Aligning the World Bank Public Expenditure Review with CAADP_2009

Aligning the World Bank Public

Expenditure Review with CAADP

Pius Chilonda

Sub-Regional Coordinator, ReSAKSS-SA

6 January 2009, Dakar, Senegal

Strategic Analysis and Knowledge Support System for Southern Africa (SAKSS-SA)

Supporting CAADP through……

• Identification and assessment of strategic

options for accelerating agricultural growth

and development in Southern Africa

• Supports the monitoring of both regional

(CAADP, SADC RISDP) and national

agricultural growth targets


Focus areas

• Increasing agricultural growth to reach an average annual growth rate of 6% as envisioned by CAADP/SADC RISDP as necessary for attaining overall economic growth, poverty reduction and food security.

• Enhancing the contribution of agriculture to the achievement of the MDG 1 by 2015

• Assessing of policy and investment alternatives that will yield the highest payoff given commitments of increasing national agricultural budgets (10% Maputo Declaration 2003)


Why agriculture public expenditure

reviews?• 2003: African Union HSG Summit in Maputo,

Mozambique, adopted CAADP as a framework for contributing to the attainment of food security and poverty reduction goals

• Further adopted decision to commit at least 10% of the annual national budget to agric. & rural development by 2008

• AU/NEPAD mandated to monitor & report to the AU summit the progress in complying with Maputo decision

• AU/NEPAD/FAO definition used as a basis (COFOG)


Research questions

• What is the progress towards the 10% Maputo declaration

• Since national governments have committed to increasing national budgets to agriculture…– What sorts of investments will maximize growth?

– What investments or policy changes will lead to poverty reduction?

– What level of budget is needed to achieve CAADP, MDG goals?


Efforts on AgPER to date

• Technical meeting on

Monitoring Trends

and Spatial Analysis

of Public Spending in

Agriculture, May 2007

• Various studies by

IFPRI (Fan et al)


Methodological issues around

collecting data on public spending

• How can the information

on government spending

and allocation in

agriculture be assembled

and monitored over time?

• How can we assess the

impact of agricultural

spending on growth and

poverty reduction?

• What is the minimum set

of information needed?


Rational and approaches of spatial

analysis

• Can we map public targeting of public spending

in agriculture?

What approaches should be used for spatial

analysis

How can we relate geographical distribution of

public spending in agriculture to underlying

socio-economic and bio-physical factors?

poverty, malnutrition, population density, access to

markets and services, price and production risk,

agricultural potential, etc


Activities

• Developed generic terms of reference for the collecting data on AgPER

• Collecting data on AgPER on budgetary allocation to agriculture; data feeds into the AU/NEPAD/FAO work

• Detailed country case studies (Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia)

• Analysis of AgPER data and using it for dialogue at national and regional levels

• This is seen as ongoing activity


Results


Countries with Less than 5% National Expenditure on Agiculture

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

Botsw

ana

Burun

di

Cam

eroo

n

Cen

tral A

f. Rep

Con

go

Con

go, D

R

Cot

e d'

Ivoi

re

Djib

outi

Kenya

Leso

tho

Libe

ria

Mau

ritius

Nam

ibia

Rwan

da

Seych

elle

s

Sierra

Leo

ne

Togo

Countries

% o

f N

atio

nal E

xpenditu

re

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007


Figure: Countries with 5% to 10% National Expenditure on

Agriculture

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Benin

Cha

d

Mau

ritan

ia

Nig

eria

Sao T

& P

Swaz

iland

Uga

nda

Zambi

a

Countries

% N

ati

on

al E

xp

en

dit

ure

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007


Figure: Countries with more than 10% National Expenditure on Agriculture

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

Eth

iopia

Mad

aga

scar

Malaw

iMali

Niger

Sen

egal

Zim

bab

we

Countries

% N

ati

on

al E

xp

en

dit

ure

on

Ag

ricu

ltu

re

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007


Figure: Public Spending on Agriculture in SADC Countries

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

Botsw

ana

Con

go, D

R

Leso

tho

Mal

awi

Mau

ritius

Nam

ibia

Swaz

iland

Zambi

a

Zimbab

we

Countries

% N

ati

on

al E

xp

en

dit

ure

on

Ag

ricu

ltu

re

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007


Percentage of agriculture budgets

in national budgets- Malawi

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18 1

99

9/2

00

0

20

00

/01

20

01

/02

20

02

/03

20

03

/04

20

04

/05

20

05

/06

20

06

/07

Perc

en

tag

e (

%)


Pre and Post Maputo declaration Expenditure

Agriculture Spending growth rates

0

50

100

150

200

250

Livestock/Crops Forestry

Perc

en

tag

e (

%)

% growth (1999/00-2003/04)

% growth (2003/04-2006/07)


Sub-sector contribution in total

agriculture spending - Malawi

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pe

rce

nta

ge

(%

)

99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07

Fisheries Forestry Livestock & crops


Composition of Agricultural

Spending: The Case of Zambia

Personnel Emoluments

20%

Operational funds

11%

Irrigation Development

3%

Infrastructure

2%

Food Security Pack &

EDRP

12%

Food Reserve Agency

Maize Marketing

15%

Fertilizer Support Program

37%Source: ReSAKSS-SA, MACO (Zambia), MSU (Zambia)

Example of Zambia’s 2005 Budget


Northern

Western

Central

Southern

Eastern

North western

Luapula

Lusaka

Copperbelt

ZMK 48,006

ZMK 51,736

ZMK 65,115

ZMK 58,371

ZMK122,720

ZMK 35,170

ZMK 47,369

ZMK120,595

ZMK129,528

ZMK per Agric. HH

25000 - 50000

50000 - 75000

> 75000

Provincial Bounderies

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Kilometers

N

Kwacha Spent Per Rural Agricultural Household on EXTENSION


Northern

Western

Central

Southern

Eastern

North western

Luapula

Lusaka

Copperbelt

ZMK 4,526

ZMK 5,373

ZMK 9,160

ZMK 9,868

ZMK 4,524

ZMK 4,818

ZMK 6,103

ZMK 27,861

ZMK 28,648ZMK per Agric. HH

< 5,000

5,000 - 10,000

10,000 - 15,000

> 15,000


0 90 180 270 360 450 540 Kilometers

N

Kwacha Spent Per Rural Agricultural Household on FORESTRY


Northern

Western

Central

Southern

Eastern

North western

Luapula

Lusaka

Copperbelt

ZMK 1,855

ZMK 5,670

ZMK 7,390

ZMK 5,166

ZMK 10,370

ZMK 1,790

ZMK 6,934

ZMK 5,329

ZMK 12,713

ZMK per Agric. HH

< 5,000

5,000 - 10,000

10,000 - 15,000


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Kilometers

N

Kwacha Spent Per Rural Agricultural Household on RESETTLEMENT


Northern

Western

Central

Southern

Eastern

North western

Luapula

Lusaka

Copperbelt

ZMK135,056

ZMK 37,708

ZMK 87,233

ZMK188,360

ZMK270,878

ZMK166,029

ZMK 66,588

ZMK449,389

ZMK505,809ZMK per Agric. HH

< 100.000

100,000 - 200,000

200,000 - 300,000

> 300,000


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Kilometers

N

Kwacha Spent Per Rural Agricultural Household on FSP


Northern

Western

Central

Southern

Eastern

North western

Luapula

Lusaka

Copperbelt

ZMK276,476

ZMK 27,735

ZMK126,999

ZMK480,058

ZMK449,810

ZMK353,198

ZMK 77,951

ZMK196,297

ZMK424,263ZMK per Agric. HH

< 100.000

100,000 - 200,000

200,000 - 300,000

> 300,000


0 90 180 270 360 450 540 Kilometers

N

Kwacha Spent Per Rural Agricultural Household on FRA


Northern

Western

Central

Southern

Eastern

North western

Luapula

Lusaka

Copperbelt

ZMK465,929

ZMK133,540

ZMK295,898

ZMK752,480

ZMK858,029

ZMK564,646

ZMK207,950

ZMK810,441

ZMK1,103,398TOTAL ZMK per Agric. HH

< 250,000250,000 - 500,000

500,000 - 750,000

> 750,000


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Kilometers

N

TOTAL Kwacha Spent Per Rural Agricultural Household


Northern

Western

Central

Southern

Eastern

North western

Luapula

Lusaka

Copperbelt

110 Kg/ha

13 Kg/ha

54 Kg/ha

51 Kg/ha

47 Kg/ha

115 Kg/ha

122 Kg/ha

54 Kg/ha

122 Kg/haFertilizer (Kg/Ha of Maize Planted)

< 25 Kg/ha

25 - 50 Kg/ha

> 50 - 100 Kg/ha

> 100 Kg/ha


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Kilometers

N

FSP Fertilizer in Kg/Ha of Maize Planted


Northern

Western

Central

Southern

Eastern

North western

Luapula

Lusaka

Copperbelt

78 %

84 %

72 %

73 %

79 %

42 %

29 %

73 %

72 %

% Poverty Levels

< 50 %

50 - 75 %

> 75 - 80 %

> 80 %


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Kilometers

N

Incidence of Poverty Levels in 2006


Northern

Western

Central

Southern

Eastern

North western

Luapula

Lusaka

Copperbelt

-4 %

-6 %

-3 %

0 %

-11 %

-35 %

-45 %

-6 %

-6 %

% Change in Poverty Levels

> 30 % Decrease

10-30 % Decrease

5- <10 % Decrease

< 5 % Decrease

No Change


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Kilometers

N

Percent (%) Change in the Incidence of Poverty Levels Between

1998 and 2006


ReSAKSS collaboration with World

Bank –The case of Mozambique (1)

• Research questions:

– Are the levels and trends of public expenditure in agriculture conducive of the GoM meeting its strategic goals for the sector (incl. under PARPA)? Are they aligned with the priorities defined by the sector (strategic objectives, MTEF, PARPA, …)?

– Based on the AU/NEPAD definition of agriculture, what is the overall share of agriculture in total public expenditures? How is Mozambique progressing towards its NEPAD commitments (Maputo Agreement)?

– Is the spatial allocation of overall expenditure in agriculture aligned with sector strategic targets and objectives?


ReSAKSS collaboration with World

Bank –The case of Mozambique (2)

• Research questions:

– Has the funding in agriculture led to the expected growth in the sector and to rural poverty reduction?

– Are the budget preparation process and institutional arrangements for the flow of funds conducive of timely a disbursement of public investment that takes seasonality of agriculture into account?

– What is the nature of private investment in agriculture and what trends have evolved over the past years?

– How does Mozambique compare with other countries in Africa on trends, levels, and quality of public spending in agriculture?


Potential areas for collaboration

• Module 1 Core diagnostics; basic foundation

• Module 2 Forward looking; MTEF

• Module 3 Public expenditure tracking

• Module 4 Sub-sector impact evaluation

• Module 5 Core analysis – linking agriculture expenditure and agricultural growth

Aligning the World Bank Public Expenditure Review with CAADP_2009

Technology

Transcript of Aligning the World Bank Public Expenditure Review with CAADP_2009