Call for articles | Journal of Development Effectiveness

3ie’s Journal of Development Effectiveness invites scholarly works on the generation and use of evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of programs and policies that are meant to improve the lives of people in low- and middle-income countries. This includes, among other contributions, impact evaluations, systematic reviews, evidence gap maps and methodological papers that address attribution through a variety of techniques, including experimental, quasi-experimental and mixed-method approaches. Papers that help users of evidence learn from null results are also welcome. We also encourage papers that help further the understanding of what it takes to ensure the use of evidence to inform decision-making.

To submit an article to the journal, please read the guidance here.

Read the latest issue here.