25
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
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)
