1. Markets-PAN Framework and Approach PRESENTATION AT QUARTERLY MEETING – VISIT OF ACET DAR ES SALAAM – October 16, 2013

2. OUTLINE 1. AGRA's Policy Action Nodes 2. About the Tanzania Markets PAN 3. Objectives 4. Approach 5. Key findings & recommendations 6. Possible collaboration with ACET 2

3. AGRA's Policy Action Nodes 3 Policy Program started in 2010 in Benin and Tanzania Funded by BMGF 5 PAN's supported by a HUB Seeds-PAN Markets-PAN Soil Health-PAN Land-PAN Environments-PAN To change current policies in order to create a conducive environment for small holder farmers

4. About theTanzania Markets Policy Action Node – Framework — Markets PAN embedded in local institutions – Mandate – Advocacy through evidence based research on trade and marketing policy issues – Members Farmer representatives Private sector institutions (NGO, consultants) Research institutions Government institutions (GI) - ministries 4

5. Building Rural Incomes Through Enterprise (BRiTEN) Economic and Social Research Foundation (ESRF) Department of Agricultural Economics & Agribusiness (DAEA – SUA) Ministry of Industries and Trade (MIT) MRA- Management Associates (MRA) MVIWATA Research on Poverty Alleviation (REPOA) Coordinated by Rural Livelihood Development Company And supported by Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa

6. Objectives 6 Thematic objectives or goals To facilitate a better market environment to small holder farmers 3 objectives identified Trade barriers: export bans (2011-2012), physical barriers (2013-2014), cess and levy (2013-2014) Weights and measures (ongoing) Post-harvest losses (ongoing)

7. Approach 7 Research study on thematic subject Key findings and recommendations presented to stakeholders Public private dialogue (PPD) to validate the developed policy briefs Establish strategic partnerships to move the agenda forward Advocacy to obtain policy change as addressed in studies and reports of stakeholder consultations

8. Key findings and recommendations – Trade barriers 8 Export bans affect negatively the development of sustainable grain markets, hence should be abolished Physical barriers are a big impediment on the transportation from rural areas to urban centres Cess and levy collection is not transparent, and traders are charging the incurred expenses to farmers Farmers need to be more and better informed Barriers should be reduced to reach the markets more easily

9. Key findings and recommendations – Weights and measures 9 Advocacy for increased funding and human resources to statutory institutions – WMA, TBS and TFDA Public awareness & education campaigns in rural areas Advocacy for provision of weighing scales through farmer groups and/or SACCOS by GoT (initially) Support and speed up completion of the Legal Metrology Act and its enactment Support to review policies on crop cess and market access fees based on weights, not number of bags

10. Key findings and recommendations – Post-harvest losses Collaboration with PC-Agriculture on establishment of PHL-policy strategy and framework Advocacy for increase of budget for agriculture to 10% (as per CAADP-commitment) Guarantee Scheme for food crops with focus on PHT Advocacy for institution for cereal PHM Assist in creating a conducive business environment for PS investment in PHM, dissemination of available PHT, introduction of village storage facilities 10

11. Possible collaboration with ACET? Looking for common objectives and intrests: Are there any topics you can relate to? Are we on the same page regarding the proposed recommendations or are there other recommendations ACET would like to see included? Which role can the ACET play in implementation/establishing supportive environment collaborating with the PAN? 11