Monitoring and analyzing food and agricultural policies ... · Monitoring and analyzing food and...

Monitoring and analyzing food and agricultural policies:

scope, focus and early results

Jean Balié, MAFAP, FAO

TCI Investment Days 2012 Rome, 17-18 December 2012

Outline

1. Introduction. What is MAFAP?

2. Scope and focus

3. Example of results for one country

4. Examples of cross country comparison

5. Conclusions

What is MAFAP?

Monitoring and Analyzing Food and Agricultural Policies

• Analyses policy impacts on food & agriculture with comparable

indicators across commodities, countries and over time

– Price analysis

– Expenditure and aid

– Policy coherence

• Builds capacities of national partners for institutionalization

• Targets policy makers & development partners to promote

evidence-based policy dialogue

Which indicators and what kind of

analysis?

1. Market price support (NRPs/NRAs and

MDGs)

2. Public expenditure level and composition

3. Policy coherence

4. Country and sector performances

Where does MAFAP focus?

What commodities and expenditures does MAFAP analyze? Commodity list Burkina Mali Kenya Tanzania Uganda Ethiopia Ghana Malawi Mozamb. Nigeria Total

1 Maize S S S S S S S S S S 10

2 Rice S S S S S S S S 8

3 Cassava S v S S S S S 7

4 Sorghum-Millet S S S S S S S 7

5 Cotton fiber S S S S S S S 7

6 Beans - Cowpeas S S S S S S 6

7 Livestock S S S v S v 6

8 Cow milk S S S v S 5

9 Sugar cane S S S S S 5

10 Groundnuts S S v S 4

11 Coffee S S S S 4

12 Palm, Cotton, Sesame oil S v S S 4

13 Wheat S S S 3

14 Tea S S S 3

15 Tobacco S S 2

16 Cocoa S S 2

17 Sesame S 1

18 Arabic gum S 1

19 Yam S 1

20 Fish S 1

21 Oignon S 1

22 Teff S 1

Total 11 8 11 11 10 9 8 7 7 7 89

Selected technical notes are already available on the web www.fao.org/mafap

S S S S S S S Expenditures

What are the MAFAP products ?

• Data base • Triennial multi-country report • Country reports • Technical notes • Policy monitoring system • Support to evidence-based policy

dialogue and decision making

Example of results for one country: Rice analysis in Mali, 2005-2010

Market price support

• Expenditure and aid

• Policy coherence

Rice production and marketing in Mali

Rice production and trade

Policy decisions and measures

• Input subsidies

• Tax exemptions on imports

• Price ceilings

Are there incentives to rice production ? Surging world food prices

yet more disincentives ! Policies effective to

absorb the price rise

(180,000)

(160,000)

(140,000)

(120,000)

(100,000)

(80,000)

(60,000)

(40,000)

(20,000)

-

20,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Écart de prix observé au point de compétition Écart de prix ajusté au point de compétition

Payments to producers - input

subsidies

35%

Payments to producers - income

support

1%

Payments to consumers

1%Payments to processors

2%

Payments to traders

0%

Agricultural research

3%

Technical assistance

3%Training

10%

Extension1%

Inspection (veterinary/plant)

7%

Infrastructure21%

Storage/public stockholding

5%

Marketing10%

Other1%

Seeds, ag equipment,

fertilizers. Impact of RI

Yet Ag.research very high return

on ag prod / poverty reduction

Roads and

irrigation.

Mainly for

rice-

promotion

projects

Source : MAFAP, FAO

Expenditure composition

Rural education10%

Rural health12%

Rural infrastructure -

roads

39%

Rural infrastructure -

water and

sanitation2%

Rural infrastructure -

energy

1%

Rural infrastructure -

other

0%

Other36%

Lowering

access costs

(transport)

Source : MAFAP, FAO

rice63%

fish20%

cattle9% cotton

4%shea 1%

milk1%

poultry1%

wood1%

wheat0%

shallot0%

sesame0%

jatropha0%

Source : MAFAP, FAO

GVT

OBJECTIVES

Policy

Coherence MAFAP

FINDINGS GVT

POLICIES

Coherent

?

Linked

?

Related

?

Net exporter of rice

Boosting production

Improving producers’

revenue

Food security

Tax exoneration on

imports : 08-09

Price ceilings: 08-09

Input subsidies :

08-ongoing…

Incentives or

disincentives and

for whom ?

Public expenditures:

going to rice ?

Irrigation

infrastructures ?

Input subsidies ?

MAFAP analysis of policy coherence:

Main messages

• Objective (Mali as a net exporter) not supported by effects of

measures

• Implicit objective to support consumers outweigh support

to producers (lowest prices in West Africa)

• Unfavorable environment for investments by farmers

• Exchange rate misalignment increases competitiveness of

imports

• MAFAP does not capture all forms of incentives as shown

by sustained production growth

Mali, Ghana, Burkina Faso and Tanzania, 2005-2010

MAFAP allows for cross countries and cross sectors comparisons

Commodity level analysis: Rice example MALI

TANZANIA GHANA

BURKINA FASO

-50.00%

0.00%

50.00%

100.00%

150.00%

200.00%

250.00%

300.00%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Observed nominal rate of protection at farm gate Adjusted nominal rate of protection at farm gate

0.00%

20.00%

40.00%

60.00%

80.00%

100.00%

120.00%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Observed nominal rate of protection at farm gate Adjusted nominal rate of protection at farm gate

-50.00%

-40.00%

-30.00%

-20.00%

-10.00%

0.00%

10.00%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Observed nominal rate of protection at farm gate Adjusted nominal rate of protection at farm gate

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Dis

ince

nti

ve

s

I

nce

nti

ve

s

Observed NRP at farm gate Adjusted NRP at farm gate

Commodity group level: Imports MALI (Rice, Milk)

-20%

30%

80%

130%

180%

230%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

EDM (MDG)

AVERAGE OBSERVED NRP FOR IMPORTED PRODUCTS

AVERAGE ADJUSTED NRP FOR IMPORTED PRODUCTS

TANZANIA (Sugar, Wheat, Rice, Milk)

Rice 80% of

indicator Inclusion of Milk

GHANA (Palm oil, Maize, Rice)

BURKINA FASO (Rice, cottonseed oil)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

EDM (MDG)

AVERAGE OBSERVED NRP FOR IMPORTED PRODUCTS

AVERAGE ADJUSTED NRP FOR IMPORTED PRODUCTS

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

EDM (MDG)

AVERAGE OBSERVED NRP FOR IMPORTED PRODUCTS

AVERAGE ADJUSTED NRP FOR IMPORTED PRODUCTS

-45%

-40%

-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

EDM

NRP OBSERVÉ MOYEN POUR LES PRODUITS IMPORTÉS

NRP AJUSTÉ MOYEN POUR LES PRODUITS IMPORTÉS

-40%

-35%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

EDMAVERAGEOBSERVEDNRPFORTHEAGRICULTURALSECTORAVERAGEADJUSTEDNRPFORTHEAGRICULTURALSECTOR

MALI (8 commodities)

Agricultural sector level

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Disin

cent

ives

I

ncen

tives

EDM (MDG)

AVERAGE OBSERVED NRP FOR THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

AVERAGE ADJUSTED NRP FOR THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

TANZANIA (8 commodities)

BURKINA FASO (11 commodities)

GHANA (8 commodities)

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

EDM (MDG)

AVERAGE OBSERVED NRP FOR THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

AVERAGE ADJUSTED NRP FOR THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

EDM (MDG)

AVERAGE OBSERVED NRP FOR THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

AVERAGE ADJUSTED NRP FOR THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR

Public expenditure level

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11p

support to agriculture - budget allocations(% of total)

support to agriculture - actual spending(% of total)

Maputo declaration target

%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

depenses en faveur de l'agriculture - budget approuvé (% du total)

Dépenses en faveur de l'agriculture - dépenses effectives (% du total)

(% of total)

Objectf déclaration de Maputo

%

MALI

TANZANIA

BURKINA FASO

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

agriculture - budget allocation (% of total)

agriculture - actual spending (%of total)

Maputo declaration target

%

Public expenditure composition MALI BURKINA FASO

TANZANIA

Payments to producers - input

subsidies

35%

Payments to producers - income

support

1%

Payments to consumers

1%Payments to processors

2%

Payments to traders

0%

Agricultural research

3%

Technical assistance

3%Training

10%

Extension1%

Inspection (veterinary/plant)

7%

Infrastructure21%

Storage/public stockholding

5%

Marketing10%

Other1%

Paiements aux producteurs -

subventions aux

intrants38%

Paiements aux producteurs -

autres

1%

Paiements aux consommateurs

10%Paiements aux

fournisseurs d'intrants

0%

Paiements aux transformateurs

1%

Recherche agricole6%

Assistance technique

1%

Formation15%

Vulgarisation3%

Inspection 1%

Infrastructure20%

Stockage0%

Commercialisation3%

Autres1%

Payments to producers - input

subsidies

39%

Payments to producers - other

1%

Pyments to processors

1%

Agricultural research

14%

Training24%

Extension7%

Inspection (veterinary/plant)

1%

Infrastructure1%

Storage2%

Marketing3%

Other7%

Conclusions

• MAFAP a tool for evidence based policy making

• Useful to compare countries & commodities

(Quantitative indicators)

• Useful to identify investment gaps/ priorities

• Policy impacts

• Data intensive (quality + availability)

Thank you!

Visit www.fao.org/mafap

Ask questions at Mafap@fao.org