ASTWG Meeting – 28th November 2012 – Dar es Salaam1
Results of public expenditure analysis in Tanzania
Agricultural Sector Consultative Working Group28th November 2012 - Dar es Salaam (Tanzania)
MAFAP TEAM TANZANIA (MAFC – ESRF – FAO – OECD)
With the financial support of
ASTWG Meeting – 28th November 2012 – Dar es Salaam
Presentation Outline1.Why we need to measure support to
the agriculture sector in Africa The level – how much is being spent The composition – where the money
is going2.MAFAP methodology for measuring
public expenditures in support of the food and agriculture sector
3.Application in the case of Tanzania
ASTWG Meeting – 28th November 2012 – Dar es Salaam
Importance of measuring support to agriculture• Agriculture’s key role in raising incomes,
reducing poverty and improving food securityReflected in 2003 Maputo declaration
• Important to be able to analyse the incentives expenditures provide in order to make evidence-based policy choicesHaving an economically meaningful
classification system is a pre-requisite for policy analysis and efficient allocation of scarce resources
ASTWG Meeting – 28th November 2012 – Dar es Salaam
Principles behind measuring support to agriculture
• The composition of public expenditures in support of agriculture is just as, if not more, important than the total levelComplementarities and trade-offs between
spending in different categories • Proposed indicators seek to keep track of both the
level and composition of expenditures (national and aid)Economic incentives to ag. sector developmentHow much of budgetary allocations are disbursedCorrespondence of spending with stated
objectivesEffectiveness – economic impact: out of scope
ASTWG Meeting – 28th November 2012 – Dar es Salaam
Principles behind measuring support to agriculture• Seek to measure all expenditures that are
supportive of sectoral development• Seek to reconcile aid flows and national
expenditures• Following OECD’s principles, propose an
economically meaningful classification:Payments to farmers vs payments to the sectorPublic vs private goodsAg-specific vs ag-supportive vs non-ag
expenditures
ASTWG Meeting – 28th November 2012 – Dar es Salaam
MAFAP classificationI. Agriculture-specific policies1.1. Payments to the agents in the agro-food
sector: producers (e.g. input subsidies), consumers, input suppliers, processors, traders, transporters
1.2. General sector support: ag. research, tech. assistance, training, extension, inspection, infrastructure, storage, marketing and other
II. Agriculture supportive policies: rural education, health, infrastructure
ASTWG Meeting – 28th November 2012 – Dar es Salaam
Agriculture support may be higher than we think
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
%
ASTWG Meeting – 28th November 2012 – Dar es Salaam
Composition of spending
2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11p0.0
100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0800.0900.0
I. Agriculture specific policies II. Agriculture supportive policies
bln TSh
ASTWG Meeting – 28th November 2012 – Dar es Salaam
I. Agriculture-specific payments → directed to the sector as a whole
Payments to producers -
input subsidies27.8%
Payments to producers -
other1.4%
Pyments to processors
2.6%Agricultural
research14.9%
Training23.0%
Extension10.3%
Inspection (veterinary
/plant)0.3%
Infrastructure1.2%
Storage8.3%
Marketing4.5% Other
5.9%
Payments to producers -
input subsidies
43%
Payments to producers -
other1%
Pyments to processors
1%Agricultural research
14%
Training24%
Extension5%
Inspection (veterinary/
plant)1%
Infrastructure1%
Storage0%
Marketing3% Other
7%
2008/09-2010/11average
2006/07-2007/08average
ASTWG Meeting – 28th November 2012 – Dar es Salaam
II. Agriculture supportive expenditures→ mostly in rural infrastructure
Rural education
21%
Rural health12% Rural
infrastructure - roads
42%
Rural infrastructure
- water and sanitation
14%
Rural infrastructure
- energy11%
Rural infrastructure
- other0%
Other0%
Rural education
10%
Rural health27%
Rural infrastructure
- roads39%
Rural infrastructure
- water and sanitation
13%Rural
infrastructure - energy
11%
Rural infrastructure
- other0%
Other0%
2006/07-2007/08average
2008/09-2010/11average
ASTWG Meeting – 28th November 2012 – Dar es Salaam
Composition of spending
2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11p0.0
100.0200.0300.0400.0500.0600.0700.0800.0900.0
I. Agriculture specific policies II. Agriculture supportive policies
bln TSh
ASTWG Meeting – 28th November 2012 – Dar es Salaam
II. Agriculture supportive expenditures→ mostly in rural infrastructure
Rural education
21%
Rural health12% Rural
infrastructure - roads
42%
Rural infrastructure
- water and sanitation
14%
Rural infrastructure
- energy11%
Rural infrastructure
- other0%
Other0%
Rural education
10%
Rural health27%
Rural infrastructure
- roads39%
Rural infrastructure
- water and sanitation
13%Rural
infrastructure - energy
11%
Rural infrastructure
- other0%
Other0%
2006/07-2007/08average
2008/09-2010/11average
ASTWG Meeting – 28th November 2012 – Dar es Salaam
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
donor national
Aid is consistent with national prioritiesbln TSh
ASTWG Meeting – 28th November 2012 – Dar es Salaam
Share of administrative costs remains high, though significant improvements made
2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11p
Administration costs 16 17 26 33 25Policy transfers 84 83 74 67 75Total agricultural budget 100 100 100 100 100
based on data for MAFC and MLFD
ASTWG Meeting – 28th November 2012 – Dar es Salaam
Disbursement rates could be improved
billion TSh 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11p
Total expenditures in support of food and agriculturebudgeted amount 616.0 891.7 1143.3 1198.9 944.5actual spending 584.5 878.4 825.1 759.3 728.0actual as a share of budget (%) 95 99 72 63 77
ASTWG Meeting – 28th November 2012 – Dar es Salaam
For additional information please visit: www.fao.org/mafap
