This document discusses a workshop assessing the linkages between OECD policies and Tanzania's agro-food systems and food security. It provides context on policy coherence for development and how OECD domestic agricultural policies can impact developing countries through international markets. Specifically, it examines Tanzania's sugar sector and how OECD sugar policies and international sugar markets may affect Tanzania's sugar production and trade. While OECD countries historically supported their sugar producers, leading to lower international prices, Tanzania has benefited from preferential trade agreements for sugar exports to the EU.

1. PCD Impact Assessment on
Food Security in Tanzania
Assessing Linkages between OECD Policies and
Tanzania’s Agro-Food Systems and Food Security
Conditions
Workshop 2, Dar Es Salaam, 27/11/2014
Towards a
level Impa
With support from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland
Page 1ECDPM

2. INTRODUCTION AND REMINDER
Page 2ECDPM

3. Policy Coherence for Development: Concepts
• Non-development cooperation policies of OECD
countries (e.g., agriculture, trade, international investment,
tax, science and technology, migration, etc.) can have
(negative/positive) spillover effects on developing countries
• Those effects can be incoherent with development
objectives (whether they are the objectives of a particular
developing country, a region, developing countries as a
whole, or the objectives of development cooperation policies
of OECD countries)
• Different dimensions of development: economic growth,
poverty reduction, food security, health, human development,
environmental sustainability, etc.
Page 3ECDPM

4. OECD Member States Map
Source: Wikimedia Commons
Page 4ECDPM

5. Policy Coherence for Development: Concepts
• European Union: ‘The EU seeks to minimise contradictions
and to build synergies between policies other than
development cooperation that have an impact on developing
countries, for the benefit of overseas development’
• OECD: ‘The pursuit of development objectives through the
systematic promotion of mutually reinforcing policy actions on
the part of both OECD and development countries’
• Two implications: “Do not harm”; “do good”
– Ensure that all policies are “development-friendly”
– Promote synergies among policies with regards to development
objectives
Page 5ECDPM

6. PCD Concept—Case of Food Security
Source: OECD
Page 6ECDPM

7. PCD as a Policy and Institutional Mechanism
Source: OECD
Page 7ECDPM

8. PCD Impact Assessment Approaches
Ex ante Ex post
OECD-Policy-based
Country-/region-based X
Page 8ECDPM

9. Our PCD Impact Assessment Approach
• Developing a methodology for ex post, country-level
PCD assessments with a focus on food security
• Involving local and OECD stakeholders (participatory
approach)
• Supporting OECD Development Assistance Committee
in improving PCD, fostering policy change and
addressing trade-offs between domestic and
international goals based on evidence
• Supporting developing country actors (governments,
private sector and civil society) in understanding OECD
policies’ impacts on their countries, advocating for
improved PCD and formulating policy responses
Page 9ECDPM

10. Food Security Analysis Framework
• Food availability
• Access to food
• Food utilization
• Stability
Page 10ECDPM

11. Page 11ECDPM

12. OECD-Tanzania Linkages
Commodity
Tanzania’s net
trade balance
Primary linkage
Secondary
linkage
Food security
factor(s)
Grains and rice
Small
exporter/importe
r
Int’l markets
Foreign direct
investment
Availability and
access (pr. & inc.)
Dairy products Importer Int’l markets -
Availability and
access (pr. & inc.)
Sugar Importer Int’l markets
OECD Market
access
Access (inc.) and
utilization*
Coffee, tea, and
tobacco
Exporter
OECD Market
access
- Access (inc.)
Cotton Exporter Int’l markets
OECD Market
access
Access (inc.)
Horticultural
crops
Exporter
OECD Market
access
- Access (inc.)
Fisheries Exporter
OECD Market
access
- Access (inc.)
* Local development Page 12ECDPM

13. OECD-Tanzania Linkages
• Investigating changes in OECD policies and market
outcomes over an adequate period of time and
identifying negative/positive spillover effects
• Taking into account contextual changes (e.g.,
domestic/regional market and policy changes, global
market and policy changes, etc.)
Page 13ECDPM

14. Objectives of Workshop 2
1. Providing an overview of OECD agricultural and trade
policies and their spillover effects on international markets
and domestic markets in developing/emerging countries and
Sub-Saharan Africa
2. Assessing the impacts of OECD agricultural and trade
policies in specific agro-food sub-sectors in Tanzania
3. Assessing the implications of OECD countries’ agro-food
market regulations and private standards on Tanzanian
exporters’ access to OECD markets
4. Assessing the influence of OECD policies on foreign direct
investment and international businesses’ practices in
Tanzania’s agricultural and food sectors
5. Soliciting views of stakeholders on ways and extent to which
OECD policies affect the agro-food system and food security
in Tanzania
6. Discussing methodological aspects
Page 14ECDPM

15. Q&A
• According to you, what does Policy Coherence for
Development mean for Tanzania?
Page 15ECDPM

16. MODULE 3 PART 1
OECD domestic agricultural
policies and spillover effects on
Tanzania through international
marketsOverview of OECD domestic agricultural
policies and spillover effects on international
markets
Page 16ECDPM

17. Objectives
1/ Have a common understanding of the global context in which
Tanzania operates
 Reality check on the recent evolutions globally and in
Tanzania
2/ Present assumptions on theoretical impact pathways through
international prices and evidence of their relevance in the
litterature
Page 17ECDPM

18. Methodology
• So far desk-based research
– Official data (OECD etc.)
– Academic literarure and « grey » literature (reports)
• Limitations:
– Limited up to date data
– Publications on very specific commodities or dimensions
(2008 crisis)
=>Risk of using specific cases as general lessons
=> Your feedbacks are key
Page 18ECDPM

19. Initial assumptions: Impact of OECD policies
through intl markets
Assumption 1: OECD policies act as discentives to produce
food for Tanzanian farmers, lowering supply of locally
produced food and income of farmers
Assumption 2: OECD policies act as barriers to trade (through
tariffs) reducing the quantity exported to OECD markets by
Tanzanian farmers, lowering their income
Page 19ECDPM

20. Assumption 1: discentives to supply of locally
produced food
Channel 1:
=> depress price levels for Tanzanian farmers
Through competition from low cost imports
Page 20ECDPM

21. Assumption 1: discentives to supply of locally
produced food
Support
policies and
exports
subsidies :
increase supply
on intl markets
 depress intl prices
 Lower intl
prices transmit
to local prices
Depress
farmers gates
prices of import
competing
commodities
Farmers income
Net food buyers
Page 21ECDPM

22. Assumption 1: discentives to supply of locally
produced food
Channel 2:
=> increase price volatility
which act as a discentive for farmers to invest in ag
production
Page 22ECDPM

23. Assumption 1: discentives to supply of locally
produced food
Temporary
subsidized
exports
 increase volatility of intl prices
 More volatile
intl prices
transmit to local
prices
 Increase
volatiliy of
farmers gates
prices of import
competing
commodities
Farmers income
Net food buyers
Page 23ECDPM

24. Assumption 1: discentives to supply of locally
produced food
Reality: Yes, it happened in the past: USA, Japan and Europe
were highly supporting their producers
0
10
20
30
40
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
%PSE % PSE
Evolution of Producer Support Estimate in percentage of gross farm receipts in OECD
Source: OECD (2014), "Producer and Consumer Support Estimates", OECD Agriculture
statistics (database).
USA, Japan and Europe were highly supporting their
producers22
Page 24ECDPM

25. Assumption 1: discentives to supply of locally
produced food
Reality: Yes, it happened in the past
=> Those countries are considered to have contributed to the
decrease in international price of grains, milk, butter, sugar,
cotton
Page 25ECDPM

26. Assumption 1: discentives to supply of locally
produced food
Yes, but
- has since become self sufficient in maize and rice
- local prices in Tanzania have been shown to be
higher than intl markets prices
more volatile
 Availability and accessibility problems of grains in Tanzania are
due DOMESTIC factors and inefficiencies
lack of market
integration within
Tanzania and price
transmission with
intl
Globally
Tanzania
- Since then reduction of supports by OECD,
increase in non OECD emerging economies (China, Ind
- Since 2000s increase in international prices (3 spikes,:2008, 2010,
Page 26ECDPM

27. Assumption 1: discentives to supply of locally
produced food
Yes, but
REALITY CHECK:
Regarding international prices of grains, no case to accuse
OECD policies of incoherence nowadays
Coton USA ?
Page 27ECDPM

28. Assumption 2: Reduced market access for
exporters
Channel 1
Barriers to entrance in the OECD markets
- tariffs
- non tariff measures
Page 28ECDPM

29. Assumption 2: Reduced market access for
exporters
Tariffs
 decrease
OECD
demand of
Tanzanian
goods
 decrease
income of export
producing
farmers
Farmers income
Page 29ECDPM

30. Assumption 2: Reduced market access for
exporters
Channel 2
Increase of tariff with stage of processing in the value chain
(« tariff escalation »)
=> Disencentives to transform products locally and capture
higher share of value addition
Page 30ECDPM

31. Assumption 2: Reduced market access for
exporters
Tariff escalation
 decrease
OECD
demand of
Tanzanian
processed ag
products
 decrease
income of export
producing
farmers
Decrease
employment
creation in
agroindustreis
Farmers income
Employment
creation
Page 31ECDPM

32. Assumption 2: Reduced market access for
exporters
Yes, historically agricultural products more protected than other
types of products
But Tanzania has benefitted from preferences :
- Historically from the EU as an ACP country (Lomé, Cotonou
etc.)
-Since 2000s from preferential agreements from other OECD
countries as a LDC (EBA from EU, AGOA from USA etc.)
-=> Many preferential agreements: question is what is also
provided to competitors ?
-=> Example of sugar.
Page 32ECDPM

33. IMPACTS OF OECD POLICIES ON
TANZANIA’S SECTOR
CASE OF SUGAR
Page 33ECDPM

34. Tanzanian Sugar Sector
• A major agro-food sector
• Tanzania, a net importer of sugar
• Four large sugar factories, some new projects underway
• Low sugar cane yields relatively to Southern African
producers and other Eastern African producers (lack of
irrigation, low-performance varieties, low fertiliser use
and other production and marketing factors)
• Privatization and efforts to rehabilitate the sector in the
1990s led to productivity enhancement and production
increase
Page 34ECDPM

35. Sugar Production and Trade in Tanzania
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
-
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Tanzania sugar cane prod. Tanzania sugar prod. (raw) Tanzania sugar imp. (raw)
Tanzania sugar imp. (refined) Tanzania sugar exp. (raw) Tanzania sugar exp. (refined)
Left axis, sugar cane production in tonnes; right axis, sugar production and trade in tonnes
Page 35ECDPM

36. Sugar Trade
• Tanzania exports sugar mostly to the EU under the EBA
regime (10,000 tonnes, but export licenses are difficult to
obtain reportedly)
• Import duties and quotas (licenses)
• Large volumes of sugar imported illegally
• Sugar factories have experience difficulty competing with
cheap sugar imports, notably sugar from Latin America,
Southern Africa, and some Asian exporters
• Import surges/dumping cases in the late 1990s and early
2000s, incl. sugar from the EU among other origins
• Need to strengthen capacity to implement countervailing
duties and other safeguard measures
Page 36ECDPM

37. Sugar Production and Trade in Tanzania
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
-
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Tanzania sugar cane prod. Tanzania sugar prod. (raw) Tanzania sugar imp. (raw)
Tanzania sugar imp. (refined) Tanzania sugar exp. (raw) Tanzania sugar exp. (refined)
Left axis, sugar cane production in tonnes; right axis, sugar production and trade in tonnes
Page 37ECDPM

38. International Sugar Markets
• 2/3 of world sugar production from Brazil, Australia, Cuba and
Thailand
• Other big producers: India, EU, and South Africa
• Net exporting regions: Americas, Oceania
• Net importing regions: Asia, Europe, Africa
• Largest exporters: Brazil, EU, Australia, Cuba and Thailand
• Largest importers: Russia, EU, and Japan
• Concentrated sector; e.g., EU imports done by a few multi-
national companies
• About ⅓ of world sugar production is trade internationally
• Most of international trade in sugar is done under trade
agreements; residual trade thru spot markets; as a result (in
addition to the fact that sugar cane is a perennial crop), this
market is very volatile
Page 38ECDPM

39. International Sugar Markets
• Decline in international prices in the 1990s (rise of Brazil
as a producer and an exporter), rise in prices in the
2000s; EU and US became net exporters after having
been net importers (e.g., in the 1970s)
Page 39ECDPM

40. Sugar Production in OECD Group
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0
10000000
20000000
30000000
40000000
50000000
60000000
70000000
80000000
90000000
100000000
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Shareinworldproductions(%)
Productions(tons)
EU productions (LA) US productions (LA) Other OECD (LA) US share (RA) EU share (RA) All OECD share (RA)
Page 40ECDPM

41. Sugar Exports of OECD Group
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
0
2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
10000000
12000000
14000000
16000000
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Shareinworldexports(%)
Exports(tons)
EU exports (LA) US exports (LA) Other OECD exports (LA) US share (RA) EU share (RA) All OECD share (RA)
Page 41ECDPM

42. Sugar Imports of OECD Group
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
0
5000000
10000000
15000000
20000000
25000000
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Shareinworldimports(%)
Productions(tons)
EU imports (LA) US imports (LA) Other OECD imports (LA) US share (RA) EU share (RA) All OECD share (RA)
Page 42ECDPM

43. International Sugar Markets
• Sugar trade regimes
– EU’s preferential tariff and quota trade regimes:
• EU Special Preferential Sugar (SPS) arrangements,
bilateral agreements with ACP countries, annual TRQ for raw
cane sugar
• Sugar protocol of the EU-ACP Cotonou Partnership
Agreement, TRQ with guaranteed prices
– US’ preferential tariff and quota regime (Puerto Rico,
Philippines and other countries with whom the US has special
trade relations—not for EA countries and excl. other low-cost
producers)
– Commonwealth Sugar Agreement: TRQ for exports to UK until
Lomé Agreement Sugar Protocol
• Other international agreements for sugar, incl. bilateral
agreements (e.g., Cuba-Russia Sugar Agreement)
• WTO MFN regime (residual spot market) Page 43ECDPM

44. EU Sugar Policy
• Major reform of the sugar sector started in 2006
– Cut in subsidies to farmers; cut in the target price of white
sugar; farmers compensated by decoupled payment for a
4-year period, additional to the single farm payment;
abolition of the intervention price
– Closure of obsolete sugar mills
– Losses for countries with preferential access to EU market
– Full liberalization of imports from LDCs in 2009 (duty-free
access to EU sugar market for 48 LDCs in 2009 under the
EBA agreement signed in 2001)
• Elimination of production quotas after 2015; production will
increase, prices will go down
Page 44ECDPM

45. EU Sugar Policy
Quantities in tonnes Page 45ECDPM

46. Support to the Sugar Sector in OECD Group
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
SCT OECD (value LA) SCT EU (value LA) SCT US (value LA) SCT OECD (% RA) SCT EU (% RA) SCT US (% RA)
Page 46ECDPM

47. Support to the Sugar Sector in OECD Group
PSCT in nominal terms, in USD; price of sugar in USD/kg
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
OECD PSCT EU PSCT EU Price ISA Price
Page 47ECDPM

48. Support to the Sugar Sector in OECD Group
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Price($/ton)
SCT(%)
SCT EU (% RA) SCT US (% RA) SCT OECD (% RA) EU price ($/ton LA) US price ($/ton LA) World price ($/ton LA)
Page 48ECDPM

49. Sugar Markets in Africa
• Southern African producers more cost-competitive than Eastern and
Central Africa producers
– Malawi, Mauritius, Sudan, Zambia, Zimbabwe, South Africa: low-
cost sugar producers (SADC more competitive than EAC in
general, production costs relatively high in Eastern Africa)
– Kenya, Swaziland, and Tanzania: higher-cost producers
(indebted sugar companies in Kenya and Tanzania in early
2000s, late payments to farmers)
• Regional market protection in the EAC customs union; tariff
protection; sensitive industry
• In the late 1990s, near collapse of the industry in the region (period
of low prices, consumer prices at or below sugar production costs);
after that, development of safeguard measures; due to lack of policy
planning and administrative capacities, the regional industry is still
affected by cases of dumping (as of 2006); low-cost imports from
Brazil, Southern Africa and Australia
Page 49ECDPM

50. EU Development Assistance for the Sugar
Sector
• Sugar Protocol Accompanying Measures introduced
as part of the 2006 reform; assistance package for ACP
countries; 40m euros
• ACP Sugar Research and Innovation Programme, to
fund research to enhance sugar productivity, diversify
uses of sugar cane (biofuels, bio-fertilisers, bio-
polymers, etc.) and generally ensure that the sugar
industry remains viable; about 20m US$, mostly from
EU, also from Australia, US and ACP countries
Page 50ECDPM

51. Q&A
Page 51ECDPM

52. MODULE 3 PART 2
OECD non-tariff measures and
private standards
Overview of OECD standards and
implications for market access for Tanzania’s
exports and food security conditions
Page 52ECDPM

53. ECDPM Page 53
Non-Tariff Measures in OECD and other countries
UNCTAD, 2010
Non-Tariff Measures are :
• Most NTMs are governed by WTO laws and closely monitored
• Members are ‘required’ to notify new and revised measure to the
WTO
• TBT and SPS measures are by far the most important

54. ECDPM Page 54
Examples of NTMs measures in OECD countries
• Microbiological standard
• Pesticide residue limits
• Contaminants in
foodstuffs standards
• Veterinary drug residue
limits
• Restrictions on antibiotic
use in aquaculture
• Fumigation requirements
• Factory hygiene
• Quality attributes (size,
shape, design,
freshness, quality )
• Labeling requirements
• Packaging standards
• Traceability
requirements for food
and animal
• Health certificates
• Pest risk analysis
requirements
• Import licensing
and quota
• price control
• Bans/Restriction
in Illegal Fishing
• Rule of Origin
for
manufactured
products
Source: EU Helpdesk, 2014 and various other sources

55. ECDPM Page 55
Increasing use of SPS and TBT
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
EU (28) US Other OECD BRICS Other Countries
Figure 2: Cumulative number of SPS
Notifications to the WTO
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
EU (28) US Other OECD BRICS Other Countries
Source: SPS and TBT notifications from the WTO Available at http://spsims.wto.org/web/pages/search/notification/regular/Search.aspx and at
http://tbtims.wto.org/web/pages/search/notification/BasicSearch.aspx
Figure 3: Cumulative number of TBT
Notifications to the WTO
• As of August 31st, 2014, a total of 10,945 SPS measures and
7,158 TBT measures has been notified to the WTO
• Reflect the increase in exports
• But poses the question policy substitution in a context of
decreasing tariffs

56. ECDPM Page 56
Non-Tariff Measures by sectors
Table 1: Number of NTMs by economic sectors (all countries)
Source: Adapted from Gourdon and Nicita (2012)
• Food and agricultural products are the most affected
• Important implication of food security

57. ECDPM Page 57
Working definition proposed by China and New Zeeland to WTO
Private Voluntary Standards are :
Rising role of Private Voluntary Standards

58. ECDPM Page 58
Too many PVS ?
Source: Standardmap, ITC
More than 400 (UNCTAD and EU estimates)

59. ECDPM Page 59
Rising role of Private Voluntary Standards…
• Despite their voluntary nature, PVSs are ‘de facto’ mandatory
for to access developed countries markets (Henson and
Northen, 1998).
• PVSs versus Public Standards?
• PVSs are used by retailers to establish and maintain reputations,
minimise monitoring and inspection costs due to public
standards
• PVSs are more complex and stringent and are not necessarily
being based on scientific evidences (Henson and Humphrey
2009).
• PVSs cover number of dimension (social, environment, equity,
organic production, etc.) not covered by public standards

60. Increase
regulation and
standard
 Restrict
OECD market
access
 decrease
income of export
producing
farmers
Decrease
employment
creation in
agroindustreis
Farmers income
Employment
creation
Causal chain of the impact of standards on food
security…
ECDPM Page 60

61. ECDPM Page 61
NTM for Traditional exports crops :
Coffee, tea, tobacco and cotton
Coffee and tea
• Microbiological
standard
• Pesticide residue
limits
• Quality attributes
• Labelling and
Packaging standards
Tobacco
• Prohibition of certain
types of tobacco
• Restriction of certain
substances (nicotine
limit) in cigarette
• Labeling requirements
• Packaging standards
Cotton
• Pesticide residue limits
in textile products
• Contaminants in
feedstuffs
• Quality attributes
Several private standards, mostly social, sustainability and environmental :
Fair Trade, Rainforest Alliance, UTZ certified, Ethical Trading Initiative
• Mostly exported raw will little or no value addition
• Regulated sectors by commodity boards
Publicstandards
Privates
standards

62. ECDPM Page 62
Example of Coffee
0
50
100
150
200
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Exports($USmillion)
Share(%)
Export to OECD (LA) Export to EU (LA) Export to US (LA)
Share to OECD (RA) Share to EU (RA) Share to US (RA)
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total value and share of Tanzania export of coffee to OECD
Share of Tanzania in OECD total coffee import
Note : RA=Rigth Axis, LA = Left Axis
Source : UNCOMTRADE 2014

63. ECDPM Page 63
Traditional exports crops access to OECD
• Standards are realities in traditional export crops
• But, they are not major barrier to access OECD market
• Other factors are major constraints to the development of these
sectors
• Domestics policies
• Low value addition (but why?)
• Lack infrastructures and low productivity
• Instead private certification offer the opportunity :
• to expand trade and access niche markets (coffee and tea)
• earn ‘decent’ prices (fair trade)
• In the medium term, private standards could become majors
challenges (carbon footprint, etc.)

64. ECDPM Page 64
NTM and Non-traditional exports crops
Fish and horticulture
Fish
• EU bans on lake
victoria fish
• Microbiological
standards
• Pesticide residue
limits
• Quality attributes
• Packaging standards
Flower
• Plant material
quarantine
• Phytosanitary
certification
• Pest risk analysis
• Fumigation
requirements
Fruit, vegetable and
spices
• Pesticide residue limits
• Contaminants in
foodstuffs
• Quality attributes
• Labeling requirements
• Packaging standards
Several private standards, food safety, social, sustainability and environmental
: GlobalGap, BRC, Fair Trade
• Emerging sectors with large potential (horticulture)
• Important for export diversification
• Regulated sectors by boards and GoT
Publicstandards
Privates
standards

65. ECDPM Page 65
Example of Fish
Figure 18: Total value and share of Tanzania export of fish to OECD Figure 19: Share of Tanzania in OECD total fish import
Note : RA=Rigth Axis, LA = Left Axis
Source : UNCOMTRADE 2014
0
50
100
150
200
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Exports($US
million)
Share(%)
Export to OECD (LA) Export to EU (LA) Export to US (LA)
Share to OECD (RA) Share to EU (RA) Share to US (RA)
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0.3%
0.4%
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Share of Tanzania in OECD total fish import
Total value and share of Tanzania export of fish to OECD

66. ECDPM Page 66
Note : RA=Rigth Axis, LA = Left Axis
Source : UNCOMTRADE 2014
0
5
10
15
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Exports($USmillion)
Share(%)
Export to OECD (LA) Export to EU (LA) Export to US (LA)
Share to OECD (RA) Share to EU (RA) Share to US (RA)
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Total value and share of Tanzania export of vegetables to OECD
Share of Tanzania in OECD total vegetables import
Example of Vegetables

67. ECDPM Page 67
• Non-traditional sectors face high public and private standards
• They are major barriers to market access, especially by small
producers and exporters
• Limit the (rapid?) expansion of these sectors (horticulture)
• Other factors are also constraints to the development of these
sectors
• Domestics policies (slow but increasing support to these
sectors-horticulture)
• Lack infrastructures (cold storage, high transport cost, etc.) and
low productivity
• Certification offers access to OECD market but requires high cost
• Small farmers are locked out of export market
Non-traditional exports crops access to OECD
Summary

68. ECDPM Page 68
Technical assistances to Developing countries
The SPS agreement mentions, “members shall take account
of the special needs of developing country Members, and in
particular of the least-developed country Members” (Article
10.1).
Example of initiative
• WTO/FAO Standards and Trade Development Facility
• Support to Horticulture Development Council of Tanzania
• EU /COLEACP Pesticide Initiative Program (PIP)
• 11 producing/exporting companies/farmers’ groups
supported in Tanzania
• Many programs/project from other partners
These supports are essential to ensure the compliance of
smallhollders
But what about the million of non-beneficiary smallholders?

69. Q&A

70. MODULE 3 PART 3
Foreign direct investment and
land acquisition
Overview of FDI and implication for food
security in Tanzania

71. • Out of the total global flows of FDIs in 2011 Africa’s share was
5.4%
• This was half of that received by Asia (10.4%), with the European
Union being the largest beneficiary (42.9%) followed by USA
(14.3%)
Global Flow of FDI
5.40%
10.40%
14.30%
42.90%
19.80%
2.00%
3.40% 2%
Africa
South Asia + East and South-East Asia
United States
European Union
Other
Transition economies
Latin America and the caribbean
West Asia
Source: UNCTAD,2013

72. • financial and banking services (16.8%) taking the lead,
• real estate development (15.4%),
• primary mining (10.1%)
• electricity, gas and water (8.8%), and
• motor vehicle assembly (8.7%)
Globally, Agriculture is among the least
sectors attracting FDI
Other Services, 26.8
Finance, 16.8
Real Estate, 15.4
Construction, 2.6
Electricty,Gas+water, 8.8
Primary Mining, 10.1
Coke&Petroleum, 4.7
M-Vehicles, 8.7
Manufacturing (others),
6.2
FDI, % by Sector/Industry
Source: UNCTAD,2013

73. • Generally, the pace of land acquisition globally has been increasing
• After an inventory of the media reports on GRAIN blog (farmlandgrab.org),
the World Bank (Deininger et al. 2011) reports that between 2008-2009 there
have been land acquisitions for 56.6 million hectares worldwide
Global Pace of Land Acquisition

74. • Africa receiving most interest as destination for FDI since 2000
• Friis and Reenberg (2010) revealed that in period 2008-2010, African land
deals alone amounted to somewhere between 51 and 63 million ha
Interest in Land acquisition by region

75. • Structural reforms and investment promotion facilities and strategies
contributed increase in FDI inflow in last decade
• Mining & quarrying, manufacturing, wholesale & retail, accommodation
share the largest share while agriculture sector attracted 4 percent of FDI
stock
• Despite low FDI stock in agriculture sector, Land acquisition has been
associated with agriculture FDI in the recent years for production of biofuel
crops
Mining&Quarrying
28%
Manufacturing
21%
Wholesale,Retail
Trade.
Catering&Accommod
ation Services
15%
Agriculture, Hunting
& Forestry
4%
Finance Insurance,
Retail
Estate&Business
Services
12%
Construction
5%
Transport, Storage&
Communication
7%
Others
1%
Community,
Social & Personal
Services
1%
Electricity, Gas &
Water
6%
FDI inflow in Tanzania
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
FDIinflow(USD)Millions
Inflow FDI inflow/GDP
FDI/GDP(%)

76. • Weak regulatory enforcement in land ownership and resource
poor small holder farmers are at risk of losing livelihoods and
food production land due to random sale of their land assets
• More than 4 million hectares of land are in the hand of large
investors
• Local medium and small investors in agricultural land is rising
but few land is optimally used
Land acquisitions

77. • About 31 deals concluded for a total of 300 000 ha; OECD countries
the major investors
• Top countries are : US, Netherlands, UK, Finland, Sweden, India
OECD countries firms and Land acquisitions in
Tanzania
Canada,
1%
China, 0% Egypt, 2%
EU, 43%
India, 6%Kenya, 5%
Mauritius,
5%Nigeria,
Singapore,
1%
Tanzania,
8%
Turkey,
2%
United
States,
25%
Source :Landmatrix

78. What is produced?
Biofuels,
56%
Food
crops,
24%
Other,
20%
• Food crops : Maize, Rice, Barley, horticulture
• Biofuel : Jatropha, Oil palm, Sugar cane
• Other : Carbon sequestration
Source :Landmatrix

79. What are links with OECD policies
• EU and US biofuel policies?
• Implication of land acquisition for local economy
and food security?
• OECD/EU code for responsible investment in
Agricultures

80. What are the impacts to:
• Livelihoods of local communities
• Food security
• Agriculture production

81. Q&A
ECDPM Page 81

82. Thank you
www.ecdpm.org
www.slideshare.net/ecdpm
Page 82