Stock-taking exercise in

Ag Policy Monitoring

David Laborde (IFPRI) d.laborde@cgiar.org

Jonathan Brooks (OECD)

Focus on 5 sources

(broadly comparable methodologies)

• OECD

• MAFAP-FAO

• IADB

• APO

• World Bank Ag Distortions project

Current Coverage

47%

8% 7% 25%

86%

OECD IADB MAFAP APO WB

% total Population

As % of Agricultural Production

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

OECD IADB MAFAP APO WB

In 1985 Ag Production

in 2005 Ag Production

Consolidated Coverage

64% 4%

4%

13%

15%

OECD

MAFAP

IADB

APO

Not Covered

• 72% without APO

• 85% with APO

Reaching 80% (without India)

Pakistan 1.5% Venezuela 0.4% Thailand 1.2% Cote d'Ivoire 0.2% Philippines 0.9% Uzebekistan 0.2% Egypt 0.8% Congo (Rep.) 0.2% Malaysia 0.8% Tunisia 0.2% Bangladesh 0.8% Sri Lanka 0.2% Vietnam 0.7% Nepal 0.2% Morocco 0.5%

Missing Countries

• Countries covered in the Ag Distortions project of the WB not covered by

(OECD/IADB/MAFAP/APO): 18 countries, 5.4% of global Ag

production

• Bangladesh, Philippines, Vietnam

• Senegal…

• North Africa (Egypt, Morocco)!

Regional Coverage (% Ag Production)

compared to World Bank Ag Distortions

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

LAC AFRICA ASIA ECAS North Amercia

OECD IADB MAFAP APO

Overlap? Example IADB – OECD

• 3 countries (Brazil, Chile, Mexico): 5.1% of global Ag Production

• Some differences to sort out

• Potential for increasing product coverage

Documentation / Form to fill

INSTITUTION

Country

First Year

Final Year

To be included in 2014

To be included in 2015

Contact Person

Contact Email

Link to the cookbook

Other relevant

documentation

Country Product Share of

productio

n

Share of

consumpti

on

Trade

status First year Final year

Reference price Retail Price Wholesale Price Producer

(Farm) Price Type source Type source Type source Type source

Retail Margins Wholesale Margins Transportation

margins Quality adjustment Type source Type source Type source Type source

Identify sources / Understand treatment / Exogenous vs Endogenous parameters

Example 1: OECD (2013)

Country

Border Prices Alternative Methods

Set equal to PP

(MPD is zero)

Net Exporter Net Importer Net Exporter Net Importer

Country's own Other country Export

Subsidy

(per tonne)

Import tariff Traded price Other price

Export price

(FOB)

Import price

(CIF)

Import price

(CIF)

Export price

(FOB)

Wholesale

price

Producer

price

OECD countries

Australia MK RI

BA, BF, CT, EG, OA, PK,

PT, RP, RS, SB, SF, SH, SO,

WL, WT

Canada MK BF EG, PT MA BA, OA, PK, RS, SB, WT,

FX, PO, LN, BN. PE

Chile WT, MA, RS,

BF, MK AP, GR, TM, PK, PT

EU-27

BA, EG, MK,

OA, PK, PT,

RS, WT

MA, RI,

SH, TO1 BF WI FL, PO RP, SF, SB

Iceland SH BF, EG, MK,

PK, PT WL

Example 2: MAFAP (Burkina Faso)

Commodity Years Net

trade

statu

s

Referen

ce price

(type)

Reference price (source) Retail

price

(sourc

e or

calc)

Wholesale price (source or

calc)

Producer price (source or calc)

Arachide 2005-2010 Expo

rtable

F.O.B The FOB price was built from the

wholesale price on the Tamale market in

Ghana, to which the transport costs

between Tamale and the Burkina-

Ghana border were deducted. Wholesale

prices were obtained from the

data base of the Food and Agriculture

Ministry of Ghana.

n.a. Wholesale prices on the

Pouytenga market from the

RESIMAO database

for the period 2006-2010, plus

data collection on the same

market by the

MAFAP team.

Producer prices collected during the

Permanent Agricultural Survey (EPA)

in the Gnagna province.

Cotton 2005-2010 Expo

rtable

F.O.B The FOB export price was obtained from

data through the macroeconomic model

(IAP) between 2005 and 2010. These price

data are generally available from cotton

companies and producers’ organizations

n.a. Average wholesale price between

2005 and 2010 given by IAP

used for

2005 application of factory

price/benchmark price ration in

2005 to

calculate factory prices for other

years

1st grade cotton price obtained from

cotton companies.

Organizing collaboration

Common trunk:

Clearly defined common indicators,

well documented

Expanding country and product

coverage

Tackling new issues / improving

methodologies

(VAT vs sales tax, effective rate of protection biofuel

policies…)