In 2022, 3ie published an Evidence Gap Map (EGM) of impact evaluations and systematic reviews of emergency food security interventions. Since then, the need for our easily accessible evidence repository has grown. Ongoing conflict, climate-induced disasters, and food insecurity have persisted and worsened. Currently, 1.9 million people face famine, the highest number since the Global Report on Food Crisis began tracking in 2016.
While emergencies persist, funding has failed to keep up. Halfway through 2024, only 25% of the required $48.65 billion had been secured. It is imperative that the limited resources available today are used effectively. With this in mind, 3ie, through the Humanitarian Assistance Evidence Cycle (HAEC) award, updated the EGM on food security interventions to provide policymakers, practitioners, and researchers with access to the most recent rigorous evidence.
What’s new in our map
Ethical concerns around control groups have been highlighted as one of the main barriers to implementing impact evaluations in emergency settings. One way to overcome this is through the use of AB testing, whereby there is no ‘pure’ control group, but instead, a comparison is made between different intervention types. In light of the growing use of AB testing, we have added a new filter to the map that allows users to select studies that either use or do not use AB testing.
Recent evidence has filled critical evidence gaps
- Increase in geographical spread: Our original EGM identified 24 countries that were highly vulnerable to an emergency in the coming years, but for which there was no or very limited evidence on our map. Our update has identified evidence in nine of these countries (Cameroon, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Madagascar, Mali, Myanmar, Syria, Ukraine).
- Increase in intervention categories: Our update has identified evidence in six intervention categories that were empty in our original EGM. These include extension and maintenance of water supply services; livelihood assistance; monitoring of water availability, demand, and quality; provision and access to agricultural technologies; provision and access to water for livestock and irrigation; treatment of malnutrition.
- Improved coverage of outcomes: Our update has identified studies evaluating one outcome—food supply—that was empty in our original EGM.
- Better coverage of emergency situations: Our update has identified evidence for three emergencies where we had no previous evidence. Two studies evaluated interventions in the context of an earthquake, three in response to a tsunami and two in settings where refugees had been displaced due to a political and economic crisis.
Despite encouraging trends, gaps do remain
- Many vulnerable countries missing: Looking ahead to which countries face the highest vulnerability to an emergency in 2025, there are 10 countries that are vulnerable to an emergency, but for which there is no evidence in our map. When we conducted this analysis for our original EGM in 2022, all but three of these countries were also highly vulnerable.
- A few intervention categories not studied at all: We have no evidence for 12 intervention categories. However, eight of these appear as components in a multi-component study, and only four intervention categories are absolute gaps in our map (destocking, direct assistance to market actors, and market access support).
- Key outcomes not covered: Three outcomes were not evaluated within a single study (these include expansion of input and output markets, food trade, knowledge and behaviour of food safety).
Next steps for our EGM
In addition to impact evaluations, our map also captures systematic reviews. In our update, we identified just two new reviews, both of which were appraised as low-confidence. Our map offers the opportunity to act as a basis for future synthesis work. Specifically, it has identified the potential for synthesis work around anticipatory action, food, cash and other in-kind transfers, market-based recovery interventions, and nutrition interventions. 3ie will work towards securing funding to fill these synthesis gaps so that the humanitarian community can access resources that answer questions around intervention effectiveness.
Our online EGM can be accessed here, while our EGM update brief can be accessed here.
This EGM was funded by USAID through the Humanitarian Assistance Evidence Cycle (HAEC) Award. The content does not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the U.S. government.
