PCD Impact Assessment on
Food Security in Tanzania
Towards a
level Impa
Assessing Linkages between OECD Policies and
Tanzania’s Agro-Food Systems and Food Security
Conditions
Workshop 2, Dar Es Salaam, 27/11/2014
With support from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland
ECDPM
Page 1
INTRODUCTION AND REMINDER
ECDPM
Page 2
Policy Coherence for Development: Concepts
• Non-development cooperation policies of OECD
countries (e.g., agriculture, trade, international investment,
tax, science and technology, migration, etc.) can have
(negative/positive) spillover effects on developing countries
• Those effects can be incoherent with development
objectives (whether they are the objectives of a particular
developing country, a region, developing countries as a
whole, or the objectives of development cooperation policies
of OECD countries)
• Different dimensions of development: economic growth,
poverty reduction, food security, health, human development,
environmental sustainability, etc.
ECDPM
Page 3
OECD Member States Map
Source: Wikimedia Commons
ECDPM
Page 4
Policy Coherence for Development: Concepts
• European Union: ‘The EU seeks to minimise contradictions
and to build synergies between policies other than
development cooperation that have an impact on developing
countries, for the benefit of overseas development’
• OECD: ‘The pursuit of development objectives through the
systematic promotion of mutually reinforcing policy actions on
the part of both OECD and development countries’
• Two implications: “Do not harm”; “do good”
– Ensure that all policies are “development-friendly”
– Promote synergies among policies with regards to development
objectives
ECDPM
Page 5
PCD Concept—Case of Food Security
Source: OECD
ECDPM
Page 6
PCD as a Policy and Institutional Mechanism
Source: OECD
ECDPM
Page 7
PCD Impact Assessment Approaches
Ex ante
Ex post
OECD-Policy-based
Country-/region-based
ECDPM
X
Page 8
Our PCD Impact Assessment Approach
• Developing a methodology for ex post, country-level
PCD assessments with a focus on food security
• Involving local and OECD stakeholders (participatory
approach)
• Supporting OECD Development Assistance Committee
in improving PCD, fostering policy change and
addressing trade-offs between domestic and
international goals based on evidence
• Supporting developing country actors (governments,
private sector and civil society) in understanding OECD
policies’ impacts on their countries, advocating for
improved PCD and formulating policy responses
ECDPM
Page 9
Food Security Analysis Framework
•
•
•
•
Food availability
Access to food
Food utilization
Stability
ECDPM
Page 10
ECDPM
Page 11
OECD-Tanzania Linkages
Commodity
Tanzania’s net
trade balance
Grains and rice
Small
exporter/importe Int’l markets
r
Dairy products
Importer
Int’l markets
Sugar
Importer
Int’l markets
Coffee, tea, and
tobacco
Exporter
OECD Market
access
Cotton
Exporter
Int’l markets
Horticultural
crops
Exporter
OECD Market
access
Fisheries
Exporter
ECDPM
Primary linkage
OECD Market
access
* Local
development
Secondary
linkage
Food security
factor(s)
Foreign direct
investment
Availability and
access (pr. & inc.)
OECD Market
access
OECD Market
access
Availability and
access (pr. & inc.)
Access (inc.) and
utilization*
Access (inc.)
Access (inc.)
-
Access (inc.)
-
Access (inc.)
Page 12
OECD-Tanzania Linkages
• Investigating changes in OECD policies and market
outcomes over an adequate period of time and
identifying negative/positive spillover effects
• Taking into account contextual changes (e.g.,
domestic/regional market and policy changes, global
market and policy changes, etc.)
ECDPM
Page 13
Objectives of Workshop 2
1. Providing an overview of OECD agricultural and trade
policies and their spillover effects on international markets
and domestic markets in developing/emerging countries and
Sub-Saharan Africa
2. Assessing the impacts of OECD agricultural and trade
policies in specific agro-food sub-sectors in Tanzania
3. Assessing the implications of OECD countries’ agro-food
market regulations and private standards on Tanzanian
exporters’ access to OECD markets
4. Assessing the influence of OECD policies on foreign direct
investment and international businesses’ practices in
Tanzania’s agricultural and food sectors
5. Soliciting views of stakeholders on ways and extent to which
OECD policies affect the agro-food system and food security
in Tanzania
6. Discussing methodological aspects
ECDPM
Page 14
Q&A
• According to you, what does Policy Coherence for
Development mean for Tanzania?
ECDPM
Page 15
MODULE 3 PART 1
OECD domestic agricultural
policies and spillover effects on
Tanzania through international
markets
Overview of OECD domestic agricultural
policies and spillover effects on international
markets
ECDPM
Page 16
Objectives
1/ Have a common understanding of the global context in which
Tanzania operates
 Reality check on the recent evolutions globally and in
Tanzania
2/ Present assumptions on theoretical impact pathways through
international prices and evidence of their relevance in the
litterature
ECDPM
Page 17
Methodology
• So far desk-based research
– Official data (OECD etc.)
– Academic literarure and « grey » literature (reports)
• Limitations:
– Limited up to date data
– Publications on very specific commodities or dimensions
(2008 crisis)
=>Risk of using specific cases as general lessons
=> Your feedbacks are key
ECDPM
Page 18
Initial assumptions: Impact of OECD policies
through intl markets
Assumption 1: OECD policies act as discentives to produce food for
Tanzanian farmers, lowering supply of locally produced food and
income of farmers
Assumption 2: OECD policies act as barriers to trade (through tariffs)
reducing the quantity exported to OECD markets by Tanzanian
farmers, lowering their income
ECDPM
Page 19
Assumption 1: discentives to supply of locally
produced food
Channel 1:
=> depress price levels for Tanzanian farmers
Through competition from low cost imports
ECDPM
Page 20
Assumption 1: discentives to supply of locally
produced food
Support policies
and exports
subsidies :
increase supply
on intl markets
 depress intl prices
 Lower intl
prices transmit to
local prices
Depress
farmers gates
prices of import
competing
commodities
ECDPM
Farmers income
Net food buyers
Page 21
Assumption 1: discentives to supply of locally
produced food
Channel 2:
=> increase price volatility
which act as a discentive for farmers to invest in ag
production
ECDPM
Page 22
Assumption 1: discentives to supply of locally
produced food
Temporary
subsidized
exports
 More volatile
intl prices
transmit to local
prices
 Increase
volatiliy of
farmers gates
prices of import
competing
commodities
ECDPM
 increase volatility of intl prices
Farmers income
Net food buyers
Page 23
Assumption 1: discentives to supply of locally
produced food
Reality: Yes, it happened in the past: USA, Japan and Europe were
highly supporting their producers
Evolution of Producer Support Estimate in percentage of gross farm receipts in OECD
%PSE
40
% PSE
30
20
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
0
1986
10
Source: OECD (2014), "Producer and Consumer Support Estimates", OECD Agriculture
statistics (database).
USA, Japan and Europe were highly supporting their producers22
ECDPM
Page 24
Assumption 1: discentives to supply of locally
produced food
Reality: Yes, it happened in the past
=> Those countries are considered to have contributed to the
decrease in international price of grains, milk, butter, sugar, cotton
ECDPM
Page 25
Assumption 1: discentives to supply of locally
produced food
Yes, but
- Since then reduction of supports by OECD,
Globally
increase in non OECD emerging economies (China, India)
- Since 2000s increase in international prices (3 spikes,:2008, 2010, 2011)
Tanzania
- has since become self sufficient in maize and rice lack of market
integration within
- local prices in Tanzania have been shown to be
Tanzania and price
higher than intl markets prices
transmission with intl
more volatile
 Availability and accessibility problems of grains in Tanzania are due
DOMESTIC factors and inefficiencies
ECDPM
Page 26
Assumption 1: discentives to supply of locally
produced food
Yes, but
REALITY CHECK:
Regarding international prices of grains, no case to accuse
OECD policies of incoherence nowadays
Coton USA ?
ECDPM
Page 27
Assumption 2: Reduced market access for
exporters
Channel 1
Barriers to entrance in the OECD markets
- tariffs
- non tariff measures
ECDPM
Page 28
Assumption 2: Reduced market access for
exporters
Tariffs
 decrease
OECD demand
of Tanzanian
goods
 decrease
income of export
producing farmers
ECDPM
Farmers income
Page 29
Assumption 2: Reduced market access for
exporters
Channel 2
Increase of tariff with stage of processing in the value chain (« tariff
escalation »)
=> Disencentives to transform products locally and capture higher
share of value addition
ECDPM
Page 30
Assumption 2: Reduced market access for
exporters
Tariff escalation
 decrease
OECD demand
of Tanzanian
processed ag
products
 decrease
income of export
producing farmers
Decrease
employment
creation in
agroindustreis
ECDPM
Farmers income
Employment creation
Page 31
Assumption 2: Reduced market access for
exporters
Yes, historically agricultural products more protected than other types
of products
But Tanzania has benefitted from preferences :
- Historically from the EU as an ACP country (Lomé, Cotonou
etc.)
-Since 2000s from preferential agreements from other OECD
countries as a LDC (EBA from EU, AGOA from USA etc.)
-=> Many preferential agreements: question is what is also
provided to competitors ?
-=> Example of sugar.
ECDPM
Page 32
CASE OF SUGAR
IMPACTS OF OECD POLICIES ON
TANZANIA’S SECTOR
ECDPM
Page 33
Tanzanian Sugar Sector
•
•
•
•
A major agro-food sector
Tanzania, a net importer of sugar
Four large sugar factories, some new projects underway
Low sugar cane yields relatively to Southern African
producers and other Eastern African producers (lack of
irrigation, low-performance varieties, low fertiliser use
and other production and marketing factors)
• Privatization and efforts to rehabilitate the sector in the
1990s led to productivity enhancement and production
increase
ECDPM
Page 34
Sugar Production and Trade in Tanzania
3,500,000
350,000
3,000,000
300,000
2,500,000
250,000
2,000,000
200,000
1,500,000
150,000
1,000,000
100,000
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
-
50,000
1986
500,000
Tanzania sugar cane prod.
Tanzania sugar prod. (raw)
Tanzania sugar imp. (raw)
Tanzania sugar imp. (refined)
Tanzania sugar exp. (raw)
Tanzania sugar exp. (refined)
-
Left axis, sugar cane production in tonnes; right axis, sugar production and trade in tonnes
ECDPM
Page 35
Sugar Trade
• Tanzania exports sugar mostly to the EU under the EBA
regime (10,000 tonnes, but export licenses are difficult to
obtain reportedly)
• Import duties and quotas (licenses)
• Large volumes of sugar imported illegally
• Sugar factories have experience difficulty competing with
cheap sugar imports, notably sugar from Latin America,
Southern Africa, and some Asian exporters
• Import surges/dumping cases in the late 1990s and early
2000s, incl. sugar from the EU among other origins
• Need to strengthen capacity to implement countervailing
duties and other safeguard measures
ECDPM
Page 36
Sugar Production and Trade in Tanzania
3,500,000
350,000
3,000,000
300,000
2,500,000
250,000
2,000,000
200,000
1,500,000
150,000
1,000,000
100,000
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
-
50,000
1986
500,000
Tanzania sugar cane prod.
Tanzania sugar prod. (raw)
Tanzania sugar imp. (raw)
Tanzania sugar imp. (refined)
Tanzania sugar exp. (raw)
Tanzania sugar exp. (refined)
-
Left axis, sugar cane production in tonnes; right axis, sugar production and trade in tonnes
ECDPM
Page 37
International Sugar Markets
• 2/3 of world sugar production from Brazil, Australia, Cuba and
Thailand
• Other big producers: India, EU, and South Africa
• Net exporting regions: Americas, Oceania
• Net importing regions: Asia, Europe, Africa
• Largest exporters: Brazil, EU, Australia, Cuba and Thailand
• Largest importers: Russia, EU, and Japan
• Concentrated sector; e.g., EU imports done by a few multinational companies
• About ⅓ of world sugar production is trade internationally
• Most of international trade in sugar is done under trade
agreements; residual trade thru spot markets; as a result (in
addition to the fact that sugar cane is a perennial crop), this
market is very volatile
ECDPM
Page 38
International Sugar Markets
• Decline in international prices in the 1990s (rise of Brazil
as a producer and an exporter), rise in prices in the
2000s; EU and US became net exporters after having
been net importers (e.g., in the 1970s)
ECDPM
Page 39
Sugar Production in OECD Group
90000000
70%
80000000
60%
70000000
50%
60000000
50000000
40%
40000000
30%
30000000
20%
20000000
10%
10000000
EU productions (LA)
ECDPM
US productions (LA)
Other OECD (LA)
US share (RA)
EU share (RA)
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
0%
1987
0
All OECD share (RA)
Page 40
Share in world productions (%)
80%
1986
Productions (tons)
100000000
45%
14000000
40%
35%
12000000
30%
10000000
25%
8000000
20%
6000000
15%
4000000
10%
EU exports (LA)
ECDPM
US exports (LA)
Other OECD exports (LA)
US share (RA)
EU share (RA)
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
0%
1989
0
1988
5%
1987
2000000
All OECD share (RA)
Page 41
Share in world exports (%)
16000000
1986
Exports (tons)
Sugar Exports of OECD Group
Sugar Imports of OECD Group
45%
20000000
40%
35%
15000000
30%
25%
10000000
20%
15%
5000000
10%
5%
EU imports (LA)
ECDPM
US imports (LA)
Other OECD imports (LA)
US share (RA)
EU share (RA)
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
0%
1987
0
All OECD share (RA)
Page 42
Share in world imports (%)
50%
1986
Productions (tons)
25000000
International Sugar Markets
• Sugar trade regimes
– EU’s preferential tariff and quota trade regimes:
• EU Special Preferential Sugar (SPS) arrangements,
bilateral agreements with ACP countries, annual TRQ for raw
cane sugar
• Sugar protocol of the EU-ACP Cotonou Partnership
Agreement, TRQ with guaranteed prices
– US’ preferential tariff and quota regime (Puerto Rico,
Philippines and other countries with whom the US has special
trade relations—not for EA countries and excl. other low-cost
producers)
– Commonwealth Sugar Agreement: TRQ for exports to UK until
Lomé Agreement Sugar Protocol
• Other international agreements for sugar, incl. bilateral
agreements (e.g., Cuba-Russia Sugar Agreement)
• ECDPM
WTO MFN regime (residual spot market)
Page 43
EU Sugar Policy
• Major reform of the sugar sector started in 2006
– Cut in subsidies to farmers; cut in the target price of white
sugar; farmers compensated by decoupled payment for a
4-year period, additional to the single farm payment;
abolition of the intervention price
– Closure of obsolete sugar mills
– Losses for countries with preferential access to EU market
– Full liberalization of imports from LDCs in 2009 (duty-free
access to EU sugar market for 48 LDCs in 2009 under the
EBA agreement signed in 2001)
• Elimination of production quotas after 2015; production will
increase, prices will go down
ECDPM
Page 44
EU Sugar Policy
ECDPM
Quantities in tonnes
Page 45
Support to the Sugar Sector in OECD Group
9000
80
8000
70
7000
60
6000
50
5000
40
4000
30
3000
20
2000
10
1000
SCT OECD (value LA)
ECDPM
SCT EU (value LA)
SCT US (value LA)
SCT OECD (% RA)
SCT EU (% RA)
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
0
1986
0
SCT US (% RA)
Page 46
Support to the Sugar Sector in OECD Group
9000
0.80
8000
0.70
7000
0.60
6000
0.50
5000
0.40
4000
0.30
3000
0.20
2000
0.10
0
0.00
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
20
13
1000
OECD PSCT
EU PSCT
EU Price
ISA Price
PSCT in nominal terms, in USD; price of sugar in USD/kg
ECDPM
Page 47
Support to the Sugar Sector in OECD Group
Price ($/ton)
900
800
70
700
60
600
50
500
40
400
30
300
20
200
10
100
ECDPM
2013
2012
2011
US price ($/ton LA)
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
EU price ($/ton LA)
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
SCT OECD (% RA)
2000
1999
1998
1997
SCT US (% RA)
1996
1995
1994
1993
SCT EU (% RA)
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
0
1987
0
1986
SCT (%)
80
World price ($/ton LA)
Page 48
Sugar Markets in Africa
• Southern African producers more cost-competitive than Eastern and
Central Africa producers
– Malawi, Mauritius, Sudan, Zambia, Zimbabwe, South Africa: lowcost sugar producers (SADC more competitive than EAC in
general, production costs relatively high in Eastern Africa)
– Kenya, Swaziland, and Tanzania: higher-cost producers
(indebted sugar companies in Kenya and Tanzania in early
2000s, late payments to farmers)
• Regional market protection in the EAC customs union; tariff
protection; sensitive industry
• In the late 1990s, near collapse of the industry in the region (period
of low prices, consumer prices at or below sugar production costs);
after that, development of safeguard measures; due to lack of policy
planning and administrative capacities, the regional industry is still
affected by cases of dumping (as of 2006); low-cost imports from
Brazil, Southern Africa and Australia
ECDPM
Page 49
EU Development Assistance for the Sugar
Sector
• Sugar Protocol Accompanying Measures introduced
as part of the 2006 reform; assistance package for ACP
countries; 40m euros
• ACP Sugar Research and Innovation Programme, to
fund research to enhance sugar productivity, diversify
uses of sugar cane (biofuels, bio-fertilisers, biopolymers, etc.) and generally ensure that the sugar
industry remains viable; about 20m US$, mostly from
EU, also from Australia, US and ACP countries
ECDPM
Page 50
Q&A
ECDPM
Page 51
MODULE 3 PART 2
OECD non-tariff measures and
private standards
Overview of OECD standards and
implications for market access for Tanzania’s
exports and food security conditions
ECDPM
Page 52
Non-Tariff Measures in OECD and other countries
Non-Tariff Measures are :
UNCTAD, 2010
• Most NTMs are governed by WTO laws and closely monitored
• Members are ‘required’ to notify new and revised measure to the
WTO
• TBT and SPS measures are by far the most important
ECDPM
Page 53
Examples of NTMs measures in OECD countries
• Microbiological standard
• Pesticide residue limits
• Contaminants in
foodstuffs standards
• Veterinary drug residue
limits
• Restrictions on antibiotic
use in aquaculture
• Fumigation requirements
• Factory hygiene
ECDPM
• Quality attributes (size,
shape, design,
freshness, quality )
• Import licensing
and quota
• Labeling requirements
• price control
• Packaging standards
• Bans/Restriction
in Illegal Fishing
• Traceability
requirements for food
and animal
• Health certificates
• Pest risk analysis
requirements
Source: EU Helpdesk, 2014 and various other sources
• Rule of Origin
for
manufactured
products
Page 54
Increasing use of SPS and TBT
8000
12000
7000
Figure 2: Cumulative number of SPS
Notifications to the WTO
10000
Figure 3: Cumulative number of TBT
Notifications to the WTO
6000
8000
5000
4000
6000
3000
4000
2000
2000
1000
US
Other OECD
BRICS
Other Countries
EU (28)
US
Other OECD
BRICS
Other Countries
Source: SPS and TBT notifications from the WTO Available at http://spsims.wto.org/web/pages/search/notification/regular/Search.aspx and at
http://tbtims.wto.org/web/pages/search/notification/BasicSearch.aspx
• As of August 31st, 2014, a total of 10,945 SPS measures and
7,158 TBT measures has been notified to the WTO
• Reflect the increase in exports
• But poses the question policy substitution in a context of
decreasing tariffs
ECDPM
Page 55
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
EU (28)
1995
0
0
Non-Tariff Measures by sectors
Table 1: Number of NTMs by economic sectors (all countries)
Source: Adapted from Gourdon and Nicita (2012)
• Food and agricultural products are the most affected
• Important implication of food security
ECDPM
Page 56
Rising role of Private Voluntary Standards
Private Voluntary Standards are :
Working definition proposed by China and New Zeeland to WTO
ECDPM
Page 57
Too many PVS ?
More than 400 (UNCTAD and EU estimates)
Source: Standardmap, ITC
ECDPM
Page 58
Rising role of Private Voluntary Standards…
• Despite their voluntary nature, PVSs are ‘de facto’ mandatory
for to access developed countries markets (Henson and
Northen, 1998).
• PVSs versus Public Standards?
• PVSs are used by retailers to establish and maintain reputations,
minimise monitoring and inspection costs due to public
standards
• PVSs are more complex and stringent and are not necessarily
being based on scientific evidences (Henson and Humphrey
2009).
• PVSs cover number of dimension (social, environment, equity,
ECDPM
organic production, etc.) not covered by public standards Page 59
Causal chain of the impact of standards on food
security…
Increase
regulation and
standard
 Restrict
OECD market
access
 decrease
income of export
producing farmers
Decrease
employment
creation in
agroindustreis
ECDPM
Farmers income
Employment creation
Page 60
NTM for Traditional exports crops :
Coffee, tea, tobacco and cotton
• Mostly exported raw will little or no value addition
• Regulated sectors by commodity boards
Public standards
Privates
standards
ECDPM
Coffee and tea
Tobacco
Cotton
• Microbiological
standard
• Pesticide residue
limits
• Quality attributes
• Labelling and
Packaging standards
• Prohibition of certain
types of tobacco
• Restriction of certain
substances (nicotine
limit) in cigarette
• Labeling requirements
• Packaging standards
• Pesticide residue limits
in textile products
• Contaminants in
feedstuffs
• Quality attributes
Several private standards, mostly social, sustainability and environmental :
Fair Trade, Rainforest Alliance, UTZ certified, Ethical Trading Initiative
Page 61
Example of Coffee
100%
150
80%
60%
100
40%
50
20%
0
1.2%
1.0%
0.8%
0.6%
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
Export to EU (LA)
Share to EU (RA)
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
0%
Export to OECD (LA)
Share to OECD (RA)
Export to US (LA)
Share to US (RA)
Note : RA=Rigth Axis, LA = Left Axis
Source : UNCOMTRADE 2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
Share of Tanzania in OECD total coffee import
1996
ECDPM
Share (%)
200
1997
Exports ($US million)
Total value and share of Tanzania export of coffee to OECD
Page 62
Traditional exports crops access to OECD
• Standards are realities in traditional export crops
• But, they are not major barrier to access OECD market
• Other factors are major constraints to the development of these
sectors
• Domestics policies
• Low value addition (but why?)
• Lack infrastructures and low productivity
• Instead private certification offer the opportunity :
• to expand trade and access niche markets (coffee and tea)
• earn ‘decent’ prices (fair trade)
• In the medium term, private standards could become majors
challenges (carbon footprint, etc.)
ECDPM
Page 63
NTM and Non-traditional exports crops
Fish and horticulture
• Emerging sectors with large potential (horticulture)
• Important for export diversification
• Regulated sectors by boards and GoT
Public standards
Privates
standards
ECDPM
Fish
Flower
Fruit, vegetable and
spices
• EU bans on lake
victoria fish
• Microbiological
standards
• Pesticide residue
limits
• Quality attributes
• Packaging standards
• Plant material
quarantine
• Phytosanitary
certification
• Pest risk analysis
• Fumigation
requirements
• Pesticide residue limits
• Contaminants in
foodstuffs
• Quality attributes
• Labeling requirements
• Packaging standards
Several private standards, food safety, social, sustainability and environmental
: GlobalGap, BRC, Fair Trade
Page 64
Example of Fish
Figure 19: Share of Tanzania in OECD total fish import
Total value and share of Tanzania export of fish to OECD
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
150
100
50
Export to OECD (LA)
Share to OECD (RA)
Export to EU (LA)
Share to EU (RA)
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
0
Share (%)
200
1997
Exports ($US
million)
Figure 18: Total value and share of Tanzania export of fish to OECD
Export to US (LA)
Share to US (RA)
Share of Tanzania in OECD total fish import
0.4%
0.3%
0.2%
0.1%
ECDPM
Note : RA=Rigth Axis, LA = Left Axis
Source : UNCOMTRADE 2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
0.0%
Page 65
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
10
5
Export to OECD (LA)
Share to OECD (RA)
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
Export to EU (LA)
Share to EU (RA)
Export to US (LA)
Share to US (RA)
Note : RA=Rigth Axis, LA = Left Axis
Source : UNCOMTRADE 2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1996
1997
Share of Tanzania in OECD total vegetables import
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
ECDPM
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
0
Share (%)
Total value and share of Tanzania export of vegetables to OECD
15
1997
Exports ($US million)
Example of Vegetables
Page 66
Non-traditional exports crops access to OECD
Summary
• Non-traditional sectors face high public and private standards
• They are major barriers to market access, especially by small
producers and exporters
• Limit the (rapid?) expansion of these sectors (horticulture)
• Other factors are also constraints to the development of these
sectors
• Domestics policies (slow but increasing support to these
sectors-horticulture)
• Lack infrastructures (cold storage, high transport cost, etc.) and
low productivity
• Certification offers access to OECD market but requires high cost
•ECDPM
Small farmers are locked out of export market
Page 67
Technical assistances to Developing countries
The SPS agreement mentions, “members shall take account
of the special needs of developing country Members, and in
particular of the least-developed country Members” (Article
10.1).
Example of initiative
• WTO/FAO Standards and Trade Development Facility
• Support to Horticulture Development Council of Tanzania
• EU /COLEACP Pesticide Initiative Program (PIP)
• 11 producing/exporting companies/farmers’ groups
supported in Tanzania
• Many programs/project from other partners
These supports are essential to ensure the compliance of
smallhollders
But what about the million of non-beneficiary smallholders?
ECDPM
Page 68
Q&A
MODULE 3 PART 3
Foreign direct investment and
land acquisition
Overview of FDI and implication for food
security in Tanzania
Global Flow of FDI
2.00%
3.40% 2%
5.40%
10.40%
Africa
South Asia + East and South-East Asia
United States
19.80%
European Union
14.30%
Other
Transition economies
Latin America and the caribbean
West Asia
42.90%
Source: UNCTAD,2013
• Out of the total global flows of FDIs in 2011 Africa’s share was
5.4%
• This was half of that received by Asia (10.4%), with the European
Union being the largest beneficiary (42.9%) followed by USA
(14.3%)
Globally, Agriculture is among the least
sectors attracting FDI
Manufacturing (others),
6.2
FDI, % by Sector/Industry
M-Vehicles, 8.7
Other Services, 26.8
Coke&Petroleum, 4.7
Primary Mining, 10.1
Electricty,Gas+water, 8.8
Real Estate, 15.4
Finance, 16.8
Construction, 2.6
Source: UNCTAD,2013
•
•
•
•
•
financial and banking services (16.8%) taking the lead,
real estate development (15.4%),
primary mining (10.1%)
electricity, gas and water (8.8%), and
motor vehicle assembly (8.7%)
Global Pace of Land Acquisition
•
•
Generally, the pace of land acquisition globally has been increasing
After an inventory of the media reports on GRAIN blog (farmlandgrab.org),
the World Bank (Deininger et al. 2011) reports that between 2008-2009 there
have been land acquisitions for 56.6 million hectares worldwide
Interest in Land acquisition by region
•
•
Africa receiving most interest as destination for FDI since 2000
Friis and Reenberg (2010) revealed that in period 2008-2010, African land
deals alone amounted to somewhere between 51 and 63 million ha
2,000
9
1,800
8
1,600
7
1,400
6
1,200
5
1,000
4
800
400
2
200
1
-
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Inflow
•
•
Finance Insurance,
Retail
Estate&Business
Services
12%
Mining&Quarrying
28%
3
600
•
Community,
Electricity, Gas &
Social & Personal
Water
Services
Others
6%
1%
Transport, Storage&
1%
Communication
7%
FDI/GDP (%)
FDI inflow (USD)
Millions
FDI inflow in Tanzania
Manufacturing
21%
Construction
5%
Agriculture, Hunting
& Forestry
4%
Wholesale,Retail
Trade.
Catering&Accommod
ation Services
15%
FDI inflow/GDP
Structural reforms and investment promotion facilities and strategies
contributed increase in FDI inflow in last decade
Mining & quarrying, manufacturing, wholesale & retail, accommodation
share the largest share while agriculture sector attracted 4 percent of FDI
stock
Despite low FDI stock in agriculture sector, Land acquisition has been
associated with agriculture FDI in the recent years for production of biofuel
crops
Land acquisitions
• Weak regulatory enforcement in land ownership and resource
poor small holder farmers are at risk of losing livelihoods and
food production land due to random sale of their land assets
• More than 4 million hectares of land are in the hand of large
investors
• Local medium and small investors in agricultural land is rising
but few land is optimally used
OECD countries firms and Land acquisitions in
Tanzania
• About 31 deals concluded for a total of 300 000 ha; OECD countries
the major investors
• Top countries are : US, Netherlands, UK, Finland, Sweden, India
Canada,
United 1%
States,
25%
China, 0%
Egypt, 2%
EU, 43%
Turkey,
2%
Tanzania,
8%
Singapore,
1% Mauritius,
5% Kenya, 5%
Nigeria,
Source :Landmatrix
India, 6%
What is produced?
• Food crops : Maize, Rice, Barley, horticulture
• Biofuel : Jatropha, Oil palm, Sugar cane
• Other : Carbon sequestration
Other,
20%
Food
crops,
24%
Biofuels,
56%
Source :Landmatrix
What are links with OECD policies
• EU and US biofuel policies?
• Implication of land acquisition for local economy
and food security?
• OECD/EU code for responsible investment in
Agricultures
What are the impacts to:
• Livelihoods of local communities
• Food security
• Agriculture production
Q&A
ECDPM
Page 81
Thank you
www.ecdpm.org
www.slideshare.net/ecdpm
Page 82