From Data to Decisions: Measuring Nutrition-Sensitive Agriculture

Nigeria’s National Agrifood Systems Investment Plan (NASIP) 2026–2027 outlines ₦6.5 trillion in planned agrifood investments anchored in the National Agricultural Technology and Innovation Policy (NATIP). But how often do we know whether these investments are actually improving diets, food security, and ultimately nutrition outcomes?

Measuring nutrition remains one of the biggest challenges in agricultural development. While many programmes aim to improve nutrition, too often they only measure what is easiest to count rather than what matters most.

In our previous piece, “From Intent to Impact: Aligning Agriculture Interventions to Nutrition Goals,” we explored how agricultural programmes can be designed with nutrition outcomes deliberately in mind.

The next question follows naturally:

Once an intervention is underway, how do we know it is working?

The answer lies in measurement: what gets measured gets managed! Tracking the right nutrition indicators helps programme teams understand what is working, identify gaps, and make informed decisions that improve impact. Historically, agricultural programmes have focused on measuring production, yields, income, and market performance rather than nutrition outcomes. While these indicators are important, they do not tell us whether households are eating more nutritious diets or whether vulnerable groups are experiencing better nutrition. As a result, many programmes have struggled to demonstrate their true contribution to improved nutrition. Nutrition-Sensitive Agriculture seeks to change this by ensuring that measurement reflects the pathways through which agriculture influences diets and nutritional wellbeing. In Nutrition-Sensitive Agriculture (NSA), the data collected needs to go beyond satisfying reporting requirements – it should actively drive learning and action within the programme.

Selecting the Right Indicators

Once nutrition outcomes have been intentionally embedded into programme design, the next step is determining how to measure progress. This begins with selecting indicators that align with the programme’s objectives and the pathways through which it is expected to improve nutrition. Different interventions therefore require different indicators that reflect their intended pathways to improved nutrition.

Rather than attempting to measure every possible outcome, programmes should begin by asking a simple question:

What changes are we realistically expecting this intervention to achieve?

The IGNITE+ training introduces a structured indicator selection process that helps practitioners:

• Review programme goals and expected nutrition outcomes.
• Map activities to appropriate nutrition pathways.
• Select indicators that reflect those pathways.
• Assess whether the programme has the capacity, budget, technology, and technical expertise to collect and analyse the data.
• Integrate the selected indicators into existing monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) systems.

So, what should be measured?

Effective measurement requires a combination of output, outcome, and impact indicators that collectively track programme implementation, behavioural change, and improvements in nutrition outcomes. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Compendium of Indicators for Nutrition-Sensitive Agriculture provides a practical framework for selecting the right indicators.

The indicators selected should reflect the specific pathway through which the intervention is expected to improve nutrition. For example, a programme promoting household vegetable gardens may use production diversity indicators to measure whether farmers are growing a wider variety of nutrient-rich crops. However, increased production alone does not necessarily translate into healthier diets. To understand whether those foods are actually being consumed, the programme may also measure Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women (MDD-W), which assesses the diversity of foods consumed by women of reproductive age.

Selecting indicators based on programme pathways ensures that data collected provides meaningful evidence about whether the intervention is achieving its intended nutrition outcomes.

Some commonly used indicators include:

• Minimum Dietary Diversity for Women (MDD-W): Measures the diversity of foods consumed by women of reproductive age during the previous 24 hours. Consuming foods from at least five of the ten food groups is associated with greater micronutrient adequacy.
• Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS): Assesses household access to a variety of food groups and serves as a useful proxy for household food access.
• Months of Adequate Household Food Provisioning (MAHFP): Measures seasonal food security by identifying periods during the year when households lacked sufficient food.
• Production diversity indicators: Track the diversity of nutrient-rich crops and livestock produced on farms.
• Market indicators: Monitor the availability and affordability of nutritious foods in local markets.
• Women’s empowerment indicators: Measure women’s participation in decision-making, control over resources, and access to economic opportunities.
• Knowledge and practice indicators: Assess whether nutrition education and behaviour change interventions are influencing food choices and caregiving practices.

Together, these indicators provide a comprehensive picture of how agriculture contributes to improved nutrition.

Our Approach Within IGNITE+

One of the priorities of the IGNITE+ project has been strengthening organisations’ capacity to measure nutrition outcomes more effectively within agricultural programmes. A major emphasis is placed on integrating nutrition-sensitive indicators into organisational Monitoring, Evaluation, Research and Learning (MERL) systems, achieved through targeted training and technical assistance.

The training introduces participants to internationally recognised measurement frameworks and guides them through the process of selecting indicators that match their programme objectives. Rather than promoting a one-size-fits-all approach, participants learn how to identify realistic, context-specific indicators based on available resources, programme pathways, and intended outcomes. Participants explore how to adapt survey tools, plan data collection, strengthen analytical capacity, and ensure that evidence generated from the field informs programme management and future investments.

Tanager’s Nutrition-Sensitive Intervention Selection (NSIS) Tool is central to how we do this. Beyond supporting intervention design, the NSIS tool helps ensure that programme activities, nutrition pathways, and indicators remain aligned throughout implementation. It guides programme teams to clearly define how an intervention is expected to improve nutrition, who is expected to benefit, what changes are anticipated, and which indicators should be measured to demonstrate progress. By maintaining this alignment, the NSIS tool reduces the risk of selecting indicators that do not reflect programme pathways or intended outcomes.

The IGNITE+ programme is equipping organisations with the tools and capacity to do exactly that. By ensuring that interventions, nutrition pathways, and indicators remain aligned from design through implementation, programmes can generate evidence that informs better decisions, strengthens accountability, and delivers lasting nutrition impact.