Transcript - HGSF

FFE Programs Using Locally Grown
Foods in Sub-Saharan Africa: Potentials
and Constraints
Akhter Ahmed
International Food Policy Research Institute
Presentation for the “Food for Education Experts Seminar: Reviewing
the Evidence”
World Food Programme, Rome
8-9 May 2006
Monday, May, 10, 2010
Storyline
• Background and rationale for using locally grown
foods for FFE
• Analytical framework
• Data, assumptions, and parameters
• Results
• Conclusions
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Page 2
Background
• The Hunger Task Force of the UN Millennium
Project promotes FFE programs based on locally
grown food as a key policy tool to achieve MDGs
related to hunger reduction, universal primary
education, and poverty reduction.
• The recently established New Partnership for
Africa’s Development (NEPAD) has embraced
this idea and created the Locally Grown SchoolFeeding Program (LGSFP) in partnership with
WFP, UNICEF, and FAO.
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Page 3
Rationale
The logic behind using locally produced food (as
opposed to imported foods) for FFE is not only that
such foods are likely to be culturally more
acceptable, but also to:
• stimulate demand for local agricultural produce
• increase agricultural growth
• create jobs
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Page 4
Analytical Framework
• Used a mathematical model to examine the potential
impact of using locally produced food for FFE on
o
o
o
Food production
Food prices
Distribution of gains (or losses) between consumers and
producers (changes in consumer surplus and producers’ cash
income)
• The model is within the Marshallian framework of partial
equilibrium analysis
• The analytical framework explicitly recognizes the semisubsistence nature of the agricultural economy in
developing countries
o
A large share of staple food production is consumed by producers
themselves
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Page 5
Effects of Changes in Maize Demand and
Supply in a Semi-Subsistence Ag Economy
Dh
Dn
Dm
Price of maize
P1
S0
E
P0
C
P2
F
B
S1
A
G
D1
D0
0
H
Q0
Q1
Q2
Quantity of maize
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Page 6
Analytical Framework
• Let D represent the demand function. If Q is total maize
output and H is farmers’ home consumed quantity, then
changes in consumer surplus is given by
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Page 7
Analytical Framework
• Let S denote the maize supply function. Then, change in
cost of production (∆C1) with the FFE demand is given
by
∆C1
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Page 8
Data, Assumptions, and Parameters
This analysis compares the estimated outcomes of the
demand created by the use of locally produced maize for
FFE (without and with technological change in agriculture)
to the base case of no FFE
• Two sets of analysis: (1) for the entire Sub-Saharan
Africa (45 countries); (2) for 9 selected countries where
NEPAD/HTF proposed to start FFE: Ethiopia, Ghana,
Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal,
and Zambia.
• As NEPAD/Hunger Task Force aims, the analysis
assumed 50 million children to be included in FFE in
SSA, and 1 million children in the 9 countries.
o
Analysis included the food for schooling (FFS) component of FFE
for take-home maize rations to students from poor households
only (half of the children in SFP are included in FFS)
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Page 9
Data, Assumptions, and Parameters
(cont’d)
• Considered 2003 as the baseline for analysis
• In 2003, total maize production in SSA was 36.82 million
metric tons, and in the countries, 16.18 mmt.
• Non-food use of maize in SSA: 20% in 2003 (FAO)
• Maize price varies widely across SSA countries.
Therefore used the 2003 average international maize
price of $105 per metric ton
• Assumed 40% of total maize production as baseline
marketable surplus
o
Marketable surplus ranges from 20% of total maize production in
Tanzania to 60% in Zimbabwe (FAO)
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Page 10
Data, Assumptions, and Parameters
(cont’d)
• A daily meal provided to children in school feeding
program contains 623 kilocalories (kcal) of energy per
child per day, of which cereals provide 570 kcal; and
vegetable oil, 53 kcal. This daily ration is provided to
school children for 200 days per academic year (WFP).
• Assumed 570 kcal per child per day will come from
maize.
• Maize grains contain 342 kcal per 100 grams of grain.
For whole maize flour with 96 per cent rate of extraction,
100 grams of maize flour contains 355 kcal.
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Page 11
Data, Assumptions, and Parameters
(cont’d)
• Based on the above data and assumptions, the
use of locally grown food is expected to create
additional demands of 2.0 million metric tons of
maize for school feeding, 5.4 mmt for FFS takehome rations only, and 7.4 mmt FFE (that is,
school feeding plus FFS take-home rations) for
the entire Sub-Saharan Africa.
• For the 9 countries: 40 thousand metric tons for
SFP, 1.08 mmt for FFS.
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Page 12
Data, Assumptions, and Parameters
(cont’d)
• Estimates of price elasticities of demand and
supply of maize in Sub-Saharan Africa are
available from the IMPACT model of IFPRI
(Rosegrant et al. 2001).
• The IMPACT model suggests the average price
elasticity of demand of –0.73, and the average
price elasticity of supply of 0.36 (area elasticity of
0.19 and yield elasticity of 0.17) for maize in SubSaharan Africa. These values are used for the
analysis.
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Page 13
Results: Change in Maize Price
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Page 14
Results: Change in Maize Production
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Page 15
Results: Change in Consumer Surplus
from Maize Consumption
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Page 16
Results: Change in Maize Production
Cost
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Page 17
Results: Change in Producers’ Cash
Income from Maize Production
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Page 18
Results: Scenario with FFE Demand-Induced
Technological Change in Maize Production
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Page 19
Results for the 9 countries
Based on the data and assumptions, the effects of FFE alone would be
minimal, but expected to be substantial with FFE-induced technological
change in maize production:
Effects on:
SFP
FFS
FFE
FFE with tech.
change
Maize price
0.23%
0.61%
0.83%
-20.7%
Maize production
0.08%
0.22%
0.30%
19.6%
Consumer surplus
0.62%
1.67%
2.27%
67.8%
Producers’ cash income
0.68%
1.82%
2.48%
63.6%
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Page 20
Conclusions
• A rightward shift in aggregate demand curve for maize
due to additional demand generated by FFE programs
would raise the equilibrium price of maize. Responding
to the higher price, the farmers would produce more, and
both consumers and producers would benefit from the
increased production.
• However, the magnitude of effects would depend on the
extent of demand created by FFE, and whether the
Locally Grown School Feeding Program (LGSFP)
initiative is successful in inducing farmers to adopt
modern technology in maize production.
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Page 21
Conclusions (cont’d)
• However, if the supply side remains constrained and
food prices rise due to local purchases for the FFE
programs, then consumers and food deficit farmers can
become worse off.
• Under such a scenario, farmers may even take
potentially detrimental actions such as keeping children
out of school in order to help with farm work, defeating
the very purpose of the food for education programs.
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Page 22