Agricultural Public Expenditures Analysis in Africa, presented by Jean Balié, Senior Economist, Monitoring African Food and Agricultural Policies (MAFAP), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) at the 2013 ReSAKSS Annual Conference in Dakar Senegal, Nov 12-13
Agricultural Public Expenditures Analysis in Africa
1. Public expenditure in selected West and
East African countries: The Maputo
Target and what’s behind it?
Monitoring African Food and Agricultural
Policies (MAFAP)
Jean Balié, FAO
ReSAKSS Conference, Dakar, 12 and 13 November 2013
With the financial support of
2. MAFAP System
1. Working with national partners to build evidence
a) Price incentives for key agricultural value chains
b) Public expenditure and aid
c) Policy coherence
2. Facilitating policy dialogue, uptake and advocacy
–
Regional (CAADP) and national (investment plans, policy
reforms)
3. Developing institutional capacities
4. Establishing a community of practice
3. Overarching categories
Categories
Sub-categories
Components
Payments to consumers
Individual support to
food and agriculture
Cash
Food aid
School feeding
Payments to producers
Inputs subsidies
Payments to other agents
Agriculture-specific expenditure
(food and agriculture
development support)
Research
Feeder roads
General support to
food and agriculture
Technical
assistance/extension services
Training
Irrigation
Storage
Inspection
Marketing
Rural education
Agriculture-supportive
expenditure (rural development
support)
Idem
Rural health
Rural infrastructure
Income support
4. Governments agreed to
Level of public expenditure for increase
PE in support to Ag. and rural
Absolute
Relative
agriculture and rural development:
development (CAADP) ≠
Decline of PE
Overall decline of public expenditure for
ag. and rural development between 200610%
and 2010
5. Behind the Maputo target…
From 2006 to 2010 :
National spending : +14%
`
Donor spending : -8.3%
6. Behind the Maputo target… (2006-07 vs
2008-10)
Share of aid in public expenditure for
food and agriculture
Burkina Faso
-10
Kenya
+2
Mali
-2
Tanzania
-19
Uganda
-19
7. Behind the Maputo target…
Share of total
Ag PE per
Ag PE per
budget going to ag agricultural worker agricultural land –
(05-10)
- USD (05-10)
USD/ha (05-10)
Burkina Faso
15.5 %
46
22
Kenya
6.3%
62
18
Mali
11 %
74
4
Tanzania
12.1%
34
14
Uganda
11.1%
51
31
8. Composition – general categories
Policy objectives focus on boosting
production and
Decline of rural expenditure productivity rather
than fostering rural development.
Specialization towardsin ruralspecialization of
Share of donor spending agricultural
East Africa : development
Burkina
specific expenditureMali Tanzania indirect)
(direct and Uganda
expenditure towards private goods
Kenya
Faso
rather than public.
82%
0
83%
64%
31
9. Composition – Ag-specific support
Pillar 3 of CAADP- Promotion of
Low support to consumers though public
food security by fostering
productivity and production and
spending.
improving food availability
PE target mainly producers.
10. Composition – payments to producer
Coherent with national policy
strategies for Western African
Western African countries: capital (on
90
countries : boosting rice production
80
farm irrigation) and yields.
70
On-farm services
Eastern African countries: variable based
East African : technology inputs
60
Burkina Faso
improvmt of productivity Capital
50
Irriga on
100
75%
40
Variable inputs
30
Other
25%
20
Composition of capital subsidies
10
0
MALI
BURKINA FASO
UGANDA
TANZANIA
KENYA
11. Composition – indirect ag-specific
Research and dissemination of
Pillar 4- Investments in agricultural
Pillar 2- Improved market access
knowledge
research
Limited support to marketing
Overall relative decline
activitiesSupported trough infrastructure
Higher spending in spending African
Eastern
Countries in support to research but
overall relative decline.
12. Composition – groups of commodities
Crops mostly targeted
Share of PE targeting
individual commodities
: more diversified
East Africa
West Africa
support than
13. Conclusions
after food crisis, mixed signals sent to producers: price & trade policies versus subsidies
reduction in donor funds affects rural development
spending
regional differences: importance of capital, variable
inputs, research and extension
period analyzed was exceptional: regular tracking
required
MAFAP definition of PE to food and agriculture based on the Maputo declaration : agricultural-specific (ag sector), agricultural-supportive (rural development : rural health, education, infrastructure), includes donor and government expenditure, central and decentralized, off-budget and on-budget, policy transfers and administration costs. This graph shows that the share of total budget going to PE has gone down over the years in most countries (except Mali and Kenya). States seem to bemovingawayfrom Maputo..
However, the absolute amounts and share of government expenditure for agriculture has gone up, it is the donors who have somehow withdrawn their support to agriculture from various reasons : financial crisis, political crisis in some countries (Mali, Burkina…)…In this graph, one can see that the total amounts of donor expenditure to agriculture and rural development have gone down, whereas government’s have gone up. This is also true for relative values.
This table illustrates that less donor spending towards agriculture, and more government spending, led to a significant change in donor share of total public expenditure.
Another illustration of how to look beyond the Maputo target numbers. In Kenya, 6.3% of budget going to ag, but 2nd highest PE per worker. In Mali, 11% of budget but lowest share of Ag PE per hectare.
Moving to categories. This shows that the share of support to rural development shrank over the study period, and the share of ag-specific has gone up….In response to the high food price crisis, the focused diverged from rural development onto agriculture-specific support.
Withinag-specific support, the balance is quite equal between indirect and direct support. However, we can see that indirect support has gone up in Mali and Burkina (irrigation projects) whereas it has gone down in the east-African countries (input subsidies). When ag-specific support is direct, it goes overwhelmingly to producers.
…and when support goes to producers, we have two different scenarios. In sahelian states, it is mainly focused on capital (on-farm irrigation mainly – see example in Burkina Faso) and in East Africa (except Kenya) on variable inputs.
Now if we look at indirect ag-specific support, ag infrastructure (in orange) is much more important in West Africa than in East Africa, due to the weight of irrigation. Most of ag infrastructure in East Africa is feeder roads. The weight of research is much higher in Eastern African countries states whereas it is more comparablefor training and extension services.