Influencing Micro (policy and regulatory)
changes in Tanzania:
The Case of Soil Health Node
Gungu M. Mibavu
Dr. Joseph Rusike
Liston Njoroge
Outline
• Introduction;
• Objective and activities
• Outputs;
• NAIVS
• Conclusion and implications
Introduction
Macroeconomic policy changes
•
Macro policy making easier/frequent than meso/micro policy making process
•
What happens in MoFP has also a greater impact on farmers than what happens
sector level (Government budget, taxes, money supply, interest rates, exchange
rates);
Micro (Policy and Regulatory) changes at sector or industry levels more difficu
•
Takes time for Policies and Acts to be changed as several stages need to be
followed;
•
Many disciplines involved and consensual decision making among many
stakeholders with conflicting interests;
•
There are losers and winners so need “win win” solutions
•
Skills (Cost Benefit Analysis of options, Estimation the costs to government to
implement reforms, Legal analysis of compliance of reform options
Agricultural policy making process: Nesting of
rules
Constitutional rules of
the Society;
Citizen/non-citizen, Public outcry;
Ruling Party manifesto; Speech
from Crown
MALF: Policies; Act formulation and
Amendments: Regulations etc...
MF; WB
etc
Instrumental rules of
the economy/Sector
Working rules of going
concern
Seed variety development, testing and
release; PBR, certification; Registrationfertilizer/seeds/agrichemicals; import and
export tracking; LGAs by laws
The Case of the Soil Health Node in Tanzania
e Case of the Soil Health Node in
nzania
-I
Coordinating organization - Agricultural Inputs Section MAFC
nvestment US$ 279,250 period 01.10.2012 to 30.09.2015 i.e. 35 months
Members: ESRF; TAGMAG; TFRA; Mlingano-ARI;
Mlingano
SUA; AFAP; FST; Mzumbe Universit
and TANADA.
Goal
Improve soil and crop productivity to contribute to poverty alleviation and food
security through the implementation of conducive soil health policies
Objectives
Improve the implementation of the fertilizer subsidy program to enhance
effectiveness and impact
Improve investments in extension and advisory services on fertilizerfertilizer use and
Integrated Soil Fertility Management technologies
Examine and document evidence for cost reduction in the fertilizer business
he case of the Soil Health Node in
anzania-II
Major activity areas
•
•
•
Conduct policy research and analysis studies
Disseminate evidence from research to stakeholders
Facilitate advocacy forums for policy makers and development partners on the
need to have the policy changes
Outputs
• Policy research and analysis (Performance of NAIVS in terms of efficiency, equity,
impact on fertilizer use, productivity and crop incomes;
incomes
• Establish mechanism to monitor and track implementation of subsidized voucher
• Return to investments in agricultural extension services to increase public
investments in agricultural extension and advisory services;
services
• Impact of removal of fertilizer VAT on demand and supply of fertilizers;
he case of the Soil Health Node in
anzania-III
•
Outputs Continue..
• Strategies for reducing fertilizer cost build-up
build
to create demand
and fertilizer use by smallholder farmers;
• Feasibility for increased local fertilizer production and blending;
• Consultations for training of staff of MALF on Electronic
Monitoring and tracking of subsidy vouchers using a software
prepared by the Node.
AIVS
NAIVS 2008/2009 -under
under the Accelerated Food Security Programme (AFSP)
with a total investment of US $ 299 million (Government 46.5% & World Ban
53.5%)
Objective: increase food production
Supporting smallholder farmers to access agricultural inputs
Increasing agricultural technology adoption by subsidizing the prices of
improved seeds and fertilizers in targeted areas
Engage the private sector in the delivery of inputs
NAIV- evidences...
There was an increase of 1.8 tons per ha in maize production from 2.1tons per ha 2005/2006
to 3.97 tons per ha 2007/2008.
NAIV- evidences...
• There was an increase of 1.4 tons per ha in paddy production from 1.5tons per ha 2005/2006 to 2.9
tons per ha 2007/2008.
NAIVS evidence cont…
Effect on private Sector Participation
Production of maize seeds by private sector companies increased from 8.7 tons before
the NAIV to 13 tons implying 52% change in maize seeds;
Agricultural technology utilization
Technology utilization capacity for fertilizer has increased from 81% to 97% and 77% to
99% for improved seeds;
Training of Agro-dealers
3,855 agro-dealers
dealers were trained to sell seeds and fertilizer on rural markets
Program Graduates
57 percent of subsidy program graduates continue to purchase commercial grain seeds
and 37 percent of graduate continue to purchase fertilizer on their own.
NAIV- Challenges
• Farmers needed more fertilizer than what was prescribed in the
guideline 1 acres/HH;
• Rampant administrative problems;
• Strict selection criterion to pay 50% top-up
top
price;
• Delivery Effectiveness;
• Targeting beneficiaries;
• Program Monitoring; and
• The system was seen by input companies being open to abuse;
he case of the Soil Health Node in
anzania-IV
Technical assistance under the MIRA to develop a case for informing
government decision making and approval of reform options to further
mprove the efficiency of fertilizer industry and welfare of farmers, fertilizers
irms, consumers and tax payers.
Some options
• Distribute vouchers a year before farmers keep and redeem when needs fertilizer (to
deal with varying moths of starting of cropping season around the country)
• Support bulk procurement of fertilizers when international prices are lowest in order to
contain prices in the domestic market
• Strengthen farmers groups s that can obtain fertilizer at the beginning of the season
without making cash payment and pay at end of season after harvest
he case of the Soil Health Node in
anzania-III
Policy and regulatory reform changes (Impacts)
(
• Results of NAIVS study not immediately applied because the Government
leave NAIVS in 2014/15 and replaced this with a loan given to farmers in
credit group
• Cabinet paper to build the case for the re-introduction
re
of the NAIVS which
drew some lesson from the SHN study and incorporated
recommendations flowing from the study;
• But the Government re-introduced
introduced NAIVS in 2015/2016 in the process; and
• Program Management – Input Suppliers appointment the agro-dealers
agro
instead of the LGAs.
Conclusion and implications
Micro (Policy and Regulatory) reform policy making process
pro
complex and
messy and impact pathways not linear
Soil Health Node experience showed the need to continuously engage with
government decision making and use “windows of opportunity” in the politic
process by integrating into the impact pathway
Need for technical assistance to build case to inform government decision
making and influence approval of reforms
Ahsante