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
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
Overarching categories
Categories
Individual support to
food and agriculture
Sub-categories
Payments to consumers
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
Components
Rural health
Rural infrastructure
Income support
Governments agreed
Level of public expenditure
forto 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
Behind the Maputo target…
From 2006 to 2010 :
National spending : +14%
` spending : -8.3%
Donor
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
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
Composition – general categories
Policy objectives focus on boosting
production and productivity rather
Decline of rural expenditure
than fostering rural development.
Specialization
towards
Share of donor
spending
inagricultural
rural
development of
East Africa
: specialization
Burkina
specific
expenditure
(direct
and indirect)
expenditure
towards
private
goods
Kenya
Mali
Tanzania
Uganda
Faso
rather than public.
82%
0
83%
64%
31
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.
Composition – payments to producer
Coherent with national policy
strategies for capital
Western African
Western
African countries:
(on
90
countries : boosting rice production
80
farm irrigation) and yields.
70
On-farm services
Eastern
African
countries:
inputs
East African variable
: technology based
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
Composition – indirect ag-specific
Research and dissemination of
Pillar 24- Improved
Investments
in agricultural
Pillar
market
access
knowledge
researchsupport to marketing
Limited
Overall relative decline
activitiesSupported trough infrastructure
Higher spending in spending
Eastern African
Countries in support to research but
overall relative decline.
Composition – groups of commodities
Crops mostly targeted
Share of PE targeting
individual commodities
East Africa : more diversified support than
West Africa
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
Thank you!
For more information: www.fao.org/mafap