Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011
➤ Gửi thông báo lỗi ⚠️ Báo cáo tài liệu vi phạmNội dung chi tiết: Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011
Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011
Report on Findings from a Collaborative Pilot Study Cornell University, Makerere University, and CARE/UgandaLocal and Regional Procurement in UgandaLe Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011essons Learned from a pilot study of the Market Information and Food Insecurity Response Analysis (MIFIRA) frameworkElaine Hill, Joanna Upton, and Arnold Xavier August 2011Page 1ABSTRACT: Local and regional procurement (LRP) has been increasing in importance as donors transition from strictly tied f Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011ood aid to more flexible forms of food assistance. Since the modality choices for food assistance are increasing, there has been growing consensus regHill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011
arding the importance of response analysis, and particularly the importance of market analysis, for making decisions regarding w hether in-kind food oReport on Findings from a Collaborative Pilot Study Cornell University, Makerere University, and CARE/UgandaLocal and Regional Procurement in UgandaLe Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011taken of its impacts. This paper documents a pilot study undertaken with the dual goals of piloting the use of MIFIRA in the field and contributing to our understanding of the implications of LRP in Uganda. Many lessons were learned pertaining to how better to employ a trader Slin ey to address MIFI Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011RA’s questions. The study was able to develop preliminary responses to some of those questions in the context of Uganda's maize markets. Il also uncovHill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011
ered new questions relating to areas of potential impacts of LRP that have yet to have been explored.I. IntroductionTied food aid, or donated food thaReport on Findings from a Collaborative Pilot Study Cornell University, Makerere University, and CARE/UgandaLocal and Regional Procurement in UgandaLe Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011gun transitioning from exclusively tied food aid toward local and regional procurement (LRP) of food in affected areas, as well as cash and voucher distribution programs that allow recipients to purchase food themselves. The share of LRP has increased significantly over the past decade, and is now n Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011early half of all in-kind food aid. In East Africa, Uganda and Kenya have long been the hub for regional procurement of food aid; the significance ofHill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011
its markets for African food aid is growing (Furguson 2009). Donor agencies have been relying on Uganda’s bumper crops to feed food insecure regions wReport on Findings from a Collaborative Pilot Study Cornell University, Makerere University, and CARE/UgandaLocal and Regional Procurement in UgandaLe Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011ood assistance are increasing, there has been growing consensus regarding the importance of response analysis in deciding which modality option is the most effective in any situation. In particular, consensus is building regarding the importance of market analysis as part of response analysis, parti Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011cularly for making decisions regarding whether in-kind food or cash-based programming (including LRP) is the most effective. The Market Information anHill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011
d Food Insecurity Response Analysis framework (MIFIRA) has been proposed by Barrett et al. (2009) as a tool to be used in response analysis for analyzReport on Findings from a Collaborative Pilot Study Cornell University, Makerere University, and CARE/UgandaLocal and Regional Procurement in UgandaLe Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011nda undertook a cooperative study in Uganda with the dual objectives ol piloting the use of the MIFIRA framework in the field and contributing to the understanding of Uganda's role as a source for food aid in Africa and the past and future impacts of LRP on its markets.Ulis paper discusses the findi Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011ngs of the pilot study. First we present relevant background information on LRP, maize markets in Uganda, and food procurement in Uganda. We introduceHill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011
MIURA and die methodology employed for the study. We then describe our findings, beginning with the structure of the maize market supply chain and naReport on Findings from a Collaborative Pilot Study Cornell University, Makerere University, and CARE/UgandaLocal and Regional Procurement in UgandaLe Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011ns received throughout the chain and the kinds of activities and actors in each market. We then discuss the characteristics and profiles of each type of trader, describing the nature of traders’ activities and constraints as they address MIFIRA’s questions. While we did not formally interview farmer Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011s’ associations and companies, we include our findings from key informants from these groups as well. Farmers’ associations are discussed particularlyHill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011
in light of their potential role as market intermediaries. We conclude by presenting other findings, current issues and lessons learned relating to LReport on Findings from a Collaborative Pilot Study Cornell University, Makerere University, and CARE/UgandaLocal and Regional Procurement in UgandaLe Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011pment Assistance (ODA) and a smaller proportion of global food commodity trade (Clay and Stokke. 2000). Food aid is, however, significant for a relatively small number of least developed countries and accounts for 30% of all humanitarian aid (FAO. 2006; Harvey Ct al 2010). Food aid was overwhelmingl Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011y supplied until the mid 1990s as direct transfers from donor countries. From the outset food aid was recognized as a potential source of trade distorHill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011
ting competition lor other donors and exporters, and some weak met hanisms were developed to attempt to minimize impacts on recipient country markets Report on Findings from a Collaborative Pilot Study Cornell University, Makerere University, and CARE/UgandaLocal and Regional Procurement in UgandaLe Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011lders in recipient countries. Insurance effects entail crowding out (displacing) or adding to (filling in) existing safety nets. Both transfer effects and insurance effects, it is believed, can alter behaviors, and can generate positive dependency or trigger negative dependency (Lentz Ct al. 2005).P Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011age 3The role of LRP in food aid has become increasingly important as an alternative to the traditional direct provision of trans-oceanic food shipmenHill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011
ts from donor countries. With the untying of food aid in many donor countries, LRP has increased significantly in value over the past decades, from 13Report on Findings from a Collaborative Pilot Study Cornell University, Makerere University, and CARE/UgandaLocal and Regional Procurement in UgandaLe Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011f all food aid in 2009 (WFP 2010b). The European Union got on board with LRP as well as cash and voucher food assistance programs starting in the late 1990s. By 2006, 97% of food provided by the EU was procured locally or regionally (Clay 2010). Up to 2005, Canada still allowed no more than 10% of i Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011ts food to be provided through LRP. On signing the Paris Declaration in 2005, that figure was first increased to 50% and then to 100% as of 2008 (CIDAHill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011
2008b). Even US policies are starting to explore the advantages of LRP. The U.S. Farm Bill in 2008 provided the USDA with S60 million over 4 years toReport on Findings from a Collaborative Pilot Study Cornell University, Makerere University, and CARE/UgandaLocal and Regional Procurement in UgandaLe Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011ementation of LRP on the ground to date, WFP is by far the largest player (Tschirley and del Castillo 2007). WFP reports that the quantity it purchases has tripled since 1990. As of 2007 it was purchasing approximately 900,000 metric tons of food in Africa, and 1,700,000 between Africa, Asia, and La Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011tin America combined (WFP 2009). Purchases take place largely through national-level tender, opening to bids given contractual conditions that includeHill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011
quantity and price as well as quality and safety specifications (UNDP 2006). Other organizations, including NGOs, are starting to engage in local proReport on Findings from a Collaborative Pilot Study Cornell University, Makerere University, and CARE/UgandaLocal and Regional Procurement in UgandaLe Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011s of USDA-funded pilot projects to assess LRP and compare its risks and benefits to those of traditional food programs.While LRP is in itself a recent development, other notable changes in the realm of food assistance are worthy of mention. Donor agencies, especially the WFP, have recognized the rol Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011e of procurement in their objective to support the development of local agriculture and livelihoods in recipient countries through LRP. In particular,Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011
the question of how to strengthen the participation of small-scale farmers in agricultural trade in the sub-Saharan region has been explored to a greReport on Findings from a Collaborative Pilot Study Cornell University, Makerere University, and CARE/UgandaLocal and Regional Procurement in UgandaLe Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011ears WFP has procured 27,247 MT of maize and beans worth US$3,906,363 from these groups (WFP Technical MeetingPage 4on Food Procurement). During this period the WFP has also made efforts to acquire useful information about the limitations that hinder farmer groups’ successful participation in WFP’s Hill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011tenders so as to adapt the system to ensure wider participation as well as minimum risk to fanners, the economy and recipients of food aid.Another devHill et al MIFIRA Uganda Draft Report 2011
elopment is that of the Warehouse Receipt System (WRS). The WRS provide a service to producers by storing, processing and selling in aggregate quantitGọi ngay
Chat zalo
Facebook