VX Global Child Nutrition Forum

Transcription

1 VX Global Child Nutrition Forum Financial Capacity: Instruments to implement sustainable school feeding programmes Arlene Mitchell Costa do Sauipe Bahia Brazil May 21, 2013

2 What are we trying to sustain? Purpose of SF defines whether and how to sustain. Here are two temporary SF program types: 1. Emergency program due to a crisis that disrupts education and food supply Should be short-term (through crisis period only) Communities and national governments primarily responsible Humanitarian organizations and donors logical partners 2. Safety net program some vulnerable communities Longer than emergency, but still limited in duration Communities and national governments primarily responsible Humanitarian organizations, donors, and/or development organizations are logical partners June 3, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 2

3 Sustaining large, long-term programs Programs for Long-Term Social Outcomes: 3 program types that should be sustainable: 1. National program to achieve educational outcomes For achievement of Education for All/MDG education goals 2. National home-grown school feeding to achieve both educational and agricultural outcomes For achievement of Education & Agricultural Nutrition outcomes For achievement of MDG 1 and Education for All goals 3. Comprehensive national program to achieve education, health, nutrition, and agricultural outcomes For achievement of multiple additional goals Following FRESH Framework, or WFP Essential Package June 3, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 3

4 Focus of this discussion National home-grown school feeding to achieve both educational and agricultural outcomes - For achievement of Education, Agricultural, & Nutrition outcomes - MDG 1 (reduction of poverty & Hunger) & Education for All goals SCHOOL FEEDING AS AN INVESTMENT FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH June 3, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 4

5 Investment in Economic Growth Lessons from India/1/2: Impact on poverty greatest from growth in the agricultural & (especially) services sectors greater than impact of growth in manufacturing varied significantly across states greater in states with higher initial literacy and farm productivity, and lower landlessness and infant mortality Sources 1) Ferreira, F.H.G., et al., Poverty reduction without economic growth? J. Dev. Econ (2009), doi:10:1016/j.jdevco ) Ravallion & Datt, 1996 June 3, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 5

6 Investment in Economic Growth/1 China/2 Agricultural growth had a far higher poverty-reducing impact than did growth in either the manufacturing or services sectors. Brazil/3 Education also had a strong role in assuring a propoor (poverty-reducing) growth process. Sources 1) Ferreira, F.H.G., et al., Poverty reduction without economic growth? J. Dev. Econ (2009), doi:10:1016/j.jdevco ) China: Ravillion & Chen (2007) 3) Brazil, Menezes-Filho and Vasconcellos (2007) June 3, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 6

7 Broadest lessons from Brazil An expanded social protection system can be important to poverty reduction Macroeconomic and trade policies can be pro-poor and substantially contribute to poverty reduction (even when that is not the primary objective) In the long run, sustained poverty reduction requires sustained economic growth In the short- to medium-run, distributionally-aware (focused on equitable asset distribution) public policy can make important contributions Source Ferreira, F.H.G., et al., Poverty reduction without economic growth? J. Dev. Econ (2009), doi:10:1016/j.jdevco June 3, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 7

8 Summary of lessons from BRICs Two main sources of variation in growth: 1. The sector composition of output growth, i.e. Agriculture Services Manufacturing 2. Initial conditions in the economy related to: asset distribution, urbanization, and the levels of human capital and technology available Source Ferreira, F.H.G., et al., Poverty reduction without economic growth? J. Dev. Econ (2009), doi:10:1016/j.jdevco June 3, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 8

9 School Feeding: Economic Growth Potential Not Yet Realized Large-scale food assistance programs are delivering benefits in many countries School feeding, food for work, and emergency feeding programs, and others are contributing to positive educational and nutritional outcomes for millions of people. However, the role of agriculture is often overlooked Most programs focus on the recipients, but not the providers, of food. There is extensive data on the educational and nutritional benefits of existing food assistance programs, but little data on the agricultural benefits of linking local to predictable sources of demand. And few countries and donors treat school feeding as a deliberate investment in economic growth Those that do are seeing tangible results June 3, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 9

10 These conditions can be transformed by deliberate investment in large-scale school feeding programs 2013 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 10

11 Transformational potential: Structuring school feeding for scale, predictability, job creation & private sector growth PREDICTABILITY PRIVATE SECTOR STRENGTHENING JOB AND PROFIT CREATION POPULAR SUPPORT POLICY SHIFTS INCREASED TAX BASE SCALE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS June 3, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 11

12 Economic transformation potential of the school feeding investment Local and national government Policies and regulations Extension Taxes and credits Quality standards Infrastructure Private sector Ag finance Provision of ag inputs Job and profit creation Agriculture Market information Business acumen Access to ag. inputs Gender equity On-farm storage testing and handling. Markets Quality control and testing Pricing and accounts Weights and measures Food safety Large-scale predictable demand. Food processing and storage Micronutrient fortification Preparation for local tastes Preservation Storage facilities Food safety and handling Beyond education. June 3, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 12

13 SF as an economic investment can change mindsets, actors & actions SF no longer treated as a give-away program Governments manage it with more care Investors, rather than donors, enter the equation Economic investment cases attract different constituents, skills, and rigor Business talent can quantify the costs & benefits Efficiencies become more important Private sector, farmers, Min. of Finance, etc. become interested Public benefits, monitors, and supports Politicians more inclined to embrace the program June 3, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 13

14 Stages of change Long-term Effects Investments Education Agriculture Nutrition Immediate Effects Students: + Improved enrollment, attendance, school performance Farmers: +Input use +Quality improvements & aggregation +Learn to operate in commercial environment Secondary Effects Students: +Retention and graduation Farmers +Access to credit +Begin to supply commercial markets Other +Rural jobs +Private sector engages +Community/public support grows Students + Become healthier, more productive citizens, better parents for the next generation Farmers +Sustain productivity improvements, become more savvy business people; pay taxes Other +Stronger, taxpaying private sector +Sustained rural employment +Improved food safety & security June 3, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 14

15 Financial opportunities & challenges local options Opportunities Challenges 1. Control financial aspects of SF (rations, commodities, centralized/ decentralized/ hybrid model, monitoring, transport, payment schedules, etc.) 2. Establish a system to charge parents who are able to pay for their children s meals to reduce overall cost to government 3. Tax those who can afford to pay (e.g., for luxury products, airport or tourist tax, or a mixture of small taxes on such items ) 4. Tax new income sources (especially extractive industries, land deals) 5. Share costs across multiple relevant ministries & programs (e.g., Ministries of Ed, Ag, Social Welfare, Gender, Industries, Labor, Local Government, National Food Reserves) 1. Lack of data; variability of costs, factors of timing of purchases & payment; generally not a strength of government players 2. Requires relatively sophisticated and invisible-to-children system based on fair assessment of parental capacity to pay 3. Challenging to get support from those who both sell and buy luxury items and from the travel industry 4. There are competing needs; requires significant political will and diligence 5. Requires extraordinary political will and a business case for each; coordination is challenging; competition with other priorities June 3, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 15

16 Financial opportunities &challenges other options Opportunities Challenges 1. Write HGSF into your CAADP plans, PRSPs, MCC and GASFP proposals etc., and make the case to major donors through those existing systems 2. Approach non-traditional donors (local and foreign foundations & wealthy people; organized Diaspora groups; specialized fundraising groups, etc.) 3. Negotiate debt relief packages wherein what would have been paid for the debt is now invested in home-grown SF 4. Share responsibility for your HGSF effort with partners (WFP, NGOs) who shoulder some of the cost 1. Most donors have not regarded SF as an investment with a good return; a credible (and multi-sector) case must be made; requires inter-ministerial cooperation 2. Requires knowledge of their interests; generally smaller amounts available; usually requires a very different approach than for traditional donors 3. May be too late major debt relief activities took place a few years ago; requires political will at high levels 4. Presents fewer opportunities for local ownership, capacity development, job creation, and political support. Often limited to most vulnerable populations or emergencies. They also struggle for resources, so there are no guarantees. They do it their way, which may not be ideal. June 3, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 16

17 A place to start There are clearly opportunities for countries to contain costs and increase efficiency. Programs vary widely: Use different models, Are in different stages of maturity, and Get very different results. At the time of this study: In Kenya, the per capita cost of feeding a child was 12% of the cost of educating a child. In Zambia, it was over 40% In Malawi it was approximately 65%, and In Benin, it was over 120%. Source: Rethinking School Feeding, Bundy, Burbano, Grosh, Gelli, Jukes, and Drake, World Bank, June 3, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 17

18 Thank You 2013 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. All Rights Reserved. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a registered trademark in the United States and other countries.