.png)
BULLETIN 1
Escaping the fragility-poverty trap: New evidence on financing food systems in Africa
.png)
CGIAR October 31 2025
Extreme poverty and fragility are increasingly converging, and so must the policies and financing designed to address them. This was the central message of an October 17 policy seminar, Tackling Extreme Poverty and Financing for Food Systems in Africa, organized by IFPRI on the margins of the 2025 World Bank-International Monetary Fund (IMF) Annual Meetings in Washington, D.C.
The hybrid event brought together researchers, policymakers, and development partners from the United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER), the World Bank, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and IFPRI to explore new evidence on how fragility, poverty, and food insecurity intersect in Africa, and how financing strategies must adapt to sustain progress in the most vulnerable settings.
Two complementary studies anchored the discussion: The forthcoming UNU-WIDER–World Bank Poverty and Fragility Companion Report, and the Africa Report on External Development Financial Flows to Food Systems (3FS), co-produced by IFAD, IFPRI, and AKADEMIYA2063. The reports underscore related challenges: Even as the troubling combination of poverty and fragility is increasingly concentrated in fragile and conflict-affected regions of Africa, external financing, especially for food systems, has fallen sharply.
Opening the discussion, Johan Swinnen, IFPRI Director General, underscored that “volatility, rather than stability, is the new norm.” Globally, about 70% of people in fragile and conflict-affected areas now live in sub-Saharan Africa, and by 2030, half of the world’s extreme poor are projected to reside in fragile states in the region.
Presenting findings from the Poverty and Fragility Companion Report, co-authors Patricia Justino, Director Designate, UNU-WIDER, and María Eugenia Genoni, Senior Economist, World Bank, explained that the report rethinks how to break out of the fragility-poverty trap by combining new subnational data on poverty and fragility with a probabilistic approach to measuring fragility. In this framework, fragility is defined as the likelihood of state ineffectiveness, a dynamic and fragility with a probabilistic approach to measuring fragility. In this framework, fragility is defined as the likelihood of state ineffectiveness, a dynamic and multidimensional condition that changes across regions and over time. Mapping 1,800 subnational areas worldwide, the study finds that nearly all of the 200 poorest regions are located in fragile areas of sub-Saharan Africa.
“Fragility is not a binary condition; it is a spectrum of risk that shifts with how societies manage shocks,” said Justino. “Recognizing those dynamics helps governments and partners act earlier and target investments where they are most needed.”
Conflict and fragility are once again driving poverty, and traditional development approaches are proving insufficient, Justino added. The world is facing “the same situation we were in 15 years ago, if not worse,” she said.
The 3FS Africa report, presented by John Ulimwengu, IFPRI Senior Research Fellow, complements this analytical lens with financial evidence, tracking a total of $117 billion in external finance for African food systems between 2018 and 2023. Despite some growth in blended finance (using philanthropic funds to mobilize private capital) and private sector instruments, the study documents uneven allocation and a recent decline in aid flows. Ulimwengu noted that while Africa has attracted about 40% of global food-systems financing in recent years, the continent must take greater ownership of its financing strategies—by increasing domestic investments, strengthening public-private partnerships, and advancing the commitments made under the CAADP Kampala Declaration.
Diane Menville, IFAD Associate Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer, noted that in such an environment, “data and coordination are as important as dollars” to ensure resources reach priority sectors.
Speakers from Mozambique and Somalia underlined the difficulty of building fiscal resilience and investing in human capital amid overlapping shocks. Enilde Sarmento, IMF Macroeconomic Adviser, stressed that effective responses require coordinated, locally-owned strategies that combine prudent macroeconomic policy, investment in people, and institutional reform. Somalia’s delegation detailed the impacts that multiple shocks related to COVID-19 shutdowns, conflict, and extreme weather events have had on the country’s economy, and laid out ongoing efforts to link food-system recovery with state-building and long-term planning. They outlined their new strategy to attract financing for Somalia’s food systems, including through public-private partnerships.
While the focus was on Africa, similar dynamics are unfolding elsewhere. Ana María Ibáñez, Vice-President for Sectors and Knowledge at the Inter-American Development Bank, drew parallels with Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), where pockets of fragility persist amid weak institutions and deep inequality, with poverty rates stalled around 30% since 2014. Although the region is less affected by conflict, it is grappling with serious criminal violence. With only 8% of the world’s population but 30% of its homicides, roughly half linked to organized crime, LAC illustrates how different forms of fragility can undermine development progress.
Swinnen underscored the increased need for domestic resource mobilization in low-income countries, suggesting there are opportunities for repurposing existing government outlays to support food systems transformation. He also mentioned IFPRI’s expanded focus on fragility, conflict, and migration, which combines anticipatory action, crisis monitoring, and resilience-building. These efforts, he said, aim to help countries transition “from fragility to stability.”
Participants agreed that declining overseas development assistance will slow progress against poverty in fragile contexts, and emphasized the importance of integrating risk management, long-term investment, and inclusive food system transformation. The shared challenge, they concluded, is to use limited resources more intelligently and to anticipate crises before they harden into traps of poverty and fragility.
One key lever will be rigorous research. Evidence-based, context-specific solutions are essential to this effort. Menville highlighted the need for robust data systems, quoting statistician W. Edwards Deming: “Without data, you’re just another person with an opinion.” Ulimwengu echoed this point, stressing that co-creating research with policymakers is essential to bridge the gap between analysis and action.
See https://www.ifpri.org/blog/escaping-the-fragility-poverty-trap-new-evidence-on-financing-food-systems-in-africa/
The hybrid event brought together researchers, policymakers, and development partners from the United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU-WIDER), the World Bank, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and IFPRI to explore new evidence on how fragility, poverty, and food insecurity intersect in Africa, and how financing strategies must adapt to sustain progress in the most vulnerable settings.
Two complementary studies anchored the discussion: The forthcoming UNU-WIDER–World Bank Poverty and Fragility Companion Report, and the Africa Report on External Development Financial Flows to Food Systems (3FS), co-produced by IFAD, IFPRI, and AKADEMIYA2063. The reports underscore related challenges: Even as the troubling combination of poverty and fragility is increasingly concentrated in fragile and conflict-affected regions of Africa, external financing, especially for food systems, has fallen sharply.
Opening the discussion, Johan Swinnen, IFPRI Director General, underscored that “volatility, rather than stability, is the new norm.” Globally, about 70% of people in fragile and conflict-affected areas now live in sub-Saharan Africa, and by 2030, half of the world’s extreme poor are projected to reside in fragile states in the region.
Presenting findings from the Poverty and Fragility Companion Report, co-authors Patricia Justino, Director Designate, UNU-WIDER, and María Eugenia Genoni, Senior Economist, World Bank, explained that the report rethinks how to break out of the fragility-poverty trap by combining new subnational data on poverty and fragility with a probabilistic approach to measuring fragility. In this framework, fragility is defined as the likelihood of state ineffectiveness, a dynamic and fragility with a probabilistic approach to measuring fragility. In this framework, fragility is defined as the likelihood of state ineffectiveness, a dynamic and multidimensional condition that changes across regions and over time. Mapping 1,800 subnational areas worldwide, the study finds that nearly all of the 200 poorest regions are located in fragile areas of sub-Saharan Africa.
“Fragility is not a binary condition; it is a spectrum of risk that shifts with how societies manage shocks,” said Justino. “Recognizing those dynamics helps governments and partners act earlier and target investments where they are most needed.”
Conflict and fragility are once again driving poverty, and traditional development approaches are proving insufficient, Justino added. The world is facing “the same situation we were in 15 years ago, if not worse,” she said.
The 3FS Africa report, presented by John Ulimwengu, IFPRI Senior Research Fellow, complements this analytical lens with financial evidence, tracking a total of $117 billion in external finance for African food systems between 2018 and 2023. Despite some growth in blended finance (using philanthropic funds to mobilize private capital) and private sector instruments, the study documents uneven allocation and a recent decline in aid flows. Ulimwengu noted that while Africa has attracted about 40% of global food-systems financing in recent years, the continent must take greater ownership of its financing strategies—by increasing domestic investments, strengthening public-private partnerships, and advancing the commitments made under the CAADP Kampala Declaration.
Diane Menville, IFAD Associate Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer, noted that in such an environment, “data and coordination are as important as dollars” to ensure resources reach priority sectors.
Speakers from Mozambique and Somalia underlined the difficulty of building fiscal resilience and investing in human capital amid overlapping shocks. Enilde Sarmento, IMF Macroeconomic Adviser, stressed that effective responses require coordinated, locally-owned strategies that combine prudent macroeconomic policy, investment in people, and institutional reform. Somalia’s delegation detailed the impacts that multiple shocks related to COVID-19 shutdowns, conflict, and extreme weather events have had on the country’s economy, and laid out ongoing efforts to link food-system recovery with state-building and long-term planning. They outlined their new strategy to attract financing for Somalia’s food systems, including through public-private partnerships.
While the focus was on Africa, similar dynamics are unfolding elsewhere. Ana María Ibáñez, Vice-President for Sectors and Knowledge at the Inter-American Development Bank, drew parallels with Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), where pockets of fragility persist amid weak institutions and deep inequality, with poverty rates stalled around 30% since 2014. Although the region is less affected by conflict, it is grappling with serious criminal violence. With only 8% of the world’s population but 30% of its homicides, roughly half linked to organized crime, LAC illustrates how different forms of fragility can undermine development progress.
Swinnen underscored the increased need for domestic resource mobilization in low-income countries, suggesting there are opportunities for repurposing existing government outlays to support food systems transformation. He also mentioned IFPRI’s expanded focus on fragility, conflict, and migration, which combines anticipatory action, crisis monitoring, and resilience-building. These efforts, he said, aim to help countries transition “from fragility to stability.”
Participants agreed that declining overseas development assistance will slow progress against poverty in fragile contexts, and emphasized the importance of integrating risk management, long-term investment, and inclusive food system transformation. The shared challenge, they concluded, is to use limited resources more intelligently and to anticipate crises before they harden into traps of poverty and fragility.
One key lever will be rigorous research. Evidence-based, context-specific solutions are essential to this effort. Menville highlighted the need for robust data systems, quoting statistician W. Edwards Deming: “Without data, you’re just another person with an opinion.” Ulimwengu echoed this point, stressing that co-creating research with policymakers is essential to bridge the gap between analysis and action.
See https://www.ifpri.org/blog/escaping-the-fragility-poverty-trap-new-evidence-on-financing-food-systems-in-africa/
BULLETIN 2
Pakistan Approves GM Sugarcane and GM Cotton for Commercialization and GM Canola for Food, Feed, and Processing
Pakistan Approves GM Sugarcane and GM Cotton for Commercialization and GM Canola for Food, Feed, and Processing
.png)
ISAAA October 29, 2025
The National Biosafety Committee (NBC) has approved Pakistan's first genetically modified (GM) sugarcane and advanced cotton varieties for commercialization during NBC's 35th meeting at the Ministry of Climate Change and Environmental Coordination (MoCC&EC). Chaired by the Secretary of the Climate Change Ministry, the meeting was attended by the Director General of Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency and other senior officials and experts.
The Committee approved two environment-friendly sugarcane lines, CABB-IRS and CABB-HTS. The field and laboratory trials confirmed that the lines are safe for humans, animals, and the environment, with no toxic residues and no risk of gene flow. Additionally, the lines completed the Distinctness, Uniformity, and Stability (DUS) testing by the Federal Seed Certification and Registration Department and will now undergo National Uniform Yield Trials (NUYT) under the Pakistan Agricultural Research Council.
The NBC also approved two GM cotton varieties: CEMB-AAS3 from the Centre of Excellence in Molecular Biology (CEMB), Lahore and NIBGE-1601 from the National Institute for Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering (NIBGE), Faisalabad. These cotton lines carry genes conferring resistance to bollworms and armyworms, as well as tolerance to herbicides and Cotton Leaf Curl Virus (CLCuV).
The Committee also granted import permission for 43 GM canola events for food, feed, and processing (FFP). These GM canola varieties have traits, such as herbicide tolerance, phytase enzyme production, and improved fatty acid composition, which feature high oleic acid levels for heart health. The Committee's approvals mark Pakistan's continued progress in biosafety governance and responsible adoption of biotechnology to advance sustainable agriculture and food security.
For more information, read Press Release No. 223 from the Press Information Department of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of Pakistan.
See https://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=21573
The Committee approved two environment-friendly sugarcane lines, CABB-IRS and CABB-HTS. The field and laboratory trials confirmed that the lines are safe for humans, animals, and the environment, with no toxic residues and no risk of gene flow. Additionally, the lines completed the Distinctness, Uniformity, and Stability (DUS) testing by the Federal Seed Certification and Registration Department and will now undergo National Uniform Yield Trials (NUYT) under the Pakistan Agricultural Research Council.
The NBC also approved two GM cotton varieties: CEMB-AAS3 from the Centre of Excellence in Molecular Biology (CEMB), Lahore and NIBGE-1601 from the National Institute for Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering (NIBGE), Faisalabad. These cotton lines carry genes conferring resistance to bollworms and armyworms, as well as tolerance to herbicides and Cotton Leaf Curl Virus (CLCuV).
The Committee also granted import permission for 43 GM canola events for food, feed, and processing (FFP). These GM canola varieties have traits, such as herbicide tolerance, phytase enzyme production, and improved fatty acid composition, which feature high oleic acid levels for heart health. The Committee's approvals mark Pakistan's continued progress in biosafety governance and responsible adoption of biotechnology to advance sustainable agriculture and food security.
For more information, read Press Release No. 223 from the Press Information Department of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of Pakistan.
See https://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=21573
SCIENTIFIC NEWS
A yeast mating platform for multiplex screening of fungal GPCR–ligand interactions
Giovanni Schiesaro, Melani Mariscal, Mathias Jönsson, Ricardo Tenente, Mathies Brinks Sørensen, Marcus Wäneskog, María Victoria Aguilar-Pontes, Agustina Undabarrena, Marcus Deichmann, Emma E. Hoch-Schneider, Viji Kandasamy, Thomas M. Frimurer, Antonio Di Pietro, Line Katrine Harder Clemmensen, Michael Krogh Jensen, and Emil Damgaard Jensen
PNAS; October 24, 2025; 122 (43) e2521198122; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2521198122
.png)
Significance
Fungal pathogens rely on G protein–coupled receptors (GPCRs) to sense environmental cues and coordinate host infection. By establishing a yeast mating platform for multiplex GPCR–ligand screening, we identify agonist and antagonist peptides that can interfere with fungal cell–cell communication. This work not only accelerates the study of fungal GPCR–ligand interactions but also demonstrates, for the phytopathogen Fusarium oxysporum, that interfering with GPCR-mediated cell–cell communication is a promising target for antifungal strategies in agriculture.
Abstract
Fungi are essential members across ecosystems, yet phytopathogenic fungi pose an increasing risk to crop yields. Despite their ecologic importance, cell–cell communication in fungi is underexplored, partly due to the lack of high-throughput techniques. Here, we developed a Yeast Mating Platform (YeMaP) to investigate the interaction between fungal G protein–coupled receptors (GPCRs) and pheromone peptides. We used YeMaP for high-throughput screening of 8,000 pheromone sequences and identified peptides with improved agonism or antagonism action. We found that these peptides can be applied in a native fungal system such as the plant pathogen Fusarium oxysporum, to control hyphal chemotropism and reduce plant root penetration. Additionally, we utilized YeMaP in a one-pot assay to investigate how abiotic factors influence the communication of multiple pheromone–GPCR combinations and found that the cell–cell communication mediated by the GPCR Ste2 from F. oxysporum signaled robustly across different abiotic factors, while other fungal GPCR–pheromone interactions were more sensitive to changes. Taken together, YeMaP accelerates the identification of fungal GPCR–peptide interactions by enabling one-pot assays, and serves as a model system for studying fungal cell–cell communication.
See https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2521198122
Fungi are essential members across ecosystems, yet phytopathogenic fungi pose an increasing risk to crop yields. Despite their ecologic importance, cell–cell communication in fungi is underexplored, partly due to the lack of high-throughput techniques. Here, we developed a Yeast Mating Platform (YeMaP) to investigate the interaction between fungal G protein–coupled receptors (GPCRs) and pheromone peptides. We used YeMaP for high-throughput screening of 8,000 pheromone sequences and identified peptides with improved agonism or antagonism action. We found that these peptides can be applied in a native fungal system such as the plant pathogen Fusarium oxysporum, to control hyphal chemotropism and reduce plant root penetration. Additionally, we utilized YeMaP in a one-pot assay to investigate how abiotic factors influence the communication of multiple pheromone–GPCR combinations and found that the cell–cell communication mediated by the GPCR Ste2 from F. oxysporum signaled robustly across different abiotic factors, while other fungal GPCR–pheromone interactions were more sensitive to changes. Taken together, YeMaP accelerates the identification of fungal GPCR–peptide interactions by enabling one-pot assays, and serves as a model system for studying fungal cell–cell communication.
See https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2521198122
.png)
FIGURE:
YeMaP correctly identifies fungal GPCR–pheromone interactions.
(A) The One-on-One setting involves coculturing two yeast strains in which half of the mating communication system has been replaced with heterologous fungal components; one cell expresses a given fungal Ste2 GPCR homolog while a second cell secretes a given fungal alpha pheromone. After successful mating, diploid cells are formed and selected. (B) Comparison of cocultures expressing C. albicans (Ca) or F. graminearum (Fg) components under the following conditions: MATa cells expressing either the Ca or Fg alpha pheromone from the MFA2 promoter (Ca: GEN29, Fg: GEN35) and MATα cells expressing either the Ca or Fg Ste2 GPCR (Ca: GEN36, Fg: GEN37); or MATa cells expressing the fungal GPCR (Ca: GEN100, Fg: GEN78) and MATα cells expressing the Ca or Fg alpha pheromone from the MFα1 promoter (Ca: GEN76, Fg: GEN77). MFA2 and MFα1 promoters were selected as the strongest inducible pheromone promoters based on previous studies (20, 25). (C) Diploid frequency comparison between different designs. From left to right: GEN18 and GEN27 were cocultured as a positive control (Wild type); GEN36 (Ca.Ste2) cocultured with GEN28 (PTDH3-Ca.P); with GEN29 (PMFA2-Ca.P); or with GEN55 (PMFA2-Ca.P, mfa1Δ, mfa2Δ). GEN37 (Fg.Ste2) cocultured with GEN34 (PTDH3-Fg.P); with GEN35 (PMFA2-Fg.P); or with GEN58 (PMFA2-Fg.P, mfa1Δ, mfa2Δ); and GPCRs combined with noncognate pheromone GEN55 + GEN37; and GEN58 + GEN36. (D) Yeast mating matrix with MATα strains individually expressing eight different fungal Ste2 GPCRs (columns), cocultured with either of eight alpha pheromone-secreting MATa strains (rows). As positive and negative controls, respectively, strains expressing either Sc Ste2 or alpha pheromone, or strains lacking a GPCR or a pheromone were used. Blue gradient is set to a maximum of 3% of diploid frequency, with values >3% colored in black. Complete list of organisms and pheromone sequences is in SI Appendix, Table S1. (E) Activation levels of Fg.Ste2 (CPK366), Fo.Ste2 (GEN70), Bb.Ste2 (GEN71), and Bc.Ste2 (GEN128) biosensors (columns), incubated with 10 μM alpha pheromone from Fg, Fo, Bb, or Bc (rows). The fluorescent signal was normalized to the yEGFP background value (receptor without pheromone). (F) Validation of the mating matrix in culture tubes. Strains individually expressing the four indicated GPCRs (columns) were cocultured with those secreting the indicated alpha pheromone (rows). Blue gradient is set to a maximum of 30% of diploid frequency, with values >30% colored in black. Plating was performed in three technical triplicates in D. Cocultures were performed in three biological replicates and three technical replicates in B, C, and F. Experiments were conducted in four biological replicates in E. Statistical significance was determined in B through two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons (*P ≤ 0.05, ***P ≤ 0.001); and in C with one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons tests in GraphPad Prism (*P ≤ 0.05, **P ≤ 0.01).
YeMaP correctly identifies fungal GPCR–pheromone interactions.
(A) The One-on-One setting involves coculturing two yeast strains in which half of the mating communication system has been replaced with heterologous fungal components; one cell expresses a given fungal Ste2 GPCR homolog while a second cell secretes a given fungal alpha pheromone. After successful mating, diploid cells are formed and selected. (B) Comparison of cocultures expressing C. albicans (Ca) or F. graminearum (Fg) components under the following conditions: MATa cells expressing either the Ca or Fg alpha pheromone from the MFA2 promoter (Ca: GEN29, Fg: GEN35) and MATα cells expressing either the Ca or Fg Ste2 GPCR (Ca: GEN36, Fg: GEN37); or MATa cells expressing the fungal GPCR (Ca: GEN100, Fg: GEN78) and MATα cells expressing the Ca or Fg alpha pheromone from the MFα1 promoter (Ca: GEN76, Fg: GEN77). MFA2 and MFα1 promoters were selected as the strongest inducible pheromone promoters based on previous studies (20, 25). (C) Diploid frequency comparison between different designs. From left to right: GEN18 and GEN27 were cocultured as a positive control (Wild type); GEN36 (Ca.Ste2) cocultured with GEN28 (PTDH3-Ca.P); with GEN29 (PMFA2-Ca.P); or with GEN55 (PMFA2-Ca.P, mfa1Δ, mfa2Δ). GEN37 (Fg.Ste2) cocultured with GEN34 (PTDH3-Fg.P); with GEN35 (PMFA2-Fg.P); or with GEN58 (PMFA2-Fg.P, mfa1Δ, mfa2Δ); and GPCRs combined with noncognate pheromone GEN55 + GEN37; and GEN58 + GEN36. (D) Yeast mating matrix with MATα strains individually expressing eight different fungal Ste2 GPCRs (columns), cocultured with either of eight alpha pheromone-secreting MATa strains (rows). As positive and negative controls, respectively, strains expressing either Sc Ste2 or alpha pheromone, or strains lacking a GPCR or a pheromone were used. Blue gradient is set to a maximum of 3% of diploid frequency, with values >3% colored in black. Complete list of organisms and pheromone sequences is in SI Appendix, Table S1. (E) Activation levels of Fg.Ste2 (CPK366), Fo.Ste2 (GEN70), Bb.Ste2 (GEN71), and Bc.Ste2 (GEN128) biosensors (columns), incubated with 10 μM alpha pheromone from Fg, Fo, Bb, or Bc (rows). The fluorescent signal was normalized to the yEGFP background value (receptor without pheromone). (F) Validation of the mating matrix in culture tubes. Strains individually expressing the four indicated GPCRs (columns) were cocultured with those secreting the indicated alpha pheromone (rows). Blue gradient is set to a maximum of 30% of diploid frequency, with values >30% colored in black. Plating was performed in three technical triplicates in D. Cocultures were performed in three biological replicates and three technical replicates in B, C, and F. Experiments were conducted in four biological replicates in E. Statistical significance was determined in B through two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons (*P ≤ 0.05, ***P ≤ 0.001); and in C with one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons tests in GraphPad Prism (*P ≤ 0.05, **P ≤ 0.01).
