Perfil de los miembros
Géraldine Tardivel
Organización:
FAO
País:
Italia
I am working on:
innovative financing for agriculture, food security and nutrition; on policy dialogue with regional and local authorities and their networks (decentralized cooperation); and on territorial approach of food security policies and strategies.
Géraldine Tardivel (FAO) is a policy officer in Policy Assistance Support Service (TCSP) at FAO, Italy. She works on innovative financing and decentralized cooperation seconded by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs to FAO since January 2012.
Géraldine Tardivel
Dear all,
We are grateful to the “second round” of contributors to their participation in the discussion.
A summary will be prepared in the next days including new ideas and areas of further analysis proposed.
The 28 contributions received have enriched the discussion with a diversity of points of views, coming from 12 countries and 5 continents. While the majority of contributions are from Europe (46%), Africa ranks second (23%) followed by North America (15%).
Participants also represent several different sectors in a quite uniform proportion, ensuring complementary views on the issues raised in the discussion: governments, farmers associations, local and regional authorities, universities, international organizations, private sector and nongovernmental organizations.
This wide range of stakeholders engagement is essential to feed into the reflection of the international group of experts which will deliver its report to the Pilot Group on innovative financing in December.
Again, we would like to thank you very much for your participation and relevant contributions!
Maurizio Malogioglio
Marie-Caroline Dodé
Géraldine Tardivel
Géraldine Tardivel
Feedback from the facilitators
Dear all,
We are grateful to all of you for the contributions to the discussion.
We read all comments with great interest and see that good ideas are being proposed as well as questions and concerns that we would like to address.
To enrich and facilitate this exchange, we are happy to add some further information on our work and on where the Task Force stands at the moment and respond to some of the concerns raised by participants.
Please see an annex on a preliminary List of Innovative Financing Mechanisms for Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition on which the Task Force has worked.
Professor George Kent noted "One could imagine innovations such as a small tax on currency transactions, but how would those revenues be managed? Would the powerful accept such a tax if the revenues were used primarily for the benefit of the poor?"
In this specific connection, the Leading Group Task Force on International Transactions produced, in 2010, a Report which indicated that at the onset a mechanism could be identified where resources collected by national taxes on currency transactions would be matched with a number of uses and needs in various sectors like health, education, food security.
In the area of food security, a facility could be established within the mechanisms of existing institutions. This is an area that will have to be addressed in the report and in the debate.
What is central now, is that the levies on financial/currency transaction for development purposes are not repurposed only to face the present credit crunch.
However, the present debate, particularly within the FSN should not be focused only on using part of possible new taxes for food security.
The Task Force is trying to see into possible innovative ways to channel funds into the agricultural and food security efforts. This, by combining public and private funds in a catalytic manner. In the annex, there is a short description of a number of mechanisms identified at this stage on which comments will be most welcome.
Several contributions from the participants such as Dimitra Zervaki, José Luis Vivero or François Stepman, have a research related component and indicate that in any case mechanisms have to be revolving and sustainable.
In this connection, one of the areas indicated in the annex refers precisely to this issue. The superiority of public spending on R&D has emerged from several studies as compared to spending in other activities related to agriculture (irrigation, extension, fertilizer subsidies). It is a country specific effort, but countries have in common higher internal rate of return of investment in research as compared to other agricultural investments.
The example of the Platform for African – European Partnership in Agricultural Research for Development proposed by Mr François Stepman, to involve a diversity of stakeholders (research, public, private partners, all from North and South) is very interesting in terms of R&D.
Some questions from George Kent and from Falana Adetunji referred to the motivation for IFM, "what is the main problem we want to address, which countries should be targeted and, among them, which segments of the population? In addition, what evidence do we have that there is a lack of investment in agriculture? What are the key indicators. Are we referring to low-income countries, high-income countries, or everywhere?"
By 2050 the world population is projected to be of 9 billion people, most in countries already suffering from hunger and natural resources degradation. Crop and livestock systems have to become more capital intensive (physical, human, intellectual). In other words, the challenge in the poorest countries is to lift the agricultural productivity curve.
The correlation between agricultural investment and hunger reduction is dramatically illustrated by the fact that progress towards the MDG hunger-reduction target is closely linked with on-farm investment in agriculture.
According to recent estimates, agricultural capital stock per worker, a proxy for private domestic agricultural investment, has grown at an average rate of 1 percent per year since 1990 in the 29 countries that are on track to achieve the target. However, it has grown much more slowly in the 31 countries where progress has been insufficient and it has fallen in the 17 countries where undernourishment rates have stagnated or increased (FAO, 2011a).
There is a well know long term decline in the share of agriculture in overall government expenditures as well as in terms of Official Development Assistance, although some changes are now taking place, particularly in Africa. To sustain demand by 2050 various estimates say that additional $ 209 billion will be required for on-farm investments.
Other questions asked by George Kent, Christian Chileshe, Felix Tékpon Gblotchaou and Muhammad Irfan Kasana, referred to "what type of IFMs are we talking about. Large-scale? Small-scale? Maybe the concern is that certain groups have less access to credit than others?"
Small farmers are the backbone of agriculture in many low-middle income countries but they face special constraints to investment( remoteness, lack of access to market , finance, insurances to tolerate risks, insecure property rights).
Most farmers in low-middle income countries operate small-scale, family centered enterprises. They invest more than three times as much as their governments spend on agriculture, and 50% more than donors or foreign investors. Yet, these levels are too low to make them reach the MDG, get out of poverty traps and the constraints to investment.
Large-scale corporate investments in agriculture can represent an opportunity because they can fill large investment gaps in poor countries with abundant natural resources but no capacity to invest massively in enhancing productivity and build infrastructure. However, such investments must be inclusive in that they actively involve local farmers (e.g. outgrower schemes, contract farming, joint ventures, etc). Mike Brandolino proposes private funding to sponsor the purchase of land plots for agriculture development, where the funder can benefit from publicity and the community from increased productivity.
George Kent, Lisa Kitinoja and Falana Adetunji also added:"There are big differences between investments for agriculture and for basic nutrition. Why is there not enough investment in agriculture, or the particular type of agriculture that interests us?
New investments in conventional agriculture are not likely to help them very much. However, well-designed investments in the poor could be very helpful. We should think of better spending."
There are large gaps in agricultural capital labour ratios between the high income countries and the middle-low income countries as the agricultural capital stock in the low income countries has not kept up with growth in the labour force. The regions with the highest undernourishment percentages - Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia - are also the ones that spend the smallest share in relation to the importance of the sector in GDP.
In low-middle income countries as a whole, the capital-labour ratio declined at an average annual rate of 0.3 percent during the 1980-2007 period. In many developing countries the levels of investment, both public and private, are too low to push the lift curve. Small farmers in marginal areas are neglected and often denied resources.
Governments thus have an important role in supporting private investment to ensure that resources are spent well and orientated towards agricultural development. The public sector has a crucial role to play in catalyzing agricultural investment and channeling them towards socially beneficial outcomes.
Public investments by governments and donors will be crucial in creating a conducive environment for farmers to make their own investments. An enabling environment influences the perceived profitability and risks associated with private investment. This will require a partnership between governments, donors and farmers.
Governments and national and international institutions have a role to play in funding a broad range of public goods, such as human capital, and infrastructure development that private agents are not able or willing to undertake themselves and to correct economic inefficiencies brought by market failures.
George Kent and Jose Luis Vivero expressed the following concern:.
"There are abundant resources in the world that could be directed to ensuring decent opportunities for the poor, but those who control those resources obviously have other priorities. New sources of funding could be proposed, but is there any reason to expect that those who control those funds would prioritize the poor?"
Frequently governments spend public funds in agriculture on subisidies to private goods (pesticides, fertilizers), often benefiting rural elites, rather than in investment in public goods (rural roads, education, marketing infrastructures, research), with negative implications both in agricultural performance and social equity. Funding of such common goods will have a positive spillover on investment by farmers.
We hope that the debate will continue to generate interesting ideas and inputs and look forward to keep receiving your comments.
Maurizio Malogioglio
Marie-Caroline Dodé
Géraldine Tardivel