Agricultural Public Expenditures Analysis in Africa
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•768 views
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
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Agricultural Public Expenditures Analysis in Africa
Similar to Agricultural Public Expenditures Analysis in Africa (20)
More from African Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS)
More from African Regional Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System (ReSAKSS) (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
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
- 14. Thank you!
- 15. For more information: www.fao.org/mafap
Editor's Notes
- 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.
- High share of crops.