Home to over 735,000 people, the Kingdom of Bhutan has achieved rapid economic growth and poverty reduction, despite the constraints of being a small, landlocked, and mountainous country. Its neighbors, China to the north and India to the south, are in contrast the two most populous countries in the world. Bhutan's land area is only 1 percent of India's and 0.5 percent of China's. Even surrounded by much larger economies, Bhutan has seen its economy expand rapidly in recent years, largely through hydropower exports to India and construction. The country halved its poverty rate to 12 percent between 2007 and 2012, and by 2017 it had achieved a further reduction, to 8.2 percent (NSB and World Bank 2017). National policy remains centered on diversifying export-led growth beyond hydropower exports to India and on making Bhutan's economic growth more inclusive of all citizens. The agriculture sector, one of the five jewels in the Bhutanese economy, can play a key role in sustaining growth, reducing poverty, creating jobs, and expanding shared prosperity. Bhutan's dense and virtually untouched forests, abundant water resources, and diversity of wild species are exceptional natural endowments, and correspondingly, environmental conservation is the cornerstone of Bhutan's development approach (World Bank 2014). This Policy Note reviews Bhutan's recent agricultural transformation from a spatial perspective and suggests measures to make further progress. The discussion focuses on crop-level drivers of productivity and spatial patterns of agricultural production in relation to markets, especially in relation to opportunities for expanding market potential to support the national development goals of the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGoB). The government has set targets in a number of policy areas where agriculture plays a critical role.
Public spending on agriculture in Nigeria is exceedingly low. Less than 2 percent of total federal expenditure was allotted to agriculture during 2001 to 2005, far lower than spending in other key sectors such as education, health, and water. This spending contrasts dramatically with the sector's importance in the Nigerian economy and the policy emphasis on diversifying away from oil, and falls well below the 10 percent goal set by African leaders in the 2003 Maputo agreement. Nigeria also falls far behind in agricultural expenditure by international standards, even when accounting for the relationship between agricultural expenditures and national income. The spending that is extant is highly concentrated in a few areas. Three out of 179 programs account for more than 81 percent of federal capital spending, of which nearly three-quarters go to government purchase of agricultural inputs and agricultural outputs alone. The analysis finds that many of the Presidential Initiatives-which differ greatly in target crops, technologies, research, seed multiplication, and distribution-have identical budgetary provisions. This pattern suggests that the needs assessment and costing for these initiatives may have been inadequate, and that decisions may have been based on political considerations rather than economic assessment. Budget execution is also poor. The Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) best practice standard for budget execution is no more than 3 percent discrepancy between budgeted and actual expenditures. In contrast, during the period covered by the study, the Nigerian federal budget execution averaged only 79 percent, meaning 21 percent of the approved budget was never spent. Budget execution at the state and local levels was even less impressive, ranging from 71 percent to 44 percent. However, other sectors showed similar low levels of budget execution, suggesting that the problem is a general one going beyond agriculture. There is an urgent need to improve internal systems for tracking, recording, and disseminating information about public spending in the agriculture sector. Consolidated and up-to-date expenditure data are not available within the Ministry of Agriculture, not even for its own use. Without this information, authorities cannot undertake empirically-based policy analysis, program planning, and impact assessment. There is also a need for clarification of the roles of the three tiers of government in agricultural services delivery. This is important to reduce overlaps and gaps in agricultural interventions and improve efficiency and effectiveness of public investments and service delivery in the sector. Finally, applied research is needed to address critical knowledge gaps in several areas: (i) Spending on fertilizer programs makes up a sizeable portion of overall agricultural spending in Nigeria, yet very little is known about the impact of this spending. (ii) To date, only a small portion of the national grain storage system has been constructed, but if the entire network is completed as planned, the cost will be enormous. Supporting even the current modest level of grain marketing activities is consuming significant amounts of public resources. Is an investment on this order of magnitude desirable? What has been the impact of these investments? (iii) There is a need for an analytical study focusing on the economics of the National Special Program for Food Security (NSPFS). The total cost of NSPFS II is estimated at US$364 million. Detailed financial information about the NSPFS is not publicly available, however, making it difficult to assess whether the considerable investment in NSPFS I generated attractive returns, and whether NSPFS II merits support as currently designed. A rigorous external evaluation is needed to assess the performance of NPSFS and generate information that could be used to make design adjustments. --Authors' Abstract ; Non-PR ; IFPRI1; GRP3 ; DSGD
Achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals is impossible without addressing fragility, conflict, and violence (FCV), especially as two thirds of the extreme poor are projected to live in such situations by 2030. Conflicts as well as climatic and natural hazards displace millions of people each year. Strengthening food systems can be an essential lever of change that contributes to ending poverty while maintaining and restoring peace. This paper focuses on how stabilizing and improving food systems can have a positive impact in FCVs settings, not just by preventing hunger, but by creating employment and increasing shared prosperity, which may contribute to greater peace. It reflects the four pillars of the World Bank Group Strategy for Fragility, Conflict, and Violence 2020-2025 – promote prevention, remain engaged in crisis situations and conflict, help countries transition out of fragility, and mitigate spillover impacts. To strengthen food systems across the spectrum of FCV settings, the paper highlights four key areas of focus for practitioners: (i) strengthening governance and institutional capacity by supporting food programs such as those that focus on the welfare of the entire population, rather than just a fraction of it; (ii) preventing and responding to food crises to avoid not only hunger, but also people sliding deeper into poverty; (iii) growing the private sector through agribusiness development, inclusive jobs in agricultural value chains, particularly for women and youth, and rural livelihoods to break the cycle of intergenerational poverty common in FCV settings; and (iv) reducing conflict risk and environmental fragility through resilient and sustainable resource management in ways that help build government legitimacy. This paper is rich in practical and tested examples across FCV settings from around the world and makes a strong case for providing development support and assistance in these challenging environments. By setting food systems up for success, governments can invest in the essential foundations of peace and prosperity.
