Food Security Without Food Transfers?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Food Security Without Food Transfers?

on

  • 441 views

Ethiopia Development Research Institute (EDRI) and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI/EDRI) Seminar Series, November 1, 2011

Ethiopia Development Research Institute (EDRI) and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI/EDRI) Seminar Series, November 1, 2011

Statistics

Views

Total Views
441
Views on SlideShare
441
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Food Security Without Food Transfers? Food Security Without Food Transfers? Presentation Transcript

  • FOOD SECURITYWITHOUT FOODTRANSFERS?A CGE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVEPOLICIES TO TACKLE FOODINSECURITY IN ETHIOPIAA. Stefano Caria DRMFSS (MoARD), Seneshaw Tamru IFPRI/EDRIand Gerawork Bizuneh IFPRI/EDRI
  • Introduction2 Food Security in Ethiopia  Persistent availability problem  1960-2001: per capita food availability always significantly below requirement (Demeke et al, 2004)  High number of people with insecure access  Number of estimated food transfer beneficiaries trending upwards (Demeke et al, 2004)  Numerous utilization issues  Acute watery diarrhoea (AWD), malnutrition, child wasting and stunting prevalent
  • How to Tackle Access and Availability? Subsidies or3 Transfers?  Productivity Increament through fertilizer subsidy  Lower cost of inputs- benefits farmers  Higher production: availability  Lower prices -for consumers: access  Food transfers based on local procurement  Transfers used to address access  Higher prices benefit farmers  Stimulate more production: availability
  • Why Interest in Transfers from4 Local Procurement and Subsidies?  Transfers effective in raising food consumption, but incomplete “additionality” (Dorosh & Del Ninno, 2002)  Fertilizer subsidies have proved effective in the past:  Malawi experience: higher application rates and yields (Gilbert et al, 2009)  Role in Green Revolution in Asia (Demeke, 2004)  In Ethiopia, given declining soil fertility and land availability constraints, food production growth has to happen at the intensive margin (increasing land productivity)  But high cost of inputs
  • The Ethiopian Fertilizer Market5  Before 1993: Govt Monopoly  93-00: significant private sector participation  2000-present Regional Holdings first and later Cooperative Unions dominate the market 140.00 120.00  1993: 15% subsidy 100.00  1995: 30% subsidy Kg /ha 80.00  1996: 20% subsidy 60.00 40.00 20.00  February 1997: Subsidy Removed 0.00 Marked fall in fertilizer 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09  application rates Cereals All crops
  • The Simulations6  IFPRI standard static CGE model  EDRI 2005 SAM  17 sectors  Separate accounts for teff, wheat, maize, non traded agriculture & fertilizer  No regional disaggregation  Factors closures…  Labour is not fully employed and is mobile across sectors  Land is fully employed and mobile  Capital is fully employed and activity specific  Marginal propensity to save is fixed; investment adjusts  Tax rate fixed, government savings adjusts  Foreign savings fixed, exchange rate is flexible  DPI is numeraire (CPI flexible)
  • Fertilizer Subsidy, Transfers from7 Local Procurement… and both FERT:  50% decrease in fertilizer price through a subsidy on imported fertilizer  A realistic fertilizer demand response to fertilizer subsidy , = , ∗  Used a micro simulation model based on empirically estimated yield functions  to quantify the likely effects of additional fertilizer application on national yields 1 − = ∗ , ∗ ,  LOCAL:  No subsidy on fertilizer and No change in food aid wheat imports  Increase in wheat transfers to rural poor through local procurement  We also assume wheat transfers have a 0.25 MPC  10kg transfer increases counterfactual HH consumption by 2.5 kg = , + ′ + ∗ + ∗ ′ ′ ∗ , = ∗ , + , ∗ −  FERTL:  50% decrease in fertilizer price as in FERT  Some food aid wheat imports replaced by local procurement  same level of local procurement as in LOCAL
  • Micro simulation model- based on empiricallyestimated yield functions To quantify the likely effects of additional fertilizer application on national yields  Four steps:  First, we measure the increase in fertilizer application rate.  Second, we allocate the additional fertilizer consumed to enumeration areas (EAs) - simple sharing rule.  Third, we use the yield function estimated in Asrat, Bizunesh, and Seyoum Taffesse (2010) to predict yields for every EA with the old and new fertilizer quantities.  Fourth, we compare average predicted yields across EAs with the old and new fertilizer quantities, calculating
  • Partial Eq Cost of the subsidy and a transfer of the same cost to the9 gov’t The Partial Eq cost of the subsidy to the government is: ∗ ∗ ∗ pwm - World price 0.729 tm- Subsidy 0.707 EXR1- Exchange rate post-subsidy 1.019 QM1- Fertilizer demand post-subsidy 2.230 Total cost of subsidy 1.171 The subsidy will cost 1.171 billion birr. 1.061 billion birr of wheat can be transferred for the same cost: Total cost of wheat transfer 1.171 Total logistic costs 0.110 Total amount transferred (value) 1.061
  • Comparison of Simulation Results10 and Sensitivity Analysis
  • Cereal Production & Supply:11 Availability of Food % Change in Domestic  Subsidies (FERT + Production FERTL) cause 40.0 higher production 35.0 and supply gains for 30.0 all cereals 25.0 20.0  FERTL increases 15.0 domestic production 10.0 of wheat further 5.0 0.0  Food transfers Teff Wheat Maize (LOCAL) affect FERT FERTL LOCAL production and supply of wheat only
  • Income Effects: Purchasing12 Power HH Income: % Change From  Fertilizer subsidy Baseline (FERT + FERTL) 6.00 raises income of all HHs 5.00 4.00 3.00  Wheat transfers 2.00 (LOCAL) deliver highest income 1.00 gains for rural 0.00 poor Rural Poor Urban Poor  But small-no FERT FERTL LOCAL gains for other
  • Cereal Consumption of the Rural13 Poor: Access 25  Fert subsidies (FERT FERT FERTL LOCAL and FERTL) increase 20 consumption of all cereals  Lower prices and higher 15 incomes contribute to access  Food transfers 10 (LOCAL) increase wheat consumption 5 only  Transfers and small income effect increase 0 access Teff Wheat Maize NT ag  Higher cereal prices tend to lower access
  • [1] This is calculated as the ratio of absolute change in GDP over absolute change in government savings. General Equilibrium Effects 14  Same partial eq cost for all simulations, but in general eq revenue and expenditure (ie govt net revenue) change  Fertilizer subsidy (FERT + FERTL) income effect has positive effect on govt tax revenue  Subsidy with local procurement most cost-effective at delivering GDP growth % Change in real % Change in gov savings DGDP/ GE costs GDP (GE cost) FERT 1.9 -19.2 2.27 FERTL 2.6 -19.9 3.03 LOCAL 0.3 -22.6 0.30
  • Conclusions15  Subsidy with Local Procurement has a strong Food Security Response  Fertilizer subsidy with local procurement (FERTL) delivers:  The best domestic production and supply (availability) response for all cereals  Large household consumption (access) response for all cereals  Smaller loss in government net revenue  Locally procured transfers (LOCAL)…  Generate little general supply response compared to fertilizer subsidy  Large consumption response (access), especially wheat  Harm food consumption of other groups; mis-targeted food
  • Productivity increament is effective16 in tackling Chronic Food Insecurity  Ranking of policies in terms of cereal consumption of the rural poor (access) depends on our assumptions on productivity & MPC:  If high productivity & low MPC, fertilizer subsidies to be preferred for improving access to food of rural poor  Ranking in terms of cereal supply (availability) is more robust to different productivity and MPC assumptions  High agricultural productivity growth, coupled with local procurement, delivers an effective
  • Conclusion…17  However, Policies focusing on one dimension of the yield function alone, such as fertilizer subsidy, are unlikely to deliver the necessary improvement in yields.  Food transfers may still be the most effective short-to mid-term answer to food access insecurity when high return agricultural productivity policies are not available.
  • 18 THANK YOU!