Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Agriculture Strategy presentation 26 Sept 2011 at IFAD

Agricultural DevelopmentA refreshed strategy

Sam DrydenPrabhu PingaliBill & Melinda Gates FoundationSeptember 26th, 2011

How We Got Started

1994

FOUNDATION OVERVIEW

2000 2006

Bill and Melindaread an article about rotavirus

They officiallycreate thefoundation

Warren Buffettdecides to give

Berkshire Hathawaystock

Why Agriculture?

April 12, 2023 © 2011 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation | 3

75% of world’s the poor live in rural areas

and the majority depend on agriculture

for their livelihoodsAgricultural productivity growth is the most direct and efficient lever to reduce rural poverty.

Agricultural growth builds self sufficiency for individuals and communities

Agriculture Development Assistance: The Lost Decades


Net ODA Disbursements to Agriculture (in constant $2009 and as share of DAC donor GNI)

Total Net ODA disbursements (in constant $2009)

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

0.045

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

% of G

NI

US

$ Bi

llion

Net ODA to Agriculture (2009 USD billions) Net ODA to Agriculture (% GNI)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

US

$ Bi

llion

Net ODA (2009 USD billions)

Poverty and Hunger

Are we even working with the right numbers?


Number of undernourished people in developing countries: observed and predicted levels relative to the 1996 World Food Summit target

Source: Anti-Hunger Programme (FAO, 2002)

2009 FAO estimate:1.02 billion

The Foundation’s Contributions

BMGF agricultural commitments have grown faster over 2005-08 than any DAC donor, save Finland ($18m in 2008);

By 2008 it became the 2nd largest agricultural donor (commitments) to the region.


Rank

1 IDA 300.72 IDA 538.88 United States 463.07 IDA 867.01

2 AfDF 152.04 AfDF 226.81 IDA 399.16 BMGF 367.23

3 Denmark 114.98 France 141.80 BMGF 391.77 United States 323.58

4 United States 102.30 EU Institutions 114.79 France 342.42 EU Institutions 181.73

5 IFAD 80.72 BMGF 99.03 AfDF 235.65 Canada 155.20

6 Germany 66.88 IFAD 87.50 EU Institutions 186.30 IFAD 129.49

7 Belgium 66.43 United States 84.78 IFAD 122.76 France 95.13

8 EU Institutions 65.75 J apan 66.12 J apan 73.36 Germany 87.25

9 J apan 58.42 Sweden 60.58 Korea 56.63 Belgium 77.42

10 United Kingdom 45.06 Germany 54.31 Germany 56.33 J apan 75.13

11 Canada 43.48 Belgium 53.48 Belgium 53.20 Ireland 41.81

12 Netherlands 36.19 Norway 50.34 Canada 41.40 Norway 35.39

13 France 32.14 United Kingdom 30.70 Norway 40.64 Italy 32.36

14 BMGF 24.80 Ireland 22.56 Denmark 31.46 Denmark 29.17

15 Norway 20.80 Netherlands 19.01 Ireland 24.79 Spain 19.31

20082005 2006 2007

BMGF Commitments to agriculture development in SSA relative to others

By the end of 2010, we committed $1.72 B across our initiatives in agriculture

development

** 2010 figures are projections based on 2010 annual plan.

9 FTEs

10 FTEs

11 FTEs

14 FTEs

6 FTEs (director’s office)


Our Goal

Reduce hunger and poverty by sustainably improving productivity of poor farming families.

Why the need to recalibrate?

Strategy too broad and opaque

Inadequate Segmentation of target population

Weak connection between our public good investments and impact on the ground

Re-calibration of our efforts relative to renewed interest in agriculture and increased aid commitments – GAFSP, FtF, etc.

Need for better integration with country plans, such as CAADP plans, and local partners


Focus on the staple crops and livestock with the greatest impact on the poor

Focusing Our Strategy


Building on the previous work of others

Learning from our work to date

Input from experts, partners,

grantees, donors, farmers, and

critics

f People living on less than $1.25 per day (2005)*

*Per 10x10km cell

Source: Wood et al 2009. Strategy & Results Framework Background Paper. CGIAR.

Number of people below$1.25/day (2005 PPP US$)

Top Tropical SSA Crops by AEZ: Ranked by Area of Production

Most Extensive Crop

AEZ_CLASS Crop Area SSA % Crop Area SSA % Crop Area SSA %Arid SORG 3,140,007 15 MILL 978,663 6 OOIL 831,402 10 4,950,072Semi-Arid MILL 12,973,631 78 SORG 10,692,956 52 OPUL 8,986,217 73 32,652,804Sub-Humid MAIZ 8,381,547 38 CASS 5,957,865 58 SORG 4,873,842 24 19,213,254Humid CASS 2,553,557 25 MAIZ 2,304,132 10 BANP 1,386,317 29 6,244,006Tropical Highlands MAIZ 5,589,125 25 BANP 2,110,704 43 SORG 1,655,856 8 9,355,685

2nd Most Extensive 3rd Most Extensive Total Area (top 3)

Top Tropical SSA Crops by AEZ(Ranked by Area of Production)

Source: HarvestChoice 2010

Arid Semi-Arid Sub-Humid Humid Tropical Highlands

BaselinePotentialGap

Yield Gaps by AEZ

Maize

yie

ld (

kg/h

a)

01

00

02

00

03

00

04

00

05

00

06

00

00

10

00

20

00

30

00

40

00

50

00

60

00

Yield Gaps By AEZ

Maize



Yield Gaps by AEZ

Sorghum

yie

ld (

kg/h

a)

01

00

02

00

03

00

04

00

05

00

06

00

00

10

00

20

00

30

00

40

00

50

00

60

00

Sorghum



Yield Gaps by AEZ

Cassava

yie

ld (

kg

/ha

)

05

00

01

00

00

15

00

02

00

00

25

00

03

00

00

05

00

01

00

00

15

00

02

00

00

25

00

03

00

00

Cassava

Low agricultural productivity in Africa is a multi-faceted problem

Low investment in research Very limited access to markets

Poor policy and regulatory environments

Low input usage and yield levels

Average cereal yields by region, 1960-2003mt/ha

SSA

ROW4

9

SSA

101

World

Fertilizer use kg/ha arable land, 2002

21.4

3.01.4

Nigeria India USA

Road access Metres road/capita

Agricultural research expenditures, 2000

8.2

2.6

1.51.5

$13.8 billion

ME and

N. AfricaLATAM

SSA

Asia-Pacific

100% = $36 billion per year

62% 38%

Developed countries

Developing countries

Of the ~$36 billion spent on agricultural research in 2000, only ~$1.5 billion (~4%) was spent on SSA

Source:FAOStat; IFDC; World Bank

Net ODA and Subsidies to Domestic Agriculture Producers ((Avg. 2003-2005)

Net ODA and Subsidies to Domestic Agriculture Producers ((Avg. 2003-2005)

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

Japan US EU

% G

DP

Producer subsidiesfor agriculture

Net ODA

Policies, such as trade and investment, towards the developing world often contradict and counteract official development assistance

Policies, such as trade and investment, towards the developing world often contradict and counteract official development assistance

Developing

countries

Although these regions have abundant potential (e.g., sunlight, labor, water, knowledge), productivity is low, which represents both a huge need and opportunity.


ContinentalInvestmentsInvestments in public goods to increase productivity

1

2 Focused GeographyInvestment…paired with targeted country level delivery systems and policies to realize productivity goals

Global public goods with highest potential to impact productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia

Deeper engagement in the regions of Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia where most farmers live will help increase productivity, creating a ripple effect of self sufficiency across communities

Our Strategy: A Two-Pronged Approach

Our Priority Value Chains


Priority products (staple crops)Sub-Saharan

AfricaSouth Asia

Maize Cassava Rice Sorghum Millet Yams Sweet

potatoes Cow peas Groundnuts Beans

1. Rice2. Wheat3. Maize4. Beans5. Chick peas

Priority products (livestock)Sub-Saharan

AfricaSouth Asia

1. Cattle2. Goats3. Sheep4. Chickens5. Pigs

1. Dairy2. Chicken3. Goats

17

Our framework for achieving the objectives of our strategic initiatives, and the ‘scope’ and ‘scale’ of our strategy‘Scope’ is driven by our choice of anchor countries and products, ‘scale’ is driven by our target number of beneficiaries

[...]

Research & DevelopmentCrop improvementLivestock health & improvementDiscovery researchLocal adaptation

Research & DevelopmentCrop improvementLivestock health & improvementDiscovery researchLocal adaptation

Agricultural Policy Country policies Data & diagnostics Multilaterals Trade-offs and synergies

Agricultural Policy Country policies Data & diagnostics Multilaterals Trade-offs and synergies

Access & Market Systems

Input delivery Knowledge exchange Post-harvest and markets Regions

Access & Market Systems

Input delivery Knowledge exchange Post-harvest and markets Regions

Other Areas Strategic partnerships Finance

Other Areas Strategic partnerships Finance

Farmer householdsRamp up to the # of farmer households targeted in our strategy over time

Farmer householdsRamp up to the # of farmer households targeted in our strategy over time

CountriesBMGF’s anchor countriesOther donors’ anchor countries (which we call ‘spillover’ countries)Other countries

CountriesBMGF’s anchor countriesOther donors’ anchor countries (which we call ‘spillover’ countries)Other countries

ProductsBMGF’s priority crops and livestock

ProductsBMGF’s priority crops and livestock

Strategic initiatives Scope Scale

Unit costs

Total investment over timeTotal investment over time

Average cost per farmAverage cost per farm

2030

$

2011

$ per farm

# of farms

Analysis of strategic choices

Total costs

ROI / trade-offsROI / trade-offs

Income per

farm,$

# of farms

Farm-level

Global

National

Maize

RiceEthiopia Mali

Partnerships

We won’t succeed on our own. We rely on partners to carry out the work.

• From developed and developing worlds• From public, private and nonprofit sectors


Towards Strategic Alliances

Knowledge transfer from China and Brazil to Africa

GAFSP and other multi-lateral efforts

Aligning better with Rome based food agencies

CGIAR Reform and renewal


Success is possible if we work together

OUR WORK IN CONTEXT

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Agriculture Strategy presentation 26 Sept 2011 at IFAD

Technology

Transcript of Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Agriculture Strategy presentation 26 Sept 2011 at IFAD